Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#352 Mar 30 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
It takes a hardcore liberal to say banning drilling off the coasts in the US will only have a minimal affect the oil production.

How many oil rigs are currently working in those areas?

You might want to look up the answer before responding.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#353 Mar 30 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
All of those sites varus linked are lying. It's true because I said so.
#354 Mar 30 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Nadenu wrote:
All of those sites varus linked are lying. It's true because I said so.
Well, I read from you that the links were lying, so it must be true.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#355 Mar 30 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're seriously stretching. "Boost domestic energy production".


No, you are. Assuming that when Obama speaks those words that it translates into increased focus on domestic oil production is pretty darn silly. Who are you trying to convince? You know that's not what he means, and we know that's not what he means. If his intention was to increase oil production, he'd say that he was increasing oil production. Heck. He'd get an immediate 10 point bump in polls and would almost guarantee himself another term in office if he actually clearly promised that.

How many times do we need to point out that the words Obama says don't quite match up to what you claim he's saying.

Quote:
Of course, for actual energy independence, we'd be better off working to convert more things to natural gas and liquefied/gasified coal given that our reserves for either one of those resources (never mind the combined total) dwarf our domestic oil reserves.


He's not focusing on those either. At the risk of explaining something to you which you should presumably already know, when a politician lists a bunch of things together, they often do that specifically so they can conceal the ratio to which those things are part of the agenda. Kinda like when you spout off about "Oil subsidies!" when pressed about how the government is helping to increase oil production, while kinda overlooking that only a tiny fraction of those subsidies go towards anything remotely related to actually increasing oil production. In the same way, it's very telling that Obama doesn't mention increased drilling as part of his energy plan, and kinda lumps in natural gas along with "clean coal", biofuels (a complete waste of time btw), and the even more vague "alternative energy" catchall.

Guess where most of the money actually goes? Not to drilling. And not much to actual natural gas (which also requires drilling, and that's a no-no), and not much to actual coal production. Where does the bulk of his energy money go? Well, it's a couple billion for carbon sequestration. Wont help increase coal production, much less make it cheaper or more available, but he's spending money on it, so that counts, right? And subsidies for inefficient biofuels. And designs for solar plants that his own supporters will almost certainly never allow to be built full scale. And more spending on god knows how many other boondoggle projects which will never be anything other than money funneled into friendly hands. Very very very little of which actually helps to increase any sort of energy production or decrease costs.


But hey! He's all about energy independence, right? I'm not trying to say that "drill baby drill!" is the end-all solution or anything. The issue is much more complex than that. But let's also accept that there is an almost Pavlovian resistance on the left to anything related to oil production in this country and that there are a hell of a lot of barriers (to several forms of energy production btw, not just oil) that the left has put in place to make energy production very expensive. It just doesn't help matters at all when someone like you constantly insists that this just isn't happening and that nothing their "side" is doing is making things more difficult than they could be.


And no. It's not just about Obama either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#356 Mar 30 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No, you are.

I'm totally rubber and you're, like, soooo glue.

Quote:
Assuming that when Obama speaks those words that it translates into increased focus on domestic oil production is pretty darn silly.

Yeah, almost like pressing energy companies to actually explore and drill on their leases. Friggin' insanity, I know, huh?

Quote:
He's not focusing on those either. At the risk of explaining something to you which you should presumably already know, when a politician lists a bunch of things together, they often do that specifically so they can conceal the ratio to which those things are part of the agenda.

Yeah, thanks for the energy & politics lecture, Professor Got Every Fact Wrong In This Thread So Far. I'll take it under advisement.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#357varusword75, Posted: Mar 31 2011 at 8:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#358 Mar 31 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
It is insane that you're this f*cking stupid. You don't have to press businesses to make a profit jackAs*.

Point missed.
Quote:
In related news the cost of gas has doubled since Obama took office.

And is still way under the 2008 highs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#359 Apr 05 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,143 posts
So....Hows the Libya thing going?

Anyone even slightly concrned about who the 'rebels' are, and who is leading them?


I seem to remember that a previous Mujahideen was armed and trained by the CIA to fight a proxy war, and we all know how that ended up.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#360 Apr 05 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
What, you mean meddling in the affairs of small foreign countries is a *bad* idea? Any puppet governments we set up are beholden to us forever! It's not like this is the primary reason the Middle East has been causing us so much trouble for decades in the first place...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#361 Apr 05 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Debalic wrote:
What, you mean meddling in the affairs of small foreign countries is a *bad* idea? Any puppet governments we set up are beholden to us forever! It's not like this is the primary reason the Middle East has been causing us so much trouble for decades in the first place...


We're doing the same sort of stupid half-assed foreign policy which has pissed off so many people in that region in the first place. We need to start grasping the reality that those we promise to help don't really understand why we stop helping them just short of them actually getting themselves out of the problems they're in. We keep doing half measures and not committing to anything. And we end out leaving lots of people in the lurch when we lose the will to follow through with what we started.


I'll also point out for the record that I seem to have correctly predicted the stale mate which would result from our ill-conceived approach. Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor? I'm sure that's going to help our relations with that part of the world greatly.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 2:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#362 Apr 05 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
paulsol wrote:
So....Hows the Libya thing going?

Anyone even slightly concrned about who the 'rebels' are, and who is leading them?

I seem to remember that a previous Mujahideen was armed and trained by the CIA to fight a proxy war, and we all know how that ended up.


We might set up someone else instead - the 'crown prince', for example.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#363 Apr 05 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out for the record that I seem to have correctly predicted the stale mate which would result from our ill-conceived approach. Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor? I'm sure that's going to help our relations with that part of the world greatly.

But it was a good idea for Iraq and Afghanistan last decade, right?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#364 Apr 05 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's a certain delicious irony to the fact that Gbaji spent seven years saying "Just WAIT! You can't comment on the war now... you have to WAIT!" and is now howling "STALEMATE! I called it!" after two weeks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#365 Apr 05 2011 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's a certain delicious irony to the fact that Gbaji spent seven years saying "Just WAIT! You can't comment on the war now... you have to WAIT!" and is now howling "STALEMATE! I called it!" after two weeks.



Yeah. Tardy b'stard. I called it what it was before it happened.

And I thought you'd all decided it wasn't a 'war' but a 'humanitarianlolintervention'.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#366 Apr 05 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There's a certain delicious irony to the fact that Gbaji spent seven years saying "Just WAIT! You can't comment on the war now... you have to WAIT!" and is now howling "STALEMATE! I called it!" after two weeks.

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone throwing out "Stay the course" on this yet.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#367 Apr 05 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out for the record that I seem to have correctly predicted the stale mate which would result from our ill-conceived approach. Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor? I'm sure that's going to help our relations with that part of the world greatly.

But it was a good idea for Iraq and Afghanistan last decade, right?


They're not even remotely the same. In those cases, we had objectives specific to regime change and we put the forces in play to obtain those objectives. So far, the only officially stated objective for this mission is to prevent civilians from dying. We're not helping either side "win", but acting to prevent either side from killing too many people. Surely you can see how that's much more likely to result in a stalemate, right?

We should have either decided we wanted to remove Khaddafi from power and put our forces to work doing so, or we should have stayed out of it, let the war resolve itself and then provide humanitarian aid after the fact. My earlier point is specific to the fact that the rebels and the civilians in the area aren't really going to appreciate the geo-political reasons why we're using air power to destroy planes, tanks, and artillery being used to attack them, but stopping short of actually helping them win the civil war. They likely are acting like normal people would and assuming you're either helping them, or you're helping Khaddafi, or you're not involved. Getting involved but only to a point, and not to help them win, but just to help them not lose too badly is a monumentally stupid way to do this, and is pretty much guaranteed to accomplish very little while pissing everybody off at us.


And that's exactly the sort of half-help that makes so many nations hate us. We act just enough to perpetuate conflicts, but not enough to end them. We encourage local people to rise up against their oppressive leaders, but then don't help them win. There's a pretty long list of potential friends who we've promised aid to and then yanked away the help they really needed when they really needed it. And in most cases it was because we lacked the political will to finish something we started. Korea, Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Lebanon, several South American countries, the Kurds (in a couple countries), and now the Libyans.

What was markedly different with Iraq and Afghanistan is that we actually did push our involvement to completion. In the case of Iraq, despite massive efforts by the political left to bail out when things got hard. Fortunately, they didn't succeed and we didn't end out with yet another example of the US screwing people over. The vote is still out on Afghanistan, but so far Obama has continued the Bush strategy there, so there's still hope. Libya represents a return to the liberal "dip our toe into the water" approach to foreign policy which has been such a disaster in the past.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#368 Apr 05 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
There's a certain delicious irony to the fact that Gbaji spent seven years saying "Just WAIT! You can't comment on the war now... you have to WAIT!" and is now howling "STALEMATE! I called it!" after two weeks.

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone throwing out "Stay the course" on this yet.


Because there is no course to stay. We have no plan in Libya. All we're doing is blowing things up which may be used to kill large numbers of civilians. As I predicted when this first started, while this has prevented Khaddafi from just rolling over the rebels, the rebels don't have sufficient ground forces to defeat his forces either. So what we've done is create a stalemate in the civil war.

What's our objective? Are we intending to eternally fly planes over libya to "protect civilian lives" and nothing more? Where's our exit strategy?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#369 Apr 05 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
gbaji wrote:

What's our objective?



Training and equiping the next generation of Mujahideen obviously...D'uh!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#370 Apr 05 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:

What's our objective?



Training and equiping the next generation of Mujahideen obviously...D'uh!


Strangely (and this doesn't happen often), you and I are in agreement on this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#371 Apr 05 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
gbaji wrote:
paulsol wrote:
gbaji wrote:

What's our objective?



Training and equiping the next generation of Mujahideen obviously...D'uh!


Strangely (and this doesn't happen often), you and I are in agreement on this.



Nice to know you are finally begining to wise up Smiley: wink2.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#372 Apr 09 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
So, in other news, even Saudi Arabia is turning to alternative energy, even though there is apparently an indefinite supply of plentiful oil.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#373 Apr 10 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
paulsol wrote:
So....Hows the Libya thing going?

Anyone even slightly concrned about who the 'rebels' are, and who is leading them?


I seem to remember that a previous Mujahideen was armed and trained by the CIA to fight a proxy war, and we all know how that ended up.
Did you bother to read the article you linked?

Islam needs a revolution like Christianity had. It needs its enlightenment. These events may very well be the beginning of that enlightenment. To throw this possibility away on the assumption that we're merely up to our old tricks again is beyond ridiculous, even for you. By all means, though, keep telling yourself the evil west is the cause of Islamic extremism.
#374 Apr 11 2011 at 1:11 AM Rating: Default
****
4,143 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Did you bother to read the article you linked?

Islam needs a revolution like Christianity had. It needs its enlightenment. These events may very well be the beginning of that enlightenment. To throw this possibility away on the assumption that we're merely up to our old tricks again is beyond ridiculous, even for you. By all means, though, keep telling yourself the evil west is the cause of Islamic extremism.


So you believe that Islam is incapable of having its 'enlightenment' without the aid of the USA/France/Nato?

You have so little respect for Muslims that you wont allow themselves to deal with their grievances with each other without the guiding hand of the caring sharing 'West' to push them along in the right direction?

You really believe that Obama/Sarkozy/Cameron are dropping bombs on Libya because they care about Libyan civilians? Any civilians?

HahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahah.

DIck.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#375varusword75, Posted: Apr 11 2011 at 7:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#376varusword75, Posted: Apr 11 2011 at 7:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Paula,
#377 Apr 11 2011 at 11:10 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
paulsol wrote:
You really believe that Obama/Sarkozy/Cameron are dropping bombs on Libya because they care about Libyan civilians? Any civilians?

HahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahah.

DIck.

Tell that to the people who say we deposed Saddam for his human rights violations...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#378 Apr 11 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
There's a certain delicious irony to the fact that Gbaji spent seven years saying "Just WAIT! You can't comment on the war now... you have to WAIT!" and is now howling "STALEMATE! I called it!" after two weeks


How long did it take the military to topple Saddam while W was running the show?
Just shy of 9 months? The invasion began March 19th and he was captured December 14th, that's 271 days or 8 months, 26 days.

Aces.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#379 Apr 11 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Paula,

Quote:
Islam is incapable of having its 'enlightenment'


Islam and enlightment should never be used in the same sentence.



lololol you do know Islam is the new faith, built on the same exact sh*t as the Christian faith, which was built on the exact same sh*t as the Jewish faith, which was originally stolen from the Egyptian Gods way back in the day. Judaism led to the STORY of Jesus and Christians, as much as the bible led to the STORY of Muhammad and Muslims.

They are all the exact same @#%^ing religion, worshiping the exact same God. They all share the same 10 commandments brought by Moses, Christians and Muslims all share the same teachings of Jesus THE MAN (the prophet) and Muslims have gone one more prophet ahead. They simply believe that all these men were speakers of the word of God, unlike the Christians who believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.

And all of these stories were ripped off from Horus and Set from Ancient Egyptian Mythos, and Religion is a @#%^ing joke, especially when you all worship the same imaginary man living in the clouds.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#380 Apr 11 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
RDD wrote:
unlike the Christians who believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.


Can you expound on this?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#381 Apr 11 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
******
30,622 posts
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
unlike the Christians who believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.


Can you expound on this?


Really? This is the first time you've heard that Jesus was god in the flesh? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#382 Apr 11 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
unlike the Christians who believe that Jesus is God in the flesh.


Can you expound on this?


Really? This is the first time you've heard that Jesus was god in the flesh? Smiley: dubious


Om nom nom, Catholicism Smiley: grin
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#383varusword75, Posted: Apr 11 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) r2d2,
#384 Apr 11 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
paulsol wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Did you bother to read the article you linked?

Islam needs a revolution like Christianity had. It needs its enlightenment. These events may very well be the beginning of that enlightenment. To throw this possibility away on the assumption that we're merely up to our old tricks again is beyond ridiculous, even for you. By all means, though, keep telling yourself the evil west is the cause of Islamic extremism.


So you believe that Islam is incapable of having its 'enlightenment' without the aid of the USA/France/Nato?

You have so little respect for Muslims that you wont allow themselves to deal with their grievances with each other without the guiding hand of the caring sharing 'West' to push them along in the right direction?

You really believe that Obama/Sarkozy/Cameron are dropping bombs on Libya because they care about Libyan civilians? Any civilians?

HahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahahHahahahahahahahah.

DIck.
You made my post about something it was not. You linked to an article claiming "We're up to our old tricks again, the rebels are probably bad!" and I told you these uprisings may be the beginning of an Islamic enlightenment. You don't seem to understand that a result of a non-reformed Islam taking hold of the world is not just some branch of multiculturalism on which we all sit unabated and free in our ideology. The extremist force is out not only to kill people, but to kill freedom. They don't hate our freedom, as the mono-browed former president tried to put it; they hate freedom. The Jihadist force IS an imperialistic force that we didn't cause.

If not allowing Ghaddafi to slaughter the citizens of "his" country is showing no respect for the Muslims' right to deal with themselves, then you're damned correct in saying I don't. It's a good thing his nuclear arsenal is locked down in Oak Ridge, too. Do I have any illusions that the politicians involved actually care? No. Not at all. But try not to obfuscate the issue.
#385 Apr 11 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphl,

You neglected to mention that most of that 8 months he was in hiding under a mountain in a small cave. From the moment the US went in Saddam hid.
Interesting that you'd have better intelligence than the US military concerning the whereabouts of Saddam prior to his capture. Even more interesting that you're continuing to create new misspellings for "bsphil" only after being called out on it.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#386 Apr 11 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
bsphil wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
bsphl,

You neglected to mention that most of that 8 months he was in hiding under a mountain in a small cave. From the moment the US went in Saddam hid.
Interesting that you'd have better intelligence than the US military concerning the whereabouts of Saddam prior to his capture. Even more interesting that you're continuing to create new misspellings for "bsphil" only after being called out on it.


I think the larger point, which is being somewhat ignored, is that Saddam was not leading a military force against us anymore. That's in significant contrast to what's going on in Libya, where we're fighting against Khaddafi's forces, but have no intention apparently to actually defeat those forces. Which seems to me like a complete CF in waiting.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#387 Apr 11 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
Does varus even know any Muslims?
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#388 Apr 11 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,622 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Does varus even know any Muslims?


No. He doesn't know any labias, either. Er, I mean Lybians. My bad.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#389 Apr 11 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
gbaji wrote:
we're fighting against Khaddafi's forces, but have no intention apparently to actually defeat those forces. Which seems to me like a complete CF in waiting.
Yea, I just can't see how this is going to turn out well for you guys unless the rebels pull off a miracle on their own. Either you're in to remove him or you get out altogether.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#390varusword75, Posted: Apr 11 2011 at 3:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sweety and Tulip,
#391varusword75, Posted: Apr 11 2011 at 3:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ugly,
#392 Apr 11 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
varusword75 wrote:
I don't know any mass murderers either. That doesn't mass murderers shouldn't be executed for their crimes.
I don't know any Tennesseans, but I know they shouldn't be allowed in any petting zoos.

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 5:19pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#393 Apr 11 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,622 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
I don't know any mass murderers either. That doesn't mass murderers shouldn't be executed for their crimes.
I don't know any Tennesseans, but I know they shouldn't be allowed in any petting zoos.

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 5:19pm by lolgaxe


Smiley: glare
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#394 Apr 11 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
I don't know any mass murderers either. That doesn't mass murderers shouldn't be executed for their crimes.
I don't know any Tennesseans, but I know they shouldn't be allowed in any petting zoos.
Smiley: glare
Don't blame me, I'm just following the faulty logic. Smiley: flowers
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#395 Apr 11 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,511 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Sweety and Tulip,

Quote:
Does varus even know any Muslims?


I don't know any mass murderers either. That doesn't mass murderers shouldn't be executed for their crimes.


SIR, HE WAS DRIVING...

WHILE MUSLIM
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#396 Apr 11 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
phil,

Quote:
Interesting that you'd have better intelligence than the US military


Interesting that you're supporting a military action that the US congress hasn't even voted on yet. The point was we went into Iraq to take Saddam out and give the country back to it's citizens. What's Obama's goal in Libya? If it's to take down the current regime he needs to stop cowering behind the UN and France (of all countries) and send in the troops to get the job done.
I take it you opposed Desert Storm as well? Smiley: lol

Obama has a 60 day window to take military action in Libya without approval from Congress. Totally not surprised that you'd selectively forget this fact.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#397 Apr 11 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
we're fighting against Khaddafi's forces, but have no intention apparently to actually defeat those forces. Which seems to me like a complete CF in waiting.
Yea, I just can't see how this is going to turn out well for you guys unless the rebels pull off a miracle on their own. Either you're in to remove him or you get out altogether.


And that's honestly my concern with this whole endeavor. I understand why Obama chose this course of action. It has the virtue of appearing to just provide humanitarian aid, while attempting to achieve an objective we'd like (toppling Khaddafi). The problem, as I stated several weeks ago, was that it came too late and missed the window when the rebels had momentum on their side. Now, the most likely result is to simple extend the warfare in that country with no clear victor emerging.


I don't think there's anyone who's honestly fooled into thinking this is really purely about humanitarian ends. It's a face saving excuse for taking action to remove Khaddafi and everyone knows it. Had it worked, that would have been fine and we'd be moving on. But it didn't work and now we're kinda "stuck" with a mission which has an official objective and methodology that isn't sufficient to achieve what everyone knows is the real objective. Which leaves us with basically three options:

1. We chuck the facade, go all in, and topple Khaddafi and deal with the consequences later.

2. We bail on Libya, let Khaddafi defeat the rebels and then attempt to apply humanitarian assistance after the fact to minimize reprisals.

3. We continue to maintain the no-fly zone and humanitarian aid/protection and hope things conclude somehow down the line.


None of those are good options. 1 and 2 could have been chosen a month ago and would have been more successful had we chosen them as a course of action from the start. The natural tendency to avoid a course of action which looks like a reversal makes these difficult choices, at best. Option 3 is just horrific since it still commits forces and material to the conflict but takes the outcome more or less completely out of our hands.


I suspect that what they'll try is option 1 while attempting to still paint it as just protecting civilians. Basically, slowly ramp up where/how you conduct air strikes so as to basically use them in more offensive ways, but continue to label them as protective strikes. I'm not sure how well that's going to go over, and it's certainly not going to fool much of anyone, but it's probably the best approach from a face saving perspective.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#398 Apr 11 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
bsphil wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
phil,

Quote:
Interesting that you'd have better intelligence than the US military


Interesting that you're supporting a military action that the US congress hasn't even voted on yet. The point was we went into Iraq to take Saddam out and give the country back to it's citizens. What's Obama's goal in Libya? If it's to take down the current regime he needs to stop cowering behind the UN and France (of all countries) and send in the troops to get the job done.
I take it you opposed Desert Storm as well?


The objective in Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control (and damage the Iraqi military enough to make renewed attacks unlikely in the short term). While lots of people wanted Saddam to be removed, that was never the actual objective of that operation.

Quote:
Obama has a 60 day window to take military action in Libya without approval from Congress. Totally not surprised that you'd selectively forget this fact.


He's really pushing the bounds of what kind of actions are allowable though. I suppose it does depend on how much you actually bought the "humanitarian" claims. Past presidents have been very very cautious about using that power and to make sure that congress approves of actions of this nature as soon as possible. Obama seems to be approaching this as a "I can do whatever I want for 60 days before the piper comes along and takes away my toys", which I'm pretty sure is not what most people think is a responsible use of executive authority in this area.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#399varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 9:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Let me break this down for Dems who like to hate on W.
#400 Apr 12 2011 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Let me break this down for Dems who like to hate on W.


Sept 11 2001 radical muslims based out of afghanistan attacked the US.

Sept 20 2001 W went to congress for approval to move militarily against afghanistan.

Oct 07 2001 Air attacks commenced.



What's is the current timelime for Obama's current actions in Lybia?



A stunningly complete analysis except for the fact that most people believe the Afghanistan war was justified, but the Iraq war was what most Democrats have a problem with. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#401varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 10:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 77 All times are in CDT
Aethien, klausneck, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (74)