aceventura3

Right, it's my problem that I think Obama has acted in a manner that lacks clarity. All is well, please ignore my ramblings.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

samcol

The hypocrisy is getting absurd, and to see people defending this is sickening.

To see liberals supporting this war is astounding to me. I guess war is good as long as your guy's in power.

The only thing I can think of is that the left enjoys this for the simple fact that it breaks US law while following the UN's orders. I know they are fans of big government and the UN. The United States laws are old an archaic and should be ignored apparently.

My avatar feels more accurate every new day with the Obama administration. He's the joker because he was anti-war yet we are still in Iraqistan and now he began a war with Libya. He's fascists for not letting congress make the decision.

Biden says impeach, can't say I disagree.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

aceventura3

Not only that but worse we have people here making irrelevant racially charged comments "...ace shuck and jive..." in response to sincere and honest points of view and questions. They seem to be willing to do anything as a diversionary tactic. I only hope the one who made reference to "shucking and jiving" was unaware of the history and how offensive it is. They really need to take a pause and think about their positions and what they say.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

It is interesting that in the recent Gallup poll on the issue, more Republicans support Obama's actions in Libya (57-31) that Democrats (51-34)

Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%

It is even more interesting that you give credit to conservatives for "the ability to process current and new information in order to make decisions in the context of what is in the nation's best interest.." but criticize Obama for doing the same thing and being deliberative and measured in the US response rather than simply charging ahead w/o regard to the best interests of the US.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

I suspect the the liberal or Democratic support is limited.

Dont confuse support for a no-fly zone with support for a war. I suspect many Democrats, like myself, support the limited actions to date and even a continued, preferably lesser, role of the US in maintaining the no-fly zone; I wouldnt support further US intervention with ground troops.

As to the hypocrisy, the only members of Congress who can claim that are probably Kucinich and Paul.

sam...you've been consistent.

ace...not so much. Your double standards are appallingly transparent.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

ace, dear, i am fully aware of the genealogy of that statement. i dont regard it as particularly loaded racially, though it is a term that originates with african-american slang of the 60s and 70s. it refers to a lack of integrity, a willingness to dance around, to try first this then that, to bob and weave. the way you argue here is nothing but that. it is not a great concern to me if it offensive. i certainly only use it because it captures your m.o. so well. if it bugs you really, change your m.o.

for the record, my positions is pretty close to what dc outlines above. i'm ok with the action as it currently is unfolding...with ambivalences. i assume that congress is being consulted now about things in case the us does find itself hoovered into ground actions...which i wouldn't support. it's not at all a matter of rah rah obama...it really is a matter of supporting the air action because it stopped a massacre.

and i'm saddened by the new fighting in gaza. note that there's nary a word about the use of military technologies on civilians/loosely organized/barely not amateurs.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Me three. I am absolutely, 100%, totally and completely against the United States going to war with Libya. I'm against us invading, I'm against us overthrowing a government, I'm against us nation-building. I'm hesitantly okay with supporting the no-fly zone with full UN backing. That's it.

dc_dux

Today, NATO dispatched war ships off the coast of Libya to enforce an arms embargo.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-3BC3A...news_71726.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20046160.shtml

What makes it significant is the fact that while the US is participating, it is not taking the lead and that Turkey, the only Muslim member of NATO is participating as well.

IMO, any action that can potentially limit the expansion of Kaddaffi's attacks against his own people and, at the same time, not be perceived by other Arab nations as US intervention, is a positive action.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

LOL and I'm called a racist. Never in ANY way shape or form have I ever said anything like that here, publicly or in private. Then for the same person to say this:


All I can say is wow, the hypocrisies abound here. "I don't believe in guns, I'm a pacifist" "Bush was an evil war mongering ass" "I'm ok with bombing and if ground forces have to go in.... I may have to disagree."

Way to take stands for your beliefs..... wow. At least people know where I stand and I back it up maybe not as poetically as some or as well versed but, ya know..... I'm just a low educated white boy from Ohio, who has done nothing but serve in the US Navy (as I watch benefits we were promised cut mercilessly, while in the past few days we've spent how many MILLIONS bombing a country? Already fighting one war, we don't seem to want to truly end. Guys in OUR US uniforms DYING in a very covered up war. There's no Bush to blame for the covering of Afghanistan..... so who is responsible for basically leaving our men there with a pud in their hand and starting a new war? My son's 1/2 brother deploys soon and there is no plan or even a sign of pullout. Where's Obama even talking about it? Why are not people outraged when these brave men come home only to find their benefits cut and VA hospitals filled with over RX'd painkillered vets????????

And you are going to sit there and be AMBIVELENT????????? and assume Congress is being informed????????? the same Congress that votes to cut Vet spending and increases in Social Security??????? LOL.... let me have some of what is in your pipe.

As a vet, I should have been eligible for benefits when I had the brain infection....... but nope, I was left to fill out paperwork and have my credit blown to pieces.

Sorry to threadjack, but once I started typing the blood started boiling. Hypocrisy pisses me off more than anything. Stand up for your beliefs or show how weak you truly are.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

pan...feel free to question my beliefs. I have no problem with that and I wont whine and moan that I am being attacked.

I will say that unlike you an ace, I dont see complex issues in simplistic black and white terms and I try to base my opinions on facts not emotion or ideology.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

I don't whine or moan when attacked. But I had the same guy starting on me every freaking post. And for the past how many years been called a racist because I spoke out about Obama (who, I will say has done a most passable job possible given the circumstances he has inherited). I am still not drinking his Kool Aid, but given how the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot and showing their true colors, I would probably vote to re elect him, Hell may even join his campaign next year depending on who is running.

I stand my ground and vote for the person I believe to be best for the job. That's why in 2000 I voted for Nader.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

I'm not going there...its pointless.

But I stand by what I said about letting your emotions rule...very utopian when it comes to suggesting that lives are at risk in Libya and we should prevent it at all costs...disregarding the fact the people of Libya do not want the US to fight their war for them on the streets of Tripoli or Misrati or that their are huge negative implications with a greater US role.

I dont like the fact that the air strikes to establish the no-fly zones have lead to civililan deaths. An even more forceful or aggresive US presence would result in even more deaths and more anti-US propaganda. Is that really what you want?

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

IF you believe that the US should be doing more than what we have done to-date in a measured way -- from freezing assets to working for a UN mandate, then leading the establishment of a no-fly zone with the suggestion that the US lead would be temporary, and lately, taking a back seat on an arms embargo -- then we simply disagree.

I dont want the US taking a larger role, under any circumstances.

If you think its hypocritical, that's fine too. I think my position is based on sound policy considerations.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

pan---your post doesn't make sense.

i'm sorry you were screwed over by the va. i really am.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I recall writing that conservatives, liberals and middle of the road people all have legitimate reasons for being against American military action, and the opposite is true.


My criticism of Obama on this issue has been specific. We disagree if your position is that Obama has been deliberate and measured. It is becoming clearer to me that Obama acted in a naive manner. It seems he was "suckered" into a - you go first - trick. The only reason we should - go first - if it is because we are committed to going all the way. it does not appear that we are. And like I wrote previously, if we have given false hope to people risking their lives, shame on us.

The reason I have no respect for Obama is perfectly illustrated in the manner in which he is handling the Libyan conflict and you have to agree that it is different than the way Bush handled Iraq. I respected the way Bush handled Iraq, hence there is no double standard on this point. Outside of my comments on how Obama has handled this matter, you don't know how I feel about the underlying issue, your conclusion is based on your assumptions. You have been intellectually lazy, you can do better.

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Then you are unaware.

This was well put.

What is shuck n jive? - Yahoo! Answers

However, to Black people it is worse, and conotes these kind of images:


The above is simply FYI. I point it out because in my mind it illustrates that often in your smugness what you present here is not thought through. Either you intended your personal attack to be racial or you were ignorant of the connotation.

Even during Obama's campaign this came up as a controversial issue, that got alot of news coverage:

Hillary Supporter Cuomo: Obama Tried To "Shuck And Jive" With Media

To anyone who has read the exchanges between me and roach in this thread,

Tell me what you think. Tell me if I should change and if so what.

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

And it actually worse. It is beyond my comprehension how Biden and Reid got a pass for saying stuff about how Obama is o.k. because he is one of those clean blacks or a black who doesn't use a "negro" dialect. Then if a person has a legitimate problem with an Obama policy they are among the first to use the race card. People not knowing I am black, have even called me racist because I have no respect for Obama - and I am blacker than he is - both my parents are black.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

Pan, I understood your post and it does make sense. I also recall at least one series of post where you were being deemed racist. I did not agree. Some here seem to have short memories.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

Wait a minute...Ace, you are black? I'm just surprised after all of these years of interacting that it never came up before this. It doesn't make a difference to me other than it is intriguing as to your political upbringing. One has to admit that black conservatives are a rarity.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

ace.

i suppose you could dress up the term in order to twist it around to mean thing that it typically doesn't.

but hey, you imagine there's some cheap point to be scored here.
and you're trying to do it in a way that simply confirms---again---the reason i used to term in the first place.

from the same urban dictionary defintion you bit above (google is easy):

It has been adopted into non-Afroamerican speech, with a reference to behavior adopted in order to avoid criticism.


you know full well that is the accepted meaning of the term and has been for quite a long time.

cheap shit, ace.

keep at it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

It came up before - it is an interesting dynamic.

I was raised in a blue collar community my father and most other men were union members, and Democrats. I was a Democrat through college, but started to change my views. A key turning point was when I studied Miton Friedman and his book Free to Choose. When I started working in the corporate world I became Republican, after starting my own business I became Libertarian and then because of my concerns about national defense I returned to the Republican Party and actively supported Bush.

What is interesting is that consistently 90% of Black voter vote for Democrats - but when you discuss issue by issue with them they tend to be more conservative than liberal.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Right. In your mind what I shared has no validity. In your mind I am simply trying to deceive you. In your mind I am just playing games for the sake of playing games. Etc. Etc. Etc. I got that. Again, what I ask you to do is ignore me and my posts. On this issue, do your own homework unless you have already come to the conclusion that you know everything that needs to be known on the issue.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

let me know if there comes a point at which conservative whining about their own victimization gets boring even for them and the topic of the thread can be resumed.

thanks.



o what the hell.

this is an interesting viewpoint. the excerpt in english, from the guardian blog:

the original exchange from le monde (in french):

http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/chat/201...ens_id=1481986

among the other points goya makes is:

---it would be a good thing were some of gadhafi's armor to defect to the rebels rather than merely getting incinerated in open ground because the rebels are hopelessly under armed.

--there is activity off the radar directed at helping the rebels become a coherent force militarily, but that will require time.

--so the objective is as stated above, to force a stop in the combat by continuing to incinerate people with the idea of negociations because

--gadhafi's capacity to react has been underestimated to this point.

the last claim surprises me a little---i wasn't aware of any scenarios as to the effect of the aerial attacks.
certainly nothing on the order of the wolfowitz clown-time scenario that made it plausible for the gullible to see iraq as a short action.

it's obviously difficult (and the interview says as much) to use air power on troops that are close-in to civilian targets....so there are obviously limits to the current mode of operation.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

You took this off topic with your irrelevant, non-specific, out of context personal attack. You are incapable of a rational exchange with me, hence I suggest that you forever and always ignore my posts. Each time I initiate a direct response to one of your posts it is specific and in the context of the thread. That is the difference between what you do and what I do, get a clue. I truly wish someone you respected would have the courage to give objective feedback.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace, look....the most interesting thing you've written here in my memory anyway was your response to cimmaron above. you dropped the aceventura mask and just wrote stuff based on whomever you are behind the ace-mask.

as ace, you have a problem. you can't handle discussion. you prefer monologue, really. but for you, "rational" discussion means a discussion in which your starting points are accepted.

and behind roachboy, i see argument as a game. if you hand me weak premises, i'll go after them. i don't have a lot of time. i don't have the patience to deal with shitty argument.

the way i see it, you don't know the rules of argument but you play anyway and act as though it's everyone's fault---my fault---that you don't. but maybe it isn't.


**now** are we done with this?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I don't find comparisons of the Iraq War to the no-fly zone in Libya very useful.

The Saddam Hussein regime was viewed as a potential threat to American interests. The lead-up to the Iraq war consisted of fabrications and propaganda. Invading Iraq was arguably a unilateral decision. The purpose for invasion was regime change.

The Libya situation is not a unilateral invasion built on propaganda for the purpose of regime change in response to a potential threat to those outside of the country: it's a U.N.-sanctioned, multi-state, military intervention based on actual circumstances; namely, the state-sanctioned attack upon civilian populations in civilian areas within Libya. The purpose for military intervention in Libya is to stop a massacre.

So yeah, I don't find the comparison of what Bush did with Iraq very useful when looking to Obama regarding Libya. I don't even know why anyone would want to go there. Obama is more justified in his decision to comply with the U.N. resolution than is Bush in his decision to...do what he said or he thought or we implied he was aiming to do in Iraq. It's a ludicrous comparison.

The only thing I can see as being a comparison worth noting is the angle with regard to Congress and whether they needed to go to a vote to comply with the Security Council resolution. Is a vote necessary in this case?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cimarron29414

ace,

Thank you, sincerely, for sharing that with me (us). That really goes a long way towards understanding you and your positions.

Also, I agree with you entirely regarding black voting trends, and their actual beliefs. I have the pleasure of living and working with a wide variety of races. Of my many black friends and colleagues, I have seen exactly this. The most striking positions are social issues, where blacks tend to be far more conservative than me...well, that's not a good comparison since I'm pretty liberal on social issues. My neighbor across the street is one of the most conservative men I know. He's black and he votes straight ticket democrat EVERY election. It's a strange phenomenon which I would love to start a thread on, but won't for fear of being called a racist.
/ threadjack

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

Your views on an "ace-mask" is irrelevant. You should be able to respond to a post based on the contents not on the individual. Every time you start a posting addressed to me you go down the wrong path, in the future you can stop if you ever get the urge to address your comments to me as an individual - otherwise your post is pointless. Anyone who reads this thread can easily see where and when it went south. Rather than responding to direct questions or to direct rebuttals to your comments, you have the need to go off on tangents related to who you think I really am and what you think I really believe. Your level of arrogance in this regard is truly amazing.


Yes, I have problems.

Discussions are like my hobby in life, I handle them well. I even start discussions with strangers in grocery stores, which is met with mockery here - but gives me an insight that it is clear many don't have.

My initial posts often include a simply stated personal point of view. I read what others write and I ask questions. When people ask me questions, I answer them. If you think that is a monologue, you are mistaken. I suggest you take an honest personal assessment in this regard.

My starting point in this thread was that Obama's actions and words lack clarity. I explained why I hold that view, some disagree - I go on. I either add further clarification to my view point or I ask questions of others. Once it runs its course I drop it. I can do this all day long and not have problems with people.

On the issue of Obama lacking clarity, I am not the only one who holds that view. So, in your quest to go after me, you should simply focus on the premise - which you fail to do in any specific or in a rational manner. Your style is that of a playground bully. When it comes to me, I won't back down under any circumstance.

If by this you mean that I don't bend over and play by your rules, you are 100% correct.
When something is my fault I admit it, apologize and move on. When something is not my fault, I don't walk away from it, ever.


You control what you do, I control what I do. I am not done.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

I don't get the "unilateral invasion" point regarding Iraq because it is not true. In fact to me it seem that your country wanted it both ways, and it has never been made clear to me if and how you folks to the North think bush acted unilaterally. Or, are we simply talking WIIFM

Canada Quietly Supported U.S. Iraq Invasion - The NewStandard

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

ace, over 30 countries were a part of the multinational force that took part in the Iraq War. How many of these countries did the U.S. get authorization from to invade Iraq? What resolution did they draft up and sign?

Now you're comparing Canada's minor role of providing surveillance and communications, shipping security, military planning, and limited airspace (some of which may or may not be directly attributed to support of the Iraq War) to the roles played by these 30+ nations who actually went into Iraq at the time (and those who still remain). This is confusing because I don't know what it has to do with comparing the Iraq War to the Libya no-fly zone. Are you suggesting that even Canada was at fault for not operating under a U.N resolution? Well, fine. I think I would agree with that because we should have done so rather than support a unilateral military operation of one of our allies. This is why the Canadian bombing runs conducted in Libya are more legitimate than what Canadian military personnel may or may not have done in Iraq or regarding Iraq.

But let's stay on topic. We can debate the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq in another thread. The issue remains the same: comparing the invasion of Iraq to the no-fly zone in Libya isn't very helpful unless you want to use it, in part, as a justification for the U.N. resolution.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

There was no UN resolution. However, the implication of a unilateral invasion to me suggests that the US without any prior knowledge of any other nation arbitrarily invaded Iraq. As I recall United Kingdom troops were actively involved in the invasion planning and involved in military action from day 1. I also recall Canada being made aware that military action was going to occur and that the US received the "blessing" of the Canadian Prime Minister even though Canada would not officially declare war without a UN resolution.

The US debated the issue publicly in Congress, authorization was approved for all the world to see. In addition behind the scenes the US had the support of over 30 nations going into the invasion.

BBC NEWS | Americas | US names 'coalition of the willing'

I was not comparing, I was pointing out something I don't understand. Canada's role could have been to take a stand against a unilateral invasion. the stance could have been to insist that the US get a UN resolution. Canada could have stood with some who condemned the US and Bush for the invasion. They did not. They were aware of the invasion before it occurred, they endorsed it in a passive manner, they participated, and they wanted credit for their participation.

I don't get it.

You would need to read the entire thread to understand why the issue of Iraq came up in this context. At some point I was told I held a double standard. I do not.

In my view UN resolutions are virtually worthless. Fault is not a word I would use in this context.

My position in this thread has been repeated several times in several ways - Obama's actions and words regarding Libya lack clarity. There are historical political and military actions that support my point, including the invasion of Iraq.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

I re-read Bush's speech to the UN months prior to the invasion. I can not see how the US taking military action surprised anyone.

Text Of Bush Iraq Speech To U.N. - CBS News

I think there is even a legal principle that may apply regarding the invasion of - constructive knowledge. So, to say the US acted unilaterally seems to be weak at best but actually simply not true.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Okay, so your comments on Canada are irrelevant. Let's set those aside.

Who's in charge of the war in Iraq? Has this responsibility changed in the past? Will this responsibility change in the future? I didn't say the U.S. decided to "go it alone." I said it was a unilateral decision. It's called the "coalition of the willing": as in "who's with us?" If no one were willing, would you say that the U.S. would have waited for support?

The Iraq War is America's war. Are you going to suggest that the approaches to the invasion in Iraq are remotely similar to what happened in Libya?

Even if we set aside whether Iraq was a unilateral decision—as we appear to disagree as to what that means (let alone disagree whether it's true)—the comparison still doesn't hold up. It's confusing.

How are they similar?

Also, if Obama's actions and words regarding Libya lack clarity, why don't you discuss them? You always tend to do this. You say Obama lacks clarity. You make it seem like he lacks so much clarity that you can't even decipher his signals. Are they in an unearthly language? Why don't you discuss them? Does he lack clarity or do you just disagree with him? You've said this a lot about Obama. Have you read anything editorially in the media about Obama's lack of clarity if it's such a problem? Is he going to go down in history known as the Nebulous President?

Do you really not get the U.N. resolution in Libya, or do you just not agree with it?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Charlatan

Thanks for writing that B_G so I don't have to.

There is no comparison between Iraq and Libya. A better comparison would be the Clinton administration's actions during the War in Kosovo.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Just want to say one thing about this...... for getting back on subject.

Which makes me sad that I have to put this input in. Since I was writing it and then saw your post.

I find it odd that some (NOT ALL) of the more left leaning group here tend to complain about those they disagree with as feeling "attacked and not knowing how to play the game". To me, personally, my beliefs and convictions are not a "game" that is why I will defend my beliefs so vapidly. I believe you who believe "it is a game" are the weak ones in that you argue and make believe that people are stating they are attacked when in actuality that is the only way you feel you can "win your game" and not have to answer legit questions posed. YOU are the ones that refuse legitimate debates and when tested you start talking about how the "others do nothing but whine"....lol as you said get a clue.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Hotmnkyluv

Not for nothing but defending your beliefs vapidly would make for pretty boring reading.

Vapid : Dull, lifeless, without excitement

dc_dux

I had the same thought about the no-fly zone over Bosnia....it was a NATO operation, not a unilateral action by the US.

Only this time the US and NATO allies didnt wait for the slaughter of civilians to reach such a level of atrocity.

I dont think Clinton got Congressional approval for participating in the initial action, he acted on the UN mandate, but I might be wrong. As a matter of fact, I dont think Reagan got Congressional approval for invading Granada, nor GHW Bush for invading Panama.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

pan6467

Well given my life that word would pretty much describe it.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

this is interesting.

this is obviously a swirl of rumors and the downside of the rise of twitter (for example) as an information source is that it's more difficult than ever to sort rumor from fact or rumor from rumor. nonetheless, it is interesting and maybe hopeful---if true---that there are feelers being put out about a way to climb down by people around gadhafi. that would certainly supply a coherent endgame.

it's also interesting that the oau is starting to act in concert with the action against gadhafi's regime. they hadn't been willing to endorse it exactly to this point. i read somewhere that representatives of both gadhafi and the benghazi government will all attend the oau summit this weekend which is gearing itself up as a space for negociations.

things keep moving, which is good. obviously it's too early to say anything about outcomes.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I disagree. In the context of discussing what is and what is not unilateral action I think when there is passive support and cooperation, as was the case with Canada, the argument comparing how Obama put together a coalition and Bush did not begins to fall apart.

It was not. The US was not able to get security council approval for military action, but there were countries other than the US that supported military action against Iraq.

The US did wait for support, they just did not wait for the support required for a UN resolution, some countries have veto authority - the US was not able to over come that. I believe there was about 6 months between Bush's speech to the UN and when the US invaded Iraq. On a side note the argument that Bush rushed into war has no real merit either.

They are different. My issue has more to do with leadership.

I don't know how you define the concept. I tried to explain how I see it.

Again my issue is with the differences in leadership. They are different. This line of post has to do with double standards and hypocrisy. I never made the charge that anyone was a hypocrite or held a double standard.

I try to discuss the primary issue. If you have read this thread you would see where it goes off point.

I am not the only on who is confused by Obama. Today, I read an article written by Peggy Noonan, a person I respect, we see the issue of Obama's leadership the same way.

The Speech Obama Hasn't Given - WSJ.com


I understand it. It fails to address some very important questions. I fear it will prolong the civil war and in the end I fear that the rebels will be left hanging out to dry.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

1. again, ace, "leadership" for you has to do with the type of sentences in used in the marketing of war. "leadership" is a matter of short punchy statements that reassure people like yourself because they enable you to eliminate complexity when you imagine the war fantasy of your choice. it has no relation whatsoever to actual strategy in the actual conflict.

recall that the bush administration's "strategy" for iraq really was the farce called the "wolfowitz doctrine" at the time---grateful natives lining the streets to welcome their heroic liberators---and now we're 8 years on during a fiasco of a war the stench of which can easily be judged by looking at sources like the iraqi oil report and reading about the state of basic service delivery---you know, stuff like electricity---or reading almost any actual information about the empirical situation in actually existing iraq and not relying on simple sentences and assuming that the therapeutic effect those simple sentences have on you reflects anything beyond the state of affairs that obtains in your skull.


so you may have had "leadership" on tv but you certainly didn't have it on the ground.

i'd prefer it on the ground.
tv is for chumps.


2. that the operation in libya is open-ended at this point in a disconcerting way is given.
anyone who looks at what's going on comes to the same conclusion.
why do you imagine the operation is happening?
well, in reality---you know, that shifting complicated place---it was triggered by gadhafi's decision to attempt to crush the revolt against his regime militarily.
it was pressurized by the progress he was able to make and the speed with which he was able to make it.
if you remember, tanks were outside of benghazi when the operation finally got under way.

if you remember, the united states did not support the action until the end of the week. the security council resolution was cobbled together quickly and passed last friday. by saturday night the bombing started.

it's no surprise that things are not as clear as one might prefer.

it's also no surprise that the statements about what's happening, what the operation is, what it's military goals are and what are their relation(s) to the political goals (not the same) are not as clear as one would like.

but i would prefer that the war marketing be closer to the real than you and peggynoonan apparently do. you want to be lied to. i don't.

again---i support this phase of the action with ambivalences. i do not support the idea of ground involvement.

and to head off the usual projection, i am not a real fan of the obama administration. way too centrist/conservative for me.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

Leadership, particularly as it relates to US relations with Arab nations, is not one size fits all, or as the Bush crowd would suggest, respond in the same (consistent?) manner with a standard boxed solutionl, regardless of any unique circumstances in those nations.

In effect, the Bush/neo-con approach was to show how tough and threatening the US can be.

What does that often accomplish? Inflaming anti-Americanism and giving dictators in the region the rationale to claim that any popular uprising is a US plot or a front for US action.

Leadership is not speaking with the loudest, most aggressive voice, particularly when it applies to US relations with other cultures.

IMO, one sign of leadership was when Obama went to Egypt early his administration and told the Egyptian people that we are not their enemy (despite the non-step anti-Muslim rhetoric that continues to exist on the US right), but that they, the Egyptian, people must also acknowledge that some among their religion are the enemy.

What ace fails to recognize is that recent circumstances in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, etc are not the same. One does not need to stand in front of the international media (and the American people) and proclaim that the US will lead an effort to overthrow a tyrant....but one can take actions behind the scenes (freezing assets, working in the background towards a UN mandate, with France in the lead, quietly encouraging other Arab nations to participate) to further that common goal with the people of those nations.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

No, I think your problem is that you only see one solution, a simple, ideological solution, to complex and evolving issues in the Arab world. You see quietly working behind the scenes until a situation evolves to a point where a greater presence may be productive as lacking clarity or leadership. I see it as effective, deliberative leadership, making decisions without the ego that has to publicly proclaim "I am the decider" in order to project a macho image.

Just my opinion.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Leadership requires the ability to communicate how and why collective goals and objectives are aligned with individual goals and objectives. If this is what you consider marketing. I agree that leaders need to be able to market their cause and in this case war. The type of statements that appeal to me are going to be different than the types of statements that appeal to you. It is clear that Bush presented his argument in terms I understood but he failed to present his argument in terms that many others could understand. I agree with Noonan, no matter what statements work for ceertain individuals, there is a speech that has not been given. There are questions that have not been answered.

In my study of history no effective leader ever succeeded in making the simple complex or not being able to communicate complex matters in simple terms. In my mind the highest level of intellect involves the ability to simplify the complex. to me the greatest speech ever given was the Gettysburg Address. If there is a problem in the way that speech appeals to me, so be it.

The "dancing in the streets" thing was empty rhetoric in my opinion. What was not empty to me was when Bush said the war would be difficult. Many including me, had mixed feelings about the occupation after removing Saddam. Eventually I agreed with Powell's assessment of "you broke it you fix it" approach. Regarding Lybia I still have mixed feeling on the point of "you break it, you fix it" - are we going to be there until the end? Should we be there to the end? At what cost? Etc. Etc. Again, I asked what have we learned?

The occupation strategy was developed after removing Saddam. I agree we should have had a better occupation plan.


After a strategy was developed, your point assumes war is static and predictable. It is not. The enemy responds to a strategy, that requires adjustment, and it is on going. To say there was no strategy is simply wrong. We can argue that the strategy was wrong, inadequate, etc., but there clearly was and is a strategy.

Again, I am not clear on your assessment of Iraq today. If you think Iraq is a failure, I understand your position. If it is not a failure, are you suggesting that it was simply chance that got us to this point?


This is the point where we go off point.

You suggest to know what I care about. This illustrates a level of arrogance that is absurd. For you to pretend to know what I care about is irrational. Try again.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

i meant the remark about libya as a comment on the direction your posts have taken, which is not about libya but about the kinds of statements the obama administration's talking heads and/or pentagon have generated about libya. so judging from the tack you take, libya is just another pretext for being critical of the administration. which i don't care about particularly---i'm critical of a lot of things about the administration as well, though not on the same grounds as you---but let's not pretend that the discussion is about libya. your "leadership" critiques are about communications strategy. i'm more interested in what's happening in the actual libyan theater.


btw apparently the syrian army has committed a massacre of their own:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...817688433.html

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Who suggested this? Be specific.

I am the one who raised the question, what have we learned from Iraq as it may apply to Libya. This includes my concerns for prolonging a civil war and then abandoning those we support.

I would love to see objective data that could support your point of view. Otherwise, you have your opinion others have theirs.

On what basis have you arrived at this conclusion. There is no basis. You simply made it up. Why?

Are we at war? That question is not even been clearly answered by the administration. How does Obama, or you define war? Is the goal now to overthrow a tyrant? Is a no fly zone gonna do that? Please don't get me started with all the questions...

No you are trying to tell me what I think. I still have not given my personal view on Lybia. I have only shared my opinion regarding how Obama has handled the matter.

For the record, I know there are multiple ways to accomplish an objective. In fact, if you read this thread, you would know about my surprise that Obama was so fast to start dropping bombs rather than use other means, if his objective is to remove Kadafi, including communicating to the rebels to exercise patience rather than the initiation of a civil war that they could not win without outside help.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Much of the issue here is that the Libyan situation doesn't have a heck of a lot of precedent. It's based on a U.N. resolution that aims to intervene in a sovereign nation to prevent the wholesale loss of lives among a civilian population. You can point to the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and also the 1995 intervention in Bosnia. Both of these interventions followed massacre/ethnic cleansing.

Thousands have already died in Libya as a result of the uprising. And we know what can happen when intervention fails or is passed over: Rwandan genocide - 800,000 people dead.

This kind of intervention is going to have wildcards. You can't plan as though it's an invasion with the intention of occupation. That's not what the goal is in Libya. The goal is to stop a dictator from killing his own people.

I think it's a bit early to be criticizing leadership. A major part of evaluating leadership is measuring results, isn't it?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

One of my very first posts in this thread, and the points have been repeated several times, was about the tragedy in outsiders prolonging civil wars. In addition, I talked about the tragedy of providing rebels false hope. The Libyan rebels can not defeat Kadfi, and if he is not removed they will be killed one way or another. A no fly zone is a joke in the context of saving lives. More is going to be needed. If you have read my posts you would know this. I think you have read them but insist on trying to take these discussion in the gutter for some reason.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

I think there are many lessons from history that can be used in the Libyan conflict. Civil wars, rebellions are not new.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

"leadership" is the stuff of management literature.

it's not useful as a category for historical or social analysis. it's prescriptive---it's about elaborating norms to guide the captains of industry in their efforts to appear in control.

from any sociological viewpoint, that control is limited to specific registers and says nothing at all about anything that makes any given firm actually operate---"leadership" is theater, not analysis. you won't understand the organization of production by looking at "leadership". you won't understand capital flows by looking at "leadership." you won't understand anything at all about the material operation of a firm by looking at it.

what you will understand is image management. and that's an aspect of the operation of firms---but a limited one. you have to do some editing to conflate that register with the whole.
and it's not even a metonym---a part that can coherently stand in for the whole.
it's just a register of activity.

if it is the case---and it is----that looking to "leadership" in the case of a firm only tells you about normative assumptions that obtain within a particular register of that firm's operations and nothing whatever about 98% (metaphorically speaking) of the material realities and their organization that constitute what a firm actually **is** sociologically....then why on earth would you rely on that framework to talk about something as diffuse and complex as a military action?


nb: if you read my posts, you'd also know that i think every last one of your assumptions about what's happening in libya is wrong empirically. i've provided information both in this thread and others to that effect.

what you're arguing, in effect, is that the massacre should have been allowed to continue.

i think that's obscene.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite