|
Yeah, it may have worked out this time, but that's a really bad precedent once we get a Romney/Bachmann whitehouse. War powers act? Psshaw, whatever! 
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Warcabbit posted:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-obamas-war-room-20111013?print=true That was a really good read. And I'm glad that Obama told Congress to go screw themselves on this one. The last thing that we needed was that bipartisan bickering bullshit that they can't seem to get around stalling any action while Benghazi burns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
I'm glad the people of Libya didn't get just brutally slaughtered, but I can't say I'm glad we've got moderate-to-left leaning people (I'm assuming you're not a George W. Bush style neocon, Fojar38) thinking the executive branch ignoring checks and balances and telling other branches to "go screw themselves." That's Cheney-talk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I'm glad the people of Libya didn't get just brutally slaughtered, but I can't say I'm glad we've got moderate-to-left leaning people (I'm assuming you're not a George W. Bush style neocon, Fojar38) thinking the executive branch ignoring checks and balances and telling other branches to "go screw themselves." That's Cheney-talk. Moderate to left leaning actually describes my stance pretty well, but looking at the state of Congress and the Senate right now, it would've inevitably been drawn out into a stupid Right vs. Left debate and by the time any action was actually decided upon then it would've been too late. Obama was in between a rock and a hard place, but the facts that were laid out before him were pretty clear that waiting for congressional approval would have resulted in a massacre at Benghazi. He did the right thing here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-obamas-war-room-20111013?print=true Great article. Rolling Stone continually impresses. How do they always have such great insider sources? It's crazy how Clinton getting snubbed by some youth groups in Egypt was something of a tipping point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Great article. Rolling Stone continually impresses. How do they always have such great insider sources? It's crazy how Clinton getting snubbed by some youth groups in Egypt was something of a tipping point. Rolling Stone posted:Kucinich, meanwhile, was working behind the scenes to try to persuade Qaddafi to step aside. "There was a very real chance of opening up talks," Kucinich says. "But it became abundantly clear that there was no interest on the part of the administration to settle this peacefully. There were too many other interests – oil markets and NATO fighting for its viability. It's quite regrettable."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Sadly the article is desperately US-centric. Granted it undoubtedly all came from sources within the US, but gives the impression Europeans weren't involved or had unimportant roles/decision making. Belief in the centrality of the US to all international processes is not helped by journalism that portrays the US as central to all international processes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
farraday posted:Sadly the article is desperately US-centric. Granted it undoubtedly all came from sources within the US, but gives the impression Europeans weren't involved or had unimportant roles/decision making.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
Chortles posted:So what about the bit with Secretary of State Clinton 'desperately' trying to keep the Europeans and Arabs onboard? The context of the anecdote implies that the Europeans were in fact very important to the effort... No, it implies the US was central and everyone else had to be dragged along. Glorifying the United State's supposed centrality to every single action gives you that warm sense of nationalistic pride, but it is hardly accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
quote="farraday"]No, it implies the US was central and everyone else had to be dragged along. Glorifying the United State's supposed centrality to every single action gives you that warm sense of nationalistic pride, but it is hardly accurate.[/quote]I read that one as more of "if the Europeans left, the US was screwed" and that the US effort was dependent on the European participation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
farraday posted:Sadly the article is desperately US-centric. Granted it undoubtedly all came from sources within the US, but gives the impression Europeans weren't involved or had unimportant roles/decision making. That's not really much criticism, considering how the article is about the US reaction. Would it have been nice to get more perspectives? Of course. But the focus was how the Obama White House reacted, and putting in additional information would bog it down. It's a magazine article, not a comprehensive history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Chortles posted:I read that one as more of "if the Europeans left, the US was screwed" and that the US effort was dependent on the European participation. Which neatly inverts the truth that the European effort was dependent on US participation. Yes the article is about the US decision to participate. Yes the US' participation can and would be crucial to military success in any active campaign. However to take from that the the US was the crucial player in making the whole thing work is self aggrandizing. The article accepts as given that the US owns the Libyan situation. Why? Because obviously the US is the major actor in any situation and any other country is a scurrying underling or, at best, the steadfast sidekick. The US doesn't own poo poo and it is the very arrogance of presuming we're always the most important person in any room that can and will kill any good will from the good we do. Acebuckeye13 posted:That's not really much criticism, considering how the article is about the US reaction. Would it have been nice to get more perspectives? Of course. But the focus was how the Obama White House reacted, and putting in additional information would bog it down. It's a magazine article, not a comprehensive history. Yes, and the most audacious act of amateur diplomacy in all history was talking to Hillary Clinton on Mar 14, 2 days after the Arab League Resolution on the No fly zone. 7 days after France and Britain had already started the push for a UN no fly zone. But hey it is totally true that: quote:Obama had succeeded in securing the backing of NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League. That's clearly exactly what happened. USA. USA. USA. farraday fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
But it was a NATO operation, so doesn't that make bickering over who led whom very stupid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Are you forgetting who had the lead in NATO operations in Libya began? It's no mystery that America was dragged into the conflict, but in the very beginning we were the ones in charge of making sure that the Libyan anti-air capabilities were neutralized. Given how quickly the european component of the NATO operation ran out of munitions I do not think they would have been able or capable of taking out the Libyan military in the time frame needed without US aid. Also the article was written for an American audience so stop whining. AllanGordon fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Are you forgetting who had the lead in NATO operations in Libya began? Gotta agree here. The Europeans and Canadians are crucial to the effort in Libya in that they supply a good chunk of the manpower and training (including Special Forces and in the case of Europe, air bases), but the US has the most equipment and power from which it can call on, all conveniently located in the region already. The rest of NATO could've neutralized Ghaddafi's forces no doubt, but the question is how quickly they could do it, and to do so in the necessary timeframe the US had to be involved. This is one of the first truly NATO operations we've seen in a while. The US couldn't have done it alone, but neither could the rest of NATO either, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
Again, but busy today, but there's reports that Sirte has been captured, and a large convoy of vehicles trying to escape the city was attacked by NTC forces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 10:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The rest of NATO could've neutralized Ghaddafi's forces no doubt, but the question is how quickly they could do it, and to do so in the necessary timeframe the US had to be involved. But could Canada or France have muscled the motion through the UN? Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 10:59
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:But could Canada or France have muscled the motion through the UN? Probably not. The US couldn't muscle through the UN alone either. No single country could have, but it's the Arab League represented by Lebanon, then backed by UK and France who proposed the NFZ. French Rafales flew sorties over Benghazi before UK and the US sent their 100+ Tomahawk missiles. Did we ever get any reliable information on how much ammo the US really needed to contribute ? They had an AWACS, refuelling planes and drones in the air, but the French also had those (I don't know about UK numbers).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 11:22
|
|
|
 Libyan Rebels are the Best Rebels MEANWHILE IN THE EXOTIC DESERT SANDS OF ARABIA:-  For a while now there has been a surprising and encouraging thing happening in Saudi, essentially the youth of the country has developed an entire parallel media structure that has become the go to source of news, documentaries, comedy shows, the first good example of Saudi cinema and cartoons, which has been gathering alot of steam and internet traffic, people on the net are free to explore, talk about and make movies and documentaries on whatever they feel life with freedom and talk about the problems plaguing saudi society. the best example to come out so far has been MONOPOLY, a movie/documentary about land hoarding in saudi (no land taxes = assholes who take land and never use them for decades so that prices go higher). There's this big trend of filmmaking and documentary making that's taking the country by storm exposing problems and spreading ideas on how to make the country better. But there's just one problem: This is Saudi Arabia. The government being what it is has been trying for a while to tackle the issue in it's usual ways, from outright blocking the sharpest sites, to issuing stupid and crazy laws (e.g. all bloggers must register and attain a license with the government) That are promptly ignored, so while people are enjoying this internet freedom, there has always been an undercurrent of worry. when will this end? how far will it go? People clearly see the sword hanging above, and wonder when will it come down and kill off this movement once and for all? especially since the next king in line is the head honcho of both the secret police and the religious police, this dangerous spread of expression would be cut short sooner or later. a message had to be delivered to these whelps before they go too crazy thinking they could have a say in how their country is run. Well that message came. two days ago a seemingly normal documentary released by a saudi filmmaker (nothing controversial here just a normal highlighting of poverty) later that day he was picked up by the internal secret police and is being held in custody somwhere north of Riyadh, his family have been able to deliver him food but not to see or talk to him, and no charges have been announced. Not that they need to charge him, that's the beauty of not having a written legal code. Anything you make that rubs someone wrong or that in their minds 'defames' the country, the religion or the head of state can get you hosed. also judges here either hate you and probably wont let your lawyer in the room just because or they already have been faxed your sentence from the ministry of interior so good luck on that whole 'justice' thing. Most likely he will be released after writing a written promise never to do this again. so I'm not worried for him too much. Not that this will stop this media revolution mind you but it will make it tragically cut short the number of people willing to make truly breakthrough works and submit them on the internet in an open manner. after all, a head lowered is a head still attached.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:the best example to come out so far has been MONOPOLY, a movie/documentary about land hoarding in saudi (no land taxes = assholes who take land and never use them for decades so that prices go higher). Decades? In Egypt they just buy land off the government for cheap and then sell it to foreign investors for extremely high prices, all because of bribes to government officials. Doesn't take more than a year and you can make profits in the billions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
www.twitter.com/jonsnowc4 posted:gaddafi captured..Official Libyan source..wounded in both legs so he wont be moving far or fast:you'll get full story tonight Channel 4 News Yes, that is Col. Gadaffi apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:19
|
|
|
BBC has it on their headline banner too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:21
|
|
|
REUTERS - Deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has been captured and wounded in both legs, National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid told Reuters on Thursday. "He's captured. He's wounded in both legs ... He's been taken away by ambulance," the senior NTC military official told Reuters by telephone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
Al Jazeera has a breaking news update saying the NTC is claiming this, with no details other than Gaddafi was "wounded in both legs." I presume he was in or escaping from Sirte. I know there's years of work still to be done for an emergent democracy, but for now, mission accomplished. Congrats to Libya. EDIT: gently caress, beaten
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:27
|
|
|
Assuming this gets confirmed, it feels wrong that Brown Moses isn't here 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:30
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, got goosebumps reading that. I really hope this is true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:34
|
|
|
BBC World News cut to full coverage of Libya about an hour ago, including sporadic live video feeds. The noise from the tankers in the harbors blaring their horns in celebration is kind of crazy. Edit: apparently one of his sons was with him and was also captured. Sheep fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
Three for three. Death to dictators. Hope he was kneecapped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
You cant run if you have no legs Khadaffi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
@fieldproducer posted:Sky News Security Editor @kileysky reports that independent sources confirm the capture of Muammar Gaddafi
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
Assad is going to poo poo his pants if Gaddafi has been captured. It'll give more reason to justify a no-fly zone on Syria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
I really really hope he's been captured alive. edit: poo poo he's dead according to AJ
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:49
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:I really really hope he's been captured alive. ffff what's your source
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
AJ saying he's dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
AJ just said he was dead, so who knows. At least it's over now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:51
|
|
|
Is the creepy bald one with the PhD still alive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
@evanchill Reuters: Senior NTC military official says Gaddafi died of wounds suffered during capture. #Libya I reckon the doctors just said "gently caress you" and left him to rot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Pro-Gadaffi website just denied that he's been killed or captured e: I wish I knew what to search for to find the pro-Gadaffi twitter accounts, they must be going mental right now. a glitch fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
Man it pisses me off that he's actually not getting what he deserves now. Guess all this was worth it for him after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
"Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet prince; And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest" Muammar Gaddafi 1942-2011
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 12:57
|
|