|
Cartouche posted:Say what you will about Bush's wars, he at least had more concrete/clear objectives. What, you mean the lies? "Saddam was involved in 9/11!" "Smoking gun... mushroom cloud!" "We're doing it to spread democracy!" Also, let's not forget this choice quote from Donald Rumsfeld: "And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
^^ As far as I remember, they weren't blaming Saddam for 9/11, but were claiming to look for WMDs. I love this Syrian spokeswoman. "The events are happening in Syria, therefore it's Syrian television which tells the truth". 
Vir fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Cartouche posted:
They both have the same objective 'gently caress up the country and throw a puppet in', but Obama's a Democrat so that means he has to shrug and roll his eyes and pretend that's not his goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The US goal is pretty clear, it's just not being made explicit for international political reasons. Yeah, this is what I'm currently thinking. It's pretty confusing on the surface but it looks like the plan from the beginning was a US led air phase followed by a possibly French led ground phase. Also, it's in the interests of the US to not be seen as invading a third Arab country so I don't know why anyone thinks Obama would be hawkish about this situation. The goal as far as we're concerned is the UN resolution, but that might not be the same thing as the US policy towards Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
We think he's Hawkish because he is a Hawk. His first actions were to drone the poo poo out of Pakistan, and his idea of 'withdrawing' from Iraq reeked of 'wink wink, not REALLY though'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:We think he's Hawkish because he is a Hawk. His first actions were to drone the poo poo out of Pakistan, and his idea of 'withdrawing' from Iraq reeked of 'wink wink, not REALLY though'. Yeah, but he's not publicly hawkish about Libya, which is what we're talking about. Everyone knows he's a Republican plant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:They both have the same objective 'gently caress up the country and throw a puppet in', Except if Obama had a policy like that he would have protected Mubarak, a major US puppet. If anything he seems not to want to maintain any US control like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:We think he's Hawkish because he is a Hawk. His first actions were to drone the poo poo out of Pakistan, and his idea of 'withdrawing' from Iraq reeked of 'wink wink, not REALLY though'. Reminder that Barack Hussein Obama is not Magical Wizard King of these United States and he has a very large government under him full of some of the most powerful and influential people in the world and they all have their own interests that you have to keep in mind if you want their cooperation in anything Obama isn't a neo-con secretbush and if you think so you're stupid and need to look at the big picture
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:What, you mean the lies? The first two were bullshit, the last one was true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:The first two were bullshit, the last one was true. Worked out as well as the first two though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
bich posted:Reminder that Barack Hussein Obama is not Magical Wizard King of these United States and he has a very large government under him full of some of the most powerful and influential people in the world and they all have their own interests that you have to keep in mind if you want their cooperation in anything Obama is a monumental failure, he got into office waving the progressive flag and has yet to do anything that wouldn't seem out of character for a McCain presidency. Please cite an Obama policy that isn't out of the neo-con playbook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:The first two were bullshit, the last one was true. No the last one was the end result (kinda if you can call what they have in Iraq a democracy) not the intention, only when (shock horror) WMDs failed to turn up did it become a claimed aim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
Competition posted:Obama is a monumental failure, he got into office waving the progressive flag and has yet to do anything that wouldn't seem out of character for a McCain presidency. Well he put his hawkishness over his homophobia and let gays serve openly without a veto, so that's against most american neo-cons, while still falling into the general definition of a neo-con. Truly, he is our most worldly leader.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
Competition posted:Obama is a monumental failure, he got into office waving the progressive flag and has yet to do anything that wouldn't seem out of character for a McCain presidency. If you were paying attention, Obama repeatedly said on his campaign that he viewed Afghanistan as a war of necessity and vowed to concentrate his efforts there. Granted, sending more troops to Afghanistan and ramping up the drone program is actually a very progressive policy. I don't think people who oppose the war in Afghanistan or the drone program for moral reasons can really call themselves "progressive", they are just a different flavor of jingoist reactionary. There are pragmatic arguments to be made against Afghanistan, the drone war, and the current intervention in Libya, but anyone opposed to these conflicts on moral or ideological grounds cannot be said to be a progressive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
Syria crushes dissent in Deraa, arrests reform minded leaders, offers reforms it will not really follow through on, attempts to bribe citizenry. Guardian quote:4.53pm: AP has a bit more on those government concessions in Syria. Undoubtedly a heartfelt change of approach from the clearly nice guys in charge in Damascus. Surely the silly protesters won't take to the streets tomorrow after all the government has promised to think about maybe doing for them one day?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
So are we gonna bomb Syria next or do we only go after people who's death will benefit NATO still?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:What, you mean the lies? Don't forget working with Al Queda. Because god knows a Sunni Dictator lording over large Shiite populations would gladly welcome Shiite terrorist organizations into his land. Edit: I guess being involved in 9/11 touches on that. Upstream someone correctly pointed out that Saddam's conventional weapons came in large part from Russia. When people say his weapons came from the US, they're more or less referring to his chemical/biological weapons program the US built for him even after he started gassing his people in the 80's. We didn't stop funding and building his chem/biological weapons until he invaded Kuwait. Rumsfeld specifically saw to it that Saddam had a state of the art chemical program. The picture of him shaking hands with Saddam comes from a meeting regarding the sale of the necessary equipment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:So are we gonna bomb Syria next or do we only go after people who's death will benefit NATO still? Depends on what happens with the situation in Palestine. Maybe we'll let the Israelis do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:So are we gonna bomb Syria next or do we only go after people who's death will benefit NATO still? There's not really any comment that better sums up the superficial nature of your knowledge about the situation. What makes Libya different from the other arab revolts going on is fairly simple and easy to see, you just have to actually think about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:If you were paying attention, Obama repeatedly said on his campaign that he viewed Afghanistan as a war of necessity and vowed to concentrate his efforts there. 1. My comments are in regards to the whole of his presidency, thinking you've found a weakspot via Afghanistan is a bizarre response. His tax cuts deal, UHC, Pakistan, Iraq, dragging feet on DODA, and every wasted second the democrats had both houses and the presidency where he did nothing, He is a neo-con who has yet to show this left wing label his supporters and the tea party seem to think apply to him. 2. Just so we're getting this right, you're saying that the anti-war crowd are jingoists and the pro-war crowd are progressive? You're a loving mad man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:So are we gonna bomb Syria next or do we only go after people who's death will benefit NATO still? Just like we bombed Egypt and Tunisia right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's not really any comment that better sums up the superficial nature of your knowledge about the situation. What makes Libya different from the other arab revolts going on is fairly simple and easy to see, you just have to actually think about it. To be fair, Syria clearly has the potential to turn into a civil war. What happens after that though is almost certainly going to look far different from Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
bich posted:Reminder that Barack Hussein Obama is not Magical Wizard King of these United States and he has a very large government under him full of some of the most powerful and influential people in the world and they all have their own interests that you have to keep in mind if you want their cooperation in anything Pretty much. It's funny that people are still shocked when Obama's policies aren't particularly representative of the 'hope' and 'change' they were hoping for when 99.9% of Washington remained unchanged after his election. Democratic change is slow as gently caress, it's not like the US elects a benevolent dictator who rules by decree every 4 years. I'm often an apologist of the Bush administration for the same reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
farraday posted:To be fair, Syria clearly has the potential to turn into a civil war. What happens after that though is almost certainly going to look far different from Libya. True, but it's not one yet and although the repression sounds pretty horrible, it doesn't appear to have the same risk of large-scale civilian reprisals against entire cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Don't forget working with Al Queda. Because god knows a Sunni Dictator lording over large Shiite populations would gladly welcome Shiite terrorist organizations into his land. Al Qaeda is a Sunni organisation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
Competition posted:Al Qaeda is a Sunni organisation. Woah drat, how embarrassing. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Competition posted:He is a neo-con What is this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:28
|
|
SoroScrew
|
evilweasel posted:True, but it's not one yet and although the repression sounds pretty horrible, it doesn't appear to have the same risk of large-scale civilian reprisals against entire cities. While it is too much to suggest the Hama masssare 2 decades ago proves it will happen again, I don't think it's too unlikely if you have a city that is actively in rebel hands you could see that. The bigger problem is that the country is more compressed and the strategic situation is... complex only begins to describe it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:True, but it's not one yet and although the repression sounds pretty horrible, it doesn't appear to have the same risk of large-scale civilian reprisals against entire cities. That would be really ugly and messy, and I'm not sure the US could stay above the fray in something like that, with so many interests being juggled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Woah drat, how embarrassing. It's alright, Saddam still hated them because of Pan-Islamism and general rhetoric that inspires Muslims to suicide bomb other Muslims and Bin Laden hated Saddam because Saddam's actions led to American troops being based in Saudi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:What is this poo poo. A statement without refute due to a two year period where one single progressive policy can't be found yet dozens of continued neo-con policies can be cited in half a minute. I would love to be proved wrong, come on, someone make my day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's not really any comment that better sums up the superficial nature of your knowledge about the situation. What makes Libya different from the other arab revolts going on is fairly simple and easy to see, you just have to actually think about it. So we have to wait for Syria to combust into a full civil war before we mess with it? I seriously want to know the barometer for when we can and can't bomb the crap out of protests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
Competition posted:1. My comments are in regards to the whole of his presidency, thinking you've found a weakspot via Afghanistan is a bizarre response. His tax cuts deal, UHC, Pakistan, Iraq, dragging feet on DODA, and every wasted second the democrats had both houses and the presidency where he did nothing, He is a neo-con who has yet to show this left wing label his supporters and the tea party seem to think apply to him. You think that Obama failing to live up to your standards somehow makes him a neocon, and you honestly believe that Obama pretended to be a Leftist? I have to wonder who the "loving madman" really is. And Christopher Hitchens had a really great point to make about the anti-war crowd being reactionary jingoists (and why the war in Afghanistan is a truly progressive war): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS374kobqbE big fat retard fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:You think that Obama failing to live up to your standards somehow makes him a neocon, and you honestly believe that Obama pretended to be a Leftist? I have to wonder who the "loving madman" really is. Ah yea, Christopher 'bomb the scary brown people because of their faith' Hitchens, let's look to him for progressive philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:What is this poo poo. In GBS political discussions "neo-con" has no meaning any more beyond "Guy I oppose on foreign policy".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:In GBS political discussions "neo-con" has no meaning any more beyond "Guy I oppose on foreign policy". If you favor 'spreading democracy' you are a neo-con, that's one of their core platforms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:You think that Obama failing to live up to your standards somehow makes him a neocon, and you honestly believe that Obama pretended to be a Leftist? I have to wonder who the "loving madman" really is. You're the best troll I've ever seen in my life. I fell for it for a long time, but ugh this is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:If you favor 'spreading democracy' you are a neo-con, that's one of their core platforms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:On the other hand, if it does descend into civil war you can easily see it becoming a larger regional conflagration with implications for the security of Israel, the Hezbollah-backed faction in Lebanon, and Iran, which would draw a response by Saudi Arabia. It may be our modern Spanish Civil War, the mother of all proxy wars. Stop this poo poo, people were claiming potential proxy civil war for Iraq which had ten times to potential than Syria does and that didn't happen. Syria: Ethnicity - Arab 90% Religion - 75% Sunni, 15% Other Muslim, 10% Christian Not nearly fractured enough for any true civil war, the Alawites (who share that 15%) would support the Ba'athists but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Typo posted:Specifically, it was spreading democracy in the middle-east at gun-point, but hey do generalize Well that's the main way but no the general concept of 'democracy is the best and everyone should have it because we say so' is the platform, they just feel it's acceptable to kick the door in and shoot everything to spread it if you feel you have to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:40
|
|