View Full Version : redacted
VooDoo6Actual
10-20-11, 07:14
redacted.
Fingers crossed. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Rot in hell, you waxy-faced, sorry excuse for a human being.
wild_wild_wes
10-20-11, 08:31
SIC SEMPER TYRANIS!!
Mauser KAR98K
10-20-11, 08:58
Waiting for better confirmation. After all, it is that part of the world.
Ned Christiansen
10-20-11, 09:20
I just heard it on the radio, and the 20-or-22 year old fighter than captured him was being carried around by his brothers..... he was waving around a gold plated pistol.
Good job and hang onto that for later pal, you earned yourself a bit of a collector's item there......
He never got to join the occupy Wall street retards. :(
So can somebody swing by and whack the Lockerbie bomber while we are getting things done.
Sounds good to me:
I just heard it on the radio, and the 20-or-22 year old fighter than captured him was being carried around by his brothers..... he was waving around a gold plated pistol.
Good job and hang onto that for later pal, you earned yourself a bit of a collector's item there......
It would be very cool if the Berlin disco bombing , the Frankfurt PX gas station bombing , and all the other Gaddafi crimes were avenged by a young man from him own country.
Within another 10 minutes next report he had a GSW to head... go figure
Well yeah... He was escaping after the two leg wounds and they had to shot him in the head.
Looks like him:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DKJQUShElCzE
If so, rest in pieces you sack of crap
So can somebody swing by and whack the Lockerbie bomber while we are getting things done.
So, is this payback for not giving GB more oil when they released the Lockerbie bomber?
Seems odd how there were so many reasons to off this guy over the last couple of decades and only just after the Lockerbie bomber was released and still living fine that it became urgent for GB and France to terminate G.
Glad he is gone but seems strange timing.
Don't mess with the oil supply...or else.
So, is this payback for not giving GB more oil when they released the Lockerbie bomber?
Seems odd how there were so many reasons to off this guy over the last couple of decades and only just after the Lockerbie bomber was released and still living fine that it became urgent for GB and France to terminate G.
Glad he is gone but seems strange timing.
Don't mess with the oil supply...or else.
Ummm no. I just figured since we were taking out the trash and Qudaffy Duck was the guy who ordered the bombing we might as well get all the parties involved.
Also pretty sure it was Scotland who set him free. And THAT was a "for oil" deal.
woodandsteel
10-20-11, 13:15
I'm surprised that they shot him in the head.
I figured they would've strung him up from some utility pole or light post.
They had to make sure that sweet gold plated pistol still worked..........everyone knows that guns are worth more if you can show that they still shoot!! :jester:
I wonder what happened to all of his hot little hooker/body guards he was always surrounded with? I'm sure they were somewhere in the back of the crowd " boosting moral"! ;)
There's suddenly an influx of Iranian amazonian bodyguards that need work. Craigslist?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/374/theworldthroughalensgad.jpg
They snapped that picture a second too soon. They would have caught Obama in mid-bow had they waited just a little longer. ;)
I don't think it should've cost the American taxpayers $2 BILLION of their hard earned money.
Biden also defended the U.S. strategy in Libya. “In this case America spent two billion dollars total and didn’t lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has been in the past,” Biden said.
Besides, in a year or two they'll have some other dictator in charge or civil wars or some other silly shit to bring chaos and lawlessness to the region. That $2 BILLION could've been used here at home to help Americans or better yet don't spend the money at all and leave the money in the pockets of the people who earned it.
I don't think it should've cost the American taxpayers $2 BILLION of their hard earned money.
Not sure of the actual amount. Heard 1.1B earlier today on CNN. They said we paid 80% of NATO's costs. Aren't we nice?
Looks like him:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DKJQUShElCzE
If so, rest in pieces you sack of crap
link is gone!
I don't think it should've cost the American taxpayers $2 BILLION of their hard earned money.
Besides, in a year or two they'll have some other dictator in charge or civil wars or some other silly shit to bring chaos and lawlessness to the region. That $2 BILLION could've been used here at home to help Americans or better yet don't spend the money at all and leave the money in the pockets of the people who earned it.
I agree that taxpayer dollars aren't for fixing Libya, but I'm willing to allocate a few bucks towards whacking out the ****er who was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and other acts of terrorism against US citizens and soldiers.
variablebinary
10-21-11, 01:24
Conflicting reports that he surrendered and was executed. Not sure how I feel about that.
Not something I will cry about or anything, but it's not something I agree with.
Moose-Knuckle
10-21-11, 02:53
First, I wished I was a fly on the wall when old Lu greeted him at the gates of hell. Second, IF this is in fact the real Col. Gaddafi then it's about thirty years past due. Why all of a sudden???
IMHO, it's just more changing of middle management. . .
POTUS was supposed to get us out of W's "mess" in the Middle East, right? :rolleyes:
Hmmm. . . first "War on Terror", now "Arab Spring", MILLIONS of lives, and BILLIONS of dollars. We went into Afghanistan then Iraq, now we have bombed Libya, operating surreptitious drone bases around Yemen and Somalia, sending SF "advisors" to NW Africa, and now "Iran must pay" for an assassination plot of a Saudi ambassador. . .
Where have I heard this before?
"The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, "absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)"
VooDoo6Actual
10-21-11, 02:55
redacted.
variablebinary
10-21-11, 04:18
Just so I can fully understand this, our role in the world is to set up executions of heads of state during a coup?
Mind you, this is the same Muammar Gaddafi that issued one of the first arrest warrants for OBL before 9/11, and let Libya be used by the CIA and USA as a counter-terror hub while under Bush. This man was a national threat to American interests? Yes, there was Lockerbie, no question, but by all accounts, this person was not trying to get on our shit list for awhile.
So we go from semi-normal diplomatic relations under Bush, and suddenly under Obama, who loves all Muslims, we order a drone hit that results in a head of state being whacked. An unarmed, injured head of state that surrendered no less.
Something stinks. No one wanted this man in court ratting out all the rotten shit he knew about the Globalists and oligarchs in Europe and the USA. All these Arab leaders we propped up are being silenced. This is not national defense. This is cutting all the loose ends.
VooDoo6Actual
10-21-11, 04:28
redacted.
wild_wild_wes
10-21-11, 08:06
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/20/confirmed-gaddafi-dead-colonel-gaddafi-killed-in-cold-blood-begging-for-his-life-115875-23502875/
I'm going w/ executed.
"Executed", or just a pumped-up mob?
Anyhoo, one of the local fighters who witnessed it said it was a pistol..."nine millie"...that did the deed.
Just so I can fully understand this, our role in the world is to set up executions of heads of state during a coup?
Absolutely. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/obama-hails-death-gaddafi
President Barack Obama hailed the lifting of the "dark tyranny" over Libya after the new government confirmed Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, issuing a warning to other dictators in the Middle East – and particularly Syria – that they could be next.
Things are going to get very, very interesting...
Moose-Knuckle
10-21-11, 11:13
30 September 2006
General Clark: Seven countries in five years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s
I agree that taxpayer dollars aren't for fixing Libya, but I'm willing to allocate a few bucks towards whacking out the ****er who was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and other acts of terrorism against US citizens and soldiers.
I'll preface with the fact that I'm not supporting either side, or trying to justify their actions, but trying to learn more about the root cause of people's actions. Despite the "America **** yeah!" attitude that a lot of people have we should look at things from a more neutral, unbiased position. Let's delve into history and see what we come up with...
In April 1986, following a terrorist bombing in Berlin that killed an American serviceman, the United States bombed Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya's two largest cities, killing up to two dozen civilians, including Gaddafi's daughter. The attack was widely condemned as a violation of international law, which recognizes the legitimacy of the use of military force only in self-defense from an armed attack, not for retaliation. The civilian casualties from the air strikes and the serious damage caused to the French embassy and other diplomatic facilities provoked outrage throughout the world and bolstered Gaddafi's standing both at home and abroad.
The US justified the air strikes on the grounds that it would prevent future Libyan sponsored terrorism. Instead, it had the opposite effect: two years later, in retaliation for the bombing, Libyan agents blew up a US airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
Also, let's not forget that Americans have shot passenger airliners out of the sky as well. The USS Vincennes comes to mind and here's a quote from Wiki:
On 3 July 1988, Vincennes, under the command of Captain Will Rogers III, fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. According to Captain Rogers, there had earlier been an attack on the Vincennes by Iranian motor boats. Crucially, the Vincennes then misidentified the Iranian Airbus as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. A radio warning had been sent to the aircraft on military wavelength.
The Iranian government has maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft.[1] Iran Air flight IR655 flew every day out of Bandar Abbas—a civil as well as military airport—on a scheduled passenger flight to Dubai using established air lanes. The Italian navy and another US warship, the frigate Sides, confirmed that the plane was climbing—not diving to attack—at the time of the missile strike. The US radio warnings were only broadcast on emergency radio frequencies, not air traffic control frequencies, so the Airbus crew could have misinterpreted the warnings as referring to another aircraft. Captain David Carlson of the USS Sides later said that the destruction of the airliner "marked the horrifying climax to Rogers' aggressiveness".[2]
The shooting down of the plane has continued to be the subject of fierce debate.
There's a lot more info out there but I don't want to create a book in this thread. Neither side is innocent and we've been ****ing around with Libya since 1805 hence the Marine Corp hymn going "To the shores of Tripoli..." referring to the Barbary War.
montanadave
10-21-11, 21:28
According to the New York Post, the kid that capped Ghaddafi was a Yankee's fan. One of the accompanying headlines described the shooter as "getting more hits than Derek Jetter." (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/moammar_gets_yankee_capped_yGWwRz5ZBSoF2XjCvzengJ)
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/851/yankeefan300x300.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/yankeefan300x300.jpg/)
Gotta love the Post! :D
LowSpeed_HighDrag
10-21-11, 21:54
Something stinks. No one wanted this man in court ratting out all the rotten shit he knew about the Globalists and oligarchs in Europe and the USA. All these Arab leaders we propped up are being silenced. This is not national defense. This is cutting all the loose ends.
Nailed it right on the head.
Currently waiting for Gaddafi 2.0 to take power....
Just so I can fully understand this, our role in the world is to set up executions of heads of state during a coup?
Yes. Well, if you're Hilary Clinton it is. I'm too lazy to look the quote up, as I'm waiting for my son to sign on the computer so we can talk, but she effectively called for his death when she said something about they're looking forward to his death or capture.
According to the New York Post, the kid that capped Ghaddafi was a Yankee's fan. One of the accompanying headlines described the shooter as "getting more hits than Derek Jetter." (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/moammar_gets_yankee_capped_yGWwRz5ZBSoF2XjCvzengJ)
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/851/yankeefan300x300.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/yankeefan300x300.jpg/)
Gotta love the Post! :D
Great stuff.
Another accompanying headline :
" Do you know right from wrong?" Iconic last known words of Khadafy
Wonder what 20 year old Mohamed El Bibi thought about that .
Maybe something like :
" Due diligence trumps due process ? "
I understand how a great many , perhaps most , of those fighters could feel sort of deputized to just get it done. It's not like the great leader was a 20 year draftee with his hands up. The local folks solved a world class problem in a local way.
I would buy the young man a shot of Iranian vodka - if it was OK with him and if I could find any. Maybe they don't even make the stuff anymore.
Speaking of our Yankees fan, look at that cap, it looks very clean and new. I guess before you head out for the final assault on qadaffi's hometown, one needs to go to the local market and pick up a brand new hat. You never know, you might be the one that grabs a dictator's gold plated half power and "cap" him with it.
A close-up of the gun in question:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RTR2SX8V-449x299.jpg
wild_wild_wes
10-22-11, 17:05
And here's Gadhafi's gold plated Dragunov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIa1Fw9CAGU&feature=player_embedded
allah ackbar
Belmont31R
10-22-11, 17:37
Some nations need an iron fisted dictator to keep the crazies in check.
Not weeping a tear that he is dead but its a double edged sword especially with all the military shit that guy had, and an unknown situation in Egypt at the moment. Obama very well could have given us two more radicalized muslim nations full of military equipment.....:rolleyes:
After 9/11 he was cooperating with us.....
I think I just saw Turk . Not the first one , either. Look like very solid pro's.
And here's Gadhafi's gold plated Dragunov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIa1Fw9CAGU&feature=player_embedded
allah ackbar
Great video. I hope some of the spoils become family hierlooms .
Some nations need an iron fisted dictator to keep the crazies in check.
Not weeping a tear that he is dead but its a double edged sword especially with all the military shit that guy had, and an unknown situation in Egypt at the moment. Obama very well could have given us two more radicalized muslim nations full of military equipment.....:rolleyes:
After 9/11 he was cooperating with us.....
What types of crazies? You mean ones that would put him and his son's bodies on display in a meat store so you can come get your cell phone picture of them? Keep in mind that they were assassinated while they were prisoners. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/muammar-gaddafi-body-misrata-meat-store
Better yet let's celebrate and cut the heads off of camels! Chaos will rule in Libya for many years to come... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8843700/Muammar-Gaddafis-grisly-death-raises-questions-the-length-of-Libyas-revolutionary-road.html
Iraq Ninja
10-23-11, 02:25
Libyan officials are now claiming a ND is to blame...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d127/Iraqninja/tex.jpg
Voodoochild
10-23-11, 04:46
Found this site and it seems to have the best photos showing the before and after.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/235967/20111023/pictures-moammar-gadhafi-dead-moammar-gadhafi-news-pictures-captured-just-before-his-death.htm#page0
I'll preface with the fact that I'm not supporting either side, or trying to justify their actions, but trying to learn more about the root cause of people's actions. Despite the "America **** yeah!" attitude that a lot of people have we should look at things from a more neutral, unbiased position. Let's delve into history and see what we come up with...
In April 1986, following a terrorist bombing in Berlin that killed an American serviceman, the United States bombed Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya's two largest cities, killing up to two dozen civilians, including Gaddafi's daughter. The attack was widely condemned as a violation of international law, which recognizes the legitimacy of the use of military force only in self-defense from an armed attack, not for retaliation. The civilian casualties from the air strikes and the serious damage caused to the French embassy and other diplomatic facilities provoked outrage throughout the world and bolstered Gaddafi's standing both at home and abroad.
The US justified the air strikes on the grounds that it would prevent future Libyan sponsored terrorism. Instead, it had the opposite effect: two years later, in retaliation for the bombing, Libyan agents blew up a US airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
Also, let's not forget that Americans have shot passenger airliners out of the sky as well. The USS Vincennes comes to mind and here's a quote from Wiki:
There's a lot more info out there but I don't want to create a book in this thread. Neither side is innocent and we've been ****ing around with Libya since 1805 hence the Marine Corp hymn going "To the shores of Tripoli..." referring to the Barbary War.
I don't disagree with you, But, wasn't it brought out that Gaddafy's daughter is in fact alive, Had been working at a hospitial as a DR, and the whole getting killed during the bombing a lie? Myself, I don't care how he died, the Lybian people took care of him, weather or not he was begging for his life matters not,I imagine alot of people he had killed when he was running the show, did the same thing...paybacks are a bitch.
But, wasn't it brought out that Gaddafy's daughter is in fact alive, Had been working at a hospitial as a DR, and the whole getting killed during the bombing a lie?
After a bit more research there are quite a few media sources saying it was a hoax. However, there are quite a few claiming it's legit. Either way we were playing tit for tat with Libyans at the time and it wasn't just a 1 sided ordeal.
Myself, I don't care how he died, the Lybian people took care of him, weather or not he was begging for his life matters not,I imagine alot of people he had killed when he was running the show, did the same thing...paybacks are a bitch.
And now you know how the rest of the world feels about our Presidents, and Americans in general, for our actions around the world. Guess how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died due to our guns, bombs, embargoes and sanctions? Not that I really care but the rest of the world does and especially the wingnut Islamic jihadi mother****ers.
Everyone talks about Lockerbie in the news, a horrific crime, but no one mentions the USS Vincennes shooting down a passenger plane with 290 people onboard, why is that? We have a tendency to look at history from a single sided perspective when people need to be far more introspective. The CIA uses a great phrase, blowback.
I gotta run so this is a little scattered... If I need to clarify it I will do so later.
No need to, thanks, I was just wondering about the daughter's death and if in fact it was a hoax or not. Due to the hours I was working I had'nt been keeping up. Frankly, as a country I've always wondered why don't we just mind our own business, Keep a strong military,but stay out of other country's problems.Let them fight their own battles,massacre each other, whatever, Lord knows we've got enough problems of our own.
And now you know how the rest of the world feels about our Presidents, and Americans in general, for our actions around the world. Guess how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died due to our guns, bombs,
I don't know, educate us. But I seriously doubt that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis dies due to OUR (US) guns, bombs, and the like.
I don't doubt that it is possible that hundred of thousands of Iraqis have died in the last 10 years. But it wasn't US bombs and guns. It was the terrorists, the so-called "insurgents" and the others setting off car bombs and killing their own fellow citizens.
embargoes and sanctions?
I'll give you one chance: it lies between -1 and 1
In a free market, both parties need to decide to do business together. If one side does not agree to the terms, no business happens. The Iraqi government did not want to do business with the west on the terms the west were willing to do business on, and his people suffered as a result. That was the choice of the Iraqi govnt (read Hussein).
The West even went to great lengths to allow so-called "humanitarian" aid in and Hussein skimmed off the top and basically used it to enrich himself.
Not that I really care but the rest of the world does and especially the wingnut Islamic jihadi mother****ers.
Everyone talks about Lockerbie in the news, a horrific crime, but no one mentions the USS Vincennes shooting down a passenger plane with 290 people onboard, why is that?
Maybe because it was an accident? Not a planned terrorist action?
When it happened, it was plenty in the news.
Equating the two incidents is ignorant.
We have a tendency to look at history from a single sided perspective when people need to be far more introspective. The CIA uses a great phrase, blowback.
I gotta run so this is a little scattered... If I need to clarify it I will do so later.
I don't know, educate us. But I seriously doubt that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis dies due to OUR (US) guns, bombs, and the like.
I don't doubt that it is possible that hundred of thousands of Iraqis have died in the last 10 years. But it wasn't US bombs and guns. It was the terrorists, the so-called "insurgents" and the others setting off car bombs and killing their own fellow citizens.
Your statement is completely off base and comes across as so ignorant I'm not even going to justify it with an argument. There are plenty of guesstimates online if you'd like to look but a lot of it boils down to the fact that the numbers are bad publicity and "We don't do body counts." - Gen. Tommy Franks.
I'll give you one chance: it lies between -1 and 1
In a free market, both parties need to decide to do business together. If one side does not agree to the terms, no business happens. The Iraqi government did not want to do business with the west on the terms the west were willing to do business on, and his people suffered as a result. That was the choice of the Iraqi govnt (read Hussein).
In a free market? You are absolutely clueless as to what you're talking about. So because our government is at odds with their government over oil we should restrict medicine and food from entering their country? There is no such thing as a "free market" when it comes to U.S. and UN imposed sanctions and embargoes towards Iraq. From 91' - 98' 227,000 children under the age of 5 died due to our sanctions according to this report. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html Other reports far exceed this and it is generally considered a conservative estimate.
UN sanctions have led to over a million deaths in Iraq. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html
More info on the matter from your .Gov officials.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Amy Goodman:
... many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.... the U.N. sanctions, for example ... led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.
Governor Richardson:
Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy.
Amy Goodman:
To ask a question that was asked of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?
Governor Richardson:
Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes.
Maybe because it was an accident? Not a planned terrorist action?
When it happened, it was plenty in the news.
Equating the two incidents is ignorant.
What's ignorant is your opinion and the vast majority of American's opinions of what has happened in the past and what's currently happening in the ME. You really have no clue as to how the minds of these people work, it's in decades and centuries not 6 months or a year like most Americans. The CIA calls it blowback, read up on it.
Regardless of how many people you think we've killed due to guns, bombs, sanctions or whatever we've completely ****ed up their entire country and the next several generations. Imagine all those children who are psychologically ****ed due to living in a war for the past 9 years throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Do you honestly think everything's just going to be hunky dory from here on out for those people?
Quit being a chickenhawk, swear allegiance to your country, pick up a weapon and go fight if it means that much to you. If not then quit trying to commit men and other people's children to go die for your bullshit cause.
forum software messed up on an edit
Your statement is completely off base and comes across as so ignorant I'm not even going to justify it with an argument. There are plenty of guesstimates online if you'd like to look but a lot of it boils down to the fact that the numbers are bad publicity and "We don't do body counts." - Gen. Tommy Franks.
so, you were wrong? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis didn't die by US bombs and guns?
In a free market? You are absolutely clueless as to what you're talking about.
You totally missed the point.
So because our government is at odds with their government over oil we should restrict medicine and food from entering their country?
Do some research please. The argument was not about oil.
There is no such thing as a "free market" when it comes to U.S. and UN imposed sanctions and embargoes towards Iraq. From 91' - 98' 227,000 children under the age of 5 died due to our sanctions according to this report. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html Other reports far exceed this and it is generally considered a conservative estimate.
That is a political report. Totally devoid of any sort of credibility.
OF COURSE it is a free market between governments. If one government doesn't want to do business with another, it does not have to. If one government says that I will only do business with another if "A" happens, and the other government does not want "A" to happen, whose fault is it that the business is not transacted? It is the fault of the government who does not want "A" to happen, not the government setting the conditions.
UN sanctions have led to over a million deaths in Iraq. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html
NO. Saddam Hussein's government not wanting to do business with the rest of the world according to the terms given it led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis.
The blame is SQUARELY on the side of the Iraqi government led by Hussein.
You yourself have said we are not the world's policeman. We are not the worlds doctor nor green-grocer either. The fact that we (and the rest of the West) choose not to do business with Iraq does not make the consequences in Iraq our fault.
Despite all that, the West agreed to participate in a market for Iraqi oil if the proceeds when to humanitarian needs only. Saddam found all sorts of ways of getting around that and skimming or seizing the profits for his other uses. And you want to blame the West / US for Saddam's behavior of sacrificing his own people?
More info on the matter from your .Gov officials.
What's ignorant is your opinion and the vast majority of American's opinions of what has happened in the past and what's currently happening in the ME. You really have no clue as to how the minds of these people work, it's in decades and centuries not 6 months or a year like most Americans. The CIA calls it blowback, read up on it.
"Blowback" is another term for consequences. That does not mean that the consequences can be used to place blame.
If person A decides to avoid person B, and person B decides to slug person A as "blowback", is person A at fault?
It is about responsibility. Person B is responsible for his actions, no matter the reason he finds them justified.
Regardless of how many people you think we've killed due to guns, bombs, sanctions or whatever we've completely ****ed up their entire country and the next several generations.
Saddam Hussein "f*cked up" their entire country. Put the blame where it is due. Cleaning up after a mess does not induce culpability on the person cleaning up the mess.
Imagine all those children who are psychologically ****ed due to living in a war for the past 9 years throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Do you honestly think everything's just going to be hunky dory from here on out for those people?
Imagine all those children who lived through Hussein's rein and ALL THE CHILDREN who were not (or their parents were not) killed/tortured/abused in living under Saddam Hussein's (hypothetical) further rule. Think of all the people who are NOT now living under the memory of having their villages gassed, their daughters raped, their sons "disappeared". Hussein did a lot -- a lot - of bad things and there is no reason to believe he would not have continued to do those things.
Sometimes the world is a "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't" type of world.
These people allowed Saddam Hussein to rule their country and Saddam Hussein picked some fights he couldn't win and now these people are unfortunately living the consequences of that.
After the Holocaust, the world swore "never again" ("nimmer wieder" it says at Dachau). Yet when push comes to shove, most people in the world would rather see a few dead people then upset the status quo. Friggin' big hypocrites.
Quit being a chickenhawk, swear allegiance to your country, pick up a weapon and go fight if it means that much to you. If not then quit trying to commit men and other people's children to go die for your bullshit cause.
Ohh, big "chickenhawk" argument. Quaking in my boots. :rolleyes:
No one committed other people's children to die. People who HAD volunteered to serve in the military were sent to do a mission. I know several including people in my family who were deployed. Stop trying to diminish the sacrifice of those who died.
I happen to agree with your aims mostly, but not the untruths and lies and faulty logic you use to get there.
BTW. I am not saying there are not things to criticize and that the way things have gone down is the only way it could have gone down.
I am saying that using BS "logic" and trying to place blame for Saddam's actions on the US is a bunch of BS. The stuff that has gone down is justified (in the big picture, not talking every little action) but maybe not ideal.
But maybe it was not the best way to have gone about things. We should be trying to look at how things can happen better the next time. Not trying to place "blame" for past actions, that, given "real politik" or pragmatic reality, with the understanding of the situation and information available at the time, made sense at the time.
Ohh, big "chickenhawk" argument. Quaking in my boots.
No one committed other people's children to die. People who HAD volunteered to serve in the military were sent to do a mission. I know several including people in my family who were deployed. Stop trying to diminish the sacrifice of those who died.
Don't act like a child. Politicians, chickenhawks and the huge corps seeking to make hundreds of billions committed those people's children to die whether you see it or not. My statements don't diminish anyone's sacrifice so get over it.
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post at the moment and it's obvious that we won't see eye to eye.
BTW. I am not saying there are not things to criticize and that the way things have gone down is the only way it could have gone down.
I am saying that using BS "logic" and trying to place blame for Saddam's actions on the US is a bunch of BS. The stuff that has gone down is justified (in the big picture, not talking every little action) but maybe not ideal.
But maybe it was not the best way to have gone about things. We should be trying to look at how things can happen better the next time. Not trying to place "blame" for past actions, that, given "real politik" or pragmatic reality, with the understanding of the situation and information available at the time, made sense at the time.
Currently working outside of my normal area and don't have much time to respond. I don't know the exact numbers and I threw up a response earlier but it doesn't take away from the fact that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place. We've wasted over a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and gained nothing.
variablebinary
10-24-11, 11:53
I don't disagree with you, But, wasn't it brought out that Gaddafy's daughter is in fact alive, Had been working at a hospitial as a DR, and the whole getting killed during the bombing a lie? Myself, I don't care how he died, the Lybian people took care of him, weather or not he was begging for his life matters not,I imagine alot of people he had killed when he was running the show, did the same thing...paybacks are a bitch.
The Libyans pulled the trigger, but we killed him. Loyalist forces virtually crushed the rebellion early on until we got involved and shot down aircraft and took out armor and infrastruture. Plus we provided weapons and supplies
You call it payback, but Qaddafi allowed his nation to be used by us for rendition. He also swore off all terrorism and WMD's and had civil relations with the USA when Bush II was in office.
Our campaign against him just does not make sense at this point and time. I also find it odd that all these ousted Arab heads of state are not turning up on 60 minutes or in a world court to talk about all the dirty shit they were paid to do by the oligarhs and bankers in Europe.
30 cal slut
10-24-11, 12:05
Holy crap. Vid purportedly shows he was sodomized.
:eek:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/disturbing-video-shows-gaddafi-being-sodomized-before-his-death/
Don't act like a child. Politicians, chickenhawks and the huge corps seeking to make hundreds of billions committed those people's children to die whether you see it or not. My statements don't diminish anyone's sacrifice so get over it.
Who is acting like a child. You through the stupid "chickenhawk" comment out there. You are the one making all the conspiratol claims of big corps looking to make billions making the decisions to take care of the Saddam problem, which totally ignores the reality of the situation.
There were lots of reasons to do what was done -- based on best intelligence at the time and the actual situations as they existed. Never mind that he was a modern day little Hitler murdering his own people willy nilly.
You may disagree with the reasons, but that does not invalidate them as reasonable at the time.
Heck, I may not agree with them any more either.
It is perfectly fine to conduct a post mortem to see how we could have responded better, what could have happened better.
But to go around spreading untruths (US bombs and guns killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) and philosophical arguments as reality does no one any service. And to go call people who you disagree with names does not make your argument any sounder.
I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post at the moment and it's obvious that we won't see eye to eye.
Currently working outside of my normal area and don't have much time to respond. I don't know the exact numbers and I threw up a response earlier but it doesn't take away from the fact that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place. We've wasted over a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and gained nothing.
You say we had no business going into Iraq. Your opinion and your political philosophy. (I may even tend to agree with you). But that is not fact. It is your philosophy and opinion. There are lots of pragmatic reasons that justify the initial action based on the situation and intelligence as it existed at that time. 20/20 hindsight allows us to make judgements on whether something was a good idea, but it does not change the facts at the moment that motivated the action.
The world is a tough place. Lots of things happen. We can learn from them or we can point fingers and take hissy fits.
montanadave
10-24-11, 15:41
You can cobble together whatever cock-and-bull story you like to rationalize our foreign policy positions, economic sanctions (or privileges), and military policies and interventions in the Middle East.
At the end of the day it is, always has been, and will continue to be (until the wells run dry) about oil.
All the rest is just beating off.
ForTehNguyen
10-24-11, 16:08
so Libya is basically trading one tyranny for another one (thats possibly worse), and oh BTW we helped!. What a complete joke our foreign policy is.
Libya's liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html)
Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de fact president, had already declared that Libyan laws in future would have Sharia, the Islamic code, as its "basic source".
But that formulation can be interpreted in many ways - it was also the basis of Egypt's largely secular constitution under President Hosni Mubarak, and remains so after his fall.
Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi's era that he said was in conflict with Sharia - that banning polygamy.
In a blow to those who hoped to see Libya's economy integrate further into the western world, he announced that in future bank regulations would ban the charging of interest, in line with Sharia. "Interest creates disease and hatred among people," he said. impossible to create a free economy without interest, no one will lend out
Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslim countries, have pioneered the development of Sharia-compliant banks which charge fees rather than interest for loans but they normally run alongside western-style banks.
In the first instance, interest on low-value loans would be waived altogether, he said.
Libya is already the most conservative state in north Africa, banning the sale of alcohol. Mr Abdul-Jalil's decision - made in advance of the introduction of any democratic process - will please the Islamists who have played a strong role in opposition to Col Gaddafi's rule and in the uprising but worry the many young liberal Libyans who, while usually observant Muslims, take their political cues from the West.
.
.........absolutely clueless ....
Cliff's notes .
There are many who warned about what kind of government would be formed and that Sharia law would be a basis for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road people start chanting "bring back Gadhafi". Sharia law and a free democracy are incompatible. Apparently our foreign policy experts still can't figure that shit out.
They wanted their "change" and now they got it.
Belmont31R
10-24-11, 16:34
Obama got two ME nations to oust their moderate leaders and give the country over to either unknowns or known hard liners.
I don't think for a second Libya or Egypt are going to become bastions of freedom within the muslim world. If anything they will turn more hard core and present bigger threats. Egypt had basically given up being hard line decades ago, and we were even sending them main battle tanks & other equipment. Within days Obama was calling for their HOS to step down. Post 9/11 Libya gave up the hardline shit, too, and Obama used our military to get him out.
Iran has posed a larger threat, and is even planning offensive acts inside our country. Obama is soft on them, and sat idle when Iranians were in the street.
I think he wants to see more hard line muslim countries rather than "freedom and democracy" like he spouts.
Everyone talks about Lockerbie in the news, a horrific crime, but no one mentions the USS Vincennes shooting down a passenger plane with 290 people onboard, why is that?
Because deliberate actions are different than accidents and all credible evidence points to the Vincennes shoot down as being an accident while the evidence surrounding Lockerbie shows just the opposite.
Your posts are increasingly filled with morally relativistic complete and utter bullshit comparisons like this. Don't you think that being able to discriminate between two very different things is important to be able to play any valuable part in a discussion?
You can cobble together whatever cock-and-bull story you like to rationalize our foreign policy positions, economic sanctions (or privileges), and military policies and interventions in the Middle East.
At the end of the day it is, always has been, and will continue to be (until the wells run dry) about oil.
All the rest is just beating off.
Really? Then why aren't we taking the oil?
I am sure oil is the backdrop. But everyone claims it is about the oil but we never seem to get it in the end, even after giving them a good ass-whoopin.
VooDoo6Actual
10-24-11, 21:55
redacted.
montanadave
10-24-11, 22:28
Really? Then why aren't we taking the oil?
I am sure oil is the backdrop. But everyone claims it is about the oil but we never seem to get it in the end, even after giving them a good ass-whoopin.
Saddam Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil industry back in the seventies. Take a virtual walkabout through the intergoggle and see who's signed oil development contracts with the current Iraqi Oil Ministry. It's a "Who's Who" of some of the largest multinationals on the planet: Exxon-Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni S.p.A., CNOOC, Chevron, Total, and a score of others.
We were just doing the dirty work for the corporate overlords.
You made a reference to realpolitik in an earlier post. Might I suggest that realpolitik is simply a means to an end in the context of the much larger realeconomik?
It's always about the money and, in the Middle East, that's oil.
Belmont31R
10-24-11, 23:35
who's signed oil development contracts with the current Iraqi Oil Ministry. It's a "Who's Who" of some of the largest multinationals on the planet: Exxon-Mobil,
My dad is making bank as a sub contractor for Exxon right now in Southern Iraq building their oil infrastructure. :D
VooDoo6Actual
10-25-11, 01:36
redacted.
montanadave
10-25-11, 09:06
Excellent HD video of capture.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cc_1319401073
Yeah, I'm guessin' Ghaddafi's last moments on earth were decidedly unpleasant. And I'm not a big fan of mob justice.
But, as Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News last night, Ghaddafi was given multiple opportunities to leave the country and seek asylum abroad, taking his family and a wad of cash with him, and, instead, chose to stay put and direct his loyalists to continue to kill thousands of fellow Libyans. That he got the Mussolini treatment is hardly surprising.
VooDoo6Actual
10-25-11, 09:25
redacted.
Saddam Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil industry back in the seventies. Take a virtual walkabout through the intergoggle and see who's signed oil development contracts with the current Iraqi Oil Ministry. It's a "Who's Who" of some of the largest multinationals on the planet: Exxon-Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni S.p.A., CNOOC, Chevron, Total, and a score of others.
We were just doing the dirty work for the corporate overlords.
You made a reference to realpolitik in an earlier post. Might I suggest that realpolitik is simply a means to an end in the context of the much larger realeconomik?
It's always about the money and, in the Middle East, that's oil.
Thank you for making my point! A huge who's-who of MULTINATIONAL OIL companies, including from many countries that opposed the Iraq war. They are not all US oil companies (a few are) getting the contracts.
Correlation is not causation.
A natural consequence of a freed Iraq is wanting to get their oil going again to provide revenue for their country. The best way to do that is to get the expert help, which are the oil companies. There is ZERO proof that it was FOR the oil companies that the war was initiated.
I freely admitted that oil was a backdrop. You do your best to protect your sources of resources.
Occams Razor points to some other reason besides oil as the cause of the war. It points to the oil contracts now happening as a natural result of the vacuum left by the war.
Once again, where is all this oil we were fighting for? We "won" -- got rid of Saddam -- where is all the oil? Why aren't we taking it? We "won" it. The dollar cost (let alone the other costs) was a lot more than the oil wealth anyone in the US will end up with from this. Oil as the cause? Try again. No evidence to support it.
montanadave
10-25-11, 14:11
Your naivete is staggering.
Your naivete is staggering.
No more staggering than your imagination.
Your conspiracy theories are staggering. There is NO PROOF. You have offered no proof. You think correlation is the same as causation. And you dismiss the simple answers that explain things. All in the name of some conspiracy theory that agrees with your politics.
Whose naiveté is more staggering?
I have already agreed that oil plays a backdrop. But the idea that the war was FOR oil is a staggering leap of conspiracy without support.
Again, where is all this oil we were fighting for?
VooDoo6Actual
10-25-11, 14:31
redacted.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/06/american-plans-to-loot-iraqi-oil-and.html
Really? What proof is this? The ravings of a left-wing looney on a blog?
I can find lots of left and right wing loony rantings to "prove" anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/06/24/25160/beckel-oil-iraq/
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2007/10/15/16948/abizaid-middle-east-gas-station/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html
Like I said, Oil was the backdrop. Oil companies being tapped by Iraq to help them develop their resources is no proof that that was the prime reason in the first place. It is a consequence.
Notice it was a liberal analyst who says we should demand 100 year leases? An idea from a liberal analyst, not any sort of evidence coming from government documents from before the war.
Correlation is not causation.
Notice that Greenspan tries to make it clear that this was NOT the administration reason but HIS input to the question. Greenspan was the one making the case, not the administration.
Of course a major source of natural resources is something for nations to be concerned about.
--
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No one has put forth any serious evidence that the motivation for the Iraq war was primarily oil.
What Gates said in one of the above links is much more likely the truth, and is backed up by actions since. The war was about providing (long term -- my addition) STABILITY to the ME by getting rid of unstable dictators with ambitions for WMD (no one can seriously claim he did not have the ambitions including a freeze dried nuclear program which had been stopped, but which Hussein was ready to start again once sanctions were lifted). THAT desire for stability is probably due to the importance of the ME, yes for oil, to the WORLD. But the idea that the war was all about oil is not backed up by any evidence presented so far.
If it were, we would have seized the oil, or at the least given out contracts to US oil companies before turning Iraq back over to the Iraqis, or at the minimalist least™ would be applying mucho pressure to Iraq to steer most of the contracts to the US. None of which happened.
Why would we go to war about oil and then not take the oil or at least stack the deck in our favor?
VooDoo6Actual
10-25-11, 14:54
redacted.
I'm not interested in gettin wrapped around the axle or spooled up over this.
Just posting germain/relevant links for people's own edification.
I read, absorb process, filter, assimilate, assess as necessary for my knowledge base.
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
My apologies.
I appreciate your insight into the many topics and the oft-relevant links.
montanadave
10-25-11, 15:12
The oil is going to market and billions of dollars are going into the corporate accounts of multinationals which were previously excluded from participating in Iraq's oil industry.
Seriously, who do you think runs the world these days?
You state I have dismissed "the simple answers that explain things." What's more simple than "Hey, let's go kick the shit out of muslim tin horn dictator while everybody's fired up for some real "shock and awe" and make a butt load of money while we're at it"?
But's that just kooky, right. Our politicians (and the folks that paid to put them in office) would never put American forces in harm's way just to provide a rationale for spreading a TRILLION ****ING DOLLARS around and gaining access to one of the largest and least developed oil resources on the planet.
You hang on to those pollyanna notions that it's all about "truth, justice, and the American way of life." The guys calling the shots are countin' on it.
VooDoo6Actual
10-25-11, 15:22
My apologies.
I appreciate your insight into the many topics and the oft-relevant links.
W are good Brother. I like & emplore your passion either way.
It's all good.
Let's figure this out & survive it !
EPIC times ahead !
The oil is going to market and billions of dollars are going into the corporate accounts of multinationals which were previously excluded from participating in Iraq's oil industry.
Natural consequence of the war. Please provide proof that this was the cause.
Seriously, who do you think runs the world these days?
I don't know, tell me. Every website claims someone else. Some say Israel, some say Exxon-Mobil. Some say Soros or the Bilderbergers or the CFR.
But for whatever/whoever you claim, please provide proof.
You state I have dismissed "the simple answers that explain things." What's more simple than "Hey, let's go kick the shit out of muslim tin horn dictator while everybody's fired up for some real "shock and awe" and make a butt load of money while we're at it"?
You really believe that world leaders sit around and try and figure out whose butt they can kick to pads Exxons balance sheet?
Again, proof please.
But's that just kooky, right. Our politicians (and the folks that paid to put them in office) would never put American forces in harm's way just to provide a rationale for spreading a TRILLION ****ING DOLLARS around and gaining access to one of the largest and least developed oil resources on the planet.
You hang on to those pollyanna notions that it's all about "truth, justice, and the American way of life." The guys calling the shots are countin' on it.
Again, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
There are much simpler answers to the questions you ask than the ones you are providing.
I've already outlined them.
No one is living in any Polly-Anna world. Least of all me. But I don't subscribe to grandiose conspiracy theories either, without at least some solid proof.
Politicians crave stability, as it allows them to get re-elected. Whether it was a rational choice or not, the desire to create stability (which does feed in to economic concerns including oil supplies) is a much stronger hypothesis for the cause of the war than a war for oil. Oil is a piece of the pie as oil is a natural resource and supplies of resources need to be protected. But that comes through stability.
There are too many people involved at too many levels to allow any sort of conspiracy charge stick. The world is not one big conspiracy with some dude behind the curtain pulling all the levers, as much as that makes good websites and convenient scape goats for the troubles of the world.
The world is made up of a lot of different people, groups, companies, countries, multi-national and national actors of all sorts trying to get the advantage and improve their own situation. This leads to all sorts of conflict. These actors are intertwined and meshed together in various ways, sometimes aiding one another, and sometimes not.
No one has advanced any evidence beyond some "self evident" conspiracy that we all know exists but for which no evidence exists, that the Iraq war was initiated to control oil. And the after affects show that if that was the desire, they did a pretty bad job of it as much of the oil contracts are going to parties other than the US.
montanadave
10-25-11, 15:29
I'm not interested in gettin wrapped around the axle or spooled up over this.
Just posting germain/relevant links for people's own edification.
I read, absorb process, filter, assimilate, assess as necessary for my knowledge base.
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
Gadzooks! That website has a little something for everybody (although it seems a tad rough on folks of the Jewish persuasion).
Why is it that unwavering support for the state of Israel has become a litmus test for presidential candidates of either party?
Some entering cocktail party banter, to be sure.
Because deliberate actions are different than accidents and all credible evidence points to the Vincennes shoot down as being an accident while the evidence surrounding Lockerbie shows just the opposite.
Your posts are increasingly filled with morally relativistic complete and utter bullshit comparisons like this. Don't you think that being able to discriminate between two very different things is important to be able to play any valuable part in a discussion?
Tell that to the people flying airplanes into buildings. Honestly most people reading this have probably never even heard of the Vincennes incident and I was merely trying to bring it to light as being part of people's motivation to attack the U.S. Don't you think looking at both sides will help provide answers? If you don't think incidents like that help fuel the fire of our enemys then you're sadly mistaken. If some other country just shot down a plane that your wife or children were on I think you'd be singing a different tune than "It was just an accident.".
I'm done here... Have fun.
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster. - Sun Tzu
Tell that to the people flying airplanes into buildings. Honestly most people reading this have probably never even heard of the Vincennes incident and I was merely trying to bring it to light as being part of people's motivation to attack the U.S. Don't you think looking at both sides will help provide answers? If you don't think incidents like that help fuel the fire of our enemys then you're sadly mistaken. If some other country just shot down a plane that your wife or children were on I think you'd be singing a different tune than "It was just an accident.".
gee, I don't remember any of the manifestos and other jihadist call to arms mentioning Vincennes. In addition, it WAS an accident, most of the world recognized it as such, and being an accident, was "unavoidable" in that it happened despite NOT being on the agenda.
(as an aside: this is what he is talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 . I remember the incident well when it happened)
Your comparison is totally invalid and irrelevant.
If you want people to listen to and pay attention to your cause, then you need to make arguments that people can agree with, not irrelevant ones that people can easily dismiss.
For example, this is total BS:
but it doesn't take away from the fact that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place. We've wasted over a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and gained nothing.
There were valid reasons to go into Iraq and we've gained a lot more than "nothing". That is indisputable. You may not agree with the reasons, but that does not make them invalid. Nor may you value what we have gained, but that does not make it "nothing."
What you should be saying is, "is what we have gained, was it worth the cost?" That is a valid question and does not make you look like some crazy zealot who has no clue. RP needs to learn this as well. He has some good ideas, hypocrite that he is notwithstanding, but he comes across as a crazy zealot to most people.
You get to the same discussion and hopefully will lead to the answer you are looking for, without all the baggage of being a crazy zealot.
Tell that to the people flying airplanes into buildings.
I don't pretend to be able to reason with the unreasonable.
A reasonable discussion with another member of the forum should however be possible, just not when your response is to compare apples and oranges like you seem to do more and more lately.
ForTehNguyen
10-26-11, 17:56
so they basically traded one tyranny for another form of tyranny, all with our help. Now the region is more unstable than what it was orignally. What a complete joke our foreign policy is. Gaddafi was a bad person but look how this mob of people tortured and mutilated him. We should side with these savages? Not only that we gave them all of Gaddafi's US assets. For all we know we just directly funded a bunch of terrorists
Belmont31R
10-26-11, 18:03
so they basically traded one tyranny for another form of tyranny, all with our help. Now the region is more unstable than what it was orignally. What a complete joke our foreign policy is. Gaddafi was a bad person but look how this mob of people tortured and mutilated him. We should side with these savages? Not only that we gave them all of Gaddafi's US assets. For all we know we just directly funded a bunch of terrorists
Basically. Libya had basically turned moderate after 9/11 and was cooperating with us. Egypt had a moderate leader who kept peace in his neck of the woods.
Obama got both of them ousted for at best unknowns and worst case hard core radicals.
And yes they are savages. ME Muslims are disgusting creatures who's only value on Earth is they stand on the land that has oil beneath the surface.
Can we focus this back towards Libya? Something that the U.S needs to learn (both administrations are guilty) and they had better do so quick.
Islam and a free style western democracy are not compatible. It's a ****ing dream.
VooDoo6Actual
10-26-11, 18:50
redacted.
variablebinary
10-26-11, 22:53
It's always about the money and, in the Middle East, that's oil.
Exactly. If it involves the ME it is about oil.
We absolutely need a solution to the energy problem in this nation, and we need it now.
Drilling is just a short term solution. We should be committing billions to alternative energy research or we going to be dragged down the shitter by the Arabs, Euros and Chinese.
Belmont31R
10-26-11, 23:12
We should be committing billions to alternative energy research or we going to be dragged down the shitter by the Arabs, Euros and Chinese.
Yes but that money should be coming from free market sources not the government. Just in the last month its come out we've loaned billions of dollars to companies who either went bankrupt or are about to.
Drilling here would buy us time for the technology and free market catch up to the economy while putting a lesser dependence on foreign oil OR at least foreign sources that are shaky and cause gas prices to jump 50 cents at the drop of a hat. It would also put more Americans to work rather than the government putting us further into debt or raising taxes.
#85 ^.
Enlightened-self-interest plus opportunity meets preperation and a population at critical mass
and it's ding dong the biotch is dead.
Some of the stuff at at the end was not part of any real solution.
Yes but that money should be coming from free market sources not the government. Just in the last month its come out we've loaned billions of dollars to companies who either went bankrupt or are about to.
I agree with this 100%. But what do you do to compete against Chinese solar panels, for instance, that are dumped on the market after being heavily subsidized by the Chinese government.
I am not sure the answer. Here you could put a tariff on them but in the world market, what do you do?
Drilling here would buy us time for the technology and free market catch up to the economy while putting a lesser dependence on foreign oil OR at least foreign sources that are shaky and cause gas prices to jump 50 cents at the drop of a hat. It would also put more Americans to work rather than the government putting us further into debt or raising taxes.
VooDoo6Actual
10-28-11, 01:15
redacted.
Apparently , a man of little foresight. ( Details can make a diff )
I have not watched any of the videos that released after the el Bibi/ ball cap festivities .
:no:
No need to know as Forrest Gump might say.
Belmont31R
10-28-11, 14:45
Al Qaeda flag flown over court house in Benghazi:
http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya
Thanks to Obama the radicals will have an entire country to themselves...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.