We have had Libyan rebels speak proudly about the fact that they have members of al'Queda fighting with them against GoDaffy...
Has our government forgotten that we are actually in a DECLARED state of war against al'Queda? Do they realize that any weapons they send are REALLY and ACTUALLY going to be handed to al'Queda members by whatever representatives of the U.S. hand them out?
If this happens, there is NO WAY to look at it as anything other than TREASON by the highest members of our government AND military!!!
The answer isn't just NO... It HAS to be HELL NO!!!
I am asking this as a legitimate question, since I am not extremely deep into politics, but why is this any different than Bush's invasion of Iraq? Both were for humanitarian reasons, and as far as I know, President Obama was working with the UN but on the other hand although President Bush had Congressional approval, he did not have the approval of the UN.
I am not trying to start a fight, but I am trying to figure out why it was ok for Bush to do what he did, but why so wrong for Obama to work with the UN in Libya? If someone can explain it to me I would greatly appreciate it.
Bush: Felt he was enforcing UN resolutions related to WMD. Some dispute whether those resolutions really gave him the authority for the invasion. Some dispute the ambiguity of congressional authorization for the military action ultimately taken. The reasons for Iraq, as given, were multiple: WMD, humanitarian, fighting terrorists on their home turf, bringing democracy to the region. The legality of the war is debatable.
Obama: He doesn't call it a war (personally, I think any time you bomb another country, it's an act of war). It's enforcing UN resolutions ("no fly" zone). Some claim he doesn't need congressional authorization because we're treaty bound to enforce UN resolutions. Also, if the U.S. disengages within a certain time frame, some claim the War Powers Act will not have been violated.
Hope that helps a bit.
Personally, while I support the invasion in Iraq at the time, I'm now against it. I've become much more anti-interventionist since then. I'm opposed to our actions in Libya on the same grounds. Both wars are shady and probably illegal in my mind.
At a time of 14 trillion in debt and pressing domestic needs, this kind of use of our military seems ill-advised.
Ok, thanks Howard, so it appears in both situations there is and was walking on shaky ground on both of the presidents parts.
I can understand the concern of placing weapons in to rebels hands and I also have a strong feeling that if the overturn is successful, no matter what is said now you will see troops going in for "training" of their military to keep the peace, just like what happened in Iraq. I really don't see how it can be avoided.
Sally,
Another few differences:
In Iraq - Along with the above mentioned reasons, the main justification Bush used was the fact that Iraq (Hussein) was actively training and arming various Islamic terrorists in order to prepare them to engage in acts of terror within the borders of the United States. (Remember the training camps?) This constituted a direct threat to the safety of our Republic. Because of that, Bush was able to squeak past Congress because he could actually claim the attack fell under the War Powers Act. It was iffy, but he could have shown enough evidence to get it OK'd, even if there was a lot of grumbling about it.
In Libya - There is actually no evidence that there is any direct threat to our sovereign nation. (Qaddafi has always actually been VERY hostile to al'Queda and most other radical Islamists.) Because of this, Obama has no justifiable reason to claim that this falls under the War Powers Act. Also, the United States is only 'required' to militarily support the UN if all of the proper procedures are followed (which they weren't), and we always have the option of abstaining from the vote of the Security Council, which allows us to sit it out, so that part of someone else's answer wasn't quite correct: We don't HAVE to do it. One of the biggest problems with this action is the fact that Obama made a conscious decision to act as if a foreign political body (the U.N.) has more say in our military than our own Congress has. This is one of the many reasons that some people are demanding that impeachment proceedings be initiated... This action is WAY into the dark-gray area bordering on Treason. (If there were an imminent threat to our actual sovereign nation, that would be different.)
My last point is this:
The media is reporting that all of these 'uprisings' in the Middle East are simply the 'regular Joe's trying to turn their governments into something resembling ours. Unfortunately, what we are going to run into is that various off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood are going to work their way into these governments. They WANT democratic elections, because they know that once their people get on the ballots, they will win. At that point, the U.S. and Israel (as well as many other 'western' countries) are in BIG trouble!
Please take the time to research what these things are and mean:
(Stay away from YouTube in your research.)
Muslim Brotherhood;
Sharia Law; and
Islam
You will be shocked at what you find, as it will have little resemblance to what you have been hearing from the major media outlets...
John, you're not very up on your Muslim Brotherhood history and ideology, are you? To lump them in with AQ style Islamofasim is highly misinformed. In fact, Osama bin Laden has condemned the Muslim Brotherhood for betraying Jihad. MB is more like an Islamic version of the Christian Coalition or Moral Majority than any sort of terrorist group. A bit extreme, not terribly tolerant of secularism, but hardly a threat to the United States. People like Terry Jones or Fred Phelps are more offensive to the ideals of a free society than the Muslim Brotherhood.
Problem is, the original WCTI story explains that those 2200 Marines will be performing support operations on a ship...in the ocean...not in actually in Libya which the more opinionated story implies.
We do have CIA personnel on the ground in Libya directing airstrikes but, depending on how you want to parse it, that's not really boots on the ground in the sense that Americans typically think of it.
I don't want us to be in Libya either, but let's all start on firm factual ground before we argue, eh?
Interesting story in the Rochester D & C, today... As a sidebar to a story quantifying anti-war activity relative to RIT students, a campus spokesperson noted (among other things such as a sustainability program actually dealt with weapons systems- interesting euphemism) that the drones are controlled from installations in New York State.
Yes, I stand corrected on the Marines being on land there. They are simply preparing to do so. However, the CIA being there to direct attacks is having Americans on the ground there. Only difference is that it's usually Marines that do the laser-designating for strikes. CIA agents are doing it... Same thing IMO...
Howard... Sounds to me like you need to do some further digging on who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is and does. Unfortunately, it seems that you are one of the unfortunates that has been duped by the main stream media and their 'politically correct' stance on it.
Al'Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood are composed of different sects of the religion, so there is going to be a difference in their methods. (The Brotherhood is actually several sects that CAN work together as their ideologies are rather similar, but remember that Hamas is part of their group.)
I guess my suggestion to study the Muslim Brotherhood applies to you as well... Please, That's NOT meant to be offensive! We all need to understand what makes these people tick if we are going to protect ourselves!
Here is a good place to start: http://www.muslimhope.com/SectsOfIslam.htm
(They have less bias than many sites, but you'll want to search about the different groups and their different jihads.)
Just remember that some of these sects are actively trying to exterminate each other as well as the West...
John, Bush used 9/11 as a springboard to attack Iraq. War is war, whether it's Bush or Obama. Bush and Chaney were either misled, or they misled the nation as to WMD in Iraq. In my opinion, we do not belong in any foreign country that hasn't declared war on us.
We need to take care of our own before spending billions to enforce UN resolutions, let Europe fight for their oil.
I've said it before and say it again, these people have been killing each other for centuries, nothing we do will change that.
Are you referring to European civilization when you say that 'these people' have been fighting for centuries? If so, I couldn't agree more. European fighting over the centuries was brutal and largely absurd. Whole populations were driven into slaughter. War machines tore apart the landscape. And when the internecine killing wasn't enough, European civilization reached out to spread the violence all over the world in the form of racist, almost genocidal colonial activities. But I have a hunch that you are referring to the people of the Middle East.
John, my knowledge and research on this subject goes back many years and is comprised of many sources. I've been duped by nobody. And I'm quite confident of what I wrote. After 9/11 I made an especial study of Islam, especially the radical kind, and have continued to follow developments from various sources.
According to Al Jazeera, US Special Forces are on the ground in Eastern Libya training the rebel fighters how to use the new heat seeking rockets that are now in their possession.
Brandon, what I said was, these people have been killing each other for centuries. Your hunch was correct, but the difference is, the middle easteners are still killing each other. I fail to see how US intervention will stop it.
Supposedly 9/11 was an attack by a hostile foreign enemy, on U.S. soil. That had to be responded to, though I believe it was not done properly. We were not in any danger from Libya, so there was no justification for the Resident to order attacks. He did it under 'orders' from the UN, rather than through Congress.
As far as us in any war, I am in absolute, 100% agreement with you on this!
We also don't need to be sending/providing weapons to anybody over there. (or anywhere, for that matter!)
If I had any say in any of this, we would bring all of our soldiers, equipment, and supplies home by the quickest route, en mass...
Then, we could station all of the active members every 20 yards along our borders to stop everybody from entering our country except through one place on each coast like Ellis Island was. ZERO illegal immigration!
And you are right, we will never get them to stop their violence... A perfect example is the reaction to a Florida pastor exercising his rights to free speech, and lawful assembly. Those 'people' KILLED at least 25 human beings over a BOOK, and that is only 'so far'... They won't change...
Well, Howard, some people are willing to believe in the best of people, no matter what. I guess I applaud this stance. I often fail in it, as I usually look at the glass as being half empty.
The Muslim Brotherhood talks a very good talk. These people (Muslims) have been trying to take over the world for a very long time, so they have learned what to reveal, and what to hide. Unfortunately, millions of people are going to be blindsided when they reveal themselves for what they are and what they are working towards.
Al'Queda is focused primarily on destroying the U.S. first and foremost. The Muslim Brotherhood has their focus on Israel, but both groups are looking to do the same thing in the end. Those differing goals are what bin Laden confronted the M.B. over. His problem wasn't that they had turned away from jihad, but had decided on their own jihad. (Intifada) The name is different, but the tactics and goals are identical...
The M.B. is NOT made up of nice people, and much of the world will be quite shocked in the near future when they finally see what the M.B. is all about...
I'll end this discussion here, as I'm not convinced that I'm reaching anyone with the truth...
Well, Howard, some people are willing to believe in the best of people, no matter what. I guess I applaud this stance. I often fail in it, as I usually look at the glass as being half empty.
The Muslim Brotherhood talks a very good talk. These people (Muslims) have been trying to take over the world for a very long time, so they have learned what to reveal, and what to hide. Unfortunately, millions of people are going to be blindsided when they reveal themselves for what they are and what they are working towards.
Al'Queda is focused primarily on destroying the U.S. first and foremost. The Muslim Brotherhood has their focus on Israel, but both groups are looking to do the same thing in the end. Those differing goals are what bin Laden confronted the M.B. over. His problem wasn't that they had turned away from jihad, but had decided on their own jihad. (Intifada) The name is different, but the tactics and goals are identical...
The M.B. is NOT made up of nice people, and much of the world will be quite shocked in the near future when they finally see what the M.B. is all about...
I'll end this discussion here, as I'm not convinced that I'm reaching anyone with the truth...
"They" have not been killing each other for centuries. Until World War One, the Middle East was largely part of the Ottoman Empire or under the influence of various European Colonial systems. There were no more conflicts there than anywhere else in the world. After World War One and the defeat and break-up of the Ottoman Empire, everything changed.
We like to say that "they have been killing each other for centuries" because it puts us above them. It is intellectual laziness. It allows us to not have to even try to understand the many different influences and situations that have contributed to the problems in that region. Maybe if we tried to expend a little thought toward some manner of understanding, we'd have a better idea on how to act.
Brandon, I stand corrected, but as I said, American intervention will not stop them from killing each other.
All we will accomplish is more anti American sentiment in the region. Our own backyard needs work, we should clean that up first.
John, I can't help but to agree with you, but will go a step further, it is the goal of Islam to convert, or kill those who do not believe.
As I see it, there are several solutions, 1) let them annihlate Israel, or 2) nuke the whole region and be done with it. 3) leave them alone and pray they will leave us alone. 4) Protect our own borders and stop being world police, and tell the UN to take a hike.
Frank, I vote #4, but I'm sure Brandon doesn't agree. For some odd reason, he feels international conflicts are our domain, even though we were not attacked or provoked.
I also found it interesting what each NATO nation is bringing to this "police action". The U.S. is providing double the planes,ships and ammo that all other participants bring COMBINED!!
John Stone, I've stated that opinion often. Our best interests lie here at home. Let's rebuild our decaying infrastructure, let's protect our borders, and let's return to a quota system for immigration.
Arguing against intellectual laziness does not mean I support the actions in Libya (or any other country). It just means I don't believe we should so easily and lazily dismiss issues and whole regions with poorly informed ethnocentric bullshit. I partially support Frank's fouth option; I don't believe we alone should be the World's police. But I don't believe we should scrap the UN. I believe the UN needs to be reformed and strengthened so that the US is not the sole enforcer of UN policy.
And it's not intellectual laziness, it's conviction of one's beliefs and principles. That is what is truly wrong with our nation, no one wants to stand up for what they believe. And when they do, they are called names.
Chris, I knew someone would find humor in my last post, but do I, or anyone else, need to brush up on world history to understand the US is not the world's police force. I don't need a math teacher to explain why we can't afford to fight people who have done no harm to my homeland. And I sure as hell don't need a coronor to explain why our soldiers are dead.
Bud, I think intelluctual laziness is another term for "brain fart".
Why is this even a
Why is this even a question?!?
Is our government truly this IGNORANT?!?
We have had Libyan rebels speak proudly about the fact that they have members of al'Queda fighting with them against GoDaffy...
Has our government forgotten that we are actually in a DECLARED state of war against al'Queda? Do they realize that any weapons they send are REALLY and ACTUALLY going to be handed to al'Queda members by whatever representatives of the U.S. hand them out?
If this happens, there is NO WAY to look at it as anything other than TREASON by the highest members of our government AND military!!!
The answer isn't just NO... It HAS to be HELL NO!!!
When it comes to wars, we
When it comes to wars, we really hate to be left out.
impeach Obama , kick him out
impeach Obama , kick him out of office now.
I am asking this as a
I am asking this as a legitimate question, since I am not extremely deep into politics, but why is this any different than Bush's invasion of Iraq? Both were for humanitarian reasons, and as far as I know, President Obama was working with the UN but on the other hand although President Bush had Congressional approval, he did not have the approval of the UN.
I am not trying to start a fight, but I am trying to figure out why it was ok for Bush to do what he did, but why so wrong for Obama to work with the UN in Libya? If someone can explain it to me I would greatly appreciate it.
If I remember correctly, the
If I remember correctly, the invasion of Iraq was not real popular either.
Europe is more behind the Libyan involvement because this is where they get their oil from.
Seems to me that whenever we arm resistance fighters it doesn't work out well (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam).
"Seems to me that whenever we
"Seems to me that whenever we arm resistance fighters it doesn't work out well (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam)."
I have nothing to add to that, it's exactly right.
Sally, Bush: Felt he was
Sally,
Bush: Felt he was enforcing UN resolutions related to WMD. Some dispute whether those resolutions really gave him the authority for the invasion. Some dispute the ambiguity of congressional authorization for the military action ultimately taken. The reasons for Iraq, as given, were multiple: WMD, humanitarian, fighting terrorists on their home turf, bringing democracy to the region. The legality of the war is debatable.
Obama: He doesn't call it a war (personally, I think any time you bomb another country, it's an act of war). It's enforcing UN resolutions ("no fly" zone). Some claim he doesn't need congressional authorization because we're treaty bound to enforce UN resolutions. Also, if the U.S. disengages within a certain time frame, some claim the War Powers Act will not have been violated.
Hope that helps a bit.
Personally, while I support the invasion in Iraq at the time, I'm now against it. I've become much more anti-interventionist since then. I'm opposed to our actions in Libya on the same grounds. Both wars are shady and probably illegal in my mind.
At a time of 14 trillion in debt and pressing domestic needs, this kind of use of our military seems ill-advised.
Ok, thanks Howard, so it
Ok, thanks Howard, so it appears in both situations there is and was walking on shaky ground on both of the presidents parts.
I can understand the concern of placing weapons in to rebels hands and I also have a strong feeling that if the overturn is successful, no matter what is said now you will see troops going in for "training" of their military to keep the peace, just like what happened in Iraq. I really don't see how it can be avoided.
Sally, Another few
Sally,
Another few differences:
In Iraq - Along with the above mentioned reasons, the main justification Bush used was the fact that Iraq (Hussein) was actively training and arming various Islamic terrorists in order to prepare them to engage in acts of terror within the borders of the United States. (Remember the training camps?) This constituted a direct threat to the safety of our Republic. Because of that, Bush was able to squeak past Congress because he could actually claim the attack fell under the War Powers Act. It was iffy, but he could have shown enough evidence to get it OK'd, even if there was a lot of grumbling about it.
In Libya - There is actually no evidence that there is any direct threat to our sovereign nation. (Qaddafi has always actually been VERY hostile to al'Queda and most other radical Islamists.) Because of this, Obama has no justifiable reason to claim that this falls under the War Powers Act. Also, the United States is only 'required' to militarily support the UN if all of the proper procedures are followed (which they weren't), and we always have the option of abstaining from the vote of the Security Council, which allows us to sit it out, so that part of someone else's answer wasn't quite correct: We don't HAVE to do it. One of the biggest problems with this action is the fact that Obama made a conscious decision to act as if a foreign political body (the U.N.) has more say in our military than our own Congress has. This is one of the many reasons that some people are demanding that impeachment proceedings be initiated... This action is WAY into the dark-gray area bordering on Treason. (If there were an imminent threat to our actual sovereign nation, that would be different.)
My last point is this:
The media is reporting that all of these 'uprisings' in the Middle East are simply the 'regular Joe's trying to turn their governments into something resembling ours. Unfortunately, what we are going to run into is that various off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood are going to work their way into these governments. They WANT democratic elections, because they know that once their people get on the ballots, they will win. At that point, the U.S. and Israel (as well as many other 'western' countries) are in BIG trouble!
Please take the time to research what these things are and mean:
(Stay away from YouTube in your research.)
Muslim Brotherhood;
Sharia Law; and
Islam
You will be shocked at what you find, as it will have little resemblance to what you have been hearing from the major media outlets...
LOL... Oh, and we already
LOL... Oh, and we already have at least 2,200 marines in Libya, contrary to what you have heard!
John, you're not very up on
John, you're not very up on your Muslim Brotherhood history and ideology, are you? To lump them in with AQ style Islamofasim is highly misinformed. In fact, Osama bin Laden has condemned the Muslim Brotherhood for betraying Jihad. MB is more like an Islamic version of the Christian Coalition or Moral Majority than any sort of terrorist group. A bit extreme, not terribly tolerant of secularism, but hardly a threat to the United States. People like Terry Jones or Fred Phelps are more offensive to the ideals of a free society than the Muslim Brotherhood.
John, the only reference to
John, the only reference to 2200 Marines actually being in Libya that I could find was this story and various trackbacks, or plagiarisms of it:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34754
which credits this story as their reference:
http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
Problem is, the original WCTI story explains that those 2200 Marines will be performing support operations on a ship...in the ocean...not in actually in Libya which the more opinionated story implies.
We do have CIA personnel on the ground in Libya directing airstrikes but, depending on how you want to parse it, that's not really boots on the ground in the sense that Americans typically think of it.
I don't want us to be in Libya either, but let's all start on firm factual ground before we argue, eh?
Interesting story in the
Interesting story in the Rochester D & C, today... As a sidebar to a story quantifying anti-war activity relative to RIT students, a campus spokesperson noted (among other things such as a sustainability program actually dealt with weapons systems- interesting euphemism) that the drones are controlled from installations in New York State.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110401/NEWS01/104010328/1…
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/national_guardsmen_in_sy…
Yes, I stand corrected on the
Yes, I stand corrected on the Marines being on land there. They are simply preparing to do so. However, the CIA being there to direct attacks is having Americans on the ground there. Only difference is that it's usually Marines that do the laser-designating for strikes. CIA agents are doing it... Same thing IMO...
Howard... Sounds to me like you need to do some further digging on who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is and does. Unfortunately, it seems that you are one of the unfortunates that has been duped by the main stream media and their 'politically correct' stance on it.
Al'Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood are composed of different sects of the religion, so there is going to be a difference in their methods. (The Brotherhood is actually several sects that CAN work together as their ideologies are rather similar, but remember that Hamas is part of their group.)
I guess my suggestion to study the Muslim Brotherhood applies to you as well... Please, That's NOT meant to be offensive! We all need to understand what makes these people tick if we are going to protect ourselves!
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.muslimhope.com/SectsOfIslam.htm
(They have less bias than many sites, but you'll want to search about the different groups and their different jihads.)
Just remember that some of these sects are actively trying to exterminate each other as well as the West...
John, Bush used 9/11 as a
John, Bush used 9/11 as a springboard to attack Iraq. War is war, whether it's Bush or Obama. Bush and Chaney were either misled, or they misled the nation as to WMD in Iraq. In my opinion, we do not belong in any foreign country that hasn't declared war on us.
We need to take care of our own before spending billions to enforce UN resolutions, let Europe fight for their oil.
I've said it before and say it again, these people have been killing each other for centuries, nothing we do will change that.
Are you referring to European
Are you referring to European civilization when you say that 'these people' have been fighting for centuries? If so, I couldn't agree more. European fighting over the centuries was brutal and largely absurd. Whole populations were driven into slaughter. War machines tore apart the landscape. And when the internecine killing wasn't enough, European civilization reached out to spread the violence all over the world in the form of racist, almost genocidal colonial activities. But I have a hunch that you are referring to the people of the Middle East.
John, my knowledge and
John, my knowledge and research on this subject goes back many years and is comprised of many sources. I've been duped by nobody. And I'm quite confident of what I wrote. After 9/11 I made an especial study of Islam, especially the radical kind, and have continued to follow developments from various sources.
According to Al Jazeera, US
According to Al Jazeera, US Special Forces are on the ground in Eastern Libya training the rebel fighters how to use the new heat seeking rockets that are now in their possession.
...
...
That's the CIA, Kevin.
That's the CIA, Kevin. Sounds just like Afghanistan in the 1980's. That turned out to be a great idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html
Brandon, what I said was,
Brandon, what I said was, these people have been killing each other for centuries. Your hunch was correct, but the difference is, the middle easteners are still killing each other. I fail to see how US intervention will stop it.
Supposedly 9/11 was an attack
Supposedly 9/11 was an attack by a hostile foreign enemy, on U.S. soil. That had to be responded to, though I believe it was not done properly. We were not in any danger from Libya, so there was no justification for the Resident to order attacks. He did it under 'orders' from the UN, rather than through Congress.
As far as us in any war, I am in absolute, 100% agreement with you on this!
We also don't need to be sending/providing weapons to anybody over there. (or anywhere, for that matter!)
If I had any say in any of this, we would bring all of our soldiers, equipment, and supplies home by the quickest route, en mass...
Then, we could station all of the active members every 20 yards along our borders to stop everybody from entering our country except through one place on each coast like Ellis Island was. ZERO illegal immigration!
And you are right, we will never get them to stop their violence... A perfect example is the reaction to a Florida pastor exercising his rights to free speech, and lawful assembly. Those 'people' KILLED at least 25 human beings over a BOOK, and that is only 'so far'... They won't change...
Well, Howard, some people are
Well, Howard, some people are willing to believe in the best of people, no matter what. I guess I applaud this stance. I often fail in it, as I usually look at the glass as being half empty.
The Muslim Brotherhood talks a very good talk. These people (Muslims) have been trying to take over the world for a very long time, so they have learned what to reveal, and what to hide. Unfortunately, millions of people are going to be blindsided when they reveal themselves for what they are and what they are working towards.
Al'Queda is focused primarily on destroying the U.S. first and foremost. The Muslim Brotherhood has their focus on Israel, but both groups are looking to do the same thing in the end. Those differing goals are what bin Laden confronted the M.B. over. His problem wasn't that they had turned away from jihad, but had decided on their own jihad. (Intifada) The name is different, but the tactics and goals are identical...
The M.B. is NOT made up of nice people, and much of the world will be quite shocked in the near future when they finally see what the M.B. is all about...
I'll end this discussion here, as I'm not convinced that I'm reaching anyone with the truth...
Well, Howard, some people are
Well, Howard, some people are willing to believe in the best of people, no matter what. I guess I applaud this stance. I often fail in it, as I usually look at the glass as being half empty.
The Muslim Brotherhood talks a very good talk. These people (Muslims) have been trying to take over the world for a very long time, so they have learned what to reveal, and what to hide. Unfortunately, millions of people are going to be blindsided when they reveal themselves for what they are and what they are working towards.
Al'Queda is focused primarily on destroying the U.S. first and foremost. The Muslim Brotherhood has their focus on Israel, but both groups are looking to do the same thing in the end. Those differing goals are what bin Laden confronted the M.B. over. His problem wasn't that they had turned away from jihad, but had decided on their own jihad. (Intifada) The name is different, but the tactics and goals are identical...
The M.B. is NOT made up of nice people, and much of the world will be quite shocked in the near future when they finally see what the M.B. is all about...
I'll end this discussion here, as I'm not convinced that I'm reaching anyone with the truth...
"They" have not been killing
"They" have not been killing each other for centuries. Until World War One, the Middle East was largely part of the Ottoman Empire or under the influence of various European Colonial systems. There were no more conflicts there than anywhere else in the world. After World War One and the defeat and break-up of the Ottoman Empire, everything changed.
We like to say that "they have been killing each other for centuries" because it puts us above them. It is intellectual laziness. It allows us to not have to even try to understand the many different influences and situations that have contributed to the problems in that region. Maybe if we tried to expend a little thought toward some manner of understanding, we'd have a better idea on how to act.
Brandon, I stand corrected,
Brandon, I stand corrected, but as I said, American intervention will not stop them from killing each other.
All we will accomplish is more anti American sentiment in the region. Our own backyard needs work, we should clean that up first.
John, I can't help but to agree with you, but will go a step further, it is the goal of Islam to convert, or kill those who do not believe.
As I see it, there are several solutions, 1) let them annihlate Israel, or 2) nuke the whole region and be done with it. 3) leave them alone and pray they will leave us alone. 4) Protect our own borders and stop being world police, and tell the UN to take a hike.
Frank, I vote #4, but I'm
Frank, I vote #4, but I'm sure Brandon doesn't agree. For some odd reason, he feels international conflicts are our domain, even though we were not attacked or provoked.
I also found it interesting what each NATO nation is bringing to this "police action". The U.S. is providing double the planes,ships and ammo that all other participants bring COMBINED!!
John Stone, I've stated that opinion often. Our best interests lie here at home. Let's rebuild our decaying infrastructure, let's protect our borders, and let's return to a quota system for immigration.
Here's the surest way to
Here's the surest way to destroy the United States: Keep wasting American lives and money on endless, no-win conflicts in the Middle East.
Arguing against intellectual
Arguing against intellectual laziness does not mean I support the actions in Libya (or any other country). It just means I don't believe we should so easily and lazily dismiss issues and whole regions with poorly informed ethnocentric bullshit. I partially support Frank's fouth option; I don't believe we alone should be the World's police. But I don't believe we should scrap the UN. I believe the UN needs to be reformed and strengthened so that the US is not the sole enforcer of UN policy.
Brandon, we don't need any
Brandon, we don't need any information, the status quo has got to go, I beleive the future of the US depends on it.
'Brandon, we don't need any
'Brandon, we don't need any information.'
Spoken like a true 21st Century American.
Chris said "'Brandon, we
Chris said "'Brandon, we don't need any information.'
Spoken like a true 21st Century American. "
"we'll find out what's in the health bill after we pass it"- Nancy Pelosi, a true 21st century American.
And it's not intellectual
And it's not intellectual laziness, it's conviction of one's beliefs and principles. That is what is truly wrong with our nation, no one wants to stand up for what they believe. And when they do, they are called names.
Chris, I knew someone would
Chris, I knew someone would find humor in my last post, but do I, or anyone else, need to brush up on world history to understand the US is not the world's police force. I don't need a math teacher to explain why we can't afford to fight people who have done no harm to my homeland. And I sure as hell don't need a coronor to explain why our soldiers are dead.
Bud, I think intelluctual laziness is another term for "brain fart".