It looks like bombing Libya and taking out Gaddafi has not helped with America's reputation there
Options
Comments
-
OH, and the Libyan war has been over for awhile now Jank.....it's been over for about half a year now. If it was ongoing you might have a point but seeing how Al-Qaeda now has a new base of operations in Libya while getting our consulate burnt to the ground, I fail to see how the war in Libya has been anything but a utter disaster and failure. There hasn't been any kind of success there, none that benefits America at least. Al-Qaeda is partying in Libya like it's 1999 now, just as I predicted.
-
BTW President Obama sure doesn't care about Americas debt - not to long ago apparently he did?
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. - Senator Barack Obama, March 2006 (Congressional Record, p S2237 -
really, Libya was exactly like if all of a sudden Mexico launched airstrikes all across the US? come on, now.kingblaze84 wrote: »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???
let's pause at the bolded and look at what you just said: if the Libyan war was STILL ONGOING, i MIGHT be able to claim we wouldn't know how it would all turn out. gee, you think if it was going on, we wouldn't know what the resolution would be?kingblaze84 wrote: »OH, and the Libyan war has been over for awhile now Jank.....it's been over for about half a year now. If it was ongoing you might have a point-
this is because:kingblaze84 wrote: »-but seeing how Al-Qaeda now has a new base of operations in Libya while getting our consulate burnt to the ground, I fail to see how the war in Libya has been anything but a utter disaster and failure.
01. you are completely married to the idea that it's an total failure, which is what you pushed before, during, and now after America got involved;
02. you seem to think "about half a year" is a massive amount of time.
-
really, Libya was exactly like if all of a sudden Mexico launched airstrikes all across the US? come on, now.kingblaze84 wrote: »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???
let's pause at the bolded and look at what you just said: if the Libyan war was STILL ONGOING, i MIGHT be able to claim we wouldn't know how it would all turn out. gee, you think if it was going on, we wouldn't know what the resolution would be?kingblaze84 wrote: »OH, and the Libyan war has been over for awhile now Jank.....it's been over for about half a year now. If it was ongoing you might have a point-
this is because:kingblaze84 wrote: »-but seeing how Al-Qaeda now has a new base of operations in Libya while getting our consulate burnt to the ground, I fail to see how the war in Libya has been anything but a utter disaster and failure.
01. you are completely married to the idea that it's an total failure, which is what you pushed before, during, and now after America got involved;
02. you seem to think "about half a year" is a massive amount of time.
Half a year is a long enough time to see the war was a failure because the war is now OVER. Six months later, things are a disaster there with Americans now being forced to leave the capital. If things are going so swell there, why is the US govt telling workers to leave the AMERICAN EMBASSY in Tripoli?? Why is the FBI STILL not in Libya, so many days after the attack? It's because Americans are so hated and threatened there they are not safe, even under Libyan protection. This is BEYOND pathetic and a holy ? mess. Shows how badly we are hated there, stop living in dream world......
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/breaking-us-state-department-is-removing-staff-from-tripoli-libya/
And if Mexico was doing air raids all throughout America the way America did Libya, YEAH, ? YEAH I would consider that an act of war. And that's exactly what we did in Libya. You sound naive as hell right now, what happened to you?
-
before we begin, this remark tells me you're entering the part of the discussion where you start madly talking ? . so do you want to do THAT or debate the topic?kingblaze84 wrote: »You sound naive as hell right now, what happened to you?
if the goal was to help Libya become a functional democratic country post-Gaddafi, that takes a lot longer than six months, so let's not pretend we can just set short-term benchmarks like six months for "when Libya no longer has any problems." further, and i'll say it again, you have BEEN beyond devoted to the idea that assisting in Libya has been a failure. ? , you called it a failure before it was over, so your opinion is a big suspect on this score.kingblaze84 wrote: »Half a year is a long enough time to see the war was a failure because the war is now OVER.
do you understand what the phrase "utter disaster and failure" actually means? because this is what i talk about when i talk about the exaggerations.kingblaze84 wrote: »Six months later, things are a disaster there with Americans now being forced to leave the capital. If things are going so swell there, why is the US govt telling workers to leave the AMERICAN EMBASSY in Tripoli?? Why is the FBI STILL not in Libya, so many days after the attack?
again, IS that what we did in Libya? just showed up randomly and starting bombing cities all across Libya? or is what happened actually something different?kingblaze84 wrote: »And if Mexico was doing air raids all throughout America the way America did Libya, YEAH, ? YEAH I would consider that an act of war. And that's exactly what we did in Libya. -
before we begin, this remark tells me you're entering the part of the discussion where you start madly talking ? . so do you want to do THAT or debate the topic?kingblaze84 wrote: »You sound naive as hell right now, what happened to you?
if the goal was to help Libya become a functional democratic country post-Gaddafi, that takes a lot longer than six months, so let's not pretend we can just set short-term benchmarks like six months for "when Libya no longer has any problems." further, and i'll say it again, you have BEEN beyond devoted to the idea that assisting in Libya has been a failure. ? , you called it a failure before it was over, so your opinion is a big suspect on this score.kingblaze84 wrote: »Half a year is a long enough time to see the war was a failure because the war is now OVER.
do you understand what the phrase "utter disaster and failure" actually means? because this is what i talk about when i talk about the exaggerations.kingblaze84 wrote: »Six months later, things are a disaster there with Americans now being forced to leave the capital. If things are going so swell there, why is the US govt telling workers to leave the AMERICAN EMBASSY in Tripoli?? Why is the FBI STILL not in Libya, so many days after the attack?
again, IS that what we did in Libya? just showed up randomly and starting bombing cities all across Libya? or is what happened actually something different?kingblaze84 wrote: »And if Mexico was doing air raids all throughout America the way America did Libya, YEAH, ? YEAH I would consider that an act of war. And that's exactly what we did in Libya.
Jank, we did bomb Libya, all throughout the nation. I'm not saying we randomly started bombing Libya, but nonetheless we did bomb the nation and we DID do air raids throughout much of the land. Are you saying this isn't true??
And if you feel I'm exaggerating how bad things are in Libya, can we at least agree things are not going well there so far? If you agree with this, just keep in mind the war has been over for half a year now. That is long enough to see things have not been going well thus far. Wars take time to end peacefully, but the war has been over for quite awhile and Americans are still being told to avoid Libya as much as possible. A damning state for how much money and time we spent there trying to "liberate" people. Yeah, America has been embraced with open arms ever since, LOL.........this is what I mean by you possibly being naive on this subject. The failure of this war is staring into your skull and you seem almost lost or puzzled by it. Why, I don't know. -
see how you're starting to note differences between the Mexico example and what happened in Libya? yeah...kingblaze84 wrote: »Jank, we did bomb Libya, all throughout the nation. I'm not saying we randomly started bombing Libya, but nonetheless we did bomb the nation and we DID do air raids throughout much of the land. Are you saying this isn't true??
i am not arguing that it's been nothing but roses thus far. however, the point i'm making is that this isn't the kind of thing that gets miraculously resolved in a mere six months. seriously, you're arguing right now that Libya, after a CIVIL WAR, should be completely free of visibly anti-Americanism in any form or it means the war was a failure. ? , we have visible anti-Americanism in AMERICA right now.kingblaze84 wrote: »And if you feel I'm exaggerating how bad things are in Libya, can we at least agree things are not going well there so far? If you agree with this, just keep in mind the war has been over for half a year now. That is long enough to see things have not been going well thus far. -
see how you're starting to note differences between the Mexico example and what happened in Libya? yeah...kingblaze84 wrote: »Jank, we did bomb Libya, all throughout the nation. I'm not saying we randomly started bombing Libya, but nonetheless we did bomb the nation and we DID do air raids throughout much of the land. Are you saying this isn't true??
i am not arguing that it's been nothing but roses thus far. however, the point i'm making is that this isn't the kind of thing that gets miraculously resolved in a mere six months. seriously, you're arguing right now that Libya, after a CIVIL WAR, should be completely free of visibly anti-Americanism in any form or it means the war was a failure. ? , we have visible anti-Americanism in AMERICA right now.kingblaze84 wrote: »And if you feel I'm exaggerating how bad things are in Libya, can we at least agree things are not going well there so far? If you agree with this, just keep in mind the war has been over for half a year now. That is long enough to see things have not been going well thus far.
You fail to grasp just how serious it is for a US Ambassador to be killed in a nation that was "liberated" by Americans, along with getting its consulate burnt to the GROUND. For this to happen 6 months after getting rid of Gaddafi is embarrassing and if things do look brighter there for America eventually, great. But that is very unlkely to happen. After all, we've been in Afghanistan for 12 years and nothing good is going on there. What makes you think Libya will be any different? Americans are being told to avoid Libya now by the US govt, and we've taken Americans out of the embassy for their own protection. When does the good news start coming in? 6 months later I'm still waiting. -
no, i do not "fail to grasp this." what i AM doing is failing to flip out and declare total and immediate defeat because it happened.kingblaze84 wrote: »You fail to grasp just how serious it is for a US Ambassador to be killed in a nation that was "liberated" by Americans, along with getting its consulate burnt to the GROUND.
actually, you're not waiting, you're declaring nothing good is going to come of it at all. so...kingblaze84 wrote: »6 months later I'm still waiting.
-
no, i do not "fail to grasp this." what i AM doing is failing to flip out and declare total and immediate defeat because it happened.kingblaze84 wrote: »You fail to grasp just how serious it is for a US Ambassador to be killed in a nation that was "liberated" by Americans, along with getting its consulate burnt to the GROUND.
actually, you're not waiting, you're declaring nothing good is going to come of it at all. so...kingblaze84 wrote: »6 months later I'm still waiting.
OK how about this, give me signals things are going well in Libya for America and ARE NOT a disaster there. I'm gonna wait patiently for your response. -
the fact that the ambassador's death was immediately followed by Libyans out in the streets protesting it? we'll start with thatkingblaze84 wrote: »OK how about this, give me signals things are going well in Libya for America and ARE NOT a disaster there. I'm gonna wait patiently for your response.
then there's also the fact that i have REPEATEDLY said i don't think you can call it one way or the other only six months after the fact, but i guess you're ignoring that?
-
the fact that the ambassador's death was immediately followed by Libyans out in the streets protesting it? we'll start with thatkingblaze84 wrote: »OK how about this, give me signals things are going well in Libya for America and ARE NOT a disaster there. I'm gonna wait patiently for your response.
then there's also the fact that i have REPEATEDLY said i don't think you can call it one way or the other only six months after the fact, but i guess you're ignoring that?
Those Libyans protesting the death of the ambassador doesn't mean JACK ? considering Americans are still unsafe there. Not impressed with that at all, when Americans are actually safe there, I'll take those little protests seriously.
And as far as the war not going one way or the other so far after 6 months, UMMMMMMMMMMMM America's consulate got burnt down to the ground last month and the consulate is so unsafe to be around Americans are not investigating on the consulate grounds yet. It's a joke at this point how badly the war has gone, but if you want to be naive on this subject, you have every right to be. If I burned down your house, after 6 months of us NOT FIGHTING, I'm pretty sure you would say relations btw me and you are not going very well. -
you're not impressed because you don't want to be. you love to harp on the point that people in X country hate America and show it, and yet when given ANY example where they appear not to, you dismiss it because it does not fit the narrative.kingblaze84 wrote: »Those Libyans protesting the death of the ambassador doesn't mean JACK ? considering Americans are still unsafe there. Not impressed with that at all, when Americans are actually safe there, I'll take those little protests seriously.
i like that you changed the latter because you presumably can't say "the FBI is not in Libya" or whatever at this point. but here's the thing: telling me the EXACT SAME TERRIBLE THING you've mentioned twenty times before does not change my position that "i have REPEATEDLY said i don't think you can call it one way or the other only six months after the fact." you could at LEAST come up with something negative you have not mentioned over and over.kingblaze84 wrote: »And as far as the war not going one way or the other so far after 6 months, UMMMMMMMMMMMM America's consulate got burnt down to the ground last month and the consulate is so unsafe to be around Americans are not investigating on the consulate grounds yet.
actually, the war went quite well. i would think you would know this, since you keep saying that we're six months beyond it.kingblaze84 wrote: »It's a joke at this point how badly the war has gone-
(sigh)kingblaze84 wrote: »-but if you want to be naive on this subject-
i asked this question before, but here we are again, so i think you need to answer it: do you want to talk ? or do you want to debate this topic? because the latter involves us disagreeing like adults. -
you're not impressed because you don't want to be. you love to harp on the point that people in X country hate America and show it, and yet when given ANY example where they appear not to, you dismiss it because it does not fit the narrative.kingblaze84 wrote: »Those Libyans protesting the death of the ambassador doesn't mean JACK ? considering Americans are still unsafe there. Not impressed with that at all, when Americans are actually safe there, I'll take those little protests seriously.
i like that you changed the latter because you presumably can't say "the FBI is not in Libya" or whatever at this point. but here's the thing: telling me the EXACT SAME TERRIBLE THING you've mentioned twenty times before does not change my position that "i have REPEATEDLY said i don't think you can call it one way or the other only six months after the fact." you could at LEAST come up with something negative you have not mentioned over and over.kingblaze84 wrote: »And as far as the war not going one way or the other so far after 6 months, UMMMMMMMMMMMM America's consulate got burnt down to the ground last month and the consulate is so unsafe to be around Americans are not investigating on the consulate grounds yet.
actually, the war went quite well. i would think you would know this, since you keep saying that we're six months beyond it.kingblaze84 wrote: »It's a joke at this point how badly the war has gone-
(sigh)kingblaze84 wrote: »-but if you want to be naive on this subject-
i asked this question before, but here we are again, so i think you need to answer it: do you want to talk ? or do you want to debate this topic? because the latter involves us disagreeing like adults.
Well I have no problem with us agreeing to disagree. You say it's too early to declare success or failure after the war, I see a burnt US consulate to the ground with our own ambassador being murdered along with 3 of his fellow co-workers in the same nation we helped "liberate". The war was very stupid, and it's hurting Obama on the campaign trail now, as Romney can easily use this as an excuse to say Obama's foreign policy has failed. He's saying these things right now, so until I hear a convincing argument otherwise, the war in Libya was a waste of time, blood, and money. My respect for the American govt went down a lot after the war. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Egypt too.
How dumb is it that they burning ? down and killing ppl cuz some random nobody made an anti-Islam flick? This wasn't a anti-Israel protest..........one of those Islamophobe ? made a propaganda film, somebody reposted with Arabic subtitles........riots. There really is a problem in the Muslim world with them not understanding how free speech works. I mean, if you asked Egyptians on the street if they want Free Speech they'd be like "SURE!" but then ask them if saying not-so-nice things about Islam and The Prophet should be protected under Free Speech and see how many ppl give you a stale face. They still got that backwards 19th Century America mindset towards blasphemy vs. free speech. Seriously, it's like those protesters in the UK that had signs like this:
Christianity as a whole got over this sensitive ? a minute ago. Too many Muslims still expect the whole world to give them special treatment and kiss Islam's ass. Grow up.
I hate this ? , because it really seems like the Extreme Christianists and Extreme Islamists are just hellbent on beefing and the rest of us are gonna be stuck cleaning up the rubble and bodies. Man, that Breivik dude that murked them 77 kids in part because he saw them as "supporting the Muslim invasion of Europe" etc. Pandora's Box is ? open and it is only going to get worse. Post Arab Spring democracies are gonna be unstable as hell, Neo-Fascist movements are gaining strength in Europe via Islamophobia, Iran's prolly gonna start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, The Next Republican President will be demonizing and profiling Muslims, someone is gonna top 9/11 eventually. ? . Welp, I guess its still better than the dystopian future where we have a Cold War with China.
It's funny how this free speech thing works. People want free speech - but then want to put limits on it. When someone says something they dont like, instead of ignoring their stupid statements they demand the source be persecuted. In an attempt to stop what has been said from becoming popular, they have just martyred and publicized the source of it and given them a platform to push their ideas to other people.
It's so damn counterproductive. -
you say this like you would have ever posted otherwisekingblaze84 wrote: »My respect for the American govt went down a lot after the war.
-
you say this like you would have ever posted otherwisekingblaze84 wrote: »My respect for the American govt went down a lot after the war.
I've said several times I respected Obama's decision to not get involved in Iran and Syria soo..... -
RodrigueZz wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »Egypt too.
How dumb is it that they burning ? down and killing ppl cuz some random nobody made an anti-Islam flick? This wasn't a anti-Israel protest..........one of those Islamophobe ? made a propaganda film, somebody reposted with Arabic subtitles........riots. There really is a problem in the Muslim world with them not understanding how free speech works. I mean, if you asked Egyptians on the street if they want Free Speech they'd be like "SURE!" but then ask them if saying not-so-nice things about Islam and The Prophet should be protected under Free Speech and see how many ppl give you a stale face. They still got that backwards 19th Century America mindset towards blasphemy vs. free speech. Seriously, it's like those protesters in the UK that had signs like this:
Christianity as a whole got over this sensitive ? a minute ago. Too many Muslims still expect the whole world to give them special treatment and kiss Islam's ass. Grow up.
I hate this ? , because it really seems like the Extreme Christianists and Extreme Islamists are just hellbent on beefing and the rest of us are gonna be stuck cleaning up the rubble and bodies. Man, that Breivik dude that murked them 77 kids in part because he saw them as "supporting the Muslim invasion of Europe" etc. Pandora's Box is ? open and it is only going to get worse. Post Arab Spring democracies are gonna be unstable as hell, Neo-Fascist movements are gaining strength in Europe via Islamophobia, Iran's prolly gonna start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, The Next Republican President will be demonizing and profiling Muslims, someone is gonna top 9/11 eventually. ? . Welp, I guess its still better than the dystopian future where we have a Cold War with China.
It's funny how this free speech thing works. People want free speech - but then want to put limits on it. When someone says something they dont like, instead of ignoring their stupid statements they demand the source be persecuted. In an attempt to stop what has been said from becoming popular, they have just martyred and publicized the source of it and given them a platform to push their ideas to other people.
It's so damn counterproductive.
True the outrage over a stupid movie was embarrassing for the Middle East in my opinion but the video did not cause the terror attack. Why have so much anger over a damn movie in general, are people there rly that thick skinned? At the exact same time though, it's beyond the video, we gotta keep in mind the hundreds of thousands of people killed by American wars there, plus our support of borderline genocide in Palestinian territories. The attack was planned months before the protests according to many sources either way......
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_says_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html
Remember when U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice made the Sunday talk show rounds to say that the attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a "spontaneous" outburst prompted by that bizarre anti-Muslim film? Yeah, about that...
The Associated Press:
The State Department now says it never believed the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a film protest gone awry .... The State Department's extraordinary break with other administration offices came in a department briefing Tuesday, where officials said "others" in the executive branch concluded initially that the protest was based, like others in the Middle East, on a film that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the department's conclusion, a senior official told reporters.
-
this is not the same thing as taking a different position on your respect for the US governmentkingblaze84 wrote: »I've said several times I respected Obama's decision to not get involved in Iran and Syria soo.....
-
this is not the same thing as taking a different position on your respect for the US governmentkingblaze84 wrote: »I've said several times I respected Obama's decision to not get involved in Iran and Syria soo.....
I respect American govt in many aspects but not when it comes to foreign policy, it's terrible. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
this is not the same thing as taking a different position on your respect for the US governmentkingblaze84 wrote: »I've said several times I respected Obama's decision to not get involved in Iran and Syria soo.....
I respect American govt in many aspects but not when it comes to foreign policy, it's terrible.
It's BEYOND that - since it doesn't even exist just which low ranking entity is gonna take the fall for the secretary of state? huh? we sure couldn't hold the responsible person for there incompetence could we? I'm sure if enough smoke screens are put forth, when things clear we'll see who's to blame - ? ? never runs upward.
-
yeah, the thing is, kingblaze is not talking about this administration ALONE, although i know this revelation is not going to sidetrack your rant at allIt's BEYOND that - since it doesn't even exist just which low ranking entity is gonna take the fall for the secretary of state? huh? we sure couldn't hold the responsible person for there incompetence could we? I'm sure if enough smoke screens are put forth, when things clear we'll see who's to blame - ? ? never runs upward.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
this is not the same thing as taking a different position on your respect for the US governmentkingblaze84 wrote: »I've said several times I respected Obama's decision to not get involved in Iran and Syria soo.....
I respect American govt in many aspects but not when it comes to foreign policy, it's terrible.
It's BEYOND that - since it doesn't even exist just which low ranking entity is gonna take the fall for the secretary of state? huh? we sure couldn't hold the responsible person for there incompetence could we? I'm sure if enough smoke screens are put forth, when things clear we'll see who's to blame - ? ? never runs upward.
LOL yeah don't expect anyone in the administration to take the blame for this Libya mess. Although to be fair, Republicans are the ones who cut consulate aid in the House budget -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
this is not the same thing as taking a different position on your respect for the US governmentkingblaze84 wrote: »I've said several times I respected Obama's decision to not get involved in Iran and Syria soo.....
I respect American govt in many aspects but not when it comes to foreign policy, it's terrible.
It's BEYOND that - since it doesn't even exist just which low ranking entity is gonna take the fall for the secretary of state? huh? we sure couldn't hold the responsible person for there incompetence could we? I'm sure if enough smoke screens are put forth, when things clear we'll see who's to blame - ? ? never runs upward.
LOL yeah don't expect anyone in the administration to take the blame for this Libya mess. Although to be fair, Republicans are the ones who cut consulate aid in the House budget
Of course - I'm really surprised they haven't blamed Bush for those cuts. Seriously,this administration rarely if ever takes any responsibility for there actions.....oh he did get bin laden - so I guess that nullifies all those other blunders?
-
Well I'll be ? DAMNED.........
Hillary Clinton takes responsibility for the Libya mess....I was wrong, someone finally takes responsibility for this disaster, although Obama still screwed up by agreeing to the stupid Libyan war to begin with
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/hillary-clinton-benghazi-libya_n_1968863.html
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a mea culpa Tuesday for the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.
"I take responsibility," Clinton said to CNN's Elise Labott, after arriving in Peru on a diplomatic visit.
The Obama administration has taken fire in recent weeks over its original claims that the attack resulted from a spontaneous protest in front of the consulate, stemming from outrage over the anti-Islamic film "The Innocence of Muslims." The State Department has since backed away from those claims, confirming last week that there had been no protest at the consulate's gates, and that the attack appeared to have been premeditated by extremist elements. Reports that security requests in the months leading up to the attack were denied have added fuel to the fire.
This discussion has been closed.