From National Review, an analysis;

"Into the Libyan Labyrinth

April 1, 2011 10:15 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson
We should watch for some very strange things in Libya in the days ahead: (a) Euros bet on the wrong rebel horse, and if Qaddafi survives, he will surely “renegotiate” his massive oil exports to Europe, or perhaps prefer to deal with the Chinese. So Britain, Italy, and France will become increasing panicky and want us to ratchet things up. (b) Expect to hear less and less about the UN and the Arab League as Obama, to win, needs more and more to ignore their restrictions on using American ground troops and direct bombing of Libya’s assets. (c) Expect the Left to get increasingly antsy as it weighs the viability of Obama’s progressive domestic agenda versus their own humiliation at having to keep still and support a preemptive bombing campaign against a Muslim, Arab, oil-exporting nation, without congressional approval, that was not a national-security threat to the U.S. The Left is going to have to accept Obama’s rendering inoperative the UN and Arab League restrictions when he inserts some ground troops or orders some Milosevic-like bombing. His supporters also will have to endure the fact that Obama’s prior pledges of “turning over” and “toning down” a war that we would supposedly fight neither on the ground nor by sustained aerial bombardment are simply untrue — and this on top of everything from the now jim-dandy Guantanamo and A-OK renditions. (d) We are quickly evolving beyond the choices of both a Mogadishu- or Beirut-like clean skedaddle and a 12-year-Iraq-like-no-fly-zone humanitarian mission, and most likely are considering either bombing Qaddafi like crazy or sending in some troops or both.

Bottom line: It is always a dangerous thing for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our rebel allies are or just how strong their opponent actually might be — contingent on a fickle UN, impotent but oil-enthused allies, and a passive-aggressive Arab world, all to prove a point that we could reinvent our military into a humanitarian rescue force, subordinate to international unelected bodies — and all the more dangerous during the golfing, basketball-playoffs, and resort seasons."

http://www.nationalreview.com/...-victor-davis-hanson
Original Post
Spain, Italy, France and Germany are our allies, and they want Libyan oil. No one cares who the rebels are as long as they can secure the oil trading with Europe. The US installed the Shah in Iran for the same sort of reason. The Arabs are easy to work worth cause they're greedy, and really tied to their beliefs or causes.
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.
I'll one up you ventor, (e) the CIA will plot an attack on some American installation and blame it on Kadafi and then Obama gets the blank check. That's how things like this gets fixed in the modern world.
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.
I'll one up you ventor, (e) the CIA will plot an attack on some American installation and blame it on Kadafi and then Obama gets the blank check. That's how things like this gets fixed in the modern world.


Wasn't it the left that attacked Bush for having no exit strategy. What about Obama, who not only has no exit strategy, but no objective!
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Spain, Italy, France and Germany are our allies, and they want Libyan oil. No one cares who the rebels are as long as they can secure the oil trading with Europe. The US installed the Shah in Iran for the same sort of reason. The Arabs are easy to work worth cause they're greedy, and really tied to their beliefs or causes.


Your first sentence is a statement, mostly true. Germany is mainly an arms supplier to Libya. The second sentence also mostly true. However, who should the US be involved. Europe has sufficient force to engage Libya. Not much more, I admit. But, sufficient for a small, poorly armed nation like Libya. Libya's last war was 24 years ago against Chad. Libya lost.

Not certain why you mentioned the shah. Mohammad Mosaddegh, the PM, was a delusional drama queen, not too bright. Think Opie, plus one IQ point. The Persians certainly haven't done well with the shah's replacement.

Egypt and Morocco are easy to work with because they are actual nations. The small gulf states are easy to work with because they are single tribes with flags, under one leader. The rest are not easy to work with, they are many tribes under one flag.

Ditz, what is your experience working with Arabs? We'd really like to hear.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.
I'll one up you ventor, (e) the CIA will plot an attack on some American installation and blame it on Kadafi and then Obama gets the blank check. That's how things like this gets fixed in the modern world.


Wasn't it the left that attacked Bush for having no exit strategy. What about Obama, who not only has no exit strategy, but no objective!


AND we who are TRULY left (those who do not believe in nation "conquering" for resources) are asking what the exit strategy is for Libya. We have already seen the folly that is Iraq!
Do you EVER feel like a hypocrite, Mr. Elinterventor or shall I try to find you a "sponsor"?????????????????????
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.
I'll one up you ventor, (e) the CIA will plot an attack on some American installation and blame it on Kadafi and then Obama gets the blank check. That's how things like this gets fixed in the modern world.


Wasn't it the left that attacked Bush for having no exit strategy. What about Obama, who not only has no exit strategy, but no objective!


AND we who are TRULY left (those who do not believe in nation "conquering" for resources) are asking what the exit strategy is for Libya. We have already seen the folly that is Iraq!
Do you EVER feel like a hypocrite, Mr. Elinterventor or shall I try to find you a "sponsor"?????????????????????


How can I be a hypocrite for asking the same question you asked!
Mr Elintorventor:
Did you ever QUESTION GWB during the Iraq conflict?
Are you STILL using the Iraq fiasco as an example of this latest folly of nation building and challangeing those of us on the left to defend it.
SO, you are finally admitting that nation "building, conquering or whatever you call it" is for the OIL?
IF you can admit this: I will withdraw my comparison of your position to a HYPOCRITE!
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Mr Elintorventor:
Did you ever QUESTION GWB during the Iraq conflict?
Are you STILL using the Iraq fiasco as an example of this latest folly of nation building and challangeing those of us on the left to defend it.
SO, you are finally admitting that nation "building, conquering or whatever you call it" is for the OIL?
IF you can admit this: I will withdraw my comparison of your position to a HYPOCRITE!


US oil companies got little access to Iraqi oil field production. Therefore, your argument is mute. We have no interest in Libyan oil. Therefore, my question of why!, is valid.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
From National Review, an analysis;

"Into the Libyan Labyrinth

April 1, 2011 10:15 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson
We should watch for some very strange things in Libya in the days ahead: (a) Euros bet on the wrong rebel horse, and if Qaddafi survives, he will surely “renegotiate” his massive oil exports to Europe, or perhaps prefer to deal with the Chinese. So Britain, Italy, and France will become increasing panicky and want us to ratchet things up. (b) Expect to hear less and less about the UN and the Arab League as Obama, to win, needs more and more to ignore their restrictions on using American ground troops and direct bombing of Libya’s assets. (c) Expect the Left to get increasingly antsy as it weighs the viability of Obama’s progressive domestic agenda versus their own humiliation at having to keep still and support a preemptive bombing campaign against a Muslim, Arab, oil-exporting nation, without congressional approval, that was not a national-security threat to the U.S. The Left is going to have to accept Obama’s rendering inoperative the UN and Arab League restrictions when he inserts some ground troops or orders some Milosevic-like bombing. His supporters also will have to endure the fact that Obama’s prior pledges of “turning over” and “toning down” a war that we would supposedly fight neither on the ground nor by sustained aerial bombardment are simply untrue — and this on top of everything from the now jim-dandy Guantanamo and A-OK renditions. (d) We are quickly evolving beyond the choices of both a Mogadishu- or Beirut-like clean skedaddle and a 12-year-Iraq-like-no-fly-zone humanitarian mission, and most likely are considering either bombing Qaddafi like crazy or sending in some troops or both.

Bottom line: It is always a dangerous thing for a president to start a war without Congress, without a consistent mission, without a coherent methodology, without a plausible end game, and without a clue who our rebel allies are or just how strong their opponent actually might be — contingent on a fickle UN, impotent but oil-enthused allies, and a passive-aggressive Arab world, all to prove a point that we could reinvent our military into a humanitarian rescue force, subordinate to international unelected bodies — and all the more dangerous during the golfing, basketball-playoffs, and resort seasons."

http://www.nationalreview.com/...-victor-davis-hanson


The National Review is on the same news level as Faux news and should not be relied on for information of any kind. Also, you might read the congressional resolution passed a month ago, by unanimous consent, that authorized everything that we have done in Libya. The Senate, including Raun Paul, passed the resolution, although Mr. Paul seems to have no idea what he "voted for" by not leaving his office when the resolution was introduced and being clueless about what was happening, which is normal for Tea Baggers.
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
quote:
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.


Is it funnier than a Obamatard pretending the very thing isn't happening?


You should quit listening to rush and at least read the forums you post in.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.
I'll one up you ventor, (e) the CIA will plot an attack on some American installation and blame it on Kadafi and then Obama gets the blank check. That's how things like this gets fixed in the modern world.


Wasn't it the left that attacked Bush for having no exit strategy. What about Obama, who not only has no exit strategy, but no objective!


I agree, as a warmonger, Bush definitely had Obama beat. That said, I'm definitely ticked off that we are once again intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to oust a leader we have been giving material support to.

Long live the New World (dis)Order.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Mr Elintorventor:
Did you ever QUESTION GWB during the Iraq conflict?
Are you STILL using the Iraq fiasco as an example of this latest folly of nation building and challangeing those of us on the left to defend it.
SO, you are finally admitting that nation "building, conquering or whatever you call it" is for the OIL?
IF you can admit this: I will withdraw my comparison of your position to a HYPOCRITE!


US oil companies got little access to Iraqi oil field production. Therefore, your argument is mute. We have no interest in Libyan oil. Therefore, my question of why!, is valid.


I can tell you why, and sum it up in a short phrase: Rothschilds own 20% of libyan oil, thats not enough for them.
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
It's really humorous to read a neocon worrying about unconstitutional wars.
I'll one up you ventor, (e) the CIA will plot an attack on some American installation and blame it on Kadafi and then Obama gets the blank check. That's how things like this gets fixed in the modern world.


Wasn't it the left that attacked Bush for having no exit strategy. What about Obama, who not only has no exit strategy, but no objective!


I agree, as a warmonger, Bush definitely had Obama beat. That said, I'm definitely ticked off that we are once again intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to oust a leader we have been giving material support to.

Long live the New World (dis)Order.


As I posted earlier, Libya's weaponry is mostly Russian and German. The US hasn't sold them any in nearly 40 years. Lately, I believe a few ambulances were sold to Libya. Before the present hostilities, the US was going to refurbish some M113 Armored Personnel Carriers we sold them back in the 1960s. Otherwise, that's all the support we've sold them.
quote:
Originally posted by 73RangerXLT:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Mr Elintorventor:
Did you ever QUESTION GWB during the Iraq conflict?
Are you STILL using the Iraq fiasco as an example of this latest folly of nation building and challangeing those of us on the left to defend it.
SO, you are finally admitting that nation "building, conquering or whatever you call it" is for the OIL?
IF you can admit this: I will withdraw my comparison of your position to a HYPOCRITE!


US oil companies got little access to Iraqi oil field production. Therefore, your argument is mute. We have no interest in Libyan oil. Therefore, my question of why!, is valid.


I can tell you why, and sum it up in a short phrase: Rothschilds own 20% of libyan oil, thats not enough for them.


Ah, yes, the Rothschilds as the bogeymen. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, the left including the NSDAP and the communists both adopted that meme. The Birchers toyed with it, but backed off. Nowadays, its back to the left and the Larouchies.

As Libya produces about 2 percent of the world's oil, 20 percent of that would be 0.4 percent of the world supply. The Rothschilds would make more by raising the currency transfer rate by 1/100th of a percent. Or, they could slip a functionnaire over at the Apellation Controlle a couple thousand euros and a decent hooker to declare a vintage year at a couple of their chateaus.

You argument doesn't hold water.
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
Why is everybody ignoring the fact that there is a Congressional Resolution approving everything that we have done so far? And it passed unanimously!


We're still waiting on you to post a link to that resolution.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
Why is everybody ignoring the fact that there is a Congressional Resolution approving everything that we have done so far? And it passed unanimously!


We're still waiting on you to post a link to that resolution.


Try the Congressional Record. Read a newspaper. Google it. Get a clue. And take that ridiculous photo off of your posts. All it does is remind everyone of what kind of person you are. Either go ahead and call him a ni@#^er or shut up.
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by JimiHendrix:
Why is everybody ignoring the fact that there is a Congressional Resolution approving everything that we have done so far? And it passed unanimously!


We're still waiting on you to post a link to that resolution.


Try the Congressional Record. Read a newspaper. Google it. Get a clue. And take that ridiculous photo off of your posts. All it does is remind everyone of what kind of person you are. Either go ahead and call him a ni@#^er or shut up.


The true colors come out. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. I'm calling you out as a bald faced lier. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×