Damned if you do, damned if you don't: The Bush Legacy

[Guest American Woman]

Because Libya is of no use to those countries that can get involved. And well, it's a civil war? Civil wars are happening in many places these days. What makes Libya and Qaddafi special? There are other civil wars where the government is killing it's citizens, but again , why Libya? Why Qaddafi? What makes his actions special when he is doing exactly what other leaders of countries going through civil unrest?

I sponsor a child. I can't sponsor all the children in the world who need a sponsor, but I don't let that stop me from helping one child.

I don't understand this 'the U.S. isn't helping everyone in the world who needs it, so why are they helping those that they do?' scornful attitude. Why not be glad for those who are getting help instead of looking upon it with disdain?

I will say this, though. The effects of some civil wars are likely to be more confined to their own country while others will likely affect an entire region. So if one can't be everywhere doing everything it makes sense to be where one can accomplish the most good for the most people.

[SF/PF]

I don't understand this 'the U.S. isn't helping everyone in the world who needs it, so why are they helping those that they do?' scornful attitude. Why not be glad for those who are getting help instead of looking upon it with disdain?

I'm not really sure what you're raging against here.

I responded to a post that claimed that there was only one nation in the world capable of stopping a poorly trained second world military. Calling it second world is being charitable, IMO.

What "scornful attitude?"

Edited March 20, 2011 by SF/PF

[GostHacked]

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not really sure what you're raging against here.

Oh, I'm sure you don't get it. The fact that you asked why the "dozens of nations" would do anything for the people of Libya told me that.

I responded to a post that claimed that there was only one nation in the world capable of stopping a poorly trained second world military. Calling it second world is being charitable, IMO.

So you responded with what you see as a ridiculous claim with another. I see.

While the U.S. isn't the only nation capable of stopping them, the idea that there are "dozens" who could "do it better" is just as off the wall. Furthermore, suddenly a poorly trained military is evidently easy to beat. Seems to me the story was that Bush et al was wrong to think Iraq and Afghanistan were going to be a piece of cake. Unless you think they had highly trained militaries?

What "scornful attitude?"

The scornful attitude that's so often used when pointing out that the U.S. isn't helping this or that nation, so why in the world are they helping the nation in need that they are helping? You'd think one would be happy for the people of Libya and be rooting for their success in their uprising. But no. Hate for the U.S. is greater for so many. I see that as a scornful attitude. If one doesn't support a war/military action, then there can't possibly be anything to consider except criticism of the U.S. for not helping everyone in the world.

I didn't support the war in Iraq, but I sure hope things turn out better for the people. I certainly hope the same for Libya. The fact that the U.S. has something to gain means the world has something to gain. We hear about how awful it is to act on our interests as we hear how what happens in the U.S. economy affects the world. It's not as if the other nations in the world aren't complicate in all that takes place.

Must be nice to sit back and judge as one reaps the benefits.

[GWiz]

Oh, I'm sure you don't get it. The fact that you asked why the "dozens of nations" would do anything for the people of Libya told me that.

So you responded with what you see as a ridiculous claim with another. I see.

While the U.S. isn't the only nation capable of stopping them, the idea that there are "dozens" who could "do it better" is just as off the wall. Furthermore, suddenly a poorly trained military is evidently easy to beat. Seems to me the story was that Bush et al was wrong to think Iraq and Afghanistan were going to be a piece of cake. Unless you think they had highly trained militaries?

The scornful attitude that's so often used when pointing out that the U.S. isn't helping this or that nation, so why in the world are they helping the nation in need that they are helping? You'd think one would be happy for the people of Libya and be rooting for their success in their uprising. But no. Hate for the U.S. is greater for so many. I see that as a scornful attitude. If one doesn't support a war/military action, then there can't possibly be anything to consider except criticism of the U.S. for not helping everyone in the world.

I didn't support the war in Iraq, but I sure hope things turn out better for the people. I certainly hope the same for Libya. The fact that the U.S. has something to gain means the world has something to gain. We hear about how awful it is to act on our interests as we hear how what happens in the U.S. economy affects the world. It's not as if the other nations in the world aren't complicate in all that takes place.

Must be nice to sit back and judge as one reaps the benefits.

I made this thread not because of any kind of anti-USA sentiment, the opposite in fact... I was trying to point out the dilema the US faces with a country like Libya in particular but allso pretty much any country in the North Africa/ME region...

Regardless of what Obama, or any president of either party does, it's a no win situation...

In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the day the Arab leaque asked for a no fly zone, NATO as is their mandate, should have done what they are doing now...

The delay of a week makes a big difference because of the loses the rebellion suffered in that interim...

And I don't blame Obama one bit for that because his hands were tied and they still are when it comes to taking any sort of military action in the region...

Unfortunately people like Ghaddafi know it too, which is why he was as brutal and ruthless as he was/is...

[bush_cheney2004]

I made this thread not because of any kind of anti-USA sentiment, the opposite in fact... I was trying to point out the dilema the US faces with a country like Libya in particular but allso pretty much any country in the North Africa/ME region...

Yet you have yet to make the case for why Libya is a uniquely American interest or responsibility.

Regardless of what Obama, or any president of either party does, it's a no win situation...

In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the day the Arab leaque asked for a no fly zone, NATO as is their mandate, should have done what they are doing now...

So a "violation of international law" is OK for Libyans but not Iraqis?

The delay of a week makes a big difference because of the loses the rebellion suffered in that interim...

So what? Armed rebels often die....see American Revolution.

And I don't blame Obama one bit for that because his hands were tied and they still are when it comes to taking any sort of military action in the region...

Repeating this lie will not make it true. President Obama attacked Yemen with identical Tomahawk cruise missiles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236

Unfortunately people like Ghaddafi know it too, which is why he was as brutal and ruthless as he was/is...

...with a little help from his friends, like Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin.

[GostHacked]

Yet you have yet to make the case for why Libya is a uniquely American interest or responsibility.

Hell, the US has not made the case either.

So a "violation of international law" is OK for Libyans but not Iraqis?

Probably a violation of USA's own laws as well by not getting congress approval to go to war. The USA now takes it's marching orders from the UN and CFR. Must of been all those executive orders and signing statements.

[GWiz]

Yet you have yet to make the case for why Libya is a uniquely American interest or responsibility.

Where did I say it was?

Having said that, this is however a fact you can't ignore no matter how much you try >

There is no such thing as a "war on terror", there never was, as Bush Jr. proved conclusively back when >

Muammar al-Gaddafi : Bad Policy decisions by US and UK

- Over the past 20 years Muammar al-Gaddafi has not changed. The only thing that has changed is how he plays the international political game. George Bush and Tony Blair have very bad reputations in their own countries and they are just about to get worse. In the recent uprising in Libya, all the skeletons that George Bush and Tony Blair put into the Libyan closet are now coming out. The stream of horrible decisions to forgive past offenses of Muammar al-Gaddafi and to grant him membership in the interntational community of trading nations is now making its way to global nightly newscasts.

To learn just how bad these decisions were, first take a look at the resume of Muammar al-Gaddafi concerning terrorism and International crimes. -

So a "violation of international law" is OK for Libyans but not Iraqis?

I assume you know that apples and oranges taste different... Maybe not since you seem to think they are the same fruit...

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I say it was?

Having said that, this is however a fact you can't ignore no matter how much you try >

There is no such thing as a "war on terror", there never was, as Bush Jr. proved conclusively back when >

You are conflating two very different ideas....Ghaddafi was bombed by the United States very early on for his terrorist activities.

I assume you know that apples and oranges taste different... Maybe not since you seem to think they are the same fruit...

No...I think you are obsessed with Uncle Moe, yet your own nation has coddled him more than George Bush or Tony Blair ever did. How do you reconcile this fact?

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7hMj2NKTc

Wesly Clark on the futur war. Edited March 20, 2011 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's Prime Minister kisses Colonel Ghaddafi's ass in person:

Canada seeks trade in Libya talks

Now sanctions are gone, Canadian firms are eyeing opportunities

Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin has had talks with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi that were expected to focus on trade and business opportunities. He is in Tripoli for a two-day visit that includes a meeting with Canadian firms seeking business in Libya.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4109679.stm

[SF/PF]

Oh, I'm sure you don't get it. The fact that you asked why the "dozens of nations" would do anything for the people of Libya told me that.

Many nations in the world are still pretty leary of jumping into the middle of a civil war. As has been pretty well demonstrated as of late, crushing the military of your opponent can be the easy part of the job.

While the U.S. isn't the only nation capable of stopping them, the idea that there are "dozens" who could "do it better" is just as off the wall. Furthermore, suddenly a poorly trained military is evidently easy to beat. Seems to me the story was that Bush et al was wrong to think Iraq and Afghanistan were going to be a piece of cake. Unless you think they had highly trained militaries?

Did I say there were dozens that could "do it better"? Oh, thats right. I didn't.

And yes, a poorly trained and poorly equipped military is easy to beat. If you don't recall, Iraq's military was crushed pretty damn quickly. Of course, thats when the real work starts.

The scornful attitude that's so often used when pointing out that the U.S. isn't helping this or that nation, so why in the world are they helping the nation in need that they are helping?

Did I criticize the US for not helping some other nation? Oh, thats right. I didn't do that either.

You'd think one would be happy for the people of Libya and be rooting for their success in their uprising. But no.

I would love to see a free and democratic Libya. I'm not convinced that backing a regional group in a civil war is likely to lead to a unified and democratic Libya. But we can all hope for the best.

Hate for the U.S. is greater for so many. I see that as a scornful attitude. If one doesn't support a war/military action, then there can't possibly be anything to consider except criticism of the U.S. for not helping everyone in the world.

More ranting about stuff that you think I said, but only exists in your mind.

Must be nice to sit back and judge as one reaps the benefits.

Must be nice to rage against people for saying things that they never actually said.

[Guest American Woman]

Did I say there were dozens that could "do it better"? Oh, thats right. I didn't.

So being "more capable" doesn't equal doing better? Perhaps you live in a different world than I do, but generally "more capable" equals "better." So if you want to play word games, count me out.

Did I criticize the US for not helping some other nation? Oh, thats right. I didn't do that either.

Did I say you did? No, I didn't. back at'cha.

I would love to see a free and democratic Libya. I'm not convinced that backing a regional group in a civil war is likely to lead to a unified and democratic Libya. But we can all hope for the best.

So you can make sense at times.

More ranting about stuff that you think I said, but only exists in your mind.

You asked me a question, I answered it. I also responded to another poster's post. It's not all about you.

Must be nice to rage against people for saying things that they never actually said.

Yes, rage. And yes, it's all about you. Here's a tip. Everything I say and think doesn't pertain directly to you.

[eyeball]

So if one can't be everywhere doing everything it makes sense to be where one can accomplish the most good for the most people.

In Canada's case this would be to stay at home and mind our own business. Further to that however we should suspend all trade with other countries that don't, including our allies.

Edited to add; Especially our allies.

Edited March 20, 2011 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

I made this thread not because of any kind of anti-USA sentiment, the opposite in fact... I was trying to point out the dilema the US faces with a country like Libya in particular but allso pretty much any country in the North Africa/ME region...

I realize that. I wasn't referring to you in any way, but those who feel the need to criticize the U.S. as if there's no good reason for our being there, and of course the list of all the nations we aren't helping is trotted out yet again.

Regardless of what Obama, or any president of either party does, it's a no win situation...

It seems to be that way; damned either way which is what I've grown tired of.

In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the day the Arab leaque asked for a no fly zone, NATO as is their mandate, should have done what they are doing now...

The delay of a week makes a big difference because of the loses the rebellion suffered in that interim...

It did suffer, but considering the magnitude of the situation, taking a week to plan/act/reach major decisions isn't really all that long. Furthermore, perhaps it had to be given time to see where the situation was truly headed.

And I don't blame Obama one bit for that because his hands were tied and they still are when it comes to taking any sort of military action in the region...

It is difficult to do more sometimes when there are so many things to weigh. I think he acted as quickly as he could. NATO has a say in all of it too, so it's not just in Obama's hands.

Unfortunately people like Ghaddafi know it too, which is why he was as brutal and ruthless as he was/is...

Which is why it's sometimes necessary for the world to show people like him that we won't sit by and let it happen. It emboldens others, too.

Edited March 20, 2011 by American Woman

[SF/PF]

Yes, rage. And yes, it's all about you. Here's a tip. Everything I say and think doesn't pertain directly to you.

Perhaps you may want to try responding to posts individually. Including a quote in your response typically implies that you're responding to that post.

[bush_cheney2004]

In Canada's case this would be to stay at home and mind our own business. Further to that however we should suspend all trade with other countries that don't, including our allies.

Edited to add; Especially our allies.

Would this also mean not consuming American media (TV, film, music, radio, satellite weather, web content, etc.)?

Also, no GPS for your boat's nav system?

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps you may want to try responding to posts individually. Including a quote in your response typically implies that you're responding to that post.

I did include quotes. You jumped in questioning something I had said in response to someone else's post. I figured at that point you'd realize it wasn't all about you.

[eyeball]

Would this also mean not consuming American media (TV, film, music, radio, satellite weather, web content, etc.)?

Also, no GPS for your boat's nav system?

Sure, bring it on. We can always go back to LORAN.

Edited March 20, 2011 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, bring it on. We can always go back to LORAN.

LORAN A is long gone, and LORAN C support ended in 2010. Go find your sextant.

[GostHacked]

LORAN A is long gone, and LORAN C support ended in 2010. Go find your sextant.

GPS is for losers anyways. Some of us can still use a compass and a map.

[GWiz]

You are conflating two very different ideas....Ghaddafi was bombed by the United States very early on for his terrorist activities.

You know my friend, whether you realize it or not, you're actually making my point for me...

Taking immediate and direct action when "bad guys" went really bad, for good or bad reasons, was pretty much an American "trademark" of the prior to GWB era...

Post GWB America is damned if it takes unilateral action (with or without support from other nations), (GB too for that matter like in the Falklands), as it did prior to GWB, to now taking the brunt of the blame for not taking immediate action in a case like Libya...

That's my point... Thanks for illustrating it so clearly once again...

How do you reconcile this fact?

Easy, Martin was a stupid ass for the way he "liked" Ghaddafi Duck, and I told him so in no uncertain terms... He still had nothing to do with taking Ghaddafi off the hook, that was 100% at the behest of George W. Bush to show the world how well his Iraq "policy" was working...

He no more was no longer a terrorist as there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq...

"Stupid is as stupid does", applies to Martin but it applies to George W. Bush and Tony Blair 100X as much...

Happy now?

[bush_cheney2004]

Taking immediate and direct action when "bad guys" went really bad, for good or bad reasons, was pretty much an American "trademark" of the prior to GWB era...

Wrong....Cold War restraint applied then too.

Post GWB America is damned if it takes unilateral action (with or without support from other nations), (GB too for that matter like in the Falklands), as it did prior to GWB, to now taking the brunt of the blame for not taking immediate action in a case like Libya...

The UK did have support from other nations. I am beginning to think you have only a very superficial understanding of history in this regard.

Easy, Martin was a stupid ass for the way he "liked" Ghaddafi Duck, and I told him so in no uncertain terms... He still had nothing to do with taking Ghaddafi off the hook, that was 100% at the behest of George W. Bush to show the world how well his Iraq "policy" was working...

Not good enough....Canada embraced Libya the same way it embraced Cuba.

"Stupid is as stupid does", applies to Martin but it applies to George W. Bush and Tony Blair 100X as much...

Happy now?

Kinda...it only took multiple posts pounding your ass with the obvious Paul Martin and Canadian activity.

[GostHacked]

The UK did have support from other nations. I am beginning to think you have only a very superficial understanding of history in this regard.

History is written by the winners, not who was right.

Not good enough....Canada embraced Libya the same way it embraced Cuba.

Which is going to bite us in the ass, but man, those Cuban cigars are pretty damn good .. would you like one?

Kinda...it only took multiple posts pounding your ass with the obvious Paul Martin and Canadian activity.

OH noes, not the 'But Canada' bit again .... oh noes, you are hurting our poor little Canadian egos!!! Yeah, just throwing it back in our face eh? You seem extra bitter today.

[GWiz]

Wrong....Cold War restraint applied then too.

Somehow Vietnam, Israel, Granada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Balkans, and even Libya come to mind...

What did I miss?

The UK did have support from other nations. I am beginning to think you have only a very superficial understanding of history in this regard.

Seems one gets a very limited view at any give TIME looking thru a periscope, eh...

Not good enough....Canada embraced Libya the same way it embraced Cuba.

Sorry, been to both, Cabbage and Garburator, no simularity at all...

Kinda...it only took multiple posts pounding your ass with the obvious Paul Martin and Canadian activity.

Not really... Still as irrelevent to this thread as the first TIME you mentioned it to DISTRACT from this thread...