Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

I don't understand the need some people have to brand leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.
There appears to exist a deeply-rooted belief that USA wages war based on psychiatric evaluation.

It is a suspicious trend, but it's hard to look at any one of them and not find them to verifiably unhinged on their own merits.  It's just a lot easier to say so when they're The Enemy.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah... umm... I'm probably the person most critical of U.S. foreign policy on this forum, and for the most part, I approve of what was done in Libya.

The distinction is not that it was a democrat instead of a republican president initiative, either.  Let me lay down some of the actual distinctions for you, with Bush's war efforts as the closest point of reference. 

Saddam and the Taliban were/are both horrible, yes.  They had both done horrible things in the past.  The people in Iraq and Afghanistan were oppressed.  However, the U.S. was directly responsible for putting these people in power in the first place.  It's kind of insulting to meddle in a country's affairs to horrible effect, and then expect that those people will welcome you to take another shot at it again later.  Furthermore, the pretenses for the Iraq War, at least, were built on complete lies.  While both regimes were still horrible, neither was in the process of doing anything extreme that warranted immediate forceful response.  We acted like there was anyway, and in the process we have killed many times more civilians than either dictatorship ever did.  If you follow the money, it's also painfully obvious that much of the war effort was designed to line the pockets of Bush administration officials, who had deep ties with the defense industry.

Everything was pretty much the exact opposite with Ghaddafi.  To my knowledge, we were not at all responsible for his rise to power.  Most importantly, he was actively attacking his own people.  He had gone completely off the deep end of violent insanity, and was indiscriminately bombarding his own cities with artillery shells if he suspected them of housing any rebels.  This was a large-scale bloody massacre in progress with no end in sight.  We intervened with a minimal amount of force and collateral damage.  Finally, our help had actually been requested.  We didn't just charge in guns blazing like "Hey we heard a bad guy runs this place, so we're going to host a ten year violence party." 

And yes, it's unfortunate that the U.S. doesn't intervene in more situations that obviously deserve it, and for obviously unsavory reasons.  That's no reason to scold them when they actually do something decent.

[mainiac]

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

[Leafsnail]

I don't understand the need some people have to brand the leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.

I would agree with you for some of those people.  Having horrible ideals and a complete disregard for human life doesn't necessarily mean you're insane.  But Gadaffi... if you look at interviews with him during the uprising he was clearly delusional.

[10ebbor10]

I don't understand the need some people have to brand the leader of any country that is or was anti-West as insane. Gaddafi? Nuts. Saddam? Completely bonkers. Hitler? Certainly not sane. The Great Leader of Best Korea? Don't even get me started. Assad? A crazed monster. Ahmadinejad? Can't let a nutjob have them nukes.

I would agree with you for some of those people.  Having horrible ideals and a complete disregard for human life doesn't necessarily mean you're insane.  But Gadaffi... if you look at interviews with him during the uprising he was clearly delusional.

Extradordinary ambition and being rather charismatic might be results megalomania. Quite a lot of directors of mayor corporations are suffering from it too.

So they might all have been slightly insane. (Also, if they hadn't beenm they wouldn't have gotten to the top)

[Glowcat]

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

There's a certain sub-sect of the conservative movement (more-so in libertarian circles) which has such a high purity requirement and dedication to unbudging principles that they truly don't see somebody like Paul Ryan or the Republican party as conservative. It's not a 'no true scotsman' fallacy so much as a radically different definition.

[Aqizzar]

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

There's a certain sub-sect of the conservative movement (more-so in libertarian circles) which has such a high purity requirement and dedication to unbudging principles that they truly don't see somebody like Paul Ryan or the Republican party as conservative. It's not a 'no true scotsman' fallacy so much as a radically different definition.

Where it does turn into a No True Scotsman bit though is when people who say things like the Republican party was never really conservative or George Bush / Paul Ryan / Newt Ginrich / Whoever "betrayed" the "conservative movement", and then freely declare their intention to vote straight-ticket Republican in every election without a moment's hesitation.

[GreatJustice]

"Supported by Republicans" =/= "CONSERVATIVE"

When presented by evidence that Paul Ryan was a lockstep member of the conservative party you simply declare that the conservative party was no true scotsman and move on.

Conservative is a broad term, and the GOP covers a lot more ideological ground than "Arch-Conservative". Was Paul Ryan a conservative? Yes, obviously. I wasn't saying he's a moderate, I was saying that he isn't conservative enough to strongly motivate the base since he voted against conservative interests when he backed the bailouts among other things.  Your making the same mistake as the "Obama is a communist" crowd. Oh, and I don't think you know what No True Scotsman is, either.

Dude, Gaddafi openly, not even covertly, but openly supported practically every terrorist group from the last 40 years. He once even stated he was building training camps for suicide attacks. He gave funding and resources to the RAF, the IRA, and the Red Brigade. He tried to prop up as many foreign radical political parties as he could. He funded Islamist and Communist rebels in the Philippines.

He tried to have foreign journalists criticizing him assassinated, he had a West Berlin nightclub bombed, and when his people finally started to rise up against him his solution was tanks and machine guns! He was going to burn his own country to the ground rather than ever consider surrendering! The guy was completely fucking nuts!

Uh, these are legitimate reasons to invade if your arguing from the view of a Frozen Caveman Lawyer. Might I remind you that Reagan sent bombers after him after the Berlin bombing (whereupon he buckled in grand fashion), and he was basically a willing supporter of the "War on Terror" as of 2001. He sure hadn't been funding terrorists recently.

Saudi Arabia never had a serious rebellion going on during the Arab Spring, Syria is still in a civil war right now. The US is supporting things that actually have a chance of success.

Last I checked, Saudi Arabia had a rather serious rebellion going on from the Shiite easterners that the US conveniently ignored, AND the Shiites in Bahrain were rebelling and put down by Saudi Arabian forces without so much as a peep from the US. Of course, the Saudis had an easier time preventing things from getting out of hand thanks to the equivalent of billions in foreign aid from the US and technology (eg. F16s).

Again, this isn't even remotely about "freeing the people" of these countries, this is about taking advantage of the situation to install pro-US regimes in previously unfriendly countries. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Uh, these are legitimate reasons to invade if your arguing from the view of a Frozen Caveman Lawyer.

It isn't about a legitimate reason to invade. You said:

Well, Gaddafi is overthrown, but internationally speaking he was a harmless and cowardly dictator who didn't even remotely pose a threat to other countries.

And as my examples demonstrate he was definitely not harmless or cowardly, he was a murderous lunatic who actually managed to simultaneously embody the worst traits of both communist and islamist dictatorship.

Last I checked, Saudi Arabia had a rather serious rebellion going on from the Shiite easterners that the US conveniently ignored, AND the Shiites in Bahrain were rebelling and put down by Saudi Arabian forces without so much as a peep from the US.

I'm not seeing anything on your Shiite easterner rebellion. Links? (And no official peep from the US. It came out not too long ago that we were funneling aid to the Syrian rebels under the table for months, so the same could easily be happening here.)

Of course, the Saudis had an easier time preventing things from getting out of hand thanks to the equivalent of billions in foreign aid from the US and technology (eg. F16s).

Are you aware that there is currently a ban on foreign aid to Saudi Arabia? (Right above the table in the history section.)

Again, this isn't even remotely about "freeing the people" of these countries, this is about taking advantage of the situation to install pro-US regimes in previously unfriendly countries.

Which is why the CIA blew up the old governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and Lybia and then replaced them with exiled monarchs.

Except that isn't what happened and the people of Tunisia and Lybia (Egypt is still under millitary dictatorship, so that probably is going to boil over again) are forming their own new governments. That the resulting regimes will probably end up pro-US isn't because we "installed" them, it's because we helped (for Lybia and probably soon Syria). Believe it or not, you can free a people and end up with a regime that likes your side of geopolitics at the same time, and this is an example of that.

The kind of thing you are implying, that we personally took out the old governments and are going to create the new ones, is what the CIA and MI6 did in Operation Ajax. And today we have the Iranian theocracy because of that. Not playing nice can have severe consequences.

[mainiac]

Conservative is a broad term, and the GOP covers a lot more ideological ground than "Arch-Conservative". Was Paul Ryan a conservative? Yes, obviously. I wasn't saying he's a moderate, I was saying that he isn't conservative enough to strongly motivate the base since he voted against conservative interests when he backed the bailouts among other things.  Your making the same mistake as the "Obama is a communist" crowd. Oh, and I don't think you know what No True Scotsman is, either.

Well I do know that that paragraph is pretty darn good example of it.

[GreatJustice]

And as my examples demonstrate he was definitely not harmless or cowardly, he was a murderous lunatic who actually managed to simultaneously embody the worst traits of both communist and islamist dictatorship.

So what? He hasn't supported terrorists in, well, forever, and is no fan of the Salafist terrorists that the US is fighting, either. Might I remind you that many a Saudi prince supported terrorists (say, Bin Laden).

I'm not seeing anything on your Shiite easterner rebellion. Links? (And no official peep from the US. It came out not too long ago that we were funneling aid to the Syrian rebels under the table for months, so the same could easily be happening here.)

Here you go.

Are you aware that there is currently a ban on foreign aid to Saudi Arabia? (Right above the table in the history section.)

On the contrary,

After the Cold War the US-Saudi relations were improving. The US and US companies were actively engaged and paid handsomely for preparing and administrating the rebuilding of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia transferred $100 billion (US) to the United States for administration, construction, weapons, and in the 1970s and 1980s higher education scholarships to the US (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). During that era the US built and administrated numerous military academies, navy ports, and Air Force airfields. Many of these military facilities were influenced by the US, with the needs of cold war aircraft and deployment strategies in mind. Also the Saudis purchased a great deal of weapons that varied from F-16 war planes to main battle tanks that later proved useful during the Gulf War (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). The US pursued a policy of building up and training the Saudi military as a counterweight to Shiite extremism and revolution following the revolution in Iran. The US provided top of the line equipment and training, and consulted the Saudi government frequently, acknowledging them as the most important Islamic leader in that part of the world, and key player in the US security strategy.

Whoops!

Which is why the CIA blew up the old governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and Lybia and then replaced them with exiled monarchs.

Except that isn't what happened and the people of Tunisia and Lybia (Egypt is still under millitary dictatorship, so that probably is going to boil over again) are forming their own new governments. That the resulting regimes will probably end up pro-US isn't because we "installed" them, it's because we helped (for Lybia and probably soon Syria). Believe it or not, you can free a people and end up with a regime that likes your side of geopolitics at the same time, and this is an example of that.

The kind of thing you are implying, that we personally took out the old governments and are going to create the new ones, is what the CIA and MI6 did in Operation Ajax. And today we have the Iranian theocracy because of that. Not playing nice can have severe consequences.

Uh, I didn't say the Arab Spring was a CIA op, I said "this is about installing pro-US regimes" in reference to Libya and active US intervention. Tunisia and Egypt were basically performed by the people there as opposed to the US, and the US was notably uncomfortable with the loss of previously pro-US Mubarak. Libya, on the other hand, featured active US intervention for the purposes of regime change and was against a dictator who very much wasn't under the thumb of Washington like the Saudis are.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So what? He hasn't supported terrorists in, well, forever, and is no fan of the Salafist terrorists that the US is fighting, either. Might I remind you that many a Saudi prince supported terrorists (say, Bin Laden).

Yes, "forever" being 1990 or so. The "so what" is that your statement was inaccurate. Saudi princes supporting terrorists is irrelevant to this.

Here you go.

Detainment of peaceful protesters six months ago does not equal a serious rebellion.

On the contrary,

After the Cold War the US-Saudi relations were improving. The US and US companies were actively engaged and paid handsomely for preparing and administrating the rebuilding of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia transferred $100 billion (US) to the United States for administration, construction, weapons, and in the 1970s and 1980s higher education scholarships to the US (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). During that era the US built and administrated numerous military academies, navy ports, and Air Force airfields. Many of these military facilities were influenced by the US, with the needs of cold war aircraft and deployment strategies in mind. Also the Saudis purchased a great deal of weapons that varied from F-16 war planes to main battle tanks that later proved useful during the Gulf War (Kaiser & Ottaway 2002). The US pursued a policy of building up and training the Saudi military as a counterweight to Shiite extremism and revolution following the revolution in Iran. The US provided top of the line equipment and training, and consulted the Saudi government frequently, acknowledging them as the most important Islamic leader in that part of the world, and key player in the US security strategy.

Whoops!

All that happened before the ban, which was instituted in 2006 if I recall correctly.

Uh, I didn't say the Arab Spring was a CIA op, I said "this is about installing pro-US regimes" in reference to Libya and active US intervention. Tunisia and Egypt were basically performed by the people there as opposed to the US, and the US was notably uncomfortable with the loss of previously pro-US Mubarak. Libya, on the other hand, featured active US intervention for the purposes of regime change and was against a dictator who very much wasn't under the thumb of Washington like the Saudis are.

We were assisting a preexisting rebellion in Lybia, and not even all that much either. They did the heavy lifting, NATO just kept Gaddafi from employing air supremacy against the rebels.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Wait, so you're trying to bash Obama for a minor military intervention that had bipartisan support, had huge support from the international community and undoubtably saved many civilian lives because you think he might've slightly gone against a 1973 law (although he probably didn't - the law basically gives you 90 days because you have 30 days to withdraw after that 60 day deadline) that every president since has said is unconstitutional?

Maybe you should stop obsessing over the constitution so much and look at whether things actually have a positive impact.

I believe politicians should make good on their word, particularly when swearing "so help me God"

When you start making any exceptions, you find more exceptions. Till amendment changes it, Obama is to protect and uphold the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_v._Chadha

Both SCOTUS and Congress go with WPR. The fact that NATO deployed our troops, with the president sending them along, clearly falls within the WPR.

[Urist_McDrowner]

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/war.powers_1_libya-resolution-president-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

On deadline day, President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress to pass a bipartisan resolution in support of military operations in Libya.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline.

Obama sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman.

The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya, Obama said.

You can't refuse to look for evidence, then assert there is no evidence.

So which is correct, all the republicans screaming for Obama to intervene faster in Libya? Or those same Republicans who did a 180 turn as soon as American troops were committed? Hell, they were calling for the military action, and as we can see, if Obama had waited for authorization, nothing would EVER have got done, then you'd be now blaming Obama for not invading.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137265761/who-has-war-powers-washington-debates

In the Senate, it gets more complicated. Perhaps Obama's staunchest defender there on Libya is the Republican he beat two and a half years ago, Arizona's John McCain. This week on the Senate floor, McCain took House Republicans to task for prompting a letter of thanks from Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi after they passed a resolution this month chiding Obama on Libya.

"Republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group who are earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant for trying to limit an American president's ability to force that tyrant to leave power," McCain said.

Petulant children those repub's. "no we don't want to" sign a piece of paper which would have been stamped on day one, had it been a Republican president in the exact same situation.

Heaven forbid a Democrat ever got a letter of praise from a tyrant for back-stabbing a Republican President's attempt to overthrow him. Can I call Republicans terrorists yet? This is much more concrete than any of the crap they throw at Democrats.

You keep trying to refute what I said with "those Republicans". They are irrelevant. You're strawmanning. "Well, these OTHER Republicans say this. Therefore you say this" And again, you're proving that Obama would break his sacred word, become a criminal, and violate the supreme law of the land. He's nothing but a criminal. Always has been.

Who are these republicans who said it? Can this source be backed up by someone other than NPR?

Ignore the Republicans, and answer the question. Did Obama break his sacred word as he laid his hand upon a Bible, did he lie to millions of people through his teeth, did he violate the law, and is he a criminal? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Zangi]

No.

The word of law for upper management is generally flexible and full of loopholes.  Obama's guilt or non-guilt can be argued both ways, but his administration covered itself in a way that prosecution would likely not even be considered...

Acceptable answer?