RE: Impeachment?

RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 8:50:03 AM)
quote: Say a group of rebels didnt like the government in this country, and some foreign powers were helping them affect regime change. Would you not consider that a state of war, or an act of war? Thats the same argument I proposed earlier, Sanity. All I got back was... that wouldnt happen here... and only mike responded. But, I have the guts to respond. If that happened here, no I would not be happy. But, it has happened here. Civil War, if I remember my history correctly. British soilders manned many blockade runners. Its been said those in Tripoli side with Gaddafi because all they have been told is that the attacks are being made by terrorists and outside forces. Do they even know their own citizens are the uprising? I doubt it. I am not trying to make excuses for either side. Its a no-win situation all around.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 9:16:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Say a group of rebels didnt like the government in this country, and some foreign powers were helping them affect regime change. Would you not consider that a state of war, or an act of war? Thats the same argument I proposed earlier, Sanity. All I got back was... that wouldnt happen here... and only mike responded. But, I have the guts to respond. If that happened here, no I would not be happy. But, it has happened here. Civil War, if I remember my history correctly. British soilders manned many blockade runners. Its been said those in Tripoli side with Gaddafi because all they have been told is that the attacks are being made by terrorists and outside forces. Do they even know their own citizens are the uprising? I doubt it. I am not trying to make excuses for either side. Its a no-win situation all around. I must be a fool...I am going to once again wade into this hypothetical....this time I am only going to address the hypothetical situation as posed by the sane one. Yes,I would consider it an act of war! Now the reasons for that is thus....we have in this country a legally elected gov't....and the means in place for effecting change in said gov't.So if some group were so incensed by the present form of gov't in this country that they took up arms in an attempt to overthrow that legally elected(by the people) gov't.....they would in fact be traitors and usurpers.....so any other gov't claiming to help the rebels would in fact be waging a war against my(again) legally elected gov't. And once again I do not see how this analogy works.....Libya has no such freely elected gov't in place,no such tradition of freely elected gov't....as of now.Perhaps as a result of the efforts being conducted it may,some time in the future,enjoy such treasures,

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 9:22:40 AM)
It's interesting how there's all this fuss about Libya, but nothing is being said about the almost equally vile situation in Bahrain. You'd have thought the military attacking civilian dissenters and imprisoning foreign press might attract a bit more attention than it is at the moment. I wonder if this disparity is anything to do with the fact that Ghadaffi is well established as a bogeyman, while few can even name anybody in Bahrain's government?

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 11:06:16 AM)
[image]http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/cartoon_500/cartoons/uhnevermind.jpg[/image]

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 11:08:59 AM)
And the GOP has their chance to unseat him next year. But if its believed that chance comes at the costs of women and children, unions and complaints that "permission" was never granted, think again.

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 11:35:11 AM)
Here is a fun excerpt from a Wolf Blitzer interview of Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough which aired March 23rd on CNN: quote: MCDONOUGH: -- as it relates to the specific question, Wolf, we're not setting out with a policy of regime change here. We set out a very defined goal here, which is we would shape the environment and enable our international partners to take over the no-fly zone. We're on the verge of doing that. Importantly, over the last couple of days -- BLITZER: Wait, hold on. Hold on, Denis. I'm sorry for interrupting, but you just said something. You said there's -- it's not a policy of regime change. MCDONOUGH: Correct. BLITZER: But how many times has the president said over the past few weeks, Gadhafi must go? MCDONOUGH: Well, I haven't counted, Wolf. Maybe you have. But he has been very -- BLITZER: At least a dozen. MCDONOUGH: Well, I'd take your word for it, as I always do. BLITZER: But doesn't that mean regime change if Gadhafi must go? MCDONOUGH: Well, I think you asked -- you're kind of asking a couple of different questions now, Wolf. You asked whether it was an acceptable outcome. And what we've said is we've set out a very specific goal for our forces, an accomplishable task, which, incidentally, because of their great performances -- our Marines, our sailors, our airmen, our soldiers -- because of their great efforts, we have turned back the forces from Benghazi and we are on the verge, now, of being able to hand over the conduct of the no-fly zone to our allies. BLITZER: But must Gadhafi go? MCDONOUGH: Well, that's going to be a determination for the Libyan people to make, Wolf -- BLITZER: But the president says he must go. MCDONOUGH: Well, the president -- you know, I'm not going to improve on the good answer that the president gave on this question yesterday, which I know you watched and which was obviously a part of his press conference yesterday -- BLITZER: Is that U.S. policy still, that Gadhafi must go? MCDONOUGH: Well, the president did outline exactly what our -- our policy view is -- BLITZER: And he said there was a -- MCDONOUGH: -- which is that -- BLITZER: -- he said Gadhafi must go. MCDONOUGH: Yes. And he explained to you yesterday and I'm explaining to you again today that the mission we've set out, as it relates to this effort over the last several days, has been to shape the environment, to be able to bring along the international allies so that it's not just our troops and not just our taxpayers who are carrying out these efforts and investing their resources, but rather the whole world, because, frankly, this isn't solely our problem, Wolf. This is a problem for the world. And so we're bringing along the Arab League. We're bringing along the U.N. -- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/23/sitroom.02.html

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 11:41:43 AM)
MCDONOUGH: Yes. And he explained to you yesterday and I'm explaining to you again today that the mission we've set out, as it relates to this effort over the last several days, has been to shape the environment, to be able to bring along the international allies so that it's not just our troops and not just our taxpayers who are carrying out these efforts and investing their resources, but rather the whole world, because, frankly, this isn't solely our problem, Wolf. This is a problem for the world. And so we're bringing along the Arab League. We're bringing along the U.N. -- BLITZER: So, I just -- MCDONOUGH: -- we're bringing along our European allies -- BLITZER: I don't want to -- I don't want to be a pest, but if the policy is Gadhafi must go, I assume that means regime change, but you just said the policy was not regime change. MCDONOUGH: I think you -- I think I was responding to the question that you asked from the letter from the speaker, which I indicated was another good opportunity to continue the conversation with him. So -- and as it relates to whether it's an acceptable outcome, the question is, we're not pursuing regime change as a result of this military effort. That's -- that's been quite clear since the president addressed it with the American people on Friday -- BLITZER: But you are pursuing a regime change separate from the military effort, is that correct? MCDONOUGH: Well, we're going to bring a whole range of assets and -- and efforts and resources to this -- to this important policy, Wolf, but it's not going to be solely a military effort. We're asking our military to do an awful lot and they're doing it quite well, in Japan -- BLITZER: All right -- MCDONOUGH: -- in Afghanistan, in Iraq and now in -- in Libya. But we're going to have to rely on our allies. We're bringing our allies along. We're going to rely on the neighbors. We're bringing them along. And then we'll rely on non-military tools, as well. *But you are pursuing a regime change separate from the military effort, is that correct?* Something that has never been denied.

mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 11:42:06 AM)
Yeah, and now that he is in the paygrade, he has also said we will not prosecute W as a war criminal, also weak, if you want to see it that way. Presidents make adjustments in decisions based on the immediate situation once they are president of this entire country, from the static campaign trail talking points of their party. Some of them good, some bad. Some of them make all bad ones. Ain't never been one that made all good. Sorta like all humans, you know?

tweakabelle -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 3:22:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's interesting how there's all this fuss about Libya, but nothing is being said about the almost equally vile situation in Bahrain. You'd have thought the military attacking civilian dissenters and imprisoning foreign press might attract a bit more attention than it is at the moment. I wonder if this disparity is anything to do with the fact that Ghadaffi is well established as a bogeyman, while few can even name anybody in Bahrain's government? Bahrain is thought pivotal to the anti-Iranian strategy of the West. Another aspect is that Bahrain is currently an absolute monarchy. The tinpot potentates of the Gulf region are loath to see one of their own fall to popular demands for democracy - who'd be next? Kuwait? UAE? Qatar? Saudi? The current monarch of Bahrain has a long history of pro-Western policies. Bahrain is home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet. The 'domino' theory holds that if Bahrain falls, then the Eastern Provinces of Saudi Arabia, dominated by Shi'ites will be next to go. Democracy and human rights in Saudi Arabia???? Absolutely unthinkable! Bahrain is being misleadingly presented as a Sunni-Shi'ite squabble, esp in the conservative media, whereas it is, in fact, a struggle by all Bahrainis for democracy and human rights denied them by an absolute monarch who comes from a minority sect. The Murdoch media here is insisting that the Bahraini protesters are sectarian dupes of a sinister Iranian strategy to expand its influence. And we all know how eebil those nasty Iranians are don't we? And how it's impossible to permit ordinary Bahrainis the basic rights that any Westerner enjoys because it would benefit Iran. So it really doesn't matter that protesters are being shot, imprisoned, that foreign armies are supporting a corrupt Govt loathed by its people, that basic human rights are being denied a people demanding them by a Govt happy to shoot its way to retaining power. Parallels to Libya are purely co-incidental and superficial - more mischievous libtard nonsense (same goes for Syria Jordan Yemen <insert Arab country of your choice here> ...... all mischievous libtard nonsense.)

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/26/2011 3:09:16 PM)
Maybe ground troops are needed there? Or special ops forces, boots on the ground: quote: 'Al-Qaeda snatched missiles' in Libya AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says. Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion. "The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview. "This is very serious. AQIM is becoming a genuine army, the best equipped in the region," he said. His claim was echoed by officials in other countries in the region who said that they were worried that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) might have acquired "heavy weapons", thanks to the insurrection. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1HkJLJEJ5

outhere69 -> RE: Impeachment? (3/26/2011 6:55:47 PM)
Every single hit for at least 4 pages states only that single quote from Chad...and the fact that he doesn't know how many, but is 100% sure that the missiles were stolen. While stating that Chadean nationals within Libya were fighting for Gaddafi "on their own"...not as mercenaries. Anyone else confirmed it? Reading the article, it sounds like one long game of "telephone".

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/26/2011 7:07:14 PM)
I dont know. There are other sources alleging that al-Qaeda is among the rebel forces, however.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/26/2011 8:39:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's interesting how there's all this fuss about Libya, but nothing is being said about the almost equally vile situation in Bahrain. You'd have thought the military attacking civilian dissenters and imprisoning foreign press might attract a bit more attention than it is at the moment. I wonder if this disparity is anything to do with the fact that Ghadaffi is well established as a bogeyman, while few can even name anybody in Bahrain's government? Do Exxon-Mobil, BP, or Shell have any holdings in Bahrain? National interests have become synonymous with corporate interests.

tweakabelle -> RE: Impeachment? (3/26/2011 10:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I dont know. There are other sources alleging that al-Qaeda is among the rebel forces, however. Yeppers. Ghadaffi is the most prominent one I know of ... but there may be others ....Who knows? Even possibly some credible ones.

truckinslave -> RE: Impeachment? (3/27/2011 3:17:29 AM)
I'd just like to point out that if I said the Kenyan "matriculated," people- dim people- would call me a racist.

Politesub53 -> RE: Impeachment? (3/27/2011 4:16:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I dont know. There are other sources alleging that al-Qaeda is among the rebel forces, however. Yeppers. Ghadaffi is the most prominent one I know of ... but there may be others ....Who knows? Even possibly some credible ones. Thanks Tweaks, saved me a post.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/27/2011 7:30:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I'd just like to point out that if I said the Kenyan "matriculated," people- dim people- would call me a racist. What in the hell are you babbling about?

Moonhead -> RE: Impeachment? (3/27/2011 8:35:59 AM)
His persecution complex is playing up again.

truckinslave -> RE: Impeachment? (3/27/2011 9:45:09 AM)
Humor deficit noted. Again. I shoulda used a smiley face. Just for you. [:)]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/27/2011 10:31:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Panda, I made my argument. It's based on personal expertise and knowledge. And now you're reduced to argument from authority. What a pity. Like I said, you guys used to be much better at this. It's hardly even fun poking at you anymore. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY My argument was simple. I'll repeat it: To put it simply, the "cease fire" from the Gulf War was breached by SA many times. Any one of those breaches was sufficient under international law and UN resolutions to resume the hostilities against Iraq. As well, SA attempted several other things that were casus bellum under international law: not the least of which was the attempted assassination of the US President. And again, according to whom? Cites, please. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You can continue to bluster and insult in an attempt to save face, but your normal "yell at 'em so loud and be so mean that they'll shut up" doesn't work with me. Nor does it garner much respect. Please rethink your position, and the way you respond. Blah, blah, blah. I'm not here looking for respect, Firm, because there are very few people left here whom I respect enough that their respect matters to me, and most of them already respect me. I'm here to argue. Mostly with people i hold responsible for much of what I find appalling and deplorable in this country today. I don't give a flying fuck whether any of those people respect me, or like me. You don't like the way I choose to argue, put me on ignore and you won't have to be offended anymore. I have absolutely no interest in changing my posting style to make this place a more pleasant experience for you, or any of your ilk.

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625