NATO Spokesmen:Moammar Gadhafi's "regime is crumbling."

• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;939983 wrote:Except Hans Blix and the UN inspectors never found anything. Ever. Neither did we.
  
  So you'd be cool with it if Obama and the CIA presented a bunch of evidence that we later found out to be complete and utter horse **** and then used that evidence to scare the country into thinking we needed to invade Libya or else 9/11 #2 would certainly happen? I know I wouldn't. I'm still not okay with what we did in Libya. But it is certainly better than invading.

  Here we go again: totally ignoring the fact that intelligence from A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES verified what our intelligence was saying about Iraq. It wasn't like the US only went by what its own intelligence services were saying; Russia, France, Britain and others had said the same thing.
  
  You can't go back and revise history here. Just about every prominent politician and officeholder in this country looked at the same intelligence reports and agreed there was a threat. It's not like there was a mountain of evidence and thousands of experts telling us the intelligence wasn't any good.
• majorspark

  

  Maybe Bush got the ball rolling on the so called "Arab Spring" sweeping the middle east with Iraq. The Arabs saw a long time brutal dictator removed from power and saw an Arab Nation's people actually get to choose its political leaders.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;940437 wrote:Maybe Bush got the ball rolling on the so called "Arab Spring" sweeping the middle east with Iraq. The Arabs saw a long time brutal dictator removed from power and saw an Arab Nation's people actually get to choose its political leaders.

  Rose tinted glasses.
  
  But anyway, talking about Bush's failures doesn't really help us much other than to realize that Obama has repeated a lot of them as far as our military policy goes.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;940455 wrote:Rose tinted glasses.
  
  But anyway, talking about Bush's failures doesn't really help us much other than to realize that Obama has repeated a lot of them as far as our military policy goes.

  Can you say with certainty that Arab people living all their known life under an oppressive dictator, were not inspired by watching fellow Arab people ridden of their dictator, freely voting to elect their political leaders?
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;940458 wrote:Can you say with certainty that Arab people living all their known life under an oppressive dictator, were not inspired by watching fellow Arab people ridden of their dictator, freely voting to elect their political leaders?

  Either way that would still be using a "means justify the ends" rational to make Iraq seem worth it. What I mean is that pretending Iraq was a good idea because it could possibly have served as some inspiration for these recent changes in the Middle East is a particularly foolish way to look at things IMO.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;940480 wrote:Either way that would still be using a "means justify the ends" rational to make Iraq seem worth it. What I mean is that pretending Iraq was a good idea because it could possibly have served as some inspiration for these recent changes in the Middle East is a particularly foolish way to look at things IMO.

  The means should always justify the ends. I think you mean the ends justifying the means.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;940484 wrote:The means should always justify the ends. I think you mean the ends justifying the means.

  Indeed. I've had a long day. I'll refrain from commenting on anything else that requires thought tonight.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;940458 wrote:Can you say with certainty that Arab people living all their known life under an oppressive dictator, were not inspired by watching fellow Arab people ridden of their dictator, freely voting to elect their political leaders?

  Can you say with certainty that they were inspired?
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;939777 wrote:He was captured alive then executed after begging for his life. Pissed off too many people.
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051361/Gaddafi-dead-Picture-Libya-dictator-captured-killed-Sirte.html

  
  Pussy. At least when Saddam was executed he went out as a man. Insulting his executors calling them cowards and dogs. LOL
• majorspark

  

  dwccrew;940984 wrote:Can you say with certainty that they were inspired?

  No. I can only speak as to how I would react. If it were me I would be jealous of other Arabs ability to elect their political leaders. If I were in one of those Arab countries whose leader was propped up by American aid, I may be a little pissed as well.
  
  The Bush Doctrine was one of spreading democracy around the world and especially in the Middle East. I remember some seeing the Iraq war as an opportunity to set up an ideal Arab democracy. One that would be a model to other Arab nations. One that would free and enrich the Arab people. The hope was Arabs in other nations would seek the same opportunity for themselves.
  
  Then you had those who beleived the Arab people were incapable of a democratic style of government. It would be folly. They believed the Arab people were full of a bunch of religious zealots who wanted sharia law and to destroy Israel. For decades American foreign policy was centered around that theory. Buy certain dictators an army or aid them in other ways. They do our bidding, keep their people in line, and play nice with Israel in the sandbox.
  
  We are about to find out what the Arab people will do with freedom/democracy and which school of thought was correct.
• I Wear Pants

  And what happens if the Arab people decide that they aren't cool with the United States trying to play them like chess pieces?
  
  (I'm not saying that's what I think we do in all instances but what if that's how they view it, how do you feel the US should/could move forward in that situation?)
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;941008 wrote:And what happens if the Arab people decide that they aren't cool with the United States trying to play them like chess pieces?

  That is fine. They can play on the worlds game board on their own. If they position their chess pieces against us they better be prepared to defend their King.
• jhay78

  

  majorspark;941001 wrote:No. I can only speak as to how I would react. If it were me I would be jealous of other Arabs ability to elect their political leaders. If I were in one of those Arab countries whose leader was propped up by American aid, I may be a little pissed as well.
  
  The Bush Doctrine was one of spreading democracy around the world and especially in the Middle East. I remember some seeing the Iraq war as an opportunity to set up an ideal Arab democracy. One that would be a model to other Arab nations. One that would free and enrich the Arab people. The hope was Arabs in other nations would seek the same opportunity for themselves.
  
  Then you had those who beleived the Arab people were incapable of a democratic style of government. It would be folly. They believed the Arab people were full of a bunch of religious zealots who wanted sharia law and to destroy Israel. For decades American foreign policy was centered around that theory. Buy certain dictators an army or aid them in other ways. They do our bidding, keep their people in line, and play nice with Israel in the sandbox.
  
  We are about to find out what the Arab people will do with freedom/democracy and which school of thought was correct.

  I think we have a pretty good idea how they'll handle religious freedom/freedom of conscience:
  
  http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/3595-4282011-uscirf-identifies-worlds-worst-religious-freedom-violators-egypt-cited-for-first-time.html
  

  WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) today released its 2011 Annual Report and recommended that the Secretary of State name the following nations “countries of particular concern” or CPCs: Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
  
  For the first time, USCIRF recommended that Egypt be designated a CPC.
  
  “CPCs are nations whose conduct marks them as the world’s worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers," said USCIRF Chair Leonard Leo. “In the case of Egypt, instances of severe religious freedom violations engaged in or tolerated by the government have increased dramatically since the release of last year’s report, with violence, including murder, escalating against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities. Since President Mubarak’s resignation from office in February, such violence continues unabated without the government’s bringing the perpetrators to justice. Consequently, USCIRF recommends CPC designation for Egypt.”
  
  The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) requires that the United States designate annually as CPCs countries whose governments have engaged in or tolerated systematic and egregious violations of the universal right to freedom of religion or belief. USCIRF’s Annual Report assesses conditions in these and other nations and provides policy prescriptions tailored to each CPC.
  

  Egypt's on the list. Iraq too, although their constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, religion, etc., the government is having a hard time cracking down on violence.
  
  http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,IRQ,,4e734c913a,0.html
  
  That doesn't mean propping up dictators is the alternative. Arab peoples have a right to determine how they'll be governed. But that doesn't mean the type of freedom/democracy we enjoy in the West will take root in the Middle East/North Africa. Maybe, but I have my doubts.
• majorspark

  

  jhay78;941472 wrote:That doesn't mean propping up dictators is the alternative. Arab peoples have a right to determine how they'll be governed. But that doesn't mean the type of freedom/democracy we enjoy in the West will take root in the Middle East/North Africa. Maybe, but I have my doubts.

  I agree and I have my doubts as well. Definitely some bad indicators out there. Time will tell.
• majorspark

  

  Apparently the military operation in Libya went so well some political leaders are now looking at Syria. Why not? We don't even need to get congressional approval for these types of military operations anymore. And in the process lop off Iran's right hand?
  
  "Now that military operations in Libya are ending, there will be renewed focus on what practical military operations might be considered to protect civilian lives in Syria," McCain told a World Economic Forum meeting in Jordan.
  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.7a1f679ced5b40465c22d8e765ab2046.881&show_article=1
  
  Footwedge I have been telling you about these "bravehawks". They are far more dangerous than the so called "chickenhawks" that always get your panties in a wad. They have credibility because they have been in the shit. There is a respect for them, their opinions, and words like "chickenhawk" can't be used against them.
• believer

  

  jhay78;941472 wrote:That doesn't mean propping up dictators is the alternative. Arab peoples have a right to determine how they'll be governed. But that doesn't mean the type of freedom/democracy we enjoy in the West will take root in the Middle East/North Africa. Maybe, but I have my doubts.

  I agree but I suspect we'll see a lot more Iran-like Islamic "republics" when the dust settles. If anyone thought we had a tough time getting cheap oil from Middle Eastern dictators, wait until we have to deal with buying cheap oil from gubmints built on Sharia Law.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Well, it's now looking like Libya will go the Sharia law route -- which means a huge step backwards in world diplomatic circles, I'm betting.
  
  Why did the US get involved here again? Did we really want to set up another country that will give safe haven to religious extremists and help foster future terrorists?
• dwccrew

  

  Writerbuckeye;943490 wrote:Well, it's now looking like Libya will go the Sharia law route -- which means a huge step backwards in world diplomatic circles, I'm betting.
  
  Why did the US get involved here again? Did we really want to set up another country that will give safe haven to religious extremists and help foster future terrorists?

  Where did you read this? I read that they want to make a government built upon Islam, but not Sharia Law. Did we read different articles?
• dwccrew

  

  believer;943282 wrote:I agree but I suspect we'll see a lot more Iran-like Islamic "republics" when the dust settles. If anyone thought we had a tough time getting cheap oil from Middle Eastern dictators, wait until we have to deal with buying cheap oil from gubmints built on Sharia Law.

  Considering we get most of our oil from Canada and hardly any of it from the middle east, I don't think we'll need to worry too much. Unless Canada is going to be built on Sharia Law soon. Gasp!!!
• majorspark

  

  dwccrew;944460 wrote:Considering we get most of our oil from Canada and hardly any of it from the middle east, I don't think we'll need to worry too much. Unless Canada is going to be built on Sharia Law soon. Gasp!!!

  Our EU allies pushed this. They will reap what they have sown.
• I Wear Pants

  dwccrew;944459 wrote:Where did you read this? I read that they want to make a government built upon Islam, but not Sharia Law. Did we read different articles?

  Most of the people here think Islam=Sharia Law.
• Lakebluestreaks

  http://news.yahoo.com/sharia-law-declaration-raises-concerns-libya-174347939.html
  
  Here is the article that I saw on this. Here are a couple of the comments:
  
  Interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Sunday, during his speech to the nation in Benghazi to formally declare the country's liberation from the ousted regime of Moammer Kadhafi, that sharia would be Libya's principal law.
  "Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.
  "The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.
• queencitybuckeye

  dwccrew;944460 wrote:Considering we get most of our oil from Canada and hardly any of it from the middle east, I don't think we'll need to worry too much. Unless Canada is going to be built on Sharia Law soon. Gasp!!!

  The term "fungible" means where we get it doesn't matter, it will affect us.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Lakebluestreaks;944649 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/sharia-law-declaration-raises-concerns-libya-174347939.html
  
  Here is the article that I saw on this. Here are a couple of the comments:
  
  Interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Sunday, during his speech to the nation in Benghazi to formally declare the country's liberation from the ousted regime of Moammer Kadhafi, that sharia would be Libya's principal law.
  "Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.
  "The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.

  Looks like Sharia law to me. Did I miss something?
• Footwedge

  majorspark;943139 wrote:Apparently the military operation in Libya went so well some political leaders are now looking at Syria. Why not? We don't even need to get congressional approval for these types of military operations anymore. And in the process lop off Iran's right hand?
  
  "Now that military operations in Libya are ending, there will be renewed focus on what practical military operations might be considered to protect civilian lives in Syria," McCain told a World Economic Forum meeting in Jordan.
  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.7a1f679ced5b40465c22d8e765ab2046.881&show_article=1
  
  Footwedge I have been telling you about these "bravehawks". They are far more dangerous than the so called "chickenhawks" that always get your panties in a wad. They have credibility because they have been in the ****. There is a respect for them, their opinions, and words like "chickenhawk" can't be used against them.

  To you, WB, and a few others here on this thread...bravo...something is finally sinking in to your thick skulls. It's unfortunate though that your recent rational thinking was brought out because "the other guy" is in power.
  
  There was a recent poll done by Pew or one of the other big boys.
  
  The polling question went something like this:
  
  "If you won a civil law suit, should the defendant be forced to pay your attorney fees, in addition to the punitive fees? 1000 people were polled randomly over the phone. A full 80% said, well, absolutely they should pay my legal expenses.
  
  At the very same time, a different 1000 people were phoned and were asked this question. "If you lost a civil lawsuit, is it only fair that you pay the plaintiff's attorney fees in addition to your punitive fees?". Remarkably, only 40% said yes.
  
  What does that tell you about the arbitration skills of the American public?