U.S. Conducts Airstrikes Against ISIS in Libya

Althea said:
Neocons invade sovereign countries in the name of profits. Arab Spring, although a failed concept, was done in the name of human rights violations.

We now see that certain regions are only stable when kept under the thumb of a heinous dictator.

As opposed to the U.S, where people are kept under control by giving the illusion that we have a choice about our social status
Click to expand...

'We now see' lol?

Even some of us Iraq war supporters 'saw that' back in 2005. And the oil/democracy distinction is weak. If you're the invaded country, why do you care if you were invaded for the oil [actually a fib btw] or democracy after you're country is wrecked and over run with Islamist barbarians?

Face it: if you plan on voting for Hillary you're effectively voting for a Bush/Cheney third term as far as pointless military interventions go. And Hillary is arguably more reckless!

Like I said, never thought I'd live to see the day so many liberals would do that without so much as blinking.
 
Althea said:
Only in oil rich countries.

As for the rest of your fantasy about the condition of Libya....tell it to BAC.

It isn't going to fly anywhere else.


You don't get to nitpick links he gave you, in order to make it look like Libya was a Utopia. Most of the country was a mess under Gaddafi.
Click to expand...
you single source a Times article during/right after the 2011 war. what do you think it's going to say? we destroyed Paradise?
It's going to paint Qadaffi and Libya under Qadaffi as a true horror.

I've said it again and again ( watch my lips move -this ain't BAC talking) "Qadaffi was a dictator' - that means uneven rule.
But that is not to down play the literacy rate, women's role in society and gov't, and it's high standard of living
++

During the NATO bombardment of Libya, western media conveniently forgot to mention that the United Nations had just prepared a lengthy dossier praising Mr. Gaddafi’s human rights achievements.
The UN report commended Libya for bettering its “legal protections” for citizens, making human rights a “priority,” improving women’s rights, educational opportunities and access to housing.
Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa’s most prosperous nation.
Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/12/gaddafis-libya-was-africas-most-prosperous-democracy/

Look at Afghanistan as a neocon nightmare without oil. In fact our invasions never were oil driven.
They were about spreading democracy.

In Afghanistan's case -it was to impose a democratic regime to stand up to the Taliban/AQ.
In Iraq's case it was to get rid of Sadaam -and impose democracy in the heart of the middle east.

The neocon agenda was to transform the region into stable democracies -not dependent on dictatorial rule,
and use that to advance US/western interests. We never seized oil, or made it a top priority.
"Blood for oil" was a convenient rallying cry, but not much else
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
..

Face it: if you plan on voting for Hillary you're effectively voting for a Bush/Cheney third term as far as pointless military interventions go. And Hillary is arguably more reckless!

Like I said, never thought I'd live to see the day so many liberals would do that without so much as blinking.
Click to expand...
yep. they nominated a neocon-and are turning themselves into pretzels trying to absolve themselves of her warrior ways.

Friends of Syria/Pushing to arm the FSA in Syria/Libya/the Iraq vote...all that by her as well as a failed Russian Reset
whereby Putin has to be demonized to account for his push back on NATO Expansion.
It's because Clinton doesn't know anything but hard power conflicts/interventionism.

Clinton and Obama don't know how to deal with Putin except direct confrontation.
And Putin knows they'll collapse when push comes to shove, so he federalizes Donbass, and seizes the Crimean penninsula

Then they go after Trump for "Russian influence" - when it's never shown. Putin would never be so ham handed-
though Assange ( WikiLeaks) would. Putin is former KGB -he'll keep separations (plausible deniability)
The Democrats are true evil, using deception and excusing wars for political power. No better then the Mossad.
 
anatta said:
yep. they nominated a neocon-and are turning themselves into pretzels trying to absolve themselves of her warrior ways.

Friends of Syria/Pushing to arm the FSA in Syria/Libya/the Iraq vote...all that by her as well as a failed Russian Reset
whereby Putin has to be demonized to account for his push back on NATO Expansion.
It's because Clinton doesn't know anything but hard power conflicts/interventionism.

Clinton and Obama don't know how to deal with Putin except direct confrontation.
And Putin knows they'll collapse when push comes to shove, so he federalizes Donbass, and seizes the Crimean penninsula

Then they go after Trump for "Russian influence" - when it's never shown. Putin would never be so ham handed-
though Assange ( WikiLeaks) would. Putin is former KGB -he'll keep separations (plausible deniability)
The Democrats are true evil, using deception and excusing wars for political power. No better then the Mossad.
Click to expand...

Yeah on all of the above. Especially the middle paragraph: for all of interventionism with the military, Obama/Clinton would fold up like a cheap tent if Putin challenged either one of them.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Yeah on all of the above. Especially the middle paragraph: for all of interventionism with the military, Obama/Clinton would fold up like a cheap tent if Putin challenged either one of them.
Click to expand...

those 2 are "zero sum" cold warriors. Anything Russia gains has got to be a net loss for NATO.

Instead of treating Putin like an adult at the table -they belittle Russian security needs.
Russia is fine to tap into on anti-terrorism; but Putin wanting a client state in Syria - or relief from NATO expansionism
cannot be tolerated.
Instead of intense negotiations, they belittle Russia with "the 80's called and they want their foreign policy back"-
meaning as long as Russia is supplicant, then we're Ok with Russia.

Putin ain't playing that game . The danger is Clinton is gonna confront because we don't talk to each other.
Obama just complains from the sidelines
 
Last word on this: I saw John Bolton come on FOX and slam Clinton for Libya and I'm thinking "well good"
Then the fucker goes right down the revisionist line of " we abandoned Libya"

The same crap Obama is peddling (blaming Cameron) the same crap Clinton is dissembling
( we tried to help their 'democratic movement' afterwards) and I'm thinking WTF?

Libya was Clinton's "smart power" -basically interventionism on the cheap where you bomb out regime change
and put the mess in your rear view mirror with platitudes of "spreading democracy"

IN NO WAY WERE WE EVER GONNA PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND AFTER QADAFFI was assassinated.
It's a neocon wet dream of excuse making that both Bolton/Obama/Clinton have in common.

The neocons always walk away from their damage,and blame others. Yankee Doodle
 
anatta said:
you single source a Times article during/right after the 2011 war. what do you think it's going to say? we destroyed Paradise?
It's going to paint Qadaffi and Libya under Qadaffi as a true horror.

I've said it again and again ( watch my lips move -this ain't BAC talking) "Qadaffi was a dictator' - that means uneven rule.
But that is not to down play the literacy rate, women's role in society and gov't, and it's high standard of living
++

During the NATO bombardment of Libya, western media conveniently forgot to mention that the United Nations had just prepared a lengthy dossier praising Mr. Gaddafi’s human rights achievements.
The UN report commended Libya for bettering its “legal protections” for citizens, making human rights a “priority,” improving women’s rights, educational opportunities and access to housing.
Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa’s most prosperous nation.
Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/12/gaddafis-libya-was-africas-most-prosperous-democracy/

Look at Afghanistan as a neocon nightmare without oil. In fact our invasions never were oil driven.
They were about spreading democracy.

In Afghanistan's case -it was to impose a democratic regime to stand up to the Taliban/AQ.
In Iraq's case it was to get rid of Sadaam -and impose democracy in the heart of the middle east.

The neocon agenda was to transform the region into stable democracies -not dependent on dictatorial rule,
and use that to advance US/western interests. We never seized oil, or made it a top priority.
"Blood for oil" was a convenient rallying cry, but not much else
Click to expand...
Afghanistan was about getting Bin Laden, and in some part, what you reference above.

Iraq was about oil. Just check Bushco's comments about $1.50/gallon gas, spoils of war, and oil paying for the U.S effort.

The WMD bullshit, and removal of Saddam was a sham.
 
Althea said:
Afghanistan was about getting Bin Laden, and in some part, what you reference above.

Iraq was about oil. Just check Bushco's comments about $1.50/gallon gas, spoils of war, and oil paying for the U.S effort.

The WMD bullshit, and removal of Saddam was a sham.
Click to expand...
No. Afghanistan was NATION-BUILDING a democracy; Operation Enduring Freedom.

Going after bin Laden (Tora Bora) was a military exercise that came and went

Dedication to creating a western style democracy was the long term strategic goal to supplant the Taliban.

Afghanistan itself was so called "counterinsurgency", but bin Laden was "counterterrorism"
Counter-terrorism works or it doesn't, but doesn't tie us down to long term nation building.

I agree WMD's was a fabrication, but going after Sadaam and supporting the Green Zone,
training the Iraqi army, clearing out Fallujah(etc.)
and all those weapons was not about oil. It was about imposing democracy in the middle of the ME
 
anatta said:
. You rely on "BAC said this and BAC said that" . I've asked you 100 times to lay off BAC - he ain't here.

He never documented like I do. BAC has no idea what happened after the 2011 Libyan war.at least he never spoke of it.
. I'm just about ready to tell you to fuck off, and if you bring him up in debate again I will.
++

No that 's not a "BAC" link -your chronology is all wrong -I even labeled the Bengazi shot for you.
It has to be after 2014 when the current Civil War got going. Libya wasn't in "shambles" until the 2014 Civil war.

While the 2011 Civil war was greatly damaged by NATO bombing; it wasn't bombed to rubble -
that shot is mostly close quarter artillery fire. There might be some AF damage - but it's street fighting.

The country was stull functional -oil was exported near Qaddafi levels (1.6m bbd).
Once Gen Hiftar launched his offensive -the militia fighting became all out civil war.
The oil fields fell into disrepair, or were seized -and production continued to fall. it's about 340kbbd now.

If you are interested at all in what happened - and why we are bombing Sirte now - see the DCJ civil war thread
Libyan Civil War 2014 - Present
or at least read the Wikipedia references.

close. Clinton was exposed to Jibril's promises in Paris he could deliver on "democracy"
She put her faith in al-Qaeda -the NTC had AQ ties at the top-and also Islamist fighters.

She ginned up the war with "Qaddafi must go" and made regime change a political goal of NATO. (Viagra rape etc.)
Later Qadaffi himself was designated a military target.
And there went a stable prosperous Libya down the drain of neocon fantasies, beginning the hell ride it is now.
Click to expand...

You don't get to speak for BAC, cocksucker.

BAC is here retard, he has been a member here far longer than you have.

You also don't get to tell Galt what to post.
Who the fuck do you think you are?

The 2011 Civil war was badly damaged by bombs?
Your Brain stem is badly damaged.

Previously it was onlya partial civil war, idiot? There are not levels of civil war,
either it is a civil war or it isn't.

The rest of your trap is bullshit; the Col. Was dead when the first shot of the civil war was fired. Idiot
 
Rune said:
You don't get to speak for BAC, cocksucker.

BAC is here retard, he has been a member here far longer than you have.

You also don't get to tell Galt what to post.
Who the fuck do you think you are?

The 2011 Civil war was badly damaged by bombs?
Your Brain stem is badly damaged.

Previously it was onlya partial civil war, idiot? There are not levels of civil war,
either it is a civil war or it isn't.

The rest of your trap is bullshit; the Col. Was dead when the first shot of the civil war was fired. Idiot
Click to expand...
you idiot fuckstick;
If you READ I am telling Galt to stop bringing up BAC. Tell Galt to quit it if anything.
I never bring up BAC except to credit him for the initial Libya exposure.

Yes there are "levels of civil war" when NATO starts bombing infrastructure or by Tomahawks.
"Partial Civil war" ..WTF is that? it was fought across the cities along the coast both pre and post NATO.

anatta said:
No that 's not a "BAC" link -your chronology is all wrong -I even labeled the Bengazi shot for you.
It has to be after 2014 when the current Civil War got going. Libya wasn't in "shambles" until the 2014 Civil war.

While the 2011 Civil war was greatly damaged by NATO bombing; it wasn't bombed to rubble -
that shot is mostly close quarter artillery fire. There might be some AF damage - but it's street fighting
Click to expand...

you eeediot fuckstick
 
anatta said:
yep. they nominated a neocon-and are turning themselves into pretzels trying to absolve themselves of her warrior ways.

Friends of Syria/Pushing to arm the FSA in Syria/Libya/the Iraq vote...all that by her as well as a failed Russian Reset
whereby Putin has to be demonized to account for his push back on NATO Expansion.
It's because Clinton doesn't know anything but hard power conflicts/interventionism.

Clinton and Obama don't know how to deal with Putin except direct confrontation.
And Putin knows they'll collapse when push comes to shove, so he federalizes Donbass, and seizes the Crimean penninsula

Then they go after Trump for "Russian influence" - when it's never shown. Putin would never be so ham handed-
though Assange ( WikiLeaks) would. Putin is former KGB -he'll keep separations (plausible deniability)
The Democrats are true evil, using deception and excusing wars for political power. No better then the Mossad.
Click to expand...

You don't know what neo-con means.
 
Rune said:
You don't know what neo-con means.
Click to expand...
would "neoliberal" make you happy? It's the same bloody affair

"advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top