It looks like bombing Libya and taking out Gaddafi has not helped with America's reputation there
Options
Comments
-
After farther investigation this like most of the middle eastern conflicts has something to do with the petrodollar.
It has nothing to do with religion,nukes, or anything other than money . They use false flag attacks as a way to sway
public opinion.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar
The "petrodollar" system was a brilliant political and economic move. It forced the world's oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for both US dollars and US debt, while essentially letting the US pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. The petrodollar system spread beyond oil: the majority of international trade is done in US dollars. That means that from Russia to China, Brazil to South Korea, every country aims to maximize the US-dollar surplus garnered from its export trade to buy oil.
The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world. Here, finally, the US hit on a downside: The availability of cheap imports hit the US manufacturing industry hard, and the disappearance of manufacturing jobs remains one of the biggest challenges in resurrecting the US economy today.
There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically. -
Barackvelli in Full Effect!
Obama Plays Hardball and Egypt’s Morsi Folds
The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi happened because the Libyan government is still weak, rebuilding after its revolution against Muammar Qaddafi. But there was no doubt that the new government was a friend of the US ambassador who was killed, Chris Stevens, or that it would mobilize to deal with the cells of the Ansar al-Shariah extremists that launched the attack. Pro-America demonstrations regretting the attack on the consulate have been held all over Libya.
The puzzle comes in Egypt, where the government and security forces are strong, but were not deployed in force to protect the US embassy (unlike in the past), and where newly elected president Mohammad Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, did not explicitly condemn the small crowd that tried to invade the embassy grounds on Tuesday and which tore down the American flag.
Morsi was no doubt himself offended by the trailer on Youtube of a movie villifying the Prophet Muhammad, and he was probably concerned to not be outflanked by Muslim forces to his right, the Salafi Nour Party or the Gama’ah Islamiya (formerly a terrorist organization that has given up violence). But his declining to make a firm statement in defense of the sanctity of foreign embassies annoyed the Obama administration mightily.
In an interview with Telemundo, President Barack Obama showed his annoyance with Morsi:
” “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” the president said.
“I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident,” Obama said.
“Certainly in this situation, what we’re going to expect is that they are responsive to our insistence that our embassy is protected, our personnel is protected,” Obama said.
Egypt is among about 14 countries designated at “major non-NATO allies” by US presidents. This status recognizes that they do joint military exercises with the US, and gives them special access to advanced US weaponry. However, some of them are not allies in the precise legal sense. That is, there is no obligation of mutual defense. A true ally, as with NATO states, is one that the allied country is pledged to defend from attack. Still, US officials typically have referred to Egypt as an ally, and the State Department made clear that it continues to do so.
So Obama was technically correct that Egypt is not an ally in the sense that Britain or even Turkey is. But unlike what some media outlets wrote, this statement was no gaffe. Rather, Obama was playing hardball with Morsi, trying to impress upon him that the status of ‘major non-NATO ally’ is not automatic now that the Muslim Brotherhood is in control. It will have to be re-earned, at least from Obama’s point of view. And the lack of response on the embassy attack is not consistent with ally status. Non-NATO ally status is bestowed by a stroke of the presidential pen, so Obama could take it away.
White House spokesman Jay Carney added on Thursday that “Obama spoke with President Mohamed Morsi, the first Islamist leader following an uprising which toppled Mubarak last year, on Wednesday and impressed upon him the need to protect US diplomats…”
Under Obama’s pressure, Morsi, in Brussels seeking European aid, finally explicitly condemned Tuesday’s attack on the US embassy in Egypt:
“we don’t accept, condone, or approve at all for there to be attacks on embassies, consulates or people, or killing in any way.”
“We want to cooperate with the entire world and we are cooperating now with the E.U. and the European people and with the American people and others and the U.S. administration to prevent such practices in the future. Also, we insist on the protection of persons, properties and embassies. The Egyptian people are very civilized and could not ever express their rejection of such practices with an attack on an embassy or person or consulate.”
Some of Morsi’s sudden willingness to say all this was fueled by Obama’s pressure. In addition, Morsi revealed some of his other motives:
“Muslims and Christians in Egypt are equal citizens and have the same rights… We are cautious about those principles and human values, also respecting visitors and respecting tourists… and respecting and protecting diplomatic delegations and private and public properties, and not attacking them.”
That is, somebody told Morsi he had to say something if he wanted to keep the tourist trade, much less the American alliance!
In Libya, the just-installed government of Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur arrested several suspects from the Ansar al-Shariah (‘supporters of the holy law’) group as suspects in Tuesday’s attack on the US consulate. The Ministry of Defense announced that it was determined to dismantle the Ansar. The group is denying involvement in the consulate attack, and its leader, hard line fundamentalist Ismail Salabi, is denying a report that he went on the radio and approved of the attack. Obama sent two war ships to Libya, though the gesture is symbolic.
In Yemen, where the US is involved in a ? , secret drone war against Sunni fundamentalists, some 4000 protesters assaulted the US embassy. An expeditionary force of Marines is on their way to Sanaa to protect it. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the demonstrations on Thursday against the so-called film (apparently made by an Egyptian, and with which the US government has nothing to do) were tiny, just a few hundred in each place. We’ll see about Friday. My guess is that this whole controversy will die down soon, without much long-term impact on US foreign policy or foreign relations.
As for why people in the region should be so touchy, Abdel Bari Atwan of al-Quds al-Arabi wrote, according to the translation of the USG Open Source Center:
“The best ally of the Islamic jihadist organizations is the deep hostility of certain right-wing Christian groups toward Islam and Muslims as well as the control of pro-Israel Jewish groups of US foreign policy…
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/obama-plays-hardball-and-egypts-morsi-folds.html -
i guess this is a cheap way of implying a conspiracy without making an effort to support itMC The Rapper wrote: »MC The Rapper wrote: »Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected. [2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."
Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals.
Its not a conspiracy its how they operate , its what they do and have been doing for quite some time. -
Swiffness! wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »
welp
i say we bomb them
Damn you wana bomb Libya AGAIN? LOL smh you supported Gaddfi being chased out of Libya with air raids but not this ? bruh
lmao ? was a joke cuz dayum why so srs
Lol uh huh -
Swiffness! wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Do ya'll agree with this? American Marines are not allowed live ammo in Egyptian embassy.....and Obama allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to defend the embassy as well (LOL)
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/
Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”
Time magazine’s Battleland blog reported Thursday that “senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”
If true, the reports indicate that Patterson shirked her obligation to protect U.S. interests, Nightwatch states.
“She did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office,” the report states. “She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.”
While Marines are typically relied on to defend U.S. territory abroad, such as embassies, these reports indicate that the Obama administration was relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage.
Hmmm....sounds like Right Wing ? to me.........
*does google search*
Yeah. Right Wing ? . Take it away, Mother Jones:
The sole source for this assertion was Nightwatch—a conservative "intelligence" blog written by former Defense Department analyst John McCreary and hosted by a subsidiary of a defense contractors' lobby group —which attributed the report to unnamed (and uncounted) "USMC blogs." According to McCreary , Patterson—a career foreign service officer who was not a political appointee, and who served George W. Bush as an ambassador to the United Nations and to Pakistan—"did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office." And: "She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines."
These claims were quickly perpetuated by the right-wing Washington Free Beacon and Fox Nation sites, despite never having been confirmed—and they are highly unlikely to be true. Patterson was in Washington at the time of the protests , leaving the deputy chief of mission in charge, and he would have had responsibility for issuing orders to guards, along with the embassy's regional security officer, a specially trained State Department official. State's own guidelines for Marine security guards (PDF) require that any duty assigned to them "shall not contravene established Department or Marine Corps policy and shall not unduly jeopardize the safety or well-being of any Marine." That's a pretty straightforward way of saying Marines don't lay down their arms if danger is imminent, no matter what a diplomat says. Unless, of course, you're willing to believe the worst about POTUS and his diplomatic corps.
Pentagon spokesman George Little dismissed the allegations Thursday afternoon. "With or without a weapon, Marines are always armed," he told Time's Mark Thompson . "I've heard nothing to suggest they don't have ammunition."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo
really dawg can you imagine Marines going anywhere without live ammo? lol
NICE, good post I believe you because I read something similar in the New York Post, a conservative paper.....it still didn't stop protestors from making fools out of our Marines though, our consulate got burnt to the ground...MC The Rapper wrote: »After farther investigation this like most of the middle eastern conflicts has something to do with the petrodollar.
It has nothing to do with religion,nukes, or anything other than money . They use false flag attacks as a way to sway
public opinion.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar
The "petrodollar" system was a brilliant political and economic move. It forced the world's oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for both US dollars and US debt, while essentially letting the US pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. The petrodollar system spread beyond oil: the majority of international trade is done in US dollars. That means that from Russia to China, Brazil to South Korea, every country aims to maximize the US-dollar surplus garnered from its export trade to buy oil.
The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world. Here, finally, the US hit on a downside: The availability of cheap imports hit the US manufacturing industry hard, and the disappearance of manufacturing jobs remains one of the biggest challenges in resurrecting the US economy today.
There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically.
This was EXACTLY why America took out Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. It looks like America's wars of imperialism will not end anytime soon, shame on Obama and Bush for being slaves to the military industrial complex. No coincidence the Muslim/Arab world hates America so much, it's not like we give them reason to. Great post bruh -
About those embassy guards though Swiff, even if the Marines were armed, it's a disturbing sign that protestors in Libya took over the consulate so easily. The police guarding the consulate did not respect America at all, despite what America did in Libya.
Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake? This probably would have never happened if Gaddfi was in charge, now Al-Qaeda is running wild throughout the whole country. If not the whole country, than many parts of it. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The US needs to rethink the way they deal with these terrorists. Enough with the half stepping...you drop one of ours...we droppin everybody. They just need to do it once...it will save more lives and achieve better results for everybody in the long run.
We tried this with Iraq, remember Operation Shock and Awe? We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. Didn't work, people from overseas hate us more than ever, peep the opinion polls of how they feel about America, you want those numbers to get worse??
And are you talking about nuclear weapons, which I think you are?? Than that's doubly wrong because while most people in the Muslim world strongly hate us, dropping nuclear weapons on that part of the world will cause even more chaos. You know Saudi Arabia birthed the 9/11 plane hijackers.....would you want to drop a nuke in Saudi Arabia, home of the Kabaa (the holy Black Stone of Mecca) ?? How many nukes would you drop?
I wouldnt nuke them....but I wouldnt take it off the table either (keep em honest). But I am not talking about Operation Freedom and all this nation building and bringing democracy etc. I'm talking carpet bombs and cruise missiles that would make that arrow scene from 300 look like a bunch of nerf darts. Hit every terrorist, suspected terrorist, a terrorist hide out that hasnt been used in 10 years, ? if a terrorist or suspected terrorist had a ? in a bathroom hit it. Civilians and collateral damage be damned....and thats it. No ground troops or any of this setting up a puppet government/regime changing ? . No Ground and Pound keep it strictly Tom Brady.
Back to the nuke ? ...if something like 9/11 ever happens again or worse....then yeah...nothing crazy something in the 5 to 10KT.
The flip side to all this, is that the US stays out of all middle east ? , dictators, riots, whatever. ? em all...let them slaughter each other.
I think the flip side is a better option bro lol, less costly and less bloodthirsty. The bloodthirsty strategy has failed badly so far
The problem is there are too many people in these middle eastern countries whose entire identity, career, job, whatever is being a terrorist. They will always find a person to blow up...because thats just what they've come to do. Those people have got to go first...then plan B can go into effect.
Well we have to ask ourselves than, why do so many people in the Middle East hate America?? They fight amongst each other a lot, true, but why is so much of their anger focused on America? No one is a terrorist for the sake of being a terrorist, our foreign policy is the reason so many want to destroy America or at the very least, sympathize with those who DO want to destroy America. America's foreign policy in the Middle East is evil, and until it stops being evil, their hatred for Americans (and Israel) won't end.
We've been slaughtering Afghans in Afghanistan for 12 years, how is that working out? -
the post i quoted was you posting about Operation Northwoods, which discussed shenanigans in 1962. you didn't mention anything about events in the present day. like i say, you allude to the concept of a conspiracy without spending a single word --or writing a single word, since, you know, copy and paste-- talking about the ACTUAL EVENTS WE'RE DISCUSSINGMC The Rapper wrote: »Its not a conspiracy its how they operate , its what they do and have been doing for quite some time.
do you understand the flaw in your position that, as soon as anything negative happens, you IMMEDIATELY declare it was a huge ? mistake to remove Gaddafi? and actually, scratch that: you're claiming it was a huge ? mistake to ASSIST LIBYANS in taking out Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake?
now, meanwhile, you have a Libyans shown in this thread expressing remorse over the embassy attack AND, if you examine statements from the countries we're talking about, the Libyans were much more emphatic on the "this ? is ? up" point than, say, Morsi was. let me further point out that Libyans just elected a prime minister who was not the Muslim Brotherhood candidate but a guy who used to teach at a university in the US. this "global politics" thing is not that cut and dry. -
the post i quoted was you posting about Operation Northwoods, which discussed shenanigans in 1962. you didn't mention anything about events in the present day. like i say, you allude to the concept of a conspiracy without spending a single word --or writing a single word, since, you know, copy and paste-- talking about the ACTUAL EVENTS WE'RE DISCUSSINGMC The Rapper wrote: »Its not a conspiracy its how they operate , its what they do and have been doing for quite some time.
do you understand the flaw in your position that, as soon as anything negative happens, you IMMEDIATELY declare it was a huge ? mistake to remove Gaddafi? and actually, scratch that: you're claiming it was a huge ? mistake to ASSIST LIBYANS in taking out Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake?
now, meanwhile, you have a Libyans shown in this thread expressing remorse over the embassy attack AND, if you examine statements from the countries we're talking about, the Libyans were much more emphatic on the "this ? is ? up" point than, say, Morsi was. let me further point out that Libyans just elected a prime minister who was not the Muslim Brotherhood candidate but a guy who used to teach at a university in the US. this "global politics" thing is not that cut and dry.
I get what you're saying and yes I'm sure most Libyans did not support this attack. Most Muslims and people in general are not violent. With that being said, America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America? NADA, 4 of our diplomats were killed. America was warned about the Al-Qaeda elements within the rebels, and we still chose to help LOL u gota be ? kidding me.
The Prime Minister of Libya seems cool enough but mind you, he doesn't have any real power! The only power he has in in the capital, the various rebel factions rule most of the nation. There is very little central authority there now, so Libya's prime minister, with all due respect, is just a token leader of ceremonies. He has little power and will be even weaker as these protests continue. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
the post i quoted was you posting about Operation Northwoods, which discussed shenanigans in 1962. you didn't mention anything about events in the present day. like i say, you allude to the concept of a conspiracy without spending a single word --or writing a single word, since, you know, copy and paste-- talking about the ACTUAL EVENTS WE'RE DISCUSSINGMC The Rapper wrote: »Its not a conspiracy its how they operate , its what they do and have been doing for quite some time.
do you understand the flaw in your position that, as soon as anything negative happens, you IMMEDIATELY declare it was a huge ? mistake to remove Gaddafi? and actually, scratch that: you're claiming it was a huge ? mistake to ASSIST LIBYANS in taking out Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake?
now, meanwhile, you have a Libyans shown in this thread expressing remorse over the embassy attack AND, if you examine statements from the countries we're talking about, the Libyans were much more emphatic on the "this ? is ? up" point than, say, Morsi was. let me further point out that Libyans just elected a prime minister who was not the Muslim Brotherhood candidate but a guy who used to teach at a university in the US. this "global politics" thing is not that cut and dry.
I get what you're saying and yes I'm sure most Libyans did not support this attack. Most Muslims and people in general are not violent. With that being said, America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America? NADA, 4 of our diplomats were killed. America was warned about the Al-Qaeda elements within the rebels, and we still chose to help LOL u gota be ? kidding me.
The Prime Minister of Libya seems cool enough but mind you, he doesn't have any real power! The only power he has in in the capital, the various rebel factions rule most of the nation. There is very little central authority there now, so Libya's prime minister, with all due respect, is just a token leader of ceremonies. He has little power and will be even weaker as these protests continue.
YEAH! & foreign aid monies will continue to flow - & these countries know America will NEVER stop giving them funds - just image the corruption within those countries - It's Disgusting!!! & what do we get in return - just look at the news & you'll see what we get for trying to help - I say get the ? out of those countries and let em solve their own damn problems I said it & I still don't feel any better about it - DAMN we fund these countries and this is how we get paid back - WOW! -
MC The Rapper wrote: »After farther investigation this like most of the middle eastern conflicts has something to do with the petrodollar.
It has nothing to do with religion,nukes, or anything other than money . They use false flag attacks as a way to sway
public opinion.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar
The "petrodollar" system was a brilliant political and economic move. It forced the world's oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for both US dollars and US debt, while essentially letting the US pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. The petrodollar system spread beyond oil: the majority of international trade is done in US dollars. That means that from Russia to China, Brazil to South Korea, every country aims to maximize the US-dollar surplus garnered from its export trade to buy oil.
The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world. Here, finally, the US hit on a downside: The availability of cheap imports hit the US manufacturing industry hard, and the disappearance of manufacturing jobs remains one of the biggest challenges in resurrecting the US economy today.
There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically.
This is nonsense....stop trying to use juxtaposition to fabricate some sort of conspiracy theory.kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The US needs to rethink the way they deal with these terrorists. Enough with the half stepping...you drop one of ours...we droppin everybody. They just need to do it once...it will save more lives and achieve better results for everybody in the long run.
We tried this with Iraq, remember Operation Shock and Awe? We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. Didn't work, people from overseas hate us more than ever, peep the opinion polls of how they feel about America, you want those numbers to get worse??
And are you talking about nuclear weapons, which I think you are?? Than that's doubly wrong because while most people in the Muslim world strongly hate us, dropping nuclear weapons on that part of the world will cause even more chaos. You know Saudi Arabia birthed the 9/11 plane hijackers.....would you want to drop a nuke in Saudi Arabia, home of the Kabaa (the holy Black Stone of Mecca) ?? How many nukes would you drop?
I wouldnt nuke them....but I wouldnt take it off the table either (keep em honest). But I am not talking about Operation Freedom and all this nation building and bringing democracy etc. I'm talking carpet bombs and cruise missiles that would make that arrow scene from 300 look like a bunch of nerf darts. Hit every terrorist, suspected terrorist, a terrorist hide out that hasnt been used in 10 years, ? if a terrorist or suspected terrorist had a ? in a bathroom hit it. Civilians and collateral damage be damned....and thats it. No ground troops or any of this setting up a puppet government/regime changing ? . No Ground and Pound keep it strictly Tom Brady.
Back to the nuke ? ...if something like 9/11 ever happens again or worse....then yeah...nothing crazy something in the 5 to 10KT.
The flip side to all this, is that the US stays out of all middle east ? , dictators, riots, whatever. ? em all...let them slaughter each other.
I think the flip side is a better option bro lol, less costly and less bloodthirsty. The bloodthirsty strategy has failed badly so far
The problem is there are too many people in these middle eastern countries whose entire identity, career, job, whatever is being a terrorist. They will always find a person to blow up...because thats just what they've come to do. Those people have got to go first...then plan B can go into effect.
Well we have to ask ourselves than, why do so many people in the Middle East hate America?? They fight amongst each other a lot, true, but why is so much of their anger focused on America? No one is a terrorist for the sake of being a terrorist, our foreign policy is the reason so many want to destroy America or at the very least, sympathize with those who DO want to destroy America. America's foreign policy in the Middle East is evil, and until it stops being evil, their hatred for Americans (and Israel) won't end.
We've been slaughtering Afghans in Afghanistan for 12 years, how is that working out?
I can tell you've never lived in the middle east. 1) Stop listening to all these conspiracy bloggers and YouTube journalists. Muslims ? more muslims that America ever has. They have been doing it before America even entered into the picture. Has America done some foul ? in the Middle East sure...but like others have pointed out the Middle Eastern Countries did themselves no favours by blowing up civilian planes and doing absolutely dumb ? like the "Munich Olympics". Make no mistake there are incredibly evil people within these countries that just use religion to propagate their evil. They are just the other side of the coin from the ultra-right conservative christian terrorists (cough*Tea Party*cough) the only difference is the poverty, internal exploitation (dictators, kings etc) and subjugation along with absurdly low levels of education all provide this perfect breeding ground for "martyrs" and other desperate people who are only trying to look after their families.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
the post i quoted was you posting about Operation Northwoods, which discussed shenanigans in 1962. you didn't mention anything about events in the present day. like i say, you allude to the concept of a conspiracy without spending a single word --or writing a single word, since, you know, copy and paste-- talking about the ACTUAL EVENTS WE'RE DISCUSSINGMC The Rapper wrote: »Its not a conspiracy its how they operate , its what they do and have been doing for quite some time.
do you understand the flaw in your position that, as soon as anything negative happens, you IMMEDIATELY declare it was a huge ? mistake to remove Gaddafi? and actually, scratch that: you're claiming it was a huge ? mistake to ASSIST LIBYANS in taking out Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake?
now, meanwhile, you have a Libyans shown in this thread expressing remorse over the embassy attack AND, if you examine statements from the countries we're talking about, the Libyans were much more emphatic on the "this ? is ? up" point than, say, Morsi was. let me further point out that Libyans just elected a prime minister who was not the Muslim Brotherhood candidate but a guy who used to teach at a university in the US. this "global politics" thing is not that cut and dry.
I get what you're saying and yes I'm sure most Libyans did not support this attack. Most Muslims and people in general are not violent. With that being said, America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America? NADA, 4 of our diplomats were killed. America was warned about the Al-Qaeda elements within the rebels, and we still chose to help LOL u gota be ? kidding me.
The Prime Minister of Libya seems cool enough but mind you, he doesn't have any real power! The only power he has in in the capital, the various rebel factions rule most of the nation. There is very little central authority there now, so Libya's prime minister, with all due respect, is just a token leader of ceremonies. He has little power and will be even weaker as these protests continue.
YEAH! & foreign aid monies will continue to flow - & these countries know America will NEVER stop giving them funds - just image the corruption within those countries - It's Disgusting!!! & what do we get in return - just look at the news & you'll see what we get for trying to help - I say get the ? out of those countries and let em solve their own damn problems I said it & I still don't feel any better about it - DAMN we fund these countries and this is how we get paid back - WOW!
I agree, we need to get out of these nations until our reputation improves. For that matter, we need to butt out of Middle East politics and take it from there. I don't know what we have to gain from endless wars and ? people off for generations. -
MC The Rapper wrote: »After farther investigation this like most of the middle eastern conflicts has something to do with the petrodollar.
It has nothing to do with religion,nukes, or anything other than money . They use false flag attacks as a way to sway
public opinion.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar
The "petrodollar" system was a brilliant political and economic move. It forced the world's oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for both US dollars and US debt, while essentially letting the US pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. The petrodollar system spread beyond oil: the majority of international trade is done in US dollars. That means that from Russia to China, Brazil to South Korea, every country aims to maximize the US-dollar surplus garnered from its export trade to buy oil.
The US has reaped many rewards. As oil usage increased in the 1980s, demand for the US dollar rose with it, lifting the US economy to new heights. But even without economic success at home the US dollar would have soared, because the petrodollar system created consistent international demand for US dollars, which in turn gained in value. A strong US dollar allowed Americans to buy imported goods at a massive discount – the petrodollar system essentially creating a subsidy for US consumers at the expense of the rest of the world. Here, finally, the US hit on a downside: The availability of cheap imports hit the US manufacturing industry hard, and the disappearance of manufacturing jobs remains one of the biggest challenges in resurrecting the US economy today.
There is another downside, a potential threat now lurking in the shadows. The value of the US dollar is determined in large part by the fact that oil is sold in US dollars. If that trade shifts to a different currency, countries around the world won't need all their US money. The resulting sell-off of US dollars would weaken the currency dramatically.
This is nonsense....stop trying to use juxtaposition to fabricate some sort of conspiracy theory.kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The US needs to rethink the way they deal with these terrorists. Enough with the half stepping...you drop one of ours...we droppin everybody. They just need to do it once...it will save more lives and achieve better results for everybody in the long run.
We tried this with Iraq, remember Operation Shock and Awe? We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. Didn't work, people from overseas hate us more than ever, peep the opinion polls of how they feel about America, you want those numbers to get worse??
And are you talking about nuclear weapons, which I think you are?? Than that's doubly wrong because while most people in the Muslim world strongly hate us, dropping nuclear weapons on that part of the world will cause even more chaos. You know Saudi Arabia birthed the 9/11 plane hijackers.....would you want to drop a nuke in Saudi Arabia, home of the Kabaa (the holy Black Stone of Mecca) ?? How many nukes would you drop?
I wouldnt nuke them....but I wouldnt take it off the table either (keep em honest). But I am not talking about Operation Freedom and all this nation building and bringing democracy etc. I'm talking carpet bombs and cruise missiles that would make that arrow scene from 300 look like a bunch of nerf darts. Hit every terrorist, suspected terrorist, a terrorist hide out that hasnt been used in 10 years, ? if a terrorist or suspected terrorist had a ? in a bathroom hit it. Civilians and collateral damage be damned....and thats it. No ground troops or any of this setting up a puppet government/regime changing ? . No Ground and Pound keep it strictly Tom Brady.
Back to the nuke ? ...if something like 9/11 ever happens again or worse....then yeah...nothing crazy something in the 5 to 10KT.
The flip side to all this, is that the US stays out of all middle east ? , dictators, riots, whatever. ? em all...let them slaughter each other.
I think the flip side is a better option bro lol, less costly and less bloodthirsty. The bloodthirsty strategy has failed badly so far
The problem is there are too many people in these middle eastern countries whose entire identity, career, job, whatever is being a terrorist. They will always find a person to blow up...because thats just what they've come to do. Those people have got to go first...then plan B can go into effect.
Well we have to ask ourselves than, why do so many people in the Middle East hate America?? They fight amongst each other a lot, true, but why is so much of their anger focused on America? No one is a terrorist for the sake of being a terrorist, our foreign policy is the reason so many want to destroy America or at the very least, sympathize with those who DO want to destroy America. America's foreign policy in the Middle East is evil, and until it stops being evil, their hatred for Americans (and Israel) won't end.
We've been slaughtering Afghans in Afghanistan for 12 years, how is that working out?
I can tell you've never lived in the middle east. 1) Stop listening to all these conspiracy bloggers and YouTube journalists. Muslims ? more muslims that America ever has. They have been doing it before America even entered into the picture. Has America done some foul ? in the Middle East sure...but like others have pointed out the Middle Eastern Countries did themselves no favours by blowing up civilian planes and doing absolutely dumb ? like the "Munich Olympics". Make no mistake there are incredibly evil people within these countries that just use religion to propagate their evil. They are just the other side of the coin from the ultra-right conservative christian terrorists (cough*Tea Party*cough) the only difference is the poverty, internal exploitation (dictators, kings etc) and subjugation along with absurdly low levels of education all provide this perfect breeding ground for "martyrs" and other desperate people who are only trying to look after their families.
MC Rapper is absolutely right about many of our wars being waged in the Middle East to protect the petrodollar. I have never lived in the Middle East but the author of the world famous book Confessions of an Economic Hitman has.....and he has said everything MC Rapper has said. You are in clear denial of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, the past ruler of Iran pre 1979, and Gaddafi were all making transitions to get away from the petrodollar, and they were all taken out. MIND YOU, they were all at one point close to the United States, until they wanted to use another currency to trade for oil.......
And as far as people there hating America, you refuse to look at the main reasons for their hatred for America, American foreign policy. We support Israel's illegal settlement building with American taxpayer dollars, and give them weapons to ? and murder Palestinian civilians who dare try to stop more of their land from being stolen. America has also SUPPORTED those dictators you mention with money and weapons homie, so why would you bring dictators up for? For every dictator that exists in the Middle East, or used to exist, there is billions of American dollars supporting him. Read a world journal magazine, you have a TON of learning to do. People in the Middle East have been fighting each other for a long time true, but guess what, so have people from all over the world.
You think American history isn't lined up with blood and genocide itself............? LOLOL come on man educate yourself. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake?
Absolutely not. Let me be clear: Unlike you apparently, I am happy as hell so many of these Arab countries are rising up to overthrow these tired old tyrants. ? them flabby n sick ? . If they all get replaced by a new breed of Islamist Tyrants: oh well. It was bound to happen anyway, they earned their shot, and we're still better off supporting these revolutions instead of say, HELPING THE DICTATORS SQUASH THEIR DISSENTERS like we usually have in the past couple decades. This is why you're so full of ? vis-a-vie Libya: if Obama just sits on his hands (at virtually NO political risk remember) and lets Kädafffi slaughter those rebel cities, you'd never shut up about how Mean Old Obama helped Evil Qadaffy build more mass graves because of those cushy oil deals Qaaaddafi signed with the oil cartels or becuz he opposed Al Qaeda blah blah blah. (nevermind that Kahhdaffi was supporting brutal terror attacks like PanAm 103 before Al Qaeda even existed right?)
"Ousting Gadaaffi was a mistake that's given the country to Al Qaeda!" Uh huh. You know who else has been saying that? Americans who really really like the idea of supporting brutal dictators so long as they support American interests. In other words: NeoConservative ? . It's that old "Gee whiz the Shah of Iran was a cool guy!" ? . To see you hop on this ignorant train of thought, completely writing off an entire country struggling to have Democracy for the first time EVER, simply because you want to ? on U.S policy so bad......
A picture taken by an AFP photographer shows what witnesses say is an injured Stevens being aided by Libyans inside the premises of the consulate.
http://youtu.be/zgDoaJFLqIw
On the U.S. Embassy Libya facebook page, hundreds of messages from Libyans were posted, such as:
“Mr. Chris Stevens, really honored his country and family, but he is also one of us, no one in Libya forget what he did for us, particularly the people of Benghazi. We are very sorry for his family and friends.”
http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14412
Twelve more people are reported to have been arrested overnight in Benghazi in connection with Tuesday’s attack on the US mission and the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US diplomatic staff. The arrests were made as a result on information obtained from people who arrested earlier in the day, a source connected to the investigation into the attack told the Libya Herald.
http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14462
Yeah. I'm still happy we helped these people.kingblaze84 wrote: »America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America
? don't you pay attention to your own posts? It achieved America's evil imperialist goals! Duh! What's a few dead diplomats compared to sweet sweet oil C.R.E.A.M? The CIA prolly faked their deaths anyway, like the people on the 9/11 "planes".I can tell you've never lived in the middle east. 1) Stop listening to all these conspiracy bloggers and YouTube journalists. Muslims ? more muslims that America ever has. They have been doing it before America even entered into the picture. Has America done some foul ? in the Middle East sure...but like others have pointed out the Middle Eastern Countries did themselves no favours by blowing up civilian planes and doing absolutely dumb ? like the "Munich Olympics". Make no mistake there are incredibly evil people within these countries that just use religion to propagate their evil. They are just the other side of the coin from the ultra-right conservative christian terrorists (cough*Tea Party*cough) the only difference is the poverty, internal exploitation (dictators, kings etc) and subjugation along with absurdly low levels of education all provide this perfect breeding ground for "martyrs" and other desperate people who are only trying to look after their families.
Man, thank you. Especially @ the bolded. I mean, peep this USA Today quote:
"I see the U.S. government allowed the Web to spread this link all over the world without limiting freedom, without banning it," said Mohammad Umma, who like many in the crowd believes that because America is a democratic nation it should censor media that insult any religion.
"America tells us they are the country of freedom, democracy and tolerance," Umma said. "We considered America democratic, but now with what happened, we hate America."
Get it? This Mohammad Umma cat is completely ignorant about the basic structure of the internet because he's never touched the ? internet. To him, the Internet might as well be a Lamborghini Murciélago cockpit. Some ? you heard about and seen pictures of lol...... -
Swiffness! wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Can you admit now taking out Gaddafi was a big ? mistake?
Absolutely not. Let me be clear: Unlike you apparently, I am happy as hell so many of these Arab countries are rising up to overthrow these tired old tyrants. ? them flabby n sick ? . If they all get replaced by a new breed of Islamist Tyrants: oh well. It was bound to happen anyway, they earned their shot, and we're still better off supporting these revolutions instead of say, HELPING THE DICTATORS SQUASH THEIR DISSENTERS like we usually have in the past couple decades. This is why you're so full of ? vis-a-vie Libya: if Obama just sits on his hands (at virtually NO political risk remember) and lets Kädafffi slaughter those rebel cities, you'd never shut up about how Mean Old Obama helped Evil Qadaffy build more mass graves because of those cushy oil deals Qaaaddafi signed with the oil cartels or becuz he opposed Al Qaeda blah blah blah. (nevermind that Kahhdaffi was supporting brutal terror attacks like PanAm 103 before Al Qaeda even existed right?)
"Ousting Gadaaffi was a mistake that's given the country to Al Qaeda!" Uh huh. You know who else has been saying that? Americans who really really like the idea of supporting brutal dictators so long as they support American interests. In other words: NeoConservative ? . It's that old "Gee whiz the Shah of Iran was a cool guy!" ? . To see you hop on this ignorant train of thought, completely writing off an entire country struggling to have Democracy for the first time EVER, simply because you want to ? on U.S policy so bad......
A picture taken by an AFP photographer shows what witnesses say is an injured Stevens being aided by Libyans inside the premises of the consulate.http://youtu.be/zgDoaJFLqIw
On the U.S. Embassy Libya facebook page, hundreds of messages from Libyans were posted, such as:
“Mr. Chris Stevens, really honored his country and family, but he is also one of us, no one in Libya forget what he did for us, particularly the people of Benghazi. We are very sorry for his family and friends.”
http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14412
Twelve more people are reported to have been arrested overnight in Benghazi in connection with Tuesday’s attack on the US mission and the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US diplomatic staff. The arrests were made as a result on information obtained from people who arrested earlier in the day, a source connected to the investigation into the attack told the Libya Herald.
http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14462
Yeah. I'm still happy we helped these people.kingblaze84 wrote: »America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America
? don't you pay attention to your own posts? It achieved America's evil imperialist goals! Duh! What's a few dead diplomats compared to sweet sweet oil C.R.E.A.M? The CIA prolly faked their deaths anyway, like the people on the 9/11 "planes".I can tell you've never lived in the middle east. 1) Stop listening to all these conspiracy bloggers and YouTube journalists. Muslims ? more muslims that America ever has. They have been doing it before America even entered into the picture. Has America done some foul ? in the Middle East sure...but like others have pointed out the Middle Eastern Countries did themselves no favours by blowing up civilian planes and doing absolutely dumb ? like the "Munich Olympics". Make no mistake there are incredibly evil people within these countries that just use religion to propagate their evil. They are just the other side of the coin from the ultra-right conservative christian terrorists (cough*Tea Party*cough) the only difference is the poverty, internal exploitation (dictators, kings etc) and subjugation along with absurdly low levels of education all provide this perfect breeding ground for "martyrs" and other desperate people who are only trying to look after their families.
Man, thank you. Especially @ the bolded. I mean, peep this USA Today quote:
"I see the U.S. government allowed the Web to spread this link all over the world without limiting freedom, without banning it," said Mohammad Umma, who like many in the crowd believes that because America is a democratic nation it should censor media that insult any religion.
"America tells us they are the country of freedom, democracy and tolerance," Umma said. "We considered America democratic, but now with what happened, we hate America."
Get it? This Mohammad Umma cat is completely ignorant about the basic structure of the internet because he's never touched the ? internet. To him, the Internet might as well be a Lamborghini Murciélago cockpit. Some ? you heard about and seen pictures of lol......
You just made several false assumptions about me lol, if Obama stood by and did nothing in Libya, I would have applauded him. I applaud Obama now for not getting involved in Syria and he gets further applause for not getting involved in Iran back in 2009 (when a real revolution was taking place). Of course I want people to be free, but America is hated enough in the Middle East, killing more people there WON'T bring us props. Just look at Afghanistan homie, we are "liberating" the population from the Taliban, and yet see how many Afghan troops are killing our soldiers. LOL these are supposed to be our allies and yet their killing our men and women. This policy we have of getting involved in places we have no business in is backfiring big time, word to the 2,000 dead American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq.
The ignorance of many people in Libya and that part of the world is breathtaking, that I agree with. But understand they have AN ALREADY low opinion of Obama and America, so of course they will use any little excuse to further hate America. You saw what happened, our "help" to them is not appreciated for the most part.
And yes, there are MANY good Libyans, of course I know that. Most people worldwide are good, decent people but taking out Gaddfi, in my opinion, will bring more problems down the road. 4 dead Americans working in the embassy is a good sign I am right. But I give you credit for wishing the Libyan people freedom, I just believe they should have done it on their own. Helping Middle East nations doesn't help when our foreign policy still sucks, our approval ratings in the Middle East and South Asia are at or close to all time lows. -
Another example of how butting in the business of the Muslim world is only hurting, not helping America.......complete idiots are running the country now
Afghanistan NATO Attacks: 4 U.S. Troops Killed In Afghan Inside Attack
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/afghanistan-nato-attacks_n_1887938.html
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan police killed four American soldiers coming to their aid after a checkpoint attack Sunday, the third "insider" assault by government forces or insurgents disguised in military uniforms in as many days.
The escalating violence – including a NATO airstrike that killed eight Afghan women and girls gathering firewood in a remote part of the country – strained the military partnership between Kabul and NATO as the U.S. begins to withdraw thousands of troops sent three years ago to route the Taliban from southern strongholds.
So far this year, 51 international service members have died at the hands of Afghan soldiers or policemen or insurgents wearing their uniforms. At least 12 such attacks came in August alone, leaving 15 dead.
The surge in insider attacks is a sign of how security has deteriorated as NATO prepares its military exit from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The U.S. is days away from completing the first stage of its own drawdown, withdrawing 33,000 troops that were part of a military surge three years ago. The U.S. will remain with about 68,000 troops at the end of September. -
but this comes back to my previous point: while it's undeniable tragic that Stevens got killed, it's incredibly premature to sit here and say the sum total of what the US has/will have gotten out of helping Libya was 4 dead Americans.kingblaze84 wrote: »I get what you're saying and yes I'm sure most Libyans did not support this attack. Most Muslims and people in general are not violent. With that being said, America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America? NADA, 4 of our diplomats were killed.
saying they "rule most of the nation" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but i mainly point it out as your position tends to be something along the lines of "crazy fundamentalists and al-Qaeda now run this nation!" well, that, and again, you tend to ignore anything positive while making these "the situation is ? forever" statements. but yeah, it's not a "problems have all been solved" thing that's happened.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Prime Minister of Libya seems cool enough but mind you, he doesn't have any real power! The only power he has in in the capital, the various rebel factions rule most of the nation.
you seem to be mysteriously overlooking some of their severe conflicts with the US (and other nations).kingblaze84 wrote: »Saddam Hussein, the past ruler of Iran pre 1979, and Gaddafi were all making transitions to get away from the petrodollar, and they were all taken out. MIND YOU, they were all at one point close to the United States, until they wanted to use another currency to trade for oil...
uh... what does the bolded even mean? Libya and Syria would seem to be a hell of a lot more of "real revolutions" than Iran.kingblaze84 wrote: »You just made several false assumptions about me lol, if Obama stood by and did nothing in Libya, I would have applauded him. I applaud Obama now for not getting involved in Syria and he gets further applause for not getting involved in Iran back in 2009 (when a real revolution was taking place). -
but this comes back to my previous point: while it's undeniable tragic that Stevens got killed, it's incredibly premature to sit here and say the sum total of what the US has/will have gotten out of helping Libya was 4 dead Americans.kingblaze84 wrote: »I get what you're saying and yes I'm sure most Libyans did not support this attack. Most Muslims and people in general are not violent. With that being said, America had no business getting involved with Libya, what did did it do for America? NADA, 4 of our diplomats were killed.
saying they "rule most of the nation" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but i mainly point it out as your position tends to be something along the lines of "crazy fundamentalists and al-Qaeda now run this nation!" well, that, and again, you tend to ignore anything positive while making these "the situation is ? forever" statements. but yeah, it's not a "problems have all been solved" thing that's happened.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Prime Minister of Libya seems cool enough but mind you, he doesn't have any real power! The only power he has in in the capital, the various rebel factions rule most of the nation.
you seem to be mysteriously overlooking some of their severe conflicts with the US (and other nations).kingblaze84 wrote: »Saddam Hussein, the past ruler of Iran pre 1979, and Gaddafi were all making transitions to get away from the petrodollar, and they were all taken out. MIND YOU, they were all at one point close to the United States, until they wanted to use another currency to trade for oil...
uh... what does the bolded even mean? Libya and Syria would seem to be a hell of a lot more of "real revolutions" than Iran.kingblaze84 wrote: »You just made several false assumptions about me lol, if Obama stood by and did nothing in Libya, I would have applauded him. I applaud Obama now for not getting involved in Syria and he gets further applause for not getting involved in Iran back in 2009 (when a real revolution was taking place).
The problem is beyond Libya though, it's what has worsened our reputation in the Muslim world, and that is our constant butting in and warfare there. This includes taking out Gaddafi with air raids, something that killed many civilians. I won't say the sum total of our financial aid to Libya is just 4 dead Americans, but it's a clear symbol of how negative things are there for AMERICA. Please do not pretend the war in Libya was worth it, is that what you are saying? If so, than the attack in the consulate would not have happened, most of the Libyan consulate guards ABANDONED their post. Shows how popular America is there.....NO, the war was not worth it, although I admire your compassion for the Libyan people. I have compassion for them too, but I knew our military aid would be taken the wrong way.
As far as Saddam, Gaddafi, and pre 1979 Iran, yes they all were involved in major conflicts, but so were many parts of the world LOL. Yes some of these conflicts involved America, but there was no reason to take out Saddam in 2003. No reason to help take out the democratically elected ruler of Iran in the 70s, and definitely no reason to take out Gaddafi last year, not for reasons that affected America..... -
As far as the uprising in 2009 in Iran, I apologize for calling it a revolution it really wasn't when I think about it. But it couldv'e became one if Iran didn't suppress the agitators so coldly.
-
Supposedly this is video of US Ambassador to Libya Stevens being dragged around by his killers.....
breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/16/BREAKING-Video-Purports-To-Show-Ambassador-In-Libya
-
...although a lot of that "many civilians" came from guys like Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »The problem is beyond Libya though, it's what has worsened our reputation in the Muslim world, and that is our constant butting in and warfare there. This includes taking out Gaddafi with air raids, something that killed many civilians.
i think the point we're trying to make is that while you can fairly say America has does/does do stuff that makes the Muslim world (although i think it's not the ENTIRE Muslim world as it's being made to sound here; the reaction in, say, Turkey or Indonesia tends to be a little different) think less of the US, the Libyan shenanigans are NOT a great example of this, and it hurts the argument to put everything on the same level.
i would think, and this is going to sound harsh, that what i am saying, since i have REPEATEDLY said this, is that you're rushing to a conclusion and it's absolutely too soon to make declarations like whether or not the war was "worth it."kingblaze84 wrote: »I won't say the sum total of our financial aid to Libya is just 4 dead Americans, but it's a clear symbol of how negative things are there for AMERICA. Please do not pretend the war in Libya was worth it, is that what you are saying?
please support the bolded, as every source i have read says the absolutely contrary.kingblaze84 wrote: »If so, than the attack in the consulate would not have happened, most of the Libyan consulate guards ABANDONED their post.
i think what you've missed there was that was a response to a claim it was all about transitioning away from the petrodollar.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Saddam, Gaddafi, and pre 1979 Iran, yes they all were involved in major conflicts, but so were many parts of the world LOL. Yes some of these conflicts involved America, but there was no reason to take out Saddam in 2003. No reason to help take out the democratically elected ruler of Iran in the 70s, and definitely no reason to take out Gaddafi last year, not for reasons that affected America...
well, i mean, you don't have to officially APOLOGIZE about it or anything. either way i don't agree with the argument that Obama didn't do enough on that front.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as the uprising in 2009 in Iran, I apologize for calling it a revolution it really wasn't when I think about it. But it couldv'e became one if Iran didn't suppress the agitators so coldly.
-
...although a lot of that "many civilians" came from guys like Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »The problem is beyond Libya though, it's what has worsened our reputation in the Muslim world, and that is our constant butting in and warfare there. This includes taking out Gaddafi with air raids, something that killed many civilians.
i think the point we're trying to make is that while you can fairly say America has does/does do stuff that makes the Muslim world (although i think it's not the ENTIRE Muslim world as it's being made to sound here; the reaction in, say, Turkey or Indonesia tends to be a little different) think less of the US, the Libyan shenanigans are NOT a great example of this, and it hurts the argument to put everything on the same level.
i would think, and this is going to sound harsh, that what i am saying, since i have REPEATEDLY said this, is that you're rushing to a conclusion and it's absolutely too soon to make declarations like whether or not the war was "worth it."kingblaze84 wrote: »I won't say the sum total of our financial aid to Libya is just 4 dead Americans, but it's a clear symbol of how negative things are there for AMERICA. Please do not pretend the war in Libya was worth it, is that what you are saying?
please support the bolded, as every source i have read says the absolutely contrary.kingblaze84 wrote: »If so, than the attack in the consulate would not have happened, most of the Libyan consulate guards ABANDONED their post.
i think what you've missed there was that was a response to a claim it was all about transitioning away from the petrodollar.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Saddam, Gaddafi, and pre 1979 Iran, yes they all were involved in major conflicts, but so were many parts of the world LOL. Yes some of these conflicts involved America, but there was no reason to take out Saddam in 2003. No reason to help take out the democratically elected ruler of Iran in the 70s, and definitely no reason to take out Gaddafi last year, not for reasons that affected America...
well, i mean, you don't have to officially APOLOGIZE about it or anything. either way i don't agree with the argument that Obama didn't do enough on that front.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as the uprising in 2009 in Iran, I apologize for calling it a revolution it really wasn't when I think about it. But it couldv'e became one if Iran didn't suppress the agitators so coldly.
On the Iran thing, Obama did the right thing by not getting involved much, he saw how hated we are in the Muslim world and I'm assuming he knew getting involved would make things worse....
As far as Libya, I respect your opinion in that it's too early to say if the war against Gaddafi was worth it. I just see all the rage directed against America over in that part of the world, and I cannot think of any positives the war has had for America. Al-Qaeda is regrouping in Libya, just like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time for American politicians to catch up with the opinion of the avg American, GET THE ? OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. It's not worth the blood and money. -
i don't think it was about being hated in the Muslim world: it was the kind of uprising that would have allowed the government to paint it as a tool of America if we'd been deeply involved.kingblaze84 wrote: »On the Iran thing, Obama did the right thing by not getting involved much, he saw how hated we are in the Muslim world and I'm assuming he knew getting involved would make things worse...
the catch with it being too early to say if it was worth it is that i can't sit here and claim proof that it has been worth it any more than i think you can claim it wasn't. so ultimately i could be totally wrong on this issue; it is what it is.kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Libya, I respect your opinion in that it's too early to say if the war against Gaddafi was worth it. I just see all the rage directed against America over in that part of the world, and I cannot think of any positives the war has had for America.
-
Looks like all you pessimist got it wrong. There was a 30 thou strong protest in Benghazi that kicked out an extreme militant group while waving pro American banners.. Some people appreciate us helping out without leveling their country.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/libya-militia-protests-benghazi_n_1905288.htmlAn Islamist militia was driven out of the city of Benghazi early on Saturday in a surge of protest against the armed groups that control large parts of Libya more than a year after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. -
well well well
it is starting to look like the Islamists overplayed their hand in killing a guy who was well-liked by the citizens of a city he helped save
BENGHAZI, Libya — Galvanized by anger over the killing of the popular American ambassador here last week, thousands of Libyans marched through this city on Friday, demanding the disarming of the militias that helped topple the dictatorship but have troubled the country with their refusal to disband.
In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
The killing of the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, a well-liked figure in Benghazi because he had worked closely with the rebels who toppled Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi last year, appeared to be the catalyst for the protests on Friday, though hardly its only cause.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/pro-american-libyans-besiege-militant-group-in-benghazi.html
of course Drudge is pushing this story as "MAYHEM IN LIBYA..." smh
This discussion has been closed.