Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:01 pm

Total Liars:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Those dirty bastards, we're totally not going to vote for them in 2004. Oh wait. I wasn't going to vote for them until I voted for them.

Ragorn wrote:Typical conservative partisan hypocrisy.

Sssssure Ragorn. Suuuurrreeee.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:20 pm

So the Bush Adminstration tells Democratic leaders that Saddam has WMDs. Democrats quote the intelligence they were given. Teflor calls them liars.

Ssssssssure, Teflor. Where's your list of Republican liars? Partisan hack much?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:49 pm

Ragorn wrote:So the Bush Adminstration tells Democratic leaders that Saddam has WMDs. Democrats quote the intelligence they were given. Teflor calls them liars.

Ssssssssure, Teflor. Where's your list of Republican liars? Partisan hack much?

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Did you read the dates on 1/3 of the quotes? Try again.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:39 pm

Teflor just owned the argument.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:48 pm

The "smart organizer" vs the "lone ranger." Basically Obama is a smart organizer and past presidents, think Bush, was a lone ranger.

I don't think there is any question there are aspects of Obama's approach that are good. I don't think any president would prefer to get entangled in a foreign country without the support of the international community so the question of whether Obama did the right thing here really boils down to did he read the severity of the situation correctly and play his hand well or was he engaged in analysis paralysis, failed to lead and basically waited too long to act.

Now, I think that if you use the metric of supporting the opposition, he got bluffed out and is making it worse by continuing to play a losing hand. If the metric is getting rid of Ghadafi, then his hand is still in the game and I'll put him at even money for succeeding... if ghadaffi falls in the next year, it'll be the cheapest smallest political cost of regime change that I can think of... if nothing else Ghadaffi will have to rebuild his power base and relationships for the next few years. If the metric is to diminish America's standing and leadership in the world, to look weak and to put someone else in the hot seat, then he already accomplished his objectives.

I still say Obama failed to lead, but he still has a good chance to win this battle if the narrative of Ghadaffi must go continues.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52660.html
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Ragorn » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:34 pm

Don't forget, the Republicans were for the war in Libya before they were against it :)

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/08/gin ... s-evening/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... _ST1_N.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4_wFQJSdmI

Best quotes:

"I would establish a no-fly zone this evening." - Newt Gingrich, March 7th
"Intervening is a moral obligation for the United States — a moral obligation we've all too often ignored in similar cases in the past, with disastrous consequences. This time we need to get it right. It's time for President Obama to lead." - Jamie Fly, March 3rd
"We’re the ones with the assets. We’re the ones with the military capability. We’re the ones that should be leading." - John McCain, April 5th

I only had five minutes, you can find another couple dozen quotes on your own if you want to :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:36 pm

For me the issue isn't getting involved in Libya. I think it's debateable whether we should be there or not - certainly something that should be given some thought - but that's beside the point. My issue is with President Obama's disregard for the Constitution.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:39 pm

The issue for me is leadership. Doing the "right" thing not doing what is politically (including at the UN level) safe.

If Obama believed we needed to support the rebels or eliminate ghadaffi, then execute on that basis. Don't half ass and compromise based on what is popular or can be pushed through the UN. If he can't commit to achieving his objectives, then stay out of it. Basically, lead.

The same issue is evident in the budget fight. Obama put together a bipartsian deficit committee, then ignored all their suggestions and published an untenable budget that has us paying 850 billion in interest each year in 2021. Paul Ryan, a Republican, courageously stepped up and by most accounts is committing political suicide by staking out a position that cuts entitlements. Paul Ryan is a leader, Obama is a carpet bagger.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:01 pm

kiryan wrote:The issue for me is leadership. Doing the "right" thing not doing what is politically (including at the UN level) safe.

If Obama believed we needed to support the rebels or eliminate ghadaffi, then execute on that basis. Don't half ass and compromise based on what is popular or can be pushed through the UN. If he can't commit to achieving his objectives, then stay out of it. Basically, lead.

The same issue is evident in the budget fight. Obama put together a bipartsian deficit committee, then ignored all their suggestions and published an untenable budget that has us paying 850 billion in interest each year in 2021. Paul Ryan, a Republican, courageously stepped up and by most accounts is committing political suicide by staking out a position that cuts entitlements. Paul Ryan is a leader, Obama is a carpet bagger.


Wow, he proposed a budget. That's REAL leadership! Not at all like working with other world leaders. You're only leading if you're charging head on into everyone around you. Teamwork is stoopid!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:18 pm

... do you realize the fiscal year started on Oct 1st when the Democrats had commanding majorities in the house, senate and the presidency. Obama's budget wasn't even produced till February of 2011 I believe... and included basically NONE of the recommendations from his own damn special task force. 5 fricking months past the start of the year 3 of which he had an EXTREMELY FRIENDLY house and senate.

You might be a fanactic extremist zealot if you believe that was leadership.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:20 pm

kiryan wrote:... do you realize the fiscal year started on Oct 1st when the Democrats had commanding majorities in the house, senate and the presidency. Obama's budget wasn't even produced till February of 2011 I believe... and included basically NONE of the recommendations from his own damn special task force. 5 fricking months past the start of the year 3 of which he had an EXTREMELY FRIENDLY house and senate.

You might be a fanactic extremist zealot if you believe that was leadership.


Wait, so when he cooperates with everyone (The UN on Libya) he's not a leader. Yet when he cooperates with no one (not listening to budget committee) he's also not a leader.

Your bias is showing.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:27 pm

e wants to tackle the $14.3 trillion national debt while reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next decade. He wants to cut the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent. He also wants to transform Medicare into a system in which the government would pay for private health insurance plans instead of paying doctors and hospitals directly.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... z1Iy9ETbP8


Yep, "leadership" means writing a budget following all the guidelines Republicans always follow. He wasn't so much the financial planner as he was the keyboard specialist.

So he wants to cut revenue by lowering taxes, and eliminate healthcare. Sorry, "privatize." (Read: Hand as much money as possible to his medical insurance lobbyists.)

Where's his concern over military spending or anything else in our budget? Funny that he wants to cut healthcare after months and months and months of Republicans telling us how bad "socialized" medicine is, but has no desire to cut anything else except taxes.

Leadership: Doing Everything Your Party Tells You To!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:31 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:... do you realize the fiscal year started on Oct 1st when the Democrats had commanding majorities in the house, senate and the presidency. Obama's budget wasn't even produced till February of 2011 I believe... and included basically NONE of the recommendations from his own damn special task force. 5 fricking months past the start of the year 3 of which he had an EXTREMELY FRIENDLY house and senate.

You might be a fanactic extremist zealot if you believe that was leadership.


Wait, so when he cooperates with everyone (The UN on Libya) he's not a leader. Yet when he cooperates with no one (not listening to budget committee) he's also not a leader.

Your bias is showing.


No cooperating and asking everyone else's permission is not leading. Its following.

He instituted his own committee (that was leadership), he did not follow any of the recommendations from his own committee (not leadership), he did not follow the recommendations for a variety of reasons especially including political cowardice of taking on entitlement spending without bipartsianship (not leading).

BUT ABOVE FUCKING ALL, SUBMITTING YOUR BUDGET

FIVE FUCKING MONTHS LATE

IS NOT GOD DAMN LEADERSHIP YOU PINHEAD.
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:34 pm

kiryan wrote:No cooperating and asking everyone else's permission is not leading. Its following.


It's no surprise that the guy who can't agree with anyone about anything on this forum would think that.

BUT ABOVE FUCKING ALL, SUBMITTING YOUR BUDGET

FIVE FUCKING MONTHS LATE

IS NOT GOD DAMN LEADERSHIP YOU PINHEAD.


:roll:

No, no. We've established that Leadership means doing whatever your party tells you to.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Kindi » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:14 am

kiryan wrote:BUT ABOVE FUCKING ALL, SUBMITTING YOUR BUDGET

FIVE FUCKING MONTHS LATE

IS NOT GOD DAMN LEADERSHIP YOU PINHEAD.

obama released his proposed 2011 budget on 1 february 2010, 8 months before it would have taken effect. the budget released 2 months ago was for 2012

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/obama ... id=9717948
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Ragorn » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:25 am

YEAH YOU PINHEAD

WE DON'T NEED FACTS

THIS IS THE NO-SPIN ZONE
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:35 am

Ragorn, Kiryan, and mostly Sarvis. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:40 am

well fuk, couldnt someone have pointed that out before I made a fool out of myself?
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:52 am

Like everyone else in this forum hasn't? Some repeatedly.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Sat May 14, 2011 3:31 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un- ... story.html

Why aren't we doing air raids in Syria?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun May 15, 2011 6:36 am

Corth wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-human-rights-office-extremely-concerned-by-syria-crackdown-number-of-850-killed-realistic/2011/05/13/AFTfq51G_story.html

Why aren't we doing air raids in Syria?

Not as much oil. Libya exports 10x the oil Syria exports.

No oil? No interest. Duh.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Sun May 15, 2011 10:38 pm

That would make sense if Qadaffi somehow was a threat to oil production. If anything his relationships with foreign oil companies have been relatively stable. If they let him crush the rebels the oil would have flowed just as nicely as it did in the past. I don't think we can use the oil excuse there.

So again I wonder why we aren't bombing Syria.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Mon May 16, 2011 4:26 am

Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 16, 2011 3:24 pm

Qadaffi is a threat to oil production. He became unable to manage the population.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Sarvis » Mon May 16, 2011 3:36 pm

Corth wrote:So again I wonder why we aren't bombing Syria.


Maybe we can't afford any more bombs right now?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Mon May 16, 2011 5:30 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Qadaffi is a threat to oil production. He became unable to manage the population.


In the absence of the air strikes he was controlling them quite well. With vicious efficiency. Everyone acknowledges that the rebels would have been crushed but for intervention from the international community. Only NOW that we have created essentially a stalemate is there no control over the population. Oil production decreased due to the international community's involvement. The oil excuse you bring up is silly.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Mon May 16, 2011 6:07 pm

Interesting UN program... Gadaffi gives the UN money who turns around and gives it back minus a 3% "management fee". Sounds like it amounts to putting a gold seal of approval on his regime for a paltry 15-25 million. That's apparently the price of legitimacy... although it makes me wonder ever so slightly if he's as bad of a guy as he has been portrayed to be. Then again you have his rambling UN speeches... the lockerbie bomber etc...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13 ... latestnews

U.N. Agency Prepares to Resume Aid to Libya Even if Qaddafi Remains in Power

== how the fuck is this "aid" when the money comes from Libya to a UN organization and is pretty much sent back to Libya and the program in the country is run by Libyans.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue May 17, 2011 5:20 am

Corth wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Qadaffi is a threat to oil production. He became unable to manage the population.


In the absence of the air strikes he was controlling them quite well. With vicious efficiency. Everyone acknowledges that the rebels would have been crushed but for intervention from the international community. Only NOW that we have created essentially a stalemate is there no control over the population. Oil production decreased due to the international community's involvement. The oil excuse you bring up is silly.

Seriously? Have you no recall about what indigenous partisan guerrilla groups have done to oil production in the middle east before? Do I need to send you to oil production protection school?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Fri May 20, 2011 7:42 pm

ok... I'm increasingly wondering what the hell the plan is here...

You won't assassinate Kadadffi or capture him, but you'll keep doing things whittling away at his power base until there's a mutiny. and we are doing this why? so that its not a west based overthrow of a islamic regime/dictator? Maybe we should just food embargo Libya to force him to give up... ok so thast crazy and stupid and the oil tanker thing is basically a good military target, but its like crap or get off the pot.

I can see how the narrative reads well, but will anyone believe it. The opposing view is if your end goal is get rid of gadaffi, well, quit pussyfooting around with everything else and just get rid of him.

I suppose it could be a matter of protecting the rebels until they can stand up their own power structure so when Kadaffi does go there won't be a power vacuum... ie not repeat what happened in Egypt.

and heres a really crazy thought that i came up with on my own. Iran's oil ministry is going through a bunch of drama with Ahmadenajad trying to go to opec to represent, Libya's oil minister disappeared. I wonder if there is an OPEC element to this strategy. An attempt to throw their organization into chaos or something...

Oh and heres the obligatory Democratic attack line: Bush, I mean Obama, is prolonging the conflict in Libya to drive up oil prices to benefit his friends in big oil. I wonder why I haven't seen that narrative ever, or the one where Obama, I mean Bush's third term, is responsible for rising gas prices.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110520/ts_ ... 5rc2dhZA--

NATO sinks Gaddafi ships and intercepts oil tanker
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon May 23, 2011 1:50 pm

kiryan wrote:Bush, I mean Obama, is prolonging the conflict in Libya to drive up oil prices to benefit his friends in big oil. I wonder why I haven't seen that narrative ever, or the one where Obama, I mean Bush's third term, is responsible for rising gas prices.

Umm, because the media votes democrat?
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:38 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... a-mission/

Seems like broad bipartisan discontent with Obama's handling of the Constitutional issues surrounding his commitment of US military in the Libya conflict. About half the Congressional democrats voted in favor rebuking him.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:06 pm

Corth wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/

Seems like broad bipartisan discontent with Obama's handling of the Constitutional issues surrounding his commitment of US military in the Libya conflict. About half the Congressional democrats voted in favor rebuking him.


Good. Not entirely up to speed on everything, but doesn't sound like this was handled correctly.

Now, at the risk of sounding partisan, when it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... how many Republicans wanted to rebuke Bush?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:27 pm

Sarvis,

Whether the war in Iraq was warranted or not is certainly up for debate. Personally (like Ragorn) I was in favor of it at the time, and in retrospect think it was the wrong decision. But I don't think that it can be said that GWB failed to get Congressional approval for the conflict. Granted, an argument can be made that he intentionally misled Congress to get that approval - but that is definitely not something that has been proven. My feeling is that they honestly believed there was WMD, and in fact they were just simply wrong. That or SH managed to ship it all out to Syria before the conflict started.

In this particular case, Obama committed US troops into a hostility without imminent danger to the US or its people, and without Congressional approval. Joe Biden is on record (from before he was VP) as saying that he would personally introduce an impeachment bill against a President who would do such a thing. There is a very big question mark here whether Obama has exceeded his Constitutional authority - and certainly he has violated the provisions of the War Powers Act - though the Constitutionality of that statute has never been determined (and every President since it was promulgated has refused to recognize it as a valid law). Regardless, it certainly is good to see Congress, in a bipartisan matter, asserting itself against this intrusion upon it's Constitutional powers.

Moreover, beside the Constitutional issues - there is the straightforward question of whether entering this conflict is wise. I personally do not see any compelling reason to get involved in essentially a tribal conflict in a faraway land without much geopolitical significance. As far as I can tell, international involvement has, predictably, resulted in a stalemate - indefinitely delaying a resolution one way or another. The rebels, even with foreign assistance, are not strong enough to topple Quadaffi - so what exactly is being accomplished other than perpetuating a Civil War? Additionally, the logic used to justify this mission - humanitarian grounds - would also weigh in favor of intervention in Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and countless other places. so why just Libya?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:29 pm

I started this thread as a piece of healthy, humorous sarcasm to highlight the hypocrisy of the left: primarily at those who demonized Bush for pushing regime change in Iraq, but heavily supported Obama's actions in Libya.

Personally, I am not against US policies of intervention and armed incursion in foreign sovereign nations in defense of liberty, assuming that the situation for the people would be far worse without it. There appear to be US interests in Libya, an oil exporting nation that appears to be friendly to our ideas of freedom and democracy.

Obama definitely circumvented congress in this case as most presidents do. The trouble I have here is that everyone that decried that as treason under Bush, now have nothing to say under Obama. And that's not even really so bad. What confuses me the most is why the administration hasn't made the case to the American public on why Qaddafi has to go: because it doesn't want to commit to making Qaddafi leave and it doesn't want to be held responsible for its future actions by justifying the ones they have made already.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:22 am

The revolution against the Shah in Iran started out as a push for 'liberty' and ended up with an Islamic dictatorship that has been a thorn in our side for 30 years. Libya under Qudaffi was a stable country, as was Egypt under Mubarak. In recent years Qudaffi has renounced terrorism, dismantled his WMD program, and has allowed foreign corporations to drill for oil. Mubarak kept the peace with Israel and held the Islamic factions at bay. I'm not sure any eventual replacement will be preferable. The US needs to have some sort of strategic interest to make the whole thing worthwhile. Otherwise the question still remains why Libya and why not Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and a whole host of other places.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:29 am

Its good to see Dems rebuking Obama for going to war. The side story that isn't really clear is that the GOP was not interesting in rebuking Obama that hard which is why Boehner introduced his resolution which only says you gotta come explain yourself within 2 weeks or else vs the Democrat which is more to the effect we order you to withdraw our troops within 2 weeks. Between the two resolutions 75% of congress rebuked him.

An interesting part is that you basically have the GOP pro war (despite their soft worded rebuke) and only the 50% of the Democrats against war (vs basically turning 100% against war under Bush).

Now finally, the really interesting part... Why did Obama go to war in the first place? One of Soros' funded groups developed something call the "duty to protect" (at least it was attributed to them). Basically, its a doctrine that says, we will go to war to protect people. Two of Obama's top advisors were central to the creation of this doctrine basically as a response to Clinton's ignoring the genocide in Rwanda. An article I read indicated that Obama's advisors were saying, don't let this be your Rwanda.

Recall Obama's remarks, to prevent major loss of life. Obama was being told that Ghadadffi was about to slaughter thousands in rebel towns. This is the difference between Libya and Yemen etc, that and being first. If Syria had killed 500 protestors early on, we'd probably be in Syria. The point was to engage in military action on humanitarian grounds... not our interests or as a result of an act of war action against us.

This doctrine is a SERIOUS expansion of how the USA uses its military. One that liberals want to tie into the UN to give the UN military force for their humanitarian mission... If this is all true, its an amazing victory thats getting 0 recognition.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:04 am

GWB had to justify his invasion of Iraq on existence of WMD - and has taken quite a bit of flack when he wasn't able to produce any post-invasion. I guess nowadays, given this so-called 'duty to protect', all you need to say is that the leader of target country is about to kill civillians. Not very easy to contradict that. Obama learned a lesson from GWB.

I'm still confused how the 'duty to protect' doesnt get invoked in Syria - where hundres if not thousands have been killed by Assad's forces - or perhaps China, which has been oppressing the Tibetans and the Falun Gong for years.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:51 am

Because it's bullshit.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:41 pm

Corth wrote:GWB had to justify his invasion of Iraq on existence of WMD - and has taken quite a bit of flack when he wasn't able to produce any post-invasion. I guess nowadays, given this so-called 'duty to protect', all you need to say is that the leader of target country is about to kill civillians. Not very easy to contradict that. Obama learned a lesson from GWB.

I'm still confused how the 'duty to protect' doesnt get invoked in Syria - where hundres if not thousands have been killed by Assad's forces - or perhaps China, which has been oppressing the Tibetans and the Falun Gong for years.


I think because Libya occured first. The articles that touched upon this that I read indicated Obama was resistant to getting involved in Libya and did so at the urging of his advisors and the fact another NATO country was willing to take the leadership role. If this is true, he certainly would justify not going into Syria on the basis of already being in one foreign entanglement and not being willing to directly lead another one. Now why france has a hard on for Libya I don't really know.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:18 am

France probably dislikes Libya because Libya tends to do a lot of business with the Italians. It's one of the reasons that they defended Saddam Hussein so vigorously - French corporations were making a killing on the so-called 'oil for food' program. Likewise, it's why the Russians defend the Iranians and North Koreans - big customers in their arms trade. Ultimately, when you give this all some thought, you realize exactly why the UN is such a farce. But also, doesn't it start to seem like the US is woefully deficient in crafting foreign policy based on it's own strategic goals?

As for the Libyan intervention occuring because it happened first.. maybe they should have a deli counter system. Take a number. When we're done with Libya we'll go on to the next basket case country that needs our 'help'.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:27 pm

Nod, interesting that despite funding 22% of the UN we wouldn't get anything if we didn't have a veto on the security council and even then, most of the time we have to bribe China and Russia to get anything actually passed. It's like paying for daycare, give them a place to play and shake their fists while the adults continue to rule the world. Unfortunately, Obama didn't get the memo, he thinks its a serious organization.

Syria has definitely escalated to the point where it should probably get precedence over Libya...

The latest claim is that Syria paid poor people to rush the Israel border and is releasing propaganda saying that the syrian refugees are fed up and want to return to their homelands (apparently Israeli occupied). The number of people being killed seems to be escalating and people are consistently dieing week over week.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Imperialist Democrats Threaten Libya - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Postby Corth » Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:31 pm

It was a PR stunt to try and focus attention away from the popular dissent against the regime and towards something the Arabs universally agree upon - the destruction of Israel.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest