Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Panda

Thankyou for giving me the privilege of having my posts reviewed by you, Heir Fuhrer.

Oh, I remember many of your fallacious gems neatly tucked into articulate and convincing arguments. I gotta admit you have style.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Panda, every one of your so called intelligent debates disintegrates into an attack on the american media, american TV habits, american loudness etc. If you stick to the facts I will. Go back and review your own posts.
I have consistently been critical of all US military involvement so don't accuse me of being black and white.

Hmmm.....but you are. Black and white. Quite predictable. Like most everyone here. Cvnt. Don't attempt to be something you're not.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Panda

Thankyou for giving me the privilege of having my posts reviewed by you, Heir Fuhrer.

Oh, I remember many of your fallacious gems neatly tucked into articulate and convincing arguments. I gotta admit you have style.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

As Gerald Celente put it "would they have attacked if their major export was broccoli?"

nice one.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Hmmm.....but you are. Black and white. Quite predictable. Like most everyone here.

You know "rural"... you always being out alignment / step with sane thinking people in the world should tell you something but it doesn't. And because of that it tells me a lot about you... you're a complete waste of space, time and effort and TD would be a much better place without you and your inane comments!

Originally Posted by Humbert

..people like Panda, Butterfly and Tom Sawyer you [...] see the US as their enemy. The Great Satan. They consistently align themselves and support brutal dictatorships like the ones in Iran and North Korea solely because they are enemies of the US. You cannot have a tactical discussion with these people because every argument ultimately goe to their core view that the US - its government, its culture and its people are the enemy.

When have I alligned myself with Iran and North Korea? Many Americans seem to think that anyone who is a social democrat is an evil commie out to strip you of the gunrack in your pick-up truck.

As for the US being my 'enemy' you're mistaken. The US was once a great country that stood for democracy and fairness - a mentor to millions of aspiring people around the world - including me.

What we've seen in the last 40 years or so (really since Nixon onwards) has been a steady decline toward a society in terminal decay - pushed along by a right-wing element determined to make consumerism the new "culture" and airbrush away all those values that your country once cherished and offered the world to follow.

While the US still (thankfully) has a minority of people who do see what's happening and are struggling against the corporate PR machines supported by your governments, the majority of Americans are (sadly) no longer motivated by what's right and good. Instead, they are comprised of a wasteland of fat, diabetic, simplistic followers fed a media diet of violent pornography, self-centered fantasy (American Idol) and bareknuckled bloodsports.

Take a hard look in the mirror pal and tell me that you don't see that.

Originally Posted by Humbert

When you face off against people like Panda, Butterfly and Tom Sawyer you are arguing with people who fundementally and philosophically see the US as their enemy. The Great Satan.

typical American binary thinking

any overweighted power is an enemy, it doesn't matter if it's the US or China, I am as critical when there is obvious abuse of power. You are trying to justify those abuses out of loyalty to your values. This is exactly the path to the dark corners of our "noble" values. You should know better, and you are being hysterically ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

While the US still (thankfully) has a minority of people who do see what's happening and are struggling against the corporate PR machines supported by your governments, the majority of Americans are (sadly) no longer motivated by what's right and good. Instead, they are comprised of a wasteland of fat, diabetic, simplistic followers fed a media diet of violent pornography, self-centered fantasy (American Idol) and bareknuckled bloodsports.

Exactly my point. You resort to idiotic sterotypes to support your arguments. There is no arguing with prejudice. It is impossible to have a discussion with people who despise americans a priori.

^^ Anyway, the rebels are doing their bit. That's 2 big towns taken in the last 2 days.

I have mixed feelings on the reasons as to why international forces got involved in this particular conflict.

On the one hand, Gaddafi has gone on record as saying he would commit genocide. Several thousand are already dead (I've seen reports about up to 10,000). So the scale of this atrocity is far greater than what has happened elsewhere (such as Thailand). The US and its allies didn't intervene in Egypt or Tunisia where a lot died, but there wasn't the stated aim of mass slaughter. The US and allies did of course get involved with the Croatia/Serbia mess/genocide, but then I guess that can be explained away...

However, on the other hand, The US and its allies have consistently failed to get involved when genocide/mass murder has occurred elsewhere, such as in Rwanda/PNG etc.

Difficult one to call. However, the conspiracy nuts have already decided it appears.

I guess with all the current instability in the Arab world, such speculation will in time be addressed with reality. If Saudi Arabia ( or even China) kicks off, then we might gather some real insights...maybe...plenty of potential genocides around.

AlArabiya_Eng AlArabiya English

Libyan rebels retake hamlet of Bin Jawad #Libya

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Originally Posted by Bower

So its to be a Canadian in charge of the NATO force.

The last time a Canadian was in charge of a military/peace keeping operation like this over 800K Africans were slaughtered like lambs on Eid Al Adha.

I don't think anyone blames D'Allaird for Rwanda. As far as I recall he was pleading with the UNPKF command in NY - but they didn't give him the greenlight to use deadly force against the Hutu attackers. It revealed the true impotency of the UN.

Indeed they do not. In fact, a few years ago Romeo D'Allaird accompanied by his wife re visited Rawanda. He was welcomed as a hero...a man who had tried everything in his power to prevent the slaughter. The lazy useless pricks at the UN HQ would not listen to him. They jerked him around and said he was over reacting. Then they tried to make him a scapegoat after the shit hit the fan.

He was greatly effected by what happened and had to undergo years of therapy. The bastards that put him in that position got promotions and pay raises. The UN as far as I'm concerned in just a very expensive debating society.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You are trying to justify those abuses out of loyalty to your values.

What abuses have I justified butters? What I stated is true. You are philosophically opposed the the US. I am strategically opposed to US foreign policy but your disagreement is much deeper. Nothing wrong with that but it makes it impossible to have a serious discussion with you. You have called for the US's downfall numerous times. This has nothing to do with me having blind loyalty to the US. That is a false accusation.

Originally Posted by Humbert

You are philosophically opposed the the US.

I am philosophically opposed to certain discrepancies and abuses perpetuated by a system, and the US is not short of those. It's not an intrinsic disagreement just because it happens to be America. That's quite a simplistic interpretation you are having here.

Originally Posted by Humbert

You have called for the US's downfall numerous times.

hardly true, I just want the US to face it's responsibilities. I would certainly not call for the destruction of that country, again you got me confused with someone else.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^^ Anyway, the rebels are doing their bit. That's 2 big towns taken in the last 2 days.

I have mixed feelings on the reasons as to why international forces got involved in this particular conflict.

On the one hand, Gaddafi has gone on record as saying he would commit genocide. Several thousand are already dead (I've seen reports about up to 10,000). So the scale of this atrocity is far greater than what has happened elsewhere (such as Thailand). The US and its allies didn't intervene in Egypt or Tunisia where a lot died, but there wasn't the stated aim of mass slaughter. The US and allies did of course get involved with the Croatia/Serbia mess/genocide, but then I guess that can be explained away...

However, on the other hand, The US and its allies have consistently failed to get involved when genocide/mass murder has occurred elsewhere, such as in Rwanda/PNG etc.

Difficult one to call. However, the conspiracy nuts have already decided it appears.

I guess with all the current instability in the Arab world, such speculation will in time be addressed with reality. If Saudi Arabia ( or even China) kicks off, then we might gather some real insights...maybe...plenty of potential genocides around.

I have similar feelings. A case of selective morality by the west. Since when did we start caring about some dictator putting down a rebellion some place in Africa? The moral/ethical arguments can be put forward for the wests intervention in Libya, but where are those arguments for places like Bahrain?
Its really just nothing more than a political chess game among world powers where morality and ethics doesnt come into it. The world price of oil and stability of delivery being the main concern for all players.

The west, and particularly USA has supported and even funded dictators in the Middle East over the past few decades for their own interests. Now the people in those countries are rebelling and calling for an end to tyranny and the establishment of democracy, it puts the west in a difficult position trying to justify their actions past and present on moral/ethical grounds.

Make note of Obamas remarks that it is not in USAs interests to intervene in every country where human rights atrocities are occurring. Selective morality at work there. Some dictators like Gaddafi, Hussein and Musharraf were formerly allies and friends of the west. The Saudi Royal dictators are currently the wests best friends, but how long will that last when their oil runs out and the people revolt against the murderous, corrupt Saudi Royal regimen?

This is not about right or wrong, morality or ethics as presented in the popular media. Its all about economic control of the worlds oil resources. If it wasn't the US, UK and EU alliance doing it, it would be Russia or China in there playing the same dirty tricks. But that still doesnt mean that thinking persons in should have to swallow the false excuses given for our governments foreign policies. Call a spade a spade.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

While the US still (thankfully) has a minority of people who do see what's happening and are struggling against the corporate PR machines supported by your governments, the majority of Americans are (sadly) no longer motivated by what's right and good. Instead, they are comprised of a wasteland of fat, diabetic, simplistic followers fed a media diet of violent pornography, self-centered fantasy (American Idol) and bareknuckled bloodsports.

Exactly my point. You resort to idiotic sterotypes to support your arguments. There is no arguing with prejudice. It is impossible to have a discussion with people who despise americans a priori.

Perhaps TS is resorting to metaphor, less stereotype. You have to remember, within a international mix {and setting} like TD, many will see the U.S. {and it's nasty history} and American character for how it is - therefore finding critique and punditry not to individual's likings. As you probably have absorbed, a majority aren't taken with the fantasy of American exceptionalism and it's assorted relatives. Have you ever wonder why the reference to America has it's share of cheap shots taken in it's direction.....? And the usual gang of defenders and apologists take serious umbrage under the guise nationalism, superiority, etc. without a clue as to why.

Originally Posted by Humbert

[

I am strategically opposed to US foreign policy .

Well, what the fark are you whinging about there Humbert?

Most thinking people in the world agree that US foreign policy is corrupt, unethical and just plain wrong. You seem to be putting the case that anyone who agrees with you on that issue is blindly anti American. That kind of irrational rhetoric may work in the junk food capital of the world, but it doesnt wash with the majority in the international community. Yea mate, we are a wake up to the crooked US foreign policy alright. But that doesnt mean we hate America or Americans. We just hate the more corrupt aspects of US foreign policy is all. And not because of how it affects Americans, but because of what USA does affects us. We would rather have the worlds policeman being an honest bloke than the gangster and extortion artist he has become.

Latest news....

Reuters Reuters Top News

FLASH: Gates says within next week or so U.S. will begin to diminish resources committed to Libya no-fly zone - NBC interview

How Long Will U.S. Forces be Involved in Libya? White House Says Nobody Knows: http://abcn.ws/fmPhAp

Libyan rebels seize key oil complex of Ras Lanouf and press westward - AP

Clinton says one should not now expect U.S. to get involved in Syria in the same way as in Libya - CBS interview

Originally Posted by Humbert

I am strategically opposed to US foreign policy but your disagreement is much deeper.

Humbert - can you not see the forest? The US Foreign Policy is simply an extension of US policy in general, can't you understand that? Do you think somehow these things are separate issues?

Your country is now, and has been for many decades, pursuing a policy of macro-economic scorched earth - pushed along by its chearleader Milton Freedman (and at the times Jeffrey Sachs - now apparently 'enlightened').

Who do you think started "globalization"? The US-Canada Free Trade Agreement was the no-resistance test run, and Latin america was the kiil-em-as-needed tougher nut to crack. There's been no looking back since then.

Don't you understand that the State Dept's "Mission", other than securing America's defense interests via diplomacy, is actually to secure America's exploitation of the "world market" - at any cost?

Other counties call their "foreign ministries" - Departments (or Ministry) of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (or similar). It's about money and access to markets for the elites of their countries - yours is no different - except you christened the business model. Milton Friedman is dead - sadly his policies are not.

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Why shouldn't the US be allowed to have its allies like every other nation? Do you think the US should invaded every "undemocratic" nation in the world? Your argument is silly, because it implies people don't show favoritism towards their friends. I will loan a family member of good friend money, but I wouldn't do the same to someone I don't have a good relationship with, or barely know. You're judging the US by a standard no human could possibly live up to, it is absolutely absurd.

Showing favour to allies is one thing. Supporting and funding brutal dictatorships for national gain is another.

Your entire argument is silly, because relies on the belief that people do things for the benefits of others, not themselves. "Dictators" care about keeping themselves in power first and foremost. Gadhafi could have been called a European puppet, but he didn't step down when asked. You also believe people aren't responsible for their actions, and a person can whisper sweet nothing into their ears and turn them into mad men.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"They (the West) think it’s a matter of a civil movement, a matter of democracy," he said. "What’s going on in Bahrain is much beyond our Western allies to understand it. It is a complete conspiracy of the Iranians."

I just love all these double-standards in play at one time - and watching the Americans and their royal raghead allies squirm as they try to justify attacking Libyan Dictator forces, but not Bahrain Dictator forces, or Yemen Dictator forces.

That quote from towelhead above could be applied to Thailand and the American blind-eye to events last year here in LOS. Just change a couple of words and PRESTO:

"They (the West) think it’s a matter of a civil movement, a matter of democracy," he said. "What’s going on in Thailand is much beyond our Western allies to understand it. It is a complete conspiracy of Thaksin."

Why shouldn't the US be allowed to have its allies like every other nation? Do you think the US should invaded every "undemocratic" nation in the world? Your argument is silly, because it implies people don't show favoritism towards their friends. I will loan a family member of good friend money, but I wouldn't do the same to someone I don't have a good relationship with, or barely know. You're judging the US by a standard no human could possibly live up to, it is absolutely absurd.

Gribbs, you're arguments are unwinnable because they are on a tactical level. When you face off against people like Panda, Butterfly and Tom Sawyer you are arguing with people who fundementally and philosophically see the US as their enemy. The Great Satan. They consistently align themselves and support brutal dictatorships like the ones in Iran and North Korea solely because they are enemies of the US. You cannot have a tactical discussion with these people because every argument ultimately goe to their core view that the US - its government, its culture and its people are the enemy.

I routinely wipe the floor with these idiotic hypocites when I argue with them. You have British and Australians who complain about the US invading Iraq, when their country did the same thing, but they never mention that. It just like Koman didn't respond to my "Rwanda ddin't have no massacres until it was invaded by Europeans, who used one ethnic group against the other. I just woke up abut an hour ago to watch the French and British cowardly slaughtering Libyans from 30,000ft in the air on CNN, funny how that is mentioned in this thread at all.

The same with the thread about the Gurkha getting some special citation. I stayed away from that thread because I didn't want to urinate all over that cricle jerk. The Gurkha terrorist and mercenary was considered a fooking warrior and hero, for killing people that are defending their soil, he is from a country that has nothing to do with the war either. He is the lowest of the low because he is killing people for financial gain only. If that was an American merc they would be chomping at the bit to bash him.

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

You have British and Australians who complain about the US invading Iraq

Everyone regardless of their nationality is entitled to their viewpoint and as far as you "wiping the foor" with your arguments...you're insane to post that let alone think it! You constantly fail to answer direct questions put to you, ignore historical evidenceand facts then you post absolute inane racist arguments...you're a fucking racist nigger!

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by Mr Gribbs

You have British and Australians who complain about the US invading Iraq

Everyone regardless of their nationality is entitled to their viewpoint and as far as you "wiping the foor" with your arguments...you're insane to post that let alone think it! You constantly fail to answer direct questions put to you, ignore historical evidenceand facts then you post absolute inane racist arguments...you're a fucking racist nigger!

If I wasn't winning, you wouldn't be acting like a twelve year old girl after her father took her cell phone privileges away by calling people names. I never said people were entitled to their views, but when they point their finger at someone, while they are doing the same thing, they are fucking hypocrites. If I was blowing my check on crack cocaine every week I wouldn't have the room to run around and call other people junkies.