US just launched missiles into Libya.......

[Modbert]

So....when do we begin sending Tomahawks into Iran?

Dunno, don't ask me. I made it very clear earlier that I was not for U.S intervention into Libya.

 

[Samson]

So....when do we begin sending Tomahawks into Iran?

Dunno, don't ask me. I made it very clear earlier that I was not for U.S intervention into Libya.

No but, following your logic that Bahrain and Yemen are not being attacked because they support the US anti-terrorist effort (unlike Libya) then the US should attack all countries that do not support US anti-terrorist efforts.

 

[Trajan]

q- why is the Libyan popular uprising actionable, while Yemen is not?



q- why is the Bahrain popular uprising actionable, while Yemen is not?

It would of been nice if you had been this clear when you asked me earlier. Clearly Yemen and Bahrain is not getting as much attention because their governments are friendly with the U.S and others in the ongoing War on Terror. You're not making any startling points however by pointing this out.

well, I do consider that erudite folks like yourself have a handle on world events, I know the msm blows and isn't playing the Bahrain and Yemen angle because they are leading with Libya and Japan, working on frightening us out of our wits ala reactor meltdowns and all, because of the focus obama would draw, but 40 deaths in one afternoon and 3 of them children, I would not think I have to spell it out.

And as far as startling points, I am under the impression that folks don't bother crafting a response because they know it’s a rigged game and have a view that precludes honest examination and perhaps, because they really don't know what is going on, or to what extent, but once apprised I think they owe it to themselves and to honesty, to take position, even if convenient.


And I personally think its very pertinent in that we are now engaged in bombing a country who has not threatened us, our interests or attacked us and yet we spent no little time and effort shuttling around the world working to “get Qadaffi out”, yet, at the very same time, yes, our ally is rolling in armored personnel carriers into another sovereign nation and helping a king fight a popular uprising ( ala Libya) by shooting people down in the streets and in another yes another 'ally', the body count is even higher.

So, it is not starling to you that we have chosen Libya to take a stand, not Yemen or hey Darfur? (Egypt was easy but we screwed that up to).

So, is it Sic semper tyrannis or not?

Are you giving them a pass because they are allies? Just asking.

Oh and one more random observation; IF this was Bush, a picture of him holding hands with King Abdullah back at Crawford would be 48 font above the fold headlines followed by a story detailing Bush and the oil cartel winking and nodding at people get slaughtered in the streets, I think you know it, I know I do.....

this would be just to good to pass up....

and, we both know we won't see this;

 

[Modbert]

No but, following your logic that Bahrain and Yemen are not being attacked because they support the US anti-terrorist effort (unlike Libya) then the US should attack all countries that do not support US anti-terrorist efforts.

That's a dishonest way to try and frame what I'm saying. The fact of the matter is that Yemen is considered a priority battleground in the War on Terror and the U.S is not about to try and rock the boat. They're also not about to rock the boat in Bahrain. However, I would not be surprised to see the U.S accept change in either country if the Rebels took control, just like in Egypt.

Instead of trying to twist my posts, why not read up on the U.S involvement in Yemen?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lt-on-terrorism-widens-on-two-continents.html

You'll notice I posted about this a little over 7 months ago. It got no response of course.

 

[Trajan]

No but, following your logic that Bahrain and Yemen are not being attacked because they support the US anti-terrorist effort (unlike Libya) then the US should attack all countries that do not support US anti-terrorist efforts.

That's a dishonest way to try and frame what I'm saying. The fact of the matter is that Yemen is considered a priority battleground in the War on Terror and the U.S is not about to try and rock the boat. They're also not about to rock the boat in Bahrain. However, I would not be surprised to see the U.S accept change in either country if the Rebels took control, just like in Egypt.

Instead of trying to twist my posts, why not read up on the U.S involvement in Yemen?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lt-on-terrorism-widens-on-two-continents.html

You'll notice I posted about this a little over 7 months ago. It got no response of course.

well for me I am sorry I wasn't here then or missed it. I have followed the Yemeni beat since nasser gassed them, well not right then, you know what I mean.

they never did let us use predators despite rich targets. Saleh was always trying to keep his options open, he has now accused us and Israel of instigating the mess which of course is absurd and for effect only on his poeple only, but in the end, if he does go down, things will change big time. not right away, but the whole saudi/sunni crescent will be in play.

However its not really you I am addressing, its the media, they are craven and have a complete lack of objectivity, its criminal imho.

 

[Modbert]

well, I do consider that erudite folks like yourself have a handle on world events, I know the msm blows and isn't playing the Bahrain and Yemen angle because they are leading with Libya and Japan, working on frightening us out of our wits ala reactor meltdowns and all, because of the focus obama would draw, but 40 deaths in one afternoon and 3 of them children, I would not think I have to spell it out.

And as far as startling points, I am under the impression that folks don't bother crafting a response because they know it’s a rigged game and have a view that precludes honest examination and perhaps, because they really don't know what is going on, or to what extent, but once apprised I think they owe it to themselves and to honesty, to take position, even if convenient.


And I personally think its very pertinent in that we are now engaged in bombing a country who has not threatened us, our interests or attacked us and yet we spent no little time and effort shuttling around the world working to “get Qadaffi out”, yet, at the very same time, yes, our ally is rolling in armored personnel carriers into another sovereign nation and helping a king fight a popular uprising ( ala Libya) by shooting people down in the streets and in another yes another 'ally', the body count is even higher.

So, it is not starling to you that we have chosen Libya to take a stand, not Yemen or hey Darfur? (Egypt was easy but we screwed that up to).

So, is it Sic semper tyrannis or not?

Are you giving them a pass because they are allies? Just asking.

Oh and one more random observation; IF this was Bush, a picture of him holding hands with King Abdullah back at Crawford would be 48 font above the fold headlines followed by a story detailing Bush and the oil cartel winking and nodding at people get slaughtered in the streets, I think you know it, I know I do.....

I would like to discuss this issue with Samson and yourself however you both are too busy it seems trying to do something else.

I know full well what is going on. Samson and yourself also seem to be arguing as if I'm for intervention in Libya when I made it clear twice now that I'm not. How many times must I repeat myself?

It's not surprising to me that we're in Libya and not Yemen because I'm not ignorant of what's going on in these countries. It's as simple at that. I try to keep up on what's going on there.

The U.S has had a policy for a very long time of supporting dictators and even supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments (or doing the overthrowing themselves). President Obama is not the first President this policy has been under and I doubt he'll be the last. If you think the problems in these countries with U.S support go back to Obama, you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

And finally, I'm not giving either Yemen or Bahrain a pass. Once again, your problem seems to be that you're trying to set up my position for me and giving me a false position at that. Instead of doing so, read what I have said. I'm merely telling you the facts as they are. Whether you choose to accept them or not is up to yourself.

 

[Trajan]

I never said you were, I read your earlier post Modbert.

I am not trying to frame anything, your afore comment had little to it, I expounded on my thoughts at large, and asked a question, if you took everything I said as if I were trying to box you in, thats a misinterpretation, that was not my intent.

If you think the problems in these countries with U.S support go back to Obama, you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

now who's framing? I must assume as well you have not read many of my posts on this topic.

 

[Modbert]

I never said you were, I read your earlier post Modbert.

All I'm trying to say is that the Yemen is too valuable to the U.S Government to do anything towards. I'm not saying I support what the U.S is doing in Yemen with supporting the government in power. However, that is the way the U.S sees Yemen.

 

[Modbert]

I am not trying to frame anything, your afore comment had little to it, I expounded on my thoughts at large, and asked a question, if you took everything I said as if I were trying to box you in, thats a misinterpretation, that was not my intent.

Well, if you didn't mean it that way then so be it. I take your word that it wasn't your intent.

 

[Trajan]

Modbert-

The U.S has had a policy for a very long time of supporting dictators and even supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments (or doing the overthrowing themselves). President Obama is not the first President this policy has been under and I doubt he'll be the last.

exactly right, and as far as geo-politics goes, we have backed SOB's because they are our SOB's. However, that has not prevented those opposed to such from voicing their opposition, loudly with the willing and sometimes venal help of the media, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan to iraq etc etc and some of the very same who now laud the Libyan venture to include again, the msm don't appear to have much to say.

 

[dilloduck]

Modbert-

The U.S has had a policy for a very long time of supporting dictators and even supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments (or doing the overthrowing themselves). President Obama is not the first President this policy has been under and I doubt he'll be the last.

exactly right, and as far as geo-politics goes, we have backed SOB's because they are our SOB's. However, that has not prevented those opposed to such from voicing their opposition, loudly with the willing and sometimes venal help of the media, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan to iraq etc etc and some of the very same who now laud the Libyan venture to include again, the msm don't appear to have much to say.

The left hand doesn't wanna know what the right hand is doing.

 

[tigerbob]

Obama has created a lot of terrorists today. Probably around one million. Who knows, maybe more.

Probably easier to post a link to thoughts from your earlier posts, rather than going to the trouble of retyping.

 

[tigerbob]

Well in truth,

Japan attacked us.

Germany had not attacked us at the time we declared war on them. (They DID declare war on us first because they had to due to a treaty with Japan.)

Italy and other Axis countries didn't attack us.

North Korea didn't attack us.

Cuba didn't attack us.

North Vietnam didn't attack us.

No former Yugoslavian nation attacked us.

Somalia didn't attack us.

Yemen didn't attack us.

Iraq didn't attack us.

Afghanistan did attack us.

Lybia didn't attack us.

Okay we can point to isolated incidents where different countries have attacked U.S. installations around the world or attacked U.S. citizens, but those incidents have not provoked military action unless we already were looking for an excuse to attack.

So in the grand world of politics and international affairs, the honest don't hold up George W. Bush as the only President to act in a way that some would call imprudent. There's plenty of criticism to go around for an entire century and more.

But here we are again. The U.N. resolution did not assign responsibilities to anybody in particular but it was assumed the USA would provide most of the manpower and assume most of the cost of this little operation. And whatever goes wrong, we will surely get all the blame.

Just once I would like for US to take the back seat and let somebody else do the heavy lifting.

Agreed. Fuck the UN!

I am sick of them sending the US out on its police missions and we get fucked for it.

The UN doesn't send them out. That's a domestic decision.

 

[Modbert]

exactly right, and as far as geo-politics goes, we have backed SOB's because they are our SOB's. However, that has not prevented those opposed to such from voicing their opposition, loudly with the willing and sometimes venal help of the media, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan to iraq etc etc and some of the very same who now laud the Libyan venture to include again, the msm don't appear to have much to say.

Much of the American Media doesn't have much to say on most important topics. The internet is changing that to a certain extent, but we live in an age of the 24 hour news cycle and such a large amount of new information everyday.

Take for example the last financial crisis. How many people know about the role that Goldman Sachs played? Or Alan Greenspan? Or what Wall Street is doing/did to the Commodities Market?

And that's just one topic. There are many, many, others.

 

[tigerbob]

Typical hypocrisy from the rightwingloon bedwetters.

Obama is creating terrorists today.

There you go again.

 

[tigerbob]

I expect nothing less from them.

Yep...some things never change.

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

Tourettes?

 

[tigerbob]

Your self-esteem that low that you have to deflect that much?

Defending your butt buddy? Better get him a cookie and some milk. His wet his pants.

I must have missed something...............

Keep reading. This is getting funnier by the page.

 

[tigerbob]

I guess I should come forward now and take the blame for *insert sports team here* losing.

Your little clique barks when you bark. You're a piss poor moderator and very weak.

I'm in my own clique, and I disagree: Modbert is an above adequate mod!!!

Doh! You're gonna be accused of being a co-conspirator now! Either than or a pusillanimous pissant.

 

[tigerbob]

Getting back to the topic at hand, it should be interesting to see what will be the role of the U.S going forward in this conflict. President Obama has said I believe that there will be no U.S ground troops. So if there will be troops in Libya, other countries will be doing the heavy lifting. A welcome change if that is the case.

I'm curious about where the money is coming from to confront a dictator that hasn't externally threatened anyone?

As far as I can tell, he's doing nothing that the USA hasn't done in Waco, or Ruby Ridge.

I believe the UN resolution specifically mentions "all means short of an occupying force". I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it, I believe.

 

[tigerbob]

It takes a special kind of partisan blinders not to see this point.

Didn't Saddam also kill many of his own people? And isn't that why we had no fly zones there?

Yes, he did..and he was hanged for killing 150 of them. But that is not why we invaded Iraq, that was something that happened way before our invasion.

Please don't try to rewrite history.

I believe that he was routinely having political opponents tortured to death right up until the point where he got the fuck out of dodge, but I agree that wasn't the reason for the invasion. Arguably it would have been a reason.