Since the moderator here wouldn't allow my new thread on George Will's article, maybe I can sneak it in here. A great article indeed. More and more conservatives are realizing the utter nonsense of Muslim interventions.

Entitle "Humanitarian Imperialism".

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110407/COLUMNIST/110409657/2127?Title=George-Will-Humanitarian-imperialism-in-Libya

Get the warplanes fueled up. Bashar Assad is killing his own people. Time to "level the playing field". Oh wait... your lives are not as important to the west you don't live on top of oil.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/syrian-forces-fire-latakia-democracy-protesters-20110409-044750-961.html

Footwedge;736913 wrote:Since the moderator here wouldn't allow my new thread on George Will's article, maybe I can sneak it in here. A great article indeed. More and more conservatives are realizing the utter nonsense of Muslim interventions.

Entitle "Humanitarian Imperialism".

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110407/COLUMNIST/110409657/2127?Title=George-Will-Humanitarian-imperialism-in-Libya

Good article. What I find troubling today is that the news agencies no longer seem to care that the "mission", whatever the hell it was, has become a clusterfuck, just as majorsparks wrote so well above. Where is the outrage? Where is the critical questioning by the fawning press? Where is the leadership? George Will is spot on, as he usually is in his thoughts. Maybe somebody from the press could ask Barry the questions for George. Nah....that wouldn't get them invited over for tea with Michelle. Better hush up.

majorspark;736918 wrote:Get the warplanes fueled up. Bashar Assad is killing his own people. Time to "level the playing field". Oh wait... your lives are not as important to the west you don't live on top of oil.

They lives aren't as easily defended as you'd get Iran involved pretty quickly. Libya will not escalate to a regional war.

Footwedge;736057 wrote:What's dumb about it? What exactly is innaccurate in what I posted?" I never call your stuff dumb. Go.

I didn't say it was inaccurate. I just think it's dumb to complain about being in Pakistan. We should have been in there years ago.

Footwedge;736913 wrote:Since the moderator here wouldn't allow my new thread on George Will's article, maybe I can sneak it in here. A great article indeed. More and more conservatives are realizing the utter nonsense of Muslim interventions.

Entitle "Humanitarian Imperialism".

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110407/COLUMNIST/110409657/2127?Title=George-Will-Humanitarian-imperialism-in-Libya

I was actually going to merge it with this thread, but this will work too.

majorspark;736918 wrote:Get the warplanes fueled up. Bashar Assad is killing his own people. Time to "level the playing field". Oh wait... your lives are not as important to the west you don't live on top of oil.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/syrian-forces-fire-latakia-democracy-protesters-20110409-044750-961.html

Iran and Hezbollah are the two reasons why we can't do anything in regards to Syria. Syria is one of the linchpins in the region, if it blows, then Lebanon and Hezbollah may erupt, and that may spill over onto Israel.


As to the Libya conflict. America has done our part. Our mission was to take out the Libyan air defense and air force to eliminate Libya's ability to use the air. NATO, mainly the Frenchies, Limey's and Italians then provide the heavy lifting and U.S. provide basic intel and jamming. But, the responsibility of what is next is in the rebels hands now. We did out part, now the future of their country is in their hands.
Unless they are at the very last brink of massacre, the U.S. should continue to stay back and let the other members of NATO take control.

Tobias Fünke;736933 wrote:They lives aren't as easily defended as you'd get Iran involved pretty quickly. Libya will not escalate to a regional war.

Lets be honest with ourselves here. Libya sits on top of the largest oil reserves in Africa. Just a short tanker trip to Europe. That is the primary reason why NATO has intervened. As I said before I am ok with going to war to secure the free flow of oil. Under the right circumstances, congress votes and approves it, the mission is clear, we go in with full force( no FUBAR ROE).

We are already on both sides of Iran's borders and they have done nothing more than smuggle weapons to or enemies. Iran is always blowing smoke about kicking ass and wiping people of the map. They don't have the army to push that far west. Beside who could possibly be against a humanitarian military intervention to save freedom fighters from being butchered by their evil dictator?

By the way I am not arguing for military intervention in Syria. I don't expect politicians to be bluntly honest. I am just not going to put my head in the sand. Lets not forget the Brits released the Lockerbie bomber to secure oil contracts with Libya. They said at the time he would be dead in months from terminal cancer. He is still alive. Lucky for him Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa or he would rot in a British prison.

Syrian freedom fighters are expecting help from the international community. They witnessed the "humanitarian" air umbrella over Libya. Will the west show the Syrian civilians any compassion as Bashar Assad's roles in the heavy armor to massacre them?

"We need international intervention. We need countries to help us," a witness in Deraa told the Associated Press by telephone.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/2011425142513343584.html

I am sorry Syria you do not sit on a massive oil field. The White House is pushing for sanctions which will have little effect. A lot of factors in play here. It will take very unique circumstances to bring the West's military attention.

On a side note I am liking Al Jezeera's English website. A lot of good info to be found and video. Some biased info, but a knowledgeable person can get through the weeds.

Al Jezeera gets a bad rap, it's a pretty good news source.

I Wear Pants;750353 wrote:Al Jezeera gets a bad rap, it's a pretty good news source.

Respectfully disagree, it is one of about five news sources we get here. Perhaps in the U.S. their tone is toned down a bit (pun intended), but overseas they are very, VERY anti-Israel and unapologetic about it. Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are neutral compared to AJ....and more insightful. They will censor and straight out lie about certain events.

I Wear Pants;750353 wrote:Al Jezeera gets a bad rap, it's a pretty good news source.

Any "news source" that helps to hide and protect Bin Laden deserves no respect, no attention, and no viewership.

Syria hits home for me, as I spent a summer there in 2005 and made some good friends that are still there. It is extremely sad what is going on there, and I actually didn't think it would happen as the regime is no forceful. But, it is unclear if it can lead to anything, I doubt it, but even then it is also unclear if that is really a good thing as it could open up a seam like Iraq.

I've heard from 1 friend there who has stayed quiet. Another friend of mine however, I have not heard from her since the demonstrations started, and I knew she is probably involved.

Manhattan Buckeye;750365 wrote:Respectfully disagree, it is one of about five news sources we get here. Perhaps in the U.S. their tone is toned down a bit (pun intended), but overseas they are very, VERY anti-Israel and unapologetic about it. Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are neutral compared to AJ....and more insightful. They will censor and straight out lie about certain events.

I agree Al Jezeera is biased, and especially so towards Israel, does not mean a knowledgeable person can't separate the sheep from the goats. With the recent uprisings in the Arab world there is some good info to be found. It also gives a little insight into the Arab mindset. Sometimes you have to weed through the lies find the truth. For instance in the Libya uprising video of all the civilians that were being killed by government troops was rolling in. I noted that though the dead and wounded were wearing "civilian" clothing they were by a vast majority young males. If random killing and massacres were taking place surely there would be a lot of footage showing women, children, and old people wounded and dead.

ptown_trojans_1;750920 wrote:Syria hits home for me, as I spent a summer there in 2005 and made some good friends that are still there. It is extremely sad what is going on there, and I actually didn't think it would happen as the regime is no forceful. But, it is unclear if it can lead to anything, I doubt it.

There are cracks in the regime. Reports of politicians resigning in protest and some military units refusing to put down the protesters with lethal force and actually defending them. I saw some raw youtube video of the military crackdown in Deraa and from what I could glean from it sounded like a firefight. The video was in the distance and there was a large plume of smoke that hung over the area. The machine gun fire was constant. To me it sounded like exchanges of gunfire between apposing parties. Small arms. Although tanks have been deployed I have yet to see any video indicating artillery is being used in force.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110427-hundreds-resign-from-syria-ruling-baath-party-protest-against-crackdown
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011426115117817489.html

ptown_trojans_1;750920 wrote:but even then it is also unclear if that is really a good thing as it could open up a seam like Iraq.

I have my doubts about these Arab uprisings and what they will mean for the future peace and stability in the Middle East. I am curious as to what you mean by "it could open up a seam like Iraq".

majorspark;752582 wrote:There are cracks in the regime. Reports of politicians resigning in protest and some military units refusing to put down the protesters with lethal force and actually defending them. I saw some raw youtube video of the military crackdown in Deraa and from what I could glean from it sounded like a firefight. The video was in the distance and there was a large plume of smoke that hung over the area. The machine gun fire was constant. To me it sounded like exchanges of gunfire between apposing parties. Small arms. Although tanks have been deployed I have yet to see any video indicating artillery is being used in force.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110427-hundreds-resign-from-syria-ruling-baath-party-protest-against-crackdown
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011426115117817489.html



I have my doubts about these Arab uprisings and what they will mean for the future peace and stability in the Middle East. I am curious as to what you mean by "it could open up a seam like Iraq".

As long as the military stays uniformed and does not abandon the regime, I doubt an internal uprising can over throw them. It would be more like Libya than Egypt, only no NATO. This is the country of Hama rules too.
As to the Iraq comment, that was to suggest that it could lead to sectarian divisions and violence like Iraq 2004-2007. Syria has a diverse population that could break down if there is no one government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

Way to go NATO. :rolleyes: What exactly happened to the no fly zone? Now they are actively trying to overthrow the government and killing family members in the process? Why exactly have we gotten involved in a civil war that will not end well for us?

"The West does not care to test our statements. They only care to rob us of our freedom, our wealth, which is oil, and our right to decide our future as Libyans.

This is exactly the truth, the West doesn't give a shit about civil rights violations. If we truly did, we'd be in a lot more countries than just Libya.

Hey if one of our bombs hits Qaddafi and kills him, so be it. That is the nature of air strikes. A no fly zone is a pretty broad mandate, so all leadership targets are pretty much fair game.
It is what it is, such is the nature of warfare.

I also agree on the last point. The usage of military force is always and will always be on a case by case basis that depends on geopolitics, capabilities and national interest.

How about it Mr. President? It's been 60 days, will you comply with federal law? I seriously doubt it. Somehow, I'm not surprised no one in the media talks about our third war started by the champion of hope and change.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/republican-senators-press-president-on-war-powers-deadline/?iref=allsearch

tk421;774487 wrote:How about it Mr. President? It's been 60 days, will you comply with federal law? I seriously doubt it. Somehow, I'm not surprised no one in the media talks about our third war started by their champion of hope and change.

Fixed

tk421;774487 wrote:How about it Mr. President? It's been 60 days, will you comply with federal law? I seriously doubt it. Somehow, I'm not surprised no one in the media talks about our third war started by the champion of hope and change.

To be fair, he was never really specific about WHAT he was going to change...

gut;776277 wrote:To be fair, he was never really specific about WHAT he was going to change...

Um.....he did say he'd change our foreign policy by pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 18 months, close GITMO, etc. He at least had the leftist peaceniks convinced of it.

I wonder what his new tag line will be when the BHO Administration goes into full re-election mode?

How about, "I never promised you a rose garden"? No wait....he did. Anyone have a better tag line?

believer;776286 wrote:Um.....he did say he'd change our foreign policy by pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 18 months, close GITMO, etc. He at least had the leftist peaceniks convinced of it.

I wonder what his new tag line will be when the BHO Administration goes into full re-election mode?

How about, "I never promised you a rose garden"? No wait....he did. Anyone have a better tag line?

He never said he would pull out of Afghanistan.

tk421;774487 wrote:How about it Mr. President? It's been 60 days, will you comply with federal law? I seriously doubt it. Somehow, I'm not surprised no one in the media talks about our third war started by the champion of hope and change.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/republican-senators-press-president-on-war-powers-deadline/?iref=allsearch

Ehh, Presidents never abide by it and honestly it is extremely murky on the Constitutionality of it. No one really wants to take it to the high court either and waste the political capital. If the R's really want to do something, pass a law ending funding for the efforts or pass a law limiting what the U.S. can do ala what Congress did with the Contra's in the 80s.

But, the administration will do something PR wise to appear to follow the law, but it really doesn't matter.

Across the region, each state is teetering on the brink:
Egypt with its now Coptic vs. Muslim vs. state
Tunisia with it still trying to figure out a government
Libya obvious civil war
Yemen with the king staying put past the deal brokered with more violence coming each day
Bahrain with the crackdown on all Shia's and talks of Iranian involvement
Syria with the crackdown and killing of hundreds over the past few weeks

The revolutions have entered a somewhat dark period. It will be interesting who emerges and what is the result.

ptown_trojans_1;776342 wrote:He never said he would pull out of Afghanistan.

True...he only said he'd "thin out" our operation in Afghanistan as he simultaneously sent 17,000 more troops into the region. Now there is, of course, Libya and GITMO is still open for business.

I wonder if the peaceniks who helped him wrestle the election from Queen Hillary will help him formulate that new tag line?

believer;776544 wrote:True...he only said he'd "thin out" our operation in Afghanistan.

No he didn't. Not while campaigning. He said he would get out of Iraq so we could refocus our troops to what is the real mission Afghanistan. That was the basis for the surge of 17,000 more troops. Some will be leaving in July, but overall there will be no dramatic drawdown till 2014. He has been consistent on Afghanistan since 2008.

GITMO he was/ is boxed in as Congress gave him no choice.
Libya is basically Bosnia in 1995. But, its a NATO led operation that to me, the U.S. is starting to distance itself from supporting the rebels and getting entangled in the civil war.