Forum: pol
Page 3518
Subject: Libya

  Posted by: Perm Dude - [5510572522] Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 21:02
The situation in Libya deserves another thread, I think.

There are several differences between Libya and many of the other countries undergoing some upheaval right now. For one, Gaddafi has personally held onto power for a long time. For another, he's vowed to fight to the death before leaving Libya. And, of course, Libya has a lot of oil, which the uprising has disrupted.

But most interesting is that a lot of people who might otherwise go along with Gaddafi's brutal crackdowns are saying "no."
 
1Boldwin
      ID: 561302321
      Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 22:46 		Another difference is that Khadafi has been a friend and supporter of Obama's friends Wright, Farrakhan and Phleger.

Khadafi gave Jeremiah Wright a $5 million dollar prsonal loan in 1985.

Farrakhan was the recipient in 1996 of the Gadhafi Human Rights Award, which came with a $250,000 prize. [you can't make this stuff up]

David Axelrod, Obama's top political advisor [tho jewish] sits on the finance committee of St. Sabina, the Chicago Catholic parish that was led by controversial pastor Michael Pfleger, an outspoken Farrakhan supporter who hosted the Nation of Islam chief at his parish several times.

Because, oh I dunno, the lapdog press might forget to tell you.

How soon does he have to go, Obama?
 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 00:39 		Ah, yes. It took only one post for you to make this about Obama.

What disrespect to those brave Libyan people. And some soldiers, some of whom have been shot for refusing to fire at protesters. (@2055 GMT)

Your navel gazing becomes you...
 
3Boldwin
      ID: 561302321
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 02:26 		Don't be ridiculous. I haven't impugned the Libyian people in any way.

All the world leaders who called Mubarak with their deadlines for him to leave owe us an explanation as to why other tyrants are receiving different treatment.

Khadafi himself makes an interesting case. He has aligned himself with Islamist causes and leftist agenda items as well. In fact Khadafi has promoted a one world muslim caliphate so vocally that the Muslim Brotherhood's call for his assassination also calls for an explanation.

Before you go assuming I am a Khadafi lover understand that days after he took over the country he had my people in detention and ordered to stand and stare at the sun all day while they were clubbed in the head with rifle butts, the equivalent of being struck with the sharp end of a 2x4. Which doesn't mean it can't get worse under the next islamist rule.
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 02:32 		Before you go assuming I am a Khadafi ...

Might as well assume you are a Muppet lover for all I've said in that regard. .

I'm not accusing you of liking any dictators. I'm accusing you of liking the crack cocaine of partisan politics. In particular, the sweet sweet taste of ODS.
 
6Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 08:17 		Boldwin

...owe us an explanation as to why other tyrants are receiving different treatment.

I think you know this is a silly statement. The simple explanation is that Libya and Egypt are not the same country.

Most significantly, I think, is that Lybia exports 15-20 times as much oil as Egypt, an ace on the board for Khadafi, limiting international pressure, at least until the situation curtails exports for a significant length of time.

Also, it should be plainly obvious to anyone paying even scant attention at this stage that Khadafi is willing to go to much further and more destructive lengths to retain his power than Mubarak was. An unheeded and ultimately toothless call for his immediate resignation would serve no purpose other than to make those leaders look weak, both in the international community and possibly politically at home.
 
7nerveclinic
      ID: 280482817
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 10:00

All the world leaders who called Mubarak with their deadlines for him to leave owe us an explanation as to why other tyrants are receiving different treatment.

Because Mubarak was our lap dog, and Khadafi is our enemy. It's not like we have any influence over whether he stays or goes.

We give billions a year in aid to Egypt, we have influence there. They are considered and ally, again this gives the world's greatest super power influence.

We have no influence in Libya, so what is the point of trying to tell him what to do?

 
8Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 10:52 		"Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi's terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here's to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya." - Sarah Palin

The problem with this approach is that it risks escalating anti-American sentiment, which plays into the hands of Islamic extremists, not only in Libya, but throughout the region.

The other problem is that the Libyan military is undergoing a split between loyalists and anti-regime forces. Inserting ourselves into the fray in such a provocative manner as establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone could fuel nationalistic tenedencies among the anti-regime forces, resulting in their focusing on a foreign threat instead overthrowing the regime.

The regime is crumbling. Our best approach is to sit tight, especially in a military sense. I do give Palin credit for submitting an opinion on the issue, beyond simply criticizing the Obama administration.
link
 
9Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 11:56 		who's side are you on?

"Shame on you, people of Zawiya, control your children," (Moammar Gadhafi) said, addressing residents of the city outside Tripoli where the mosque attack took place. "They are loyal to bin Laden," he said of those involved in the uprising. What do you have to do with bin Laden, people of Zawiya? They are exploiting young people ... I insist it is bin Laden."

 
10Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 16:47 		Way to take advantage of the situation Chevron. Gas went up 5% today (to $4.15/gallon).

I do live in a place that is typically 50-60 cents more than the nearby city.
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 53147264
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 05:48 		You aint seen nothin yet. The oil futures market used to get turbo-boosted by jitters over Iran and their potential to shut down the straight of Hormuz. Wait till they get a whiff of Islamists in control of the Suez Canal as well. Double-whammy. The wishful thinker in me hopes the price can be held to $100-$120 a barrel and just under $5 a gallon. The realist in me expects $200+ a barrel and $7+ a gallon as soon as the MB complete their consolidation of power.

If you believe all American wars are over oil...[which I don't]...get your draft age kids doing jumping jacks now.
 
12Boldwin
      ID: 53147264
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 05:56 		Let me edit that...according to this source only 2.5% of the worlds oil transit goes thru the Suez while elsewhere I read @20% of the world's oil goes thru the Strait of Hormuz.

But still, if any more significant oil producing countries [which Egypt isn't really] go Islamist you won't need to worry about $5 gas. Cause it will be higher.
 
13DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 09:43 		Gosh, sure wish we'd spent some energy over the last decade or so looking into alternative energy.

No big deal, I'm sure Alaska would have more than fulfilled our needs.
 
14Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 09:45 		B, your investment in worst-case scenarios is standard fare, though it might be a positive exercise to prudently explore such speculation in this case.

I doubt the Suez will play much of a part in oil transit and accompanying prices, given that Egypt has nothing to gain from isolating themselves from Western investment and aid, and much to lose. If, as we are led to believe, the revolution's fire was stoked by high unemployment among youth as well as a failure by the Mubarak regime to provide a voice for workers, intellectuals, students and, yes, Islamists, it would be counter-productive for these voices to support such a provacative action as to close the Suez, which could only lead to a complete collapse of an already fragile economy.

The situation in the Straights of Hormuz is much more delicate. A Shia uprising in Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia(where the refineries are located) in conjunction with Shia-dominated Southern Iraq(where the major transport facilities are located) could expand Iran's influence and increase instability in the world's most important oil shipping lanes. The wild card in this scenario is China, and, to a lesser extent Russia. Russia is an oil exporter, so they may see it in their best interest to at least stay on the sidelines if conflict erupts in the Straights.
China is fully dependent on oil from the region to drive its economy, even more than the US and Europe. While it doesn't seem to make sense for China to polarize their major markets in the West by supporting Iran and their Shia allies, it must be remembered that China does support North Korea, so predicting their response is no gimme.
 
15Boldwin
      ID: 53147264
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 09:57 		I doubt the Suez will play much of a part in oil transit and accompanying prices/though it might be a positive exercise to prudently explore such speculation in this case. - PD

Like looking up the actual oil transit percentage? Thanks. Why didn't I think of that?
 
16Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 10:07 		Like looking up the actual oil transit percentage

If the Suez were closed, it would have a huge effect beyond the 2.5% of oil that passes through. As opposed to the Straights of Hormuz, where there is no other way to get that oil to market, closing the Suez would force transit around the southern cape of Africa, granted a major addition to the shipping route, but not bringing delivery of that oil to a standstill.

 
17Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 23:57 		How soon does [Khadaffi] have to go, Obama?

Boldy got his answer today, on February 26th, 11 days after the unrest began.

President Obama to Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy: Leave now
 
18Boldwin
      ID: 351122619
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 00:26 		"We never desert our friends. Unless we have to." - Winston Churchill

Mark Steyn on the 'inevitablity of progress'.
The other night at dinner, I found myself sitting next to a Middle Eastern Muslim lady of a certain age. And the conversation went as it often does when you’re with Muslim women who were at college in the Sixties, Seventies or Eighties. In this case, my dining companion had just been at a conference on “women’s issues,” of which there are many in the Muslim world, and she was struck by the phrase used by the “moderate Muslim” chair of the meeting: “authentic women” — by which she meant women wearing hijabs. And my friend pointed out that when she and her unveiled pals had been in their 20s they were the “authentic women”: the covering routine was for old village biddies, the Islamic equivalent of gnarled Russian babushkas. It would never have occurred to her that the assumptions of her generation would prove to be off by 180 degrees — that in middle age she would see young Muslim women wearing a garb largely alien to their tradition not just in the Middle East but in Brussels and London and Montreal.

Whenever I speak about Islam, some or other inevitablist always says, “Oh, but they haven’t had time to westernize. Just you wait and see. Give it another 20 years, and the siren song of westernization will work its magic.” This argument isn’t merely speculative, it’s already been proved wrong by what’s happened over the last 30 years. Huge majorities of Egyptians are in favor of stoning for adulterous women and of execution for apostasy. Run the numbers, and then see if you can recite your inevitablist theories of social evolution with a straight face. The idea that social progress is like the wheel or the iPhone — once invented, it can never be uninvented — is one of the laziest assumptions of the western left.

Egyptian women graduates...


1978


2004

The day Mubarak fell 91 per cent of the country's women were estimated to have undergone Female Genital Mutilation.
 
19Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 00:33 		The day Mubarak fell 91 per cent of the country's women were estimated to have undergone Female Genital Mutilation.

say what?!?!

certainly you have something to back that up, right? at the very least, a reputable link?
 
20Boldwin
      ID: 351122619
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 00:34 		Just click on the links and read. What a concept.
 
21Boldwin
      ID: 351122619
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 00:50 		Wiki is interesting on this. Mubarak made the practice illegal but the ban was largely ineffective and the practice is described in various places in the wiki as either 78–97% prevalence, 97 and 'over 95'.

[with finger to the political wind] The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, said that it is "Prohibited, prohibited, prohibited."

Place your bets on whether post Mubarak Egypt lifts his ban on FGM. I'm all in.
 
22Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 01:05 		Just click on the links and read. What a concept.

I did. Another in a series of "warnings" about "Islamacists" from Mr. Steyn.
 
23Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 01:12 		I shouldn't be surprised that in this thread titled "Libya", Boldy's response to his recent ODS epsode in post 1 blowing up in his face is a series of posts on genital mutilation in Egypt.
 
24Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 01:22 		Sullivan
The second all Americans were safely out of the country, Obama came out with much more forceful language against Libya. Now think about the discipline of this. It represents the polar opposite of a politician's desire to mouth off in public before fulfilling his more immediate duties to his own employees and citizens.
 
25Boldwin
      ID: 351122619
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 04:37 		Yeah, right mr. Sullivan. Birds of a feather flock together and Hugo Chavez, Gaddafi and Obama are as thick as thieves.
 
26Boldwin
      ID: 351122619
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 04:47 		I shouldn't be surprised that in this thread titled "Libya", Boldy's response to his recent ODS epsode in post 1 blowing up in his face is a series of posts on genital mutilation in Egypt. - MITH

A) nothing blew up in my face.

B) Mark Steyn's piece contained the perfect answer to your #17. It was also the second part of two of the finest pieces written about these social network wars and I didn't want to separate them. Well aware this wasn't the Egypt thread but what ya gonna do. That piece on the liberal delusion about 'inevitable march of liberal progress' takes Egypt as it starting point but it applies to liberals and their stance to all the 'green revolutions' [as I guess Soros has named them] not just Egypt.
 
27Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 06:44 		Mark Steyn's piece contained the perfect answer to your #17

You suffer from mid-stage dementia. You bitched for a week that Obama would not apply the same pressue to Khadafi as he did Mubarak and then trotted out your Rev Wright BS and then he went and did exactly what you said his agenda would prevent him from doing (read: blew up in your face).

You are the white guy with Kareem Abdul Jabbar's sweaty coin purse slapping your contorted mug as he dunks over you and gets the foul.
 
28Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 08:20 		Just click on the links and read. What a concept

i did. did YOU?

the first goes to a blog which states Say what you like about Mubarak but he wasn't into female genital mutilation. Unfortunately for him, his people were - or at any rate the menfolk were. So he banned it. Because he's a dictator, and what he says goes, right? And the net result of that ban is that, on the day he fell, precisely 91 per cent of the country's women were estimated to have undergone FGM: Long before the "Facebook Revolution", Egypt voted with its clitorises.

no source for his info, just a statement.

so i followed his link...which goes to another blog that states And you're talking about a country that is essentially a clitoris-free zone (9 out of 10 women in Egypt being the victims of Female Genital Mutilation).

that blog, at least provides a link to a source, the Wallace Global Fund.

what does that source state? i'll help you, since you obviously didn't follow your own links: A review of country-specific Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) shows FGM prevalence rates of 97 percent in Egypt(8), 94.5 percent in Eritrea(9), 93.7 percent in Mali (10), 89.2 percent in Sudan (11), and 43.4 percent in the Central African Republic.(12)

and following that down to footnote #8, we see the information comes from Demographic and Health Survey - Egypt. (1995). Calverton, MD: Macro International Inc. pp. 171.

hmmm, 1995. so, it seems that blaming the fall of Mubarak for the FGM is a fallacy, as it was already going on in that country. Not that that is a good thing, but it's just another in a series of mis-truths or lies you find in some random blog that has no reason to be honest, and then you mindlessly repeat it because it supports some point you're trying to make. you don't care if it's true or not, you just want to regurgitate what you're spoon-fed.

Ultimately though, i am most entertained that your link trail goes back to information provided by the Wallace Global Fund, which was founded by FDR's secretary of Agriculture and eventual Vice-president and who's mission statement is to promote an informed and engaged citizenry, to fight injustice, and to protect the diversity of nature and the natural systems upon which all life depends."

The Wallace Global Fund also gives grants to various causes you obviously support, such as Advocates for Youth (who help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health via various birth control methods including condom usage), the organization Air Traffic Control (which is for musicians to connect artists to partner activist organizations and advise them on ways to use concerts, festivals and online social networks, such as Facebook, to engage fans and youth in activism), a myriad of groups studying climate change and those who insist it is a myth, as well as about 100 or so other organizations with "left"-leaning tendencies.

Pretty sure George Soros is involved with the source organization as well.

 
29Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 10:07 		A couple of quick points:

-it takes a long time for those numbers to go down, because women can't get un-circumsized. Those women in their 50's and 60's will continue to be counted.

-you won't hear Steyn (or his mouthpieces say this) but FGM is common among conservative Christians in the middle east as well.

-the complete ban itself dates from 2007. A partial ban is only from 1997. So a better way to see how effective the ban is is not to see the percentage of all women who underwent FGM, but how girls fare under the new law. And women aged 18-25 seem to have a 50% FGM rate.
 
30walk
      ID: 517172117
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 15:44 		You are the white guy with Kareem Abdul Jabbar's sweaty coin purse slapping your contorted mug as he dunks over you and gets the foul.

Fantastic! So funny!
 
32Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 02:08 		A great letter to Andrew Sullivan about the ODS sufferers Kirstol and Wiseltier, on Libya.

Last paragraph of that letter is spot on:

In retrospect, the Obama/Clinton game is mature, carefully thought through and focused on the long-term consequences of the use of power. The Wieseltier/Kristol game is ill-considered, emotional and places a thoroughly unwarranted emphasis on the deployment of US military power without appreciating the negatives that go with such moves. Put otherwise, the Obama Team has learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, and Wieseltier/Kristol are prepared to commit the same mistakes, all over again.
 
33Boldwin
      ID: 55249323
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:14 		“Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power… You’ve seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people.”

I guess when his 5 million dollar donation to Jeremiah Wright was fresher in memory Qaddafi actually had legitimacy with his people. News to them.

Obama's best buddy Hugo Chavez still does think so.
 
34walk
      ID: 348442710
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 08:33 		NYT: Kristoff on Libya

Interesting piece.
 
35Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 10:18 		Obama's best buddy Hugo Chavez

You've posted this characterization several times in this forum. There isn't a person in the world who actually believes Chavez is Obama's best buddy. Intentionally and repeatedly posting something so childish, unprincipled and dishonest doesn't galvanize your credentials as a conservative analyst, it has the opposite effect.
 
36Boldwin
      ID: 46243212
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 11:58 		http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmXQu_FggTk&feature=related

Best buds.

And his other best bud Bill Ayers has been down to Venezuela to screw up their schools like he is here.
 
37Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:00 		I thought he was best buds with Putin.
 
38Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:03 		So Obama is now best buds for shaking his hand and smiling warmly. Huh. Any real evidence? Obama has been President for over 2 years--how has Chavez benefited (other than the obvious hearty handshake)?
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:11 		Newt changes mind on Libya bombing to make himself consistently anti-Obama.
 
40Boldwin
      ID: 46243212
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:13 		And Obama's mentor Ayers has an adopted son, Chesa Boudin who is an intimate part of the Chavez administration.
 
41Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:15 		But what about Obama directly?

None of this "Obama's mentor" crap. Its a sign of rhetorical desperation to substitute this six degrees thing in lieu of actual evidence.
 
42Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:18 		Maybe could have worked Bam for an ipod before getting all bent over Lybia.
 
43Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:27 		There's been no cooperation between on any level between Obama and Chavez, unlike with Reagan's best buddy, Saddam Hussein, which resulted in the poison gas bombings of Iranians(led by Reagan's other best buddy, Ayatollah Khoemeni) and Iraqi Kurds.



 
44Boldwin
      ID: 46243212
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:58 		I would say having the same guy turn yer school kids into commie zombies is mighty coincidental.
 
45Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 13:26 		I would say having the same guy turn yer school kids into commie zombies is mighty coincidental.

I suppose now you think you've proven that Chavez is Obama's best bud. Well, you have proven something, but it certainly wasn't what you intended.
 
46Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 13:41 		Best buds, using the Baldwin Theorem of Friendship



 
47biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 23:32 		I will remind those who, during the election, suggested that Obama would be slow to use our military might that I suggested he would be probably too quick, in order to offset and overcompensate the perception.

Unlike Baldwin, who's predictions are generally vague, most likely couldn't occur until my unborn grandchildren die, and wrong in any case, mine are of short duration and at least this was was completely correct.
 
48Boldwin
      ID: 46243212
      Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 01:53 		I think Biden is the real prognosticator. I don't know if he's a muslim or not but he might as well be, for all the good he's been for the Muslim Brotherhood's prospects.
 
49Mith
      ID: 51253421
      Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 05:33 		You realize you've gone completely Gingrich on Obama's Libya policy, don't you? Or maybe it was Gingrich who pulled a Boldwin. Whichever the case, the same guy accusing the WH of appeasing MB in this thread was chiding Obama less than a month earlier for having Khadaffi in his clique (with Chavez, no less) demanding, "How soon does he have to go, Obama?".

Did I miss your demand that Obama "stay the hell out of" Libya's "business"? As far as I could tell you were all for appeasing MB in Libya when you didn't think Obama would.

You're not even trying feign integrity. You'll eagerly attack the president for just about anything he does, even something you attacked him for lacking the will to ever do just a few weeks earlier.

What a patriot.
 
50Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:24 		As far as I could tell you were all for appeasing MB in Libya when you didn't think Obama would.

A great example of how hard it is to keep track of other's positions and how often we presume to know them.

I am not a revolutionary to begin with. I suspect any adventure in nation building undertaken by neocons will eventually turn out worse than expected and I know that any nation changing undertaken by liberals will end up with a long term implacable enemy in control.

In the current spate of revolutions I believe they will all end up in the control of Osama Bin Laden's mother, in the form of one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Therefore I have never once suggested it would be a good idea to depose Gadafi no matter how truly ghastly and insane he actually is because the MB are even worse.
 
51Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 13:17
 
52walk
      ID: 348442710
      Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 13:23 		NATO now to lead Libya effort. How did this thread turn into an Obama thing? I wonder why...Please refrain, and put in the appropriate thread.
 
53Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 13:09 		MITH

I did however ask where the consistancy was in Obama's positions vis-a-vis dictator Mubarak and dictator Gadafi, however I never approved of Obama deposing either of them before or after the fact.
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 16:18
"...and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally." - Obama
In related news...
Mr al-Hasidi [a 'rebel' commander - B] admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.
Happiness is having a president either so clueless or mendatious so as to allow America's military to be 'volunteered' by al qeada to serve al qeada ends as they serve shoulder to shoulder with those who previously shot at them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Joy.
 
56Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 16:47 		Fulminate all you want against Karzai and Chalabi and Blackwater and Haliburton.

At least They so far as we knew, never shot at USA troops or deliberately set up administrations whose main enemy in the world was the USA.
 
57Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 19:20 		How selectively short your memory is.
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Mon, Mar 28, 2011, 04:43 		That constitutes shooting at Americans?

Well ok then, fine and dandy if Obama and the rest of the globalists set up a unified Islamist caliphate over a third of the earth [the muslim part] and start WWIII.

Haliburton.
 
59Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Mon, Mar 28, 2011, 04:48 		BTW the new Libya is already executing people who are not strict enuff muslims and instituting full burka requirements.

Mission accomplished.
 
60Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Mar 28, 2011, 08:21 		Link?
 
61Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Mar 28, 2011, 09:38 		I tried to find support for #59, so went to the obvious places, WND and Jihad Watch. Couldn't find anything like that, but did find this on Jihad Watch.

But in the end, the reach of the Brotherhood may be most limited by the emergence of secular forces at the forefront of the rebel movement.

The Interim National Council in Benghazi -- a 30-member opposition leadership -- is mostly made up of lawyers, doctors, intellectuals and former political prisoners with a secular bent.

In a statement Monday, the Council stated the ultimate goal of the revolution was "to build a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens including ... equal opportunities between men and women and the promotion of women empowerment."

Guma el-Gamaty, a Libyan academic based in the UK who has emerged as a key liaison between the Libyan opposition overseas and the Benghazi Council said no Muslim Brotherhood leaders had yet been appointed to the Council, and played down their influence.

 
62Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Mon, Mar 28, 2011, 11:00 		That constitutes shooting at Americans?

That's funny, no time to put in the work to go all the way back and find #56, but I'd swear there was a two-letter conjunctive word after the bit about shooting US troops which provided an alternative predicate, to which I thought my response was highly applicable.

Oh well. I guess I'll just give you the benefit of doubt here in my time crunch, since as far as I know, Haliburton hasn't deliberately shot at American troops.
 
63Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 01:32
“Al-Qaeda has established an emirate in Derna led by Abdelkarim al-Hasadi, a former Guantanamo detainee,” Khaled Khaim said.

“They have an FM radio station and have begun to impose the burqa” (head-to-toe covering for women) and have “executed people who refuse to cooperate with them.”

Khaim said Hasadi has a lieutenant, “also a member of al-Qaeda and named Kheirallah Baraassi” in al-Baida.
 
64Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 01:36 		but I'd swear there was a two-letter conjunctive word after the bit about shooting US troops which provided an alternative predicate, - MITH

Haliburton has neither shot at Americans or deliberately set up administrations whose main enemy in the world was the USA.

So what juvenile reason causes you to bring up that there were two options when you good and well know neither apply?
 
65Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 02:18 		However, residents in the city have told reporters there is no substance to these rumors, which they claim the Libyan government is sowing to "scare Europe."

From your own link. Seems the fearmongering is having some trouble getting traction, even in the same story.
 
66Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 02:22 		Absolutely not. That is al qeada central. Of course you can get someone there to tell a western reporter not to worry about it.
 
67Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 07:39 		only select parts of that story are true! certainly you know that! after all, it's in the Koran, and most of here haven't read it with the depth that others here have, so we couldn't possibly know which parts are true!
 
68Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 09:53
HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:177] Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:56:791] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' "

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6981] Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6982] Ubaidullah has reported this hadith with this chain of transmitters (and the Words are):
"There is a Jew behind me."

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6983] Abdullah b. 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6984] Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:
The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them until the stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.

HADITH Sahih Muslim [41:6985] Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
What are they getting at? It's so hard to tell. And who is to say their way isn't just as good and acceptable as ours? In fact anyone who should discourage them from this endeavor is obviously a racist.

Multiculturalists and moral relativists are too stupid to live.
 
69Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 10:17 		Multiculturalists and moral relativists are too stupid to live.

Far better to borrow from the Chinese to pay for wars we don't need, to kill people who pose no threat to us.
 
70Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 10:38 		the new Libya is already executing people who are not strict enuff muslims and instituting full burka requirements.

Mission accomplished.

Wow, you're really committed to spreading propaganda regardless how embarrassing it makes you look.

Over a month ago, Khaled Khaim, Gaddafi's propaganda puppet(officially Deputy Foreign Minister), made that claim in support of Gaddafi's claim that the uprising was fueled by Al Qeada, the United States and hallucinogenic drugs given to youth.

On February 25th, Al Jazeera's live blog caught up with Abdelkarim al-Hasadi in Derna.

12:46pm Al Jazeera Arabic has an exclusive with the man accused by the Libyan government of leading an Islamist emirate in Derna, Libya. The man, Abdul Hakeem Al Hasadi, denied the accusations and said he is a former political prisoner.

“I am, Abdul Hakeem Al Hasadi, a Libyan citizen and a former political prisoner. I would like to read the following statement in response to lies made by Dictator Gaddafi and his propaganda machine. I tell them that I am one of the participants in the revolution of Feb 17th along with the youth and people of Derna against the corrupt regime of Gaddafi.

"Gaddafi is trying to divide the people of the nation. He claims that there is an Islamist Emirate in Derna and that I am its Emir. He is taking advantage from the fact that I am a former political prisoner."

Now, who knows if Al Hasadi has any more credibility than Khalid Khaim, but that was 2/25/11 and you posted on 3/28/11, over a month later, and based solely on one statement. Other than that statement there's not one bit of evidence to support that Al Hasadi has established an emirate in Derna, or that the new Libya is already executing people who are not strict enuff muslims.

The real problem is that a discussion about what component radical Islamists will play in a new Libya is necessary and vital to the mission of establishing a Western-friendly, or even neutral entity, in a post Gaddafi Libya.

Such a discussion is impossible when based on unsupported propaganda presented solely for spreading fear and loathing.

 
71Tree
      ID: 24224298
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 11:54 		post #68 - Multiculturalists and moral relativists are too stupid to live.

i agree. it really doesn't matter was religion preaches hate towards the Jews. it's all offensive, with no moral relativity required.

Antisemitism and the New Testament

(from the link)
According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that are the greatest sources of anxiety for Jews concerning Christian anti-Semitism:

1. The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus - as such they are guilty of deicide
2. The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus
3. Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for Gentiles instead
4. The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a new covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
5. The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
6. The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
7. By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8. Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9. Christianity emphasizes excessive love, while Judaism maintains a balance of justice, God of wrath and love of peace.
10. Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

Post # 68 What are they getting at? It's so hard to tell. And who is to say their way isn't just as good and acceptable as ours? In fact anyone who should discourage them from this endeavor is obviously a racist.

indeed.
 
72Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 13:08 		Yeah, well the kicker is all those things were a shadow of things to come...

...with christendom doing the exact same things out of the same basic human nature and having been corrupted by satan over time just the same.

What you say? Christendom didn't kill Christ. "To the extent you did it to the least of these my brothers you did it to me".

It wasn't Jews who burned the saints at the stake. It was christendom.



 
73Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 19:12 		Yeah, well the kicker is all those things were a shadow of things to come...

indeed they were. Whereas once Christians used swords to "convince" the non-believers, they now use lies and hate.
 
74Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 04:12 		Doh, I get it now. You think you are trying to convince me you are a christian.
 
75Boldwin
      ID: 16253251
      Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 05:41 		After being lectured for the last 50 years that America cannot be the world's policeman...now comes the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

In his address to the nation on Monday, Obama specifically cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

There's no responsibility to make sure the outcome doesn't turn into an Islamist state of course, only to protect the formation of one.
 
76walk
      ID: 348442710
      Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 08:50 		Friedman

As Thomas Friedman lays out, what is going on in the Middle East and North Africa is s very new, and it's very complex.
 
77Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 09:45 		There's no responsibility to make sure the outcome doesn't turn into an Islamist state of course, only to protect the formation of one.

WTF are you talking about? Lybia is like 99% Muslim. It is an Islamic state. Although there were an estimated 36,000 Jews in Libya in 1945, due to Muammar Gaddafi's hostility towards them and Israel, there are no Jews left in Libya today.
One has to guess that when you say Islamist state, you're referring to the structure currently in Iran, previously under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or maybe Saudi Arabia. Who knows, since you're so reckless about throwing accusations around, even if there's no evidence to support such accusations. Pointing out that among the hundreds of thousands currently rebelling against Gaddafi are a handful of former jihadists who fought against US occupation in Iraq doesn't constitute proof that the rebellion is led or influenced by them.

It doesn't take much effort, if one is really interested in something other than trying to use the Lybian conflict as a weapon against the President, to point out that the new military leader of the opposition,
Khalifa Hifter, spent the past 20 years in the United States. Certainly your favorite distortion sites can find a 15 year old anti-Israel quote by Hifter so you can label him a terrorist and proponent of an Islamic state. After all, the military leader of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion should carry a little more weight than a foot soldier who once spent time at Guantanamo, who you've crowned as the most powerful and influential person in the rebellion, taking orders directly from Obama.
 
78boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 09:52 		It only very new if your historical knowledge is only 50 or so years old.
 
79Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 17:04 		Libya is just a false flag so Obama can call up his militia authorized under Obamacare.

Here I am, working my ass off for $40K/year, and idiots like that are making $175K to make up crap for the consumption of other idiots.
 
80Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 17:16 		Uhm, why does a health bill need language to create an army?
 
81DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 17:20 		For the same reason that Republicans snuck an Internet gambling codicil into the a port security act in 2006, after being unable to get an actual bill passed. The process is stupid and abused, by both sides.
 
82Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 17:42
“So the omissions pose the question: how did Obama, the archetype war critic, find himself bombing—in optional and preemptive fashion, and without congressional authority — an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country, and one that posed no immediate threat to American national security, despite being governed by a monster who, nevertheless, had been recently courted by Western intellectuals, academics, universities, and diplomats?” - Victor Davis Hanson
 
83Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 17:43 		#80: There are lots of things the health care law doesn't need that aren't in there, including an army. This is a conservative urban legend, which is why it is so funny.
 
84Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 18:13
 
85sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 18:21 		OMG B....it is common knowledge, that virtually no health care system o the planet, is braced to handle an massive influx of patients. In fact, in the military, it is taught that often times severe wounds can be worse for an engaged military than casualties, as it both strains the providers health care system and demoralizes the fellows of the wounded.

So in light of 9/11, and the anthrax mail scare, and the potential of a very public detonation of a dirty bomb....Pres Obama would like to have established, an organized group which could theoretically step forward and assist the day-to-day health care system.

And you Republicans want to tell bald face lies and call it an ARMY??????


Get over yourselves!!! You're all nutz.
 
86Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:03
 
87Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:07 		Sarge

You haven't forgotten Obama's dream of a civillian army as big and well funded as the regular army?



Why wouldn't conservatives be concerned about Mr "when they bring a knife we bring a gun"?
 
88Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:11 		Especially after the Missouri DHS was caught listing everyone to the right of Oprah Winfrey as a domestic terrorist.
 
89sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:23 		Ever hear of the Peace Corps? He wasnt referring to nazi-youths and you full well know it. Problem is, admitting that you now it, doesnt fit with your agenda. Are you truly so eagerly willing to lie to even yourself?
 
90Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:28 		The simple truth is his dream is to lead a USA funded, mandatory participation army of socialist activists as big as the army. He doesn't care what it's called but Americore works as a starter.
 
91Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:34 		Rahm explains.
 
92sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 19:45 		If a veritable army of ants made its way across the yard, would run into house, bar the doors and scream socialist?

Your paranoia is showing B.
 
93Boldwin
      ID: 4213019
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 20:07 		Only if Obama was directing them.
 
94Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 31, 2011, 20:15 		Always good for a peek into the self-imposed bunker crowd.
 
95Mith
      ID: 103727
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:39 		Boldy 64
So what juvenile reason causes you to bring up that there were two options when you good and well know neither apply?

True, Haliburton did not create the modern Iranian power structure. They only deliberately set up [an] administration whose main enemy in the world was the USA... with nuclear technology.
 
96Mith
      ID: 103727
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:28 		Boldwin does it occur to you that nearly everything you've posted on Libya this year grossly contradicts many of the principles you championed regarding Iraq from 2002 to 2008 or so. Just a few examples:

April 2003:
Yeah every day you could give Saddam was another day his professional rapists could entertain the parents they performed in front of.

June 2004:
...the fact that any terrorist can commit whatever crime and run to Iraq was a justifiable cause for going to war.

First sentence from an Ann Coulter column you pasted into this forum in February 2005:
In one of the grandest events in the history of the world, millions of Iraqis risked death on Sunday to vote in a free, democratic election.


And do not get me started on the trendy conservative meme of those days that any questioning of American military activity is tantamount to treason.
 
97Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 17:16 		Taking your points in order:

1) In Islamist Libya they'll be using rape for conversion purposes and stealing women from families of other religions. No word on any rape rooms in Libya today, besides.

2) It will remain terrorist friendly.

3) Democracy and Islam are incompatible since Islam is it's own political party which tolerates no other if it has a choice. One or the other will win out.

And don't get me started on the blindingly obvious fact that you and Obama have contradicted your every war stance regarding Iraq and Afganistan and Iran.

The only country actually fighting for democracy, Iran, Dems did a collective yawn over.
 
98Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 17:20 		And I will point out an unnoticed fine point. I've never told you to go to war anywhere. I've merely discussed the facts on the ground and your own principles.
 
99Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 18:57 		But you adamantly defended Iraq and the goal of removing a despot there. And when you finally came around to acknowledging there were no WMD to be found, you demanded that the removal of Saddam was sufficient as a stand-alone justification.

Whether state-sponsored rape is conducted as a means of political oppression or religious conversion seems pretty irrelevant to me.

And of course you know that Iraq became a much more "terrorist-friendly" place after Saddam was removed, even if you still refuse to acknowledge that fact.

And by all means, lets hear about my blindingly obvious contradictions. Please. I'm quite certain you'll find that unlike yours, my positions on war have been highly consistent. Big swing and a miss on that one, homey.
 
100Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 19:12 		Saddam was a worse despot than Gadafi, not by a mile but...

But only Gadafi warranted removal in your book.

Bush's plan carried as much guarantee of a democratic outcome as was possible to imagine.

Obama's carries none. No likelihood of a democratic outcome. Yet his regime change was the only one you backed.

Considering Islamists in Iraq are turned in to the government by the tribal leaders and the Muslim Brotherhood clone in Libya will be all Islamist, you got no point there.

Saddam carried out huge genocides and as far as we know, Gadafi hasn't, but only Gadafi warranted removal in your book.

Give me some idea why a person with your beliefs at the start of the Iraq war could consistantly back your policies now.
 
101Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 19:29 		MITH

And then you can explain your consistant stand WRT Syria which is killing it's protesters. Bahrain for that matter which has brought in Saudi hit teams on theirs.
 
102Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 19:44 		MITH

And then you can explain your stand WRT Iran which actually has a modern thinking democracy leaning majority trying to break free. That actually brags about planning on building the bomb and solving the Jewish problem with it as soon as they have it. Talk about WMDs! And which is genocidal to Sunnis. And which is killing it's demonstrators.

Shine your constancy credentials, oh consistant one.
 
103Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 19:46 		But only Gadafi warranted removal in your book.

Wrong. Neither warranted unprompted unilateral removal in my book. There was no cry to the US for help from a civilian democracy movement in Iraq which was under brutal indiscriminate attack by government forces.

Bush's plan carried as much guarantee of a democratic outcome as was possible to imagine.

Why, because we tried to force it on them at the barrel of a gun rather than assist a movement they started on their Own? Funny, I recall nothing regarding Iraq's chances for successfully implimenting democracy being among your arguments in defense of that war.

You clearly know far less of my opinions than you claim. I can only imagine where you think I stood in 2003. Further, I've offered nothing on the matters of Syria or Bahrain, so it's very curious to here that I've been at all inconsistent regarding my preferred policies wrt those places.
 
104Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 20:39 		Further, I've offered nothing on the matters of Syria or Bahrain

Indeed. The same conditions that stir you to action in Libya leave you cold as a fish anywhere else they pertain. I can only summize you have no principles and merely take marching orders.
 
105Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 20:47 		Why, because we tried to force it on them at the barrel of a gun rather than assist a movement they started on their Own?

Because the USA didn't just leave a power vacuum for Ayman al-Zawahiri to walk in and take.

Unlike your plan to hand Egypt to the MB on a platter.
 
106Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 20:54 		Neither warranted unprompted unilateral removal in my book.

A year and a half concensus building waltz wasn't enuff for Bush, but waking up on the wrong side of the bed one morning was good enuff build-up to war in Obama's case.
 
107Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:09 		The fact that he was building "consensus" based upon lies should give you pause, but it doesn't. Why not?
 
108Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:12 		Based on the consensus opinion of every intelligence agency in the world. I still think a year and a half, with a Baathist buddy right next door, was more than enuff time to hide that particular pretext, one of many.
 
109Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 23:14 		The consensus opinion of the western world - based on information from their intelligence agencies - was that inspectors needed access to confirm their suspicions.

The same conditions that stir you to action in Libya leave you cold as a fish anywhere else they pertain.

Wrong again. On that you're consistent. Go figure. I never demanded action in Libya. And I wouldn't necessarily oppose similar actions elsewhere in that part of the world if the right opportunity to help presents itself. I don't know that the syrians and Bahrainians (?) want our help. If they do, will we have to carry the whole load ourselves and do those resistances even stand a chance at overthrow if we don't send in a large invasion force? The notion that the conditions are the same in every country and that American policy should be the same in each case is exactly the argument you were rebuking for years beginning in 2002. You're just reinforcing my point that your supposed principles re Iraq all that time were bs.

 
110Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 23:27 		Last week I was on a subway when a panhandler entered the car asking for food. I gave him an orange that I had in my bag. When I got up to the street, i bought another orange and then walked past another pan handler. I could have given him the fruit I'd just bought and gone back for another for a total expense that I wouldn't even feel, or just gone without an orange that day. But I didn't, because I just can't feed every person I walk past with their hand out on my way to work and I can't accurately judge how badly someone needs help.

I guess this is hard for you to understand but I don't regret giving away the first orange or keeping the second - and I don't feel the least bit inconsistent about it because there are (fairly consistent, I think) limits to my generosity, depending on all sorts of factors. Perhaps you disagree but I happen to think a military deployment is a much more sensitive, delicate and potentially disastrous decision than weather to volunteer my afternoon snack to someone who looks like he might not eat today.
 
111Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 07:31 		OIC

So we've gone from "Boldwin does it occur to you that nearly everything you've posted on Libya this year grossly contradicts..." - MITH

To

Just flip a coin Mr. President. - MITH

In just 14 posts.
 
112Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 07:34 		I'm taking these powers to back down straight to the bull fighting ring. Man!
 
113Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 07:35 		We don't need no stinking consistency.
 
114Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 11:04 		Just flip a coin Mr. President.

Whatever. If you think you've turned my accusation back onto me you are far less sharp than you think but whatever gets you through the day. You're proved a hypocritical reactionary who is eager to attack the POTUS from the wrong party for adhering to precisely the principles you cited in defense of the last POTUS from the right party. While absurdly claiming political ambivalence, no less. I'm tired of children's games with you.
 
115J-Bar
      ID: 48314322
      Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 23:15 		And 11 or so years of U.N. sanctions and congressional authority equals 14 days of turmoil and no congressional authority. Got to love the grasping to try and forget all that war criminal Bush talk from the not so distant past. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
 
117Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 23:48 		Actually it was the fact that there was already a strong opposition, a public request for help from the movement's leadership, UN approval including a high level of cooperation from our allies, opportunity to win over some of the Muslim street and the hope that this will be a far more limited engagement -- that trumps ignoring strong opposition from our allies, the fact that they turned out to be right about it and the false motive dishonestly sold to the American people.

You're the one with the selective memory. And who grasps to forget something?
 
118Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 06:49 		Actually it was the fact that there was already a strong opposition,

The entire Iraqi Kurd and Shia population wasn't a large enuff opposition for you?

a public request for help from the movement's leadership

Shia: We had requested they revolt and when they did we left them out to dry.

Kurds: Non-stop cooperation with the CIA and pleas for help for decades.

UN approval including a high level of cooperation from our allies

Iraqi coalition was twice as big and since when is the Arab League our ally?

opportunity to win over some of the Muslim street

Dream on. We're being used by people who hate our guts.

strong opposition from our allies

The only opposition was from leaders who had cut corrupt deals with Saddam and the UN connected to the UN Oil-for-Food program. Saddam bought those allies and many of them stayed bought.
 
119Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 08:44 		Fairly Crazy - Mark Steyn
According to the New York Times, "Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qadhafi."

We dropped bombs on Gadhafi's crowd for attacking civilians, and we're prepared to do the same to you! "The coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime's forces have been punished."

So, having agreed to be the Libyan Liberation Movement Air Force, we're also happy to serve as the Gadhafi Last-Stand Air Force. Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it's rare to find a leader so impeccably multi-lateralist he's willing to participate in both sides of a war.

It doesn't exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we've got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side. If a coalition plane bombing Gadhafi's forces runs into a coalition plane bombing the rebel forces, are they allowed to open fire on each other? Or would that exceed the U.N. resolution?

Who are these rebels we're simultaneously arming and bombing? Don't worry, the CIA is "gathering intelligence" on them.
----
According to the State Department, Colonel Gadhafi's 27-year old son Khamis is also a "reformer." Or at least he was a few weeks ago, when U.S. officials welcomed him here for a month-long visit, including meetings at NASA and the Air Force Academy, and front-row seats for a lecture by Deepak Chopra entitled "The Soul of Leadership." Ten minutes of which would have me buckling up the Semtex belt and yelling "Allahu Akbar!", but each to his own.

It would have been embarrassing had Khamis Gadhafi still been getting the red carpet treatment in the U.S. while his dad was getting the red carpet-bombing treatment over in Tripoli. But fortunately a scheduled trip to West Point on Feb. 21 had to be canceled when young Khamis was obliged to cut short his visit and return to Libya to start shooting large numbers of people in his capacity as the commander of a crack special forces unit. Maybe he'll be killed by a pilot who showed him round the Air Force Academy. Small world, isn't it?
---
In the old days, simpletons like President Bush used to say, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." This time round, we're with us and we're with the terrorists, and you can't say fairer than that.
---
 
120Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 13:34 		The entire Iraqi Kurd and Shia population wasn't a large enuff opposition for you

The Libyan opposition I referred to was an actual revolution taking place - the one you chided Obama for not joining. The fight had already started before we got involved.

You think this is irrelevent. I'm quite certain the distinction is not list on Iraqis.

Shia: We had requested they revolt and when they did we left them out to dry.

Well I agree our previous abandonment of Iraq at the hands of the Bush41 administration might have preempted another uprising. It also likely played a role in the Iraqi street's distrust of the US, which should have been a pretty good indicator that they didn't want us to conquer their country.

Iraqi coalition was twice as big

In terms of significant participation from our European allies, no. To date, NATO, France, Belgium, Canada, Greece, Sweden and the Netherlands have all made significant contributions in Libya in equipment and personnel but did not contribute in 2003.

Sure, in 2003 there were some token contributions from countries that haven't contributed in Libya, most notably 3,600 South Korean troops, 2,000 Australians and 5,650 combined Georgans, Ukranians and Polish.

But of the 39 nations listed by Wikipedia in the 2003 coalition, 27 contributed fewer than 500 troops (8 of them fewer than 100 troops) to a total force that averaged around 170,000 - which turned out to be much too small for the job.

Relative to the scope of the mission, it's not even close. 2011 is a group effort. In 2003, only 3 countres took part in the invasion, Australia, the UK and The US, who made up 75% 0f the invasion force.

Obviously, this is a much smaller mission, therefore easier to fully outfit. So the six F-16AM fighters that Norway sent to Souda Bay Air Base this year are able to play a far more prominant role in the big picture than the 150 troops they sent to Iraq in 2003.

We're being used by [the Muslim street].

Maybe the people asking for our help are using us. But you don't have to be a Christian to be capable of independent thought. It won't be lost on people who were there that the US answered their call for help in the way they wanted it. It certainly wasn't lost on the Sunni insurgency in Iraq that eventually decided that the foreign Islamists were worse than they thought the Americn troops were.

Stemming anti-American sentiment to whatever extent possible might make a difference in trying to prevent anti-American organizations from coming to power in places where these uprisings do lead to regime change.

Saddam bought those allies and many of them stayed bought.

Not so different from how SA has us bought, I'm sure you'd agree. Also not so different from how the US incentivized some of our allies to get involved in 2003.

But even if I were to dismiss that and agree that our allies' motive for staying home was bribery (Canada had a sweetheart deal with Saddam?) we still invaded Iraq with insufficient resources on hand to secure the country.
 
121Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 14:36 		Twice as many countries as in this 'coalition'.

It won't be lost on people who were there that the US answered their call for help in the way they wanted it

Remind me again of all those grateful muslims in Kosovo. Once you find any.
 
122C1-NRB
      ID: 5625339
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 15:51 		Now it all makes sense.

I love Xtra Normal. I get my news from it, SNL, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report.
 
123Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 16:56 		Libya chaos 'allows al-Qaida to grab surface-to-air missiles' from Reuters.

Al-Qaida is exploiting the conflict in Libya to acquire weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, and smuggle them to a stronghold in northern Mali, a security official from neighbouring Algeria told Reuters.

The official said a convoy of eight Toyota pick-up trucks left eastern Libya, crossed into Chad and then Niger, and from there into northern Mali where in the past few days it delivered a cargo of weapons.

He said the weapons included Russian-made RPG-7 anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades, Kalashnikov heavy machine guns, Kalashnikov rifles, explosives and ammunition.

He also said he had information that al-Qaida's north African wing, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), had acquired from Libya Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Strela surface-to-air missiles known by the Nato designation Sam-7.

"A convoy of eight Toyotas full of weapons travelled a few days ago through Chad and Niger and reached northern Mali," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The weapons included RPG-7s, FMPK (Kalashnikov heavy machine guns), Kalashnikovs, explosives and ammunition … and we know that this is not the first convoy and that it is still ongoing," the official told Reuters.
 
124biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 16:58 		I get mine from a comedy show too. FUCN A.

Fox unintended comedy news for a-holes.
 
125Boldwin
      ID: 4635123
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 17:49 		I was not aware that you drank.
 
126biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Mon, Apr 04, 2011, 19:32 		Not in the morning.

I foolishly agreed to do a shot e every time someone on fox news used the word socialist, suggested our president was Muslim, emphasized his middle name or suggested he might be born in Kenya.

Two years is a long bender, even for me.
 
127Boldwin
      ID: 25341618
      Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 22:11 		Got to love our allies, the Libyan rebels.
April 5, two passengers of a Hyundai Sonata car were killed in a mysterious attack by a missile that wrecked their car near Port Sudan. DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that the attack, carried out by an unmanned aerial vehicle at Kalaneeb south of Port Said, targeted the Hamas representative in Sudan in charge of the vast Iranian weapons smuggling enterprise for the Gaza Strip via Egypt and the Suez Canal. His latest task was to organize the transfer to Port Sudan of a shipment of mustard and nerve gas purchased by Hamas and Hizballah representatives with Tehran’s help from Libyan rebels in Benghazi. The covert WMD consignment was destined for Gaza and Lebanon. - Debka
If only our intelligence and commander in chief were as on the ball as Isreal, America would be about 112 Tomahawk missiles richer and have a slightly less terrorist rogue state to deal with.


Killer robot prevents poison gas attacks. WMD's acquired in Libya.
 
128Mith
      ID: 103727
      Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 23:07 		Why do you hate the troops?
 
129Boldwin
      ID: 4030710
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 11:47 		You think al qeada getting poison gas is a good thing?
 
130DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 11:52 		That's not the question, dude. Why do you hate America?
 
131Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 12:37 		For years the right side of this forum was just baffled at how these god forsaken libruls could possibly "support the troops" but not the mission.

Judging by nothing more than years worth of his own words, there is simply no answer except that Boldwin does not support our military deployed in Libya. No need for him to respond, this is simply established fact supported by years and years worth of posts written by him and people he very clearly agreed with.

Unless all those years he was just lobbing disingenuous personal attacks at my sense of patriotism. Perish the thought!
 
132Boldwin
      ID: 4030710
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 12:44 		Go ahead and repost some of those assaults on your patriotism from me.

 
133Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 12:50 		Are you gonna go on record with a claim that you never challenged the Iraq War-opposing left's suport for the military?
 
134Boldwin
      ID: 4030710
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 12:53 		I'm dying for you to prove to me I was less precise than I thot I was being in my writing. My bet is that you were not reading as accurately as you thot.
 
135Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 13:05 		Well there's 5 or 7 years worth of posts from you on Iraq so that's quite a fishing expedition you're sending me on. So lets get that precise opinion of yours down now, rather than have me present your previous words only to allow you to taylor your precision to mesh after the fact.
 
136Boldwin
      ID: 4030710
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 13:47 		When you are thru doing that I'd like a nickel for everytime you sent me on a wild-goose chase just as long.
 
137Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Thu, Apr 07, 2011, 14:19 		So you're witholding your actual position until you get a peek at what you were saying 5 years ago, compliments of research which I agree to provide?

And you justify this because over the years you've been asked to support your arguments and felt the necessary research was either too extensive or otherwise impossible to conduct - and turnabout is fair play?

Par for the course.
 
138Boldwin
      ID: 3035886
      Fri, Apr 08, 2011, 08:04 		No, in fact you are asking me to do your research into the charge you made...

...and in order to please you, I get to go thru 6+ years of Iraq and Afganistan posts to disprove a negative ie to prove I didn't say something.

Considering it's impossible to disprove a negative of this sort, that really is an astounding presumption on your part to be miffed that I don't waste days on a naturally impossible task.

I'll try and ease your mind on this issue anyway.

I know you think this is a clever opportunity to turn 'you're either with us or against us' on it's head and attack George Bush neocons.

However I'm often posting from a very unique perspective and I do word things to adhere to many considerations I don't have time to list and you don't have the patience to hear me explain everytime my issues come up.

I live 35 miles from a city, of which the WWI war hysteria VFW types attacked our assembly of 1000 people and they rolled burning gasoline filled tires down the aisles for our unwillingness to go to war and whip up war hysteria among our members.

I just don't think in terms of patriotism or nationalism. I'm not in love with those traits.

This is a different issue than the factual self-loathing of liberals which just fascinates me and that I do bring up frequently. I'll accept that you might see their self-loathing as anti-patriotism. I see it as a mental health issue.

This is also different than being concerned with the dissolution of the USA into a world government. I don't have those concerns because I am a flag waving anthem singing nationalist. I don't even do those things. My concern here is that Americans who find themselves a tiny minority at the mercy of a sea of wildly anti-american nations within said world government, will fair very very badly.

Does my belief in American exceptionalism make me a 'patriot'? I just think American exceptionalism is an objective fact. Do the math.

My belief in American exceptionalism doesn't make me a patriot because my allegience lies somewhere else. In God's Kingdom. America isn't God's kingdom nor even a tiny part of God's Kingdom. It is a part of satan's world order. It was founded by occultists. True they were occultists posing as christians and they may even have thot they were christians of a sort.

So believe it or not I am not a choked up patriot angrily putting others up to a patriotism yardstick. And neither are you or Obama supporters. Tho you sorta tongue-in-cheek play one at rotoguru in this thread lately.
 
139Boldwin
      ID: 3035886
      Fri, Apr 08, 2011, 08:40 		I will also comment on a somewhat related point, that being PD's recent love affair with calling me a christianist.
who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression
To which I would reply that he is the putative christian who has actually run for office and who seeks the power to micro-manage everyone's life.

I on the otherhand don't seek power any more than Christ who turned down any role in the world's politics even tho those powers were offered to him.
 
140Tree
      ID: 60121615
      Fri, Apr 08, 2011, 11:30 		I on the otherhand don't seek power any more than Christ who turned down any role in the world's politics even tho those powers were offered to him.

you use your religion to preach intolerance. you use your religion as an excuse for the intolerance, hate, and murder of others.

you are more guilty of hubris on this board than anyone else. you can't acknowledge you're wrong, even when beyond a shadow of a doubt proof shows you are.

and you're a bully who badgers and insults when you are shown you're wrong.

you're as close to an extremist in regards to religion on these boards.

you also pick and choose what parts of a definition you want, so it suits your needs, even if incomplete or out of context - from your link:

I have a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam.

this defines you damn near perfectly.
 
144Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 11:04 		...No, in fact you are asking me to do your research into the charge you made

I have no idea how anyone could read my preceding posts and think that is what I said.

Did anyone else read it that way?

Is this a case of hastily skimming through posts or is it just a particularly weak strawman?

In any case (again) I agree to do the research to find and present statements in which you reject the notion that someone can both oppose a military mission and also support the enlisted who are depolyed to that mission.

All I asked of you is to provide a clarification of your position on that issue before I do that work.

Instead I got 400 words on how you lack any sense of patriotism and nationalism and how this is not contradicted by your belief in American exceptionalism, with a history lesson about an attack on members of your religion at the hands of American "VFW types" from almost 100 years ago and that the founding fathers were occultists.

Yeah that's all terrific.

But did you or did you not support the popular rightist meme of the day that one's opposition to the Iraq War precludes support for the military enlisted?
 
145Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 11:10 		The original version of the previous post (#143) included some spelling/grammar errors which I correctd and reposted as #144. I deleted the original #143. I never saw #s 141 and 142 and don't know whyor when they were removed.
 
146Boldwin
      ID: 1135295
      Sat, Apr 09, 2011, 15:13 		But did you or did you not support the popular rightist meme of the day that one's opposition to the Iraq War precludes support for the military enlisted?

Not to my knowledge. Tho you may feel that the position that premature withdrawal consititutes sqaundering the lives which were sacrificed, the same thing. I think that the second position is just self-evident no matter what you thot of the intial decision to go forward.
 
147Boldwin
      ID: 16317113
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 02:19 		Arab League president plans to ask for UN aircover [as in Libya] to prevent Isreal from responding with airpower to Hamas rocket attacks. If I'm reading that correctly. More 'Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect' George Soros mischief.
 
148bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 08:36 		I'm in agreement with B here. When George Soros attacks Israel with rockets, he should not be protected from UN aircover.
 
149Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 10:36 		George Soros mischief

It's comical how Boldwin buys into the yellow journalism consistently presented by Aaron Klein in the guise of investigative journalism.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Wow!! Soros is in league with such rogue nations as Australia and Canada! And now he wants to bomb Israel! Thankfully, Klein warns us that

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

Since Klein doesn't name any opposition group, or describe the current chaos, it's up to our imaginations to fill in the blanks, but, hey, it's Soros, so it must be evil, like funding rape trials of rogue soldiers in the Congo.

But this conspiracy goes deeper than Soros, right to the White House!!

Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power.

Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the Responsibility to Protect principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.

In November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of Responsibility to Protect alongside Evans.

OMG!! Keynote speakers with noted villian Desmond Tutu at the the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum not to mention the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities!! Who are these people that oppose genocide and mass atrocities?

Aaron Klein makes Glenn Beck look like a responsible journalist.











 
150Boldwin
      ID: 103311210
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 11:31 		That makes two liberals misconstruing me and the link.

Soros is going to ask the UN to take away Isreal's right to self-defense even further hampering them in their war against terror.
 
151Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 12:15 		Soros is going to ask the UN to take away Isreal's right to self-defense even further hampering them in their war against terror.

Oh, is going. There's one faux conservative making things up again.
 
152bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 13:03 		B has made so many wild predictions that have failed to come to pass. Let's call him on this one.

B- WHEN will Soros ask the UN to take away Israel's right to self defense? Just give us a six month window either way. If you are right in this assertion, you deserve credit. But you shouldn't be allowed to leave all of your predictions open ended. It would be nice to have a time frame within which to assess the accuracy of your statements.
 
153Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 13:26 		:: countdown to Baldwin providing a link to an irrelevant music video, video game review, or WND article about Wind Farms in China ::
 
154DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 13:55 		Tree, you're going to need to provide a six hour window for that, otherwise it's too easy.
 
155Boldwin
      ID: 103311210
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 18:51 		Well as I always say, politics is the art of the possible. I am positive Soros' Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa are figuring every possible angle by which they might prevail upon the international community to get UN aircover [as in Libya] to prevent Isreal from responding with airpower to Hamas rocket attacks.

Now the only question in my mind is do they think the mood is right at this time for that request to be received well. Has their doctrine of 'Responsibility to Protect' caught on among enuff influential world leaders?

[not to protect Isreal of course, no one seems to ever want to protect the obvious victim of unjustified aggression and terrorism]

I believe Obama is anti-Isreal enuff to go along. I think Europe has been turning amazingly anti-semetic so I think they might. The muslim third of the countries would go for it.

Where is the resistance to the idea going to come from? Maybe the idea of flying air sortees against Isreal is just such a break from the usual that it won't fly. Maybe enuff countries are worried they could be the next victim of UN aggressive intervention, that they will have qualms.

It all depends on the feedback they get to the trial balloon.
 
156biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 20:01 		Sheer genius.

I have no idea if he response was "tomorrow" or "probably never".

Brilliant.
 
157DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 20:04 		T'was indeed a post full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
158Boldwin
      ID: 103311210
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 20:11 		*bow*
 
159Boldwin
      ID: 103311210
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 20:17 		Too many known unknowns to say the UN actually acts on that request. But 100% chance world leaders and their state depts and influential staffers are having their ears bent in that direction by rich powerful persuasive figures.
 
160Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 20:27 		I am positive Soros' Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa are figuring every possible angle by which they might prevail upon the international community to get UN aircover [as in Libya] to prevent Isreal from responding with airpower to Hamas rocket attacks.

To begin, it is not Soros' Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. According to Klein,

George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading organization pushing the military doctrine. Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on multiple boards with Soros.

Since it's been well established Klein is a liar, the words "primary" and "key" are immediately suspect, but even if true, you've extrapolated it to ownership by Soros, as evidenced by the possessive apostrophe.

According to Klein,

Moussa served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect

This is the only connection between Moussa and the Responsibility to Protect that's reported, a murky 10 year old association that gives no indication of any type of ongoing cooperation of any kind.

Somehow, though, you're positive the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa are figuring every possible angle to create a no-fly zone against Israel, all under the direction of George Soros. Even though you don't know if Soros and Moussa have ever even spoken. Even though you really have no idea what Soros involvement is in the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect beyond throwing an undetermined amount of money their way.

As for this "Obama Doctrine," what was it called when the no-fly zone was established over Iraqi Kurdistan? Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo? Somalia? etc.

You've become a committed propagandist.





 
161bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 08:18 		It is soo easy to say that something will happen for sure, but that if it doesn't happen, then it didn't happen for a reason.

Won't ever be wrong that way. How nice to be so prophetic.
 
162Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 09:55 		Speculation should be based on real life events, not generic demonizations of political opponents.

Here's the real life events:

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa announced during a special meeting in Cairo that the Arab League plans to press the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip similar to the one imposed now on Libya.

Moussa said he plans to present the proposal to the U.N. Security Council.

Certainly, this is a cause for concern. What Boldwin and his fellow travellers at WND, American Thinker and similar media outlets fail to comprehend is that they have immediately changed the entire conversation from discussing the real life event to comically invented fantasies.

Soros is going to ask the UN to take away Isreal's right to self-defense even further hampering them in their war against terror.

Did one second of coherent thought go into this statement? George Soros is going to address the UN Security Council with suggestions of bombing Israel.

This isn't conservatism. It's some form of radical extremism that deserves a new political designation.










 
163Boldwin
      ID: 233241222
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 12:01 		The link doesn't mention bombing Isreal. By my reading it discusses preventing Isreali air missions in retaliation and prevention of further rocket attacks.
 
164Boldwin
      ID: 233241222
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 12:07 		What is the comically invented fantasy?

That Moussa may take that proposal to the UN?

That the UN would agree to it?

I really don't like Soros and his minions but I credit them with being serious as a heart attack. I do not think they deal in comical fantasies.

They already got the 'world community' to act on their doctrine of 'Responsibility to Protect'.

How could you call their next project a comical fantasy?
 
165sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 12:17 		Smoke and mirrors..

But of course the Arab League will ASK for the no fly zone. Why in hell wouldn't they? But it won't come to pass and as discussed at length on CNN last night; here is why AND the grounds under which Pres Obama will oppose the notion:

Yes, we established no fly zones in Libya, Iraq and other places. So there is something of a precedent for it. However, in each of those cases,
the protections afforded BY the no fly zone, were extended to the citizenry of a nation whose own government was committing genocide against them. Such is NOT the case re Israel. Here, we have citizens of one nation, being bombed by a foreign entity. Now just as soon as the Israeli government begin bombing its own citizenry, we can further discuss the idea of a no fly zone over Israel.
 
166Boldwin
      ID: 233241222
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 12:24 		I see. So CNN discussed my comical fantasy last night.
 
167Boldwin
      ID: 233241222
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 12:27 		And well they should. The Clinton News Network would naturally take an interest in Hillary's 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine.
 
168scoobies
      ID: 113371314
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 15:37 		Boldwin, is there a reason for spelling Israel as Isreal, other than just a normal misspelling error? Just curious, you never know around here.
 
169Boldwin
      ID: 323371315
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 16:37 		Never been able to keep that spelling straight.
 
170sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 17:50 		That the Arab League will most likely, make such a request; is nether surprising nor a fantasy. That you would attach blame/responsibility for said request to Soros vs the national bias of the Arab world...is comical.
 
171Boldwin
      ID: 323371315
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 18:11 		Oh, and did the Arab world just accidentally come up with the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine just now accidentally?

Sarge, always a coincidence theorist.
 
172Tree
      ID: 60121615
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 18:33 		Baldwin - always willing to spin things and accept lies as long as it suits his psuedo-Christian vision.
 
173Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 19:32 		So CNN discussed my comical fantasy last night.

No. Your comical fantasy, as I made abundantly clear in #162 is this:

Soros is going to ask the UN to take away Isreal's right to self-defense even further hampering them in their war against terror.

George Soros has never and never will address the UN Security Council.
George Soros had made no statement regarding Moussa and the Arab League.

I also made it abundantly clear when I wrote in #162:

Moussa said he plans to present the proposal to the U.N. Security Council.

Certainly, this is a cause for concern.

And then you ask,

What is the comically invented fantasy?

That Moussa may take that proposal to the UN?

No, I said that was cause for concern.

Are you even paying attention? The fantasy is having Soros asking the UN to do anything regarding this issue. You've got him talking to the UN as if he were a head of state or ambassador. The fantasy is further advanced having Obama in league with the Arabs against Israel. Based on what? An advisor was on an advisory board with Moussa ten years ago. That doesn't mean squat.












 
174Boldwin
      ID: 323371315
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 22:34 		If you can minimize the activities of Soros and his many nation altering organizations you haven't been paying attention.
 
175Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:08 		No, I'm minimizing the chance that Soros will ever be at the United Nations asking the Security Council to take away Israel's right to self-defense even further hampering them in their war against terror. The chance of that is zero.



 
176Boldwin
      ID: 323371315
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:14 		People like Soros buy people like McCain and Obama and Moussa to do those sorts of things for them.

Actually I'm missing a step. People like Rockefeller and specifically Rothschild buy people like Soros to buy people like McCain and Obama and Moussa to do those sorts of things for them.
 
177Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:24 		Did anybody have Rockefeller or was he the middle square on the bingo card?
 
178Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:24 		Wildcard!
 
179Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:37 		People like Soros buy people like McCain and Obama and Moussa to do those sorts of things for them.

Wow. Full scale slander. How conservative.

When you find some evidence that Soros and Moussa have ever even met or spoken to each other, let us know.



 
180Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 23:48 		oh, man, i was gonna play Rothschild too! damnit!
 
181Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, May 12, 2011, 13:06 		The President is about to violate the War Powers Act. Congress' response?: "Yawn."
 
182Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 19:24 		White House process regarding ongoing Libyan decision is starting to split off some Dems.

A bad, bad decision to violate the WPA.
 
183Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 22, 2011, 11:44 		Anyone seeing what is going on in Libya? Big news, but haven't had time to dig on this one.
 
184Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 01:33 		Rebel drone.
 
185nerveclinic
      ID: 40352125
      Mon, Sep 05, 2011, 15:07

"Anyone seeing what is going on in Libya? "

um another western oil grab?

 
186Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 10:45 		Dead.

In the last half a year, this President has brought down Osama, al-Awlaki and Qaddafi. For good or not, if hunting down bad "Arabs" is our goal, this president is far more efficient than the last.
 
187C1-NRB
      ID: 564251210
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 13:06 		In the last half a year, this President has brought down Osama, al-Awlaki and Qaddafi. For good or not, if hunting down bad "Arabs" is our goal, this president is far more efficient than the last.

But, but... he's a Muslim sympathizer! You're anti-American for pointing out these "alleged" "efficiencies."
 
188Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 13:46 		Not to mention we all know that only Republicans can be tough on terrorism. A Democrat could never do that.
 
189Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 15:42 		Yeah, when the MB and Al Qeada is running the whole muslim world in three or four years get back to us. This is will work out as well as the liberal strategy in Iran with the Shah times 100.
 
190Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 15:50 		Ha. You simply cannot give Obama credit for anything.

"When faced with something Obama has done right, reply with a dire prediction."
 
191Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 15:55 		In all these situation, the faction that is most organized will eventually seize power. In every case the islamists/salafists/muslim brotherhood front group is the most organized.

Even Soros' and all his money and all his Open Society organizing won't overpower this natural fact.
 
192Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 16:03 		Soros' money won't do a lot of unnatural things, including getting you to think critically about anything having to do with Obama.

Tell you what: If the Muslim Brotherhood is running things in Libya in three years, I'll give $100 to your church. If not, you'll give $100 to mine.

Put your money where your mouth is.
 
193Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 17:33 		As I've stated before, it will take about as long as it took the Ayatolla to consolidate power in Iran. Roughly three years. I'm not going to quibble about the exact time and I don't bet. As if you're given to remembering your goof-ups. Remember that time you thot the Shah of Iran was a monster who needed to leave? Remember that time you admitted you made a terrible mistake in Iran? Me neither.
 
194sarge33rd
      ID: 339382016
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 17:38 		Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither.
 
195Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 17:42 		I'm reading where virtually no Republicans are giving Obama any credit on this at all--not one single bit. They went out of their way to criticize him up and down when he started this, then when it works it is "thanks for nothing, Mr. President."

Now, of course, if things go south in Libya they will be all over Obama about it, despite not giving him credit for causing the situation they will blame him for.
 
196DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 17:47 		Re:194 -- sorry, I was too busy catching teh gay from watching homosexuals portrayed on television to notice any of that. Then we got a free weekend trial of Cinemax and I was cured!

On the plus side, I really do like how our new towels complement the wallpaper.
 
197sarge33rd
      ID: 339382016
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 17:50 		Prior to Obama's taking action in Libya...Gingrich and other Republican talking heads were all over the news "Why are we standing by idly? I'd already BE there..." Then as soon as Obama WENT in, they reversed course.."What are we doing, nation building?"

bunch of whning bastards..and if you dont like the 'name', then dont earn it with conduct which makes it an appropriate label.

 
198Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 17:59 		Oh, he'll get as much 'credit' as Jimmy Carter got for screwing up Iran as much as it is humanly possible to screw something up.
In the mid twentieth century, US-Iran relations prospered. Many Americans celebrated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a model king. President Lyndon B. Johnson pronounced in 1964: "What is going on in Iran is about the best thing going on anywhere in the world".

During the 1970's Iran's Shah propelled Iran into becoming a dynamic middle-east regional power. The Shah implemented broad economic and social reforms, including enhanced rights for women, and religious and ethnic minorities. Economic and educational reforms were adopted, initiatives to cleanse politics of social upheaval were systematized, and the civil service system was reformed...

...In accord with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies.

The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".

The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts. The effect was to allow trials to serve as platforms for anti-government propaganda. Carter pressured Iran to permit "free assembly", which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies. The British government and its MI6 intelligence agency also heightened the Shah's precariousness. The government-controlled BBC presented Iranians with a dossier of twenty hour newscasts detailing the location of all anti-Shah demonstrations and consistent interviews with the exiled outcast Ayatollah Khomeini, making a religious scholar few Iranians knew about into an overnight sensation.

When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration reportedly ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah's efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.

Subsequent to the Carter Administration's ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini's dictatorship executed the Shah's prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran's eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah's ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.

In retrospect, the Iran-Iraq War would never have occurred had Jimmy Carter not weakened the Shah's regime. This conflict cost the two nations more than 500,000 lives, including thousands of Iranians killed by Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. The Iran-Iraq war triggered the rise of Saddam Hussein as a major power whose invasion of Kuwait was repelled by Desert Storm. The United States refrained from deposing Saddam Hussein in a continuation of the Desert Storm operation out of concern that the resulting "power vacuum" would be filled by Iran's Ayatollahs.

Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
But don't worry, by comparison to Jimmy Carter, Obama will only have facilitating an otherwise unnecessary world war added to his resume.
 
199Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 18:04 		Jimmy Carter's human rights initiatives in Iran led to the Ayatollah hanging so many Iranians that the world had to ban the sale of cranes to Iran.



Jimmy Carter's human rights gift to these gays.
 
200sarge33rd
      ID: 339382016
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 19:13 		One can not possibly, take that seriously. IF that piece held any truthful "cause-affect", then this nation too would have long ago crumbled. Afterall, we've had human rights, right to assemble, etc etc for a couple hundred years.

If those cause the fall of Iran in less than a decade, how the hell did we get past 1785?

You lose, with yet another effort of yours, to erroneously promote your self serving agenda of isolationsim. (and btw, not enough a good freudian slip with the 'gays' comment vs guys. The 'a' and 'u' keys just arent that close together on the keyboard.
 
201Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 19:26 		They were hung for being gay. Chalk another one up to Jimmy Carter.
 
202sarge33rd
      ID: 339382016
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 19:30 		That many gays there, they ran out of cranes? They were hung, for political purposes. Of course, todays GOP would appear to be interested in doing the same in this country.