Personally, I'd guess this is a distraction from the truly dangerous issue to the American government, the fact that the NSA spying is no longer a guess, but an actual problem to so many people who did not care before because they couldn't imagine the scale of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there truth to the claims that the rebels are being financed and trained by Al Qaeda?
If that's the case, is this a d-bag vs s#*% sandwich choice?
You can't say "the rebels" as if they were one giant homogeneous group. I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda is funding some of them. We're funding some of them. Hopefully there's as little overlap in that funding as possible. I don't know if we've found a good enough horse to bet on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd guess this is a distraction from the truly dangerous issue to the American government, the fact that the NSA spying is no longer a guess, but an actual problem to so many people who did not care before because they couldn't imagine the scale of it.
I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
Interestingly, this Syria debacle is the first time I've actually seen Obama pay a political price for his administration's fecklessness, obtuseness and general incompetence. He should send Putin flowers for giving him an out on this.
Personally, I'd guess this is a distraction from the truly dangerous issue to the American government, the fact that the NSA spying is no longer a guess, but an actual problem to so many people who did not care before because they couldn't imagine the scale of it.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
Interestingly, this Syria debacle is the first time I've actually seen Obama pay a political price for his administration's fecklessness, obtuseness and general incompetence. He should send Putin flowers for giving him an out on this.
does Regans teflonicity bother you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
does Regans teflonicity bother you?Personally, I'd guess this is a distraction from the truly dangerous issue to the American government, the fact that the NSA spying is no longer a guess, but an actual problem to so many people who did not care before because they couldn't imagine the scale of it.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
Interestingly, this Syria debacle is the first time I've actually seen Obama pay a political price for his administration's fecklessness, obtuseness and general incompetence. He should send Putin flowers for giving him an out on this.
I thought Reagan's "teflonicity" was highly overrated. I remember Reagan's term very well, his Presidency began while I was in college and extended into my first forays into my eventual long-term career, including the birth of my first child. During that period Reagan was excoriated publicly on a regular basis and his public approval ratings ebbed and flowed with the times until the economy finally roared back to life in time for him to get re-elected. Just when it seemed that he would sail through a second term on the strength of that economy, the Iran-Contra scandal pretty much drove him to lame duck status for the last few years of his Presidency.
It is interesting to me these days to hear people speak in glowing terms of the blissful state of Reagan's Presidency. My memory of those times is quite different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
Sometimes people cry wolf because there's, you know, an actual WOLF. You should realize that.... Wolf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes people cry wolf because there's, you know, an actual WOLF. You should realize that.... Wolf.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
Yes, but it grows increasingly hard to believe you every time you scream bloody murder over the normal functioning of a large, sprawling, byzantine government and not bad as evil empires go world ruling empire.
I mean, an oil tycoon cooks the evidence to make billions getting us into a war in iraq where 100,000 iraqis and 6000 americans die and thats fine, but gods forbid we loose 4 diplomatic staff! Scandal!
We give oil companies with record profits trillions in tax breaks, not to mention leasing them our massive military to take over countries for them, but we try to fund a solar energy company and its corruption the likes our great nation has never seen!!!!!!!
We implement the 1996 republican health care plan and all of a sudden Obama is a raving commie pinko!
We even consider bombing another country, and for once the president actually ASKS congress to be able to do so, and somehow that's the worst thing we've ever done?
He's not teflon. He's so gunked in fake mud there's no room for the real stuff.
Sometimes people cry wolf because there's, you know, an actual WOLF. You should realize that.... Wolf.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
Sorry, you lose credibility with me after the first few times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes people cry wolf because there's, you know, an actual WOLF. You should realize that.... Wolf.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
Yes, but it grows increasingly hard to believe you every time you scream bloody murder over the normal functioning of a large, sprawling, byzantine government and not bas as evil empires go world ruling empire.
I mean, an oil tycoon cooks the evidence to make billions getting us into a war in iraq where 100,000 iraqis and 6000 americans die and thats fine, but gods forbid we loose 4 diplomatic staff! Scandal!
We give oil companies with record profits trillions in tax breaks, not to mention leasing them our massive military to take over countries for them, but we try to fund a solar energy company and its corruption the likes our great nation has never seen!!!!!!!
We implement the 1996 republican health care plan and all of a sudden Obama is a raving commie pinko!
We even consider bombing another country, and for once the president actually ASKS congress to be able to do so, and somehow that's the worst thing we've ever done?
He's not teflon. He's so gunked in fake mud there's no room for the real stuff.
BigNorseWolf, I suspect that your position on this might be related to your ideology. Or did you defend GW Bush using the same logic?
I'm not going to list the serious scandals that can be laid at the feet of Obama and his closest associates in the last five years. There are plenty to list and if you want to go review them, a quick Google search will do so. I will just say that it is interesting to hear your defense of the Obama administration's malfeasance being that the government is just too big to keep track of.
Because, you know, I generally oppose "Big Government" on that basis, among others.
I love the spin that he and Putin had previously discussed Assad giving up the weapons. Kerrys face when he says it ameks it sound like he was kidding!!. Wouldnt it take years to get rid of the weapons like it did in Libya?
Hes got Boehner helping him draft the speech!!
I think this press conference tonight is now "must see tv" . I truly feel like i'm watching a really bad made for tv movie or a Saturday night live skit.
BigNorseWolf, I suspect that your position on this might be related to your...Sometimes people cry wolf because there's, you know, an actual WOLF. You should realize that.... Wolf.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
Yes, but it grows increasingly hard to believe you every time you scream bloody murder over the normal functioning of a large, sprawling, byzantine government and not bas as evil empires go world ruling empire.
I mean, an oil tycoon cooks the evidence to make billions getting us into a war in iraq where 100,000 iraqis and 6000 americans die and thats fine, but gods forbid we loose 4 diplomatic staff! Scandal!
We give oil companies with record profits trillions in tax breaks, not to mention leasing them our massive military to take over countries for them, but we try to fund a solar energy company and its corruption the likes our great nation has never seen!!!!!!!
We implement the 1996 republican health care plan and all of a sudden Obama is a raving commie pinko!
We even consider bombing another country, and for once the president actually ASKS congress to be able to do so, and somehow that's the worst thing we've ever done?
He's not teflon. He's so gunked in fake mud there's no room for the real stuff.
ad, you're starting to crack me up with respect to politics.
Sorry, you lose credibility with me after the first few times.Sometimes people cry wolf because there's, you know, an actual WOLF. You should realize that.... Wolf.I sure wish Obama was facing screaming outrage over the NSA spying scandal. Or the Benghazi debacle. Or a half dozen other major scandals that barely seem to be eroding Obama's support at the margins. They used to call Reagan the "Teflon President." I've never seen anything like Obama's ability to preside over rampant outright corruption and incompetence and still maintain a generally positive public image.
The problem is that ya'll have been crying corruption and incompetence 247, 365 for the last 5 years at everything. If something genuine comes up I'm sorry, but even the most dedicated shepherd isn't showing up for the 874th cry of "WOOOLF!"
And then the wolves get to your door.
Or do you think any of the following are not "wolves?"
NSA spying scandal
Fast and Furious gun running
Benghazi
Spying on AP reporters
IRS and FEC targeting conservative groups
Because I actually think those are wolves.
ad, you're starting to crack me up with respect to politics.
That's fine. I just think that reveals more about your politics than mine Freehold. I think I've been fairly even-handed in my criticism of both sides. Obama just doesn't get a free pass from me any more than GW Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.
ad, you're starting to crack me up with respect to politics.That's fine. I just think that reveals more about your politics than mine Freehold.
How mature.
I think I've been fairly even-handed in my criticism of both sides. Obama just doesn't get a free pass from me any more than GW Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.
we disagree here, then.
BigNorseWolf, I suspect that your position on this might be related to your ideology.
Ad hom.
Or did you defend GW Bush using the same logic?
A few of the things he did or happened. Afghanistan comes to mind.
I'm not going to list the serious scandals that can be laid at the feet of Obama and his closest associates in the last five years. There are plenty to list and if you want to go review them, a quick Google search will do so.
There are plenty to list, which do you think are serious?
NSA: actual scandal. I'm sure you've seen me lambasting him on this one.
IRS turning down tea parties for non profit status: not a scandal. Political organizations are not supposed to use that exception, the tea party is a political organization, NOT an educational or charitable one.
Bengazi: not a scandal.
Solyndra: small potatoes
fast and furious: was an ongoing program waaay below the presidential level
two black panthers outside of a poling place: pretty sure obama was cleared on that one...
I will just say that it is interesting to hear your defense of the Obama administration's malfeasance being that the government is just too big to keep track of.
Because, you know, I generally oppose "Big Government" on that basis, among others.
We;ve seen what happens when you don't have a big government. Someone has enough money and power to push around a small governments and then push around the people worse than the large government. Wasted government money is a far better alternative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very uninformed piece of s$%$, as Mali has no uranium : it's Niger.
It puts quite a defavorable perspective on the accuracy and seriousness of the whole, eh ?
Now whose accuracy and seriousness are in question, camarade?
My bad about calling Syria a former French colony. It was just a mandate where France suppressed a series of nationalist revolts. My bad. It's hard for us Americans to get these details right since all of our colonies (except Puerto Rico and Guam) are neocolonies.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm not a pacifist.
No war but the class war!
Vive le Galt!
BigNorseWolf, I suspect that your position on this might be related to your ideology.Ad hom.
Or did you defend GW Bush using the same logic?A few of the things he did or happened. Afghanistan comes to mind.
I'm not going to list the serious scandals that can be laid at the feet of Obama and his closest associates in the last five years. There are plenty to list and if you want to go review them, a quick Google search will do so.There are plenty to list, which do you think are serious?
NSA: actual scandal. I'm sure you've seen me lambasting him on this one.
IRS turning down tea parties for non profit status: not a scandal. Political organizations are not supposed to use that exception, the tea party is a political organization, NOT an educational or charitable one.
Bengazi: not a scandal.
Solyndra: small potatoes
fast and furious: was an ongoing program waaay below the presidential level
two black panthers outside of a poling place: pretty sure obama was cleared on that one...
I will just say that it is interesting to hear your defense of the Obama administration's malfeasance being that the government is just too big to keep track of.
Because, you know, I generally oppose "Big Government" on that basis, among others.
We;ve seen what happens when you don't have a big government. Someone has enough money and power to push around a small governments and then push around the people worse than the large government. Wasted government money is a far better alternative.
Wow, you really do give Obama a pass on major scandals BNW. Seriously, I cannot believe you would be as forgiving of an ideologically opposed President. But there's no point to pointing out someone's ideological blinders. That's why they are blinders.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IRS turning down tea parties for non profit status: not a scandal. Political organizations are not supposed to use that exception, the tea party is a political organization, NOT an educational or charitable one.
a lot of people also try to incorporate themselves to avoid paying taxes. There are a lot of people trying to pull off a lot of things-I would like to point out again that the lions share of these grouos got their status after a few months.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, you really do give Obama a pass on major scandals BNW. Seriously, I cannot believe you would be as forgiving of an ideologically opposed President. But there's no point to pointing out someone's ideological blinders. That's why they are blinders.
If you can't make a better argument than a horribly circular ad hom I have no reason to value your opinions as anything more than an insult. The irs "Scandal" in particular has been quite thoroughly debunked, both because the irs was right to turn down tea parties for that exception AND liberal groups got similar scrutiny when enough of them used similar sounding names. We went through it pretty thoroughly here
I can, and have, backed up my position with facts, evidence, and rational proceeding from that body of knowledge to a conclusion. You are not. The entirety of your argument rests on my alleged ideology and blinders. If you can't do better check your own eyewear.
More generally, it's really hard to keep straight what people are arguing in this thread.
The only common thread is that Obama's up to something nefarious. Or maybe just incompetent.
But what that something is never gets clear. "Weaken both Assad and the jihadis by keeping them balanced" is the only thing that makes any sense to me, if you have to posit some conspiracy.Otherwise it makes no sense to me that Obama's running some scheme for full-blown war with Syria and is lying about chemical weapons as an excuse. He hasn't laid the groundwork, PR-wise. There's nothing for him to gain in another war. And even less in a quick strike that accomplishes little.
Ah, an edit after I went to bed.
I can't speak for what other people say, but I love how an op-ed piece in the New York Times by a government-connected think tank guy who has rubbed shoulders with Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew whateverhisnameis gets turned into a conspiracy theory.
(EDIT: You're also ignoring the point, that has been made over and over again, even by me END EDIT) that Obama isn't ramping up for a full-blown war. He just wants to bomb Syrians to punish Assad for gassing Syrians. It makes no sense to me, either, but it also doesn't make sense how they can run around claiming they have incontestable evidence when the evidence they've presented is pretty damn contestable.
------??????------->Profit.Its not like we're not practiced at ignoring people slaughters in places we can't find on a map. I don't see how a stalemate helps us.
Well, then maybe you should read the article. Here, I'll bump it again.
"ON Wednesday, reports surfaced of a mass chemical-weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs that human rights activists claim killed hundreds of civilians, bringing Syria’s continuing civil war back onto the White House’s foreign policy radar, even as the crisis in Egypt worsens.
But the Obama administration should resist the temptation to intervene more forcefully in Syria’s civil war. A victory by either side would be equally undesirable for the United States.
At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests.
Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.
But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria."
Well, then maybe you should read the article. Here, I'll bump it again.
I did read it, but still i don't see how just ignoring the entire thing all together wouldn't have been better for the president. The president we elected to get us OUT of a war getting us into a war looks bad. The weak willed spineless jellyfish going to congress and being turned down looks bad. The dictator overriding congress and bombing anyway looks worse.
Aasad thumbing his nose at us and declaring victory seems like the BEST outcome for the administration, not the worst.
I don't think they can ignore it. Left to its own devices, the possibilities of it turning into a Middle East-wide war (players so far: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Israel, god knows who else) that could make the whole region unlivable and un-oil-extractable wouldn't be a very good thing for the architects of American empire.
I don't think they can ignore it. Left to its own devices, the possibilities of it turning into a Middle East-wide war (players so far: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Israel, god knows who else) that could make the whole region unlivable and un-oil-extractable wouldn't be a very good thing for the architects of American empire.
So do nothing and let Aasad win. Go on tv and doubt the evidence. Play up the "We had evidence for iraq and we saw how that turned out" card and play epistemic nihilist. "Find" evidence for a false flag operation. A stable evil overlord keeps the oil flowing.
And strengthens Iran's hand. And Hezbollah's. And threatens Israel. And thumbs it's nose at the USA (that always makes the imperialists' blood boil.)
(Side note, Syria doesn't have that much oil.)
What's this you say about threatening Israel? Sounds good!
Sigh, I'm done with this. Criticize Obama and you are immediately accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
I've got better things to do with my time than interact with such partisan shills.
What's this you say about threatening Israel? Sounds good!
I am, of course, role-playing the part of an architect of American empire.
Sigh, I'm done with this. Criticize Obama and you are immediately accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
I've got better things to do with my time than interact with such partisan shills.
I never get accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
Comrade Meatrace, not only did your old AP scandal thread have more than one post (which you were quite proud of at the time), it got linked by Citizen Wolf!
Fun Commie Links of the Day:
Obama Presses for Missile Strikes: No to Imperialist Attack Against Syria!
Nice link in the latter: Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Comrade Meatrace, not only did your old AP scandal thread have more than one post (which you were quite proud of at the time), it got linked by Citizen Wolf!
It does a mother proud.
It also reminds me of the third topic I was amazed that there hadn't been a thread about (take note, Comrade Barrister): the Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning conviction.
Flame on!
Very uninformed piece of s$%$, as Mali has no uranium : it's Niger.
It puts quite a defavorable perspective on the accuracy and seriousness of the whole, eh ?
Now whose accuracy and seriousness are in question, camarade?
My bad about calling Syria a former French colony. It was just a mandate where France suppressed a series of nationalist revolts. My bad. It's hard for us Americans to get these details right since all of our colonies (except Puerto Rico and Guam) are neocolonies.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm not a pacifist.
No war but the class war!
Vive le Galt!
Nope, dodged this one : no uranium mine in Mali. Just uranium deposits, as in a lot of places, in which Areva could or could not be interested in the far future when the mines currently operated will be exhausted, somewhere in the 22th century.
Was it supposed to be a smoking gun explaining why we came to the rescue of an historical ally (yes, ex colony), trounced the local AQ, then, you know pulled out ? What would convince you that there was NO hidden agenda?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I understand.
"As it appears that IBK [Ibrahim Boubacar Keita--who, indeed, won the election Link] will run away with the election in the final round, France hopes that this charming, charismatic populist figure will help maintain ECOWAS under French hegemony, keeping Mali’s uranium out of the hands of the BRICS or Saudis while possibly increasing the amount of land deals in the North and using the military’s iron fist to assure investor protections. This will mean increased patrols, likely coming from the US’s new drone base in Niger over Nigeria and Mali to monitor insurgencies, and long-standing conflicts. Whatever the outcome, peace may be a long time in coming, with food security even further off."
Very uninformed piece of s#~+, as Mali has no uranium : it's Niger.
It puts quite a defavorable perspective on the accuracy and seriousness of the whole, eh ?
Nope, dodged this one : no uranium mine in Mali. Just uranium deposits, as in a lot of places, in which Areva could or could not be interested in the far future when the mines currently operated will be exhausted, somewhere in the 22th century.
Are you saying that you dodged it because there are no uranium mines in Mali?
And if there are no uranium mines in Mali (or hopes to have them by the 22nd century) then why were Malians in Falea organizing against uranium mining in March of 2012?
Sigh, I'm done with this. Criticize Obama and you are immediately accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
I've got better things to do with my time than interact with such partisan shills.
Dismissing people who disagree with you as shills is neither productive nor persuasive. And with all due respect, the indignation is tough to swallow. Nobody called you a "Rush Limbaugh redneck savage."
Edit: Just went back up thread and saw where someone called you stupid. Not OK, and flagged.
Benghazi was a transparent attempt to manufacture a scandal. It's easy to point fingers in hindsight, but let's not forget that many of the people pointing those fingers would have (and in some cases, probably had) vociferously opposed the government spending more on security. It was Monday-morning quarterbacking at its most disingenuous.
In my opinion, Obama badly miscalculated on Syria and has made something of a mess of things. But trotting out Benghazi here just makes you look the partisan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was it supposed to be a smoking gun explaining why we came to the rescue of an historical ally (yes, ex colony), trounced the local AQ, then, you know pulled out ? What would convince you that there was NO hidden agenda?
As for this, no, it's not supposed to be a smoking gun. You are the one who challenged it in the piece above.
France militarily intervened in one of their neocolonies to save the military dictatorship (that has since become a democracy and elected a pro-French president) from an Islamist/nationalist rebellion and reasserted their hegemony over the area. What would convince you there was more involved here than altruism?
(Edited)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a military intervention will do any actual good.
It will just sprinkle more dead people in a conflict that will hardly be affected by 10d8 missiles, and make the whole matter even more volatile. It may or may not stop whomever has been throwing gas around from using chemical weapons, but I don't believe it is worth the cost. Not in human lives nor in geopolitical stability.
As horrible as the civil war has been so far, it has been more or less contained to Syria; the US and its allies going back to the neighbourhood, no matter how good the intentions, will probably just open several types of cans, jars, barrels, and vials of worms.
Are you saying that you dodged it because there are no uranium mines in Mali?
And if there are no uranium mines in Mali (or hopes to have them by the 22nd century) then why were Malians in Falea organizing against uranium mining in March of 2012?
Yes, that was my point.
Your link points to an article explaining that malians do organize against the opening of an uranium mine by canadian interests. I didn't know.
Now I am confused : why the RMC didn't invade Mali ? :)
Was it supposed to be a smoking gun explaining why we came to the rescue of an historical ally (yes, ex colony), trounced the local AQ, then, you know pulled out ? What would convince you that there was NO hidden agenda?As for this, no, it's not supposed to be a smoking gun. You are the one who challenged it in the piece above.
France militarily intervened in one of their neocolonies to save the military dictatorship (that has since become a democracy and elected a pro-French president) from an Islamist/nationalist rebellion and reasserted their hegemony over the area. What would convince you there was more involved here than altruism?
(Edited)
Or, in a less obnoxiously cynical narrative : France did intervene in an ex colony in which it has absolutely no interest at the moment to defend it against djihadists (islamists are regular guys who happen to be religious, do not mix them up) and re-establish democracy (sort of, in an african way). It's because of the djihadists attacks that the legal government was toppled, not bacause of our intervention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that you dodged it because there are no uranium mines in Mali?
And if there are no uranium mines in Mali (or hopes to have them by the 22nd century) then why were Malians in Falea organizing against uranium mining in March of 2012?
Yes, that was my point.
Your link points to an article explaining that malians do organize against the opening of an uranium mine by canadian interests. I didn't know.
Now I am confused : why the RMC didn't invade Mali ? :)
So, the article didn't say anything about uranium mines, just uranium, you say there are no uranium mines in Mali, which there are, and therefore there is uranium in Mali.
Which brings us back to:
Very uninformed piece of s!!#, as Mali has no uranium : it's Niger.
It puts quite a defavorable perspective on the accuracy and seriousness of the whole, eh ?
Or, in a less obnoxiously cynical narrative : France did intervene in an ex colony in which it has absolutely no interest at the moment to defend it against djihadists (islamists are regular guys who happen to be religious, do not mix them up) and re-establish democracy (sort of, in an african way). It's because of the djihadists attacks that the legal government was toppled, not bacause of our intervention.
(In English, we usually use "Muslim" for regular guy who worships Islam. I'm not sure what the technical usage of "Islamist" is, but I think "Islamist rebellion" would be understood and accepted by those on the liberal/left. But maybe I'm wrong.)
Well, if you think my narrative is obnoxiously cynical, I think yours is obnoxiously naive. I certainly don't believe you about French interests in Mali and I have questions about your timeline. I thought it went: Tuareg uprising--Sanogou (sp?) coup--Tuareg/jihadi fallout--jihadi drive south--French intervention?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, I'm done with this. Criticize Obama and you are immediately accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
I've got better things to do with my time than interact with such partisan shills.
Dismissing people who disagree with you as shills is neither productive nor persuasive. And with all due respect, the indignation is tough to swallow. Nobody called you a "Rush Limbaugh redneck savage."
Edit: Just went back up thread and saw where someone called you stupid. Not OK, and flagged.
Benghazi was a transparent attempt to manufacture a scandal. It's easy to point fingers in hindsight, but let's not forget that many of the people pointing those fingers would have (and in some cases, probably had) vociferously opposed the government spending more on security. It was Monday-morning quarterbacking at its most disingenuous.
In my opinion, Obama badly miscalculated on Syria and has made something of a mess of things. But trotting out Benghazi here just makes you look the partisan.
Benghazi may not qualify as a scandal, but being concerned about how it was (or wasn't) handled doesn't make you a partisan hack, either.