So how did we end up in another...

[Cultcha]

war again?



And isn't the U.S. broke? Where dem get money to wage another war?

So I'm just curious, why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize exactly? ...... Someone? ....... Anyone?

[Tulip]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

I asjked in another thread If I was being naive.

And yes we are broke and too spread out to go to war. Aside from me taking Obama at his word about this, it really isn't feasible anyway. The military would have to revive the draft.

Anyway, who is he shaking hands with? If that's Gaddafi, he has spent a whoooooollllllle lot of time tanning. Is there some new conflict i don't know about yet or is this a famous person who I do not recognize?

[Cultcha]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

That is indeed Colonel Gadaffi shaking hands with POTUS not so long ago. It's not a good shot. A rather large shadow cast on the Colonel's face.

[Derek]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

The US is broke in terms of money for schools, roads, welfare, hospitals etc.
But 'they' can find money for war.

War has profitable returns.

[Tulip]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

Well KFM, I'm just going to fall back, but I don't think we got it like that. The last time I felt any confidence was during the Persian Gulf War when Sr. was in charge. I must say we did go in, kick [censored] quick, and come home. I don't want to give it up but I will concede that.

We are not even trying to buck up with the right country from whence our 9/11 came now. Well, just barely. This is so retarded. At any rate, ammunition is way too low to be talking about going to war so I'll just wait and see what happens. That's all I can do anyway is wait.

[Derek]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tulip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well KFM, I'm just going to fall back, but I don't think we got it like that. The last time I felt any confidence was during the Persian Gulf War when Sr. was in charge. I must say we did go in, kick [censored] quick, and come home. I don't want to give it up but I will concede that.

We are not even trying to buck up with the right country from whence our 9/11 came now. Well, just barely. This is so retarded. At any rate, ammunition is way too low to be talking about going to war so I'll just wait and see what happens. That's all I can do anyway is wait. </div></div>


Nowhere is more overdue a change of 'leadership' than Saudi Arabia and its truly grotesque 'House of Saud'.

The hypocrisy is shocking with their support for the Arab League's call for a no-fly zone over Libya to 'protect the protestors' while, at the same time, the Saudi army was being sent into Bahrain, to violently suppress the peaceful protests there, along with 'police' sent from the United Arab Emirates.

The American Fifth Fleet is located off Bahrain and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with the country's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa on March 12th, only days before the Saudi and UAE troops moved in with tanks and weapons supplied by the United States and Britain.

[Wahalla]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

The US was the power that created Libya at the end of WWII in light of soviet attempt to get their own colony and the UK, France and Italy splitting it.

Gaddaffi is not a pleasant person. He has butchered his people for more than thirty years, he destroyed the capacity for Libyans to breath, he has taken away yheir right to drink beer, he destroyed the country quasi democrasy and put in a direct demopcrasy in line with that of Cuba, claiming that these instiution over rule all laws. Yet his word overrules all pronouncements happens without his rubber stamp..

The counntry is a wash with money, yet there is no distributive structure

It has become a Kafkaeque nightmare under him. Its courts are underminded by the familiy its, rules are

[Stormmey]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">war again?



And isn't the U.S. broke? Where dem get money to wage another war?

So I'm just curious, why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize exactly? ...... Someone? ....... Anyone?
</div></div>

That shadow give me the <span style="font-style: italic">shivers</span> money will be had after the war me thinks

[Derek]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stormmey1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">war again?



And isn't the U.S. broke? Where dem get money to wage another war?

So I'm just curious, why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize exactly? ...... Someone? ....... Anyone?
</div></div>

That shadow give me the <span style="font-style: italic">shivers</span> money will be had after the war me thinks </div></div>

The French usually leave the US and Britain to get on with it. But this time the French sent bombers. Why?

[johnnycakes]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

In U.S policy the military budget has priority over health care, hunger, poverty anything.

U.S policy is determined by the people we are given to elect from the two parties of capitalism.

Barak Obama is a member of the Democrat Party.
which follows what they are told to do by the corporations who bribe them.

The U.S. has an economic Empire it must control by threats and the use of force.

Khaddafy is no particular threat but he is an easy enemy. he has already been demonized so the incredibly historically amnesiac and dumbed-down American electorate is all for yet another unwarranted invasion of another sovereign country.

You VOTED for this in case you don't remember that either.

If you don't understand what U.S foreign policy is all about because you're too busy watching American Idol and watching Faux News, then please don't act like this is such a shocking thing.

The only reason anyone is surprised or upset at U.S militarism is because of willful ignorance.

My favorite analogy is the big family in which it is discovered that the father is molesting the neighbors kids and the family is in a state of denial.
&quot;He wouldn't do that, he's our father&quot;

As a few have pointed out: what about Saudi Arabia, what about Bahrain?
What about Biafra, the Sudan, all the starving babies in Africa?

The United States is NOT about doing good in the world.

We are not the world's policeman.
We are the world's child molestors.

And in our magnificent ignorance and denial we WILL reelect Obama or some other world molestor.

Bend over and spread 'em world. Here we come again.

[Magician]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">war again?</div></div>

It's only war if you define it that way. They call it 'an operation', I'm sure you will hear the words 'liberation' and 'freedom' being thrown in for good measure.

Does Qaddafi need to go. Absolutely. Reagan should have taken care of it in '86. We wouldn't have this problem today.

[johnnycakes]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Magix</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kotch_Foot_Milo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">war again?</div></div>

It's only war if you define it that way. They call it 'an operation', I'm sure you will hear the words 'liberation' and 'freedom' being thrown in for good measure.

Does Qaddafi need to go. Absolutely. Reagan should have taken care of it in '86. We wouldn't have this problem today. </div></div>

Well Magix,
Reagan did try . He attempted an assassination of Qaddafi (illegal under international and U.S law) and killed about 40 civilians including Qaddafi's adopted daugher and almost his wife and other children in the area bombed. Yeah Reagan was a real fn hero.

He might have gone after Qaddafi except that he was busy invading Grenada after telling 19 different lies to the American people to justify the invasion. he was also involved in overthrowing the government in Surinam, illegally fighting the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua, paying for the training and implementing of massive torture, the killing of an archbishop and the raping and killing of U.S nuns in El Salvador, working to overthrow the government of the Seychelles and.......


Yeah, Reagan was just about the best president we ever had, brutal, stupid, ill-informed and not in his right mind due to advanced Alzheimer's for at least the second half of his second term in office .

A truly representative president.

[SmoothOperator]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

My take...

“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again”

[johnnycakes]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My take...

“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again”
</div></div>


So true. This enthusiasm and euphoria in the United States over these rebellions is destined to be rather short lived as these countries will be going right back to one form of totalitarianism or the other. Most assuredly they will all keep or be pushed into keeping the most oppressive and totalitarian institution they have always been forced to live with and that is top-down-the-boss-tells-you-what-to-do-and-how-much-you'll- earn-and-shut-up-or-starve capitalism.

Yeah, hoooooray!
The tyrant is dead!
Long live the new tyrant!!


35 years until the Singularity and the end of this stuff.

[johnnycakes]

Re: So how did we end up in another...

Here, from ZNET is a good analysis of the situation in Libya, one you will not find in the corporate media most rely on for their misinformation on U.S foreign policy.




UN Declares War On Libya
UN resolution goes far beyond no-fly zone to allow “all necessary measures” against Qaddafi.
By Phyllis Bennis

Sunday, March 20, 2011
Change Text Size a- | A+
Phyllis Bennis's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace


Libya’s opposition movement faces a ruthless military assault. They have already paid a far higher price in lost and broken lives than activists in any of the other democratic uprisings shaping this year’s Arab Spring. They are desperate. So it is not surprising that they have urged, demanded, pleaded for international support from the powerful countries and institutions most able to provide immediate military aid, even if it threatens their independence. Yesterday the UN Security Council gave them what they asked for.

Or did it? The legitimacy of the Libyan protesters’ demand does not mean that the decision by the United Nations and the powerful countries behind it was legitimate as well. The Libyan opposition, or at least those speaking for it, asked for a no-fly zone, for protection from the Qaddafi regime’s air force, to allow them to take on and defeat their dictatorship on their own terms. Many of us opposed that idea, for a host of reasons including the dangers of escalation and the threat of a new U.S. war in the Middle East. But whatever one thinks about that demand, the Security Council resolution went far beyond a no-fly zone. Instead, the United Nations has essentially declared war on Libya.

[Note: Friday morning EDT, Libyan Foreign Minister Mousa Kusa announced a ceasefire. Early reports have not shown any change on the ground, and the ceasefire claim focused on preventing the division of the country rather than protecting civilians. But serious or not, the ceasefire claim should be tested, and answered with an immediate halt in U.S.-European-NATO war preparations. New diplomatic efforts should be launched under the auspices of regional governments and organizations, aimed at ending the Qaddafi regime’s brutal control and establishing real democracy in Libya. Answering a ceasefire declaration, even if not yet implemented, with a military escalation is the opposite of what is needed. What we need is both negotiations and accountability – not greater militarization.]

Protecting Civilians or Ousting Qaddafi?

While the UN resolution was taken in the name of protecting civilians, it authorizes a level of direct U.S., British, French, NATO and other international military intervention far beyond the “no-fly zone but no foreign intervention” that the rebels wanted. Its real goal, evident in the speeches that followed the Security Council’s March 17th evening vote, is to ensure that “Qaddafi must go,” — as so many ambassadors described it. Resolution 1973 is about regime change, to be carried by the Pentagon and NATO with Arab League approval, instead of by home-grown Libyan opposition.

The resolution calls for a no-fly zone, as well as taking “all necessary measures… to protect civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” The phrase “all necessary measures” is understood to include air strikes, ground, and naval strikes to supplement the call for a no-fly zone designed to keep Qaddafi’s air force out of the skies. The U.S. took credit for the escalation in military authority, with Ambassador Susan Rice as well as other Obama administration officials claiming their earlier hesitation on supporting the UN resolution was based on an understanding of the limitations of a no-fly zone in providing real protection to [in this case Libyan] civilians. It’s widely understood that a no-fly zone is most often the first step towards broader military engagement, so adding the UN license for unlimited military escalation was crucial to getting the U.S. on board. The “all necessary measures” language also appears to be the primary reason five Security Council members abstained on the resolution. For Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil, that phrase meant giving the Pentagon and NATO a blank check backed by UN legitimacy. Unfortunately, their unease was not strong enough to result in opposition to the resolution; the collective abstention of the five still allowed the resolution to pass with a ten-zero vote in favor.

Some supporters of the resolution (which sadly included South Africa) insisted on explicitly excluding a “foreign occupation force.” But in the real world, that prohibition means little. Any U.S., British, or French troops arriving in Libya could easily be disguised as an “assistance team” or “training mission” or any of a host of well-honed diplomatic pseudonyms for what would otherwise be easily identified as foreign occupation forces. The language was designed to assuage regional and international concerns that the UN resolution threatened to turn the Libyan opposition’s struggle into a third US-NATO war in the Middle East.

But in fact the UN resolution threatens exactly that. The resolution’s focus on immediate military engagement on behalf of the rebels (exactly what led to a deafening celebration in opposition-held Benghazi when the vote was announced) threatens to sideline the referral of the Qaddafi regime’s crimes to the International Criminal Court and other potential pressure points, in favor of escalating the militarization of the entire region and internationalizing the military battle. Imposition of a no-fly zone will not have any impact on the regime’s tank and artillery assaults currently underway, but it is likely to be the first international engagement. That means the first U.S. (or French or British, both of which are rumored to be trying to out-run the Pentagon as first to engage in Libya) military action will likely be bombing Libyan air defenses. If one of those U.S. or British or French planes is shot down, leading to a NATO pilot or bomber team ending up in Qaddafi’s custody, it’s a pretty good bet that special forces or other ground troops would quickly be deployed to rescue the captured airmen. Under those circumstances, the claim so often heard that this resolution “allows everything except boots on the ground,” will be quickly proven untrue. U.S. or other NATO boots on the ground may yet be in store for Libya.

Dangers: dividing Libya, military stalemate, or…?

There is a significant danger that the engagement of international military forces in what is shaping up as a civil war in Libya could result in a longer-term stalemate, perhaps based on the division of the country between the regime-controlled western sector, and the rebel-held east. In fact, the text of the UN resolution seems to anticipate the likelihood that international military involvement will go on for a long time. It calls on governments participating in the military attacks in Libya to keep the UN secretary-general informed of their actions, and asks the SG to “report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter” on implementation of the resolution. That is not how you describe a short-term effort to help end an urgent crisis.

There continues to be breathtaking hypocrisy from the U.S. and its allies in responding to the disparate Arab movements. The U.S. demanded not only that the Arab League endorse any authorization to use force in Libya, but also that Arab countries agree to actually participate in any UN-authorized or NATO-led military action. Apparently at least two governments from Arab Gulf states have agreed. Qatar is one of them. The other likely one is United Arab Emirates, who along with Saudi Arabia, just sent hundreds of troops into democracy-shaken Bahrain, to help the king there keep his monarchy’s hold on absolute power. The U.S., fearful of losing Bahrain’s strategic port as home for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has yet to condemn the foreign troops imported to Bahrain to suppress the democracy protesters. So far, the Obama administration’s only response to the soldiers pouring into Bahrain has been to urge the heavily armed foreign troops to support dialogue between the Bahraini people and their discredited king.

Learning from history

Thirty years ago the U.S. decision to arm and strengthen Saddam Hussein’s weaker Iraqi side against the stronger Iranian side kept the Iran-Iraq War going, U.S. war profiteers wealthy, and young Iranians and Iraqis dying, far longer than might otherwise have been the case. Soon after, the U.S. bribed and threatened Security Council members to get most of them to endorse a U.S. war against Iraq. Then in 1991 George Bush used a false humanitarian claim to justify imposing a “U.S.-UK only” no-fly zone in already war-ravaged Iraq, without even bothering going to the UN..

Today is not quite 1991, and Libya is not quite Iraq. The decision made in the Security Council yesterday may not lead to a third U.S. war in the Middle East. It may not even lead to a long military stalemate or a permanent division of Libyan territory. But the new resolution brings all those dangers closer.

The Libyan opposition, or at least much of it, has made a legitimate demand for international support; for all the right humanitarian reasons, many people in many parts of the world have supported their right to some kind of support. Governments, however, are not people, and do not make strategic decisions for humanitarian reasons. Governments do not use scarce resources and most especially do not deploy military force, to achieve humanitarian goals. So the cold strategic calculations of powerful governments cannot be viewed as a legitimate response to the humanitarian needs of Libya’s people or the humanitarian impulses of international civil society.

The Libyan opposition faced – and faces – a brutal regime willing to risk international opprobrium to escalate military force against its population. One wishes that there was a global, civil society-based protection force, perhaps modeled on the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War, capable of responding and providing serious protection to civilians facing such an assault. But such a force does not yet exist. One might wish that regional neighbors such as Tunisia and especially Egypt, where new governments struggle to gain and keep the support of their newly empowered populations, were willing and able to provide sufficient military assistance to Libya’s democratic forces, putting their military power, now at least partly under popular control, at the disposal of the regional democratic movement rising across the Arab world.

There may be new, not yet thought of ways of providing real solidarity to desperate movements, that do not threaten the authenticity and independence of the Libyan – and other – branches of these expanding Arab democratic revolutions. But yesterday’s UN resolution is not the way. The UN Charter calls for ending the scourge of war, not globalizing it.

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN.