Drake McHugh
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 138
- Location
- Brookfield,Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
I'm not sure from what position of knowledge you are speaking when you claim that there is no one noble and no one doing the right thing. Perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion.
The right is regurgitating the same "al Qaeda infested rebels' narrative they tried to use to thwart our Libyan intervention. The problem with reusing that narrative is that its not about "helping the rebels". Its about punishing the use of WMDs.
Yet the punishment helps the rebels - and I have yet to see overwhelming evidence showing AQ is NOT in Syria. Libya is a mess post military action there so why do we, America, want to repeat that given Iraq and Afghanistan, and side with AQ against Syria under a futile guise of "punishing" Assad? We're not Syria's parents ffs... Syria poses no direct threat to the U.S. and Israel can take care of themselves very well.
As it's being sold to the American public it doesn't sound like it will tip the balance, but let's not forget Syria's main ally in the region is Iran. What we think are moderate groups may not be. For all we know (and given our intelligence history in the past 20 years - we don't know much) no one can be sure what will happen or what balance will be tipped in which of the many groups favor.How much would it help the rebels? its not going to tip the balance.
They're not all AQ certainly, but AQ has shown a resurgence and the ability exists that our intervention will benefit AQ. Something I do not want any part of.And nobody is saying AQ is not in Syria. AQ is everywhere in the middle east. and the Libyan "al Qaeda" narrative was completely overblown and the Iraq "al Qaeda" narrative was a lie. So the right's track record on crying wolf about AQ is not a good one.
Democracy? Are you claiming that Obama did in Libya the same thing Bush did in Iraq - ie., nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator? And now in Syria, we saying we NOT going after Assad (believe that or not) but simply slapping his hand for killing over a thousand of his own people with zero proof it was Assad who actually did it. For all we know Putin's correct one of the many groups fighting there did it including AQ.Yes, Libya is a mess. Sorry but democracy can be messy. Name a country that's not a mess after overthrowing a dictator (Nicaragua is the correct answer). Yes or no, was Iraq a mess after saddam?
Democracy? Are you claiming that Obama did in Libya the same thing Bush did in Iraq - ie., nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator? .
And now in Syria, we saying we NOT going after Assad (believe that or not) but simply slapping his hand for killing over a thousand of his own people with zero proof it was Assad who actually did it. For all we know Putin's correct one of the many groups fighting there did it including AQ.
.
Both.are you asking a question or trying to make a point?
And so was Gaddafi - he was a former ally and a brutal dictator, we also had hot and cold relations with over decades.and your "former ally turned brutal dictator" line is pretty funny. Saddam was always a brutal dictator. Previously he was also an ally. Yea, we were such good pals with Saddam, Reagan blamed Iran for gassing the kurds.
It may clue you in with the first four words I used "And now in Syria..." so it's a pretty good guess that I'm NOT referring to Iraq. But please, continue to not address my points. Feel free to post proof (which I noticed you didn't do). :2wave:zero proof? wait are you referring to Iraq again? sorry, you lose credibility when you post wishful thinking as fact.
And so was Gaddafi - he was a former ally and a brutal dictator, we also had hot and cold relations with over decades.
So you agree Obama was nation building in Libya.
I'm not going to defend Bush nor litigate irrelevant items you throw - I don't know what Cons or Progs did or did not whine as it's irrelevant.Oh no no no no you don't. He was only Bush and Haliburon's ally. Oh how the cons whined when Britain released the Lockerbie bomber. Oh how the cons said nothing when Bush paid reparations to Libya and kissed gadaffy's butt. Let me back up Bush kissing gadaffy's butt
"the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy." Nation-building - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHumor us, how do you define "nation building". My definition would require "boots on the ground".
its not about "helping the rebels". Its about punishing the use of WMDs.
Oh how the cons whined when Britain released the Lockerbie bomber.
I'm not going to defend Bush nor litigate irrelevant items you throw - I don't know what Cons or Progs did or did not whine as it's irrelevant.
Point being you agree Obama entered the nation building just like Bush did in Iraq. You may define it as "boots on the ground" - technically we had boots on the ground called the CIA in Libya. Gaddafi was removed (killed), and now we have a mess. This may be why Obama is not saying he's going after Assad this time since Libya was a cluster-**** and still is.
]
wow, you equate Bush's actual nation building in Iraq with our "no fly zone" in Libya. How convenient for you. However, I don't . Oh and your "technicality" about boots on the ground is also convenient. Read this slowly so your brain cant trick you: we were not committed to providing support for the new govt in Libya the way we were in Iraq. so you keep arguing "technicalities". I'll just keep posting facts.
I really would like you to expand your silly narrative about "former ally turned brutal dictator". You seem to be pretending you didn't post it. Or expand on your silly "nation building" narrative. either one works for me.
Regardless, the definition of nation building I provided fits Obama's Libya activities. I cannot help you equating "boots on the ground" to nation building, nor can I change your misguided perception.
To be clear it's not my definition it's the accepted definition.that’s hysterical, Your definition is “the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy.”
Given the clandestine nature of the CIA and their activities, I don't think anyone can say other than those with Top Secret clearance if they worked on a transition. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper than reading definitions and start asking questions and doing some logical analysis. Why would the CIA be on the ground before and after? What possibly would they be doing? Has the CIA in the past, underpinned a transition of a government and worked towards an overthrow of a government? Is there a possibility they could be doing that covertly in Libya?I equate “boots on the ground” to “armed force”. Of course you have to believe the CIA constitutes an armed force. I’m sure they are armed but I wouldn’t call them a force. And are they “underpinning” the transition? Of course not. Maybe you should reread your definition.
Don't push your motives and actions on me in hopes to save face on the internet. I'm doing nothing more than challenging your perspectives and arguments.Anyhoo, I was trying to have an intelligent and honest conversation. You are trying to push false narratives and play word games. I should have suspected as much when you said “ former ally turned brutal dictator” .
To be clear it's not my definition it's the accepted definition.
.
It's not my definition, for the 2nd time.and to be clear, our actions in libya do not meet your definition.
Honestly, the CIA has involved itself in coups, clandestine foreign government overthrow activities, sabotage, etc... I'm sorry you don't believe that's a possibility here and I'm sorry that you're wrong.You equating the CIA as an "armed force" is at best an exaggeration but there is no way you can claim in an intelligent and honest debate that its "underpinning the transition to democracy". sorry.
Laughable why?And equating "underpinning" military coups as proof that they could possibly be "underpinning the transition to democracy" is laughable.
Instead you claim it's laughable but don't provide evidence to back up your assertion. That's simply "denial" which is not a valid form of debate.If I wanted to play games, I would just pretend the CIA is not in libya to begin with. But I'm not playing games. I'm trying to have an intelligent and honest conversation. something you dont seem interested in.
Why is it false? Prove me wrong.do you even know why you are falsely claiming we are "nation building" in Libya or are you just focused on your winning your "game"? Let me know when you want to have an intelligent and honest coversation.
I said “your definition” in reference the definition of Nation building you posted. so I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. So let me be clearIt's not my definition, for the 2nd time.
Honestly, the CIA has involved itself in coups, clandestine foreign government overthrow activities, sabotage, etc... I'm sorry you don't believe that's a possibility here and I'm sorry that you're wrong.
Laughable why?
Instead you claim it's laughable but don't provide evidence to back up your assertion.
That's simply "denial" which is not a valid form of debate.
Ok.I said “your definition” in reference the definition of Nation building you posted. so I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. So let me be clear
Why I stated "ally turned brutal dictator" was a reflection of American policy and views toward him. He was not always seen as brutal. In the 1970 the U.S. desperately wanted to work with Gaddafi to get bases in Libya for staging points. When that fell through he we were basically thrown out and then in the mid-1970's he was considered persona non grata. Things cooled and got hot again in 1986 when Reagan bombed him in retaliation for Beirut. 20 years later in 2006 Libya and Gaddafi were taken off the "state sponsored terrorist list" and in 2001 Gaddafi publically came out against the 9/11 WTC attacks. So I'm trying to depict the up and down nature of America's views toward Gaddafi and not making a blanket personal statement or judgement of who or what I think he was.In case you are wondering about “latest”, your first attempt at defining nation building was “nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator”. I was too busy laughing at the “turned brutal dictator” part to notice it was your original definition of “nation building”.
Well that's a strawman since I never said either of those things. What I'm saying is since the CIA was on the ground, the possibility exists that they were there to do just that - work with the opposition and depose Gaddafi. History shows you don't use the CIA to direct traffic and there's a history of the CIA's secret and clandestine activities.I’ve never disputed the activities of the CIA. I’m disputing your attempt to say “hey, the CIA overthrows democracies all the time” as proof that its possible the CIA could be the “armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy”
The CIA doesn't initiate and follow through with a coup, they set the coup up. I'm not saying the CIA did that in Libya but it's certainly possible for reasons I've already stated.Its laughable because it’s a false analogy. A coup does not take a lot of people nor does it require us to supply “boots on the ground” and it requires no long term commitment.
Iraq certainly worked out that way, but I don't agree that's all it takes. Why is it that the US cannot support an opposition group to be boots on the ground by proxy? The entire purpose of the military action in Libya was to give control of the country back to the people and in so doing, removing Gaddafi from his power base. Perhaps we can agree that whatever was done by whomever in Libya was a failure ...Nation building not only requires “Boots on the ground” it requires a lot of “boots on the ground” and a long term commitment. There simply is no comparison between what we did in Iraq and what we did in Libya.
I've only ever used the Wiki version as the example - so what would you call the actions in 2011 in Libya then if not nation building?Its not denial. I clearly pointed out your assertion we are “ nation building in Libya” does not me the latest the definition of “nation building” you posted (the one from wiki, not the laughable one you made up).
The answer to that changed many times over the years. If you're asking what I think it was, it was initially to oust Saddam and install a pupped government to benefit the US but then security issues occurred and we did not leave, and it then became a military police state / security mission.I can also use the example of nation building in Iraq. Since you are so committed to your “nation building” narrative, how come we had to have 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq for 9 years?
Iraq wasn't stable enough and there was little to no plan of succession should that have occurred. After the 2 weeks of fighting in Iraq after the initial invasion would have been the time to do it, but everything was in a shambles. I think Bush underestimated and had little to no plan on what to do after the fighting was over.How come we just didn’t send in 20 or so CIA agents?
So only your view of what nation building is correct using Iraq as an example, and nation building can never deviate or be utilized in a different way because: Iraq. You're keen to point out logical fallacy, take a shot at what fallacy you just barfed up right there.The correct answer is because we were nation building in Iraq. See how Iraq so effortlessly fits the definition of “nation building” you posted. No games necessary.
I've only ever used the Wiki version as the example .
ie., nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator? .
so what would you call the actions in 2011 in Libya then if not nation building?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?