It looks like bombing Libya and taking out Gaddafi has not helped with America's reputation there
Options
Comments
-
These new pro-American demonstrations in Libya are encouraging for Americans but things like this are too FEW and far between in the Arab/Muslim world. I don't see things like this happening in Egypt or in most other areas of the Middle East these days. Just lots of dead American soldiers in Afghanistan being killed by their fellow Afghan soldiers and MUCH MORE anti-Americanism than pro-America protests. In fact, American intelligence now believes pro-democracy and pro-American forces in the Arab Spring are weak. A link here proves my point......
http://news.yahoo.com/dangerous-deepening-divide-between-islamic-world-west-145536305.html
SPREADING DEMOCRACY AND MAKING FRIENDS
Still, the "Arab Spring" appears not to have made as many friends for America as Americans might have hoped.
The very countries in which Washington helped facilitate popular-backed regime change last year - Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen - are seeing some of the greatest anti-West backlash.
The young pro-democracy activists who leapt to the fore in 2011, Washington now believes, have relatively little clout. That leaves U.S. and European officials having to deal with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
There is concern that regional governments such as Egypt might now be playing a "double game", saying one thing to the U.S. while indulging in more anti-Western rhetoric at home.
It may be something Washington must get used to.
"What you're seeing now is that (regional governments) are much more worried about their own domestic population - which means being seen as too close to the U.S. is suddenly ... a liability," says Jon Alterman, a former State Department official and now Middle East specialist at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
The current U.S. administration is not the first to discover democracy does not always directly translate into the sort of governments it would like to see.
In 2006, the election victory of Islamist group Hamas in the Gaza Strip was seen helping prompt the Bush White House to abandon a post-911 push towards for democratic change, sending it back towards Mubarak-type autocrats.
Rachel Kleinfeld, CEO and co-founder of the Truman National Security Project, a body often cited by the Obama campaign on foreign policy, said the new political leadership often had less flexibility than the dictators before them.
"Is that difficult for the U.S.? Yes, of course. But it would be a mistake to simply look at what is happening and decide we should go back to supporting autocrats," she said.
The popular image of the United States in the Middle East stands in stark contrast to the way Americans view themselves.
Western talk of democracy and human rights is often seen hollow, with Washington and Europe only abandoning autocratic leaders when their fate was already sealed and continuing to back governments such as Bahrain still accused of repression.
"The simple truth is that the American people are never going to understand the region because they never ask the right question - which is what it feels like to be on the receiving end of American power," says Rosemary Hollis, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at London's City University. -
So in short, as long as America CONTINUES to support dictators all throughout the region with money and weapons, and continues to suck Israeli ? while Israel makes the lives of Palestinians difficult with AMERICAN AID, and our stupid war in Afghanistan, nothing will change. Only someone that is delusional would think we can win friends in the Muslim world with these policies lol
-
on the other hand, if we're talking about whether or not getting involved in Libya was worthwhile, what's happening in Libya specifically might be weighted a little more heavily than what happens outside it.kingblaze84 wrote: »These new pro-American demonstrations in Libya are encouraging for Americans but things like this are too FEW and far between in the Arab/Muslim world. I don't see things like this happening in Egypt or in most other areas of the Middle East these days. -
on the other hand, if we're talking about whether or not getting involved in Libya was worthwhile, what's happening in Libya specifically might be weighted a little more heavily than what happens outside it.kingblaze84 wrote: »These new pro-American demonstrations in Libya are encouraging for Americans but things like this are too FEW and far between in the Arab/Muslim world. I don't see things like this happening in Egypt or in most other areas of the Middle East these days.
Well what did happen in Libya? Libyan security forces put up a weak fight and according to several sources, many abandoned their positions. The terrorist attack may have even had inside help, not positive signs for a nation that many Americans want to be an ally. But what happens outside Libya is important as well because again, it shows taking out the dictator Gaddafi did NOT help with America's reputation in that region. It hurt it, and whatever hurts our reputation in that region more than likely will reflect in what happens in Libya. Some positive things are going on in Libya from an American stand view, but for the most part all I see is chaos and hatred against America I haven't seen in a long time.
And let's not forget how Al-Qaeda has regrouped big time in Libya, since you want to focus on Libya. -
the former is the part i asked if you could provide a source for earlier in the thread. the latter? who has actually even advanced that theory?kingblaze84 wrote: »Well what did happen in Libya? Libyan security forces put up a weak fight and according to several sources, many abandoned their positions. The terrorist attack may have even had inside help, not positive signs for a nation that many Americans want to be an ally.
the funny thing is, you're continually talking about how all the stuff the US has done in the past has made the US hated in the region. so if people outside Libya were mad at the US before Gaddafi was removed and are mad after Gaddafi was removed ... are you sure the removal of Gaddafi has had anything to do with that at all?kingblaze84 wrote: »But what happens outside Libya is important as well because again, it shows taking out the dictator Gaddafi did NOT help with America's reputation in that region. It hurt it, and whatever hurts our reputation in that region more than likely will reflect in what happens in Libya.
maybe we could start with something explaining this "regrouping big time?"kingblaze84 wrote: »And let's not forget how Al-Qaeda has regrouped big time in Libya, since you want to focus on Libya.
-
the former is the part i asked if you could provide a source for earlier in the thread. the latter? who has actually even advanced that theory?kingblaze84 wrote: »Well what did happen in Libya? Libyan security forces put up a weak fight and according to several sources, many abandoned their positions. The terrorist attack may have even had inside help, not positive signs for a nation that many Americans want to be an ally.
the funny thing is, you're continually talking about how all the stuff the US has done in the past has made the US hated in the region. so if people outside Libya were mad at the US before Gaddafi was removed and are mad after Gaddafi was removed ... are you sure the removal of Gaddafi has had anything to do with that at all?kingblaze84 wrote: »But what happens outside Libya is important as well because again, it shows taking out the dictator Gaddafi did NOT help with America's reputation in that region. It hurt it, and whatever hurts our reputation in that region more than likely will reflect in what happens in Libya.
maybe we could start with something explaining this "regrouping big time?"kingblaze84 wrote: »And let's not forget how Al-Qaeda has regrouped big time in Libya, since you want to focus on Libya.
Oh damn my bad I didn't give those sources, I was high as hell when I made that post
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/one-american-employee-killed-consulate-attack-libya/56761/
Libyan security officials confirmed to Reuters that one consulate employee in Benghazi was killed and more were injured in the attack. The force of the militants weaponry was so strong that Libyan security forces withdrew from the compound and the building has been abandoned. "The Libyan security forces came under heavy fire and we were not prepared the intensity of the attack," a spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee told Reuters. The militants attacked with heavy gunfire and homemade bombs. Much of the consulate was burned in the attack. After security forces abandoned the building, according to reporters on the scene, people were walking onto the property to either loot, or watch other people loot, the consulate.
And as far as Gaddafi being removed and worldwide Muslim opinion of the US, I'm just saying the war CEMENTED Arab/Muslim opinion that the USA is full of warmongers who are constantly out for Arab blood and oil. The war was a terrible mistake for the sole reason it would involve the killing of MORE Arabs, something America is really good at. That's not the image we should be cementing in the Mideast, and we see how they look at America now.
As as far as Al-Qaeda regrouping in Libya after Gaddafi's fall, the ambassador who got killed had a diary and he himself wrote in it that Al-Qaeda was regrouping in large numbers in Libya after Gaddafi's fall. It's on several sites but I'll bring it up when I have time. Hopefully someone else can find that link??
-
Aiding Lyba was a Nato effort which European counties were on point for. Even the Arab League asked for help. We provided strategic aid with the advancing of the rebels in mind. There were no boots on the ground before or after minus the embassy that was there before and after. And Al-Qaeda been a threat before and after. But i guess we should attempt to work with the world community and build a iron curtain.. But we not going to talk about the fact that Al-Qaeda attacks Arabs more then anything because they want to instill their version of Islam. What about them waring in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html -
you, sir, are a ridiculous characterkingblaze84 wrote: »Oh damn my bad I didn't give those sources, I was high as hell when I made that post
so this is the part where i point out this does not say they "put up a weak fight" and abandoned their positions. it sounds a little more like they were outgunned --which is something to fairly criticize, no doubt-- and withdrew, and that the "abandoned" part is more the current status of the building. also, nothing about inside help there...kingblaze84 wrote: »Libyan security officials confirmed to Reuters that one consulate employee in Benghazi was killed and more were injured in the attack. The force of the militants weaponry was so strong that Libyan security forces withdrew from the compound and the building has been abandoned.
frankly, you're reaching on this, because if we had done nothing as regards Libya, you'd just be claiming some OTHER event was the one that "cemented Arab/Muslim opinion" and the rest.kingblaze84 wrote: »And as far as Gaddafi being removed and worldwide Muslim opinion of the US, I'm just saying the war CEMENTED Arab/Muslim opinion that the USA is full of warmongers who are constantly out for Arab blood and oil.
i don't think anyone's disputing that groups like al-Qaeda seek to expand into countries like Libya where the government's control over the territory is not absolute. i DO think there's some exaggeration going on.kingblaze84 wrote: »As as far as Al-Qaeda regrouping in Libya after Gaddafi's fall, the ambassador who got killed had a diary and he himself wrote in it that Al-Qaeda was regrouping in large numbers in Libya after Gaddafi's fall. It's on several sites but I'll bring it up when I have time. Hopefully someone else can find that link? -
FuriousOne wrote: »Aiding Lyba was a Nato effort which European counties were on point for. Even the Arab League asked for help. We provided strategic aid with the advancing of the rebels in mind. There were no boots on the ground before or after minus the embassy that was there before and after. And Al-Qaeda been a threat before and after. But i guess we should attempt to work with the world community and build a iron curtain.. But we not going to talk about the fact that Al-Qaeda attacks Arabs more then anything because they want to instill their version of Islam. What about them waring in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html
True but the average Arab in the Middle East and definitely the African Union was opposed to the war. The elites favored the war that I get lol, but the avg person was against it. Americans were for it but I'm pretty sure most are regretting that now smh....what the avg person in that part of the world thinks is more important than what just the elites think. -
you, sir, are a ridiculous characterkingblaze84 wrote: »Oh damn my bad I didn't give those sources, I was high as hell when I made that post
so this is the part where i point out this does not say they "put up a weak fight" and abandoned their positions. it sounds a little more like they were outgunned --which is something to fairly criticize, no doubt-- and withdrew, and that the "abandoned" part is more the current status of the building. also, nothing about inside help there...kingblaze84 wrote: »Libyan security officials confirmed to Reuters that one consulate employee in Benghazi was killed and more were injured in the attack. The force of the militants weaponry was so strong that Libyan security forces withdrew from the compound and the building has been abandoned.
frankly, you're reaching on this, because if we had done nothing as regards Libya, you'd just be claiming some OTHER event was the one that "cemented Arab/Muslim opinion" and the rest.kingblaze84 wrote: »And as far as Gaddafi being removed and worldwide Muslim opinion of the US, I'm just saying the war CEMENTED Arab/Muslim opinion that the USA is full of warmongers who are constantly out for Arab blood and oil.
i don't think anyone's disputing that groups like al-Qaeda seek to expand into countries like Libya where the government's control over the territory is not absolute. i DO think there's some exaggeration going on.kingblaze84 wrote: »As as far as Al-Qaeda regrouping in Libya after Gaddafi's fall, the ambassador who got killed had a diary and he himself wrote in it that Al-Qaeda was regrouping in large numbers in Libya after Gaddafi's fall. It's on several sites but I'll bring it up when I have time. Hopefully someone else can find that link?
Well it's not proven that there was inside help within the Libyan embassy attack but there is good evidence it was. Mind you, the embassy wasn't guarded for a long time AFTER the attack finished. What happened to those tons of weapons Americans gave the Libyan rebel forces?? They suddenly got scared of fighting? LOL ? no as the previous article said, they ABANDONED their positions. Many Libyan forces did fight no doubt and some did die fighting, but here is some good evidence there was inside help.....
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/sep/14/wsobit02-libya-consulate-attackers-may-have-had-in-ar-2606227/
BENGHAZI, Libya --
Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover and may have had help from inside Libyan security in their deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate, a senior Libyan official said Thursday.
As Libya announced the first four arrests, the clearest picture yet emerged of a two-pronged assault with militants screaming "? is great!" as they scaled the consulate's outer walls and descended on the compound's main building.
The rampage killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, Wanis el-Sharef, said a mob first stormed the consulate Tuesday night and then, hours later, raided a safe house in the compound just as U.S. and Libyan security arrived to evacuate the staff. That suggested, el-Sharef said, that infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off the militants to the location of the safe house.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Aiding Lyba was a Nato effort which European counties were on point for. Even the Arab League asked for help. We provided strategic aid with the advancing of the rebels in mind. There were no boots on the ground before or after minus the embassy that was there before and after. And Al-Qaeda been a threat before and after. But i guess we should attempt to work with the world community and build a iron curtain.. But we not going to talk about the fact that Al-Qaeda attacks Arabs more then anything because they want to instill their version of Islam. What about them waring in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html
True but the average Arab in the Middle East and definitely the African Union was opposed to the war. The elites favored the war that I get lol, but the avg person was against it. Americans were for it but I'm pretty sure most are regretting that now smh....what the avg person in that part of the world thinks is more important than what just the elites think.
Do you have a survey or some other evidence for that? The average Arab and Northern African was in the streets during Arab spring saying the complete opposite of what your suggesting. Nobody wanted war but Gaddafi was bombing people indiscriminately before anyone attacked him first. The Egyptian president stepped down and was convicted. Syria decided to go Ham on it's citizens. If anything, the elites didn't want a war or at least they didn't' want anybody successfully fighting back.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-libya-icc-exclusive-idUSTRE73443V20110405The International Criminal Court prosecutor said on Tuesday Libyan authorities had decided they were ready to ? unarmed protestors opposed to Muammar Gaddafi's rule even before unrest spread from Tunisia and Egypt. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Aiding Lyba was a Nato effort which European counties were on point for. Even the Arab League asked for help. We provided strategic aid with the advancing of the rebels in mind. There were no boots on the ground before or after minus the embassy that was there before and after. And Al-Qaeda been a threat before and after. But i guess we should attempt to work with the world community and build a iron curtain.. But we not going to talk about the fact that Al-Qaeda attacks Arabs more then anything because they want to instill their version of Islam. What about them waring in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html
True but the average Arab in the Middle East and definitely the African Union was opposed to the war. The elites favored the war that I get lol, but the avg person was against it. Americans were for it but I'm pretty sure most are regretting that now smh....what the avg person in that part of the world thinks is more important than what just the elites think.
Do you have a survey or some other evidence for that? The average Arab and Northern African was in the streets during Arab spring saying the complete opposite of what your suggesting. Nobody wanted war but Gaddafi was bombing people indiscriminately before anyone attacked him first. The Egyptian president stepped down and was convicted. Syria decided to go Ham on it's citizens. If anything, the elites didn't want a war or at least they didn't' want anybody successfully fighting back.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-libya-icc-exclusive-idUSTRE73443V20110405The International Criminal Court prosecutor said on Tuesday Libyan authorities had decided they were ready to ? unarmed protestors opposed to Muammar Gaddafi's rule even before unrest spread from Tunisia and Egypt.
Actually the rebels in Bengazi ran Gadaffi forces out before he started ? ? up. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Aiding Lyba was a Nato effort which European counties were on point for. Even the Arab League asked for help. We provided strategic aid with the advancing of the rebels in mind. There were no boots on the ground before or after minus the embassy that was there before and after. And Al-Qaeda been a threat before and after. But i guess we should attempt to work with the world community and build a iron curtain.. But we not going to talk about the fact that Al-Qaeda attacks Arabs more then anything because they want to instill their version of Islam. What about them waring in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html
True but the average Arab in the Middle East and definitely the African Union was opposed to the war. The elites favored the war that I get lol, but the avg person was against it. Americans were for it but I'm pretty sure most are regretting that now smh....what the avg person in that part of the world thinks is more important than what just the elites think.
Do you have a survey or some other evidence for that? The average Arab and Northern African was in the streets during Arab spring saying the complete opposite of what your suggesting. Nobody wanted war but Gaddafi was bombing people indiscriminately before anyone attacked him first. The Egyptian president stepped down and was convicted. Syria decided to go Ham on it's citizens. If anything, the elites didn't want a war or at least they didn't' want anybody successfully fighting back.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-libya-icc-exclusive-idUSTRE73443V20110405The International Criminal Court prosecutor said on Tuesday Libyan authorities had decided they were ready to ? unarmed protestors opposed to Muammar Gaddafi's rule even before unrest spread from Tunisia and Egypt.
Well if you look at this link it will show most of Africa and most of Asia, and many Arab nations were opposed to the no fly zone and subsequent bombing of Libya. It killed many civilians, something America has been doing way too often these days. Here's the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
With that being said, I do agree Gaddafi was wrong to target innocent civilians in rebel populations, but wtf America does that all the time LOL, come on man America has done the exact same thing Gaddafi did. YES it is wrong either way, and Gaddafi was hated for a reason. But that doesn't mean America should have bombed the nation. Maybe giving weapons to the rebels was cool IF Gaddafi was wilding out like some say, but air raids and spending a billion doing so was not a wise move. Unless you think it's cool for Al-Qaeda to find another safe haven, considering Obama wants to get rid of them. He just increased their numbers, I bet you a G Al-Qaeda had something to do with this. And don't forget all the Libyans there chanting they are one with Osama...... -
actually, judging by the article you provided, there seems to be no EVIDENCE it was, but simply conjecture. conjecture could prove to be true, but it's not the same thing as good evidence.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well it's not proven that there was inside help within the Libyan embassy attack but there is good evidence it was.
so since you're even acknowledging that, let me repeat myself: "this does not say they "put up a weak fight" and abandoned their positions. it sounds a little more like they were outgunned --which is something to fairly criticize, no doubt-- and withdrew, and that the "abandoned" part is more the current status of the building."kingblaze84 wrote: »LOL ? no as the previous article said, they ABANDONED their positions. Many Libyan forces did fight no doubt and some did die fighting--
-
actually, judging by the article you provided, there seems to be no EVIDENCE it was, but simply conjecture. conjecture could prove to be true, but it's not the same thing as good evidence.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well it's not proven that there was inside help within the Libyan embassy attack but there is good evidence it was.
so since you're even acknowledging that, let me repeat myself: "this does not say they "put up a weak fight" and abandoned their positions. it sounds a little more like they were outgunned --which is something to fairly criticize, no doubt-- and withdrew, and that the "abandoned" part is more the current status of the building."kingblaze84 wrote: »LOL ? no as the previous article said, they ABANDONED their positions. Many Libyan forces did fight no doubt and some did die fighting--
Yeah you could be right I admit there isn't hard evidence Al-Qaeda or some other group was within Libyan security force ranks but it does seem like someone tipped them off or some other group off. How else did the killers find the safe house???? That was classified information. It could be possible one of the killers just found a document giving details, either way it's disturbing the lack of protection the consulate had and how much hatred some people could have in Libya after America got rid of Gaddafi, very telling.....
-
stuff can leak in a lot of ways, especially if we're presuming we're not talking about the most experienced security dudes in the game. but, again, in fairness, it's not like we've proven there could NOT have been inside help on some level.kingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah you could be right I admit there isn't hard evidence Al-Qaeda or some other group was within Libyan security force ranks but it does seem like someone tipped them off or some other group off. How else did the killers find the safe house???? That was classified information.
truekingblaze84 wrote: »either way it's disturbing the lack of protection the consulate had-
honestly, not really, unless this is demonstrated by the masses. there will ALWAYS be a small core of raging, disgruntled people in EVERY country.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how much hatred some people could have in Libya after America got rid of Gaddafi, very telling..... -
stuff can leak in a lot of ways, especially if we're presuming we're not talking about the most experienced security dudes in the game. but, again, in fairness, it's not like we've proven there could NOT have been inside help on some level.kingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah you could be right I admit there isn't hard evidence Al-Qaeda or some other group was within Libyan security force ranks but it does seem like someone tipped them off or some other group off. How else did the killers find the safe house???? That was classified information.
truekingblaze84 wrote: »either way it's disturbing the lack of protection the consulate had-
honestly, not really, unless this is demonstrated by the masses. there will ALWAYS be a small core of raging, disgruntled people in EVERY country.kingblaze84 wrote: »-and how much hatred some people could have in Libya after America got rid of Gaddafi, very telling.....
I won't deny all that lol, but it's one thing to have a small raging group of people, and a WHOLE OTHER to have a small group of people ? your AMBASSADOR and BURN YOUR CONSULATE DOWN. What other nation has had that happen to them this year except America??
And you mention the masses?? You know what masses of people were and are doing right now all around the world to American flags and places of business in the Islamic world? It's not pretty bro, I hope America learned a valuable lesson from this. -
Al-Qaeda tied to attack on embassy
Attack on U.S. Consulate in Libya determined to be terrorism tied to al-Qaeda
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya-determined-to-be-terrorism-tied-to-al-qaeda/2012/09/27/8a298f98-08d8-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html
U.S. intelligence agencies have determined that the attack on the U.S. mission in Libya involved a small number of militants with ties to al-Qaeda in North Africa but see no indication that the terrorist group directed the assault, U.S. officials said Thursday.
The determination reflects an emerging consensus among analysts at the CIA and other agencies that has contributed to a shift among senior Obama administration officials toward describing the siege of U.S. facilities in Benghazi as a terrorist attack.
The State Department said Thursday that it was pulling more American staff from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli out of concern for their safety. A State Department official described the reduction as temporary and said the embassy was not being closed. The State Department would not say how many people are leaving or how many will stay.
---This Libyan war was a disaster. Americans aren't even safe there now smh......I dare a ? to say the war was worth it now lol -
this is the price you being the world's superpower: there's plenty of profit in hating on youkingblaze84 wrote: »I won't deny all that lol, but it's one thing to have a small raging group of people, and a WHOLE OTHER to have a small group of people ? your AMBASSADOR and BURN YOUR CONSULATE DOWN. What other nation has had that happen to them this year except America??
i know what some people were doing. the thing is, you leap to the worst case scenario you can think of and think that's proven fact, whereas i tend to be reading stuff that says you're exaggerating the size and number of your "masses"kingblaze84 wrote: »And you mention the masses?? You know what masses of people were and are doing right now all around the world to American flags and places of business in the Islamic world?
when are you going to learn to let events happen before you declare how they turned out?kingblaze84 wrote: »---This Libyan war was a disaster.
-
this is the price you being the world's superpower: there's plenty of profit in hating on youkingblaze84 wrote: »I won't deny all that lol, but it's one thing to have a small raging group of people, and a WHOLE OTHER to have a small group of people ? your AMBASSADOR and BURN YOUR CONSULATE DOWN. What other nation has had that happen to them this year except America??
i know what some people were doing. the thing is, you leap to the worst case scenario you can think of and think that's proven fact, whereas i tend to be reading stuff that says you're exaggerating the size and number of your "masses"kingblaze84 wrote: »And you mention the masses?? You know what masses of people were and are doing right now all around the world to American flags and places of business in the Islamic world?
when are you going to learn to let events happen before you declare how they turned out?kingblaze84 wrote: »---This Libyan war was a disaster.
Well the fact of the matter is, MANY people there are hating on America now and this proves getting involved in other nations' business isn't a good idea when we're hated in the region already. These are the results, and I've seen what I need to see. What makes you think the Libyan war WASN'T a disaster? -
Further proof our bloodthirsty policies in the Middle East aren't winning us much friends.......
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-embassy-issue-terror-warning-for-americans-living-in-egypt/
US Embassy issues terror warning for Americans in Egypt
The US Embassy in Cairo issued a terrorist threat warning on Friday for American citizens living in Egypt.
The diplomatic mission stated on its website that it has “credible information suggesting terrorist interest in targeting US female missionaries in Egypt.”
The embassy urged US citizens to “exercise vigilance, taking necessary precautions to maintain their personal security.” Americans in Egypt were also advised to maintain valid travel documents and to regularly monitor the US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs website, which lists updated travel warnings and alerts.
On August 4, the US issued a travel warning to Americans to “take precautions in travel to the Sinai.” It warned that “overland travel from Israel to the Sinai in particular is strongly discouraged.” That warning came soon after Israel urged its citizens to get out of the Sinai. The next day, Sinai terrorists killed 16 Egyptian border guards in an assault at the Egypt-Gaza-Israel border.
Also on Friday, the chairwoman of the House of Representatives committee that oversees foreign aid said she would block $450 million in US assistance to Egypt in light of tense relations between the two countries.
“This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the US-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so,” the chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said in a statement. “I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time. … I have placed a hold on these funds.”
The relationship between the United States and Egypt has been rocky since the overthrow of US ally President Hosni Mubarak last year. The Egyptian government angered Washington when it cracked down on numerous democracy advocates and groups, including three US-funded nongovernmental organizations, earlier this year.
More recently, demonstrators breached the US Embassy in Cairo to protest an anti-Islam video, and some in Congress have called for cutting off aid. The United States provides Egypt with $1.55 billion annually — $250 million in economic aid and $1.3 billion in military aid. -
let me suggest to you that since you were claiming people hate on the US with good reason PRIOR to the Libyan adventures, and since you're likely to have stated it wouldn't have stopped that even if things were going swimmingly (for example, this was your contention prior to Stevens getting killed), then the US should have acted on Libya for reasons related to whether or not it benefited us, and not anything to do with public opinion.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well the fact of the matter is, MANY people there are hating on America now and this proves getting involved in other nations' business isn't a good idea when we're hated in the region already.
mostly the fact that i like to wait more than a handful of months before i declare something a total success or a complete disaster?kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you think the Libyan war WASN'T a disaster?
-
let me suggest to you that since you were claiming people hate on the US with good reason PRIOR to the Libyan adventures, and since you're likely to have stated it wouldn't have stopped that even if things were going swimmingly (for example, this was your contention prior to Stevens getting killed), then the US should have acted on Libya for reasons related to whether or not it benefited us, and not anything to do with public opinion.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well the fact of the matter is, MANY people there are hating on America now and this proves getting involved in other nations' business isn't a good idea when we're hated in the region already.
mostly the fact that i like to wait more than a handful of months before i declare something a total success or a complete disaster?kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you think the Libyan war WASN'T a disaster?
Ok I'll take the bait, how long should we wait to see if the Libyan war wasn't a disaster? -
slightly more than 10 minutes after it ends would be a good start.kingblaze84 wrote: »
let me suggest to you that since you were claiming people hate on the US with good reason PRIOR to the Libyan adventures, and since you're likely to have stated it wouldn't have stopped that even if things were going swimmingly (for example, this was your contention prior to Stevens getting killed), then the US should have acted on Libya for reasons related to whether or not it benefited us, and not anything to do with public opinion.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well the fact of the matter is, MANY people there are hating on America now and this proves getting involved in other nations' business isn't a good idea when we're hated in the region already.
mostly the fact that i like to wait more than a handful of months before i declare something a total success or a complete disaster?kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you think the Libyan war WASN'T a disaster?
Ok I'll take the bait, how long should we wait to see if the Libyan war wasn't a disaster?
also, calling it the Libyan war? nah
-
slightly more than 10 minutes after it ends would be a good start.kingblaze84 wrote: »
let me suggest to you that since you were claiming people hate on the US with good reason PRIOR to the Libyan adventures, and since you're likely to have stated it wouldn't have stopped that even if things were going swimmingly (for example, this was your contention prior to Stevens getting killed), then the US should have acted on Libya for reasons related to whether or not it benefited us, and not anything to do with public opinion.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well the fact of the matter is, MANY people there are hating on America now and this proves getting involved in other nations' business isn't a good idea when we're hated in the region already.
mostly the fact that i like to wait more than a handful of months before i declare something a total success or a complete disaster?kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you think the Libyan war WASN'T a disaster?
Ok I'll take the bait, how long should we wait to see if the Libyan war wasn't a disaster?
also, calling it the Libyan war? nah
The operation in Libya wasn't a war?? If Mexico air raided cities all across America, you wouldn't call that an act of war???
This discussion has been closed.