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.

Here's an interesting view on Clinton's Middle East workings.


http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2016/06/27/expect-new-wars-middle-east-hillary-clinton-elected-president/

Relapse wrote:
Here's an interesting view on Clinton's Middle East workings.


http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2016/06/27/expect-new-wars-middle-east-hillary-clinton-elected-president/

And you complain about bias new sources smh

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's an interesting view on Clinton's Middle East workings.


http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2016/06/27/expect-new-wars-middle-east-hillary-clinton-elected-president/

And you complain about bias new sources smh

I'm illustrating my point that the spectrum of news sources from left, center, andright say Lybia was in large part Clinton's fault.

You don't need opinion pieces, from whatever spectrum, telling you one thing when history and facts tell you another.

But if you want to blame a civil war started in Lybia, a UN resolution pushed by France and Britain, and an international NATO let mission largely on Obama and Hillary then I guess you can keep on doing so.

Some of us don't care what the political alignment of a news source is. Some of us only care if it makes sense and/or is supported, and even then we might still disagree with said news source. Maybe we care if said source habitually commits bad reporting but even a dead clock is right twice a day.

True is true regardless of where it comes from, and sure we're not talking about the National Inquirer or such places where we best assume the story is hogwash from the get go but that doesn't mean blind acceptance.

I would also challenge that none of the stories you've linked have actually said Lybia is "in large part Clinton's fault." They've criticized her for being naive, overly eager to become involved, and bungling US involvement in Libya, but they haven't leveled blame in the way you're insinuating.

Just for people who don't click wikipedia links with chronologies

23 February 2011: French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for the European Union (EU) to pass sanctions against Gaddafi (freezing Gaddafi family funds abroad) and demand he stop attacks against civilians.

26 February 2011: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. It imposed an arms embargo on the country and a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Qadhafi and certain Government officials.

28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from "airlifting mercenaries" and "using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians."

1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

7 March 2011: US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder announced that NATO decided to step up surveillance missions of E-3 AWACS aircraft to twenty-four hours a day. On the same day, it was reported that an anonymous UN diplomat confirmed to Agence France Presse that France and Britain were drawing up a resolution on the no-fly zone that would be considered by the UN Security Council during the same week. The Gulf Cooperation Council also on that day called upon the UN Security Council to "take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya."

10 March 2011: France recognized the Libyan NTC as the legitimate government of Libya soon after Sarkozy met with them in Paris. This meeting was arranged by Bernard-Henri Lévy.

11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya.

Full list and order it happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Thanks Sarkozy

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Just for people who don't click wikipedia links with chronologies

23 February 2011: French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for the European Union (EU) to pass sanctions against Gaddafi (freezing Gaddafi family funds abroad) and demand he stop attacks against civilians.

26 February 2011: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. It imposed an arms embargo on the country and a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Qadhafi and certain Government officials.

28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from "airlifting mercenaries" and "using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians."

1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

7 March 2011: US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder announced that NATO decided to step up surveillance missions of E-3 AWACS aircraft to twenty-four hours a day. On the same day, it was reported that an anonymous UN diplomat confirmed to Agence France Presse that France and Britain were drawing up a resolution on the no-fly zone that would be considered by the UN Security Council during the same week. The Gulf Cooperation Council also on that day called upon the UN Security Council to "take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya."

10 March 2011: France recognized the Libyan NTC as the legitimate government of Libya soon after Sarkozy met with them in Paris. This meeting was arranged by Bernard-Henri Lévy.

11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya.

Full list and order it happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Thanks Sarkozy

100 percent HRC and Obamas fault

Naw... 'tis that youtube director's fault.

<clap>

Get with the program people!

 d-usa wrote:
You don't need opinion pieces, from whatever spectrum, telling you one thing when history and facts tell you another.

But if you want to blame a civil war started in Lybia, a UN resolution pushed by France and Britain, and an international NATO let mission largely on Obama and Hillary then I guess you can keep on doing so.

I'm not talking opinion pieces as much as news with documented facts behind it.

we already got to 84 pages and several shut down threats in only 21 days?

It's been a busy few days.

Just the busiest.

No 21 days in history have been busier, believe me.

 Spinner wrote:
It's been a busy few days.

Just the busiest.

No 21 days in history have been busier, believe me.

I think the 4 weeks after I left KotaKinabalu Malaysia may have been much busier for me, going back and forth to the restroom.

This thread did teach me that Libya was Britain and France's fault, rather than the USAs. So it's not a complete gakfest!

 Crazyterran wrote:
This thread did teach me that Libya was Britain and France's fault, rather than the USAs. So it's not a complete gakfest!

I won't be satisfied until we have a blame Canada movement

 Ustrello wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
This thread did teach me that Libya was Britain and France's fault, rather than the USAs. So it's not a complete gakfest!

I won't be satisfied until we have a blame Canada movement

God damnit now that song is stuck in my head.

As a Canadian, I apologize.

I'm sorry. Please don't hold it against us, eh?

"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"

What a bold new era we're in now it seems.

On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.

The media are making stands full of empty seats and an almost vacant crowd?

Ahhh 'muricah.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-attacks-media-for-coverage-of-his-inaugural-crowds/2017/01/21/f4574dca-e019-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.cd4af1e8f921&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump,” Trump said. “There is nobody.”

He added, “I am so behind you. I know maybe sometimes you haven’t gotten the backing that you’ve wanted and you’re going to get so much backing. Maybe you’re going to say, ‘Please, don’t give us so much backing. Mr. President, please, we don’t need so much backing.’

Trump delved into the Iraq war, saying: “I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq.” His statement was at odds with comments he made during a 2002 interview with radio shock jock Howard Stern.

Trump also asserted his oft-stated belief that the United States bungled its exit from the country by not taking Iraq’s oil. “If we kept the oil, we wouldn’t have had ISIS in the first place,” Trump reasoned, saying that was how the Islamic State terrorist group made its money.

“The old expression, to the victor belong the spoils,” Trump said. He added, “We should’ve kept the oil. But, okay, maybe we’ll have another chance.”

The 3rd movie in the series is when the franchise either dies or goes onto great things.

Most of the original cast have left to do other things but there's normally a minor character who gets to stay and then eke out an existence on the convention circuit for the rest of their life, they normally get a lovely obituary when they die too.

But aspects of his appearance are likely to be unsettling to the broader workforce, including his suggestion that the agency has been losing in the battle against the Islamic State and other terror groups, and his decision to score political points unrelated to the CIA’s mission in front of its most sacred setting — a wall emblazoned with more than 100 carved stars to mark the deaths of agency operatives killed in the line of duty.
That was one of the more disconcerting speeches I’ve seen,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official who was not present for the Trump speech but watched it by video. “He could have kept it very simple and said, ‘I’m here to build some bridges.’ But he spent 10 seconds on that and the rest was on the crowd size,” the official said, referring to Trump’s repeated complaints that the media had undercounted the turnout for his inauguration.

Referring to Trump’s use of the CIA memorial wall as a backdrop, the official said, “People are going to think that was offensive.”

He also asked CIA officers to applaud his national security adviser, former lieutenant general Michael Flynn, who is a controversial figure within the intelligence community.

Classy as ever.

The crowd thing is easily explained however :

Now, Brexit lady Theresa May will be the first to meet Trump next Friday. Then he will meet Trudeau and the Mexican president. I'm curious when he will meet Merkel, one of the leaders who are against protectionism and isolation.

..when the Russians have given their ok.

 reds8n wrote:
..when the Russians have given their ok.

I guess he could meet Putin before Merkel and further EU representatives.

However, I think now its time to give him a chance no matter what. He already backed up the secret services. Next he will stop fuzzing about isolation and protectionism. After all, he has become ''to big to fail'' because of the possibilities of global business.

Well, congrats America. You have your first African Dictator, lol.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Well, congrats America. You have your first African Dictator, lol.

I guess this is what they deserved. UK deserved the brexit and we deserved Angela Merkel.

 wuestenfux wrote:
I guess this is what they deserved.

Yes, it is.

 reds8n wrote:

But aspects of his appearance are likely to be unsettling to the broader workforce, including his suggestion that the agency has been losing in the battle against the Islamic State and other terror groups, and his decision to score political points unrelated to the CIA’s mission in front of its most sacred setting — a wall emblazoned with more than 100 carved stars to mark the deaths of agency operatives killed in the line of duty.
That was one of the more disconcerting speeches I’ve seen,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official who was not present for the Trump speech but watched it by video. “He could have kept it very simple and said, ‘I’m here to build some bridges.’ But he spent 10 seconds on that and the rest was on the crowd size,” the official said, referring to Trump’s repeated complaints that the media had undercounted the turnout for his inauguration.

Referring to Trump’s use of the CIA memorial wall as a backdrop, the official said, “People are going to think that was offensive.”

He also asked CIA officers to applaud his national security adviser, former lieutenant general Michael Flynn, who is a controversial figure within the intelligence community.

Classy as ever.

I think we can conclude that Trump has an issue with size in all matters. I think he might be overcompensating....

I also particularly like this comment

“I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics,” Trump said. “They say, ‘Is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me. I’m, like, a smart person.”

Whilst completely denying anything about climate change. I suppose it could be a play on words as he does dress up in smart suit but I doubt he thought of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Now, Brexit lady Theresa May will be the first to meet Trump next Friday. Then he will meet Trudeau and the Mexican president. I'm curious when he will meet Merkel, one of the leaders who are against protectionism and isolation.

If Merkel has any sense she will let Trump come to her to arrange a meeting to show that she is not going to come running because of fear. May is desperately looking for positive news on Brexit; Mexico and Canada will have their own trade issues they will be worried about.

“I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics,” Trump said. “They say, ‘Is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me. I’m, like, a smart person.”

Sorry Trump, but an intellectual would know that you don't need to believe in academics, they exist regardless. You might be confusing them with fairies.

Also, nobody has been asking if you are an intellectual. We all know the answer to that already.

Also just saw this on facebook:

It goes without saying that we all thought the Trump administration would take the USA into uncharted territory, but I didn't think it would happen after only one day!

To set the tone in this manner i.e picking a fight with the press when the facts are overwhelmingly against you with regard to crowd sizes.

I hesitate to say this, but I think there is a mental issue here...

Compare and contrast to:

FDR. The first 100 days and priority of getting the galloping snail of congress moving.

LBJ, and the speed and skill he executed in getting the bills through Congress.

Donald J Trump: my crowd's bigger than your crowd!

I'd happily offer American dakka members a place in the UK (subject to appropriate immigration checks ) but we've kinda got our hands full ourselves...

Still, it's going to be a long 4 years for the USA.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193


so is this an actual Bill that will pass or just a bit of grandstanding by ..err.... Mike Rogers ?

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2017)

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017

This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

It's certainly a bold play.

.. still won't get those parking fines paid one fears.

I have a few -- vague -- memories of other politicians trying similar stunts over the years .

One of the Ryans perhaps ?

What I don't understand is how telling the rest of the world to feth off is going to make the rest of the world want to make deals with the US in the US's favour without the US implicitly threatening to bomb said countries.