Presidential Election: 2012

[Biggles]

The Palestinian fighting the holy war is the murderer, and the soldier fighting the would-be murderer is the person acting in self-defense.

Really? The Palestinian isn't fighting a "holy war", he's fighting to get rid of an occupying military power & reclaim his property rights for land taken from him by force.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Maybe you don't find it credible because it's not aimed at you. Try to imagine that it is and tell me how credible you'd find it.

I don't know. We are told of a constant need to be vigilant and even subjected to a color coded terror alert system in this country. Everyone hates us for our freedoms, so we are probably in more danger than any Israeli. Seriously though, if Israel stopped acting like it had a chip on it's shoulder I doubt things would be as bad. Much like what our country is dealing with in that area, if we would just stop the nonsense, we would not be bleeding out from our self inflicted wounds. And until they start acting like they want to be neighbors instead of enemies I see nothing changing, but if one day they woke up as a people and demanded a change in the status quo, then we may see something worth watching and the emergence of a nation of peace would go much further to demonstrate the love and power of their god than any bloodshed could ever measure up to. Israel could easily become a standard for progress and unity instead of religious discord if it would only choose to do so.

...isn't beating someone up for stealing a just action?

I see what you are saying, but Iran is not a person and "beating them up" means killing people instead of the type of "beating them up" that merely means leaving whelps and bruises on someone. Land disputes based on bronze age claims, can not equate the loss of current human life in this case for me. The very nature of human civilizations in our past proves that no nation or group is permanent and no piece of land is actually ever property of anyone, so I see no reason that Israel should be treated any differently. It might sound harsh to say, but they were driven off their land (wherever exactly that it may be) and have actually been given most of it back. This is far better treatment than 99% of disbanded nations though out history have enjoyed, but it seems that until some land grabbing 'prophecy' is fulfilled, they just wont let it go and realize how blessed they truly are. I would focus on today if I were them and where to go from here instead of where a book says we have been.

 

[Famine]

I would like to point out that my purpose in wading back into the GTPlanet Opinions forum quagmire wasn’t to defend Obama, but to defend Dapper. There was absolutely nothing in his posts that merited the kind of negative comments that Famine threw at him.

Except that they were wrong. Incidentally my rejection of his argument was a rejection of his argument - and typical discussion style - rather than negative comments thrown at him.

I can’t claim to have read all your 37,000 + posts Famine, but the tendency I see repeated is to make unrelentingly negative comments about everything.

Even if that were true - which it isn't - I don't recall there being any law against being negative about things, or indeed everything.

For example

I don't see any negativity in there at all. I mean, there's quite a few "nots", but they're all "not ... bad thing".

"Marketing effort, no laws broken, out of his depth". None of this means anything worthy of a response.

Oh absolutely. I mean breaking laws during your eventual election to President is certainly not worth discussing.

I'm not entirely sure what has sparked your apparently virulent hatred of Obama.

The key word there is "apparently". Just as your head contains the condescending tone you read into indigo pixels, it also contains the notion of hatred towards a man I've never met in a country in which I don't live.

It also seems curious you typed that up, in seriousness, after I said I liked something Obama said...

Perhaps you just hate ALL politicians?

As above.

I will praise that which is praiseworthy. I will deride that which is derisory. It doesn't matter who it comes from, when or why - after all, politics isn't about personality but about policy. Isn't it?

I would be interested to read what you think Obama should have done with regard to the Libyan situation. What do you think he should have done with regard to the financial crisis he inherited?

Act decisively and not prolong it by dithering. To both. And in fact to every question of "What should [leader] do with [bad thing]?".

Incidentally, the initial and enduring point was a rejection of the notion the Obama deserves credit for the Libyan Civil War, UN Resolution 1973 or Operation Unified Protector. Not that he did it wrong or could have done it better, but precisely that he played a backseat role in two of them - which had a knock-on effect in the first - and thus operational credit is minimal. The major role, and thus operational credit, for each is the Libyan National Transitional Council, France (and, to a lesser extent, the UK) and NATO.

 

[Tornado]

The real problem is the ignoring of objective facts.

There's those words again.

Please explain for us which category the Palestinian from the West Bank fighting against the occupier of his land, & the Israeli helicopter gunship retaliating for a suicide bombing falls under?

Really? The Palestinian isn't fighting a "holy war", he's fighting to get rid of an occupying military power & reclaim his property rights for land taken from him by force.

[citation needed]

 

[Biggles]

For the word "dithering" I would replace "cautious" - a perfectly reasonable position when it comes to military intervention IMO. What is admirable about being "decisive" when it it not clear what the best course of action is. Bush was "decisive" in invading Iraq - so what?

"Operational credit is minimal" - well fine, I don't have a problem with that assessment. Given that the US was heavily involved in 2 major conflicts in MUslim countries, why should the US have been strongly involved operationally? A positive outcome was achieved without expending US lives & with minimal resources. How is that not a good thing (for the US)?

To all of the above I would ask the question: "What Would Famine Do?" Please let us know what you think should have been done?

[citation needed]

I'm really not going to get into that. Please do some research yourself - there's plenty of material available. Try to seek out something that is relatively "objective" & then tell me what your conclusion is.

I have sympathy for the predicament of both sides. It is an intractable problem.

Which is my whole point.

 

[Danoff]

How is Libya different from Iraq and Afghanistan? 💡
But the UN isn't the point, it is the "international support" that matters.

Why? If it's right to get involved why does it matter whether the UN agrees? If it's right to protect people from genocide, why does it suddenly become not right if the UN refuses to help?

Really? The Palestinian isn't fighting a "holy war", he's fighting to get rid of an occupying military power & reclaim his property rights for land taken from him by force.

Yes, the land was taken from him by force, but not by Israel. Israel did nothing to him, and he is not justified in killing jews just because he thinks his God wants him to.

I don't know. We are told of a constant need to be vigilant and even subjected to a color coded terror alert system in this country. Everyone hates us for our freedoms, so we are probably in more danger than any Israeli.

I really hope that's a joke.

Seriously though, if Israel stopped acting like it had a chip on it's shoulder I doubt things would be as bad. Much like what our country is dealing with in that area, if we would just stop the nonsense, we would not be bleeding out from our self inflicted wounds. And until they start acting like they want to be neighbors instead of enemies I see nothing changing, but if one day they woke up as a people and demanded a change in the status quo, then we may see something worth watching and the emergence of a nation of peace would go much further to demonstrate the love and power of their god than any bloodshed could ever measure up to. Israel could easily become a standard for progress and unity instead of religious discord if it would only choose to do so.



I see what you are saying, but Iran is not a person and "beating them up" means killing people instead of the type of "beating them up" that merely means leaving whelps and bruises on someone. Land disputes based on bronze age claims, can not equate the loss of current human life in this case for me. The very nature of human civilizations in our past proves that no nation or group is permanent and no piece of land is actually ever property of anyone, so I see no reason that Israel should be treated any differently. It might sound harsh to say, but they were driven off their land (wherever exactly that it may be) and have actually been given most of it back. This is far better treatment than 99% of disbanded nations though out history have enjoyed, but it seems that until some land grabbing 'prophecy' is fulfilled, they just wont let it go and realize how blessed they truly are. I would focus on today if I were them and where to go from here instead of where a book says we have been.

It's not our fault radical Islamists want to kills us, and it's not Israel's fault either. We don't have to act like good neighbors to the people shouting "death to the infidels".

 

[Famine]

For the word "dithering" I would replace "cautious" - a perfectly reasonable position when it comes to military intervention IMO. What is admirable about being "decisive" when it it not clear what the best course of action is. Bush was "decisive" in invading Iraq - so what?

Decisiveness doesn't necessarily mean "Hurl the B2s at it". It means making a decision.

People look to leaders to make decisions. If you're not sure about something, you ask your boss. If they're not sure, they ask theirs. When you're C-in-C of the free world, you don't have a boss - the buck stops with you. Of course you might make the decision wrong but tough luck, them's the breaks.

When France - the nation formerly derided by the US as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and by the UK of having a national flag of white - makes a decision to engage in military conflict while you're asking lawyers if it's okay, you're not seen to be decisive.

"Operational credit is minimal" - well fine, I don't have a problem with that assessment.

That was the original point... Obama deserves a very, very small amount of credit for the success of the UN Resolution and its enforcement (and even less for the Libyan Civil War - the Resolution and its enforcement helped even the odds, which is again an odd use for overwhelming military force!).

Given that the US was heavily involved in 2 major conflicts in MUslim countries, why should the US have been strongly involved operationally? A positive outcome was achieved without expending US lives & with minimal resources. How is that not a good thing (for the US)?

One key factor that the US press particularly likes to talk about as a result of the operations was that EU armed forces are apparently not fit for purpose. Had the US thrown its might behind the mission, it likely would have ended much sooner and gained the US a key ally in the Libyan NTC - oil rich Libya, that is. Not getting involved at all would have resulted in no US lives, resources or money spent on the task.

Getting involved a little bit and letting the Libyan people worship Sarkozy gives the EU the lead in the alliance with the oil-rich Libyan NTC - US resources and money have been used and the US people see no practical benefit to it. In fact if the US had taken the lead and buddied up with the NTC, we might even find out who really blew up Pan Am flight 103...

To all of the above I would ask the question: "What Would Famine Do?" Please let us know what you think should have been done?

A decision should have been made to address and alleviate the problem. That's what leaders should do. If they are not willing to lead, they should not do so.

 

[Keef]

[citation needed]

The only reason Israel hasn't decimated the entire Palestinian population and taken their land is because it's frowned upon in today's society.

But back when we were settling America it wasn't. Native Americans didn't seem to have any notion of property rights, and if they did they didn't act on it. So we took their land because it didn't actually belong to anybody.

Might that be the same situation when it comes to "Palestinian" land? As far as I can tell, it is defined as the region where Israel now is. A region. Not property. Not a state. Not a country. A region. And let's be honest here - regions don't belong to anybody until you claim it on a piece of paper, maybe put a fence around it or something.

So it appears as though Palestinians are simply butthurt that they didn't reserve their land when they should have, which was a hella long ass time ago. Seems to me that Israel should be let off the hook and freed to take whatever they want that doesn't already belong to somebody else.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I'd say that the palestinians are a litle more than butthurt ... but whatever, hatred between those two runs so deep, violence between them became so vulgar that in both camps to use the voice of reason is moot. And probably dangerous.

Endless low-intensity war. And they probably deserve it anyway. I pity the innocents.

 

[Famine]

Technically it's the Brits' fault - it was our land...

 

[ChaosStar79]

I really hope that's a joke.

It is. Very much so, unfortunately my sarcasm/deadpan doesn't quite have the same 'oomph' on the internet.

It's not our fault radical Islamists want to kills us, and it's not Israel's fault either. We don't have to act like good neighbors to the people shouting "death to the infidels".

But it is our fault. We have been tooling around with their governments, religions, and resources for longer than I have been alive. I believe that we do honestly deserve every bit of hatred directed at us for our interference. Our CIA has been toppling and setting regimes and movements in Iran since at least the 1950's. So conservatively that is 2 -3 generations that have grown up in our fodder and they have every reason to be angry. It's unfortunate that the connection between our actions and the consequences of them seems to elude many even today, but I don't know if it is that no one is educated to the history of it or if they just think that we are above reproach, but no other country would expect to be able to do what we do with impunity. Israel is no different and as long as they conspire to continue the feud, they should expect no different.

Edit: Sorry for the massive run on sentences.

 

[Danoff]

It is. Very much so, unfortunately my sarcasm/deadpan doesn't quite have the same 'oomph' on the internet.
But it is our fault. We have been tooling around with their governments, religions, and resources for longer than I have been alive. I believe that we do honestly deserve every bit of hatred directed at us for our interference.

How do I read that? That we deserve every bit of hatred directed at us because we have interfered? Or that we deserve every bit of hatred directed at us that has resulted from our interference. I can read your statement either way and one of them is correct while the other is not.

Our CIA has been toppling and setting regimes and movements in Iran since at least the 1950's. So conservatively that is 2 -3 generations that have grown up in our fodder and they have every reason to be angry. It's unfortunate that the connection between our actions and the consequences of them seems to elude many even today, but I don't know if it is that no one is educated to the history of it or if they just think that we are above reproach, but no other country would expect to be able to do what we do with impunity. Israel is no different and as long as they conspire to continue the feud, they should expect no different.

You're still ignoring any and all justification for any action. You're still claiming that any and all involvement in the region is deserving of retaliation. That's just not correct - there are many justifiable reasons to be involved.

For example - Saddam Hussein was responsible for the death of over half a million innocent Iraqis (yes, I know how he came to power and it doesn't matter to my point). ANY nation would be justified in destroying his dictatorial government and killing him as a result of those human rights violations. ANY nation on the planet can justifiably choose to get involved to stop human rights violations. No retaliation is justified in response to that. You have to evaluate action based on legitimacy.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Yep, I say let France occupy the entire middle east to stop human rights violations going on just about everywhere, from everyone in the region.

Can't be done. It's a question of political ... and fire ... power. These two are, as always, tightly linked.


And that's the issue Iran is - I believe - addressing. Much to the discomfort of Israel. That is, as always in these situations what these kind of de-facto protectorates do, making a lot of noise to get the attention of the protector.

There's a problem though. Even for a protector with the size and power of the USA, Iran is simply too big and any thought of repeating there the Iraqi adventure is nothing short of foolish. And the USA are still licking their wounds from the Iraqi supposed WMD's fiasco. Not much simpathy in the world for another hard intervention.

So ... indeed the Iranians, and their PM, are playing a risky game. But not entirely stupid.

 

[ChaosStar79]

How do I read that? That we deserve every bit of hatred directed at us because we have interfered? Or that we deserve every bit of hatred directed at us that has resulted from our interference. I can read your statement either way and one of them is correct while the other is not.

Sorry for the unclear statement. I agree and you are correct that it could mean different things, but I was attempting to say that yes "we deserve every bit of hatred directed at us that has resulted from our interference."

You're still ignoring any and all justification for any action. You're still claiming that any and all involvement in the region is deserving of retaliation. That's just not correct - there are many justifiable reasons to be involved.

For example - Saddam Hussein was responsible for the death of over half a million innocent Iraqis (yes, I know how he came to power and it doesn't matter to my point). ANY nation would be justified in destroying his dictatorial government and killing him as a result of those human rights violations. ANY nation on the planet can justifiably choose to get involved to stop human rights violations. No retaliation is justified in response to that. You have to evaluate action based on legitimacy.

I understand your what you are saying, but I could not disagree more. In Iraq it is a bit different situation that Iran/Israel and you are also operating under the assumption that he did this without our support, or at least our indirect consent. How he came to power is very much the issue in my opinion. Saddam was a known CIA operative and assassin dating back to the 50's. So when he came to power and did his disgusting deeds, I find it unlikely that we were not at least knowledgeable of them beforehand and therefore complicit in his actions. It's the Hegelian Dialectic thing at work here I think:
Step 1 :Install (maniacal puppet) Saddam to power.
Step 2: Saddam kills everyone that he considers to be any type of a threat.
Step 3: Kill Saddam and enjoy the benefits of having him look like the bad guy, while he takes responsibility for killing everyone that we wanted dead in the first place. It's a Win-Win for us without taking any direct responsibility for the mess that we created.

Though maybe the two do have more in common than I originally thought. Based on our history, the backing of Israel by our nation may be more of a ploy to 'justify' wiping Iran out and usurping their oil supply, than it is a religious or ally based affair. We could very well be using Israel's own aggression to instigate a war, which we would then be drawn into for the purpose of invading Iran and standing guard until the oil wells run dry. Meanwhile, Israel could have whatever land it wanted and the Christian/Muslim divide would only grow wider. Also it would give the neo-zionist movement the opportunity to rant on about how powerful it's god is and whatnot, thereby increasing the religious fervour of the region, and continuing the cycle for future generations.

 

[Danoff]

Yep, I say let France occupy the entire middle east to stop human rights violations going on just about everywhere, from everyone in the region.

Can't be done. It's a question of political ... and fire ... power. These two are, as always, tightly linked.

Yea, I didn't say anyone is obliged to stop human rights violations. I said they're justified in intervening. Two completely different things.

There's a problem though. Even for a protector with the size and power of the USA, Iran is simply too big and any thought of repeating there the Iraqi adventure is nothing short of foolish.

If we were to slap Iran for nuclear aspirations in violation of the NPT, it would be with a strategic strike that would cost us next-to-nothing and would accomplish the goal of keeping them in compliance with the treaty they signed. Nobody is talking about toppling the government and installing a new one while occupying the country.

Sorry for the unclear statement. I agree and you are correct that it could mean different things, but I was attempting to say that yes "we deserve every bit of hatred directed at us that has resulted from our interference."

I'm with you then.

I understand your what you are saying, but I could not disagree more. In Iraq it is a bit different situation that Iran/Israel and you are also operating under the assumption that he did this without our support, or at least our indirect consent. How he came to power is very much the issue in my opinion. Saddam was a known CIA operative and assassin dating back to the 50's. So when he came to power and did his disgusting deeds, I find it unlikely that we were not at least knowledgeable of them beforehand and therefore complicit in his actions. It's the Hegelian Dialectic thing at work here I think:
Step 1 :Install (maniacal puppet) Saddam to power.
Step 2: Saddam kills everyone that he considers to be any type of a threat.
Step 3: Kill Saddam and enjoy the benefits of having him look like the bad guy, while he takes responsibility for killing everyone that we wanted dead in the first place. It's a Win-Win for us without taking any direct responsibility for the mess that we created.

I preempted most of this by saying that it doesn't matter how he got to power, we're justified in taking him out because of his actions. If anything, us putting him into power further obliges us to take him out. In a very real respect he was our mess to clean up.

Yes, we can be hated legitimately for putting him into power, but not for taking him out.

Though maybe the two do have more in common than I originally thought. Based on our history, the backing of Israel by our nation may be more of a ploy to 'justify' wiping Iran out and usurping their oil supply, than it is a religious or ally based affair. We could very well be using Israel's own aggression to instigate a war, which we would then be drawn into for the purpose of invading Iran and standing guard until the oil wells run dry.

I don't understand where this sentiment comes from. The US has never done that, and I don't even think we could if we wanted to. Not only would it create a media frenzy, our government is just not well enough connected with private industry to pull this off... and which private industry would benefit? It's a huge mess. Not only is this a conspiracy theory, it's a really unworkable one. I'd have thought this would have been put to rest after we saw how things worked out in Iraq.

 

[Joey D]

If anyone is planning on watching the GOP debates tonight (I'm not, I get enough BS at work ), they are being held on my alma mater of Oakland University. I'm so glad my contributions to the school and my tax dollars are paying to have a bunch of idiots argue about how they will screw up the country.

 

[Akira AC]

The only reason Israel hasn't decimated the entire Palestinian population and taken their land is because it's frowned upon in today's society.

But back when we were settling America it wasn't. Native Americans didn't seem to have any notion of property rights, and if they did they didn't act on it. So we took their land because it didn't actually belong to anybody.

Might that be the same situation when it comes to "Palestinian" land? As far as I can tell, it is defined as the region where Israel now is. A region. Not property. Not a state. Not a country. A region. And let's be honest here - regions don't belong to anybody until you claim it on a piece of paper, maybe put a fence around it or something.

So it appears as though Palestinians are simply butthurt that they didn't reserve their land when they should have, which was a hella long ass time ago. Seems to me that Israel should be let off the hook and freed to take whatever they want that doesn't already belong to somebody else.

Wrong.

Palestinians didn't even had the chance of define boundaries since it was under British rule, but boundaries for that Mandate did exits, therefore the definition of an unoccupied region is invalid.

Apart from that, the Fatimid Caliphate used to include those regions as theirs, therefore those lands weren't original Israeli, they were Islamic (until the crusades alter the geopolitical structure of that region).

 

[Keef]

Wrong.

Palestinians didn't even had the chance of define boundaries since it was a British colony, but boundaries for that colony did exits, therefore the definition of an unoccupied region is invalid.

According to this history, Palestine was the name of the region between the Middle of the World Sea and the Jordan River since 450 BC. That's why I compared their situation to that of Native Americans - yeah, they're from the region, but they never bothered to prove it was theirs, and therefore, since they can't defend their ownership because there is none, it is ripe for the taking.

Whoever owned/traded/sold/bought/fought over the land in the mean time (Britain included) is irrelevant to what the Palestinians should have done 2400 years ago, which was frame their State. Nowadays they're so butthurt over the whole thing that they're fighting over the region despite not even having a legitimate reason to fight over it.

Apart from that, the Fatimid Caliphate used to include those regions as theirs, therefore those lands weren't original Israeli, they were Islamic (until the crusades alter the geopolitical structure of that region).

The argument isn't about Israel, it's about Palestine, which is recognized as being the previously defined region a whole 1300 years before the Fattis came along and sat on it.

Palestine is like the Poland of the Middle East, except the Poles were at least smart enough to declare boundaries. They weren't the sturdiest of boundaries, but boundaries they were. Were being the key word.

 

[Akira AC]

According to this history, Palestine was the name of the region between the Middle of the World Sea and the Jordan River since 450 BC. That's why I compared their situation to that of Native Americans - yeah, they're from the region, but they never bothered to prove it was theirs, and therefore, since they can't defend their ownership because there is none, it is ripe for the taking.

Whoever owned/traded/sold/bought/fought over the land in the mean time (Britain included) is irrelevant to what the Palestinians should have done 2400 years ago, which was frame their State. Nowadays they're so butthurt over the whole thing that they're fighting over the region despite not even having a legitimate reason to fight over it.


The argument isn't about Israel, it's about Palestine, which is recognized as being the previously defined region a whole 1300 years before the Fattis came along and sat on it.

Palestine is like the Poland of the Middle East, except the Poles were at least smart enough to declare boundaries. They weren't the sturdiest of boundaries, but boundaries they were. Were being the key word.

Well then it depends on which definition is given to Palestine, which in this case is correct.

However I still don't think that is a matter of claiming over a territory, since the British/UN were the ones to decide which territory went to who.

 

[Biggles]

Oh absolutely. I mean breaking laws during your eventual election to President is certainly not worth discussing.

Well, not when it’s got absolutely no relevance at all to the subject at hand.

A decision should have been made to address and alleviate the problem.

"Address & alleviate the problem"?! Give me a break! No, I asked what, specifically, YOU would have done. What are the specific actions that you would have taken?

One key factor that the US press particularly likes to talk about as a result of the operations was that EU armed forces are apparently not fit for purpose. Had the US thrown its might behind the mission, it likely would have ended much sooner and gained the US a key ally in the Libyan NTC - oil rich Libya, that is. Not getting involved at all would have resulted in no US lives, resources or money spent on the task.

Getting involved a little bit and letting the Libyan people worship Sarkozy gives the EU the lead in the alliance with the oil-rich Libyan NTC - US resources and money have been used and the US people see no practical benefit to it.

What your comments indicate is that you think Obama should have ignored Congressional disapproval, ignored the disapproval of many of his own supporters, ignored the “stretched-thin” condition of the US military & the general war-weariness of the US public, ignored the additional expensive & risk to the lives of US armed forces personnel & vigorously attacked Quaddafi, in order to beat out the French & secure preferential treatment for US oil companies. Dick Cheney & the Neo-Cons would be proud.

If this is not what you believe, perhaps you should stop with the dissembling & state what you really think.

Yes, the land was taken from him by force, but not by Israel. Israel did nothing to him, and he is not justified in killing jews just because he thinks his God wants him to.

The only reason Israel hasn't decimated the entire Palestinian population and taken their land is because it's frowned upon in today's society.

But back when we were settling America it wasn't. Native Americans didn't seem to have any notion of property rights, and if they did they didn't act on it. So we took their land because it didn't actually belong to anybody.

Might that be the same situation when it comes to "Palestinian" land? As far as I can tell, it is defined as the region where Israel now is. A region. Not property. Not a state. Not a country. A region. And let's be honest here - regions don't belong to anybody until you claim it on a piece of paper, maybe put a fence around it or something.

So it appears as though Palestinians are simply butthurt that they didn't reserve their land when they should have, which was a hella long ass time ago. Seems to me that Israel should be let off the hook and freed to take whatever they want that doesn't already belong to somebody else.

I’m so appalled I don’t know where to begin. What you are putting forward is some kind of grotesque, idiotic parody of libertarian principles.

It’s OK to go to a new continent, remove by force the people who have occupied the land for generations on the grounds that they (being negligent in not reading up on their John Locke) have failed to put up fences to “reserve their land”?

Palestine isn’t a country? Isn’t a state? Where in libertarian philosophy does being a state constitute the deciding factor with regard to “property rights?” Libertarianism does not situate the right to property in the State, but in the universal principles of “Natural Law”.

I don’t even believe in libertarian principles, but at least I have made an effort to learn about them & understand them. You seem to have an understanding of only the most crass elements – fences! - & no appreciation whatsoever of the moral & philosophical principles they are founded on. Furthermore, you don’t seem to make any effort to inform yourself on the historical facts at issue, even though it is now, using the resources of the internet, extremely easy to do so.

The history of Palestine is extremely convoluted, but aside from all the “Statist” machinations of the variety of governments involved - Ottomans, Germans, French, British, Arabs – there was a population of Arab farmers who lived in the area for generations & “mixed their labour with the land.” I would suggest you read a little about the history of Palestine & then some libertarian writing on the subject before making uninformed comments.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p349_Konkin.html

http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html

http://donemmerich.blogspot.com/2010/06/libertarianism-property-rights-and.html

 

[Famine]

Well, not when it’s got absolutely no relevance at all to the subject at hand.

Indeed - showing how Obama does things differently to Bush by showing how Obama does things differently to Bush has no relevance at all

"Address & alleviate the problem"?! Give me a break! No, I asked what, specifically, YOU would have done. No you didn't. What are the specific actions that you would have taken?

A decision should have been made to address and alleviate the problem. That's what leaders should do. If they are not willing to lead, they should not do so.

Apparently you don't like that answer. This also isn't my problem.

What your comments indicate is that you think Obama should have ignored Congressional disapproval, ignored the disapproval of many of his own supporters, ignored the “stretched-thin” condition of the US military & the general war-weariness of the US public, ignored the additional expensive & risk to the lives of US armed forces personnel & vigorously attacked Quaddafi, in order to beat out the French & secure preferential treatment for US oil companies.

If this is not what you believe, perhaps you should stop with the dissembling & state what you really think.

Here's a thought - take time to read what my comments say and you won't need to interpret what they indicate and then pretend I'm being vague. You even quoted this line:

Not getting involved at all would have resulted in no US lives, resources or money spent on the task.

It was a pretty clear pair of paragraphs.

Obama didn't choose to not get involved and not expend lives, resources and money on the task - no risk, no effort, no reward. Obama didn't choose to take the lead and end the conflict quickly with overwhelming military force and reap the benefit of turning a lifelong enemy (qv Pan Am Flight 103) into an ally - high risk, high effort, potentially high reward. He chose to take a middle ground and risk lives, resources and money on the task while allowing other organisations to take the lead and reap the benefit of gaining an ally from Libya - high risk, middling effort, no reward. The worst of all worlds.

Leaders who are not willing to lead - in this case by either refusing to join in or by using the full force of their military - should not be entrusted to do so. The US is the most powerful nation in the world on many levels (not just militarily) and should not be content to be part of the flock.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I'm with you then.

I preempted most of this by saying that it doesn't matter how he got to power, we're justified in taking him out because of his actions. If anything, us putting him into power further obliges us to take him out. In a very real respect he was our mess to clean up.

I agree completely that he deserved whatever harm anyone should wish to do to him. It would be nice though, if we had limited our operations to do only what was necessary to remove him in a more clandestine manner, without having to be prompted by the WTC and WMD allegations that we were force fed. And I have to think that we would have done exactly that if we did not want to keep him in power there for some reason.

I don't understand where this sentiment comes from. The US has never done that, and I don't even think we could if we wanted to. Not only would it create a media frenzy, our government is just not well enough connected with private industry to pull this off... and which private industry would benefit? It's a huge mess. Not only is this a conspiracy theory, it's a really unworkable one. I'd have thought this would have been put to rest after we saw how things worked out in Iraq.

It's really just a line of thought that occurred to me while I was writing my previous post. I'm suggesting that it's possible given our documented involvement in the general region, that we are also playing much the same game again here.
Something like
1.Israel instigates Iran to the point of attacking it
2.Iran is destroyed
3.Israel's god has returned them to the holy land and slain their enemies. America's god (oil) is now readily available for the export and refinement.

Of course, this is all just conjecture and if it actually were true, it would surely never be presented to the general public in these terms. The media doesn't really seem like that much of a problem in this, once the country becomes a war zone, the media could easily be locked out and left in the dark until they given the official story are told what to report. As far as business and government connections needed to do this, they are surely there if the dollar signs were big enough. Just think of all the banking, oil, and military tycoons and their interweaving investment groups passing on this opportunity.

Just as an example of greed being far more powerful than public opinion or morality, consider the most extreme example : Hitler.
(from link)
Many industrials bankrolled the Nazis, including allegedly:
· Hjalmar Schacht, Head of the Reichsbank, organised fund-raising parties for Hitler.
· Fritz von Thyssen, the German steel businessman
· Alfred Krupp, the owner of Krupp steel firm
· Emil Kirdorf, the coal businessman
· IG Faben, the German chemicals firm, gave half the funds for the 1933 elections
· The German car firm Opel (a subsidiary of General Motors)
· Schroeder Bank – on Jan. 3, 1933, Reinhard Schroeder met Hitler and asked him to form a government.
And many foreign firms including:
· Henry Ford of Ford Motors. Hitler borrowed passages from Ford's book The International Jew to use in Mein Kampf and had a picture of Ford on the wall of his office.
· Union Banking Corporation, New York (George Bush’s great-grandfather was president of the Corporation)
· WA Harriman and Co., the American shipping and railway company (George Bush’s grandfather was vice-president)
· Irenee du Pont, head of the American firm General Motors; he advocated the creation of a super-race by spinal injections to enhance children of ‘pure’ blood.

If greed can drive the Nazi machine, it can drive this one too. In (conspiracy) theory at least.

 

[Biggles]

Indeed - showing how Obama does things differently to Bush by showing how Obama does things differently to Bush has no relevance at all

You didn't "show" ANYTHING. You didn't even present any kind of an argument, you just stuck the comment in out of context & with no explication offered.

Apparently you don't like that answer.

It's not an answer.

"What is your position on Libya, Mr. President?"

"I'm going to make a strong decision"!

Doesn't say anything. WHAT "strong decision" are you going to make?

Obama didn't choose to not get involved and not expend lives, resources and money on the task - no risk, no effort, no reward. Obama didn't choose to take the lead and end the conflict quickly with overwhelming military force and reap the benefit of turning a lifelong enemy (qv Pan Am Flight 103) into an ally - high risk, high effort, potentially high reward. He chose to take a middle ground and risk lives, resources and money on the task while allowing other organisations to take the lead and reap the benefit of gaining an ally from Libya - high risk, middling effort, no reward. The worst of all worlds.

Leaders who are not willing to lead - in this case by either refusing to join in or by using the full force of their military - should not be entrusted to do so. The US is the most powerful nation in the world on many levels (not just militarily) and should not be content to be part of the flock.

Was it the "worst of all worlds"? Or the "best of all worlds"? You appear to be saying that there was no acceptable policy choice except: don't get involved at all OR "go in with full miltiary force".

Ron Paul would (presumably) make the former choice, John McCain (for example) the latter.
But YOU, Famine the "strong, decision maker", are not standing by either of these choices. You're just waffling on & gratuitously attacking the choice that Obama did make.

 

[Danoff]

But YOU, Famine the "strong, decision maker", are not standing by either of these choices. You're just waffling on & gratuitously attacking the choice that Obama did make.

"Choice" is kindof a strong word here. More like "didn't get in the way of".

 

[Famine]

You didn't "show" ANYTHING. You didn't even present any kind of an argument, you just stuck the comment in out of context & with no explication offered.

There was a long list of things that one of Bush or Obama did/does and the other doesn't, showing how the two are different. You quoted every item on the list, which was your context, but that one merited the response that it didn't merit a response (uniquely ironic, that).

It's not an answer.

It is, it just doesn't seem to be one you like. Here, I'll give you a clue:

Leaders who are not willing to lead - in this case by either refusing to join in or by using the full force of their military - should not be entrusted to do so.

WHAT "strong decision" are you going to make?

Why do I need to make the decision?

Was it the "worst of all worlds"? Or the "best of all worlds"?

For the reasons I detailed and you didn't bother to attempt to refute, the former.

You appear to be saying that there was no acceptable policy choice except: don't get involved at all OR "go in with full miltiary force".

For the President of the USA? Absolutely the case.

But YOU, Famine the "strong, decision maker", are not standing by either of these choices.

I don't recall describing myself as such. Why do you presume to give me that label?

Either choice would have been praiseworthy for Obama.

You're just waffling on & gratuitously attacking the choice that Obama did make.

Yes, because for the "leader of the free world" it was the worst choice he could have possibly made - spend money on a war that you let others have the credit for.

 

[Dapper]

For the President of the USA? Absolutely the case.

Am I the only one that sees this as extremely naive? Or do I give history too much credit?

Yes, because for the "leader of the free world" it was the worst choice he could have possibly made - spend money on a war that you let others have the credit for.

So you concede the US and Obama played a role, weird. And you seem incapable of registering what is the right thing to do. My brother and two nephews are not in harm's way, yet the Libyan people are not being attacked by their leader (two positives, no negatives). *gives Obama credit* Now, what is the relevance of what a guy in Libya thinks concerning the US presidential election?

 

[Famine]

Am I the only one that sees this as extremely naive? Or do I give history too much credit?

It's the reality of being a - possibly the - superpower. Not only do you lead your people, but everyone else looks to you for leadership.

So you concede the US and Obama played a role, weird.

How on Earth you draw that conclusion from the quoted sentence is baffling.

And you seem incapable of registering what is the right thing to do.

If going in militarily is the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. If staying out of it is the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. What's the problem?

My brother and two nephews are not in harm's way

404 - Relevance not found

yet the Libyan people are not being attacked by their leader

Good old Nicolas Sarkozy.

*gives Obama credit*

For spending US money (while the economy is critically crippled) on a military incursion no-one in the US will see any benefit from? That's credit-worthy?

Now, what is the relevance of what a guy in Libya thinks concerning the US presidential election?

If the guy in Libya - or the Libyan National Transitional Council - thinks the US helped him, he will be friendly towards the US - or they will be an ally of the US. If they think it's the French, they'll be friends and allies of the French.

Libya is oil rich. Strikes me that if the US wants cheap oil, making friends with oil rich countries is good. Libya is also a source of anti-US terrorism predating 9/11 by some distance and we still don't know who (else - if you believe it was Megrahi) was behind Pan Am Flight 103/Lockerbie, or the Yvonne Fletcher murder, for instance. Allies are more likely to give this information - and perhaps Qaddafi would have been willing to in the Hague, had he not been killed by Libyan rebels.

If Obama wanted the kudos of securing oil and information on unsolved terrorist crimes over the last 30 years, he should have gone in hard. If he wanted the kudos of not wasting taxpayer money and potentially US lives on an apparently meaningless conflict - after all, who cares what "a guy in Libya thinks" - he should not have not done so. Wasting taxpayer money and putting US lives at risk and not securing oil and information is, absolutely, the worst thing he could have done. Except nuking the place.

 

[Dapper]

How on Earth you draw that conclusion from the quoted sentence is baffling.

You baffle easily. You said, "...it was the worst choice he could have possibly made", Obama made a choice, that's what you said, yet you still contend he wasn't involved? Give it up already

404 - Relevance not found

Unsurprisingly. Look at where you are typing (the US presidential thread). How you can not understand the US doing a humanitarian service and keeping US soldiers safe at the same time and then not understand the relevance... is what I've come to expect.

For spending US money (while the economy is critically crippled) on a military incursion no-one in the US will see any benefit from? That's credit-worthy?

Can you read things in context?! I listed two positive things that are credit worthy.

If the guy in Libya - or the Libyan National Transitional Council - thinks the US helped him, he will be friendly towards the US - or they will be an ally of the US. If they think it's the French, they'll be friends and allies of the French.

Because there is a Sarkozy sign means the US did nothing?
Going in spending more money we don't have to secure a natural resource that is soon to be obsolete sounds like something you would do.

 

[Famine]

You baffle easily. "...it was the worst choice he could have possibly made", Obama made a choice, that's what you said, yet you still contend he wasn't involved? Give it up already

He was neither involved in the Libyan Civil War nor Operation Unified Protector. Like I said.

Unsurprisingly. Look at where you are typing (the US presidential thread). How you can not understand the US doing a humanitarian service and keeping US soldiers safe at the same time and not understand the relevance... is what I've come to expect.

I still have no idea what your brother and nephews have to do with anything.

Can you not read things in context?! I listed two positive things that are credit worthy.

Apparently you missed me quoting them in full and pointing out that one seems to have no relevance and the other is creditworthy for Nicolas Sarkozy...

Because there is a Sarkozy sign means the US did nothing?

Whether or not they did is irrelevant to the point that the Libyans think someone else gets the credit. Surely this is not that hard to follow?

Going in spending more money we don't have to secure a natural resource that is soon to be obsolete sounds like something you would do.

Does it? I don't recall at any point advocating that course of action, so that would rather seem to be yet another, massive, baseless leap of faith on your behalf. Incidentally, oil drives your economy (and ours).

Two weeks and you still don't get it

 

[GTsail]

...Was it the "worst of all worlds"? Or the "best of all worlds"? You appear to be saying that there was no acceptable policy choice except: don't get involved at all OR "go in with full miltiary force".
...

Interesting question that you pose Biggles....

Among the three choices presented for the Libyan situation, I would look at it as follows:

President Obama's Libyan choices:

1) No action: NOT FIT to be President

2) Middle ground: FIT to be President (assuming force is justified)

3) Full military force: FIT to be President (assuming force is justified)

My feelings about option number one is that if a President can see outright and blatant injustice in the world (as evidenced by M. Gadhafi's regime's actions) and has the power/resources to do something about it, but chooses not to, then that person is not fit to be the President of the United States. An example of this would be Montana Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin (she may be a perfectly fine Congresswoman, but I would not consider her fit to be President).

My opinion about option number three is that in certain circumstances, this is a laudatory option. This option makes sense when speed is of the essesence, or when the outcome is known with near certainty. This could also be used with the "Powell Doctrine", so there would be less of a chance that the actions would drag on for an un-duly long period of time. The US recently had a President that liked option number three, so we have a recent model to look at if we want to compare scenarios/outcomes.

My opinion about option number two is that its a conservative approach that would be justified when outcomes are not known with absolute certainty. Its a course of action taken if you respect/value international cooperation and shared decision-making/responsibilities. This option may take a little longer to arrive at, but once underway, it has the added benefit of being supported by a larger group of nations. The fact that another county (France) may get the lion's share of appreciation is really of no concern. The US entry into the Libyan conflict is all about preventing human rights violations and is not about trying to gain accolades. The benefit of allowing another nation (France) take the military lead during the Libyan conflict is that afterwards, there will be a substantially lower feeling among the Arab world that the US is once again trying to impose its will upon another muslim nation.

Is it surprising that President Obama took this second option?

I would say no.

I think that President Obama's choice is completely consistent with what he promised during his election campaign. I also think that it is consistent with why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee said that they awarded the prize to Obama for "his efforts to strenghten international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". "Obama as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play".http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

It seems to me that President Obama's approach is entirely consistent with this world outlook.

Respectfully,
GTsail