North Korea declares war (again) on South KoreaFollow

You added in the part I scratched out. Ignoring them has worked well for years. Our Sec of State is prepared to negotiate. Should we just skip that?

Interesting development. North Korea may actually have nuclear launch capabilities but we may be ignoring the intelligence due to mistakes made in Iraq.

Woah woah woah. DIA didn't fuck up Iraq intel. Let's not lump all of the three letter agencies together, now. DIA got most things exactly right, except where they relied on CIA assets.

mistakes were made point

No, "mistakes" weren't made. A narrative was created and the analysts were pressured to find anything, no matter how tenuous, to support it at the expense of everything else. It was an intentional political calculation, there was no intelligence community failure. If I give you 1000 pictures of someone and one has flash red eye and you decide they're possessed by the devil, that's probably not the photographer's fault.

They do something to try and get attention, we try to ignore it.
They do something worse, we ask them to stop.
They do something even worse, we get mad and punish them.
We feel bad, apologize, and offer a reward for good behavior.
And repeat.

It's like a bad parent with a bratty kid or something.

Makes me wonder, though, how much of a pain they'll get. I mean if ignoring them makes them enough of a pain that it irritates China, the hope is to break the cycle somehow? I don't know, it seems like what we're wishing for sometimes. The US and China looking at each other like two tired parents and saying "it's your turn to deal with this."

Edited, Apr 12th 2013 10:00am by someproteinguy

So no mistakes were made except for the mistakes that were made. Braided line is ok, but I'm kind of partial to mono, makes tighter knots and tends to cast a bit further but if the bait is heavy enough both work well in most situations.

Only if you get caught.

Chamberlain ignored Hitler.

I don't see the connection though.

I blame his art teacher.

And? Republicans didn't make any formal moves to condemn the war in Iraq either. What's your point? I'm talking about the hypocrisy of those who did condemn the Iraq was as "illegal", who then failed to make the same condemnation with regard to Obama's actions in Libya. Since Republicans in the Senate didn't take any formal action with regards to the Iraq war being illegal, it's not hypocritical for them not also not to do in this case.



No. But that didn't stop many very vocal liberals from calling the Iraq war illegal. You are arguing that since the GOP didn't pass a resolution declaring Obama's actions in Libya illegal, no one on the right is allowed to point out that what he did violated the War Powers Act. But you have never made that same argument with regard to the Dems compared to liberals calling Bush's actions in Iraq illegal. That's a double standard on your part.



And you never argued that liberals who did view it as an illegal war have no grounds to do so because the Dems never passed a resolution declaring the Iraq war illegal. So why make that argument now when the only difference is the party involved?



And yet, you used precisely that as a criteria to dismiss criticism of Obama's actions regarding Libya.



It's really not about you though Joph. I'm not talking about some kind of hive mind. I'm talking about general trends. And people who align themselves on the left politically tends to be far far more likely to judge others actions based on their political orientation than on the action itself. Even as a relatively moderate liberal, what you did above is a perfect example of this. While you personally may disagree with the claim that Iraq was an illegal war, that position does not compel you to correct others on the left who claim that it was, while you wont hesitate to not just state your disagreement when it's with someone on the right, but make an argument that you'd never use if the situation was reversed.

I don't recall you ever correcting a poster on this forum back in the 2003-2006 time period claiming that Iraq was an illegal war, and you certainly never argued that they have no grounds to make that claim unless elected Democrats take some kind of formal action. You're holding left and right to a completely different standard, and I suspect you don't even realize you're doing it.




Yes. In so much as Obama's actions directly violated (ignored really) the War Powers Act. By definition what he did was illegal.



Of course. That does not translate into taking action though.



Because it would have been politically harmful to do so? Because it would have been misconstrued (deliberately) as partisan opposition to a war that the GOP agreed with, instead of an opposition to the means by which the war was authorized. And no amount of explaining it in crystal clear terms would have mattered. Hell Joph, I'm 99% sure you would have been one of the loudest voices on this forum condemning the GOP using exactly that "Why are they opposing this when they clearly think we should be helping topple Khadaffi?" argument. It's not like you haven't made the false partisan argument before.


Oh. And just to point out your inconsistency (again), I'll note that you have never asked those questions of someone on the left who claimed the Iraq war was illegal. Why not? I'll also point out that my point isn't about Obama and Libya. It's about highlighting how liberals behave very differently even to very similar actions, based on which party is involved. You're providing an excellent set of examples of this btw. Are you even aware that you do this?

Edited, Apr 12th 2013 4:45pm by gbaji

The use of military force in Libya was absolutely illegal. But see, the president is allowed to break the law. He can't be charged with any domestic crime. He can impeached by congress. That's it in terms of legal effects he's subject to. So it being illegal is more a matter of technicality. But guess what? Technically, Obama failed to comply with the War Powers Act, thus making his actions (not the war, but his actions in terms of how he authorized it) illegal. You know: In violation of the law?



I'm not looking for an apology. I'm pointing out that you hold one "side" to a more stringent standard than the other. I'm pointing out that this is a common theme for liberals in general, you included.



No one thought that impeachment was worth bothering with in this case. That doesn't mean that what Obama did wasn't in violation of the law as written. More importantly, and the point you seem to be working hard to avoid, all of those who made a huge deal about Bush's war being illegal were silent as hell when Obama did this. Which makes it clear that they aren't basing their positions and statements on what things *are* but on which side is doing that thing.

You're trying to stand above the fray here and claim that because you didn't join in calling the war in Iraq illegal you don't do this, but you didn't point out to those making that claim then that they were wrong, while you made a specific point of doing it when I made the claim about Obama and Libya. If you were treating everyone by the same standard, you'd have long ago (and many many times) used the same arguments you just used on me against your fellow liberals. But you never did. Hence why you provide an example of what I'm talking about.




Um... Yes. Why are you feigning surprise over this? You're not that ignorant of how politics works are you?



And you're the guy who aligns with the folks who gleefully attack conservative politicians who make the mistake of acting on principle instead of political reality. You know darn well what would have happened if the GOP had moved forward with impeachment over Libya. Hell. You'd have been the first to make fun of them on this forum. You play this game so often, it's a bit strange that you even bother to pretend you aren't aware of it Joph. You know darn well that your own "side" uses political rhetoric and "us vs them" appeals to condemn acts by the GOP, even when they are the right things to do, purely because those things *can* be cast in a negative light.

You did the same thing with regard to GOP choosing not to pursue action against Fanny and Freddie in the 2003/2005 time frame, even though they knew that they were creating this whole housing bubble thing. I'll give you the same response I did then: Which is better? To be on the side of the guys who wanted to do the right thing, but didn't because they knew they'd be viciously attacked by the other side for doing so? Or to be on the side of the guys who viciously attacked the guys trying to do the right thing?

Cause you're in the latter group. And what's bizarre is when you sit here and pretend that you aren't aware of this, and that we should instead blame the GOP for not setting itself up for being attacked by your "side". You're like the guy who sits on the sideline, cheering for the bully who beats people up and takes their lunch money, laughing at the people who get beat up, and then blaming people for not standing up to the bully because they were afraid that they'd get beat up and people like you would laugh at them instead of help them. I just find your whole line of reasoning strange. You can't possibly lack so much introspection that you're unaware of this, can you? I mean, you join in attacking conservatives all the time, but then you blame conservatives for not doing something because they didn't want to be attacked? That's... insane.

Edited, Apr 12th 2013 6:51pm by gbaji

Can you cite an example of this, just so I know which ball park you're currently in?

And for the rest, it'd be much more interesting to see a sitting President impeached for illegal (or "illegal") military activity than, say, a ********.