|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This just in from Rolling Stone Mag, of all places. US intervention in Libya is supporting Jihadists.
America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.
In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/u-s-bombs-libya-helps-jihadists-20110321 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's supposed to be mission creep not mission race:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1
| Quote: |
The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.
According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people�s will."
The term "installing" suggests the goal of regime change. |
Yes. That will require ground troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
This just in from Rolling Stone Mag, of all places. US intervention in Libya is supporting Jihadists.
America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.
In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/u-s-bombs-libya-helps-jihadists-20110321 |
That article doesn't support your hysterical arguement. Here is the key part of it:
| Quote: |
| Many easterners feared the U.S. would not allow Qadhafi's regime to fall and therefore viewed direct confrontation with the GOL [Government of Libya] in the near-term as a fool's errand.... Fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers. |
And now the USA is clearly not backing Qadhafi. What isn't clear is how religious the rebels are or if there is any religious leadership, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
It's supposed to be mission creep not mission race:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1
| Quote: |
The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.
According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people�s will."
The term "installing" suggests the goal of regime change. |
Yes. That will require ground troops. |
Mises, you're intelligent. You really don't think Obama will send in ground troops to remove Qadhafi do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
So the War Powers Clause of one nation is the defining policy within the study of international politics?
Do you think the LIs in the administration will continue to support an engagement past 90 days? Do you think the LI scholars will support this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. Of course. They'll be called peace keepers. It is entirely possible, if not likely. We'll need to "support the transitional government" (I could write State Debt press releases eh?). Maybe America will get out of supplying troops and it will be Canadians, Brits, French and a few Poles for diversity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| beck's wrote: |
This just in from Rolling Stone Mag, of all places. US intervention in Libya is supporting Jihadists.
America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.
In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/u-s-bombs-libya-helps-jihadists-20110321 |
That article doesn't support your hysterical arguement. Here is the key part of it:
| Quote: |
| Many easterners feared the U.S. would not allow Qadhafi's regime to fall and therefore viewed direct confrontation with the GOL [Government of Libya] in the near-term as a fool's errand.... Fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers. |
|
Exactly. Ghaddaffi choked Darnah in particular because of some old tribal feud, no investment, huge unemployment leaving young lads with no hope of getting married. I do wonder how they are perceiving things now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan who heads up al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, supports the uprising in Libya. He said that removing Gaddafi as well as other Middle Eastern tyrants is �a step to reach the goal of every Muslim, which is to make the word of Allah the highest." What he means by this is a country ruled by Sharia.
The new Islamic state will be hostile to the US.
�We have to get rid of our inferiority complex and free ourselves from the West,� said al-Libi.
Every Islamic nut case, from al-Qaeda leaders to the mullahs in Iran, have supported the uprisings in Libya and elsewhere. Hiezbollah�s Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah told the people of Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen that Allah would grant them victory �if you persist in your jihad.�
What will result from this will not be pluralistic democracies that guarantee the rights of their people and that are friendly toward the West, but Islamic states that hate the Great Satan.
US intervention will have helped to bring this about. Make no mistake about it. What Obama is doing is helping to expand the Caliphate. He is aiding the same groups who send suicide bombers to kill American troops in Iraq.
Gadaffi is no saint. He is a brutal dictator but what will replace him will be worse. At least Gadaffi abandoned his nuclear ambitions. The new Islamist leaders will not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan who heads up al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, supports the uprising in Libya. He said that removing Gaddafi as well as other Middle Eastern tyrants is �a step to reach the goal of every Muslim, which is to make the word of Allah the highest." What he means by this is a country ruled by Sharia.
The new Islamic state will be hostile to the US.
�We have to get rid of our inferiority complex and free ourselves from the West,� said al-Libi.
Every Islamic nut case, from al-Qaeda leaders to the mullahs in Iran, have supported the uprisings in Libya and elsewhere. Hiezbollah�s Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah told the people of Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen that Allah would grant them victory �if you persist in your jihad.�
What will result from this will not be pluralistic democracies that guarantee the rights of their people and that are friendly toward the West, but Islamic states that hate the Great Satan.
US intervention will have helped to bring this about. Make no mistake about it. What Obama is doing is helping to expand the Caliphate. He is aiding the same groups who send suicide bombers to kill American troops in Iraq.
Gadaffi is no saint. He is a brutal dictator but what will replace him will be worse. At least Gadaffi abandoned his nuclear ambitions. The new Islamist leaders will not. |
Dude, you don't get it. Think about it. Why would al-qaeda NOT back the protesters in any of those countries? AQ isn't moronic, it's jumping on the bandwagon.
And in a similar vein, of course Hizballah is supporting the movements. It's populist! It has common sense too.
Your fears are based on very little. I really don't even know why I'm responding to such drivel. Ok, that's a lie, I do know why: I'm bored at work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
buncheon bum. You are too condescending for words. I am sorry about your boredom. You know what they say, people who are bored are boring. I am never bored at work. If I was, I would find something interesting to do.
Lets be clear here. What possible goal does the US have in Libya? Gadaffi is no threat to the US. He has given up his nuclear ambitions. Your global government buddy, Obama, went to war, not with the approval of congress or the American people but on the say so of the Security Council in a vote that was far from unanimous. The same day he went on vacation to South America. He is even more condescending than you.
Sure Gadaffi is killing his own people. That's the sort of thing that happens in Cuba, the Ivory Coast, Iran and North Korea. You expect the US to jump into every conflict in the globe at a time when the American National Debt is through the roof? The US did that in Iraq and to what end? Do you see, in your dewey eyes, that the rebels are led by another Thomas Jefferson? Far from it, Dude.
American soldiers and treasure should only be spent when there are clear goals and when American interests are threatened. In this case they are not. American lives should never be spent at the bidding of a World Government. Let's not forget that this World Government, the UN, had Libya on its Human Rights Commission. And we are going to war at the bequest of this sham?
Of course AQ is 'jumping on the bandwagon.' My concern is that the US is aiding this Islamic bandwagon, Dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
| buncheon bum. You are too condescending for words. I am sorry about your boredom. You know what they say, people who are bored are boring. I am never bored at work. If I was, I would find something interesting to do. |
dumb ass remarks based on nothing but 100% speculation deserve condescending replies.
And congrats on never being bored at work.
| Quote: |
| Lets be clear here. What possible goal does the US have in Libya? Gadaffi is no threat to the US. He has given up his nuclear ambitions. Your global government buddy, Obama, went to war, not with the approval of congress or the American people but on the say so of the Security Council in a vote that was far from unanimous. The same day he went on vacation to South America. He is even more condescending than you. |
Going to a summit in South America=vacation? Interesting. As others have noted on this thread, he does not need the approval of Congress. And 15-0 is "far from unanimous"? Well, we'll disagree on those semantics.
| Quote: |
| Sure Gadaffi is killing his own people. That's the sort of thing that happens in Cuba, the Ivory Coast, Iran and North Korea. You expect the US to jump into every conflict in the globe at a time when the American National Debt is through the roof? The US did that in Iraq and to what end? Do you see, in your dewey eyes, that the rebels are led by another Thomas Jefferson? Far from it, Dude. |
1. Ivory Coast is a good example. I give you that. I do think the world could become more involved there. North Korea? There isn't armed rebellion against Kim Jong-Il. North Korea is also a nuclear power. Cuba? Yep, that damn government made its citizens well-educated and has great health care. There are far worse governments out there in the world. Plus there isn't an open rebellion. I have a hunch if there WAS, the US would be backing whatever rebels there were, especially if the President was a Repubican (gotta win the FL vote and all). And Iran? that's a difficult one too but at least we've put sanctions on them. Not like we're not doing squat.
2. Iraq was a stable, functional country when we invaded it. The same can be said about Iran, Cuba, and North Korea for that matter. Libya obviously is not.
3. No one here is claiming the rebels are democrats in the Jefferson mold.
| Quote: |
| American soldiers and treasure should only be spent when there are clear goals and when American interests are threatened. In this case they are not. American lives should never be spent at the bidding of a World Government. Let's not forget that this World Government, the UN, had Libya on its Human Rights Commission. And we are going to war at the bequest of this sham? |
The world government. Right. Well I will agree that Obama has not made those goals clear and I agree that American interests are not threatened. That being said, i do think we have a humanitarian calling to stop a potential large scale massacre. Keyword: massacre.
| Quote: |
| Of course AQ is 'jumping on the bandwagon.' My concern is that the US is aiding this Islamic bandwagon, Dude. |
And you are basing your fear of all this becoming some caliphate on what?? PURE SPECULATION. Provide facts other than comments Al-Qaeda has made.
edit: toned it down a bit.
Last edited by bucheon bum on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interview of photo journalist in libya
It does indicate that we shouldn't expect a quick result. Basically the rebels are an unorganized mess. I don't think anyone knows who they are (including themselves).
| Quote: |
I think it�s the only conflict I�ve covered where I don�t understand. It�s very, very, very weird what�s going on. Why is the rebellion not supported by the former army that supposedly joined them? Where are the special forces of this army? There�s not a single unit in this rebellion that is organized.
Today, we were with rebels. I can assure you that if a Hollywood script writer tries to write what happened today, nobody would believe him. It�s absolutely amazing how disorganized this rebellion is. I keep asking myself, �Why are you doing this?� They try to down a plane with rocket-propelled grenades and they fire at tanks with antiaircraft. They don�t know how to use their guns. It�s a total mess. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Why would al-qaeda NOT back the protesters in any of those countries? AQ isn't moronic, it's jumping on the bandwagon.
|
My understanding is that al Qaeda has always wanted to overthrow the dictatorships and their tactic to achieve that was by attacking the Western governments that have been propping them up.
By withdrawing support, military and diplomatic, the West undercuts al Qaeda IF more open governments replace them. (Important 'if'.) It looks to me like we've jumped on the al Qaeda bandwagon in an attempt to hijack it. I say, 'Well played!'
If the West pulls this off, al Qaeda will be left with a radical philosophy with no where to go. And ever decreasing numbers of followers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It does indicate that we shouldn't expect a quick result. Basically the rebels are an unorganized mess. |
This seems true from what I hear on al Jazeera:
One reporter said two weeks ago the rebels were using their cell phones to communicate with each other. Now the cell phone system is down and they are just going into battle relying on word of mouth.
A report said rebels often know where Qadaffi's heavy artillery is but have no way to contact coalition forces to tell them where to shoot--and don't know who to call anyway if they do have the means to call.
Another report said an officer who defected from Qadaffi's army decided to take the day off yesterday.
So I'd say 'unorganized mess' is a fair description. I hope some of the supplies that are going in are communication devices with instuction manuals.
The most touching report I saw yesterday was when a reporter asked a rebel if he was happy when they were walking among the wrecked trucks and tanks on the highway near Benghazi. The rebel said, "No, the driver of that truck was a fellow Libyan. We just want one Libyan to go but he is making us kill each other." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It�s absolutely amazing how disorganized this rebellion is. I keep asking myself, �Why are you doing this?� They try to down a plane with rocket-propelled grenades and they fire at tanks with antiaircraft. They don�t know how to use their guns. It�s a total mess. |
Perhaps the SAS could have helped with some on-the-spot training, but the rebels kicked them out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
