Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Libyan War
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 87, 88, 89 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:04 am Post subject:

caniff wrote:

Space Bar wrote:

America's 1st Black President Invades Africa

Bill Clinton invaded Africa?

You're funny. Caniff's witticisms need an expanded platform.

asylum seeker wrote:

If it was a republican president I wonder if people like beck's would be so indignant about the air strikes. I didn't hear a lot of tea partiers mentioning the deficit when Bush was beating the drum for the much more expensive war in Iraq. They are such pawns of whatever agenda Fox news wants to push.

There was conservative opposition to those wars. Here's David Frum (a Canadian) calling conservatives who opposed the wars unpatriotic

http://old.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Unfortunately, conservatives (not neo-conservatives) do not have a meaningful presence in the media and those who are naturally inclined towards real conservatism are without a publication with sufficient exposure to capitalize on their disposition.

Furthermore, the Tea Party did not exist then. The ideological leaders of one faction of the Tea Party did oppose it for fiscal reasons (among others).

Even if those who supported the Iraq/Afgan invasion now oppose this attack it is not solely a sign of hypocrisy. A huge % of the American population now says that America should not have invaded Afghanistan (83%). It is possible for people to learn from mistakes and correct their opinions.

Some (like me) have opposed these wars - all of these wars - from an explicitly conservative position. They are not worth the financial cost. They are not worth the human cost. The radical reorganizing of foreign nations is not conservative.

Here's a fake conservative (Kristol):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/party-freedom_554820.html

Quote:

President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:06 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

mises wrote:

This intervention is ridiculous.

See?

See what?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:38 am Post subject:

So Obama says no ground troops. There will be loud calls for the deployment of peace keepers.

More Kristol:

Quote:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/20/bill-kristol-calls-for-u-s-ground-forces-in-libya/

The operation to create a no-fly zone in Libya has just begun, but already conservative Fox News pundit Bill Kristol is wishing the U.S. would send in ground troops "sooner rather than later."

U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday the "Odyssey Dawn" operation launched under a UN Security Council resolution was a "limited military action," unlike the regime change aims of the war against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

He pledged no U.S. troops would be deployed on the ground.

Fox News Chris Wallace asked Kristol Sunday if it was a mistake to limit the mission in Libya.

"Let's talk about the mission," Wallace began. "You heard Admiral Mullen, earlier in the show, say his orders are clear: protect the civilians, don't overthrow Gaddafi. That's not the point. Is that a mistake? Can we live with Gaddafi in any sort of power? He can create a lot of trouble."

"No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power," Kristol agreed. "And we won't leave Gaddafi in power."

Yet another reason to celebrate Mac/Palin not being in office. Obama was very reluctant to do this and I assume will be more reluctant to send in ground troops.

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:44 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

So Obama says no ground troops. There will be loud calls for the deployment of peace keepers. ...

Yet another reason to celebrate Mac/Palin not being in office. Obama was very reluctant to do this and I assume will be more reluctant to send in ground troops.

So when BO "reluctantly" sends in ground troops, what exactly will the reason to celebrate be?

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:47 am Post subject:

The neocon-liberal alliance.

Quote:

So if you're baffled by how Mr. "Change You Can Believe In" morphed into Mr. "More of the Same," you shouldn't really be surprised. George Bush left in disgrace and Barack Obama took his place, but he brought with him a group of foreign policy advisors whose basic world views were not that different from the people they were replacing. I'm not saying their attitudes were identical, but the similarities are probably more important than the areas of disagreement. Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn't really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.

So where does this leave us? For starters, Barack Obama now owns not one but two wars. He inherited a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and he chose to escalate instead of withdrawing. Instead of being George Bush's mismanaged blunder, Afghanistan became "Obama's War." And now he's taken on a second, potentially open-ended military commitment, after no public debate, scant consultation with Congress, without a clear articulation of national interest, and in the face of great public skepticism. Talk about going with a gut instinct.

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:52 am Post subject:

asylum seeker wrote:

Right.

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:54 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

The neocon-liberal alliance.

This just shows how such terms are almost meaningless.

I really prefer that people flesh out the issues with detail rather than just hurl these labels around.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:20 am Post subject:

Space Bar wrote:

On the other hand wrote:

The neocon-liberal alliance.

This just shows how such terms are almost meaningless.

I really prefer that people flesh out the issues with detail rather than just hurl these labels around.

Well, actually, in the article, he doesn't seem to be hurling labels aound in a meaningless fashion. He makes it quite clear which groups of people he's talking about being in alliance with each other.

Basically, by "liberal", he means the Obama administration. By "neocon", he means veterans of the Bush administration and their ideological allies. And it might be more accurate to say that he posits a "kinship" between these groups, rather than an outright alliance.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 am Post subject:

Space Bar wrote:

mises wrote:

So when BO "reluctantly" sends in ground troops, what exactly will the reason to celebrate be?

He won't unless it becomes like a Bosnia situation (ie a safe, secure, well-supported peace keeping mission). Obama is basically following the Clinton playbook.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:17 am Post subject:

beck's wrote:

Menimo 80: There is much controversy as to whether Obama was born in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

there is no controversy, just racist, idle speculation.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:18 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

The neocon-liberal alliance.

Quote:

Neo conservatism and liberal institutionalism are miles apart. I would expect more from Walt.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:22 am Post subject:

Menino80 wrote:

On the other hand wrote:

The neocon-liberal alliance.

Quote:

Neo conservatism and liberal institutionalism are miles apart. I would expect more from Walt.

Their positions on the War Powers Clause is about the same. No, wait, I'm sorry. Bush actually did get Congress to declare war in Iraq.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:34 am Post subject:

Stephen Walt wrote:

And who's the big winner here? Back in Beijing, China's leaders must be smiling as they watch Washington walk open-eyed into another potential quagmire.

Walt may know the Middle East, but I'm confident he doesn't understand the psychology of Zhongnanhai.

None of these wars are useful for China. Especially not the one where the West is backing rebels against a dictator.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:06 am Post subject:

News update 3/22/11 17:20 GMT

Misrata is under siege.

Quote:

Muammar Gaddafi's forces attacked two west Libyan towns, killing dozens while rebels were pinned down in the east and NATO tried to resolve a heated row over who should lead the Western air campaign.

Residents painted a grim picture of the situation in Misrata which has been under siege by Gaddafi loyalists for weeks, with doctors operating on people with bullet and shrapnel wounds in hospital corridors and tanks in the city center.

An F-15 went down.

Quote:

In the first apparent air force casualty of the campaign, a U.S. F-15E crashed in Libya overnight and its two crew members were rescued, the U.S. military said. The crash was likely caused by mechanical failure and not hostile fire, it said.

Rebel attacks have stalled.

Quote:

Rebels in east Libya were stuck just outside Ajdabiyah on Tuesday, making no further advance on the strategic town despite a third night of Western air strikes on the north African oil-producing state.

When asked why rebel units had not advanced toward their objective, which is the eventual taking of Tripoli, Ahmed al-Aroufi, a rebel fighter at the frontline, told Reuters: "Gaddafi has tanks and trucks with missiles."

NATO remains divided.

Quote:

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the intention was to transfer command to NATO, but France said Arab countries did not want the U.S.-led alliance in charge of the operation.

NATO officials resumed talks in Brussels on Tuesday after failing to reach agreement at fractious talks on Monday.

Some allies were now questioning whether a no-fly zone was necessary, given the damage already done by air strikes to Gaddafi's military capabilities, a NATO diplomat said, adding: "Yesterday's meeting became a little bit emotional."

Underlining the differences in the anti-Gaddafi coalition, Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said if agreement was not reached on a NATO command, Italy would resume control of the seven airbases it has made available to allied air forces.

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:25 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

You're funny. Caniff's witticisms need an expanded platform.

If I wasn't laughing I'd be crying.

Quote:

NATO Tomahawk missiles dropped on Libya total up to $186 million

As of Sunday evening, the number of Tomahawk missiles dropped by NATO forces � mainly from the U.S. thus far � on Libya stands at 124, according to Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. Joint Staff, and as reported by multiple news outlets.
According to The National Journal, each of those Tomahawk lobbed into Libya as part of �Operation Odyssey Dawn� cost up to $1.5 million:

For the U.S. military, the highest costs come in the form of pricey munitions, fuel for aircraft and combat pay for deployed troops � all factors that will pile up each day U.S. forces remain at the helm of the operation.

On the first day of strikes alone, U.S.-led forces launched from ships stationed off the Libyan coast 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost in the range of $1 million to $1.5 million apiece. That is $112 million to $168 million for the first day�s strike in missiles alone. The military will eventually refill its stockpile though those costs could be pushed off for months or more.

http://www.americanindependent.com/174695/nato-tomahawk-missiles-dropped-on-libya-total-up-to-186-million

Quote:

Those Tomahawk cruise missiles raining down on targets throughout Libya?

They're primarily manufactured by Raytheon, a large defense contractor that sells these weapons to the U.S. government for a pretty penny.

Military minded as it is, Raytheon also ranks among the great political forces in the United States, too, landing on OpenSecrets.org's "Heavy Hitters" list -- a distinction reserved for the companies, unions and other special interests that account for their political their cash using seven or eight figures.

In 2010, Massachusetts-based Raytheon spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government on a variety of issues. Meanwhile, in its lobbying disclosure reports filed with the federal government, it mentioned the word "missile," or some variation thereof, no fewer than 50 times.

The company also targets political candidates with its financial resources: Raytheon's employees and political action committee combined to contribute more than $2.17 million to federal-level candidates and parties during the 2010 election cycle. That's the most they've ever donated in a single election cycle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/ceo-3-21-2011.html

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 87, 88, 89 Next
Page 5 of 89

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe