|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Are you a pol sci 101 student, because you have no idea what you're talking about. The quote doesn't even relate to Libya in the context it was said. If you're trying to spin the quote to have meaning then you need to provide an explanation. Are you saying that the US is a foreign power telling Libya what it should and shouldn't do? or that Obama is the power telling the US people what it should and shouldn't do. Either way you're just grasping at straws to create meaning. I can help out the Regressive in question. What he's really saying is this: "I don't have a point, but since the Teabaggers like to glorify things as symbols to score cheap points, I'm going to throw this George Washington quote out there because I have nothing to add to the conversation and, being without an able mind, think that my interpretation is the one that will immediately come to your mind, hence proving my point that isn't really proving it in the slightest." That's what their quotemining really comes down to: they want you to interpret something instead of them arguing their point because they have none.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
straw man posted:It would be an appeal to authority, and therefore a logical fallacy, if I were using it to back up an argument. I didn't. I quoted George Washington saying something about "foreign power" after Barack Obama said something about "collective action". Uh, yeah that's great dude. We're all very impressed by how well-read and enlightened you are, but the Alinsky and Washington connections are far flung tangents to the topic at hand and are basically irrelevant to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:I can help out the Regressive in question. What he's really saying is this: "I don't have a point, but since the Teabaggers like to glorify things as symbols to score cheap points, I'm going to throw this George Washington quote out there because I have nothing to add to the conversation and, being without an able mind, think that my interpretation is the one that will immediately come to your mind, hence proving my point that isn't really proving it in the slightest." Astute. I took this quote from a teabagger on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
straw man posted:Astute. I took this quote from a teabagger on Facebook. Maybe you should have included that context originally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Maybe you should have included that context originally. I figured I'd test the waters. For  .A peer-reviewed study will be forthcoming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Uh, yeah that's great dude. We're all very impressed by how well-read and enlightened you are, but the Alinsky and Washington connections are far flung tangents to the topic at hand and are basically irrelevant to this thread. It's closer than you think.... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
straw man posted:I figured I'd test the waters. For I hate you so muuuuuuuuuch
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I hate you so muuuuuuuuuch Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
straw man posted:I figured I'd test the waters. For Reviewer #1: "Pretty weak loving posting"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
straw man posted:Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France? This isn't taken from Facebook as well? Anyway, unless we're strapping our soldiers to cruise missiles, I think we're safe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
straw man posted:Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I hate you so muuuuuuuuuch Is "so muuuuuuuuuch" more or less than a "smidgemeter"? Moving past Red and his herrings, Here's something I'm not sure has been made explicit yet. BBC quote:Andrew North BBC News, Washington Two slower ground attack vehicles. The US must feel more secure about the issue of portable anti air capability. Helicopters ,other than SAR types, are probably out of the question though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:This isn't taken from Facebook as well? From a Republican state senator's Facebook.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Regime change is "what George Bush did". That's not flippant: that phrase is completely tainted and so you simply can't use it without flipping the bird to everyone. It'd be like calling this "a crusade against injustice": it's now one of those hot-button words. This is the same reason it's a "military intervention for humanitarian purposes" and not a war. I think it just makes him look a bit silly though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
straw man posted:Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France? Oh yes our sons and daughters are in such danger bombing Gaddafi tanks that happen to be bombarding red cross camps and innocent civilians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
farraday posted:Two slower ground attack vehicles. The US must feel more secure about the issue of portable anti air capability. Helicopters ,other than SAR types, are probably out of the question though. If they are using AC130s and A10s for CAS missions then that should expedite things a bit, and implies they have guys on the ground coordinating with the rebels. straw man posted:Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France?[1] [1] A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. In closing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Who's ready for another go round on the Twitter rumor mill?quote:Liberty4Libya: Reports that a #Sebha group of tribes contacted Ali Zaydan member of TNC requesting secure exit of #Gadafi & family. #Libya Grind it fine boys. I have to say I like this one better though quote:Liberty4Libya: #TNC is consdering the idea in order to stop the bloodshed, #gadafi relinquishing power & #TNC taking full control of #Libya ViaLibya alYoum TNC considering allowing Qaddafi to give up. farraday fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
straw man posted:Obama is at pains and contortions to project that America does not lead the charge in Libya. Plays better in Brussells, maybe. But here at home, why should we want our sons and daughters to fight in the Middle east for France? Assuming you're an American - Why have you previously expected French (and British and Australian and everyone else in the 'Coalition of the Willing') to fight in the Middle East for America? Also, just because you guys aren't the boss for once doesn't make it not worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
farraday posted:Is "so muuuuuuuuuch" more or less than a "smidgemeter"? These are much more of a "See that guy over there? Get him" type weapon than anything used so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Assuming you're an American - Keep your logic out of this okay? Going in and preventing a dictator from exterminating his own civilian opposition with secret police, military, and mercenary forces while having the backing of the international community is obviously much worse than attacking some random guy who we don't like with the excuse of he "Supports Terrorism™" and has  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIOOOON**Presence of WMDs not guaranteed. I mean who cares if it ends with a few tens of thousands of brown people dead and a shattered uprising against a cruel and demonstrably unstable dictator who controls a shitload of wealth. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Sniper rifles captured by fighters in #Misrata function with fingerprint scan. Completely unusable The PR for the next Call of Duty is getting kinda out of hand. Though I suppose someone could be trying to get funding for the next James Bond movie. Maybe a new A-Team movie? Maybe it was dropped by a certain Captain Price when he lead that SAS team who were captured the Rebels a few weeks back while they were trying to escort some MI5 guys around. Comstar fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
A positive take on Obama's speech and conduct concerning Libya from the Economist:quote:Far from “dithering”, goes the White House line, pushed subtly in the speech and explicitly in briefings by senior officials, Mr Obama’s handling of the Libyan crisis has been “relatively extraordinary”. He has in a mere 31 days since the protests started imposed powerful sanctions, frozen Colonel Qaddafi’s assets, secured a robust Security Council resolution, organised an international coalition, executed a near-flawless military campaign, rolled Colonel Qaddafi’s forces back to the west, taken out the colonel’s air defences and knocked out a good deal of his ground forces. All this has been done without having to put American boots on the ground, without American military casualties and with precious few Libyan civilian casualties. Better still, with all this now done, America’s own contribution can decline, NATO can assume command (under an American general but with a Canadian deputy) and the European allies will take on more of the burden. Compare that, say senior administration officials, to the years it took to intervene in Bosnia in the 1990s. quote:Another criticism of Mr Obama is that his policy is inconsistent. Why batter Colonel Qaddafi and not intervene on the side of the opposition in Yemen, Bahrain, perhaps even Syria? Mr Obama is thought to be preparing another speech, some time in the next month or two, that will set out his broader thinking on what the Arab awakening means to Arabs and the wider world, and spell out how America might be able to help nudge it in a favourable direction. Yet the president plainly believes that there are so many variables in the present fast-moving circumstances that it is not possible to adopt a single doctrine that fits each case. Bahrain has cracked down forcibly on the opposition but not in the manner of a Qaddafi—and both America, with its naval base, and Saudi Arabia have a powerful strategic interest in the country. Ditto Yemen, a hodge-podge of tribes and factions with a dangerous al-Qaeda presence. http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2011/03/libya_4
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
What does arming the rebels mean when floated as a possibility in this conflict? Don't arms above the level of rifles take significant training(and thus time) to use safely and effectively? So is it just rifles and ammunition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
They seem to be doing pretty well with the air support, why is there any need to arm them further? I don't think that would be a good idea at this point. I hope we hold off doing that unless it is really needed in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Keep in mind, this is just one dude's analysis. There isn't any proof this is happening. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Don't forget that not all the rebels are just average joe's taking up arms, a large chunk of the military has joined in as well. I'm sure there's many skilled and trained men in the revolt that could use equipment beyond rifles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Don't forget that not all the rebels are just average joe's taking up arms, a large chunk of the military has joined in as well. I'm sure there's many skilled and trained men in the revolt that could use equipment beyond rifles. More to the point replacing the cleavers RPGs and toy guns with AK-47s does wonders for their firepower. If you consider it though it is far more likely the US or a coalition power will contract through the international arms market, or possibly with a friendly Arab power that uses similar weaponry, and get arms to them that way if we're talking about getting them weapons. If you're talking about better weapons, including vehicles, you'd probably want to put those in the hands of a more organized force.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Is Ivory Coast getting help next? Or are we being selective about when we're humanitarians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:That, and saying 'Look, G, man. We ain't actively trying to kill you. You want to leave? We'll help you leave. C'mon, get out.' His punishment should be to be sequestered on a remote island and forced to perform in a Failed Dictators Reality TV series - winner take all!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
farraday posted:Two slower ground attack vehicles. The US must feel more secure about the issue of portable anti air capability. Helicopters ,other than SAR types, are probably out of the question though. The A-10's survivability though is legendary. quote:If you consider it though it is far more likely the US or a coalition power will contract through the international arms market, or possibly with a friendly Arab power that uses similar weaponry, and get arms to them that way if we're talking about getting them weapons. St1cky, I believe it's already been announced that USG is recognizing the non-Gbagbo guy as the legitimate president?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Not A Bear posted:His punishment should be to be sequestered on a remote island and forced to perform in a Failed Dictators Reality TV series - winner take all! Might I recommend Saint Helena?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
St1cky posted:Is Ivory Coast getting help next? Or are we being selective about when we're humanitarians? The UN is already on the ground in Cote d'Ivoire. In fact I believe the UN mission there was just increased. In fact I believe China and France both have sizable contingents on the ground in the country. As security council members if they want to push for a resolution for air strikes what's stopping them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
St1cky posted:Is Ivory Coast getting help next? Or are we being selective about when we're humanitarians? For as long as I can remember the US picks and chooses where and for who will we deploy troops for "humanitarian" missions, but usually when people are being slaughtered en mass because they don't like their government we have a pretty decent track record of stepping in. (decent =/= perfect) As stated though, the situation in Libya is very different than the situation in every other ME or African country where protests are occurring. His decision to act is in a manner that evens the playing field of Gaddafi vs. rebel forces by taking away Gaddafi's heavy weapons and air power which the rebels sure as poo poo don't have is one that isn't hard to support since it's so limited in scope since we're not actually leading the charge with the 3rd army into Tripoli. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
"I Used to sit on my porch and smoke my hemp pipe." -Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:Might I recommend Saint Helena? Don't tarnish the N-dog by this blatant false comparison! I'd let the Naps dictate me anyday. farraday posted:The UN is already on the ground in Cote d'Ivoire. In fact I believe the UN mission there was just increased. In fact I believe China and France both have sizable contingents on the ground in the country. As security council members if they want to push for a resolution for air strikes what's stopping them? No but you see, all situations, countries, intervention is the same and we should intervene in every opressive regime in the world or none..  Chade Johnson posted:"I Used to sit on my porch and smoke my hemp pipe." -Abraham Lincoln Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -- Kurt Cobain Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
Probably going to be Eritrea or Burkina Faso, maybe Central African Republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
St1cky posted:Is Ivory Coast getting help next? Or are we being selective about when we're humanitarians? If things go well in this intervention then hopefully we can do the same thing by influencing the global community to take a bigger interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
farraday posted:The UN is already on the ground in Cote d'Ivoire. In fact I believe the UN mission there was just increased. In fact I believe China and France both have sizable contingents on the ground in the country. As security council members if they want to push for a resolution for air strikes what's stopping them? I know there's UN forces on the ground, I'm just pointing out that the US is selective about how they approach these things. Of course, no one in the US has any idea what's going on there and I only have an idea because I've started using BBC to get my foreign news instead of our "news" sources. A Winner is Jew posted:For as long as I can remember the US picks and chooses where and for who will we deploy troops for "humanitarian" missions, but usually when people are being slaughtered en mass because they don't like their government we have a pretty decent track record of stepping in. (decent =/= perfect) Right now it's limited, but it always sounds like it's going to be some quick deal where we drop a few bombs and flex some muscle and save the day. I really don't mind blowing up some tanks and keeping the skies clear, but I just wonder what happens next if the rebels win and can't resolve how to run the country themselves. The US really can't afford to gets itself involved in trying to build a third nation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
St1cky posted:I know there's UN forces on the ground, I'm just pointing out that the US is selective about how they approach these things. Of course, no one in the US has any idea what's going on there and I only have an idea because I've started using BBC to get my foreign news instead of our "news" sources. I applaud your efforts to reduce your ignorance, keep at it. Since you have been following it, perhaps you could clarify why you think they're obviously comparable and that action within the boundaries we've set for Libya would be effective in Cote d'Ivoire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHRA4jqeCaQ From a few days ago. Just because it doesn't occupy primetime news doesn't mean the world is necessarily ignoring the issue. There are currently plans to increase the level of UN sanctions currently in place to get Gbagbo to leave, supposedly to be introduced at the UNSC next week. The US can't seize all his money because it's inside the country, but the UN is preventing the a massacre of the president-elect and slowly removing the ability of Gbagbo to pay his troops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 05:36
|
|