Obama called Libya a sh*t show....

Yep, it was a mess.
Unfortunately, the blood-thirsty Obama, much like Bush before him, left the world in a far worse state than he found it in when he took the American presidency.
 
Or South and Central America. Or Africa, fuck, but we can pass that off on the Europeans.

It's hard for me to be (sufficiently) critical of European hawking, though, when I don't really have a proper concept of its economic motivations, although I'm sure they're insidious as can be.

I'm actually amenable, too, to interventionism in the abstract: I'm not an isolationist ideologue. It's just been a long fucking time since an intervention has been objectively justifiable.

No doubt the context differs in each respective case of "imperialism". Isolationism in the past might have been an unobtainable ideal based on an assortment of reasons, but in the contemporary world it's hard for me to defend any sort of form of military intervention as there's always seemingly underlying motives that are purposefully withheld to make invasive actions seem morally acceptable.

Can't argue with that. I'd argue that since the US' inception we've had no legitimate reason to waste our resources and kill our young men in the name of foreign affairs.
 
I do not think the term NeoCon was meant to cover the entire political spectrum of anyone who wants to start a conflict.

Maybe we could say aggressive internationalists or hawks or something, but sadly Neocon does not mean that.
American Imperialism seems fit.
 
I do not think the term NeoCon was meant to cover the entire political spectrum of anyone who wants to start a conflict.

Maybe we could say aggressive internationalists or hawks or something, but sadly Neocon does not mean that.

I have prodded and still been unable to elicit an actual philosophical distinction for neocons. Even historically, it seems to had quickly become a misnomer, as the neoconservative platform wasn't "neo" at all, but in fact more conservative than previous conservative generations.

Like, if it were being applied to Hillary Clinton, it would at least make etymological sense.
 
I have prodded and still been unable to elicit an actual philosophical distinction for neocons. Even historically, it seems to had quickly become a misnomer, as the neoconservative platform wasn't "neo" at all, but in fact more conservative than previous conservative generations.

Like, if it were being applied to Hillary Clinton, it would at least make etymological sense.

I have no problem declaring the term as useless.

From what I have read it was generally a way to try and zero-in on the Weekly Standard variety of educated, fiscal Conservatives with aggressive foreign policy views and a kind of "compassionate Conservative" set of reform minded views about future American society.

During and after the 2nd Iraq war though the term spun out of control to mean literally anyone who is in favor of any form of preemptive and interventionist policy, and of course as a pejorative.

That said, how about we start a campaign to retire the term and create a better and more accurate set of terms?
 
Yes, it was a shit show.

And he was directly implicit in creating that shit show. The US is almost entirely to blame And yet we are still doing the same shit with Syria and Iran. Seems like a never ending cycle of bullshit geopolitical conquest.

Yeah, I'm going to place the terrible conditions in Libya more on Gaddafi than the USA. We didn't help, but we were not the principle creators of the situation in the first place.
 
American Imperialism seems fit.

Hmm, imperialism is a bit of a loaded term, but I have no real logical or moral complaints besides the possibility of the idea being overly emotional for some to handle.

In other words the shoe fits.

As well we can always attach "neu" to the front of the word if future mutations of the philosophy emerge.
 
Bu bu but time once again ;)
 
I have no problem declaring the term as useless.

From what I have read it was generally a way to try and zero-in on the Weekly Standard variety of educated, fiscal Conservatives with aggressive foreign policy views and a kind of "compassionate Conservative" set of reform minded views about future American society.

I had thought I read that it was originally used to describe up and coming blue dog liberal types who had become disenchanted with foreign policy inaction in the American left particularly with regard to communism. But, with the marginal difference between D's and R's on domestic economic policy during the 1970s, that seems silly to begin with. From wiki:


Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the foreign policy platform of the Democratic Party. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
But that definition is completely inconsistent with the persons they describe, who were not liberal at all, as GWB's administration were big government Reaganites.
That said, how about we start a campaign to retire the term and create a better and more accurate set of terms?

Sounds good. Quasicon it is.

Or Pseudocon.
 
I had thought I read that it was originally used to describe up and coming blue dog liberal types who had become disenchanted with foreign policy inaction in the American left particularly with regard to communism. But, with the marginal difference between D's and R's on domestic economic policy during the 1970s, that seems silly to begin with. From wiki:



But that definition is completely inconsistent with the persons they describe, who were not liberal at all, as GWB's administration were big government Reaganites.


Sounds good. Quasicon it is.

Or Pseudocon.

Hmm.

I like Quasicon personally.
 
Yeah, I'm going to place the terrible conditions in Libya more on Gaddafi than the USA. We didn't help, but we were not the principle creators of the situation in the first place.

Libya had one of, if not the, highest standard of living in Africa before Obama and Hillary's fun run.
 
Libya had one of, if not the, highest standard of living in Africa before Obama and Hillary's fun run.

Yes, and it was still teetering due to Gaddafi and his regime. That being said, Gaddafi was like the cork of a powder keg, and not enough can be said about Hilary Clinton's bloodlust and lack of foresight in taking him out in the way she helped do.

Something had to be done about his actions pertaining to Misrata. A rebellion was bubbling by the time Clinton got her foolish hands on the nation. He straight up said he would defeat NATO on national television, and vowed to defy the International Criminal Court.

Like Iraq, I agree with our leader's aims, but feel their prosecution of the conflict was terrible as to constitute war crimes.
 
If I were to use the rationale of the left id say that because Obama called Libya a shitshow, he called Libya shit. And therefore called the people of Libya shit.

So Obama thinks Libyans are shit.

There you go lefties I DID IT!!!
 
Also, it's Gaddafi, not Gadaffi.

You are talking to a guy who often says "Obama sounds like Osama, therefore he is a terrorist" and ISN'T being satirical. He legitimately believes Obama is a Muslim terrorist.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html?amp

This is strange. Obama and Clinton take out Libyas leader in gadaffi, but what were their plans for the country after taking out their leader?

just leave the place in anarchy?

Seems Obama blames the u.k. for the poor state of Libya after talking out gadaffi?
Calls Libya a sh*t show
Obama NEVER wanted to intervene in Libya. He was pushed to by Hillary, Neocons, UK and France. The GOP was critical of Obama's reluctance to overthrow Ghaddafi, that they would derisively say he is "leading from behind".

What a lot of Palecons and old school non-interventionist Conservatives might not admit, is that Obama is very much like them when it comes to foreign intervention. Obama was very reluctant to intervene anywhere, unless it was self-defense, like with Af-Pak.
 
If I were to use the rationale of the left id say that because Obama called Libya a shitshow, he called Libya shit. And therefore called the people of Libya shit.

So Obama thinks Libyans are shit.

There you go lefties I DID IT!!!

Your rationalization is shit (pun intended). Calling Libya a shitshow is not analogus to Trump's comment. Obama's comment refers to the Civil war and overthrow of Ghaddafi. He never said it is a shit country.
 
Last edited:
He literally said being complicit in the NATO intervention was his greatest mistake as president.

Because he's an adult, he can admit when he made mistakes.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36013703


For the record, I was against and am still against the intervention, but it was supported by many international experts, such as the international law expert at my alma mater. In the short term, it did save civilian causalities, but, as we all know, the long-term damage was exponentially worse.

Also, he's right that Cameron deserves a larger share of the blame. Cameron was the leading voice in urging the action.


Overthrow a leader, leaving a country in ruins and destabilizing the region.

Obama: "whoops my bad", didn't see that coming.

Libs: how mature. ...so much brave....
 
Obama NEVER wanted to intervene in Libya. He was pushed to by Hillary, Neocons, UK and France. The GOP was critical of Obama's reluctance to overthrow Ghaddafi, that they would derisively say he is "leading from behind".

What a lot of Palecons and old school non-interventionist Conservatives might not admit, is that Obama is very much like them when it comes to foreign intervention. Obama was very reluctant to intervene anywhere, unless it was self-defense, like with Af-Pak.

Who had the hard on for Syria?
Obama asked for war with Syria and 90 percent of Americans at the time were, wtf, Syria???
 
Last edited:
Back
Top