# Oh wow, surprise surprise! :rolleyes:



## Ringel05 (Nov 2, 2011)

*Libyan war over, but fighting continues among regional militias *

Like no one guessed the would happen...... 

Libyan war over, but fighting continues among regional militias - CNN.com


----------



## High_Gravity (Nov 2, 2011)

Hopefully this doesn't get too bad, this can spiral into a civil war once NATO pulls out.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 2, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Hopefully this doesn't get too bad, this can spiral into a civil war once NATO pulls out.



I'd be surprised if it didn't.


----------



## High_Gravity (Nov 2, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully this doesn't get too bad, this can spiral into a civil war once NATO pulls out.
> ...



The potential is there, hopefully with enougn international interest and help it won't go too far, Libya has too much to offer go to the way of Afghanistan in the 80's.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 15, 2011)

Yup, just as I suspected.
*
Libyan factions in deadly clashes near Zawiya*

BBC News - Libyan factions in deadly clashes near Zawiya


----------



## BDBoop (Nov 15, 2011)

One thing I can't help wondering; why is America policing the rest of the world? I mean - they erupt in civil war. Is that our problem?


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 15, 2011)

We facilitate the dispatch of tyrannical, repressive, brutal regimes and they're replaced by tyrannical, repressive, brutal factions.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 15, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully this doesn't get too bad, this can spiral into a civil war once NATO pulls out.
> ...



don't worry, nato will keep the oil ports  secure


----------



## Trajan (Nov 15, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> One thing I can't help wondering; why is America policing the rest of the world? I mean - they erupt in civil war. Is that our problem?



why was it our problem back in Feb.?


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 15, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> One thing I can't help wondering; why is America policing the rest of the world? I mean - they erupt in civil war. Is that our problem?



Have you ever heard the term 'global economy'?  Are you aware of everything that means?


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 15, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I can't help wondering; why is America policing the rest of the world? I mean - they erupt in civil war. Is that our problem?
> ...



yes it means trade and commerce not warfare.


----------



## BDBoop (Nov 15, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I can't help wondering; why is America policing the rest of the world? I mean - they erupt in civil war. Is that our problem?
> ...



Yes. Thanks for asking.

However, war is in a great many places all over the globe. Why do we pick and choose to whom we lend aid.


----------



## westwall (Nov 15, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...






For money honey.   Below is an excerpt from Smedley Butlers retirement address.  He rose from an enlisted man to the Commandant of the Marine Corps earning two Medals of Honor.


War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



It's a part that you're describing, not the overall big picture.  Question, who do you want controlling the worlds resources?  The US and its (real) allies or those who would make us a third world country or not a country at all?


----------



## alexa (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




I want the 99% to be controlling their own resources and coming together to defeat the 1% warmongering greedy imperialists and their lackeys.

How neoliberalism created an age of activism - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

I see the West acting now like we went to war to stop Germany.  I am totally shocked that morality has sunk to such a low that someone feels unashamed to admit their desire for their country to own the world.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 16, 2011)

alexa said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Obviously you don't get it.  You're not seeing the bigger picture.  It doesn't surprise me.


----------



## BDBoop (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel, you're not helping any. You see it differently, so please take the time to explain how/why.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...






I've become an isolationist over time to be honest with you.  The US is one of two countries on the planet that has the natural resources neccessary to seal ourselves off from the rest of the world and ignore it.  Let them go to hell on their own and we would do fine.

We then could invest in our infrastructure and focus on our technological endeavors and we would quite simply leave the rest of the globe in our dust.  Get a usable space program going and get mankind off of this rock.

Absent that fantasy.  I feel that there are two sayings that describe my way to conduct international affairs.  The first is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".  The second is "peace through superior firepower".  In other words, I will never initiate an attack on a foreign power.  But, if they do, I will end them.  The end result is they will be dead and I would own their country outright.

I've been all over the planet working in the geologic field and too many of our boys are being killed simply to pad the wallets of the corporate and political leaders of the world.
If one of our boys or girls gives the ultimate I want them to KNOW that it was for a good cause and not so some prick could make a few more bucks.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



To a degree yes but there will always be those who take advantage of situations.  The world is much more Machiavellian then that and in the cold light of fact we're all just pawns, coins to be used in a never ending power struggle between the _perceived_ forces of good and evil with all side perceiving themselves as the good, fighting for (mostly political) ideological control of the world.  Unfortunately to many don't understand that or want to believe it.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...






Very, very true.  That's why I've turned isolationist.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That's the fastest way to get plowed under and or get left in the dust.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 16, 2011)

A power vacuum is always filled in one way or another...and almost always through a ton of bloodshed. 
Libya is no different than most countries in the M.E. - chaos and violence _with_ the dictators - chaos and violence _without_ them.

 this is why the M.E. should have never been allowed to modernize their military.
Someday...someday...something truly horrible is going to happen at the hands of the Arabs. Something that will make 9/11 look like a minor event.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Nov 16, 2011)

I got to agree with Boop and some of the others.  Libya is killing themselves.  And it's our problem because...?

Let's face it folks, these people in the middle east have been killing each other long before most countries were in existance.  They've got beefs with each other that go back two or three millennia.  We sink lives and treasures into this crap for what purpose?  Hell, if the muslims didn't have the Israeli's to get all up in arms about, the Sunni's would be trying to kill the Shiite's and vice versa.  And in the end, no one gives a rats ass.  It's all about tribes and customs and this and that.  My God, can't we just leave these idiots to kill each other.

The only thing I would say is that when they get rambunctous and try to take out an American, I go back to Sallow's position.  You identify the leader and put a bullet between his eyes.  Ask #2 if he has a problem.  Remind him that if he doesn't play nice, we'll be back and carpet bombing is not out of the question.  Give them a card with the State Department's 1-800 number and then leave.

Come on folks... in the big scheme of things two groups of people have been murdering each other for thousands of years.  We can't be the hero in this kind of crap...


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...






Not at all.  If I were pres. I would open up our mineral wealth for expoitation (most of the mineral wealth of the US is currently going into the coffers of corporations in foreign countries,  Barrick is the only major US player left) and use that to leverage real technological research that would move us away from the rest of the world.  

Given I am not the pres. and this is the real world we can still be broadly isolationist while allowing the corporations to continue doing business as usual.  I just would make them pay for it.  Currently our military is used as a mercenary outfit for corporate interests.  Fine, create a 100% volunteer American Legion that will engage in missions like usual but which will be paid by the corporate interests involved.

The regular military on the other hand will be tasked with defending the US borders and territories around the world.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Nov 16, 2011)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> I got to agree with Boop and some of the others.  Libya is killing themselves.  And it's our problem because...?
> 
> Let's face it folks, these people in the middle east have been killing each other long before most countries were in existance.  They've got beefs with each other that go back two or three millennia.  We sink lives and treasures into this crap for what purpose?  Hell, if the muslims didn't have the Israeli's to get all up in arms about, the Sunni's would be trying to kill the Shiite's and vice versa.  And in the end, no one gives a rats ass.  It's all about tribes and customs and this and that.  My God, can't we just leave these idiots to kill each other.
> 
> ...



There is no real argument that can be used to against this.
The current state of the middle east is the creation of two things - remnants of the Cold War...and greed stemming from governments willing to sell military equipment/knowledge to the most warring people on the planet.


----------



## manifold (Nov 16, 2011)

_"Libyan war over, except for the kill'n."_

Nice fucking headline CNN.


----------



## manifold (Nov 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




That is sooooooo cute!


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 16, 2011)

manifold said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Yeah, I always enjoyed niavity.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Still fantasizing eh?  
And you still can't get past the "fighting for the wealthy" facet of all this. 
Broaden your view.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 16, 2011)

Did nobody know what Hitler was doing to the Jews.  Six million Jews along with all the gypsies, mentally defective, and homosexuals he could find?  If you knew what he was doing, would you promote isolationism?  There are times that morality requires that we NOT mind our own business.

Did the killing in Lybia and Syria rise to that level?  I honestly don't know, but there is a part of me that says the wholesale slaughter of citizens should not be condoned or tolerated.  And there is the other part of me that says there would have been no slaughter of citizens if they had not taken up arms against their own governments.

Do we honestly know whether we were supporting the more righteous side in Lybia?  Or were we simply replacing the devil we knew with a new one?  Can anyone say for sure which is the case?

There are no easy answers when it comes to diplomacy, whether formal or gunboat, in these cases.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...





Oh I have, I have.  I don't mind the military being used as a mercenary force, just be honest about it and pay the soldiers a legit wage for placing themselves in harms way.  Just like was done in the days of the White Company.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Did nobody know what Hitler was doing to the Jews.  Six million Jews along with all the gypsies, mentally defective, and homosexuals he could find?  If you knew what he was doing, would you promote isolationism?  There are times that morality requires that we NOT mind our own business.
> 
> Did the killing in Lybia and Syria rise to that level?  I honestly don't know, but there is a part of me that says the wholesale slaughter of citizens should not be condoned or tolerated.  And there is the other part of me that says there would have been no slaughter of citizens if they had not taken up arms against their own governments.
> 
> ...






Yes, Foxy I still do.  I am pretty black and white on this issue.  It is the lives of our children we are talking about and they only get one.  There are two ways to go about interacting with countries.  The first and my preferred method is isolationist.  The second is to go for the gusto and take it all over that way you KNOW what you are dealing with.  This interminable supporting of one dictator only to have thme shoot missiles at you in the decade after is bullshit.  

I am tired of wasting our money and lives on unwinnable wars (as they are being fought) that are merely the war games of the super rich in their un-ending struggle among themselves for the next piece on the map board.  

If we're going to be a representative Republic then by god lets be one.  This cronyism and corruption is maddening.  Both sides are equally guilty of it.  We are the ones who pay for it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Did nobody know what Hitler was doing to the Jews.  Six million Jews along with all the gypsies, mentally defective, and homosexuals he could find?  If you knew what he was doing, would you promote isolationism?  There are times that morality requires that we NOT mind our own business.
> ...



I hear where you're coming from and I do not presume to judge you for your position on this as I am not sure mine is not the same.

In the case of Germany and Japan, we KNEW who the enemy was and we knew what we had to do.  Did we wait too long with Germany?  Six million murdered Jews might think so, but at least we did win, absolutely and unconditionally, with overwhelming force that gave no quarter to anybody.  And as a result, both Germany and Japan are now our friends and allies.

But in order to bring the war to a quicker end, we allied with the Russians that we had to know were as ruthless and dangerous as either Germany or Japan.  And we allowed Russia/the USSR to run roughshod over country after country and slaughter millions of their own citizens with impunity.

And thus the hypocrisy continues.

So I agree.  If we're going to fight at all, we go in with overwhelming force, pull no punches, no P.C. nonsense applied, and win it.  Without quarter.  Unconditionally.  And then install a friendly government, give them what they need to start rebuilding, and leave friends in the place of enemies.

If we can't do that, I am all for not going to war at all.  

We are hard put to name countries in which we didn't win but just quit fighting that we can count as friend and ally.


----------



## rdean (Nov 16, 2011)

Obama only stopped the slaughter of innocents.

He didn't lie that Libyan oil would pay for the war.

He didn't lie that Libya had WMDs.

He didn't lie that the war would cost less than 20 billion dollars.

He didn't lie that Qaddafi was working with Bin Laden.

He didn't get thousands of Americans killed.

He didn't get tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life.

He didn't lie.

That's part of the reason right wing nut jobs hate him.  That and because he's, well, you know.  And living in the WHITE House.


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 16, 2011)

The point is Rdean that Obama didn't stop anything.  All he did was kill the head man and now the fighting has shifted to other venues.  The slaughter will continue.  Different and less obvious leaders.  Same senseless bloodshed.  He didn't have a clue who the rebels were when he agreed to support them.  It doesn't matter what we use for an excuse to put our blood and treasures as risk.  It does matter whether it can be justified in the cold light of truth and reason.

The debate is whether we accomplish anything by risking our own blood and treasure in such ventures.


----------



## Ringel05 (Nov 16, 2011)

rdean said:


> Obama only stopped the slaughter of innocents.
> 
> He didn't lie that Libyan oil would pay for the war.
> 
> ...



Open your mind for once in your life and look at the reality of life, it's not some partisan bickering and selective remembrances based on some idealistic fantasy outlook, it's hard, cruel and impersonal.  Which leads to the real question, how many lives would you be willing to spend to bring about a lasting global peace with freedom and prosperity for everyone?  One?  Ten?  One thousand?  Ten million?  That's the reality of this world and the human condition.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...






I'm with you all the way up to the install a government part.  If I were the maximum leader after we had conquered you we would annex you.  There would be no need to install a government, it would be an extension of our own.

And, for the record, the Soviets under Stalin were far worse then Hitler as regards their own people.  The gulags killed around 80 million Russians of all classes and creeds.  It was equal opportunity murder on a scale not seen till Mao and the Culteral Revolution murdered 150 million.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The point is Rdean that Obama didn't stop anything.  All he did was kill the head man and now the fighting has shifted to other venues.  The slaughter will continue.  Different and less obvious leaders.  Same senseless bloodshed.  He didn't have a clue who the rebels were when he agreed to support them.  It doesn't matter what we use for an excuse to put our blood and treasures as risk.  It does matter whether it can be justified in the cold light of truth and reason.
> 
> The debate is whether we accomplish anything by risking our own blood and treasure in such ventures.







Absolutely.  the problem with people like deanie is they can only think in one dimension and only one data point at a time.  They get stuck afterward and can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Obama only stopped the slaughter of innocents.
> ...






I wish it were that simple Ringel.  Deanie can only think in partisan terms, to do otherwise would expose him to the corruption of the current regime (yes I use the term intentionally)
and force to the realization that his boys are just as bad as the other guys, and that would hurt his head.


----------

