Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ouze wrote:Truly he's history's greatest monster.

Wait I thought that was Godzilla, King of the Monsters?

Ouze wrote:Hey, great picture. Is this from when the US normalized relations with Libya?

No, actually if you would notice, the guy on the right side of that picture is actually the 44th President of the United States. Were you confused by the ears that he was somehow George Bush?

The process of normalizing relations with Libya during the Bush administration wasn't simply based on Bush deciding he liked Ghadafi, it was based on actions taken by the Libyan government, from your link:

On December 19, 2003, Libya announced its intention to rid itself of WMD and MTCR-class missile programs. Since that time, it has cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya has also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

This is what used to pass for foreign policy. When a country did something we liked we would reward them. When they didn't, we would punish them. Competency has since taken a back seat to putting on a good show.

(personal insults redacted from quote, as usual)

Biccat: You're kinda missing the point.

It's an image of Senator Barrack Obama, not of President Barrack Obama.

Also, your double standards amuse me.

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:

Hey, great picture. Is this from when the US normalized relations with Libya?

Oh, wait. That embrace of this horrible monster started when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Bush pushed for ending sanctions there, and Obama helped end him. But, hey, good try trying to awkwardly shoehorn in your deflective, partisan agenda anyway! I look forward to you continuing to do so no matter how tangentially related the topic.

What I find odd is this article from Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/20/cant-argue-with-american-policy-now-qaddafis-dead-and-results-speak-for/

Fox News is not exactly known for being a pro Obama mouthpiece so I dont know whay they are starting now. About the only good thing Obama has done is kept his paws off this crisis and left it to the Italians, French and UK to pile on the NATO pressure. Great leadership?

Isn't that good leadership-- getting other people to get their hands dirty so you don't have to?

Melissia wrote:Biccat: You're kinda missing the point.

It's an image of Senator Barrack Obama, not of President Barrack Obama.

Also, your double standards amuse me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8343250/Libyas-leader-Colonel-Muammar-Gaddafi-in-pictures.html?image=22

This picture was from 9th July 2009

Gaddaffi was wearing the same clothes, as was Obama.

Two options here:

1. Gaddaffi and Obama dont change their clothes often.
2. Your talking bollocks Melissia.

Melissia wrote:It's an image of Senator Barrack Obama, not of President Barrack Obama.

Well, I suppose it's technically possible that he was still a Senator in July 2009, but I thought he quit that job a couple years in.

I'll just leave this here and place you on ignore, rather than get myself in trouble.

Seeing as you provided a source to back up your assertions (unlike Biccat, as usual), I'm willing to back off. Would like to know the context though.

biccat wrote:(personal insults redacted from quote, as usual)

I don't think calling people out on partisan hackery is a personal insult, per se. But, by all means, what were you trying to say when you showed a picture of Obama with Gaddafi? Were you trying to say something other then to try and link the president with a dictator? Enlighten me, for I wish to know.

I mean, I understand why you'd want to spin this moment, don't get me wrong. When Obama's foreign policy now includes making the calls that put Osama Bin Laden & Moammar Gaddafi in pine boxes, and the frontrunning GOP candidate's foreign policy calls for putting an electrified fence on our border) (oh wait, that was a joke) (oh wait, it wasn't), and proudly proclaiming he doesn't know and doesn't care about one of our important allies for resupplying troops in Afghanistan, well, I guess I'd be pretty desperate to deflect attention elsewhere too.

Ouze wrote:But, by all means, what were you trying to say when you showed a picture of Obama with Gaddafi? Were you trying to say something other then to try and link the president with a dictator? Enlighten me, for I wish to know.

I figured the picture speaks for itself. It's a photo of President Obama being the first president in history to shake hands with Ghadafi. Who he then helped overthrow.

When you're going to try to engage in foreign policy (emphasis on try), consistency usually seems to be a good plan. Not so for the boy-wonder.

Ouze wrote:I mean, I understand why you'd want to spin this moment, don't get me wrong.

Not at all, I think it's great that Ghadafi is dead. But unlike the president, I never shook the guy's hand. Of course, given the opportunity, I wouldn't have. Remember the "new tone"?

Ouze wrote:When Obama's foreign policy now includes making the calls that put Osama Bin Laden & Moammar Gaddafi in pine boxes, and the frontrunning GOP candidate's foreign policy...

First of all, Cain isn't the frontrunning GOP candidate. I believe the latest poll had him tied with Romney. Second, the election won't be won or lost on foreign policy. Third, the president has plenty of foreign policy failures to go along with his successes. Remember his gift to the Queen (note that I'd normally have no problem insulting the British royalty, it's when he thinks he's doing something right and completely feths it up that we have a problem)?

SCOAMF sums it up quite nicely, actually.

Geez, I kinda would have rather have had the Ipod.

biccat wrote: consistency usually seems to be a good plan. Not so for the boy-wonder.

You JUST made a post about how it was appropriate to normalize relations with them in 2003.

Ouze wrote:Geez, I kinda would have rather have had the Ipod.

But you're not the head of state of a G8 country with a personal wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars. A free ipod is probably pretty neat.

Rented Tritium wrote:You JUST made a post about how it was appropriate to normalize relations with them in 2003.

Yes, in exchange for concessions made by the Libyan government.

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:Geez, I kinda would have rather have had the Ipod.

But you're not the head of state of a G8 country with a personal wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars. A free ipod is probably pretty neat.

If you only knew how many monkeys I punched to try and get that free Ipod.

biccat wrote:
This is what used to pass for foreign policy. When a country did something we liked we would reward them. When they didn't, we would punish them. Competency has since taken a back seat to putting on a good show.

Is that why we spent/spend so much time punishing the Saud family for allowing so many of their subjects to fund Hamas? Or why we took military aid away from Pakistan when they refused to grant formal air space rights to our drones?

Foreign policy is much more complicated than you're indicating.

Ouze wrote:
I don't think calling people out on partisan hackery is a personal insult, per se.

Especially someone who isn't above levying similar charges.

biccat wrote:

Shockingly, Presidents have to make concessions for the sake of diplomacy.

biccat wrote:
But you're not the head of state of a G8 country with a personal wealth of hundreds of millions of dollars. A free ipod is probably pretty neat.

Diplomatic gifts are not generally of significance to the person they are given to. Usually they are prominent artifacts of the giving nation's industrial process, or things that represent the culture of the giving nation, which we can all agree is true of the iPod; considering its ubiquity (possibly in both senses). For example, Sarkozy gave Michelle Obama a Christian Dior (famous French design firm) handbag. And the Queen, in the exchange in question, gave Obama a framed picture of herself.

I saw this and couldn't resist

JEB_Stuart wrote:I saw this and couldn't resist

lol.

Where ya been Jeb? Still rocking the tweed suit?

Genius

Well, that's another one gone. Hope the new Libyan government make a better fist of regime change than Afghanistan and Iraq.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I saw this and couldn't resist

I laughed pretty hard at this.

mattyrm wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I saw this and couldn't resist

lol.

Where ya been Jeb? Still rocking the tweed suit?

What are you talking about, that's totally Jackie Stallone.

mattyrm wrote: Where ya been Jeb? Still rocking the tweed suit?

Well Matt, I have sold my life and livelihood to corporate America. I do wish I could contribute more here on Dakka, but I am somewhat limited on time. I will make an attempt to be more active. And yes, of course I still rock the tweed suit! Even at work sometimes

JEB_Stuart wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Where ya been Jeb? Still rocking the tweed suit?

Well Matt, I have sold my life and livelihood to corporate America. I do wish I could contribute more here on Dakka, but I am somewhat limited on time. I will make an attempt to be more active. And yes, of course I still rock the tweed suit! Even at work sometimes

Ah man, that sucks. I earn a relatively small wage these days, but I work feth all hours.

I think money really isn't that important...

Well, as long as you can aford to get drunk ten times a month.

And I can do that.

biccat wrote:
Anyway, I'm glad to see another dead terrorist, so yay for the Libyan rebels. Hopefully they don't go all theocratic like the dingbats in Egypt.

There's a distinction between an overt theocracy, and a state that is heavily influenced by religion. Actually, Egypt under Mubarak was a pretty good illustration of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:I earn a relatively small wage these days, but I work feth all hours.

The trick is to find a job where you can get paid to screw around. So, basically, become a manager.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Anyway, I'm glad to see another dead terrorist, so yay for the Libyan rebels. Hopefully they don't go all theocratic like the dingbats in Egypt.

There's a distinction between an overt theocracy, and a state that is heavily influenced by religion. Actually, Egypt under Mubarak was a pretty good illustration of it.

I think he's referring to where Egypt may be heading.

Frazzled wrote:
I think he's referring to where Egypt may be heading.

Probably, but it seemed like a comment which had many similarities to the general conservative tendency to equate the influence of Islam with theocracy. A thing that has always struck me as strange given how many conservatives will defend the validity of Christian influence on the American system of government.

Not that there aren't legitimate reasons to suspect that Egypt will become a theocracy, there certainly are, its just a little premature to call it one way or the other.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I think he's referring to where Egypt may be heading.

Probably, but it seemed like a comment which had many similarities to the general conservative tendency to equate the influence of Islam with theocracy. A thing that has always struck me as strange given how many conservatives will defend the validity of Christian influence on the American system of government.

Wo, that went off on a tangent.

The trick is to find a job where you can get paid to screw around. So, basically, become a manager.

Indeed good sir, indeed.

Frazzled wrote:
Wo, that went off on a tangent.

Just explaining why I said what I said.

Frazzled wrote:
Indeed good sir, indeed.

I do actual work about 3 times more as a TA than I ever did managing a gym 80 hours per week, and I only actually work Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

I miss the private sector.

So, since we seem to have run the course on this thread, lets ask this:

Do you think it was right for the US to go into Libya to begin with?

I'm aware this may paint me as the worst sort of hypocrite (and hell, maybe I am), since I clearly am pleased with the results, but I'll be honest anyway. At the time I thought it was a bad idea. I didn't think it was our fight. I didn't see why it was right for us to justify using force to help overthrow this bad man, when there are so very many bad men out there that we will happily embrace if we need them in some way. We certainly are willing to overlook the human rights abuses in countries we can't use (like Syria or Yemen) or that we cannot bully (like China). So what right did we have to risk the lives of US servicemen here (even if we did it in the most risk-free way humanly possible)? Is it that we have a duty to help spread democracy everywhere it might be flourishing? Even skipping the fact that we obviously don't do that, how is that different then some adherents of Islam claiming it should be spread by the sword?

I realize that peaceable discourse on this thread may be difficult due largely to my earlier, probably disproportionate vitriol, and I do regret that I went there, for what it's worth.

Ouze the film you're looking for is Team America: World Police.