RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Libya

Posted by: Perm Dude
- [5510572522] Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 21:02

The situation in Libya deserves another thread, I think.

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

But most interesting is that a lot of people who might otherwise go along with Gaddafi's brutal crackdowns are saying "no."
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
153Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 13:26
:: countdown to Baldwin providing a link to an irrelevant music video, video game review, or WND article about Wind Farms in China ::
154DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 13:55
Tree, you're going to need to provide a six hour window for that, otherwise it's too easy.
155Boldwin
      ID: 103311210
      Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 18:51
Well as I always say, politics is the art of the possible. I am positive Soros' Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa are figuring every possible angle by which they might prevail upon the international community to get UN aircover [as in Libya] to prevent Isreal from responding with airpower to Hamas rocket attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Klein,

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

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

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

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

You've become a committed propagandist.





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

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

Here's the real life events:

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

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


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

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

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

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










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

That Moussa may take that proposal to the UN?

That the UN would agree to it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly, this is a cause for concern.


And then you ask,

What is the comically invented fantasy?

That Moussa may take that proposal to the UN?


No, I said that was cause for concern.

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












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



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

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

Wow. Full scale slander. How conservative.

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



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

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


"Anyone seeing what is going on in Libya? "

um another western oil grab?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

You lose, with yet another effort of yours, to erroneously promote your self serving agenda of isolationsim. (and btw, not enough a good freudian slip with the 'gays' comment vs guys. The 'a' and 'u' keys just arent that close together on the keyboard.
201Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 19:26
They were hung for being gay. Chalk another one up to Jimmy Carter.
202sarge33rd
      ID: 339382016
      Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 19:30
That many gays there, they ran out of cranes? They were hung, for political purposes. Of course, todays GOP would appear to be interested in doing the same in this country.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: Libya

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days1411
Since Mar 1, 200747101010