Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi.[/quote]

Ah, yes. He lost the American equivalent of Chicago, L.A., and an entire coast, but he was doing just fine, eh? And his military was much much weaker than Assad’s, but things would go differently for him, because…[/quote]

So you’re trying to prove Gaddafi would’ve been overthrown without help from NATO and France/US? Not so in Libya. There was a demonstration of some poor Libyans over a housing project the government was building for them. The construction company was late in finishing. A few dozen broke in and occupied the nearly finished complexes. Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war). This was Obama’s war. Wikileaks was all over it. Hillary opportunistically latched onto the Arab Spring from the outset and when it hit Libya in a really small way they sent in the spooks and John McCain and pushed for and got NATO air strikes and then brought down Gaddafi and cackled about it like a clinical psychopath. Don’t deny it.

642

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If Bush has to own Iraq and what he did during his terms then Obama has to be held accountable for his.
[/quote]

Except that you can’t figure out what Obama has done. You think he’s inciting violence without inciting violence (when, in fact [and provedly], he was explicitly calling for peace). You think he’s a communist without being a communist. And now you think he started the civil war in Libya – but, wait, without actually starting the civil war in Libya. Hold him accountable for what he did, not what the Right dreamed in its febrile fit of delusion.[/quote]

I’ve outlined again in my last post precisely what I’m holding the Obama administration responsible for and I’ve even explained what I’m not holding him responsible for. As I said, Libya in February 2011 was not Syria. It was a stable country and one of the wealthiest African nations. It is demonstratively and measurably worse off economically, in terms of its stability and the unrest there instigated by the NATO war has created fertile ground for ISIS. I’m not going to bother linking to stories about this. I’m sure you’re already familiar with it and you’re not going to argue Libya is better off. Or maybe you are. But whatever point you think you’re making doesn’t change the fact that the Obama administration backed the Arab Spring from the start and this entailed turning suddenly and ruthlessly against Gaddafi and funnelling in arms and dissidents; getting a NATO air war and bringing down the Gaddafi regime leading to the current state of affairs. I won’t keep repeating this.

643

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi.[/quote]

Ah, yes. He lost the American equivalent of Chicago, L.A., and an entire coast, but he was doing just fine, eh? And his military was much much weaker than Assad’s, but things would go differently for him, because…[/quote]

So you’re trying to prove Gaddafi would’ve been overthrown without help from NATO and France/US? Not so in Libya. There was a demonstration of some poor Libyans over a housing project the government was building for them. The construction company was late in finishing. A few dozen broke in and occupied the nearly finished complexes. Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war). This was Obama’s war. Wikileaks was all over it. Hillary opportunistically latched onto the Arab Spring from the outset and when it hit Libya in a really small way they sent in the spooks and John McCain and pushed for and got NATO air strikes and then brought down Gaddafi and cackled about it like a clinical psychopath. Don’t deny it.

[/quote]

I really don’t give a shit about Hillary Clinton laughing. This is the fourth or fifth time you’ve brought it up – I don’t care. It has nothing to do with anything at all.

Now, you say that Obama started the civil war. This would mean literally that he started the civil war, and you would have to show such. In a weak attempt at that, you’ve claimed that he did this via the CIA and SD, which turned the protests from “a few dozen” into a rebellion:

[quote]
Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war).[/quote]

So. Evidence the claim that the CIA and State Department directed or caused the start of the civil war by transforming “a few dozen” into an uprising. (I mean actual evidence.) Note that I have a very good handle on the timeline of the conflict, so don’t think that anything about, say, February 25th will fly – because there were tens of thousands protesting violently a week prior, and Benghazi was already fallen.

Edited to fix quotations.

644

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi.[/quote]

Ah, yes. He lost the American equivalent of Chicago, L.A., and an entire coast, but he was doing just fine, eh? And his military was much much weaker than Assad’s, but things would go differently for him, because…[/quote]

So you’re trying to prove Gaddafi would’ve been overthrown without help from NATO and France/US? Not so in Libya. There was a demonstration of some poor Libyans over a housing project the government was building for them. The construction company was late in finishing. A few dozen broke in and occupied the nearly finished complexes. Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war). This was Obama’s war. Wikileaks was all over it. Hillary opportunistically latched onto the Arab Spring from the outset and when it hit Libya in a really small way they sent in the spooks and John McCain and pushed for and got NATO air strikes and then brought down Gaddafi and cackled about it like a clinical psychopath. Don’t deny it.

[/quote]

I really don’t give a shit about Hillary Clinton laughing. This is the fourth or fifth time you’ve brought it up – I don’t care. It has nothing to do with anything at all.

Now, you say that Obama started the civil war. This would mean literally that he started the civil war, and you would have to show such. In a weak attempt at that, you’ve claimed that he did this via the CIA and SD, which turned the protests from “a few dozen” into a rebellion:

[quote]
Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war).[/quote]

So. Evidence the claim that the CIA and State Department directed or caused the start of the civil war by transforming “a few dozen” into an uprising. (I mean actual evidence.) Note that I have a very good handle on the timeline of the conflict, so don’t think that anything about, say, February 25th will fly – because there were tens of thousands protesting violently a week prior, and Benghazi was already fallen.

Edited to fix quotations.[/quote]

So your little out for your little President is to look over The New York Times Libyan civil war pictorial timeline and show that a powerful uprising occurred spontaneously and internally with no outside assistance? Okay. I’ll play along. Until when? Until a few weeks later when Hillary and co were pushing for NATO airs strikes and actually openly arming said rebel groups under the Transitional Council umbrella. An umbrella that has since been shown to be a patchwork of militias; many Islamic fundamentalists. And these are the people Obama backed. His administration backed the Arab Spring and bears a great deal of responsibility for the outcome in theatres where they were deeply involved(Libya) as opposed to theatres where they had less influence(Syria). I’m not interested in a timeline purporting to show some powerful, indigenous military force with no Western backing in the weeks before Obama was openly involved and pushing for air strikes which he got and used to bring down the Gaddafi government and therefore bears much responsibility for the current state of affairs there. End of story. I won’t keep repeating.

645

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi.[/quote]

Ah, yes. He lost the American equivalent of Chicago, L.A., and an entire coast, but he was doing just fine, eh? And his military was much much weaker than Assad’s, but things would go differently for him, because…[/quote]

So you’re trying to prove Gaddafi would’ve been overthrown without help from NATO and France/US? Not so in Libya. There was a demonstration of some poor Libyans over a housing project the government was building for them. The construction company was late in finishing. A few dozen broke in and occupied the nearly finished complexes. Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war). This was Obama’s war. Wikileaks was all over it. Hillary opportunistically latched onto the Arab Spring from the outset and when it hit Libya in a really small way they sent in the spooks and John McCain and pushed for and got NATO air strikes and then brought down Gaddafi and cackled about it like a clinical psychopath. Don’t deny it.

[/quote]

I really don’t give a shit about Hillary Clinton laughing. This is the fourth or fifth time you’ve brought it up – I don’t care. It has nothing to do with anything at all.

Now, you say that Obama started the civil war. This would mean literally that he started the civil war, and you would have to show such. In a weak attempt at that, you’ve claimed that he did this via the CIA and SD, which turned the protests from “a few dozen” into a rebellion:

[quote]
Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war).[/quote]

So. Evidence the claim that the CIA and State Department directed or caused the start of the civil war by transforming “a few dozen” into an uprising. (I mean actual evidence.) Note that I have a very good handle on the timeline of the conflict, so don’t think that anything about, say, February 25th will fly – because there were tens of thousands protesting violently a week prior, and Benghazi was already fallen.

Edited to fix quotations.[/quote]

So your little out for your little President is to look over The New York Times Libyan civil war pictorial timeline and show that a powerful uprising occurred spontaneously and internally with no outside assistance? Okay. I’ll play along. Until when? Until a few weeks later when Hillary and co were pushing for NATO airs strikes and actually openly arming said rebel groups under the Transitional Council umbrella. An umbrella that has since been shown to be a patchwork of militias; many Islamic fundamentalists. And these are the people Obama backed. His administration backed the Arab Spring and bears a great deal of responsibility for the outcome in theatres where they were deeply involved(Libya) as opposed to theatres where they had less influence(Syria). I’m not interested in a timeline purporting to show some powerful, indigenous military force with no Western backing in the weeks before Obama was openly involved and pushing for air strikes which he got and used to bring down the Gaddafi government and therefore bears much responsibility for the current state of affairs there. End of story. I won’t keep repeating.[/quote]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which formed the legal basis for military intervention in Libya, was proposed by Britain, France, and Lebanon. Those two permanent members of the UNSC took the lead in the effort, not the United States. UNSCR 1973 mandated an immediate ceasefire, established a no-fly zone, and authorized the use of force to protect civilians. Gaddafi announced that his government would honor the decision for the ceasefore, which it reneged, a clear breach of international law. Your ahistorical argument is the same as the one put forth by Noam Chomsky.

646

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Gaddafi would’ve crushed the opposition in Benghazi.[/quote]

Ah, yes. He lost the American equivalent of Chicago, L.A., and an entire coast, but he was doing just fine, eh? And his military was much much weaker than Assad’s, but things would go differently for him, because…[/quote]

So you’re trying to prove Gaddafi would’ve been overthrown without help from NATO and France/US? Not so in Libya. There was a demonstration of some poor Libyans over a housing project the government was building for them. The construction company was late in finishing. A few dozen broke in and occupied the nearly finished complexes. Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war). This was Obama’s war. Wikileaks was all over it. Hillary opportunistically latched onto the Arab Spring from the outset and when it hit Libya in a really small way they sent in the spooks and John McCain and pushed for and got NATO air strikes and then brought down Gaddafi and cackled about it like a clinical psychopath. Don’t deny it.

[/quote]

I really don’t give a shit about Hillary Clinton laughing. This is the fourth or fifth time you’ve brought it up – I don’t care. It has nothing to do with anything at all.

Now, you say that Obama started the civil war. This would mean literally that he started the civil war, and you would have to show such. In a weak attempt at that, you’ve claimed that he did this via the CIA and SD, which turned the protests from “a few dozen” into a rebellion:

[quote]
Then exile Libyan dissidents like Mahmoud Jibril(CIA) and dissident groups began to lead an effort with outside support (US State Department with John McCain as usual representing US armaments companies and pushing for war, war, war).[/quote]

So. Evidence the claim that the CIA and State Department directed or caused the start of the civil war by transforming “a few dozen” into an uprising. (I mean actual evidence.) Note that I have a very good handle on the timeline of the conflict, so don’t think that anything about, say, February 25th will fly – because there were tens of thousands protesting violently a week prior, and Benghazi was already fallen.

Edited to fix quotations.[/quote]

So your little out for your little President is to look over The New York Times Libyan civil war pictorial timeline and show that a powerful uprising occurred spontaneously and internally with no outside assistance? [/quote]

No, that was my laughably easy way of showing you that your objection to my argument was horseshit and identifiable as such by anyone with even a passing understanding of this historical event. You linked to a March 30 article describing events 2-3 weeks prior because you had no clue when and how the thing began. Otherwise you’d have known that your evidence did not – indeed, could not possibly – bolster your claim.

And I linked to the NYT timeline for you. I am arguing about this because I studied it very closely as it happened. Why you’re arguing about it, if you don’t know how it went down in a basic this-then-that kind of way, is beyond me.

[quote]
I’ll play along. Until when? Until a few weeks later when Hillary and co were pushing for NATO airs strikes and actually openly arming said rebel groups under the Transitional Council umbrella… [/quote]

Until the country started to fall. It all proceeds from there. See what I wrote about Chicago and L.A. Even better, see my actual argument – I’ve outlined it several times – and address it specifically if you’d like to continue. There are certainly legitimate ways to disagree with it.

[quote]
I won’t keep repeating.[/quote]

There isn’t much to repeat. You’re taking stabs in the dark and the backing down when I brush off each new ludicrous claim. First Obama himself started the war – but he didn’t. Then it was some kind of CIA plot that turned “a few dozen” protesters into a national uprising – but it wasn’t.

647

Oh, and who really gives a fuck if then Secretary Clinton laughed about Gadaffi’s execution? The man was a monster.

648

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Your ahistorical argument is the same as the one put forth by Noam Chomsky.[/quote]

There are some shades of Glenn Greenwald in there too if I’m not mistaken – which is the first and last time SM and he will ever agree on anything.

649

^^ My “ahistorical argument”? Which part is untrue? I clearly mentioned France as taking the lead in this. That does not detract from the Obama administration’s early and unqualified support for the uprising against Gaddafi. And I’m not playing games about Gaddafi being a threat and so on. That’s bullshit. Post-911 he was hugging everyone from Hillary to Nelson Mandela. He made a deal with Britain and then France and the US signed on to forgive and absolve him of his sins.

The treachery that the State Department then displayed should serve as a warning to leaders across the Arab world and Africa not to make deals with the West. The extent and rapidity of the change in policy towards Gaddafi was astonishing. Just over a year before Gaddafi was being courted by AFRICOM - the US strategic command in the region. He was an ally and an asset not a damn security risk. They(Obama, Kerry, Hillary) backed the Arab Spring and took down Gaddafi. They bear the larger part of the responsibility for the outcome. End of story.

650

Bullshit smh. And what do you mean I had no idea what happened? I was discussing it in detail right here as it happened. I’m finished with this bullshit. I’ve made my point three times in as many posts. I’m done here.

652

I’ll say one thing about Japan; fantastic immigration policy for the most part compared with the West. I think a little nativism is healthy in a culture so long as it doesn’t manifest as hate. I would imagine that some ethnocentric types in traditional societies are worthy of earning their respect and are maybe not so arrogant when they come to respect you as a gaijin or foreigner. After all, it’s not as if traditional Japanese society isn’t under threat from the globalist, crass consumerism of modernity of which the United States has represented the standard bearer since the end of the war.

653

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bullshit smh. And what do you mean I had no idea what happened? I was discussing it in detail right here as it happened. I’m finished with this bullshit. I’ve made my point three times in as many posts. I’m done here.[/quote]

What I mean is that you made – again and again – unevidenced and ahistorical claims about the very basics of the civil war. You said that Obama started it – wrong. I mean simply wrong. You said that the CIA turned it from a few dozen protesters into an uprising – wrong. You tried to show that Obama was behind the whole thing by linking to an article which described his having signed the finding in the middle of March (which is clearly far and away too late for Obama and his arms to have been the progenitors of the conflict).

654

You like Japanese literature don’t you Chushin-san? What do you think of Mishima Yukio? Any thoughts varq?

655

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bullshit smh. And what do you mean I had no idea what happened? I was discussing it in detail right here as it happened. I’m finished with this bullshit. I’ve made my point three times in as many posts. I’m done here.[/quote]

What I mean is that you made – again and again – unevidenced and ahistorical claims about the very basics of the civil war. You said that Obama started it – wrong. I mean simply wrong. You said that the CIA turned it from a few dozen protesters into an uprising – wrong. You tried to show that Obama was behind the whole thing by linking to an article which described his having signed the finding in the middle of March (which is clearly far and away too late for Obama and his arms to have been the progenitors of the conflict).[/quote]

No, I made it clear from the start that by “starting the civil war” I meant he transformed it in its early weeks into an actual viable sustained war against Gaddafi leading to victory. It is in this sense I speak of it being his war and his highness bearing the larger part of the responsibility for it. I linked to an article at the start referring to Obama’s actions in the second half of March because I knew that’s when he first publicly and officially backed the effort to oust Gaddafi. None of what I said is “false”. You have just spent a great deal of time deliberately trying to misinterpret what I’m saying. And all for the reason of obscuring the actual facts of the Obama administration’s responsibility for their actions in and the outcome and present state of affairs in Libya. This maybe a “Chomsky” narrative. I wouldn’t know. I don’t read his crap. But just because he said it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Once again, the Obama administration bears the larger part of the responsibility for the civil war itself and its outcome/present state of affairs.

656

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bullshit smh. And what do you mean I had no idea what happened? I was discussing it in detail right here as it happened. I’m finished with this bullshit. I’ve made my point three times in as many posts. I’m done here.[/quote]

What I mean is that you made – again and again – unevidenced and ahistorical claims about the very basics of the civil war. You said that Obama started it – wrong. I mean simply wrong. You said that the CIA turned it from a few dozen protesters into an uprising – wrong. You tried to show that Obama was behind the whole thing by linking to an article which described his having signed the finding in the middle of March (which is clearly far and away too late for Obama and his arms to have been the progenitors of the conflict).[/quote]

No, I made it clear from the start that by “starting the civil war” I meant he transformed it in its early weeks into an actual viable sustained war against Gaddafi leading to victory. It is in this sense I speak of it being his war and his highness bearing the larger part of the responsibility for it. I linked to an article at the start referring to Obama’s actions in the second half of March because I knew that’s when he first publicly and officially backed the effort to oust Gaddafi. None of what I said is “false”. You have just spent a great deal of time deliberately trying to misinterpret what I’m saying.[/quote]

No, you said simply that he started the war. Multiple times. And then when you backtracked, you egregiously mischaracterized what the war was before Obama’s involvement. To that end you used ludicrous phrases like “some civil demonstrations and then…” and “a few dozen.” I showed this to be nonsense. I’m not in the business of fighting off cadaveric spasms, so those arguments won’t get more response from me.

[quote]
And all for the reason of obscuring the actual facts of the Obama administration’s responsibility for their actions in and the outcome and present state of affairs in Libya. [/quote]

I am not obscuring anything. Your repeated missteps in describing basic things about the war’s beginning have served to obscure. As for Obama’s being responsible for the present state of affairs, you are barking up the wrong tree: that is part of my argument. I have said now many times – and I have included evidence and logical reasoning – why I think the present state of affairs would be worse had there been no intervention. You have chosen to address not a word of that. Instead you’ve gone with a bunch of phantom arguments that are and were easily refuted.

657

But anyway, I don’t want this to turn into more of a bitter fight than it is now. I generally admire your command of international politics. I am derelict of my work duties lately, too. Until our next battle.

658

You’re saying the present state of affairs would be worse without intervention? that’s ridiculous. And it’s at odds with everyone’s assessment including all your buddies at The New York Times. I’m not going to bother with this you’re right.

659
660

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’re saying the present state of affairs would be worse without intervention? that’s ridiculous. And it’s at odds with everyone’s assessment including all your buddies at The New York Times. I’m not going to bother with this you’re right.[/quote]

Well alright then. I guess I’m not getting out without one more:

You are just discovering that this is my argument now? I’ve been saying it for two fucking days, and you’ve been quoting it for two fucking days. Perhaps instead of tossing ordure at the wall about Obama’s having started the war and other fantasies, you could have read the posts you were struggling to refute. I have given my reasoning and assume, since you haven’t touched it, that you don’t have any kind of response whatsoever.