Presidential Election: 2012

[Dapper]

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

Why did you say he was? He made a "choice" you said... about nothing? Give it up.

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

You aren't good with context clues (unsurprisingly).

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?

You speak for an entire country.

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).

I didn't say you said you advocated that course of action, but by your past illogical thinking, it seems plausible. Besides, oil is not what drives our economy, it is energy. But I am sure that will baffle you.

Two weeks and you still don't get it

Famine, you make no sense. You say Obama made a choice but had no role. You clearly have no point to make at all evidenced by your incessant contradictions.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I ask this just out of curiosity to anyone who wants to answer. Do you find that the criteria for the Just War Doctrine is meet and applies to our actions in the middle east?

I mean the causes of these wars seem debatable, as well as the equal use of force and the apparent lack of an exit strategy. Also the actual win-ability of any of these wars without a clear and set objective seems doubtful.

Edit: I apologize if my question sounds more like a term paper exam question, but it pretty much is one from my Political Science class from a few years back. Not exact wording, but same idea.

 

[Famine]

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.

Then it's incredibly surprising

Why did you say he was? He made a "choice" you said... about nothing? Give it up.

No, Dapper, I didn't. I've been very, very clear from the beginning. You keep deliberately chosing to understand something else.

You aren't good with context clues (unsurprisingly).

I'm sure your brother and nephews are terribly happy doing whatever it is they do. If your oblique references to them are meant to imply they're serving in the forces then Obama put them in harm's way for no benefit to the USA.

You speak for an entire country.

No, the entire country does that. I'm merely relating to you what they say. The Libyan rebel force and the Libyan NTC sees Nicolas Sarkozy as a hero and their saviour, for pushing the EU to push the UN to implement the No Fly Zone and prevent their massacre and because Armée de l'Air branded planes were the first to act to enforce it. Did you see Sarkozy and William Hague addressing the Libyan people in Benghazi in September? Their reaction to Sarkozy alone should be enough to stop this line of enquiry for you.

As far as Libya is concerned, Sarkozy is the man responsible for the regime change.

I didn't say you said you advocated that course of action, but by your past illogical thinking, it seems plausible.

It seems plausible to you. Key words "to you". But then you've been building this straw man for two weeks...

Besides, oil is not what drives our economy, it is energy. But I am sure that will baffle you.

Yes, I'm sure all the energy put into the tanks of the semi-trucks that distribute your economy and the cars that get the workers who build it is... no, hang on, what?

Famine, you make no sense. You say Obama made a choice but had no role.

You don't seem able to distinguish three discreet events in your head - despite me doing so quite clearly for you on a number of occasions. Obama made a choice to support the Franco-British proposed No Fly Zone at the United Nations. He made a choice to contribute a small force to the joint effort and NATO Unified Protector mission enforcing the No Fly Zone. He played no role in Unified Protector - that was a NATO mission commanded by Lt Gen Charles Bouchard of the Royal Canadian Air Force. He played no role in the Libyan Civil War, which was fought between Qaddafi loyalists and Libyan NTC rebels - what with it being a civil war.

You clearly have no point to make at all evidenced by your incessant contradictions.

You see contradictions where none exist because, for some reason, you're appearing to perceive the Libyan conflict to all be one big lump. This is your issue and not mine.

I'd suggest you move on. You've clearly learned nothing in the last two weeks and just wish to continue espousing the same, unsupported tosh as if it's a belief. If you want to continue believing that Obama, somehow, made brilliant decisions that lead to the freedom of the Libyan people and that the Libyans are not currently putting posters of Sarkozy on every available vertical surface, I suggest you continue believing that because nothing is going to change your mind even posters of Sarkozy on every available surface. In defending your belief, your conduct has moved perilously close to your ISmokeGT days at times and that sort of thing does no-one any good.

 

[Pupik]

Everyone in this thread has three choices: Either you're with us, against us, or...um,...uh, let me tell you next week.

Wow, I stepped into this one unprepared.

 

[Danoff]

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.

Gonna have to stop you right there. The United States doesn't have the resources to do something about all blatant injustice in the world. We do have the resources to do something about just about any one of them, but not all of them. We can't be world police, and so the president will HAVE to see blatant injustice in the world with the power and resources to do something about it and choose not to act.

I ask this just out of curiosity to anyone who wants to answer. Do you find that the criteria for the Just War Doctrine is meet and applies to our actions in the middle east?

Please explain why you care.

 

[Famine]

Everyone in this thread has three choices: Either you're with us, against us, or...um,...uh, let me tell you next week.

Wow, I stepped into this one unprepared.

Go for the third one - we'll give you a GTP Peace Prize...

Gonna have to stop you right there. The United States doesn't have the resources to do something about all blatant injustice in the world. We do have the resources to do something about just about any one of them, but not all of them. We can't be world police, and so the president will HAVE to see blatant injustice in the world with the power and resources to do something about it and choose not to act.

This.

(though the weight of expectation is that the US will act as World Police and so should - kinda damned either way with that one)

 

[Dapper]

No, the entire country does that. I'm merely relating to you what they say. The Libyan rebel force and the Libyan NTC sees Nicolas Sarkozy as a hero and their saviour, for pushing the EU to push the UN to implement the No Fly Zone and prevent their massacre and because Armée de l'Air branded planes were the first to act to enforce it. Did you see Sarkozy and William Hague addressing the Libyan people in Benghazi in September? Their reaction to Sarkozy alone should be enough to stop this line of enquiry for you.

What does the Libyan people seeing Sarkozy as a hero have anything to do with the decisions Obama made? This line of logic makes no sense at all and you are hanging on to it as if your life depends on it.

I'd suggest you move on. You've clearly learned nothing in the last two weeks and just wish to continue espousing the same, unsupported tosh as if it's a belief. If you want to continue believing that Obama, somehow, made brilliant decisions that lead to the freedom of the Libyan people and that the Libyans are not currently putting posters of Sarkozy on every available vertical surface, I suggest you continue believing that because nothing is going to change your mind even posters of Sarkozy on every available surface. In defending your belief, your conduct has moved perilously close to your ISmokeGT days at times and that sort of thing does no-one any good.

How did you arrive at that delusion?

And threatening to kick me off this website because your argument that Obama had no role in the military conflict that happened around Libya, which is completely unsubstantiated and completely ludicrous, is ludicrous in itself. Way to go, Famine, way to keep grasping at straws such as I gave credit to Obama for "brilliant decisions that lead to the freedom of the Libyan people", and then continuing your contradictory assault on yourself. The "discreet events" you are so worried about are negligible. The facts are Obama made certain decisions about what the US's role would be in the military conflict concerning the Libyan Civil War. Obama was in control of the US's role in the military conflict concerning the Libyan Civil War, and the role the US played deserves credit, and has been given by several members in this very thread, because the US helped a good thing happened and no one in the US was negatively affected. Keep dodging around these facts all you want, kick me off if you want, but you are still wrong.

 

[Danoff]

What does the Libyan people seeing Sarkozy as a hero have anything to do with the decisions Obama made?

Really? This has been explained a dozen times.

Blah Blah Blah

Obama was in control of the US's role in the military conflict concerning the Libyan Civil War, and the role the US played deserves credit

...for being going along with the UN when he agrees with their decisions? This does not distinguish him from... well... anyone.

 

[Famine]

What does the Libyan people seeing Sarkozy as a hero have anything to do with the decisions Obama made? This line of logic makes no sense at all and you are hanging on to it as if your life depends on it.

Except for the repeated explanations of it.

And threatening to kick me off this website

Didn't happen.

because your argument that Obama had no role in the military conflict that happened around Libya

Didn't happen. Remember the discreet events I've repeatedly, patiently explained to you...

Obama was in control of the US's role in the military conflict concerning the Libyan Civil War

If external nations are involved, it's not a civil war...

because the US helped a good thing happened and no one in the US was negatively affected.

Except the millions of dollars spent on this "event" that will now not be spent domestically, requiring cuts or tax hikes? Also US service personnel were put in harm's way by the decision to give US personnel to the effort. The US will never see any benefit from the No Fly Zone being enforced, because they allowed other nations to take the credit.

kick me off if you want

I've never kicked anyone off GTP because I wanted to. No member of staff has. Ever. Why are we bringing this up anyway?

 

[Dapper]

typical ignoring of facts

Guess what, Obama acted in a military conflict with a good result and no US soldiers died.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Gonna have to stop you right there. The United States doesn't have the resources to do something about all blatant injustice in the world. We do have the resources to do something about just about any one of them, but not all of them. We can't be world police, and so the president will HAVE to see blatant injustice in the world with the power and resources to do something about it and choose not to act.

Agreed, but I say we shouldn't even if we could.

Please explain why you care.

Beyond the motivations for war, the finer details of it bother me. The use of tanks, fighter jets, and unmanned drones against jeeps, single troops or even groups of combatants armed with RPG's and AK47's seems like overkill to me. Hell, I even recall seeing somewhere that we have even used missiles to kill a single target. So even beyond having the moral authority to attack, is that really equal use of force (that is where I thought you were going with your comment some posts back, and why I asked about clarification on it.) or does equal force even matter? I think it does personally. Just for hypothetical example, I don't think napalm is an appropriate response to any threat. Dead is dead, but how you get there is important to me as well. I think the detachment from old world style face to face and sword to shield fighting has desensitized us and sterilized war to the point that we are more likely to engage in it. This is also why I find violence on a personal level acceptable but not group violence. The anonymity of group violence/war seems to lead to less concern for the methods used to obtain victory, but the individual is unlikely to escalate a situation that he alone is responsible for.

Also the part of the JWD about only engaging in a war that you can actually win. Short of permanent occupation/integration, we don't seem to have a plan of what we are actually trying to accomplish. Or is it possible that permanent occupation is actually our goal?

 

[Famine]

Beyond the motivations for war, the finer details of it bother me. The use of tanks, fighter jets, and unmanned drones against jeeps, single troops or even groups of combatants armed with RPG's and AK47's seems like overkill to me. Hell, I even recall seeing somewhere that we have even used missiles to kill a single target. So even beyond having the moral authority to attack, is that really equal use of force (that is where I thought you were going with your comment some posts back, and why I asked about clarification on it.) or does equal force even matter?

From a military perspective, equal force absolutely doesn't matter - the point of having overwhelming military force is that it is overwhelming. You need to take out the people trying to take you out. Efficiency dictates you use a bullet, but if a Paveway does the job, it does the job. Probably six orders of magnitude more expensive, but if it saves a life on your side, good.

There is no-kill and there is kill. There is no overkill.

 

[Dapper]

Obama even gets credit from Sarkozy for the US's involvement, but because Famine disagrees, this must have been for fun.


And just to show how wrong Famine is speaking for every Libyan-
One more just in case.- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5gNS75RpOc&feature=related

 

[Famine]

Ah, Youtube. Missed this one then:





Oh look, September 15th and on the streets of Benghazi. Predating your contributions (again) by a full month (again). Check out the miniature flags being waved by the assembled crowd. Also, remember this one from July 1st, also in Benghazi?

Still, it's good fun to see you're now pushing an even more indefensible point after saying it wasn't relevant and wondering who cares what the Libyan people think...

 

[Dapper]

Still, it's good fun to see you're now pushing an even more indefensible point after saying it wasn't relevant and wondering who cares what the Libyan people think...

I must say I got a good laugh watching Libyans say how wrong you are.

 

[Danoff]

Guess what, Obama acted in a military conflict with a good result and no US soldiers died.

Yea that doesn't really respond to anything I wrote.

Agreed, but I say we shouldn't even if we could.

If we had infinite resources, what's wrong with protecting human rights around the world (we should start at home of course)?

Beyond the motivations for war, the finer details of it bother me. The use of tanks, fighter jets, and unmanned drones against jeeps, single troops or even groups of combatants armed with RPG's and AK47's seems like overkill to me. Hell, I even recall seeing somewhere that we have even used missiles to kill a single target. So even beyond having the moral authority to attack, is that really equal use of force (that is where I thought you were going with your comment some posts back, and why I asked about clarification on it.) or does equal force even matter?

No, it doesn't. Dead by a missile or dead by a gunshot is just as dead. The missile is probably more humane in terms of pain inflicted. A proportionate response is not the same as equal force.

I think the detachment from old world style face to face and sword to shield fighting has desensitized us and sterilized war to the point that we are more likely to engage in it. his is also why I find violence on a personal level acceptable but not group violence. The anonymity of group violence/war seems to lead to less concern for the methods used to obtain victory, but the individual is unlikely to escalate a situation that he alone is responsible for.

But none of that really matters. All that matters is the circumstances that surround the use of force.

Also the part of the JWD about only engaging in a war that you can actually win. Short of permanent occupation/integration, we don't seem to have a plan of what we are actually trying to accomplish. Or is it possible that permanent occupation is actually our goal?

I also don't think it particularly matters whether you think it is a war you can win. Many have waged war that they didn't think they could win - sometimes they even win. The soldiers at the Alamo didn't think they could win, and didn't have a plan to do so (and, of course, they didn't). But they waged their battle anyway and it mattered a great deal.

All that matters is the circumstances that lead up to the use of force in terms of whether you're on moral grounds. Then, of course, there is also the will to act, which is another story.

 

[Famine]

I must say I got a good laugh watching Libyans say how wrong you are.

Did you just post a video of a pro-Qaddafi loyalist - the folks your leader apparently decided to shoot at - as evidence for your argument?

Really?


Wow. Just... wow.

 

[Dapper]

Did you just post a video of a pro-Qaddafi loyalist - the folks your leader apparently decided to shoot at - as evidence for your argument?

Really?


Wow. Just... wow.

You said they, Libyans, all praised Sarkozy as a hero. Which is blatantly wrong (unsurprisingly).

Lets recap: First you said US had no role because everything the US did was under NATO. That was proven blatantly wrong. Then after stumbling over how the US was involved and not involved, affirming your self imposed contradictory assault, you claimed every Libyan hailed Sarkozy as a hero, which was just proven completely wrong. Neither time did you even try and defend your complete falsehoods, but you just digress down some other derogatory rabbit trail that just further solidifies your lack of a point in this argument.

 

[Danoff]

You said they, Libyans, all praised Sarkozy as a hero. Which is blatantly wrong (unsurprisingly).

Lets recap: First you said US had no role because everything the US did was under NATO. That was proven blatantly wrong. Then after stumbling over how the US was involved and not involved, affirming your self imposed contradictory assault, you claimed every Libyan hailed Sarkozy as a hero, which was just proven completely wrong. Neither time did you even try and defend your complete falsehoods, but you just digress down some other derogatory rabbit trail that just further solidifies your lack of a point in this argument.

I'm calling Troll at this point. This isn't just dense, this is intentional.

 

[Dapper]

I'm calling Troll at this point. This isn't just dense, this is intentional.

Spoken like a true troll. Especially considering how factual the post is you quoted is.

 

[Tornado]

Lets recap: First you said US had no role because everything the US did was under NATO. That was proven blatantly wrong. Then after stumbling over how the US was involved and not involved, affirming your self imposed contradictory assault, you claimed every Libyan hailed Sarkozy as a hero, which was just proven completely wrong.

I'm confused: When did any of this happen?

And threatening to kick me off this website because your argument that Obama had no role in the military conflict that happened around Libya, which is completely unsubstantiated and completely ludicrous, is ludicrous in itself.

Spoken like a true troll. Especially considering how factual the post is you quoted is.

Here we go again.

 

[arora]

Hey Dapper, I'm not going to get into this silly Libya thing as it's gone on waaaaaay to long imo but I have a few things to ask.

Do you think maybe Obama has not lived up to your expectations as President? I mean has he done much to represent you; social changes, banking changes, environmental changes, all those things I know you stand for and also understand why. You can give him credit for the healthcare bill I guess, but that's no where close to being done. His foreign policy is not much different then a neo-con's is it? I think it has to be the reason you are clinging to this Libya thing, wanting so bad for him to be the man you elected. I also think he has tricked the left into thinking hope for change is the same thing as actual change which is sad.

I mentioned Dennis J. Kucinich for a reason some time back in this thread, I know it's too late for the dems to organize anything now against Obama and even if they did it would have probably diminished any chances of another dem President this go round. So do you think Obama = better then any Republican, so we stick with him? Or maybe there are some indi's or green party or some other you like?

I'm seriously asking as I don't think he is doing anything you guys elected him for and I'm not gonna buy the crying over the congress not letting him. Every time he says that on the t.v. I cringe because that is not what a leader should do.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Hey Dapper, I'm not going to get into this silly Libya thing as it's gone on waaaaaay to long imo but I have a few things to ask.

Do you think maybe Obama has not lived up to your expectations as President? I mean has he done much to represent you; social changes, banking changes, environmental changes, all those things I know you stand for and also understand why. You can give him credit for the healthcare bill I guess, but that's no where close to being done. His foreign policy is not much different then a neo-con's is it? I think it has to be the reason you are clinging to this Libya thing, wanting so bad for him to be the man you elected. I also think he has tricked the left into thinking hope for change is the same thing as actual change which is sad.

I mentioned Dennis J. Kucinich for a reason some time back in this thread, I know it's too late for they dems to organize anything now against Obama and even if they did it would have probably diminished any chances of another dem President this go round. So do you think Obama = better then any Republican, so we stick with him? Or maybe there are some indi's or green party or some other you like?

I'm seriously asking as I don't think he is doing anything you guys elected him for and I'm not gonna buy the crying over the congress not letting him. Every time he says that on the t.v. I cringe because that is not what a leader should do.

Arora makes a good point here which leads me to this; why do people fill they have to vehemently stand by who the voted for or party lines, when time and time again it doesn't and hasn't solved major problem but rather made them worse. So why do people have to cling to minor items and trump them up so they feel like they made the right choice?

I probably answered my own question, but I still feel like it's an irrational way of going about it.

 

[Dapper]

Do you think maybe Obama has not lived up to your expectations as President?

I do think that, and as a guy from WV, my expectations were pretty low. And I don't consider myself an Obama supporter by any means. But, considering how much worse things got during Bush's 8 years, I feel confident saying that at least things haven't gotten worse. Yeah that is a crappy answer, I feel cheap typing it, but what else can I say?

As far as I can see, some Republicans candidates seem like great politicians, but those are the ones that have a snow ball's chance in hell at winning, mainly Huntsman. I like many of Ron Paul's ideas, but I dislike just as many. Don't take that as I've read up on all of them (the candidates and their ideas) thoroughly , I've only watched a couple debates. But the biggest problem with Republicans, in general, is that if information doesn't sit well with them, or doesn't gel into their ideas, they just ignore it. I don't think I could ever vote for a republican for president until they relinquish the supply side economics idea.

I think our only hope is Obama wins reelection then reads and implements Bill Clinton's ideas outlined in his book.

About Libya, no one will discuss Libya in 20 years, it really isn't a big deal. But the point was even when Obama does things right, even slightly, a lot of people immediately hate it. I was just wondering why, and the way he handled Libya seem to exemplify this idea. I didn't make anyone reply, and keep replying, with irrelevant, wrong stats.

So why do people have to cling to minor items and trump them up so they feel like they made the right choice?

I hope this isn't directed at me... because I didn't make the Obama for Pres choice.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think I could ever vote for a republican for president until they relinquish the supply side economics idea.

Yea, silly economics.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I hope this isn't directed at me... because I didn't make the Obama for Pres choice.

Seeing as there is more to my quote like this part that applies to you, then we can go in the realm of it being directed to you

...why do people fill they have to vehemently stand by who the voted for or party lines, when time and time again it doesn't and hasn't solved major problem but rather made them worse. So why do people have to cling to minor items and trump them up so they feel like they made the right choice?

See you have a side at times, and to me that doesn't solve much in the form of politics. I'm asking people who side with a certain sides here on this forum to answer. Not everything is about you dapper or directed primarily at you, but indirectly it goes toward you.

 

[Famine]

You said they, Libyans, all praised Sarkozy as a hero. Which is blatantly wrong (unsurprisingly).

You're quoting pro-Qaddafi loyalists. The people deposed by the Libyan NTC. The people whose installations we were shooting at. That's like asking Hiroshima survivors if World War II was a success.

I mean... wow. Just... wow.

Lets recap: First you said US had no role because everything the US did was under NATO. That was proven blatantly wrong. Then after stumbling over how the US was involved and not involved, affirming your self imposed contradictory assault, you claimed every Libyan hailed Sarkozy as a hero, which was just proven completely wrong. Neither time did you even try and defend your complete falsehoods, but you just digress down some other derogatory rabbit trail that just further solidifies your lack of a point in this argument.

Yeah, you've just not understood a single thing I've posted and wasted two weeks of your life building a straw man. I agree with Danoff's assessment.

 

[ChaosStar79]

From a military perspective, equal force absolutely doesn't matter - the point of having overwhelming military force is that it is overwhelming. You need to take out the people trying to take you out. Efficiency dictates you use a bullet, but if a Paveway does the job, it does the job. Probably six orders of magnitude more expensive, but if it saves a life on your side, good.

There is no-kill and there is kill. There is no overkill.

True enough . I guess there really can be no humane form of war and the faster you can end a war the better for all involved. I'd be hesitant to include WMD type weapons in my statement though.

The missile is probably more humane in terms of pain inflicted.

Also true.

I also don't think it particularly matters whether you think it is a war you can win. Many have waged war that they didn't think they could win - sometimes they even win. The soldiers at the Alamo didn't think they could win, and didn't have a plan to do so (and, of course, they didn't). But they waged their battle anyway and it mattered a great deal.

All that matters is the circumstances that lead up to the use of force in terms of whether you're on moral grounds. Then, of course, there is also the will to act, which is another story.

I can agree to disagree on these things. You both do have very valid points, though I may see it differently, I can't fault either of you on these comments.

Also, I really do hope that I don't come off (typically) sounding like an ass or someone that just wants to argue about stuff. I actually am interested in open debate with whoever has an informed opinion or is seeking one.

 

[GTsail]

...The United States doesn't have the resources to do something about all blatant injustice in the world. We do have the resources to do something about just about any one of them, but not all of them. We can't be world police, and so the president will HAVE to see blatant injustice in the world with the power and resources to do something about it and choose not to act.....

I agree that the United States has limited resources. This is why choices must be made.

If you were an advisor to President Obama back in February 2011, what would have been your advice to him about the Libyan conflict?

Would you have had the US abstain during the vote for UN resolution 1973?

Would you have declined to support the French military when they began their air strikes on March 19th?

Would you have refused to allow the US military to participate in NATO operations over Libya when they began shortly thereafter?

Or did you feel that the Libyan conflict was so important to US security, that you would have recommended an immediate attack on Gadhafi's forces?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Northstar]

How is Ron Paul not running away with the Republican nomination?

He's the only one that hasn't made a rock look smarter than the party.