03-18-2011, 09:29 AM
|
#1
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
|
Libya...
Just read an article on Yahoo and a line struck me as ironic and funny. Of course, this is coming from a perspective with myself having strong French family ties (My mom is French)
Long and short, as many of you know, I have conservative views mixed in with no doubt confusing views...but at the end of the day, I too am able to laugh at the stereotype placed on the view of the French, especially when it comes to Fighting...
Thus, the funny part of this article:
__________________________________________________ ______________
"France, a leading advocate of military action, said it was cautious about the ceasefire announcement and that the "threat on the ground has not changed."
__________________________________________________ ______________
Here's a link to the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110318/wl_nm/us_libya
The state of world affairs has gotten ugly over the past few years...am I naive, is this state of unrest going on all the time, and as an American I and we are simply clueless to what is happening around the world, or is this state...the level of unrest, intensified?
Is it as intense as appears, or is it a perspective of media hype and over reporting?
Is the violence reported, playing on the Psyche of mankind and making things worse?
Has it gotten so bad that the French are advocating offensive actions?
|
|
|
03-18-2011, 10:05 AM
|
#2
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
The French are reportedly eager to act (along for all the "normal" reasons) due to sharp criticism for slow support for the movements in Tunisia and Egypt.
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
03-18-2011, 02:50 PM
|
#3
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,885
|
Germany chose "undecided". Maybe we wanted to show some clemency, because Muahaha al Gadhafi bought many guns in our stores.
__________________
Last edited by GermanDunk; 03-19-2011 at 05:08 PM.
|
|
|
03-19-2011, 03:28 PM
|
#4
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
...and boom goes the dynamite.
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
|
|
|
03-19-2011, 05:06 PM
|
#5
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,885
|
Yeah. We learn: Being member of the UN Human Rights Council and member of the OPEC can cause you trouble.
__________________
|
|
|
03-19-2011, 06:35 PM
|
#6
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,851
|
This is the best German foreign policy decision in years. Now we should simply leave Afganistan, leave the UN and declare ourselves neutral in foreign affairs.
One can dream...
__________________
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul The Revolution - A Manifesto
|
|
|
03-19-2011, 09:54 PM
|
#7
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
March 20, 2003: America attacks Iraq
March 19, 2011: America attacks Libya
Must be something in the air this time of the year...
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-19-2011 at 09:56 PM.
|
|
|
03-19-2011, 11:00 PM
|
#8
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
|
Launching a war against a nation that isn't a remote threat without even the pretense of following the constitution.
The train is off the tracks.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
|
|
|
03-20-2011, 12:45 PM
|
#9
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
|
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 07:51 AM
|
#10
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,031
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Launching a war against a nation that isn't a remote threat without even the pretense of following the constitution.
The train is off the tracks.
|
1:08 of this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkpvON6IpNs
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 10:55 AM
|
#11
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 612
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Launching a war against a nation that isn't a remote threat without even the pretense of following the constitution.
The train is off the tracks.
|
Right, because the more sensible thing to do is let that madman massacre his own people.
__________________
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 11:16 AM
|
#12
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
What bothers me about Libya is that the same shit is going on in Yemen, Bahrain and the Ivory Coast... everything feels willy-nilly. What's the procedure for action?
I thought it was....
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
- Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007.
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 11:33 AM
|
#13
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan
Right, because the more sensible thing to do is let that madman massacre his own people.
|
Those people were rebelling against their government - does a government no longer have the right to defend itself?
If Americans revolted against our government, you can be damn sure they'd react with violence... Do you really think the British and French would invade Washington D.C. over that, or do you think the US government would be completely justified in defending itself?
Also, reports are coming out of Libya that US warplanes just bombed a hospital... Is it somehow better for a foreign government to indiscriminately kill civilians than a sovereign government? I bet the dead don't see a difference.
Sure Gaddafi is a madman, but if that's reason enough to take him out, you'd think we would have done it sometime in the last 41 years... Is now a good time to mention that Libya is the 3rd-largest oil producer in Africa, 17th-largest in the world? It's a hell of a "silver lining" that all of America's enemies happen to be sitting on the world's largest oil reserves...
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-21-2011 at 11:36 AM.
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 11:02 PM
|
#14
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 612
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
Those people were rebelling against their government - does a government no longer have the right to defend itself?
|
They don't have a right to slaughter peaceful demonstrators. Which is what they have consistently done since the beginning.
If the US is intervening to try and save the people of Libya from this madman then I say it is tax dollars well spent and support it fully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
If Americans revolted against our government, you can be damn sure they'd react with violence...
|
Let me know when the US government is headed by a madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him then we can talk about your analogy.
__________________
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 11:17 PM
|
#15
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
|
Quote:
Let me know when the US government is headed by a madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him then we can talk about your analogy.
|
Inasmuch as the president has launched a war contra to the clear wording of the constitution, the us government is effectively headed by a dictator. It'd be imprudent in my view to wait until we have madman dictator who is slaughtering peaceful protests to oppose such lawless behavior, for obvious reasons.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 11:53 PM
|
#16
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan
Let me know when the US government is headed by a madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him then we can talk about your analogy.
|
Kind of ironic that you cut the Kent State link out of the quote, since Nixon was considered a "madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him" by more than a few Americans after that incident...
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
|
|
|
03-21-2011, 11:57 PM
|
#17
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 612
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
Kind of ironic that you cut the Kent State link out of the quote, since Nixon was considered a "madman dictator who slaughters any peaceful protests against him" by more than a few Americans after that incident...
|
That is the difference between the US and Libya. In the Libyan regime, Gaddafi stayed in power as long as he wanted. While Nixon would have had to face the American people in a re-election.
That is why America is a democracy and Libya is a dictatorship. Very simple.
__________________
Last edited by Mavericks Rockets Fan; 03-22-2011 at 12:02 AM.
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 12:04 AM
|
#18
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 612
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Inasmuch as the president has launched a war contra to the clear wording of the constitution, the us government is effectively headed by a dictator. It'd be imprudent in my view to wait until we have madman dictator who is slaughtering peaceful protests to oppose such lawless behavior, for obvious reasons.
|
So you are saying Obama is a dictator? I'm sorry, but that is a load of BS. Feel free to discuss your viewpoints with others, my discussion with you is over.
__________________
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 12:10 AM
|
#19
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan
That is the difference between the US and Libya. In the Libyan regime, Gaddafi stayed in power as long as he wanted. While Nixon had to potentially face the American people in a re-election.
That is why America is a democracy and Libya is a dictatorship. Very simple.
|
No sh!t, Sherlock - nobody debated America's system vs. Libya's. Maybe if you hadn't cherry-picked my post, we wouldn't be discussing the word "dictator" and instead be talking about a government's right to deal with uprising.
Libya is not America. They don't have to play by our rules... but our government has certainly been guilty of using violence towards it's own people in a time of peaceful protest, no different than Libya, so that's hardly justification for us to go to war with them...
This is about oil, no different than all of our Middle East interests in the past 150 years.
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-22-2011 at 12:19 AM.
Reason: self-censorship
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 12:11 AM
|
#20
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
|
Quote:
Feel free to discuss your viewpoints with others, my discussion with you is over.
|
I'm heartbroken.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 12:18 AM
|
#21
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
|
I'm so confused. Are you guys saying that when the US acts like Qaddaffi (whether it's Nixon or Obama), we shouldn't spend US blood (or money?) to stop it, because governments have a right to quell an uprising as they see fit? We should just let it happen because whoever is in charge is in charge?
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 12:56 AM
|
#22
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
but our government has certainly been guilty of using violence towards it's own people in a time of peaceful protest
|
Not systematically, though. Kent State was pretty much a one-off, and a lesson at that.
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 01:11 AM
|
#23
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 612
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
No sh!t, Sherlock - nobody debated America's system vs. Libya's. Maybe if you hadn't cherry-picked my post, we wouldn't be discussing the word "dictator" and instead be talking about a government's right to deal with uprising.
Libya is not America. They don't have to play by our rules... but our government has certainly been guilty of using violence towards it's own people in a time of peaceful protest, no different than Libya, so that's hardly justification for us to go to war with them...
|
And you didn't cherry pick? Isolated occasions where the US government fired on peaceful protesters doesn't count as consistently doing it. Gaddafi has been doing it for decades. Americans can feel safe protesting against their government, Libyans can't and it is NOT EVEN CLOSE. Your analogy does not hold weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
This is about oil, no different than all of our Middle East interests in the past 150 years.
|
Of course it is partly about oil and partly because NOBODY liked Gaddafi. Everybody wants to see that guy gone and are glad to help the Libyan people in their rebellion against him (well, except for maybe Hugo Chavez and a few others but you get my point).
But for Bahrain and Yemen on the other hand, you won't see action taken against them since they are our allies.
__________________
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 01:19 AM
|
#24
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
|
Like rabbitproof said, same stuff is happening elsewhere, but we don't do anything... I thought I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain and shot protesters there. And years ago, we sat twiddling our thumbs while Darfur burned. We are not consistent, either in trying to save people or in letting people save themselves. I don't even think we are consistent in supporting our allies, like Israel, anymore. The only consistency appears to be the quest for more black gold.
Now my personal thoughts are that we should be helping wherever people are in need, but that's just me. I also think if we tapped into our own natural resources, our foreign policy wouldn't be so dependent on securing foreign oil. But that's also just me. Weird that hugging trees are maybe keeping us from hugging more people.
__________________
Is this ghost ball??
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 08:39 AM
|
#25
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
I'm so confused. Are you guys saying that when the US acts like Qaddaffi (whether it's Nixon or Obama), we shouldn't spend US blood (or money?) to stop it, because governments have a right to quell an uprising as they see fit? We should just let it happen because whoever is in charge is in charge?
|
I'm trying to say something more fundamental than that. Namely, if the president is not going to follow the rules, then what we think doesn't really matter. We the people may think a particular cause is worthy, but what we're really doing is ceding the power to the president to do what he likes, when he likes, without respect to laws which he's sworn to uphold and without respect to the very important separation of powers.
The constitution is unequivocally clear on which branch of government has the authority to declare war (it's not the executive branch nor is it the UN Security Council). The president has sworn to uphold the constitution. The president, by launching an attack on a foreign country without authorization from congress has unquestionably committed a very high crime, and all that this implies.
The prudent course of action would be for congress to impeach Obama and then set about debating whether we should wage war on Libya.
This of course isn't going to happen. The train is so far off the tracks that congress will (for the most part) manage not to notice the abject executive usurpation of their powers. They'll probably just order up some freshly printed dollars from the fed to pay for the Libyan mission creep, then get to work on the next boondoggle.
The train is so off the tracks.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 02:05 PM
|
#26
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
I'm trying to say something more fundamental than that. Namely, if the president is not going to follow the rules, then what we think doesn't really matter. We the people may think a particular cause is worthy, but what we're really doing is ceding the power to the president to do what he likes, when he likes, without respect to laws which he's sworn to uphold and without respect to the very important separation of powers.
The constitution is unequivocally clear on which branch of government has the authority to declare war (it's not the executive branch nor is it the UN Security Council). The president has sworn to uphold the constitution. The president, by launching an attack on a foreign country without authorization from congress has unquestionably committed a very high crime, and all that this implies.
The prudent course of action would be for congress to impeach Obama and then set about debating whether we should wage war on Libya.
This of course isn't going to happen. The train is so far off the tracks that congress will (for the most part) manage not to notice the abject executive usurpation of their powers. They'll probably just order up some freshly printed dollars from the fed to pay for the Libyan mission creep, then get to work on the next boondoggle.
The train is so off the tracks.
|
Can't argue with that.
But it makes me wonder where is the breaking point? When is a president kicked out of power? Lying to congress about sexual relationships seems to be close.
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 03:24 PM
|
#27
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
Can't argue with that.
But it makes me wonder where is the breaking point? When is a president kicked out of power? Lying to congress about sexual relationships seems to be close.
|
If President lying was the point:
Kennedy -- Bay of Pigs, etc
Johnson -- no new troops
Nixon -- Watergate
Ford -- (exempt as he was never voted in)
Carter -- Iran hostage
Reagan -- Iran Contra
Bush Sr -- no new taxes
Clinton -- nothing to say here except there is not enough space to type it all
Bush Jr -- not enough space to type it all
Obama -- just more of the same - Libya
So, I can't say as any of them should have stayed in power. This takes you back to before my time.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford
"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 04:27 PM
|
#28
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,885
|
Who armed Libya. The Guardian has collected some background information
__________________
|
|
|
03-22-2011, 08:43 PM
|
#29
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
If President lying was the point
|
That depended on what your definition of was was.
__________________
Is this ghost ball??
|
|
|
03-24-2011, 05:33 AM
|
#30
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
03-30-2011, 03:14 PM
|
#31
|
Platinum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
|
I'm confused, not the first time, nor the last time.
Reading through some of these posts...I read concern over the same thing happening on other countries, while the complaints appear to be why this one and not that one...or why not all of them. In other words, are people trying to say all or nothing?
Is there not some good that can come from helping some?
On the flip side, I understand that reports have linked some rebels to Al Quida and other forms of Terrorist. So who is the enemy and which side is the USA Supporting?
At the end of the day...WHO is in charge?
It appears as though these so-called leaders are Damned if they do and Damned if they don't.
I heard a quote today..."Fear is because the danger is real...lack of action makes the danger more powerful"
|
|
|
03-30-2011, 04:25 PM
|
#32
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
|
Quote:
So who is the enemy and which side is the USA Supporting?
|
This seems to me like the sort of question one ought to at least attempt to answer before embarking upon a war.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
|
|
|
03-30-2011, 05:04 PM
|
#33
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Deutschland
Posts: 7,885
|
No one knows it, since it is the 1st case ever, that the NATO becomes engaged without a member being attacked.
__________________
|
|
|
03-31-2011, 04:49 AM
|
#34
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
There it is!! Can't stand that $4 gasoline....
"http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-purchase-oil-libyan-rebels-thus-funding-flickers-al-qaeda"
That's what's up. So do we want to cut back our imported oil by 1/3rd or not?
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
04-07-2011, 04:17 PM
|
#35
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
|
Rand Paul tried to get a vote on a resolution concerning presidential powers under the Constitution, but democrats have effectively killed the bill without allowing it to come to a vote. The resolution was worded exactly as follows:
Quote:
'The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'
|
It's little wonder that democrats reject this sentiment (without even allowing it to come to a vote) given that the author of the aforementioned resolution is quite radical and a generally unsavory person.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
Last edited by alexamenos; 04-07-2011 at 04:18 PM.
|
|
|
04-07-2011, 05:08 PM
|
#36
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
The French are showing some big brassy ones.
They're going into Ivory Coast for legit reasons (I think)!
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.
|