Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl
State television also announced the arrest of an unspecified number of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the outlawed Islamist group long considered the largest and best organized political group in Egypt, for “acts of theft and terrorism.”
It was unclear, however, what role the Brotherhood played in the protests or might play if Mr. Mubarak were toppled. There have been many signs of Brotherhood members marching and chanting in the crowds. But the throngs —mostly spontaneous — were so large that the Brotherhood’s members seemed far from dominant. Questions about the Brotherhood elicited shouting matches among protesters, with some embracing it and others against it.
Nascent democracy or nutjob Islamist state. My money is on the nutjobs. Good thing we don't support any other totalitarian regimes.:rolleyes:
And STATE television is going to tell you the full, honest truth...right? :rolleyes:
Ha! The government's focus on the brotherhood is probably for Western consumption but they do exist as an organized group. We are still a long way from power sharing arguments...
Sadat had foresight. He planned for his replacements. When he was assassinated, the replacements stepped right in.
Mubarak has no such plans. He apparently will do anything to stay in power as if (he apparently believes) that if good for Egypt. His health is said to be so bad that he has been staying in vacation towns outside Cairo trying to get healthy - for at least a year.
Worse, below Mubarak is a power vacuum. Therefore an outsider (ElBaradei, the Nobel prize winner) living in Vienna Austria and not from the Army may be an only viable replacement.
Since Nasser, every leader has come from the Army. There is, apparently, no one with sufficient 'leadership' from those ranks to replace Mubarak. That power vacuum is probably the most serious long term problem.
If these sparks ignite more tinder, then Saudi Arabia might be next. Even the Economist, like so many others, got it very wrong this time.
Many of the region’s countries look, on the surface, to be far more fragile than Tunisia, with equal volumes of anger and far deeper social woes. But different factors serve to bolster even unpopular governments. In Syria the ever-present danger of war with Israel mutes dissent. The Egyptian state, despite its appalling record in running other things, wields a large force of riot police that is well equipped, highly trained and very experienced, and so less likely to provoke outrage by excessive violence. Egypt also has a relatively free press. This not only gives healthy air to protest, but acts as the sort of early-warning system that Mr Ben Ali, due to his own repressive tactics, sorely lacked.
Even Kaddafi of Libya may be concerned. Two uprisings almost without any warning. Apparently every major world government never saw it coming.
And STATE television is going to tell you the full, honest truth...right? :rolleyes:
Have been watching Al Jazeera from where I am. Last night their cameramen had had their equipment impounded so while they talked about what was happening, they had Egyptian state television on loop with footage of the "new government" being inducted.
There is a short article in Times Topics on the Muslim Brotherhood. They appear to have positioned themselves very well to remain major players.
On January 30, the Brotherhood joined the secular opposition in banding together around a Mohamed ElBaradei, a prominent and secular government critic, to negotiate on behalf of the forces seeking the fall of Mr. Mubarak.
The United States and Mr. Mubarak had long sought to reduce the power of the Brotherhood. But by disbanding the credible secular opposition parties or driving them underground, the Egyptian government had made the Brotherhood seem the group most likely to gain power in a post-Mubarak era.Next up ... Meeting on the Plains of Meggido, world ends, no film at 11.
I guess we're reading the right novels anyway.
Have been watching Al Jazeera from where I am. Last night their cameramen had had their equipment impounded so while they talked about what was happening, they had Egyptian state television on loop with footage of the "new government" being inducted.
I've been watching Al Jazeera live also. Additionally, following #eqypt hashtag on twitter. Great way to keep abreast of current events from those who are actually THERE and observing. Not just spouting the "party" line....
Having spent years in the Middle East, I know all too well how things get twisted (by the authorities there as well as here in the US).
Fox News: We're rich because we don't spend money on maps and shit.
Perhaps they've outsourced to India as a cost containment measure and in Hindi the translation for "Iraq" is "Egypt?"
Pete: No. very funny, but no.
wolf: also no.
real reason: It just doesn't matter. It was a simple mistake, but an easy one, since they've been stuck with that map like, forever At least they got the name right.
Ok, let's review. Who here watches Fox News for the news? A show of hands?
Thought so.
I don't currently but I used to.
To be fair, that map is a really old f-up. Outside of all the issues with Fox, I just wonder what process ends up with a map like that? After all, the digital world is full of labeled maps. Maybe an intellectual rights thing?
To be balanced, that map is really f'-ed up. What process ends up with a map like that? It *can't* be an intellectual property issue (we're dealing with Fox /snide). Seriously. It's an editorial oversight. INHO, one made by a very long habitual focus on the region at the map's center, with the country name du jour applied to the label. Generously, it's laziness, an organizational bias toward action at the expense of fact checking rigor. But that's what they're about. I won't bother with the less generous assessments.
Well, either that or Steve the graphics intern fucked it up.
Of course Steve the graphics intern screwed it up. People make mistakes. It's what we do.
You need to have a system in place to scrutinize everything. Double check everything by a fresh pair of eyes. It's seriously a tone set by management. Fox didn't have a second fresh set of eyes looking at that graphic. Whoever "double checked" Steve's work is the one who deserves the blame.
Mm, but even double and triple-checked items retain a certain amount of errors, which is one reason it's important to follow a broad range of news sources to truly understand events.
We would have to look at the overall rate of error in not just graphics, but headlines, the crawl, the DJIA and everything else broadcast 24x7 to make a determination of whether this single screen shot is indicative of a high overall rate of error.*
Who here has watched Fox News regularly enough to make that determination?
Who here is ready to make the call while admitting not watching? (Biggie you may step forward)
[size=1]*actually, there is another way to know: if this shot is put forward as an egregious example of the worst of Fox News, that would be an indicator that Fox News is not that bad.[/size]
Who here is willing to make fun of Fox for its stupid error even though we make stupid errors all the time?
*Raises hand*
I posted it because it is a funny fuckup.
If we want to balance the abuse, NPR annoyed me in the fair and balanced department this week when Terry Gross presented Bob Spitzer as a writer of nuanced books about gun policy instead of a hardcore left-winger whose college classroom I was warned to avoid due to my libertarian tendencies and his willingness to award dissent with gpa crushing grades... but this is not (yet) a gun control thread.
Mm, but even double and triple-checked items retain a certain amount of errors, which is one reason it's important to follow a broad range of news sources to truly understand events.
We would have to look at the overall rate of error in not just graphics, but headlines, the crawl, the DJIA and everything else broadcast 24x7 to make a determination of whether this single screen shot is indicative of a high overall rate of error.*
Who here has watched Fox News regularly enough to make that determination?
Who here is ready to make the call while admitting not watching? (Biggie you may step forward)
[size=1]*actually, there is another way to know: if this shot is put forward as an egregious example of the worst of Fox News, that would be an indicator that Fox News is not that bad.[/size]
I accept your call-out.
I don't watch Fox News. I have seen it, I have seen enough of it to have formed my opinion. In my opinion, they're much more about excitement and incitement than they are about anything else, especially including News. It is info-tainment, with the accent on the -tainment.
Fox and I have different working opinions of that word, News. I consider News to be facts (and opinions) about current events, about things that are happening that I don't know about, or don't know the newest or nuanced details about. What I get from Fox is much more sizzle than steak. I *especially* dislike their presentation style that slyly colors their presentation of facts with emotionally effective adjectives, clearly designed to persuade. I don't want to be fucking persuaded by my newscaster. Just tell me what happened. I also like to hear what it means, because I don't have expertise in every area, not even many areas. But don't tell me how to react or how to feel. How I respond is *my* business.
To add injury to this kind of insult, I've seen enough instances where opinion was presented as fact to seriously degrade their credibility. I find this offensive. Making shit up and presenting it on a network called Fox *NEWS* chaps my ass. They're effective, and I give them full credit for that. They have a lot of viewers (credit to their attractiveness) and a lot of believers (credit to minimally critical thinking habits of their viewers). But they're not a trusted reliable source of good factual information offered with a minimum of bias.
ALL "news" is biased. Some you can tell, some you can't.
If you can't, it means you share the bias. That's all it is.
Lest We Forget:
Dan Rather, the most trusted "news" man of the last decade, announced at the top of "60 Minutes", America's most trusted "news" program, two months before the election, that they had proof that George W. Bush was AWOL from the National Guard.
This proof was, unmistakably, a modern Microsoft Word document that they alleged came from a 1960s era typewriter.
But hey Fox News fucked up a label on a map, so, fuck them.
Lest we also forget. The primary bias of all news organizations has nothing to do with politics. The primary bias of news organizations is to make money. I see the Rather thing more as hoopla than political bias. Not that that makes it any better.
I also don't see anyone here particularly busting Foxes balls over this. It's a stupid mistake and people are going to point and laugh at stupid mistakes.
No, UT. News is not biased. News is just news. The modern presentation of news is biased, sure. And all the presentations have some kind of bias, and some amount of bias, agreed. Fox's bias is not my bias, and so it is obvious to me. Fox's bias is considerable, so it is obvious to everyone.
As for "fuck Fox", ... your words. Not mine. I said in all my posts here that the map represents a mistake. an oversight. this item by itself is not fuck-worthy. I did allow that my opinion of Fox as a news outfit is low. and although you pointed out that Dan Rather also made a mistake, I notice you didn't take issue with any of my assessments of Fox's style. Dan Rather's actions don't justify Fox's--you're not really trying to say that, are you? ABC (it was ABC, wasn't it? anywhooo) they got conned and went with it. they thought they had a scoop and went with it. I doubt Steve the Graphics Intern is trying to pull one over on Fox News, nor is he trying to rewrite geopolitical history with this successful and revealed submission of factually incorrect information.
I like what you said earlier about stuff needing to be double and triple checked, and that it still can be wrong. Heck. That's how we here know that this screenshot is wrong. We all checked it. We all checked it. It clearly got overlooked at Fox by ... by, well, everybody who looked at it. I don't think Fox was trying to convince me that Iraq is Egypt. but they do try to do that kind of thing enough that I have relegated them to advocate status. You're right, all the presentations have some kind of bias, and I strain to identify the motivations behind the other stories and sources I take in. Fox gets whacked by me for the strength of their bias and their feigned innocence about it.
the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch too, and there's a similar bias. The direction is similar but the intensity is not close. And the acknowledgment is not close. Thererfore, I trust WSJ for NEWS far far more than I do Fox.
No, I don't take issue with your assessments, although I think many people hate the FN opinion shows so deeply that they apply their filter to the regular news hours.
When I was watching cable for news I would turn on CNN, wait for something I believed was biased, and then switch to FN and do the same. The most educational moments were those where I switched and the other channel was covering the same news story, often with the same narrative.
I posted it because it is a funny fuckup.
We all make mistakes. But that one is equivalent to looking at a naked man and naked woman. And mislabeling them.
Funny - and so sad.
No, not biased. Even Fox News reporters were outside the NO stadium and convention center. Reporting that no food or water had been provided for three days. The Fox News anchorman literally mocked them. Denied that could be happening. We all know no food or water was delivered for four days. But White House spin on day three was that did not happen.
Why did Fox's anchor deny reality when all other news services were reporting a fact that contradicted White House spin? Fair and Balanced.
FN is the only news service that so reminds me of Radio Moscow in the 1960s.
I've been watching Al Jazeera live also. Additionally, following #eqypt hashtag on twitter. Great way to keep abreast of current events from those who are actually THERE and observing. Not just spouting the "party" line....
Having spent years in the Middle East, I know all too well how things get twisted (by the authorities there as well as here in the US).
Comment from someone who flew out of Cairo yesterday.
The city is in disarray but it isn't actually as violent as you might think from the news. Keep in mind that it is a city of anywhere between 16 and 32 million depending on the census and definition of city area. What I mean is that much of the city is unaffected directly by protesters and looting and fighting are less common that the news seems to be making out. That said, it is a pretty revolutionary moment. Keep in mind that any protest a fraciton of this size was heretofore unheard of for over thirty years, let alone crowds of this magnitude that have lasted for 8 days now.
ALL "news" is biased. Some you can tell, some you can't.
If you can't, it means you share the bias. That's all it is.
Lest We Forget:
Dan Rather, the most trusted "news" man of the last decade, announced at the top of "60 Minutes", America's most trusted "news" program, two months before the election, that they had proof that George W. Bush was AWOL from the National Guard.
This proof was, unmistakably, a modern Microsoft Word document that they alleged came from a 1960s era typewriter.
But hey Fox News fucked up a label on a map, so, fuck them.
Fox has aired incorrect information many times. For instance, when the Republican Florida Representative (Foley?) was caught sex-texting underage male congressional pages, he was identified as a Democrat. Whether these are innocent mistakes or not is questionable because of their bias. Just watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report - you'll see lots of examples.
I can think of only a couple times where the "mainstream media" has done the same type of thing: Candra Levy/Gary Condit, The Pickup or SUV that was purposely blown up, and the Dan Rather incident that you mentioned. There doesn't seem to be a consistent bias among these examples, considering that Condit was a Democrat.
I heard on the way to work that Pro-Mubarak and Anti-Mubarak citizens are getting violent with each other in Liberation Square.
Ever notice how
its the countries
with the least bacon
that are always rioting?
I hadn't. But now that you mention it, there's clearly a correlation.
Clearly we're seeing causation not correlation.
Just watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report - you'll see lots of examples.
The people you agree with agree that the people you both disagree with are often disagreeable.
The people you agree with agree that the people you both disagree with are often disagreeable.
I agree.
I think.
I wonder how this is going to end.
The people you agree with agree that the people you both disagree with are often disagreeable.
The fact remains that they show multiple examples of Fox being incorrect.
Anderson Cooper was set upon by Pro-Mubarak thugs.
My favorite comment on the page:
It's all fun and games until Anderson Cooper gets punched in the face. Now it's for real!
Ever notice how
its the countries
with the least bacon
that are always rioting?
Which explains why Kosher nations are constantly in riot.
(Oh. That is also called Jewish comedy. Explains all the violence in Blazing Saddles.)
Yeah. You can't trust a guy who punches out an innocent horse.
A few days Late as I Heard The Gubment turned the Net and cell phones back on ,
[YOUTUBE]BS3QOtbW4m0[/YOUTUBE]
The conversation about news media brought this to mind:
[YOUTUBE]_amyJCLmMY8&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
This is from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe, a short run series of weekly programmes analysing news reportage and general trends in news media, drawing from both current and historical sources. This looks at some stylistic differences between UK and US news. In case you think any of it is anti-American, he is equally savage elsewhere in the show about UK news , which is his primary target for the series.
Fox and I have different working opinions of that word, News. I consider News to be facts (and opinions) about current events, about things that are happening that I don't know about, or don't know the newest or nuanced details about. What I get from Fox is much more sizzle than steak. I *especially* dislike their presentation style that slyly colors their presentation of facts with emotionally effective adjectives, clearly designed to persuade. I don't want to be fucking persuaded by my newscaster. Just tell me what happened. I also like to hear what it means, because I don't have expertise in every area, not even many areas. But don't tell me how to react or how to feel. How I respond is *my* business.
To add injury to this kind of insult, I've seen enough instances where opinion was presented as fact to seriously degrade their credibility. I find this offensive. Making shit up and presenting it on a network called Fox *NEWS* chaps my ass. They're effective, and I give them full credit for that. They have a lot of viewers (credit to their attractiveness) and a lot of believers (credit to minimally critical thinking habits of their viewers). But they're not a trusted reliable source of good factual information offered with a minimum of bias.
So what do you watch to get your news, if you watch TV at all for news?
I think you are confusing News Commentary with News Broadcast. Just an observation.
hehehe funny video
I lol'ed
A good article on the subject....
http://bigthink.com/ideas/26695Interesting article. Thanks for that.
WASHINGTON Feb 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. intelligence committee warned President Barack Obama's administration of instability in Egypt at the end of 2010, but did not foresee the trigger for unrest, a top U.S. intelligence official said on Thursday.
http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFWAT01485620110203And Obama was supposed to do what with that vague warning, given only a month ago?
Maybe formulate a plan for a response rather than waiting days and days. Sort of reminds me of the criticism that people put to Bush about 9/11 after he took office on 8 months prior. I find it more interesting rather than a chance to bash Obama but it does present a contradiction in our Foreign Policy when we want to support democratic events overseas on the one hand but don't want to ruin relationships that have been fostered over 30 years in an effort to maintain peace in the region.
And Obama was supposed to do what with that vague warning, given only a month ago?
Virtually nobody saw this coming. The Economist about two months ago noted the coming instability because so many Arab leaders are so old and so authoritarian. Cited were Mubarak, Kaddafi, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.
Even those in Egypt probably had no idea this was coming.
Responsible leaders are supposed to make provisions for the replacement. Important to protect their legacy. In democracies, we call that elections. In Egypt, Sadat had selected his successor - Mubarak. One would think Mubarak learned. Nope. A problem when one lives in an ethersphere for too long. In his case, 30 years.
Mubarak is so detached from reality as to blame another political party - the Muslim Brotherhood - for his problems. An example of what happens when one lives too detached from his people for too long. And a real shame. A man who did so much for Egypt would so tarnish his legacy by making so many mistakes in the past decade. He is so removed from reality as to believe 90% of Egyptians voted for his party? Too much time in the ethersphere will severely pit what could have been a stellar record.
Americans have no pig in this race. And should not be involved. Even whether Mubarak has plans for a successor is not for any American to demand. Well, an American president did try to subvert elections in Australia. How did that work out? Learn from history. Only they can decide the government they want. Our job is to be talking to all parties - nothing more.
What are you expecting? Its so vague and only a month old. But even so, how do you know that they didn't already have a response formulated.
But even so, how do you know that they didn't already have a response formulated.
Because none was given. Did you even follow the news in the days when the protests and then riots started? Did you follow the response from the White House? There was first support to for the ruling dictator followed by fence sitting. They can't have it both ways.
You're talking about a public response, you dont know what was said or done behind closed doors.
Yes, I am talking about a public response... to the world.
I guess it could go either way... but Iran thinks they know.
Iran: Riots sign of Islamic awakening
Supreme leader Khamenei satisfied with Egypt uprising. 'The echoes of the Islamic Revolution are being heard. It is an earthquake and defeat for the US policy, and the Zionists are more concerned than anyone else,' he says during Tehran sermon.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4023909,00.htmlThis was an interesting assessment as well....
The Obama administration's initial, tepid response to the crisis, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling Mubarak's regime "stable" and Vice President Biden declaring that he didn't regard Mubarak as a dictator, did little to endear Washington to a region that has long yearned for political reform.
President Obama has since adopted a tougher stance, but his language has not gone far enough to convince Arabs puzzled by America's seeming inability to embrace a revolt that they think coincides with America's own ideals, said Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020306882.htmlOh please don't post links to the Daily hateMail. It's fucking embarrassing.
I didn't know you called them that. There were other sources and it has been going around on numerous news sources.
I'll be honest i didn't even check the link :P
It's a different Daily Mail. This one's in Charleston, West Virginia.
Also, Chris Matthews saying Panama instead of Suez is on par with Fox's graphics intern problem.
It's a different Daily Mail. This one's in Charleston, West Virginia.
Also, Chris Matthews saying Panama instead of Suez is on par with Fox's graphics intern problem.
Chris Matthews has an excuse - he's ADD. :p:
Also, Chris Matthews saying Panama instead of Suez is on par with Fox's graphics intern problem.
I agree completely... But look how quickly people jumped on it with the aim of attacking Fox News. MSNBC is certainly no better. And people have failed to divide out news commentary and opinion from raw news. That is a big failure. If you can listen carefully you can weed out a lot of the spin during a broadcast.
It's a different Daily Mail. This one's in Charleston, West Virginia.
Also, Chris Matthews saying Panama instead of Suez is on par with Fox's graphics intern problem.
I don't think verbal missteps rate quite the same. But they are both very embarrassing.
I think differentiating between news coverage, commentary and opinion is made more difficult by the 24 hour nature of the news channels. There's a tendency, I think, to blur the edges. News is sexier if it comes with an opinion and opinions carry more weight if they have the respectability of news.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And many of them are full of shit.
And sadly many people just jump on the nearest bandwagon without a single fact in sight.
Media rarely report just the news because then people would need to form their own opinion and that could be dangerous. So keep the sheep in line and in the dark and feed us our daily bullshit.
Yes, I am talking about a public response... to the world.
America's public response is the best we could hope for. How do we know? Wacko extremists and Fox News are attacking it. Same people who also attacked Muslims in Manhattan. Same people who will say anything to inspire hate - especially of the Muslim Brotherhood.
From what is reported by those in country and who are also talking to the insiders, Obama, et al are saying the right things. And doing what Americans must do. Maintain a public low profile. Talk to all parties. And encourage the country to do only what its people want. If that is Muslim Brotherhood, well, time to avert that was back when George Jr was instead encouraging hate, torture, and physical attacks on anyone who did not tout his party line.
Let's not forget how much influence was destroyed by wacko extremism in the 2000s. American popularity went from 80% approval ratings down to around a 20% rating. A strongest American ally - Turkey - went from 90% to 10%. And wackos said this was good.
Time to reap what we have sown. Muslim Brotherhood has good reasons to not like America. Torture, international kidnappings, public lying, and harm to innocent people in the name of a political agenda says why so many distrust America. Why America has lost so much credibility and influence everywhere. And why so many are now talking about the end of the American Century - a country of has beens.
It’s not like this is new to anyone here. Problem was well defined by insiders when the problem was being created:
Are you safer today?
We know Obama is not doing what stupid leaders did. He is talking even to people who might be our enemies. Wacko extremists cannot (and the George Jr administration refused to) do that because a political agenda (and Cheney and Limbaugh) said so. Because their political agenda rather than intelligence was more important.
We may be seeing a new Egyptian government containing or dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Time to face a reality that may have resulted from events in and around 2006. Only wackos think we should act to stop that. Intelligent people understand how to have the greatest influence. Go with the flow. Talk to everyone. Especially those that wackos ‘know’ are enemies. Only wackos always have a long list of those we must attack, not talk to, and subvert. Also called hate.
Why did so many Al Jazeera news offices get 'accidently' attacked by Americans? We must now live with a legacy created before 2008.
The American public response is obviously correct because American wacko extremists do not like it. And because reality and intelligence says so. And because America must live with the international credibility disaster that was created from 2001 to 2008 when George Jr even did what the Norwegian Foreign Minister said he would do - destroy the Oslo Accords. It will take decades to mend those fields of diplomacy. A disaster created by the same wacko extremism that also made Katrina such a disaster. Who even destroyed America's manned space program. Who had lawyers rewrite science papers to agree with the political agenda. And ... well no reason to again define disasters we now live with due to those eight years of stupidity.
We know Obama is talking to all parties - quietly. That is the only thing America can do considering the now poor state of American credibility due to wacko extremism.
Egypt VP Target of Assassination Attempt That Killed Two Bodyguards, Sources Tell Fox News
A failed assassination attempt on Egypt's vice president in recent days left two of his bodyguards dead, sources tell Fox News.
Such an attempt on the life of Omar Suleiman would mark an alarming turn in the uprising against the government of President Hosni Mubarak, who only recently named Suleiman as vice president in an effort to quell the unrest and possibly line up a successor.
A senior Obama administration official confirmed that the attack happened soon after Suleiman was appointed, on Jan. 29. The official described it as an organized attack on Suleiman's motorcade.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/04/egypt-vp-targeted-assassination-attempt-killed-bodyguards-sources-tell-fox-news/Obama's Flip Flop Policy has not helped things....
U.S. media pundits are intoxicated with protests and naïve about religious and military extremists—and the White House's daily policy shifts aren’t helping, writes Leslie H. Gelb. Plus, full coverage of the Egypt uprising.
As the Egyptian earthquake rumbles into its second week—with implications for U.S. security in the Middle East rivaling those for the Soviet Union during the 1989 uprisings in Eastern Europe—three matters roil my mind:
First, most of the American talkocracy is now so utterly intoxicated with protestocracy, which they call democracy, that they outright neglect the enormous trials of getting from the streets to a real democracy. It's hard as hell, and the process lends itself to hijacking by extremists.
Second, the Muslim Brotherhood jumps immediately to mind as hijackers, but don't overlook the potentially equal or greater threat to democracy from Egypt's beloved armed forces. The history of venomous domestic and foreign-policy pronouncements by the MB should keep us all awake at night. And never forget that the murderers of the great President Anwar Sadat were Muslim Brothers embedded in the army. All who ignore this history are naïve, best suited to cable-TV commentary, not policymaking.
Third, the Obama White House hasn't helped matters by shifting policy ground almost daily, causing confusion, and thereby squandering America's credibility and limited but precious influence. President Obama has got to learn the fundamental rule of dealing with careening crises: State your basic principles and then shut up publicly! (Meaning, just boringly repeat your mantra daily.)
I'd like to believe that, if I were an Egyptian, I would be in the streets with the protesters. I'd be mad as hell with Mubarak and would want to get rid of him as quickly as possible. But that wouldn't make me or my fellow mobsters democrats. Generally, one cannot count on mobs, no matter how nice or liberal or unfilled with hatred, to produce democracies.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-04/egypt-protests-obamas-flip-flop-naive-media-on-extremists-and-more-fears/Yes, I am talking about a public response... to the world.
What would you have suggested he had done? I personally believe that fence sitting was the best response for this situation. No need to stick our heads into another bad situation and piss people off even further.
Mubarak supported US national interests in certain areas for many years and that is why we supported him. That is also why Egyptians tend to be distrustful of the United States. Mubarak obviously needs to go, and Obama should and has supported that opinion, but I have a strong feeling that any further public influence by the United States to steer Egypt's future will only backfire.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood's influence. You could find 100 similarities and 100 differences between Egypt 2011 and Iran 1979. Only hindsight will validate which arguments were stronger.
Well.....maybe.
No Attempt
Given the amount of mis-information coming out of the Egyptian Government at this point I would be more likely to believe it than not. But we will never know at this point.
Only hindsight will validate which arguments were stronger.
True dat.
Looks like the military took control of the country. Not surprising from Mubarak's speech last night...
CAIRO —The Egyptian military appeared to assert its leadership Friday amid growing indications that President Hosni Mubarak was yielding all power. A Western diplomat said that Mr. Mubarak had left the capital.
As protesters were swarming into the streets Friday morning for what was expected to be the biggest and most volatile demonstrations in the three-week revolt here, the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces issued a statement over state television and radio indicating that the military, not Mr. Mubarak, was in effective control of the country. It was unclear whether the military would take meaningful steps toward democracy or begin a military dictatorship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/middleeast/12egypt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpThat's pretty much the opposite of what I heard on NPR this morning. NPR said the military issued a statement that they support the time line proposed by Mubarek to step down in the Fall.
From the same article -
The Egyptian military issued a communiqué pledging to carry out a variety of constitutional reforms in a statement remarkable for its commanding tone. The military’s statement alludes to the delegation of power to Vice President Omar Suleiman and it suggests that the military will supervise implementation of the reforms.
The military also said that it would oversee the amendment of the Constitution to “conduct free and fair presidential elections.”
“The Armed forces are committed to sponsor the legitimate demands of the people,” the statement declared, and it vowed to ensure the fulfillment of its promises “within defined time frames with all accuracy and seriousness and until the peaceful transfer of authority is completed toward a free democratic community that the people aspire to.”
From what I gather, The military seems to attempting to take control UNTIL elections can be held.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I heard on NPR this morning. NPR said the military issued a statement that they support the time line proposed by Mubarek to step down in the Fall.
I heard that as well. I think the military will back Mubarek, but if the people riot and get violent then we will see if the military use their might to control the demonstrators. If they do not, then they may be put in a situation where they have to force Mubarek out sooner than he wants. The last thing we need is a vacuum and an opportunity for extremists to take over.
The last thing we need is a vacuum and an opportunity for extremists to take over.
You could also say the last thing we need is to stretch out the elections, which would give the extremists time to hijack the process and take over.
We simply don't know what the best course of action is, and we don't have much influence to control it anyway.
Just checked CNN, Breaking News, Mubarek quits.
YAY! Power to the People, right ON!
Mubarak resigns, hands power to military
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_egyptGood. It was all a big pyramid scheme anyway.
ba DUM dum
Good. It was all a big pyramid scheme anyway.
ba DUM dum
*snicker*
Mubarak has stepped down.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I heard on NPR this morning. NPR said the military issued a statement that they support the time line proposed by Mubarek to step down in the Fall.
That's what I meant. A temporary control of the country, not a military coup.
The last thing we need is a vacuum and an opportunity for extremists to take over.
The more I read the more I'm leaning that the Muslim Brotherhood will not have a strong influence in the near future. If I remember correctly, I believe they stated that they will not put out a candidate for a presidential bid and there has been a lot of statements (propaganda?) from the Brotherhood that they have the best interests of the Egyptian people in mind and they are non-violent, which seems actually
mostly true. There is a reason Al-Qaeda and Iran do not respect them.
I'm guessing that since Mubarek is gone the next ruler might lift the ban against the Muslim Brotherhood. So now they are trying to put up a good front so they can start getting some support from the Egyptian people. Once they get support, then they can start trying to make a large impact on Egyptian politics in a democratic way. If this is true, the worse thing that can happen is a bad secular government gets put into place that fails in five years and everyone starts supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over, they know they will just become the next Iran. They will lose a lot of trade and aid from Western countries which will probably not help their unemployment problem. I don't think they would last long under those conditions and I'm guessing they know that.
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is playing a very careful game right now. I think the Brotherhood is very well aware that the romanticism of the revolution in the streets could wear off the longer the people go without a regular supply of food, without security, and most important without results. It’s become clear so far that Mubarak does not have any intention of leaving anytime soon. At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood needs to sustain the momentum in the streets right now. What they want to avoid is having people think that “Look, I waited three decades to get rid of Mubarak, I can wait another eight months until September elections for him to be deposed.” At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood is very conscious of the negative connotations associated with its Islamist branding and for that reason it’s trying to reach out to certain secularist leaders for example, Mohamed ElBaradei, who may lack credibility but at least he’s a secular leader that a lot of people can at least look to for some sort of leadership while the Muslim Brotherhood works on creating this political opening that they’ve been waiting for for decades.
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110201-dispatch-muslim-brotherhoods-strategies-egypt-and-jordan
The MB has a long history of violent action against various Arab states going all the way back to the 30's and 40's. They aligned with the Nazi's against the UK and carried out actions against Allied forces and governments of Arab states during WW2. They were involved in numerous radical Islamic movements across the Arab world. You can read an extensive free down loaded article on Stratfor's web site here, but I can't post the article according to their copy right statement. Check it out. Save it as a PDF.
Here:
http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/182563/analysis/20110201-egypt-and-muslim-brotherhood-special-reportEgyptians are doing it for themselves. Some of the opinions above seem a little condescending.
The Muslim Brotherhood will certainly have a voice in whatever new government is established, being that they are one of the only organized opposition groups. They do represent a small segment of Egyptian society and should have a voice.
IMO, the conservative in the US are exaggeration their influence.
There is nothing to suggest that they have widespread support and this was not an Islamic uprising. One of the most telling signs was the shouting down of Islamic slogans by the vast majority of mixed Coptic Christians and Muslims. There were no widespread calls of "death to the US" or "death to Israel" or "death to the infidels" but rather shouts of joy over the simple concept of obtaining basic human rights after 30 years of oppression.
It looks like the military will be in charge during a transition and their interest is in stabilizing the country and the economy, particularly since they control a large portion of the economy.
My hope is that the conservatives in the US will be more circumspect with anti-Islamic rhetoric.
CAIRO – The ruling military pledged Saturday to eventually hand power to an elected civilian government and reassured allies that Egypt will abide by its peace treaty with Israel after the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, as it outlined the first cautious steps in a promised transition to greater democracy.
I sure hope we still have a sensible President when the new Egyptian government is established. Chaney's comments about the "good man" Mubarak shows how thin our pro-democracy veneer is with some and why the Egyptian people don't and maybe shouldn't trust us.
Algeria next to take that walk?
Just catching up here...
... and was wondering - does America have any left leaning newspapers?
I don't mean rabid leftwing toilet paper. I just mean mainstrean NOT rightwing.
The two most quoted British papers here seem to be the Hate Mail which is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun (and often quoted on "loony left" policies or "political correctness gone mad!") or The Grauniad, which is lefty but factual. And I feel a little pride in British journalism every time I see them used as a source.
One would find the LA Times, SF Chronicle to be very left, NY Times and Washington Post to be leaning left.
Just catching up here...
... and was wondering - does America have any left leaning newspapers?
I don't mean rabid leftwing toilet paper. I just mean mainstrean NOT rightwing.
The two most quoted British papers here seem to be the Hate Mail which is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun (and often quoted on "loony left" policies or "political correctness gone mad!") or The Grauniad, which is lefty but factual. And I feel a little pride in British journalism every time I see them used as a source.
The majority of large news papers are left leaning. You find the more regional and mid sized city papers reflect the electorate that surrounds them, could be either way.
Seriously, Merc, the majority?
Left as we see left in this country?
Thanks for the info, UT. I'll stop by their websites.
So Egypt wind up with Omar Suleiman soon. Is not good, Omar Suleiman is one big psychotic. Is like torture, is like "extraordinary rendition", is take part in torture himself.
"Psychotic" is right word, yes?
The majority of large news papers are left leaning.
In numerous studies, the majority of reporters lean conservative. But not wacko conservative. So they are often called pinky communists by extremists.
One should never judge a paper only by its editorials. For example, both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are moderates. One has a very right wing editorial board. The other is closer and slightly left of center. But editorial departments are separate from news department. Which is why the NY Time, LA Times, The Economist, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal all report news from the perspective of educated people - moderates.
You have seen how TheMercenary constantly posts how he wants Obama to fail. And promoted *hate* of Muslim in lower Manhattan (how dare they setup a mosque on holy ground covered in betting parlors and whore houses). Therefore every news source except for Fox News will be pinko lefty socialist.
Back on 4 Dec 2005, the NY Times reported on how bad both GM and Chrysler products were. On 6 Apr 2005, the LA Times provided an even more scathing article on same. So GM started a program to intentionally bankrupt the LA Times. Then the Wall Street Journal piped in noting that GM had also tried to harm them for reporting honestly.
Meanwhile, where was Fox News? Silent. Calling GM what it was contrary to the political agenda. People must be told how to think – not facts.
Today, everyone knows the NY Times, LA Times, etc were 100% correct about crap from those anti-American companies. But only moderate sources reported that news honestly back then.
Two other superb news sources are Charlie Rose (PBS) and Frontline (PBS). The investigative journalism from Frontline, for example, demonstrated the myth and lies that justified "Mission Accomplished". Includes superb investigative reporting from Lowel Bergman among others.
In numerous studies, the majority of reporters lean conservative.
These studies are so numerous it will be trivial for you to cite one of them.
parliament dissolved? constitution suspended? this is progress?
There is plenty more, but you may find this via Wiki worth a look ...
Self-described as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly,[82] a study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia, both of whom have written for conservative think tanks (American Enterprise Institute), advocacy groups (Federalist Society), and periodicals (The American Spectator),[83] was published in December 2005 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The study's stated purpose was to document the range of bias among news outlets.[84] The research concluded that of the major 20 news outlets studied "18 scored left of the average U.S. voter, with CBS Evening News, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, while only the Fox News "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."
link
Read carefully though - the way the study was done was questioned by both left and right.
The study met with criticism from many outlets, including the Wall Street Journal,[85] and Media Matters.[86] Criticisms included:
* Different lengths of time studied per media (CBS News was studied for 12 years while the Wall Street Journal was studied for four months).
* Lack of context in quoting sources (sources quoted were automatically assumed to be supporting the article)
* Lack of balance in sources (Liberal sources such as the NAACP didn't have conservative or counter sources that could add balance)
* Flawed political positions of sources (Sources such as the NRA and RAND corporation were considered "liberal" while sources such as the American Civil Liberties Union were "conservative".)
parliament dissolved? constitution suspended? this is progress?
Sure is!
The last parliamentary elections, like all for the last 30 years, were fixed for Mubarak's party, the NDP Party, with prohibitions against some opposition parties even being allowed on the ballot.
The constitution provided the legal cover for those fixed elections, as well as the other restrictions on individual rights.
In effect, the Egyptians will need to start from scratch.
"I think there should be more jailed journalists."
Anne Coulter might not be understand what this makes America look like. I am here now a year, I know all Americans are not like this. Other people, maybe not know.
Mubarak make Egypt look like barbarians, with torturing and "extraordinary rendition", and throwing reporters in jail. Now, Egyptian constitution suspended by the army, and reporters still in jail.
Maybe Anne Coulter should go to Egypt, see how she likes it.
parliament dissolved? constitution suspended? this is progress?
Egyptian constitution is not like American constitution. It only works when the army say it works. In America, constitution only works if politicians say it works.
One would find the LA Times, SF Chronicle to be very left, NY Times and Washington Post to be leaning left.
The Washington Post coasts on its "left" reputation from Watergate, and in comparison to the nutty Washington Times, but it is solidly "Beltway Villager" party, which has been center right for a while now.
Mubarak moves vast assets from European banks to Saudi Arabia
Hosni Mubarak and his family have moved a large part of their assets – guesstimated at between $20 and $70 billion - from European banks to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republics against personal guarantees from King Abdullah and Sheik Al Nahyan to block access to outside parties.This is reported by Gulf and West European sources. Tunisian ex-ruler Zein Al Abdain Ben Ali received the same guarantee when he fled his country and received asylum in the oil kingdom.
A Swiss financial source commented: "If he had any real money in Zurich, it may be gone by now."
According to debkafile's sources, the transfers took place on Feb. 12-13. Although a weekend when European banks are closed, high-ranking officials in Riyadh had their managers hauled out of home to execute Mubarak's transfer orders without delay.
The ousted Egyptian ruler was on the phone to Saudi King Abdullah Friday, Feb. 11, immediately after his vice president Omar Suleiman went on state television to announce his resignation and handover of rule to the army. Mubarak called it a military putsch conducted under pressure from Washington. He denied he had resigned or passed any powers to the army. "I had no idea Omar Suleiman was about to read out that statement. I would never have signed it or allowed it to be published," said Mubarak.
Link The Washington Post coasts on its "left" reputation from Watergate, and in comparison to the nutty Washington Times, but it is solidly "Beltway Villager" party, which has been center right for a while now.
And yet its righty political analyst
Weigel gets "outed" as hating righties when posting on the Journolist, founded by the WaPo's own lefty whippersnapper Ezra Klein.
Center-righties have plenty of reason to hate the nutcases, expecially when they think they're speaking in private.
Center-righties have plenty of reason to hate the nutcases, especially when they think they're speaking in private.
Some do it in public and get hammered repeatedly by the extremists on both sides.
That's why I specified "in private". I would guess that lots of center-righties would make
negative remarks about various public figures associated with American conservatism such as Pat Buchanan, Matt Drudge, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh
in private, but not want the shitstorm that would occur if they did so in public (see all the politicians who have had to apologize for being frank about Limbaugh over the years).
Mubarak moves vast assets from European banks to Saudi Arabia
One more reason for throwing Mubarak in the Nile.
parliament dissolved? constitution suspended? this is progress?
Hell yes, it's progress. Throw out ALL of the corruption and start over. Media too, please.
Hell yes, it's progress. Throw out ALL of the corruption and start over. Media too, please.
Why the media? Freedom is starting with open communications, yes?
One more reason for throwing Mubarak in the Nile.
Smart on their part. The Egyptian military just asked Britain and the EU to freeze all assets from Mubarak's regime.
Hell yes, it's progress. Throw out ALL of the corruption and start over.
People always get sick of the same old corruption. Time for a new blend.
Bahrain's royals join the list of American supported despots in some trouble.
I really hope the moderate Muslims get what they want.
(That is the most Anti-American statement you will hear for the next 25 years!)
From UT's repost:
Originally Posted by tw
In numerous studies, the majority of reporters lean conservative.
False.
This is one of the few actual scientific studies done on the issue and the second time that UCLA did the same study. The results are the same.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspxAs the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into gear, President Obama's White House media operation is demonstrating an unprecedented ability to broadcast its message through social media and the Internet, at times doing an end-run around the traditional press.
The White House Press Office now not only produces a website, blog, YouTube channel, Flickr photo stream, and Facebook and Twitter profiles, but also a mix of daily video programming, including live coverage of the president's appearances and news-like shows that highlight his accomplishments.
"Advise the Adviser: Your Direct Line to the White House," the administration's latest online program launched last week, encourages viewers to offer "advice, opinions and feedback on important issues" and promises a response from a senior administration official in return.
"We're striving to not just have a passive website where people can read about what's happening but create a method of interaction and feedback," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
It joins "Open for Questions," a periodic series of live moderated video chats with officials, "West Wing Week," a magazine-style show featuring the president behind the scenes, and other live-streaming events, including an annotated version of the State of the Union address, all intended to more directly disseminate the administration's message.
But while these innovative communications tools ostensibly offer greater transparency and openness, critics say they have come at a troublesome expense: less accountability of the administration by the independent, mainstream press.
Over the past few months, as White House cameras have been granted free reign behind the scenes, officials have blocked broadcast news outlets from events traditionally open to coverage and limited opportunities to publicly question the president himself.
Obama's recent signing of the historic New START treaty with Russia and his post-State of the Union cabinet meeting, for example, were both closed to reporters in a break with tradition. And during a recent question and answer session with the president and visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the White House imposed an unusual limit of just one question each from the U.S. and Canadian press corps.
"The administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent," said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has covered seven administrations. "Access here has shriveled."
Members of the press have always had quibbles with White House media strategies, calling cut-backs in access an affront to transparency, even as administration officials insist they're simply taking advantage of new technologies.
But some say the current dynamic is different, and dangerous.
"They're opening the door to kicking the press out of historic events, and opening the door to having a very filtered format for which they give the American public information that doesn't have any criticism allowed," said University of Minnesota journalism professor and political communication analyst Heather LaMarre.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-white-house-media-operation-state-run/story?id=12913319wow - just heard Lara Logan was sexually assaulted and beaten friday night while reporting in Cairo.
that is a bummer.
I really hope the moderate Muslims get what they want.
(That is the most Anti-American statement you will hear for the next 25 years!)
Egypt is not a Muslim nation. Most Egyptians are Muslim, but many are Christian, and some are Jewish, Bahai, Druze and other.
Egypt has same principle as America for religion. Egypt does have state religion (Islam), but is not mandatory and no political group may be religious in nature.
Egyptians are Egyptians first. You see the Christians form wall of people around Muslims praying during riots? Or Muslim human wall around Coptic church at Christmas? We protect each other from radicals of any group, who are the enemies of Egypt and all of our religions.
wow - just heard Lara Logan was sexually assaulted and beaten friday night while reporting in Cairo.
that is a bummer.
This is a disgrace for my country. :(
This is one of the few actual scientific studies done on the issue and the second time that UCLA did the same study. The results are the same.
Reporters for Ted Koppel such as Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Jeff Greefield were accused by wacko extremists of being liberals. Then when they worked for Fox News, they were no longer liberal? Fox News has a secret bath house to purify liberal reporters.
Reporters for Ted Koppel such as Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Jeff Greefield were accused by wacko extremists of being liberals. Then when they worked for Fox News, they were no longer liberal? Fox News has a secret bath house to purify liberal reporters.
so does CNN. all networks are going to broadcast what they deem will increase viewers.
just sayin.
so does CNN. all networks are going to broadcast what they deem will increase viewers.
Not necessarily. Barbara Walters was all about celebrity interviews. That was popular and profitable. But the conflicts between Barbara Walters and Peter Jennings was summarized by Peter's statement. "That is not news."
The networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC) never made money from their news departments. Which is why CBS, in an effort to maximize profits, is now reported to have only two overseas journalists. Both in London. The (rumored) 52 freelance correspondents under contract to CBS have been released.
i did not know that. interesting. but then again the major broadcasting networks always did use sitcoms for their income. no surprise there.
wow - just heard Lara Logan was sexually assaulted and beaten friday night while reporting in Cairo.
that is a bummer.
That is a bummer. I really like her. I think she is the bomb...um, better choice of words needed. I think she is the A #1 awesomest.
I'm not familiar with who she is, but that sucks for her. The little bit I read in the paper made it sound like she went through hell.
She's a lovely woman, an intelligent and crackerjack reporter. This article says she was sexually assaulted. Fucking bastards. :mad2:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/15/egypt.logan.assault/index.html?hpt=T2She's a lovely woman, an intelligent and crackerjack reporter. This article says she was sexually assaulted. Fucking bastards. :mad2:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/15/egypt.logan.assault/index.html?hpt=T2
There's peanuts and a prize inside her?
There's peanuts and a prize inside her?
Probably. Why, do you have peanuts envy?
Probably. Why, do you have peanuts envy?
No, but I get snoopy, sometimes.
No, but I get snoopy, sometimes.
Yeah, I've heard that Snoopy is easy.
i did not know that. interesting. but then again the major broadcasting networks always did use sitcoms for their income. no surprise there.
Appreciate a tremendous risk that Ted Turner took when he started CNN. News was not profitable. Turner created a broadcasting news service to make a profit. Because Turner was doing something innovative, he could not raise capital from investment banks – Wall Street. However Michael Milken had developed a way of financing innovators. Junk bonds. In its early days, Drexel Burnham was making possible so many innovative companies. To do things that that ‘we fear to innovate’ Wall Street investment banks would not touch. Risky was to make a profit on broadcasting news.
Drexel Burnham's other success stories are legends of American industry by also doing things so new. Including Steve Wynn's Golden Nugget and Mirage casinos. And many Vegas hotels. Malone's TCI which became the world's biggest cable-TV firm. And numerous Rupert Murdoch projects. All those were also not worthy investments on a Wall Street that could not see innovation even if it is in their cocaine.
Almost nobody thought broadcast news could make a profit.
The f*ckers in Bahrain are shooting their own people with live ammo. One of my friends was ordered to leave a metric assload of ammunition behind when his unit left Bahrain... yay for allies!
Steve Inskeep did an interview with
Vali Nasr this morning. His take on the unrest is pretty clear-eyed.
... and reports are that in Libya pro-govt forces - apparently brought in from Chad - have killed around 70.
Using outside forces against domestic uprisings is an old and vicious trick, but it works.
Bahrain GRAPHIC NSFW
[YOUTUBE]B3WRKoZPPao[/YOUTUBE]
... and reports are that in Libya pro-govt forces - apparently brought in from Chad - have killed around 70.
Using outside forces against domestic uprisings is an old and vicious trick, but it works.
The Brits used to play that card in the bad old days.
Bahrain looks like a lose - lose for the US, we're allied to an oppressive religious minority who can't afford to have democracy break out among a probably religiously intolerant majority...
Libya on the other hand...?
The main idea I got from Ali Vasr was that those in support of the uprisings may appreciate the international systems of trade and finance if not the Western way of life in general so this doesn't have to play out badly.
democracy and personal freedoms are fundamentally the fruit of western civilization. Does anyone else find this ironic in light of the fact that the people in the countries revolting seem forcefully anti-western?
I disagree with the anti-western bit. A significant % are anti-western, true, but quite a lot want western style democracy and rights. (The sort we pretend we have, not the crappy ersatz version we actually have :p: )
As to which group is bigger, I only have media reports to judge by, and that isn't much use, but when I see footage of the protests I look to see what they are wearing. Traditional robes, or jeans and jackets? I see both, and I see quite a few women with their faces, and even their heads, uncovered. Quite a few western-style logo T-shirts, too.
I guess it varies from country to country, too.
Bahrain GRAPHIC NSFW
[YOUTUBE]B3WRKoZPPao[/YOUTUBE]
Maybe soon some Bahrain soldiers will start having accidents when off duty, yes?
Crazy can be multi-generational. I hope the protesters have a plan because that state is going to fall.
The six-day-old uprising had reached the capital, Tripoli, where government buildings on Monday were in flames and police were noticeably absent from the streets. There were signs of growing disunity within the government and reports that several senior officials had resigned and joined the protesters.
In a rambling, disjointed address delivered about 1 a.m. on Monday, the son, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, played down the uprising sweeping the country, which witnesses and rights activists say has left more than 220 people dead and hundreds wounded from gunfire by security forces. He repeated several times that “Libya is not Tunisia or Egypt” — the neighbors to the east and west that both overthrew their veteran autocrats in the space of the last six weeks Hmmm... Gaddafi headed for Venezuela? Chavez could get himself in trouble.
Libyans are not as nationalistic and homogenous as Egyptians or Bahrainis so it seems there is a potential chance of civil war, breakup, a new brutal dictator, or any combination in the upcoming years. It will be extremely difficult to start a democracy there if many citizens see themselves as a member of a particular clan or tribe over a citizen of Libya.
Have heard that the airforce are bombing civilians.
Not verified the last I heard.
Not totally sure why people are surprised. I don't mean people here - I mean talking heads and politicians.
You think nice guys get to hold onto dictatorships?
Bastards rise to the top by force. Fucking bastards stay there because they are not afraid to use it/ too afraid to lose it.
I think most anti-Western hatred in these countries is from the fear of losing their cultural way of life. This fear is preyed on and magnified by the ignorant and the powerful who want to maintain the status quo. If you sat down with an averagely intelligent anti-Westerner you would find the things they are most against are founded on lies. The remainder will be religious or cultural differences.
Think how average Americans in the 50s and 60s were terrified first of Socialism and then young people who wanted to grow their hair. It's not always rational.
FYIY, Gadaffi shored up a lot of African Muslim states.
(Malawi for example is not a dictatorship but has had the same leader since 2004. Unusual in a democracy.)
Have heard that the airforce are bombing civilians.
Not verified that last I heard.
Apparently these civilians were trying to take a military base. This does not look good...
Wiki has speculated over 500 deaths now. That means 300 have died today.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/report-libya-air-force-bombs-protesters-heading-for-army-base-1.344775
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_protests#21_FebruaryHas anyone considered that the whole middle east is erupting and that it's very likely to go nuclear?
The western world is not going to sit by and watch genocide on telly for much longer.
2012 is only months away.
Think about it people. This could be the end of the world as we know it
Is it supposed to be December 21st, or December 22, 2012? I'm too lazy to look it up.
No idea. I've never really looked into it to be honest.
My post was half tongue in cheek, but still, this situation is not good, and it's getting worse by the minute. Literally.
I am afraid of how this is going to end.
Has anyone considered that the whole middle east is erupting and that it's very likely to go nuclear?
Which middle east nations have nuclear weapons?
Well there's Israel, and possibly Iran, but it doesn't really matter if no one in the middle east has them. Plenty of other states with a stake in the outcome of the crisis there do have them, and may elect to use them.
Well there's Israel, and possibly Iran, but it doesn't really matter if no one in the middle east has them. Plenty of other states with a stake in the outcome of the crisis there do have them, and may elect to use them.
Why would they do that? There is no benefit. Nations do nothing without some kind of payoff.
I agree with Uday here. Bringing up nuclear attacks is unreal and if anything irresponsible, Ali.
*snort* I'm pretty sure there's nothing irresponsible about posting the word "nuclear" on a messageboard.
Oh UG, you do have the weirdest choice of words sometimes. lol
Seriously though, the middle east is a tinderbox of repression which has been building up heat for so long now, and if the people are choosing now to have a revolution, what do you think the dictators and other corrupt individuals in charge of things are going to do? Usually they just systematically murder everyone that gets out of line, but Egypt has shown us the power of multi media, and I just don't think the international power houses are going to get away with turning a blind eye again.
I just think the situation is lethal and I think we're all going to be involved in the end.
It seems the Libyan forces have been strafing and possibly bombing their citizens in Tripoli, which is bloody vicious, but not nuclear.
Unless Ali meant it metaphorically. But in one respect, Ali is right. Long established dictatorships are being shaken, long repressed citizenries are stretching their muscles and looking at throwing off yokes, etc. all though the Middle East and Africa. This has spread as far as China! Multiply that by all the various political and religious differences, add a few thousand years of grudges, and raise it to the power of OIL, which draws in pretty much every other country on Earth. Lord knows how this is all going to end up.
There is one way the nuclear fear might come about. In most of the Arab states near Israel, the general populace sympathise with the Palestinians, but their leaders have been influenced by diplomacy to not attack Israel. Most notable, Egypt is participating in the seige of Gaza, despite the fact that (Uday can correct me here) the vast majority of Egyptians oppose this.
So, here's a scenario: populist revolt sweeps the Arab nations, new governments take over, they are unable to meet thier peoples' unrealistic hopes, decide a bit of foriegner-blaming is the thing to do, and end up making war on Israel. Israel got da bomb. As a last resort, they might well use it.
I think this is unlikely, but not impossible.
ETA: BTW, Hi, UG, been a while, how have you been?
So, here's a scenario: populist revolt sweeps the Arab nations, new governments take over, they are unable to meet thier peoples' unrealistic hopes, decide a bit of foriegner-blaming is the thing to do, and end up making war on Israel. Israel got da bomb. As a last resort, they might well use it.
I think this is unlikely, but not impossible.
I agree. The real problem in most of these place, more so in Libya and less so in Egypt, is that if there is no organized group in place to step up and seize the reigns of power until some electoral process can be put in motion then you run the risk of replacing one dictator for another, or in the case of this region, a more radical Islamic organization. I only mention the radical Islamic elements because often in the background of the chaos of these countries there is a well structured religious organization, with leaders and followers. Without a plan the result could be worse than the previous situation. I don't know. Time will tell.
Apparently these civilians were trying to take a military base. This does not look good...
This is hearsay, but seems to come from eyewitnesses. There was a funeral procession following the deaths of protestors. They left the burial site and marched back into the city centre. As they passed a military base they were greeted by the soldiers and 60 were invited in as representatives. They were not attacking the base, but the troops did seem to be trying to pacify them because of the large number.
They were all shot and the bodies thrown into the street.
Again - this is hearsay, but it enraged those present because the men were greeted as friends, kissed and hugged. In the Arab world to turn on a person you have greeted in friendship is one of the worst crimes imaginable.
So that part at least sounds palusible.
Russia blames Google for stirring Egypt unrest-WSJ
MOSCOW Feb 22 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's deputy blamed Google Inc in an interview published on Tuesday for stirring up trouble in the revolution that ousted Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
"Look what they have done in Egypt, those highly-placed managers of Google, what manipulations of the energy of the people took place there," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin told the Wall Street Journal.
Such strong comment from one of Putin's most trusted deputies is a clear signal of growing concern among Russian hardliners about the role of the Internet in the unrest which has swept across the Arab world.
what fools....
http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisiaNews/idAFLDE71L0DW20110222?sp=trueMerc I watched a documentary the other day where Ugandan schoolchildren blamed homosexuality on Western influence and specifically mentioned a Rhianna video (I haven't seen it - I think she kisses a girl).
Given that homosexuality is already punishable by imprisonment there, and there are moves to make it a capital punishment, that's one hell of an advertising campaign.
Poor old Coca Cola. They wish they could have that kind of influence.
I think one of the great influences on that issue in many of the African countries is the religious evangelical who are selling a radical form of Christianity to the masses. There has been a number of articles in recent years on the subject, I will see if I can dig some up.
In the mean time Reason Mag is a great source for logical discourse. This is pretty good:
The End of a Libyan Crime Family
They might hold out temporarily, but it’s over for the Qaddafi clan.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/the-end-of-the-libyan-crime-faI think one of the great influences on that issue in many of the African countries is the religious evangelical who are selling a radical form of Christianity to the masses. There has been a number of articles in recent years on the subject, I will see if I can dig some up.
It's definitely coming from the churches. And the teachers hold to fundamental doctrine too - no idea if they recommend killing for eating prawns or the stoning of disobedient children though.
One of the clips I watched showed a sex education class where it was claimed "A man's anus is licked like this" simulated the sucking and licking of an ice-cream "Aad then what happens, even poo-poo comes out, and then they eat the poo-poo." This is what they teach their children. Homosexuality = coprophagia.
Would
Two Girls One Cup blow their minds?
Oh no, sorry. It would confirm their suspicions
I hate to say it but usually their leaders are more often concerned with consolidating power and getting the bulk of revenues and kick backs from oil or mineral contracts and less concerned with what is happening to their people. They need to reign in those religious zealots.
Oil? Africa?
Yes of course all they want is to consolidate their power. And no, giving a damn about their starving people is not even on the agenda.
But this kind of sick homophobia, where they declare it non-African, and claim it has come in as a disease from overseas is just repulsive.
Historically Africa had a (slight) tolerance towards homosexuality. Along the lines of don't ask don't tell. Now they believe gays are actively recruiting.
There are far too many reports to deny that across the African continent straight men believe sex with a virgin female can cure a man of being HIV positive. How many women does that infect? And how many therefore give birth to an HIV positive baby? (I know it isn't 100%, but hell it raises the risks)
But a gay man finds another man to kiss, to hold, to care for, to love. He might end up sucking his cock, rimming or fucking; in truth it's more about a connection between two people. And they can be prosecuted. They can be imprisoned. They can be CONDEMNED TO DEATH. The latter is a big thing for the majority of the Wstern World who eshew the death penalty; entry to the Europeon Union depends on it for example.
I hate to say it but usually their leaders are more often concerned with consolidating power and getting the bulk of revenues and kick backs from oil or mineral contracts and less concerned with what is happening to their people. They need to reign in those religious zealots.
What do you think is cause people to listen to those religious zealots in the first place?
What do you think is cause people to listen to those religious zealots in the first place?
Facebook?
(i couldn't help myself) (sorry!)
What do you think is cause people to listen to those religious zealots in the first place?
It's easy for religous zealot leaders to motivate and organize religous zealots, so they can make concerted efforts, whether in speech or violence, to promote their viewpoint. And if they have a prominent voice, they can accuse others of not being religious enough, which can turn people who aren't zealots, but still have a feeling that more religious is better, against those targets.
I hope Egypt's military allows a true representative government, but if they do, then the Egyptians are going to have a huge job cut out for them. The theocrats will never stop trying to take over.
What do you think is cause people to listen to those religious zealots in the first place?
A friend (ethically challenged) was one of those call center people who would even sell bonds from a Nigerian Prince. Best people to call were the most religious. They would religiously believe the first thing they are told. And then deny with aggression when reality showed them that truth was otherwise.
The most religious, in history, are some of the most dangerous. Because they are the most easily brainwashed. Because they never learn what is necessary to know something. And because they promote that "god's decree" at the expense of mankind.
One need only read the discussion
Pedophilia Irish Style to appreciate how religious people will condom and continue to hide child rape - for the greater glory of god. No honest person would find that acceptable. The cover up (in Philadelphia) is traceable to all three past Cardinals. This latest coverup traceable to the Cardinal's man who was supposed to identify and avert pedophilia.
Meanwhile, Voices of the Faithful, a church group demanding reform, has been banned or uninvited from many parishes. Their demands based in facts is objectionable to the more emotional in that religion.
Three examples of who is most easily manipulated by organized religion, corrupt leaders, and religious zealots. Advertising is so effective for the same reason. Large numbers of people only believe what they are ordered to believe. They feel rather than think. Even forget from junior high science what is necessary to know anything - always required hard facts with numbers. Those who know because they feel make fertile ground for zealots. Learning the difference between an emotion and a fact is either difficult or impossible for many.
..appreciate how religious people will condom and continue to ...
TW, one thing Catholics will
not do is condom ... :D
I hope Egypt's military allows a true representative government, but if they do, then the Egyptians are going to have a huge job cut out for them. The theocrats will never stop trying to take over.
Sound like United States.
Sound like United States.
Amen.
TW, one thing Catholics will not do is condom ...
If the church says sex is only for procreation, why did they forget to tell their priests?
Serious thread drift here!
Back on topic ... Gadaffi is talking about throwing open the national armory to anyone who supports him. I can only hope a lot of people will "support" him just as long as it takes to get a gun in their hands, then change their minds.
Gadaffi is talking about throwing open the national armory to anyone who supports him.
Kaddafi is done. Toast. Only remaining question is to how much damage he will do to everyone else on his way out. Amazing. Wikileaks never did that much damage. But made some so more angry.
The inevitable in Libya has been a foregone conclusion for about one week. More relevant. What's next where?
I think all children in Vatican City should rise up in rebellion against their sadomasochist masters. Since rebellion is in the air, the greatest victims also should be liberated from their abusers.
Rome is ripe for rebellion. On one side of town is a misogynist. On the other, a protector of pedophiles.
There is some talk that the troubles in Tunisia were warmed up a bit by a wikileaks revelation of a state department document detailing just how corrupt the buggers there were. Not the main factor, but fanned the flames a bit.
Gaddddaffffi (delete consonants to taste) might hold on a while through great brutality. A lot of other African and Middle eastern dictators would like to see it happen, to stop the momentum and scare the mobs. I hope you are right, though.
Heck, if we're speculating, do you think there is any chance this democratic movement might spread as far as the USA? ;)
Serious thread drift here!
Back on topic ... Gadaffi is talking about throwing open the national armory to anyone who supports him. I can only hope a lot of people will "support" him just as long as it takes to get a gun in their hands, then change their minds.
This is desperation move. He is finished. Maybe he will put down the revolt with thugs, but then he have a country full of armed thugs.
There is some talk that the troubles in Tunisia were warmed up a bit by a wikileaks revelation of a state department document detailing just how corrupt the buggers there were. Not the main factor, but fanned the flames a bit.
My friend at the university has a saying "the truth will out".
Sooner or later you always get caught.
Right now Kaddafi has two choices, he can go into exile like Amin, the former Shah of Iran, etc., or he can go out like Hussein and
Ceaușescu.
Right now it looks like Kaddafi and family are acting like they intend to be, quoting the Hitchiker's Guide, ' "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
Ceaușescu and his wife Elena fled the capital with Emil Bobu and Manea Mănescu and headed, by helicopter, for Ceaușescu's Snagov residence, from where they fled again, this time for Târgoviște. Near Târgoviște they abandoned the helicopter, having been ordered to land by the army, which by that time had restricted flying in Romania's air space. The Ceaușescus were held by the police while the policemen listened to the radio. They were eventually turned over to the army. On Christmas Day, 25 December, the two were sentenced to death by a military court on charges ranging from illegal gathering of wealth to genocide, and were executed in Târgoviște. The video of the trial shows that, after sentencing, they had their hands tied behind their backs and were led outside the building to be executed.
The Ceaușescus were executed by a firing squad consisting of elite paratroop regiment soldiers: Captain Ionel Boeru, Sergant-Major Georghin Octavian and Dorin-Marian Cirlan,[13] while reportedly hundreds of others also volunteered. The firing squad began shooting as soon as they were in position against a wall. The firing happened too soon for the film crew covering the events to record it.[14] ]
There is some talk that the troubles in Tunisia were warmed up a bit by a wikileaks revelation of a state department document detailing just how corrupt the buggers there were. Not the main factor, but fanned the flames a bit.
Yeah, I would say it fanned the flames. People were already discontent for quite a while, with the brutality and increasing poverty (the underlying factor) and the massive rise in food prices over the past couple of months, on top of stagnant and/or declining wages seems to have been the trigger.
Which I believe is being caused by financial speculation more than traditional supply/demand issues, but finding evidence either way has been difficult. Commodity speculation on food is technically illegal, unless you get a note from the Fed excusing you. The last time food and oil prices rose this high was in 2008, and that was definitely driven by speculation.
In other news, Gaddafi's mercenaries are apparently pulling down a cool $2000 per day on the job (400 times the average Libyan wage). It was $500/day up until about a week ago, which suggests he is under ever increasing pressure. It also suggests a massive declining curve in the supply of state violence. Which is pretty much a fancy way of saying "revolution".
By contrast, Mubarak was paying around $70 a day for his thugs. Given a year before, according to Reuters (when they were covering the sham 2010 Egyptian election) an entry level thug could pull down $140 a day for his work, this is quite unusual. The demand for violence was much higher, and the thugs are not so stupid as to accept offers of future side-deals in lieu of cash payment, not when the regime is up against the wall. So something very interesting happened there, but I'm not sure what.
And, just to add, it certainly was interesting timing that Libya decided to get violent when it did, since a lot of eyes were looking at the state of Bahrain. Bahrain, of course, has been nearly as violent, but as the world's fastest growing financial centre and with its strategic location in the middle of the Persian Gulf, is much more important to certain key interests in European and American capitols. Gaddafi was, of course, in recent years, also a clien-uh, firm ally in the War on Some Terror, but nowhere of near the importance of Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, who would be the principal strike force against Iran in any war.
Tony Blair was giving advice to Gadaffi, incidentally. Given Blair's
spirited defence of the autocratic Egyptian regime, one can only wonder what kind of "good advice" he was giving Libya's leader. Especially when the
spiritual guru of New Labour, also had a rather cozy relationship with the man.
Tony Blair was giving advice to Gadaffi, incidentally. Given Blair's spirited defence of the autocratic Egyptian regime, one can only wonder what kind of "good advice" he was giving Libya's leader. Especially when the spiritual guru of New Labour, also had a rather cozy relationship with the man.
I'll be in the corner sobbing, if anybody needs me...
Good stuff Kaliayev, thank you.
Libya. Putting the LIB in liberation.
The Economist of 24 February 2011 provided best reasons for a Libyan uprising.
Mr Qaddafi did nothing for this region. Despite its oil wealth, the east appears devoid of infrastructure apart from its oil industry. Oil is stored in first-world depots, water in concrete pits. The only ships docking at Tobruk's jetties are tankers, and despite the energy flow there are blackouts. So poor is health care that Libyans with enough money head to Egypt or Tunisia for treatment. An elderly teacher points out the spelling mistakes in the graffiti daubed across the town. Until recently, foreign languages were banned from the syllabus; they were enemy tongues, and talking politics with foreigners carried a three-year prison term. "None of us can speak English or French", laments the teacher. "He kept us ignorant and blindfolded."
"All our wealth went abroad", says a law student distributing food. "He built towers across Africa, but we don't even have a playground." Tobruk had a cinema, old-timers recall, but Mr Qaddafi closed it soon after taking power to guard against public gatherings. Without entertainment, the town shut down after dark. ...
Libya's second city, Benghazi, staged the first demonstrations on February 15th. Barely 60 youths showed up. Similar protests erupted in other cities over the next two days, and were met by security forces with heavy weapons. In Tobruk and Beida protesters kept the anti-aircraft cartridges as evidence, but four deaths and 80 people injured only spurred larger numbers onto the streets. In Beida and other cities, youths who despaired of confronting African mercenaries' heavy-calibre machineguns with stones resorted to dynamite used for catching fish. They broke into the compounds of the security forces, ransacked them and put them to the torch.
In most barracks along the eastern coast, the armed forces quickly stood down rather than turn on their countrymen; sometimes at the cost of their lives. Protesters breaking into the Benghazi army base found 15 officers shot dead, apparently for refusing orders to open fire.
Basically, Libyan rebels are pushing for the capital now, but they fear that they have insufficient manpower and training to take Tripoli.
Tanks surround the city of Zawiyah, which has been captured by rebels, but fortunately Libyan WMDs (such as mustard gas) have no
viable delivery system.
The State Department has
condemned the violence in the country. And is letting everyone know Hillary is off to Geneva, to do stuff. Rather her than me, Geneva is, for the most part, a horrible city, especially around the international quarter, near the airport.
I'll be in the corner sobbing, if anybody needs me...
The "Decent Liberals" who idolize Blair are very confused about everything going on in the Middle East and North Africa right now. It's very amusing. Their reliance on Neocon-funded, pro-dictatorship "think tanks" means they are now essentially parroting lines about the
villainous Muslim Brotherhood and their insidious global jihadist network/Iranian proxies taking over in countries where there is rioting right now...which just so happens to be the regime line on many of these protests. Amazing, that.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton describe themselves as personal friends of Mubarak, and Blair of course famously holidayed in Sharm-el-Sheikh (where Mubarak is allegedly in a well timed coma right now). Blair and Third Wayists were taking money from the Gaddafi regime. Tunisia's dicator was hailed as a "progressive leader" in western capitals. It's all very cosy, isn't it?
They seemed to have regained some measure of self-respect by demanding the bombing of Libya, but that is really just a reflexive Decent pose when threatened by uncertainty: up with the war planes! Never mind that such planes would be flying from Italy, whose relationship with the Libyan dictator could best be described as "cosy" (or "wingman" if you are feeling ungenerous, as I am this morning). Or that they have a bad track record for predicting when foreign states will greet heavily armed liberators with cheering crowds and so on.
Anyway, I'm off to teach children maths, so no doubt something highly exciting and interesting will happen in the next few hours, which I will miss.
Anyway, I'm off to teach children maths, so no doubt something highly exciting and interesting will happen in the next few hours, which I will miss.
Or not, since it's an inset day.
Col. Gadaffi appeared on Serbian TV today, according to the BBC. Which is interesting, since I heard a rumour that some of his mercenaries may have come from "eastern europe", an especially vague term but one which could indeed include the former Yugoslavia which, as I understand it, has some notable armed fighting groups who are not very popular with Interpol.
France is flying "humanitarian aid" to the rebel held areas.
A national council has been formed in Benghazi (sounds like
someone has learnt from the 1848 revolutions).
Italy has "de facto" suspended its non-aggression treaty with Libya. I guess that means no more cruising for chicks by Berlusconi and Gadaffi on their wild nights out (Putin is still free to be Silvio's wingman though).
Man, I'd love to go cruising with SleazySilvio! With MadBadVlad along in case of trouble. You'd be sure of an awesome night.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton describe themselves as personal friends of Mubarak, and Blair of course famously holidayed in Sharm-el-Sheikh (where Mubarak is allegedly in a well timed coma right now). Blair and Third Wayists were taking money from the Gaddafi regime. Tunisia's dicator was hailed as a "progressive leader" in western capitals. It's all very cosy, isn't it?
Although, to their defense, publicly mentioning that our countries are giving money to sadistic dictators doing everything in their ability to keep power because of foreign policy reasons doesn't make a real good campaign speech.
One positive aspect of wikileaks showed that the US has at least some competent people over in other countries. They will publicly state that our allies are good people but the leaks show that for the most part they knew differently.
They seemed to have regained some measure of self-respect by demanding the bombing of Libya, but that is really just a reflexive Decent pose when threatened by uncertainty: up with the war planes! Never mind that such planes would be flying from Italy
Only because there are no carriers in the Mediterranean right now, Sparky! Now since Gquaddafiy is sending aircraft to bomb his subjects, what would you say to establishing a no-fly zone and limiting his options without dropping a single bomb?
Man, I'd love to go cruising with SleazySilvio! With MadBadVlad along in case of trouble. You'd be sure of an awesome night.
There is a very amusing story about Berlusconi and Putin hunting a deer together, out there on the internet. I highly recommend googling it, because it just says so much about those two leaders, as if we needed to know anything more about their skeezy and somewhat disturbing personalities.
Although, to their defense, publicly mentioning that our countries are giving money to sadistic dictators doing everything in their ability to keep power because of foreign policy reasons doesn't make a real good campaign speech.
One positive aspect of wikileaks showed that the US has at least some competent people over in other countries. They will publicly state that our allies are good people but the leaks show that for the most part they knew differently.
Ah, but I am not interested in letting leaders make good public speeches.
And yes, the State Department has some competent personnel, but as things stand, it is almost entirely irrelevant to the actual foreign policy making process of the USA. The Pentagon, and in particular the regional commanders, are where grand foreign policy deals and bargains are made. The State Department is left to negotiate the less glamourous and more technically difficult aspects of day to day diplomacy with foreign states. Even SecDef Gates has voiced concerns about the hegemonic status of the Pentagon in determining the foreign relations of the USA.
Only because there are no carriers in the Mediterranean right now, Sparky! Now since Gquaddafiy is sending aircraft to bomb his subjects, what would you say to establishing a no-fly zone and limiting his options without dropping a single bomb?
I'd say "that no-fly zone definitely stopped Saddam from slaughtering his own people, eh!"
The no-fly zone would be a pretext. Something would "happen"* to an aircraft, which would then justify further intervention, which would either undermine the revolution or put troops inbetween two warring parties, neither of which are helpful or useful.
* Like
this. Or
this. Or as Jackson Pollack suggested with Iraq:
Assembling a [] coalition would be infinitely easier if the United States could point to a smoking gun with Iraqi fingerprints on it—some new Iraqi outrage that would serve to galvanize international opinion and create the pretext for an invasion... There are probably [] courses the United States could take that might prompt Saddam to make a foolish, aggressive move, that would then become the "smoking gun" justifying an invasion. An aggressive U.S. covert action campaign might provoke Saddam to retaliate overtly, providing a casus belli...Other means might also be devised.
The thing about reflexive interventionists is that they are classic addicts. Letting have "just one more cigarette" will invariably lead to them smoking the entire pack.
Can you make the argument without involving Iraq or knee-jerk thinking? Because we're talking about an entirely different country with entirely different conditions. For example, all the decision-makers you mention are no longer in office.
And while history repeats itself, it never repeats itself exactly. Predicting a future exactly like the past is generally a failure.
This post is not as intelligent as your previous ones and we like the intelligent ones better. Thank you.
Can you make the argument without involving Iraq or knee-jerk thinking? Because we're talking about an entirely different country with entirely different conditions. For example, all the decision-makers you mention are no longer in office.
And while history repeats itself, it never repeats itself exactly. Predicting a future exactly like the past is generally a failure.
This post is not as intelligent as your previous ones and we like the intelligent ones better. Thank you.
Oh dear, please don't do that Undertoad. You are not as smooth a baiter as you'd like to believe.
Yes, clearly because influential people involved in the decision-making over Iraq no longer hold office, they are utterly powerless and unlistened to by current decision makers or the media, who can drive the narrative on any decision quite easily. Furthermore, all decisions are made at the overt political level and by elected leaders, and certainly no bureaucrats, think tank members, military personnel or diplomats have vested ideological interests of any kind, or indeed supported such action before.
And of course, Iraq was an aberration in the history of intervention. Never mind that
vast majority of US and NATO interventions are failures when it comes to establishing strong governments that respect human rights, I'm sure they'll get this one right.
Damn, I really should try this intelligent thinking thing a little more, shouldn't I?
Nope, still not working. You've only made the same point, but drowning it in sarcasm. That's unhelpful.
How do you decide which particular history is going to determine the future? And you've raised the bar by saying the goal is producing a strong government that respects human rights; the goal here is only to prevent the mass killing of people.
Sort of, but not exactly like, how NATO stopped ethnic cleansing in Bosnia partly with a no-fly zone.
You are not as smooth a baiter as you'd like to believe.
Hey! He's not just a smooth baiter, he's a master baiter!
the goal here is only to prevent the mass killing of people.
The biggest concern I have with the no fly zone are the implications behind it. If it's purpose is solely to limit Gadaffi's options and force him to slaughter his own people on the ground then I have no problem with it. But, realistically, I don't see a no fly zone having too great of an effect since much of the killings have been on the ground by mercenaries and other people loyal to Gadaffi. That brings up the inevitable (yes, this is a slipperly slope) question about further obligations to stop the mass killings.
Let the Russians impose a no fly zone.
Only because there are no carriers in the Mediterranean right now, Sparky!
And so? There are 2 American carriers in the Red Sea, one in transit to Mediterranean Sea, one held in reserve. Is closer flight time to Libya than American aircraft in Azores, and America has one airbase in Sicily that can reach Libya in about 15 minutes.
How do you decide which particular history is going to determine the future? And you've raised the bar by saying the goal is producing a strong government that respects human rights; the goal here is only to prevent the mass killing of people.
UT's questions and doubts are on target. Many lessons from history apply.
For example, for democracy to take hold, the people must ‘lead the charge’ with severe losses. Democracy is not handed to a nation by a larger power (ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam). It must be earned.
Second, a nation does not go in militarily until a smoking gun exists. Learn why Bosnia was so quickly and easily settled. It was left to fester. Then the solution was desired by all sides who wanted the solution. To understand that, find the decision that Clinton made in 21 July of that year – when military action was finally justified.
Be very careful about letting emotions force a decision. Where I am sitting, not enough Libyans have died yet. If you have better facts, well let’s see them with numbers. This is a nation with a massive power vacuum. And maybe without any clear consensus among its people as to where they want to go.
Never think military action is a solution. Always remember what the entire purpose of any military conflict is for. The negotiated settlement. The only solution. One that all parties must first want. This third reason may also say why international intervention could only be destructive.
Never let emotions appear in conclusions. Sometimes massive numbers of dead people will only create a better solution. Hard logic trumps feelings. UT's post so accurately demands actions justified by first learning lessons from history.
Ignore the carriers. Militarily, they are inert. Mostly only show. Could do almost nothing to enforce a no fly zone. To do a no-fly zone would require cooperation from either Tunisia or Algeria. And from Egypt. Are those countries ready to take sides?
Only because there are no carriers in the Mediterranean right now, Sparky! Now since Gquaddafiy is sending aircraft to bomb his subjects, what would you say to establishing a no-fly zone and limiting his options without dropping a single bomb?
I heard a US military Brass chap talking about that.
To establish a no-fly zone, you send in your aircraft to shoot down their air craft.
For that, you need to destroy their air-defence system.
That involves dropping bombs.
That gets messy. Even the smartest bombs sometimes miss, or are poorly targeted.
I think TW has a point. Sometimes, freedom is expensive, and the price is human lives. The world can help, but the Libyans must bear the majority of the burden, else they will end up someone else's vassals. Freezing QGadddafffi's assests was good. If he can't pay his mercenaries, maybe they will go home or even change sides.
And so? There are 2 American carriers in the Red Sea, one in transit to Mediterranean Sea, one held in reserve. Is closer flight time to Libya than American aircraft in Azores, and America has one airbase in Sicily that can reach Libya in about 15 minutes.
Can't do it with those resources and we couldn't do it by ourselves (US only). Flight fatigue, Fuel, and distance to cover would make this not only very expensive but not obtainable given we are still covering two other theaters of operation.
I heard a US military Brass chap talking about that.
To establish a no-fly zone, you send in your aircraft to shoot down their air craft.
For that, you need to destroy their air-defence system.
That involves dropping bombs.
That gets messy. Even the smartest bombs sometimes miss, or are poorly targeted.
I think TW has a point. Sometimes, freedom is expensive, and the price is human lives. The world can help, but the Libyans must bear the majority of the burden, else they will end up someone else's vassals. Freezing QGadddafffi's assests was good. If he can't pay his mercenaries, maybe they will go home or even change sides.
Is there some older SAM tech we can get to the rebels? <can of worms>
When this ends though we may be looking at a pretty screwed up place for a long time due to tribal breakdowns. I wonder how we could improve their communications most rapidly after Gaddafi gets ventilated?
When this ends though we may be looking at a pretty screwed up place for a long time due to tribal breakdowns. I wonder how we could improve their communications most rapidly after Gaddafi gets ventilated?
An answer is found in the exact same concepts that define failing companies. Attitude and knowledge. Appreciate a great advantage that Egypt has. Most all junior officers in the Egyptian military were taught or at least introduced to American (western) concepts. That the army and government serve the poeple. That a country's fundamental strength comes from the masses they serve. That making war on the people is wrong and counterproductive. A concept that even America did not understand in the 1920s. Yes, these concepts are that new even in America.
As a result, now senior Egyptian officers understand concept on how governments and economics work. What is required from the powers that be. Concepts that Libyans have not been trained or even exposed to. In some venues, a benevoent leader or even a concept of term limits make no sense. In many venues, those who seek power therefore deserve to be the righteous leader.
It is not about the economy, intact towns, or wealth. It is about attitude and knowledge. The ability to learn. To understand what management's (government's) job is. Egypt hopefully will prosper from superior knowledge. Libya may suffer from a massive power vacuum because even the army was neither educated nor trained - except in 'ruthless power' concepts. In which case, an only solution would be massive deaths and civil war to fix a mess that Kaddafi has created.
All that suffering is irrelevant. Should be ignored in the press. All attention should be focused on what Libya is to become. And whether the 'powers that be' understand their purpose - which is not power. Massive deaths affecting every family is how those who would otherwise crave power, instead, start realizing why thinking like a moderate is necessary. Many times pain must be that massive to finally force logical thinking.
That making war on the people is wrong and counterproductive. A concept that even America did not understand in the 1920s.
Wonder where he's getting this one? What does he think changed in the 1930s or thereabouts?
As for whether power-seekers are inherently so very deserving of power, that is very much open to question, likely in every case without exception.
Is there some older SAM tech we can get to the rebels that they can use on us in the future?
FTFY
Originally Posted by Griff:
Is there some older SAM tech we can get to the rebels that they can use on us in the future?
FTFY
I don't think you did fix it for him -- I don't recollect any SAM tech we shipped to Afghanistan ever amounted to enough of a threat to U.S. arms to shoot down one fixed-wing aircraft, and maybe what, two helos? Over ten years? We are crashing more of them just out of weather and williwaws. The Afghan mountains can be a graveyard of airframes too.
You just don't want our side to win, Spexx. Such desire, manifested, would strain your relationship with your friends, I suppose.
You should pick friends who are not Fascist sympathizers, and scourge Fascist sympathies from your heart as well. Then you will be a man in full, instead of a cripple lacking any democratic values. I am what democratic values sound like when they are in full cry. Those who believe otherwise of me cannot support their beliefs with facts. No, none of you can -- you have only lies and misunderstandings (not necessarily your own) and shrunken, totalitarian, unfree values -- more correctly called antivalues.
While we're watching Japan, the
Saudis send troops into Bahrain.
While we're watching Japan, the Saudis send troops into Bahrain.
That had happened many days before the Japanese quake. Days later, other gulf state nations followed up with more troops. I don't understand why the NY Times is reporting this as if it were the first Saudi deployment.
Is there some older SAM tech we can get to the rebels? <can of worms>
When this ends though we may be looking at a pretty screwed up place for a long time due to tribal breakdowns. I wonder how we could improve their communications most rapidly after Gaddafi gets ventilated?
I think after they gave Stingers to the Afgans in the 80's they learned their lesson.
When it comes to the always-desirable business of getting tyrants and undemocrats out of business,
some Congresscritters remain a waste both of space and of carbon-14 uptake.
So make that fourteen trillion and one reasons, taking all this lot collectively, for why I don't vote Democratic. These several bozos think there's something else more important to do -- or perhaps that it is better done with plenty of less-than-democracies around.
I have no idea what they are thinking. I am very glad I do not share in it.
Amusingly, some of the first comments in UG's article are asking why Obama gets a pass from the left on starting foreign wars. Apparently they got those early posts by skipping not only the article, but also the headline.
What makes it even more amusing is that Politico is typically a left leaning news source.
I frequently vote Libertarian also, HM. Do you do the same? Don't recall you having done so and bragged about it...
But the Donkey Party is just plain too fucking bone-stupid for me ever to support.
The Republicans, by generations-long contrast, at least think wars, if engaged in, should be won. The Dems can't even muster up that -- viz., Mr. Obama, the Waffler-In-Chief. It was obvious to me I should vote against both him and his Party. I wish to heaven it were obvious to you, but some people just haven't got any valuable values, do they?
IN more interesting news, in Yemen, several senior military figures including a general, have publicly announced they are "joining the youth revolution". They forgot to add ",man!".
That is the crucial factor by which revolutions fail or win.
However Yemen is an unstable coalition of tribes and modernish cityfolk, lord knows how it could end up.
As bombs started falling on Libya Saturday, blogger Glenn Reynolds noticed something striking: "Hey, it's exactly 8 years to the day since Bush started bombing Iraq!" Eight years--which is to say, Barack Obama ordered the bombing of an Arab dictatorship at precisely the same point in his presidency that George W. Bush did.
Of course, there were some differences. The Libya war is new; the Iraq one was an escalation of a conflict that had been under way for 12 years. The U.N. Security Council had authorized action in Libya for the first time two days earlier, vs. 17 times in Iraq. Bush had persuaded a large majority of the public that escalating the war was a good idea; Obama had to act more quickly, without making a sustained case to either the public or Congress.
Also, Bush made his announcement from the Oval Office. His successor spoke at the White House on Friday, but by the time the bombs started falling, he was in--of all places--Brazil, as the Associated Press reports:
continues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214623509564818.html?KEYWORDS=james+tarantoSO someone tell me again why the hell we are involved in this goatfuckoperation? Ala Bill Clinton...
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.htmlBecause the Arabs asked us to get rid of Kadafi. As long as he's in power, Libya will never be a proper Islamic country.
Because the Arabs asked us to get rid of Kadafi. As long as he's in power, Libya will never be a proper Islamic country.
Ain't that the damm truth. And they want to have a chance to get some more weapons.
'Yemen is a ticking bomb and if the political system collapses and there's no constructive dialogue there will be a long civil war that will be difficult to end."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370464/Children-revolution-The-Yemeni-boys-taking-stand-country-teeters-brink.htmlI frequently vote Libertarian also, HM. Do you do the same? Don't recall you having done so and bragged about it...
I have, but you're right that it's not worth bragging about.
The Republicans, by generations-long contrast, at least think wars, if engaged in, should be won. The Dems can't even muster up that -- viz., Mr. Obama, the Waffler-In-Chief.
The last two wars we won were World War II and Bosnia, both under Democrats.
You could probably say GHW Bush won Iraq, if his kid hadn't restarted it. If we "win" Iraq this time around, GW Bush can have the credit, for whatever that's worth. He certainly can't get any credit for "winning" Afghanistan, if that ever happens.
The last two wars we won were ..... Bosnia, both under Democrats.
WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?
We achieved our objective, and it's over.
Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart. Obama shows he is tool of the UN in this one... 2012 just can't come soon enough. The dude ignored Darfur but makes a case for a Civil War where we have absolutely no dog in the hunt. I hope his ass is burned in the next election.
Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart. Obama shows he is tool of the UN in this one... 2012 just can't come soon enough. The dude ignored Darfur but makes a case for a Civil War where we have absolutely no dog in the hunt. I hope his ass is burned in the next election.
In fact, it was Bush who ignored the slaughter in Darfur that began in 2003.
But Reagan did win the war in Grenada with the US invasion, despite having no Congressional approval and near unanimous opposition of the UN for flagrantly violating the sovereignty of an independent nation that, btw, was neither a threat to the US or massacring its own people.
WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?
Yep.
The Dayton Accords that Clinton personally strong-armed into acceptance by all parties in the conflict effectively ended the civil war...with NO loss of US lives.
WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?
Bosnia was so obviously one of America’s greatest victories. Proper application of military and political power, then almost no military was used to completely and decisively end that war. Show me any other war that was won so quickly with so little expense? Bosnia was a perfect example of leaders who understood the purpose of war. To take a conflict back to a negotiation table. A victory so complete that Milosevic even negotiated himself out of office.
If you did not understand that spectacular victory in Bosnia, then the strategic purpose of a military was never learned. Bosnia was a text book perfect example of how military and political power should be used in a team effort.
Asking that question either implies zero knowledge of a military's purpose and history. Or I don't get what must be a joke.
Show me any other war that was won so quickly with so little expense?
The
Anglo-Zanzibar War. 45 minutes, followed by gin tonics and a lovely game of polo.
Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....
The hypocrisy of the American left
Self-righteousness is a dangerous vice. It breeds arrogance and moral blind spots for those who come to believe they are superior to those who share different worldviews.
Televangelists have fallen prey to this feeling of superiority, until the time they are caught crawling on the ground outside a hooker’s hotel room. Politicians have also wallowed in the grandiosity of their moralistic worldview, until they too fall prey to the hypocrisy that eventually snags all self-righteous moralizers.
For a decade now, we have been told of George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s moral failings. They have been regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and every other tyrant of the past century. Bush has been damned by the ministers of the far left as a war criminal, a fascist and a Nazi when labeling his policies as overly ideological and deeply flawed would have sufficed.
But that was never enough for the carnival barkers on cable news or the blogosphere. For the American left, Bush had to be condemned as an immoral beast who killed women and children to get his bloody hands on Iraqi oil.
That extremism required that the Bush years be filled with images of CODEPINK protesting on Capitol Hill, anti-war activists clogging the streets of New York City and left-wing commentators beating their chests with the self-righteous indignation of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
But in the morally murky afterglow of the Obama years, the certainty of these secular saints has melted away.
President Barack Obama bowed to his generals’ demands by tripling troops in an unending war. CODEPINK did nothing.
Obama backed down on Guantanamo Bay. Anti-war protesters stayed at home.
America invaded its third Muslim country in a decade. The American left meekly went along. Without the slightest hint of irony, liberals defended the president’s indefensible position by returning again to a pose of moral certainty.
Democrats streamed to the floors of the House and Senate to praise the president for invading Libya. It was, after all, a moral mission that would stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. Whether protesting for peace or calling for war, these liberals once again convinced themselves of the moral superiority of their positions.
While one can make the moral argument that countries can be attacked strictly on humanitarian grounds, that argument is laughable when it comes to Libya.
How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.
With the help of his equally despicable sons, Uday and Qusay, Saddam devastated Iraq, terrorized his people and destroyed that country’s environment. By the time American troops deposed him in 2003, Saddam had killed at least 300,000 of his own people — and human rights groups say that tally does not even include the million-plus casualties his invasion of Iran caused.
If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?
And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.
In Yemen, the situation is no better. Government snipers shoot unarmed women and children from the rooftops of Sanaa. Should we follow Obama’s example in Libya and invade that country in the name of humanitarian relief? Or should we step into the breach in the Ivory Coast, where a terrifying civil war has led to a million refugees fleeing that country. And why do we not enter Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have been slaughtered over the past decade in a civil war of horrifying proportions?
Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.
In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52062_Page2.html#ixzz1I62TZwZBIn fact, it was Bush who ignored the slaughter in Darfur that began in 2003.
And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?
But Reagan did win the war in Grenada with the US invasion, despite having no Congressional approval and near unanimous opposition of the UN for flagrantly violating the sovereignty of an independent nation that, btw, was neither a threat to the US or massacring its own people.
The threat was from the Cuban and other Com-block nations who were getting a foot-hold in our back yard, but that was in a different time. And it was quite limited in scope and operation compared to many other military events since then.
We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....
Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.
Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.
It is easily blamed on the Libya operation. It was flying there under orders to do so when it crashed. What made it crash is immaterial. Out military is pretty damm good about maintaining multi-million dollar aircraft. We will never know because they bombed the crap out of it most likely to protect TS data which may have been salvaged.
And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?
I agree
Different time, different place, different circumstances.
Still no reason for all the histrionics.
Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya
Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.
Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).
WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?
We achieved our objective, and it's over.
Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart.
What are you talking about?
We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....
So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?
So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?
I have no idea why you posted a string of my replys, I was responding to
your one question, "What are you talking about?".
I agree
Different time, different place, different circumstances.
So why bring up Grenada?
Still no reason for all the histrionics.
What histrionics?
Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya
How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?
Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.
It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?
Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).
I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.
:lol2:
Why did you change your name?
So why bring up Grenada?
You felt the need to bring up Darfur (and blaming Obama) as well as suggesting that Obama's action did not have Congressional approval.
I was simply providing context.
What histrionics?
Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.
How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?
Situations such as Ghaddfi threatening to send troops door-to-door and bombing civilians in major cities.
It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?
We differ on the meaning of protecting civilians. I would rather do more than less if thousands are threatened by the military.
I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.
So did Ghadaffi.
And US intel suggests otherwise.
The hypocrisy of the American left
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52062_Page2.html#ixzz1I62TZwZB
Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?
Those who were all gung-ho to invade Iraq at the cost of $billions and thousands of US lives are so reticent to support a much less costly and much more limited action in Libya.
But then again, in a recent
Gallup Poll, more Republicans support Obama's actions in Libya (57 approve - 31 disapprove) than Democrats (51-34)
Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?
Those who were all gung-ho to invade Iraq at the cost of $billions and thousands of US lives are so reticent to support a much less costly and much more limited action in Libya.
But then again, in a recent Gallup Poll, more Republicans support Obama's actions in Libya (57 approve - 31 disapprove) than Democrats (51-34)
Polls are the weakest form of statistical significance. You should know that already...
I have no idea why you posted a string of my replys, I was responding to your one question, "What are you talking about?".
What were you talking about
with respect to the message you were responding to, which was about Bosnia? Or was your "Really, OK until..." post in response to a different post? If so, which one?
Polls are the weakest form of statistical significance. You should know that already...
I'm not interested in debating the value of polls as one measure of public opinion, albeit less than perfect, but still a measure that conveys a picture at a point in time.
But you ignored the question.
Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?
What were you talking about with respect to the message you were responding to, which was about Bosnia? Or was your "Really, OK until..." post in response to a different post? If so, which one?
Maybe you should repeat the question in case he forgot?
So why dont you think Bosnia was a US victory?
So why dont you think Bosnia was a US victory?
Because a plane crashed last week in Libya. :rolleyes::p:
I'm not interested in debating the value of polls as one measure of public opinion, albeit less than perfect, but still a measure that conveys a picture at a point in time.
But you ignored the question.
Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?
Any person who is schooled in the examination of statistics would quickly ignore the individual who tried to hold up a poll as some form of statistical significance in an attempt to strengthen their argument. I do respect your continual attempts to sway public opinion but you shall never pass the scientific examination of the continually failed arguments. But yet you quote them as some form of valid point. And in this post you acknowledge that you are posting but yet another Straw Man attempt to advance the failed point based on a poll. Reflux you are a Goddam Fool.....
I'm not interested in debating the value of polls as one measure of public opinion, albeit less than perfect, but still a measure that conveys a picture at a point in time.
But yet you quote them as if they have some validity. And they do not.
What were you talking about with respect to the message you were responding to, which was about Bosnia? Or was your "Really, OK until..." post in response to a different post? If so, which one?
You have avoided the question. Why?
Cause it's funny.
:corn:
Is this your Manic or Depressive state? :sweat:
You felt the need to bring up Darfur (and blaming Obama) as well as suggesting that Obama's action did not have Congressional approval.
No I brought up Darur because you did so. I could give a shit about that issue. We have no dog in that hunt.
Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.[/ quote] Damm, I called you names? where?
[quote]Situations such as Ghaddfi threatening to send troops door-to-door and bombing civilians in major cities.
Well that is certainly different from Egypt, Syria, and Yemen.
We differ on the meaning of protecting civilians. I would rather do more than less if thousands are threatened by the military.
What total bullshit. We have taken sides as has NATO.
So why dont you think Bosnia was a US victory?
A better question would be, Why don't you think a military operation that invaded another country and drove to the center of their base of operation in 2 weeks would be seen as anything other than "Mission Accomplished!"?
I now do understand why Lamplighter gave up trying to engage you in a rational discussion and left this place.
The tag line for Current Events is "Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it"
IMO, your dislike for Obama is so over the top, it affects you posts, often with misinformation, exaggerations and just an unwillingness to accept that other opinions may be equally valid as yours.
But have a nice night.
I now do understand why Lamplighter gave up trying to engage you in a rational discussion and left this place.
Who gives a fuck about a Quitter? I don't. He is a pussy if he bailed. I have no respect for Quitters.
The tag line for Current Events is "Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it"
IMO, your dislike for Obama is so over the top, it affects you posts, often with misinformation, exaggerations and just an unwillingness to accept that other opinions may be equally valid as yours.
So you want to suck up to Obama and the Demoncratic position. Who gives a shit what you think. I accept all opinions that are reasonable and well thought out. Reflux just is not one of them.
But have a nice night.
Oh I will, and you can be assured that Obama will be a One Term President.
So you want to suck up to Obama and the Demoncratic position. Who gives a shit what you think. I accept all opinions that are reasonable and well thought out.
So how many Chapters have you managed to read in
Thomas Barnett's book?
I now do understand why Lamplighter gave up trying to engage you in a rational discussion and left this place.
It was my impression he left for other reasons. Not a merc reason. solely
You have avoided the question. Why?
So you post this instead of answering a question yourself. Ironic.
I looked back, and I have answered the only question you asked me, so I guess we could start another round of "what are you talking about" here.
So you post this instead of answering a question yourself. Ironic.
I looked back, and I have answered the only question you asked me, so I guess we could start another round of "what are you talking about" here.
Dude, I was talking specifically about Libya when I made the comment.
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=719235&postcount=236
Not about Bosnia.
Does anyone believe this?
News that U.S. officials told Reuters that President Barack Obama had authorized covert operations in Libya raised the prospect of wider support for the rebels.
Experts assume special forces are on the ground "spotting" targets for air strikes. Public confirmation from Washington may indicate a willingness for greater involvement.
The rebels, whose main call is for weapons -- not authorized yet by Washington because of a U.N. arms embargo which NATO says it is enforcing -- said they knew nothing about Western troops in Libya and that too big a foreign role could be damaging.
"It would undermine our credibility," Gheriani said.
U.N. RESOLUTION
Obama's order is likely to further alarm countries already concerned that air strikes on infrastructure and ground troops by the United States, Britain and France go beyond a U.N. resolution with the expressed aim only of protecting civilians.
"I can't speak to any CIA activities but I will tell you that the president has been quite clear that in terms of the United States military there will be no boots on the ground," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-support-order-defection-could-buoy-libya-rebels-20110330-230403-138.htmlDude, I was talking specifically about Libya when I made the comment.
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=719235&postcount=236
Not about Bosnia.
You asked how Bosnia was a victory, I answered, and you said "Really? OK until...". Your response made no sense as a reply to my post, which is why I asked what you were talking about, and later asked if you were responding to a different post, though there are no obvious candidates.
I wonder if we lost the Bosnian War
again.
A fighter jet's engine exploded on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Stennis, injuring 10 sailors and causing five of them to be airlifted to hospitals in Southern California.
You asked how Bosnia was a victory, I answered, and you said "Really? OK until...". Your response made no sense as a reply to my post, which is why I asked what you were talking about, and later asked if you were responding to a different post, though there are no obvious candidates.
I don't know why you are spending so much time on this...
I was commenting about Libya, regardless of your assessment about Bosnia.
What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?
I don't know why you are spending so much time on this...
Let's see. Massacring 4,500 American servicemen on a war with no purpose - "Mission Accomplished" - is good. Resulting death of untold tens or one hundred thousand Iraqis was also good.
Meanwhile, Bosnia and Libya are about stopping massacres. Why did you approve of Mission Accomplished? And disparage Bosnia and Libya? Do you like massacres? Apparently.
Even 500,000 Iraqi children dead is "worth it", or something.
[YOUTUBE]FbIX1CP9qr4[/YOUTUBE]
NATO has a good time line of how events in Libya unfolded:
Following the popular uprising which began in Benghazi on 17 February 2011, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 1970. This institutes an arms embargo, freezes the personal assets of Libya’s leaders and imposes a travel ban on senior figures.
On 8 March, with international concern over the Libyan crisis growing, NATO stepped up its surveillance operations in the Central Mediterranean, deploying AWACS aircraft to provide round-the-clock observation. These “eyes in the sky” give NATO detailed information of movements in Libyan airspace.
On 10 March, NATO Defence Ministers supported SACEUR’s decision to have alliance ships move to the same area to boost the monitoring effort.
On 17 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorising member states and regional organisations to, inter alia, take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.
On 22 March, NATO responded to the UN call by launching an operation to enforce the arms embargo against Libya. On 23 March, NATO’s arms embargo operation started.
NATO ships and aircraft are operating in the Central Mediterranean to make sure that the flow of weapons to Libya by sea is cut off. They have the right to stop and search any vessel they suspect of carrying arms or mercenaries.
The NATO ships will not enter Libyan territorial waters. NATO has no intention of deploying land forces anywhere in Libyan territory.
On 24 March, NATO decided to enforce the UN-mandated no-fly zone over Libya. The UN resolution called for a ban on all flights, except those for humanitarian and aid purposes, in Libyan airspace, to make sure that civilians and civilian populated areas cannot be subjected to air attack.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_71652.htm?
This does include the first (and only) unilateral action of the US to-date, a week after the uprising began, which was to
freeze $30+ billion of Libyan assets – the largest seizure of foreign assets in US history.
I think by most objective standards, the above actions were deliberative and measured.
There was no over-reaction with a display of overwhelming force right from the start nor an under-reaction by doing nothing when the threat to civilians was far greater than Egypt (where the military sided with the protesters), Tunesia, etc..
Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.
The actions to-date and the cost to the US in money and lives has been minimal, more like Bosnia than Iraq or Afghanistan.
I support it as it has played out. Even with the outcome as uncertain as it still remains, I think it is reasonable to believe that a mass slaughter of civilians has been prevented so far. I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.
Others can disagree, but I would hope they would keep it in perspective and not make it a left-right argument, given that there is support and opposition on both the left and right.
What was your "Really? OK until" in response to, then?
As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am no real fan of Bush but the duplicity is amazing. Selective duplicity. The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.
So again we come to Bosnia was a success until another plane crashes in Libya.
As a disagreement to perceived success in Bosnia. We had no business there. We have no business in Libya. It astonishes me that liberals in this country support missions like Libya, Bosnia, and Somalia and the use of the Military to be some kind of police force when we selectively disagree with some wrong doing but yet Saddam killed a hell of a lot more of his own people than all three of those countries combined but they think Bush did something wrong.
No, liberals think Bush did something wrong because the Iraq war turned into something that the American people didn't think they would be getting into. Initially Iraq was supported pretty much across the spectrum and Bush's ratings were through the roof. His ratings started dropping when it was realized that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk that it was talked up to be (plus other reasons but it's hard to generalize any further).
There will always by hypocrisy in politics when it comes to two polarized parties but both parties are split down the line on this one. For republicans, the neocons are pro-war and the rest are pretty much against. For democrats, there are the interventionist who are pro-war and there are the non-interventionists who are against it. There are a lot of pissed off democrats right now.
The US military has no business there and it is not worth one American life. We have nothing to gain, the outcome is unknown, and the impact is in doubt. Libya is not our problem. Let them kill each other off.
I disagree to a point. The outcome is completely unknown and the impact is in doubt but there are indirect gains with stopping Gadaffi from massacring his own people. There are reasons why everyone is much more focused on Libya and not Darfur or the Ivory Coast.
Neither NATO nor the US are arming the rebels. The majority of NATO (not the US) has stated that the UN mandate does not allow it and there is no suggestion at any level of NATO ground forces being deployed. US assets on the ground, covert CIA actions, are performing the logical task of gathering intel to have a better understanding of the make-up of the rebel forces.
The CIA have been on the ground since before the first missiles were fired.
They have been doing quite a bit more than just "understanding the make-up." To believe that is nothing short of ignorant.
They've been gathering intel and directing strikes against one side of a civil war.
Sides have been clearly chosen. Arming & training the rebels is the next step which is probably already happening.
If not, it will be very shortly.
I wont support US ground troops under any circumstances.
I believe it will have to come to that in order to end this anytime soon.
The rebels have been proven to be ineffective and outnumbered.
They will not prevail without serious assistance.
I hope you are as vocal in your opposition when/if that happens.
One other question I ask openly is why a Libyan life is worth more than those in so many other countries?
The CIA have been on the ground since before the first missiles were fired.
They have been doing quite a bit more than just "understanding the make-up." To believe that is nothing short of ignorant.
They've been gathering intel and directing strikes against one side of a civil war.
Sides have been clearly chosen. Arming & training the rebels is the next step which is probably already happening.
If not, it will be very shortly.
I believe it will have to come to that in order to end this anytime soon.
The rebels have been proven to be ineffective and outnumbered.
They will not prevail without serious assistance.
I hope you are as vocal in your opposition when/if that happens.
The presidential "finding" to put CIA assets into Libya was issued 2-3 weeks ago.
There has been no public acknowledgement of exactly when and for what purpose. To suggest otherwise is speculation, which we're both doing.
Prevailing is not just a function of military might. With the recent defection of two top insiders and close advisers, the support of those closestr to Ghadaffi may be crumbling.
There is even suggestions that he is loosing support of the military and relying now on mercenary thugs (no reflection on other mercenaries) from Chad, Sudan and other African nations under the leadership of his sons.
And public support may be swinging the way of the rebels as the people see that they do have a fighting chance and less likelihood of being massacred as a result of the air strikes to-date.
One other question I ask openly is why a Libyan life is worth more than those in so many other countries?
It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.
Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.
There must be a popular uprising.
There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
The intervention must be limited.
It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.
And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.
We cant do it everywhere, nor should we.
For me, this is an appropriate time and place.
So again we come to Bosnia was a success until another plane crashes in Libya.
As usual, you have completely missed the point. Out.
The presidential "finding" to put CIA assets into Libya was issued 2-3 weeks ago.
There has been no public acknowledgement of exactly when and for what purpose. To suggest otherwise is speculation, which we're both doing.
Prevailing is not just a function of military might. With the recent defection of two top insiders and close advisers, the support of those closestr to Ghadaffi may be crumbling.
Fail. This is the same person that said once boots were on the ground you would not support this operation.
It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.
Like Iraq?
[quote[Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.
There must be a popular uprising.[/quote]Like Southern Iraq? When we abandoned them and allowed the to be slaughtered?
There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
As measured by whom? You? Please enlighten us as to how the levels of threat are assessed and then a measured response by our military is applied against said threats. I mean, for myself, after 20 years in the military, I would be interested in your expert opinion.
The intervention must be limited.
Really? When did they put a limited intervention timetable on this event? First Obamy said weeks, now NATO says 90 days with the possibility of unlimited extensions. Which is it? Limited or not?
It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
Oh, so just like Iraq... I get it.
These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.
Horseshit.
And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.
Please cite and quantify.
For me, this is an appropriate time and place.
And you will fail in that assumption as well. It is a waste of time. And any bleeding heart liberal that supports this is a hypocrite.
One other question I ask openly is why a Libyan life is worth more than those in so many other countries?
Because the UN said so.
;)
Fail. This is the same person that said once boots were on the ground you would not support this operation.
We can debate the meaning of boots on the ground. Defense and military experts, which I am not, are debating it as well.
Obviously, you include the CIA, which presumably, already had a station in Libya.
Additional CIA assets were added in recent weeks with the presidential finding, but there is no evidence that to-date, it has been more than for intel purposes, from targeting to assessing both government forces and rebel forces.
You see it as siding with the rebels. I see it as siding with civilians given that Ghaddafi made it clear in his rhetoric and actions that he would not distinguish between rebels and civilians.
If, US military, as opposed to the CIA, puts its boots on the ground, I wont support it.
Obviously, you include the CIA, which presumably, already had a station in Libya.
According to the prevailing reports they did not, so no, this is new.
Additional CIA assets were added in recent weeks with the presidential finding, but there is no evidence that to-date, it has been more than for intel purposes, from targeting to assessing both government forces and rebel forces.
Right, you support my point. This is not about "protecting civilians", this is taking sides and as Obamy stated, regime change.
You see it as siding with the rebels. I see it as siding with civilians given that Ghaddafi made it clear in his rhetoric and actions that he would not distinguish between rebels and civilians.
What bullshit. So you could not support us going into Iraq but were ok when Saddam gassed the Kurds with Nerve Gas.... right.
If, US military, as opposed to the CIA, puts its boots on the ground, I wont support it.
Hair splitting. We all worked together. The CIA used us for technical support, targeting, commo, etc. The CIA are supported by elements of Special Operations Command. You have been punked by the press and your liberal bias.
Like Iraq?
Lets look at Iraq and the conditions I suggested.
There must be a popular uprising.
I agree that such an uprising existed in 1991 at our urging and we hung them out to dry. Shameful.
In 2003, there was no popular uprising along the lines of what have seen in other Arab counties over the last few months.
There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces against that uprising.
The greatest massacres of the Iraqi people occured in the 80s (gassing of the Kurds) through 91, with the US administrations at the time providing arms to Saddam, not in the prelude to the 2003 invasion.
The subsequent No-Fly Zone in the early 90s prevented any deadly use of military force in the north at the time of the US invasion in 2003 and the Kurds had autonomy for the first time ever.While there certainly was actions by Saddam's secret police in the south, there was no broad use of the military because his military was decimated.
The intervention must be limited (and I would add) have a UN mandate.
Certainly not the case with the invasion and occupation of Iraq for which there was no UN mandate.
It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
The Arab League opposed the US invasion, as did the other major Muslim countries - Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.
There were protests against the US invasion in major cities throughout the Arab world.
Not one of thse conditions fit the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya
O
I
L
Neighboring countries? How about a little pressure from our European friends who get some from there?
I watched an interview on CNN last night with a couple "experts" - Months wasn't even long enough to train these people how to use the weapons and be adept/unified enough to tactically make a real offense move against the cities still held by Quackdaddy.
The longer he keeps this together, the worse it looks for the rebels. :yelsick:
I will give the administration this - they weren't stupid enough to call them freedom fighters. :rolleyes:
O
I
L
Neighboring countries? How about a little pressure from our European friends who get some from there?
I dont dispute that our chicken hawk allies in NATO should do more.
Today, command of control of the No Fly Zone is a NATO operation. The naval blockade, with ships from 10-15 NATO allies including Turkey, is under NATO command and control
Lets look at Iraq and the conditions I suggested.
There must be a popular uprising.
I agree that such an uprising existed in 1991 and we hung them out to dry. In 2003, there was no popular uprising along the lines of what have seen in other Arab counties over the last few months.
Yea, I think they got the message the last time that the US was not going to be there for them.
There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces against that uprising.
Yea, I am sure that Saddam would have welcomed them with open arms after their previous experiences.
The subsequent No-Fly Zone prevented any deadly use of military force in the north at the time of the US invasion in 2003. While there certainly was actions by Saddam's secret police in the south, there was no broad use of the military because his military was decimated.
False. Many US and coalition troops lost their lives or were injured on the drive to Iraq.
The intervention must be limited (and I would add) have a UN mandate.
AGAIN, current estimates say 90 days with an open-ended option to extend indefinitely. Bosnia was to be limited and we were there for over 2 years.
Certainly not the case with the invasion and occupation of Iraq for which there was no UN mandate.
You are right, only 10 years of inept action and failed compliance with the UN mandates.
It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
We had that in Iraq. Maybe you forgot the list of Arab nations that supported us...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
There were protests against the US invasion in major cities throughout the Arab world.
All the while in the background they were supporting us in material and intel methods.
Not one of thse conditions fit the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Obvious bullshit, as I have pointed out.
Never mind.
You just want to keep talking around my points with a revisionist history, at least IMO.
I dont dispute that our chicken hawk allies in NATO should do more.
Today, command of control of the No Fly Zone is a NATO operation. The naval blockade, with ships from 10-15 NATO allies including Turkey, is under NATO command and control
How many ships has Turkey provided? What is the strength of their naval power? How many airplanes has Qutar contributed? What is the effect of their contribution?
Never mind.
You just want to keep talking around my points with a revisionist history, at least IMO.
Weak.
How many ships has Turkey provided? What is the strength of their naval power? How many airplanes has Qutar contributed? What is the effect of their contribution?
Turkey's contribution to the naval blockade and Qatar's to the No Fly Zone, or at least Qatar's recognition of the rebels and the Transitional National Council as the sole legitimate authority in the country are symbolic and serve an important geo-political function, rather than a military function.
Turkey's contribution to the naval blockade and Qatar's to the No Fly Zone, or at least Qatar's recognition of the rebels and the Transitional National Council as the sole legitimate authority in the country are symbolic and serve an important geo-political function, rather than a military function.
Nice dance. :dunce:
No different than when we went into Iraq.
Rut Ro....
'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1Hffm5oRa
Chad, like many of Libya's African neighbors kowtow to Ghadaffi, their sugar daddy.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/gadhafis-influence-on-africa/article1915484/
Chad, Sudan, etc. are also providing fighters under the direction of Ghaddafi's sons since he is apparently not all that confident that he has or will maintain the support of his own military.
Chad claiming that AlQaeda snatched missiles is much like Ghaddafi claiming that the rebels are Al Qaeda.
Chad, like many of Libya's African neighbors kowtow to Ghadaffi, their sugar daddy.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/gadhafis-influence-on-africa/article1915484/
Chad, Sudan, etc. are also providing fighters under the direction of Ghaddafi's sons since he is apparently not all that confident that he has or will maintain the support of his own military.
Chad claiming that AlQaeda snatched missiles is much like Ghaddafi claiming that the rebels are Al Qaeda.
Who cares. I posted the news. There is enough stirring of this subject for us to be concerned. Esp since all the critics of Bush were not about his success in taking down a country in 2 weeks, but the aftermath, where a vacuum occurred and there is no evidence that it will be any different in Libya. Another Big Fail for Obama.
Our new Cowboy in the White House has declared war on Libya. One can just imagine the headlines in the New York Times if George Bush were to have taken the action he did. Dare we remember the outrage from the left even when the UN passed the necessary resolutions on Iraq, today the left still squawk about how Bush lied about going to war? The hypocrisy of the left on this war in Libya is so breathtaking that anybody who calls themselves a moderate Democrat if one exists, or an independent, should be having serious doubts about the ideology of liberalism or the total game of political expediency they use. When Republicans “lie” the same policies of the left are that of “courage and fortitude.”
Continues:
http://bigpeace.com/kdavies/2011/03/21/not-voting-for-the-war-before-i-am-for-it/Ghadaffi's support is crumbling around him, with the exception of his sons and "40 Listicked Virgins"
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/23/moammar-40-lipsticked-virgins-gadhafis-best-bet-for-survival/?icid=maing|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3|51358
The growing defections among his closest political supporters (some of whom are running for their lives to the West, if they can escape) and possibly his military are positive developments.
With that I bid you a good night.
Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has launched hundreds of Cruise Missiles into Libya inflicting major damage and killing civilians. He has also kept two wars going while ramping up the battle in Afghanistan.
Sounds like a warmonger.
Now, I’m not here to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of Obama’s war policy, just to point out the inconsistencies in the media’s reporting on the issue of Obama and his wars. Did I mention this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner launching these attacks? In getting that award he was honored for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I could make a joke out of that statement, but this is serious stuff.
First, notice how carefully the media works to not peg the invasion of Libya (yes, sending missiles is an invasion) on their Dear Leader. The international coalition is doing this, not Obama, is what they are telling us. Put that in the context of what the media told us with George W. Bush and Iraq.
Bush had 40 nations join the efforts in Iraq; do you think the media ever considered that war anything other than “Evil Bush’s War?” They still mention the Mission Accomplished banner in derision, long after the mission was actually successfully accomplished. Also, the media will rarely point out that this attack on Libya would not have happened without US backing. Had Obama said no, there would’ve been no “international coalition,” yes, it is that simple.
While I’m at it, Barack Obama can thank George W. Bush that Madman Gadafi doesn’t have nukes. It was Bush who talked Gadafi into sending his nukes to a warehouse in Tennessee where they can do no harm. This invasion of Libya would not be happening if Gadafi still had those nukes, without them, Gadafi is more of a neighborhood bully knocking his citizens around, those type are everywhere in the Middle East and Africa. Bad stuff indeed, but there’s no chance of a mushroom cloud right now and that fact changes everything. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize can look tough here because Bush had already removed Gadafi’s big gun. I’ve yet to hear the activist old media mention this vital fact.
One of the media’s favorite themes during the Bush administration was how he supposedly was “King George” who wanted to circumvent Congress and rule over America. Of course, this was a silly premise, but where are they now with Dear Leader ignoring Congress on the Libyan War? Granted, Obama does not have to get their approval, but even “Evil Bush” got Congressional approval for Iraq, twice. The media forgets/ignores that Democrats demanded a second vote approving Bush’s actions in Iraq shortly before the 2002 mid-terms so that they could show America that they were bullish on national security. The Democrats never mention their support of the Iraq War and the media helps them erase their multiple positive votes on taking out Saddam, remember, this was Bush’s War he waged for personal reasons — or perhaps it was for oil? Hmm –where are the “No Blood For Oil” signs from Code Pink and their friends? Will the media show us anti-Obama protests? The activist old media has been telling us (inaccurately) for the last two months that the rise in gas prices was because of Libyan oil, so will they conclude that Obama is starting this war because of oil? That’s an easy connection to make, but they’ll conclude Bush was a brainiac before they’ll say Obama went to war for oil.
Continues:
http://bigjournalism.com/rfutrell/2011/03/21/will-the-media-call-obama-a-hypocrite/Ghadaffi's support is crumbling around him, with the exception of his sons and "40 Listicked Virgins"
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/23/moammar-40-lipsticked-virgins-gadhafis-best-bet-for-survival/?icid=maing|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3|51358
The growing defections among his closest political supporters (some of whom are running for their lives to the West, if they can escape) and possibly his military are positive developments.
With that I bid you a good night.
None of that addresses the issues. Who is going to take the place of the current government? Who is poised to fill the void? The Muslim Brotherhood? AQ? Who?
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama responded.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde#Two Andrew Breitbart columns. Nice!
Now there is an objective observer? What, no Beck or Limbaugh? :rolleyes:
No, Beck and Limbaugh are crazy. But if you would like to dispute their reports I would be glad to hear you try.
Now you attack the messenger. Isn't that a organized plan by Soros and his whores? Attack the messenger, don't dispute the message?
I would love to see you dispute his reports. Your turn.
Change your name to Unfair or at least Unbalanced. Your previous name quit like a big pussy.
It is an issue of geo-politics whether we like it or not.
Several conditions need to be in place that I think justify the measured response.
There must be a popular uprising.
There must be a significant and deadly threat to that uprising from military forces that is perceived to be at a far higher level than were present in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
The intervention must be limited.
It must have the support, at least at some level, of neighboring countries and the Arab world.
These conditions fit the circumstances in Libya and only Libya among the countries where there have been recent popular uprisings.
And, it has saved lives of innocent civilians.
We cant do it everywhere, nor should we.
For me, this is an appropriate time and place.
And the leader of the country must be linked to terrorism.:neutral:
None of that addresses the issues. Who is going to take the place of the current government? Who is poised to fill the void? The Muslim Brotherhood? AQ? Who?
The fact that Gaddifi's support is crumbling certaintly addresses the issue of how events are transpiring in Libya.
To answer your question, presumably the
National Transitional Council with leaders including a guy with a doctorate in strategic planning from Univ of Pittsburgh, a guy who organized an earlier plot to overthrow Gaddifi, a guy with a doctorate in economics from Michigan State Univ, a human rights lawyer...
They have as much of a structure in place as the Egyptians after they tossed Mubarak out, including the basics
a transitional plan.
From your Wiki link ...
The National Transitional Council, is a body formed by anti-Gaddafi rebels during the Libyan Civil War.
So it is a war. just checking.
According to that link the US has not even recognized it yet. In fact the only ones to formally do so are France, Qatar and the Arab League.
**They have asked for it and have been in contact with many other countries**
with leaders including a guy with a doctorate in strategic planning from Univ of Pittsburgh, a guy who organized an earlier plot to overthrow Gaddifi, a guy with a doctorate in economics from Michigan State Univ, a human rights lawyer...
again from your link ...
The identities of members of the council were not disclosed at the launch conference. What is known is that human rights lawyer Hafiz Ghoga is the spokesperson for the new council. An Al Jazeera English journalist in Benghazi stated that Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil still had a leadership role within the new council.[20] The Council declared that Jeleil is the head of the council.[4] The council met formally for the first time on 5 March 2011[4] when it was announced that the council has 31 members.[30] The names of some of the members are being kept secret to prevent threats to their families that are still in Government held areas of Libya.[31]
Can you help me out with this? Are you referring to one of the men mentioned here or was there more info?
Seriously, I find this fascinating. The formation of a new gov't and all. Especially from square one.
They have as much of a structure in place as the Egyptians after they tossed Mubarak out, including the basics.
Not exactly. Egypt had much outside contact and training even at the lowest levels of leadership. In particular were what and how its lower level military officers were trained. And similar knowledge gained via commercial enterprises. Libya has few people educated in concepts necessary for a democratic leadership. Even teaching foreign languages was all but banned in Libya to keep the people dumb and subservient.
Furthermore, rebel forces are many different and otherwise adversarial parties united only by one factor - a hate for Kaddafi. Once the common enemy is gone, then what?
Kaddafi is playing a wonderfully successful strategy to suck in the rebels, blast them back to Benghazi, and then suck them back in. His latest version makes air power less effective. It works because so little leadership and virtually no discipline exists among rebels ground forces. That knowledge will eventually come. But first the war must seesaw even for a full year. Rebel forces must learn to work with each other, learn about leadership, build common factors among who would otherwise be adversaries, understand concepts such as support and supply, and generally kill off so many peers to eventually earn and understand concepts not yet understood.
A quick fall of Kaddafi would be great in the short term and a long term disaster for Libya. Important in this war is for painful lessons to first be learned. A long war against a common enemy could be the catalyst that eventually creates a better Libya.
Just because a few top leaders are smart does not make a stable or productive country. Appreciate where most power must reside. And why western democracies are so successful. Among the little leaders (ie Captains and Sergeants) who finally learn concepts that western citizens take for granted. Libyans have been too isolated and too uneducated to have learned what makes a better human race. A long and painful war could be one solution. To teach so many Libyans how much they do not know and what is necessary to be able to learn.
Those lessons include respecting and cooperating with your adversaries. That means adversaries must spend a painfully long time together in the trenches. Where their number one purpose is to protect one another's lives.
This is summarizing what is necessary to "forge a nation". Kaddafi has spent 40 years destroying what is necessary to be a productive, peaceful, and growing nation. It will not be learned in months. A first step can be years suffering to earn a nation.
How long or at what expense did it take citizens of Lebanon, Cambodia, and Rwanda to finally learn these concepts? Libyians, with so many potential adversaries among the rebels and so little knowledge (grasp of the world), still have much to learn.
I dont disagree with most of what you say.
I was speaking to the process of putting a transitional plan in place not the actual process of governing.
Where they fall short and are not as equally prepared at any level is the capacity to implement that plan if/when it comes to that.
I would expect a long slow slog that will require considerable outside support, including peace keepers to basic support and assistance in learning how to manage and provide government services and lots in between.
It looks to me that the rebels have a lot to do still. I don't know if Gdfi's regime is "crumbling". I've seen a few defectors, but it will have to be in large numbers to turn the battlefield. The rebels are still outclassed in number, weapons, logistics, strategy and discipline.
Although I fear for Libya, at least the intervention has helped keep the overall Arab revolt moving.
I don't know if Gdfi's regime is "crumbling". I've seen a few defectors, but it will have to be in large numbers to turn the battlefield.
Eventually military operations will result in negotiations at a peace table. Most of Kaddafi's people have no where to go. Critical to a peace settlement will be to give them an out. Currently none exists. And currently the military conditions are not yet ripe enough for any peace table talks.
Depending on how violent the warfare, this should probably continue for at least another month. Longer may be better for the long term stability of a settlement. But too many variables exist to really say how long it will take to, for example, discover a viable settlement. To get all parties so sick of war as to want that settlement. Critical to a settlement is for Kaddafi supporters to have someplace they might want to go. No such option exists yet. Only the very few who have something to offer in exchange have such options.
I was speaking to the process of putting a transitional plan in place not the actual process of governing.
Critical to that transition will be the training of civilian equivalents of Captains and Sergeants. Egypt already had many capable people. Libya apparently has few. How many or how few is not really known. But a transition to a stable nation will be much longer.
It looks to me that the rebels have a lot to do still. I don't know if Gdfi's regime is "crumbling". I've seen a few defectors, but it will have to be in large numbers to turn the battlefield. The rebels are still outclassed in number, weapons, logistics, strategy and discipline.
Although I fear for Libya, at least the intervention has helped keep the overall Arab revolt moving.
The suggestion that Gaddafi's regime is "crumbling" is not just the defections of former top political associates, but the freezing of assets by the US, EU, Canada, South Africa, Malta, Turkey, etc., and the fact that Gulf Cooperation Council and Italy appear ready to broker oil deals with the rebels on oil fields under rebel control.
There is a reason why Gadaffi has made overtures to Britain, Greece, Turkey and other nations over the weekend to explore a political or diplomatic solution. While the overture of having Gadaffi step down to be replaced by one of his sons is a non-starter, the fact that he is even approaching these countries would suggest that there is some "crumbling" going on.
The various news sources I read are talking about a "military stalemate". That, plus international pressure, could lead to a sort-of-forced sort-of-negotiated ousting of Gadaffy Gaduck without an absolute bloodbath.
Meanwhile has anyone noticed the "toothless" French have done a similar intervention in Sierra Leone, using helicopter gunships to strike the forces of Gbagbo who refused to admit he lost an election a few months ago. The [strike]rebels election winner legitimate government[/strike] other side have pretty much taken the capital.
LIBYA
'No blood for oil' is the chant not heard
"No blood for oil" was a popular slogan chanted by the left in opposition to President George W. Bush's push to send U.S. forces into Iraq. Now that President Obama has authorized Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, I have been waiting to hear chants of "no blood for oil." I am happy to report, I don't hear them.
I went to the No Blood For Oil website; its lead item opposes efforts to strike wolves from the endangered species list. In fact, as NATO forces are lobbing missiles to enforce a no-fly zone over the country with Africa's largest oil and gas reserves, the nobloodforoil.org domain name is for sale.
With a Democrat in the White House, the anti-war corner has a much more civil tone. Anti-war House members have asked the GOP leadership to schedule an up-or-down congressional floor vote on the use of military force in Libya. A perfectly reasonable proposal. Congress should take its constitutional responsibilities seriously.
Now the Obama administration is in the hot seat - crushed between critics who charge the White House was too slow to authorize a no-fly zone and those who claim it was too rash in authorizing cruise missile strikes before notifying Congress. Hawks fear that Obama's promise not to put "boots on the ground" will embolden strongman Moammar Khadafy to fight to retain power. Doves believe that Obama went back on his no-boots-on-the-ground promise by authorizing a CIA presence in Libya.
Now, there are some smart questions to be asking the Obama administration. Who are the Libyan rebels? Are al Qaeda operatives or other extremists in their ranks? Can they win? Without answers, it is impossible to support any call to provide them with arms. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen opposes such a move; Obama said he wouldn't rule it in or out.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/02/INA91ILMLV.DTL#ixzz1IQba5N7WHey Ms. Powers, how about that Ivory Coast problem? Where are the US jets?
Oh, the humanity....
Ivory Coast: aid workers find 1,000 bodies in Duekoue
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8423651/Ivory-Coast-aid-workers-find-1000-bodies-in-Duekoue.htmlNo offense Merc but I feel most of the writers of the articles you post are out of touch with what is really going on (since none of the writers are trying to make any political point...:rolleyes:). There are very legitimate reasons to oppose the current war in Libya but most of the arguments I hear are completely missing the mark.
There are very legitimate reasons to oppose the current war in Libya but most of the arguments I hear are completely missing the mark.
Let's not be so poltically correct. Most of the reaasons to oppose the current war are based in a hardened political agenda stated from day one. "We want Obama to fail." Harm to America and the world is good as long as the political agenda is protected.
Meanwhile, war throughout the world are ongoing without American action. Something that both Clinton and Obama has tried to encourage. Something that George Jr discouraged. The UN (and the French under UN authorization) has all but ended the war in Ivory Coast. Using concepts that an outmanned battalion of British marines also did so succesfully in Liberia. AU is active in Sudan. India performed a successful operation in Sierra Leone to all but end an uprising against an UN mandated peace settlement. How many know about India's successful deployment and combat? Few. Discussing reality does not help Obama to fail.
Holy shit! How is that working out for you Obamy? Samantha?
General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxlNo shit! Well how about that!
Democrat says Libya costs run much higher
Lawmaker: White House ‘dramatically underestimating’ military expenditures
A Democratic lawmaker says the White House is “dramatically underestimating” the true cost of the military’s involvement in Libya by relying on accounting that obscures the total financial burden being saddled on taxpayers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/democrat-white-house-low-balling-costs-libya-missi/Great! Glenn Beck has discovered a new venue in the Cellar.
Did he also publish the word Supercallousedfragilemysticsplaguedwithhaliltosis?
I'm still trying to figure out his Islamofacists. I keep looking under the bed. And they are still not there.
Not just Beck. Stir in a little Pamela Geller and Frank Gafny, add a pinch of fearmongering and you get....Homer Simpson!
"Mypods and Boomsticks"
The Simpson family takes a trip to the Mapple Store at the Springfield Mall where Lisa gets her very own Mypod, and Bart interrupts an announcement from Steve Mobbs with his own voiceover, causing pandemonium to break loose in the store. On his way home from the mall, Bart narrowly escapes punishment and befriends a Muslim boy named Bashir. Homer becomes suspicious of Bart’s new friend and invites Bashir, his mother (guest voice Shohreh Aghdashloo, “24“) and his father over for dinner so he can investigate their supposed anti-American sentiments. Having already offended Bashir and his family at dinner, Homer goes to their home to apologize, but he instead snoops around their house, a la Jack Bauer, and uncovers what he believes to be a terrorist plot to blow up the Springfield Mall. The race is on as Homer tries to warn the residents of Springfield about the impending disaster.
http://www.watchcartoononline.com/the-simpsons-season-20-episode-7-mypods-and-broomsticks
The Council on American-Islamic Relations praised the episode and sent a commending letter to Matt Groening.[9] Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the council in Los Angeles, wrote "I applaud your effort in Sunday's episode of 'The Simpsons' to humanize American Muslims by challenging anti-Muslim sentiment in our society. [...] By introducing a professional Muslim family, the 'Mypods and Boomsticks' episode highlighted the diverse make-up of Springfield and brought to light how Americans can work toward mutual respect and inclusion by getting to know their neighbors."[10] During the episode, Homer mistakenly calls God (Allah) "Oliver", and the Islamic holy book (the Qur'an) "the Corona".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mypods_and_Boomsticks
But we know from Beck, Geller, Gafny, etc that the Council on American-Islam Relations is a front group for terrorists, the Muslim Brotherhood (which has infiltrated the Obama administration) and the coming caliphate.
The point was pretty good. The US government can burn bibles so as not to offend Muslims but some dumb ass burns a Koran in Florida and extremists go on a killing rampage. Hmmmmm..... no problem there?
No problem at all: it's less a question of offending a religion, and more a question of offending a backwards culture by making a statement that turns them into the enemy during treacherous wartime.
If you are offended by burning bibles U R DUMB
They are offended by burning korans because THEY R DUMB
BUT we have to calculate in their DUMB when we go into their country, it's tactical; otherwise the effort will FAIL.
And Mr. Smug in the video is saying it's not fair that we can't be DUMB, when we have to consider their DUMB.
Smug and DUMB at the same time is always nauseating.
Yea, point taken. I understand it from a tactical point of view. I just don't agree with the duplicity and acceptance by the world in general as they assign blame to the person who burned the Koran vs those who actually did the killing. We get a lot of that in our current world situation with unrest in the Middle East. Just struck a cord.
The US government can burn bibles so as not to offend Muslims but some dumb ass burns a Koran in Florida and extremists go on a killing rampage.
To make a valid point, first, statements must be based in reality. Where is the US government burning Bibles or Korans? Extremist spin begins by inventing a strawman. The US government is not burning books. Only burning through cash.
Mission Accomplished - another strawman created by extremists (and also why cash problems exist).
Looked under my bed. Still cannot find any islamofacists. Oh. They are all in lower Manhattan building a mosque so we will all die.
Instead, "assign blame" to who created these problems. When do we go after bin Laden?
...Looked under my bed. Still cannot find any islamofacists. Oh. They are all in lower Manhattan building a mosque so we will all die.
They are in the Obama administration, because Obama had a Muslim pray at some official govt function, appointed a Muslim to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, appointed another Muslim to a senior policy position at DHS, changed the logo of the Missile Defense Agency (something about it morphing into an Islamic crescent and star)...
We have been infiltrated with Obama's full cooperation. Pam Geller and Frank Gafny tell us so.
Who is Pam Geller and Frank Gafny?
Who is Pam Geller and Frank Gafny?
They are two of the ccountry's most vocal Islamophobes who see a Muslim terrorist under tw's bed.
They are two of the ccountry's most vocal Islamophobes who see a Muslim terrorist under tw's bed.
Oh, please explain, how are they wrong? And Cite....
Oh, please explain, how are they wrong? And Cite....
Pamela Geller has states that just about every Muslim organization in the US has ties to jihadists, or the Muslim brotherhood, and has infiltrated the Obama administration, all with:
“a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions..."
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/03/the-muslim-brotherhood%E2%80%99s-penetration-of-the-obama-administration/
Pamela Geller has states that just about every Muslim organization in the US has ties to jihadists, or the Muslim brotherhood, and has infiltrated the Obama administration, all with:
I don't see where there is proof that she is wrong. Please provide a citation.
Further, I don't see where she says that "just about every Muslim organization in the US has ties to jihadists, or the Muslim brotherhood, and has infiltrated the Obama administration", your link does not prove that... Please cite.
Where are your citations about Frank Gafny?
Its kinda hard to prove a negative.
Here's more:
In a recent New York Times interview, the blogger Pamela Geller leveled many serious charges against Islam; she stated that Muslims curse Jews and Christians during their five-times-a-day prayer; that the only good Muslim is a secular Muslim; and most perniciously, she said that the Qur'an has never been properly translated, insinuating that it contains dark secrets about Muslims and their religious responsibilities.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/10/reuel-gerecht-on-pamela-gellers-foul-anti-muslim-ideology/64478/
If you want to believe this crap, I doubt that anyone will change your mind.
Where are your citations about Frank Gafny?
Gafney and Geller both recently went so far as to claim the recent CPAC (conservative political action committee) meeting was infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. :eek:
They are two of the ccountry's most vocal Islamophobes who see a Muslim terrorist under tw's bed.
That settles it. I've got to get some eye glasses.
I don't see where there is proof that she is wrong.
And Saddam also had WMDs. Same reasoning.
Good thing we wasted a $trillion on that myth. Otherwise we would not have this recession.
She is obliged to prove her claims. Especially when she does it promote hate. Why should we prove her wild speculations are wrong? Your logic also says massacring 5000 Americans in Iraq was justified because we did not prove George Jr and Cheney were lying. Total nonsense created by strawman logic. She is simply promoting the same hate that hyped fear of a Manhattan mosque. And the massacre of millions of Jews in Germany.
Gafney and Geller both recently went so far as to claim the recent CPAC (conservative political action committee) meeting was infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. :eek:
Like I said, do you have a factual non-partisan citation for that?
Like I said, do you have a factual non-partisan citation for that?
How about listening to her in her own words:
[INDENT]Pam Geller: CPAC Infiltrated By 'Muslim Brotherhood Activist
[YOUTUBE]YFHZpy8wpnE[/YOUTUBE][/INDENT]
Her proof? Conservative Grover Norquist's wife is Muslim and they contribute to a Muslim charity.
Do you have factual evidence to prove that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood are not involved in the direct support of CPAC?
She is obliged to prove her claims. Especially when she does it promote hate. Why should we prove her wild speculations are wrong? Your logic also says massacring 5000 Americans in Iraq was justified because we did not prove George Jr and Cheney were lying. Total nonsense created by strawman logic. She is simply promoting the same hate that hyped fear of a Manhattan mosque. And the massacre of millions of Jews in Germany.
Its like the McCarthy red-baiting days all over again.
Make unsubstantiated charges that someone was a commie and demand that they prove they were not.
Its like the McCarthy red-baiting days all over again.
Make unsubstantiated charges that someone was a commie and demand that they prove they were not.
Well I know that Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Iranians. Did that make him a bad man? Are you going to defend him?
Its kinda hard to prove a negative.
Your burden....
"Muslims curse Jews and Christians"
You don't believe this??? :eek:
Why? You think they are friends and want to recognize Israel as a legitimate state in the Middle East?
Is this false? Were these things not stated?
Several accomplished military, terrorism and national security experts have long asserted that terrorists are covertly using Islamic Sharia law as a non-violent way to destroy the United States. A panel of highly regarded experts reiterated the assessment in a Saturday afternoon CPAC seminar called “The Sharia Challenge in the West.”
Former Central Intelligence Agency Director Jim Woolsey, a foreign policy specialist who has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations, led the intriguing seminar. The United States is, not only at war with terrorists such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah but also with those who, over the long run, want to impose Sharia law, Woolsey assured.
He defined Sharia as a “theocratic dictatorship extremely opposed to democracy” and a movement to “eliminate and destroy western civilization.” The biggest challenge in fighting it is America’s long tradition of tolerance towards all religions, he warned, pointing out that the radical Islamic group Muslim Brotherhood is largely behind the effort to bring Sharia to the U.S.
Ironically, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates sponsored a CPAC panel a day earlier to defend Islamic rights, building a mosque at Ground Zero and the overall mission of the group which is known as the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda. Suhail Khan, a controversial figure with connections to Middle Eastern radicals, led the event which at times got heated. A few years ago Khan received an award from an Al Qaeda operative (Abdurahman Alamoudi) and the event was actually recorded in a video.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/about-usIs this false? Were these things not stated?
Your URL does not even cite what you are quoting. More interesting are the topics in that URL.
•Obama Accountability Project
•Illegal Immigration
•Investigating Obamacare
•Exposing ACORN
•Financial Crisis/Fannie-Freddie Investigation
•Pelosi Air Force Scandal
•Joe the Plumber Lawsuit
•Judicial Nominations Project
•DOJ Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dismissal Investigation
Every one a hot button spin issue for right wing extremists. When do you quote patriots - also called moderates?
Mission Creep. We are not and should not be the worlds police force. Fuck them if they want to kill each other off.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gates-libya-20110422,0,6275441.storyYour burden....
You don't believe this??? :eek:
Why? You think they are friends and want to recognize Israel as a legitimate state in the Middle East?
Your wanting to believe something and have it actually be true are two different things. I can point you to a sci-fi series in which the author claims that the Yiddish word 'goy' translates to 'cattle', when in reality the word comes from the bible.
A lot of 'religious war' really had nothing to do with what is actually written in holy books. It had more to do with money, land, and power. Protestants v Catholics had a lot to do with Protestants claiming church land formerly owned by the Catholic church. The strife in Northern Ireland had almost nothing to do with religion but more to do with the political affiliations of majorities in each group and a perceived concentration of political and economic power in one group.
Is there anything explicit in the holy books of any major religion that denigrates another religion or justifies the persecution of other religions - no. Are there vague passages that can be twisted by those with an agenda and tied into cultural or political hatreds to achieve these goals -
yes.
What I find twisted is that for propaganda purposes Muslim extremists are digging up myths about Jews that were started by European Christians centuries ago. Specifically blood libel, and I'm not talking about Sarah Palin.
....What I find twisted is that for propaganda purposes Muslim extremists are digging up myths about Jews that were started by European Christians centuries ago. Specifically blood libel, and I'm not talking about Sarah Palin.
I agree.
I just would not limit it to Muslim extremists. The
anti-Muslim extremists in the US are guilty as well.
I agree.
I just would not limit it to Muslim extremists. The anti-Muslim extremists in the US are guilty as well.
Have you proven Gellar is wrong?
More on the killing of civilians in Syria.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/22/more-than-40-dead-in-syria-cen
Where are the drones?
The drones are busy watching Fox News.
Oh, those drones. They're bombing villages in Yemen and Pakistan.
The Syrian Government continues to kill it's citizens via it's troops. Where is the Obama Rescue plan? Why is Syria more important than Libya?
Why the hell would Obamy allow continued trade with Syria?
The Syrian Government continues to kill it's citizens via it's troops. Where is the Obama Rescue plan? Why is Syria more important than Libya?
Why the hell would Obamy allow continued trade with Syria?
Forgive my curiosity, but why is America so convinced that they are responsible for "rescuing" other nations? We have seen the "rescues" done since 1870 or so (WWII and the Korean war as notable exceptions). It may not be obvious, but maybe not everyone wants your "help", also because that help always involves "provisional government".
The U.S. is not responsible for "rescuing other nations" on its own.
The U.S. as part of a broad coalition, with a mandate from the UN, can and should, under certain circumstances and on a limited basis, act to protect innocent civilians if it is believed it would not lead to greater harm or a worse outcome.
IMO, that is the case in Libya. A UN mandate, with the support of the Arab League, against a dictator that every other Arab leader would be happy to see deposed.
And not the case in Syria. There is no UN mandate and wont be because Russia, with its close ties to Syria, would veto. Syria also has close ties to Iran, Hamas in Gaza and Hezballah in Lebanon. The potential for greater harm or a worse outcome if the US, unilaterally or with a UN mandated, were to act militarily, is far more likely than in Libya. That greater harm or worse outcome being a response by Iran/Hamas/Hezballah against Israel, leading to a much greater threat of a larger war in the Middle East or an upsurge of terrorists actions in Europe and/or the US.
Why the hell would Obamy allow continued trade with Syria?
Obama extended Bush's trade sanctions against Syria last year that are still in place. They expire next month and would need to be extended again, which I presume will happen.
He could also freeze Syrian assets in the US, but would have little impact. Unlike Libya, Syria has few assets in the US.
The U.S. is not responsible for "rescuing other nations" on its own.
The U.S. as part of a broad coalition, with a mandate from the UN, can and should, under certain circumstances and on a limited basis, act to protect innocent civilians if it is believed it would not lead to greater harm or a worse outcome.
This may very well be true, but this is not how it looks to the rest of the world. It looks more like America arranges coalitions, then wrecks a country, then hires "no bid" contractors to rebuild it with pieces of shit. You even electrocute your own soldiers in their barrack bathrooms, and have police stations with shit from the second floor plumbing coming out of the first floor light fixture, yes?
Or your marines find themselves guarding poppy fields, so that the heroin trade goes to the right warlord.
When America comes to "help", smart people pack up and leave home.
I agree completely with you about Iraq and the role of Halliburton and Blackwater.
I even agree with to some extent with Afghanistan and propping up the current corrupt regime.
Where I think the US can be most successful is along the model of Bosnia and now Libya, as part of a broad coalition and with a self-limiting role to protect civilians and/or support popular movements against oppressive governments but not to the extent of invading and occupying.
I agree completely with you about Iraq and the role of Halliburton and Blackwater.
I even agree with to some extent with Afghanistan and propping up the current corrupt regime.
Where I think the US can be most successful is along the model of Bosnia and now Libya, as part of a broad coalition and with a self-limiting role to protect civilians and/or support popular movements against oppressive governments but not to the extent of invading and occupying.
Bosnia is better, yes, but still had problems with American mercenaries, such as KB&R.
America would find more gratitude if they followed the French model from the revolutionary war; go in, take out the bad guy, and then leave immediately. It is when the nation being "helped" is subjected to "provisional governments" and "stabilization" that problems begin.
Bosnia is better, yes, but still had problems with American mercenaries, such as KB&R.
America would find more gratitude if they followed the French model from the revolutionary war; go in, take out the bad guy, and then leave immediately. It is when the nation being "helped" is subjected to "provisional governments" and "stabilization" that problems begin.
Building a new democracy takes more than just taking out the bad guy.
I lean towards looking at the US foreign policy in broad term using a combination of diplomacy, military assistance, intel assistance, economic aid, and other means that will help a democratic government take root and have the capacity to succeed.
Unlike the neo-con approach to foreign policy, there is no one right mix of all the above. Each engagement requires a different approach.
Building a new democracy takes more than just taking out the bad guy.
I lean towards looking at the US foreign policy in broad term using a combination of diplomacy, military assistance, intel assistance, economic aid, and other means that will help a democratic government take root and have the capacity to succeed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but America did not require the French to stay. You succeeded in far worse conditions with none of the above, except diplomacy and ruinous loans.
and Europe .... Any dwellars there that can attest to this?
[YOUTUBE]A3YQANdvvbY[/YOUTUBE]
Correct me if I am wrong, but America did not require the French to stay. You succeeded in far worse conditions with none of the above, except diplomacy and ruinous loans.
The world is a different place. I dont see the relevance in comparing circumstances in 18th century colonial America and 21st century Middle East.
700 Club? That is like America's Muslim Brotherhood, yes? Crazy religious people who pretend to be semi-secular?
The world is a different place. I dont see the relevance in comparing circumstances in 18th century colonial America and 21st century Middle East.
Humans don't change...and the external conditions a country faces are more favourable to a young democracy now, anywhere in the world, then they were in North America in the 18th century.
Humans don't change...and the external conditions a country faces are more favourable to a young democracy now, anywhere in the world, then they were in North America in the 18th century.
You will have to explain this.
Most countries in the 18th century were self-supporting to a large extent. That is not the case today in a global economy, which is why all of those young and emerging democracies rely heavily on US (and other) economic aid as well as US training on basic democratic institutions and even, to some extent, military assistance.
In conclusion, I do not support an isolationist America. I also dont define America by the extremes (eg 700 club) although a dont discount their influence, particularly during the previous administration.
You will have to explain this.
Most countries in the 18th century were self-supporting to a large extent. That is not the case today in a global economy, which is why all of those young and emerging democracies rely heavily on US (and other) economic aid as well as US training on basic democratic institutions and even, to some extent, military assistance.
In conclusion, I do not support an isolationist America. I also dont define America by the extremes (eg 700 club) although a dont discount their influence, particularly during the previous administration.
America faced a lack of infrastructure, hostile indigents, and was cut off from trade with the world's greatest power for several years after the American revolution. In addition, there were factional disputes and a level of official corruption that makes the modern day look like a fool's paradise.
Today, an emerging nation has the world bank, trade that beats its way to their doors, and very little in the way of external threats. The world in general is far more peaceful on a day to day level than it was even a century ago.
And I do not consider America itself to be extremist, just very confused. In fact, I have considered remaining here when my studies are complete, because America has a much better weekend than Egypt does. I won't, of course, but the idea is very tempting.
America faced a lack of infrastructure, hostile indigents, and was cut off from trade with the world's greatest power for several years after the American revolution. In addition, there were factional disputes and a level of official corruption that makes the modern day look like a fool's paradise.
Actually, America had more natural resources than any other country in the world at the time and was the first truly democratic country to emerge in the era of colonialism. Of course, it wasnt perfect.
I would urge you to read de tocqueville's
"Democracy in America"for an outsider's understanding of the American democratic experiment.
Today, an emerging nation has the world bank, trade that beats its way to their doors, and very little in the way of external threats. The world in general is far more peaceful on a day to day level than it was even a century ago
Egypt gets about $2 billion/year in military and economic aid from the US.
Are you suggesting that a new government in Egypt should decline that aid?
Actually, America had more natural resources than any other country in the world at the time and was the first truly democratic country to emerge in the era of colonialism. Of course, it wasnt perfect.
Egypt gets about $2 billion/year in military and economic aid from the US.
Are you suggesting that a new government in Egypt should decline that aid?
Yes. It is better to stand on your own.
Yes. It is better to stand on your own.
I would bet that a more democratic government that emerges in Egypt will disagree with you.
There is no shame in taking assistance as one is in the early stages of development.
I would bet that a more democratic government that emerges in Egypt will disagree with you.
There is no shame in taking assistance as one is in the early stages of development.
Of course they will disagree with me. Have you ever seen a politician turn down funding?
And Egypt is not exactly in the early stages of development. We are very experienced in changing governments.
Of course they will disagree with me. Have you ever seen a politician turn down funding?
And Egypt is not exactly in the early stages of development. We are very experienced in changing governments.
Thirty years is a long time between changing governments. Am I not correct in saying that majority of Egyptians (those under 30) have never known or experienced democracy in their lifetime.
Thirty years is a long time between changing governments. Am I not correct in saying that majority of Egyptians (those under 30) have never known or experienced democracy in their lifetime.
You would be more correct in saying that no living Egyptians have experienced actual democracy as you understand it.
And there's very little chance they will. Egypt is far more factionalised (spelling?) than America. We do not play well together.
This is no reason not to try, of course. But Egypt typically moves to something that more closely resembles a monarchy.
I appreciate your perspective and wish you well when you go back home!
Or notion of Democracy and that of what the rest of the world thinks it to be are completely different. This string reinforces it.
Let's see if Obama has the balls to cut the money....
Muslim Brotherhood Warns U.S. Aid Cut May Affect Egypt’s Peace Treaty With Israel
So far, the defiant response from Cairo has been attributed mostly to government figures with links to the deposed Mubarak regime, including the anti-Western minister for international cooperation, Fayza Abul-Naga. The military-appointed Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri – who also served during the Mubarak era – told reporters last Wednesday that the authorities “won’t change course because of some aid.”
But now the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which won almost 50 percent of the seats in recent legislative elections and dominates parliamentary committees, is making its position clear, too.
Egyptians pass a police checkpoint near the Interior Ministry in Cairo on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)
Any U.S. aid cut to Egypt, top MB lawmaker Essam el-Erian told the pan-Arabic al-Hayat newspaper, would violate the U.S.-brokered 1979 peace agreement with Israel.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/muslim-brotherhood-warns-us-aid-cut-may-affect-egypt-s-peace-treaty-israelAlthough never particularly popular in Egypt, the agreement kept the peace between the former foes for three decades and secured Egypt more than $1.3 billion in U.S. military and economic aid each year.
Save this and we could buy everybody birth control pills.
$1.3 billion is nothing compared to the costs of another middle east war. If we can keep buying peace for that small amount, I support it. I only wish we could have bought peace in Afghanistan and Iraq for a similar amount.
I don't know, sounds a little too blackmailish for me. If nothing else we need to significantly reduce this kind of aid across the board.
Yes, it's ethically and morally questionable, but my portion of that amount works out to about the same cost as a cup of Starbucks coffee per year. I'm happy to pay that to avoid war. I'd up it to 3 coffees per year if I could have avoided war in Iraq and Afghanistan too. It's nothing.
Yea, but if some people get their way you will be buying 10 coffees a year and you would be hooked and addicted to getting financial aid for everything in your life, it's a slippery slope. ;)
Russia and Iran are continuing to send arms to the Syrian regime that can be used against protesters, a top State Department official said today.
"Iran is resupplying Syria and through Syria has supplied weapons to Hezbollah," said Tom Countryman, the assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, at a Wednesday morning breakfast meeting of the Defense Writers Group in Washington.
Countryman's bureau plays a major role in monitoring international compliance with nonproliferation and arms control rules. He declined to go into specifics on what arms Iran and Russia are giving the regime of Bashar al-Assad, but he confirmed that both countries are still supplying arms that can be used to attack civilians and opposition groups inside Syria, who are engaged in an increasingly bloody struggle with the government.
"We do not believe that Russian shipments of weapons to Syria are in the interests of Russia or Syria," he said.
According to Countryman, the Iranian weapons being funneled through the Syrian government to Hezbollah are not being used by Hezbollah inside Syria, but are being transferred to Hezbollah groups inside Syria's neighbor Lebanon.
Countryman also said the U.S. government is working with allies to try to get a handle on the stores of conventional, biological, and chemical weapons inside Syria, to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands if and when the Assad regime collapses.
There are "tens of thousands" of MANPADS - shoulder-fired missile systems -- in Syria and nobody really knows where they all are, Countryman said. Unlike Libya, Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, so there is no official reporting on its store of those weapons, but the effort to locate them is underway.
"We have ideas as to the quantity and we have ideas as to where they are," Countryman said. "We wish some of the neighbors of Syria to be on the lookout... When you get a change of regime in Syria, it matters what are the conditions -- chaotic or orderly."
Russia is not our friend Obama....
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/15/state_dept_russia_and_iran_still_arming_bashar_al_assadObama's not the one who looked in Putin's soul and liked what he saw.
Obama's not the one who looked in Putin's soul and liked what he saw.
Maybe, but I bet Obama gave him a blow job.
Maybe, but I bet Obama gave him a blow job.
A new low... Merc's parents must be so proud.
A new low... Merc's parents must be so proud.
Not a new low, but I get yelled at every time I bring up Merc's REAL low points at the Cellar.
That's because when you rake up the past you get the stench of decay.
Merc's made some gaffes, but it's not necessary to air them if you disagree with a current post. That should be enough.
I live with a woman who is happy to bring up things that happened over 20 years ago. It doesn't make for a sense of community.
A new low... Merc's parents must be so proud.
My parents are dead. Thanks anyway.
Don't know if this is just hype, but there is talk that the latest bombing on Assad's security officials could prove to be a "tipping point" in the Syrian conflict. The problem is, we have no idea where this new direction will take us (civil war, genocide, democracy)
The assassinations were the first of such high-ranking members of the elite since the revolt began and could represent a turning point in the conflict, analysts said. The nature and target of the attack strengthened the opposition’s claims that its forces have been marshaling strength to strike at the close-knit centers of state power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/suicide-attack-reported-in-damascus-as-more-generals-flee.html?_r=1&hp
The rapid deterioration of Assad's control in Damascus -- the capital was largely free from serious fighting a week ago -- may be surprising, but was also increasingly inevitable. For the past 16 months, the Syrian government has been caught in a vicious cycle: A city or a town rises up, and the military arrests, tortures, and kills its citizens in a bid to quell the uprising -- but only ends up driving Syrians into the arms of the opposition and spurring further military defections. This basic dynamic first played out in miniature in regions like Deraa, then on a grander scale in cities like Homs, and now in the capital . Since the beginning of the uprising, the Assad regime has found itself in a death spiral from which it seemingly has no clue how to extricate itself.
For those of us on the outside, all we can do is watch developments carefully, be careful of rumors and sources with an agenda, and try to make sense of the few pieces of confirmed news that filter out. With that in mind, here is a primer on the three Syrian officials confirmed dead or injured.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/18/assads_death_spiral
No answers, only questions:
1. How frightened is the Iranian regime right now about the prospect of losing its only Arab ally?
2. What specifically is the West doing to make sure that Syria's chemical weapons are secure and are not used?
3. Could this mess have been avoided by early intervention?
4. Does Asma al-Assad, Bashar's wife, regret not taking a Jordanian offer of refuge months ago?
5. Anyone want to take out long-term life insurance on newly-appointed Syrian defense minister Gen. Fahad Jassim al-Freij?
6. Did today's suicide bombers watch "Valkyrie" and learn from Tom Cruise's mistakes?
7. What does Kofi Annan do now?
UPDATED:
8. How long before we find out that al Qaeda is behind this bombing, and how long before we discover that it does not know how to stop?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/seven-questions-about-syrias-immediate-future/259985/... but there is talk that the latest bombing on Assad's security officials could prove to be a "tipping point" in the Syrian conflict.
Same questions from Libya apply. Will combat and death rates be long enough and large enough for the country to unite as a nation? Or will the fall of Assad only result in more civil war?
How united are the Syrian people into making a nation rather than craving power or seeking revenge? Important in all such wars is a very high death rate among all combatants.
Syria, like many countries in the middle east, has borders drawn in peace conferences by The Powers after WWI and WWII. Those borders do not respect the actual ethnic distributions on the ground, leading to nations that are no more than political facades, held together by repression of dissent.
Civil war - if this isn't already it - seems pretty much inevitable.
The Syrian rebels have me quite impressed.
They don't waste ammo firing into the air in celebration.
Their battlefield tactics are competent - teams with covering fire, orders being followed - things that were conspicuously absent in Libya.
They seem to have a coherent strategy, including seizing border crossings to friendly countries (= arms supply) and are making a stand in Aleppo.
Assad still has air power, though.
The Syrian rebels have me quite impressed.
They don't waste ammo firing into the air in celebration.
Their battlefield tactics are competent - teams with covering fire, orders being followed - things that were conspicuously absent in Libya.
They seem to have a coherent strategy, including seizing border crossings to friendly countries (= arms supply) and are making a stand in Aleppo.
Assad still has air power, though.
I heard this morning that they have acquired some tanks and are attacking the air bases.
They don't waste ammo firing into the air in celebration.
NPR ran a report last week featuring Syrian rebels shooting holes in the sky after temporarily taking a check point.
The Syrian rebels have me quite impressed.
They don't waste ammo firing into the air in celebration.
Their battlefield tactics are competent - teams with covering fire, orders being followed - things that were conspicuously absent in Libya.
They seem to have a coherent strategy, including seizing border crossings to friendly countries (= arms supply) and are making a stand in Aleppo.
Assad still has air power, though.
Its almost as if they are being coached, trained and coordinated...
Hmm.:rolleyes:
Well, quite a few are deserters from the army.
The saudis seem to be meddling. Iran is the only local friend Assad has. And Russia and China.
Kofi has finally chucked in the towel. He's given it every effort, but it has long since been hopeless.
Kofi has finally chucked in the towel. He's given it every effort, but it has long since been hopeless.
We'll be seeing him anon.
Every war has a strategic objective and an end game. The planning for an inevitable peace. What could Assad be thinking? Or is he that deep in denial? From this perspective, yes. But really, nobody is that naive. What are his alternatives and possible plans?
Assad didn't choose to go to war. His objective is to not lose the war somebody else started.
Every war has a strategic objective and an end game. The planning for an inevitable peace. What could Assad be thinking? Or is he that deep in denial? From this perspective, yes. But really, nobody is that naive. What are his alternatives and possible plans?
Defeat the rebels and rule as a tyrant? Other rulers have done it.
What PH said. He's clinging to power because that's all he knows. He doesn't give a damn about this silly "peace", he just wants to stay in power. His clique and supporters know that if the revolution wins, there's going to be pay back for decades of tyranny. #$"% 'em.
He doesn't give a damn about this silly "peace", he just wants to stay in power.
Two recent examples of why that strategy does not work were west of him. Meanwhile, Idi Amin and Baby Doc Duvalier both retired rich elsewhere. Why not learn from their examples? Why remain entrenched in a slowly decaying and apparently unwinnable situation?
Well it amazes me how many just know they are right. The so many who got angry because they just knew smoking cigarettes increase health. Or just knew Saddam had WMDs. In both cases, the facts and numbers said something completely different.
Amazing how many will insist the facts and history must be wrong. And amazing that so many of us do it.
You should email Assad and explain that to him. :) Stubbornness, ego, pride and self delusion are common traits among tyrants.
Heck even Kofi Annan has publicly said the regime will fall.
Assad only cares for money as it serves power. Power is the drug.
Assad only cares for money as it serves power. Power is the drug.
Or is he just dumb ... like a fox. Making preparations for a cushy retirement.
Well it amazes me how many just know they are right. The so many who got angry because they just knew smoking cigarettes increase health. Or just knew Saddam had WMDs. In both cases, the facts and numbers said something completely different.
Every situation is different so the cigarette example doesn't apply. Assad probably thought he learned from Mubarak and Gaddafi's mistakes. He did, in some ways, but not enough. Now, he is going to keep digging because he can't escape.