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

[snakedafunky]

I'm enjoying the convo between you and @Bacco but just wanted to stick my 2 cents in here.

Yeah, 2018 Europe is better than 08 Europe. But in the context of the chat you guys are having wouldn't it be better to make the comparison between pre migrant crisis Europe and the current one?

Brexit, crime stats, the friction between Brussels and the V4 are all directly the result of the crisis, and Merkel is complicit in that fuckery.

Yeah, I don't want to minimize problem (you know how if I don't say people assume I think its no problem).
Sure the crimes stats are worse. But its just 3 years since most of them came in.
It is difficult to say at this point this will be a permanent trend and not just a system being unprepared for so many new arrivals.
It needs to be addressed but those stats also got worse after the Easter European joined the EU.
Or after the Soviet Union fell and lots of Ethnic Germans migrated from former Soviet nations. Those higher crime stats have regulated itself after a while.
Now I get the feeling this time it is going to get worse and will take longer. But with the right policies, they should go don again like they always have.

Brexit while unfortunate might, in the long run, turn out good for Europe. Because the UK was half in half out.
They are going to be basically half in half out after Brexit also just without there Eurosceptic voting rights.
And I think they mostly left because they don't like the Polish people.

As for the V4 the friction between Brussel and most of them is because they actively try to undermine their own democracy.
And are trying to get a view votes from people that forgot quickly what happened the last time Europe was devided.
They are just using this migrant stuff to lobby against the EU. Because the number they would have to take in is nothing.
They are just up to their usual Eastern European shadiness which can't be tolerated by the EU.
In this case, ironically the EU is actually the one on the side of Democracy.
A lot of people that celebrate those countries especially American should look into the issue instead of just thinking its a refuge thing.

 

[Bald1]

Yeah, I don't want to minimize problem (you know how if I don't say people assume I think its no problem).
Sure the crimes stats are worse. But its just 3 years since most of them came in.
It is difficult to say at this point this will be a permanent trend and not just a system being unprepared for so many new arrivals.
It needs to be addressed but those stats also got worse after the Easter European joined the EU.
Or after the Soviet Union fell and lots of Ethnic Germans migrated from former Soviet nations. Those higher crime stats have regulated itself after a while.
Now I get the feeling this time it is going to get worse and will take longer. But with the right policies, they should go don again like they always have.

Brexit while unfortunate might, in the long run, turn out good for Europe. Because the UK was half in half out.
They are going to be basically half in half out after Brexit also just without there Eurosceptic voting rights.
And I think they mostly left because they don't like the Polish people.

As for the V4 the friction between Brussel and most of them is because they actively try to undermine their own democracy.
And are trying to get a view votes from people that forgot quickly what happened the last time Europe was devided.
They are just using this migrant stuff to lobby against the EU. Because the number they would have to take in is nothing.
They are just up to their usual Eastern European shadiness which can't be tolerated by the EU.
In this case, ironically the EU is actually the one on the side of Democracy.
A lot of people that celebrate those countries especially American should look into the issue instead of just thinking its a refuge thing.

I like this post. Or, liked it right up to the last quarter.

Central Europe and the Balkans have long memories when it comes to Islamic incursions. Hundreds of years of history with millions dead or enslaved isn't something they will forget. But at the core of their reluctance is them wanting to keep their identities intact. One thing western EU states tend to conveniently forget is those EU members in question have been under foreign rule for centuries in some instances. It's no wonder they're resistant to accepting vastly different cultures within their borders.

 

[second sight]

Didn’t zero say something about Mexico as well

 

[snakedafunky]

I like this post. Or, liked it right up to the last quarter.

Central Europe and the Balkans have long memories when it comes to Islamic incursions. Hundreds of years of history with millions dead or enslaved isn't something they will forget. But at the core of their reluctance is them wanting to keep their identities intact. One thing western EU states tend to conveniently forget is those EU members in question have been under foreign rule for centuries in some instances. It's no wonder they're resistant to accepting vastly different cultures within their borders.

I am not sure you can make a historical argument here. Because what claim would a country like Poland or Czech Republic have to their historically German territories.
I mean if they are worried about cultures and countries so much they should give back the territories that are historical not theirs but have been "assigned" to them after they have been taken of Germany by force. It is not so much that they have been under foreign rule for centuries but that they are now the "foreign rulers". Living on land that's not historically theirs.

But that is just the historic thing. I can understand that they don't want them. I don't want them. But they are here now you have to somehow solve it.
They can also leave the EU. But of course, they won't do that because at the moment it is their people that get accepted everywhere else.
And that is fine. I personally think its a good thing. But if a country like Poland of 40 Millionen people can't take in maybe 20-30 thousand refugees to help out Italy and Greece.
You have to wonder if they are able to function in the EU long term. I mean they can leave and still be a close partner.
But the benefits from the EU don't come without some setbacks. This is one of them.
Those people shouldn't be here but they are now. And no one is asking them to take them from Germany but rather from Greece or Italy.
I don't think the EU is unreasonable here.

 

[Bald1]

I am not sure you can make a historical argument here. Because what claim would a country like Poland or Czech Republic have to their historically German territories.
I mean if they are worried about cultures and countries so much they should give back the territories that are historical not theirs but have been "assigned" to them after they have been taken of Germany by force. It is not so much that they have been under foreign rule for centuries but that they are now the "foreign rulers". Living on land that's not historically theirs.

But that is just the historic thing. I can understand that they don't want them. I don't want them. But they are here now you have to somehow solve it.
They can also leave the EU. But of course, they won't do that because at the moment it is their people that get accepted everywhere else.
And that is fine. I personally think its a good thing. But if a country like Poland of 40 Millionen people can't take in maybe 20-30 thousand refugees to help out Italy and Greece.
You have to wonder if they are able to function in the EU long term. I mean they can leave and still be a close partner.
But the benefits from the EU don't come without some setbacks. This is one of them.
Those people shouldn't be here but they are now. And no one is asking them to take them from Germany but rather from Greece or Italy.
I don't think the EU is unreasonable here.

I think where the unreasonable nature of the demand stems from, at least from me, is that those countries voted against the migrant resettlement scheme, but Brussels is attempting to force them into it anyways. How can you forcefully resettle and confine people who migrated thousands of kilometers into a borderless country?

Other than that, we don't have serious disagreements here.

 

[snakedafunky]

I think where the unreasonable nature of the demand stems from, at least from me, is that those countries voted against the migrant resettlement scheme, but Brussels is attempting to force them into it anyways. How can you forcefully resettle and confine people who migrated thousands of kilometers into a borderless country?

Other than that, we don't have serious disagreements here.

Yeah I get that point.
Poland voted in favor of that anyway so they will probably lose any court case.

Just my personal opinion but the number of those resettled is so small that the only explanation why they said no could have been to score political points at home.
There is no reason to get into so much trouble over maybe 5000 people for the smaller of the 4.

But I don't want to say the EU doesn't still have a long way to go. Those issues like here need to be solved.
You either come up with an EU wide immigration and refugee policy. Which would be preferable.
Or you might have to go and have it cleared by the court which could lead to very serious problems.

If you want to look at a silver lining in the refugee crisis. It definitely has shown some considerable flaws in the EU.
Which we might now be able to fix because we have noticed them early on.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

It was the UK and France that lead the way and within the Obama administration it was the likes of Gates and Clinton that pushed for the intervention. Not to mention there was actually regional support for the intervention initially so to blame it solely on Obama is myopic. Neither side in the Sunni and Shiite proxy war cared for Gaddafi because he was a radical asshole with beef with each side.

Nothing you've stated indemnifies America for the catastrophe that is Libya. Blaming Hillary would mean something if she was or had become president - that is not the case.
There is almost always some sort of regional support for intervention, but it's pretty weak to blame Libyan actors for the actions taken by external militaries.
And yes, France and Britain are far from innocent, but neither of them is "the leader of the free world" or occupies the self-imposed position of world police and so why would you expect one to hold them to the same standards?
Realistically, American support means more than French, British or even UN support.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Nothing you've stated indemnifies America for the catastrophe that is Libya. Blaming Hillary would mean something if she was or had become president - that is not the case.

The president is not a king, he does not act on his own. In the case of the Obama administration Hillary was a key hawkish influence along the likes of Robert Gates and Samantha Powers in the case of Libya.. I'm pushing back on your "blood thirsty Obama" comment since he was actually a relatively non-interventionist guy relative to the US foreign policy status quo represented by Clinton.

There is almost always some sort of regional support for intervention, but it's pretty weak to blame Libyan actora for the actions taken by external militaries.

No, there isn't. The Arab League voted in favor of the Libya intervention and against the Iraq War which was hugely unpopular in the region.

And yes, France and Britain are far from innocent, but neither of them is "the leader of the free world" or occupies the self-imposed position of world police and so why would you expect on to hold them to the same standards?
Realistically, American support means more than French, British or even UN support.

The UK and France spearheaded the operation. Remember, Obama was criticized for "leading from behind" in the Libya intervention. Point being Obama was not exactly thrilled to have America intervene and let the UK and France lead the dance there.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

The president is not a king, he does not act on his own. In the case of the Obama administration Hillary was a key hawkish influence along the likes of Robert Gates and Samantha Powers in the case of Libya.. I'm pushing back on your "blood thirsty Obama" comment since he was actually a relatively non-interventionist guy relative to the US foreign policy status quo represented by Clinton.

The "bloodthirsty Obama" comment doesn't hinge on Libyan intervention alone. Obama's presidency was marked, even by American standards, by the wide spread of war.

Libya is but one reason I think of Obama as bloodthirsty.
The largely ineffective American approach to the war against ISIS; the idiot determination to see Assad be overthrown; the expansion of the drone war (and war in general); the alternately dismissive and aggressive rhetoric toward Russia; the expansion of American special operations around the world, etc, etc.

An American might not think that Obama is bloodthirty, because relatively few US soldiers died on his watch, but that's probably got something to do with the fact that he favoured the comparably indiscriminate and politically expedient killing provided by drone strikes and bombing runs over the far less voter-friendly action of putting "boots on the ground".

No, there isn't. The Arab League voted in favor of the Libya intervention and against the Iraq War which was hugely unpopular in the region.

Again though, this doesn't shift responsibility from the American administration for choosing to be a part of what turned out to be an unsurprisingly disastrous intervention.
You're also alluding to more Arab League support than actually existed. Yes, they voted in favour of intervention, but it was not long before they started changing their minds, and not a single Arab League nation was actually active or involved in the intervention itself.

The UK and France spearheaded the operation. Remember, Obama was criticized for "leading from behind" in the Libya intervention. Point being Obama was not exactly thrilled to have America intervene and let the UK and France lead the dance there.

Being a weak leader isn't much of an excuse. Even less so when you've knowingly taken on the burden of being at the head of the most powerful military on the planet.
Did Obama have a choice about being there, or did he not?

 

[Prutfis]

Motherfucker doesn't even hit puberty until he admits that Obamacare was designed to fail and giving Iran billions of dollars to fund terrorism was a very bad idea.
When Obama said Libya was a shit show, he was turned the wrong way in his office and instead of looking at a map of northern Africa, he was actually looking in his shaving mirror.



Like my dog's butt. Brown stripes on mah carpet? Not cool, Baxter.

Nobody "gave" Iran billions of Dollars. And its the Saudis (your allies) who fund terrorism. You don´t really seem to know what you are talking about. The Iran deal was a success.

 

[deltapapha]

Also, it's Gaddafi, not Gadaffi.

fool, its Kadaffi

 

[deltapapha]

Try this for a better Conservative take:

Trump’s ‘Sh**hole’ Comments Double Down on Identity Politics

Excerpt:

The president of the United States should not, by word or deed, communicate that he is hostile to or disdainful of entire classes of the American population. It doesn’t matter if such divisive rhetoric helps him win elections, nor if the reaction of his opponents is often overblown. As president, his obligation remains the same: Make your case without demonizing whole groups of people.

Devastating stuff and it goes on and on deconstructing the problems with all this tortured logic. I highly recommend the read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...haiti-africa-comments-identity-politics-worst

Churchill said things about the third world that would make Trump seem like Jane Fonda. But many on the left are fawning over him now like they invented him.

 

[Trotsky]

Churchill said things about the third world that would make Trump seem like Jane Fonda. But many on the left are fawning over him now like they invented him.

Who in the hell on the left are "fawning over" Winston fucking Churchill? Unless by fawning you mean quoting him to contrast how even a racist alcoholic from the mid-20th century was more professional than Trump.

 

[Trotsky]

The "bloodthirsty Obama" comment doesn't hinge on Libyan intervention alone. Obama's presidency was marked, even by American standards, by the wide spread of war.

Libya is but one reason I think of Obama as bloodthirsty.
The largely ineffective American approach to the war against ISIS; the idiot determination to see Assad be overthrown; the expansion of the drone war (and war in general); the alternately dismissive and aggressive rhetoric toward Russia; the expansion of American special operations around the world, etc, etc.

You're not very familiar with US presidents if you think Obama's presidency was more militant than the norm. Obama was exponentially more of a hawk than any of his voters had hoped and expected, but that lower bar of expectation shouldn't serve to blow his policies out of proportion either.

An American might not think that Obama is bloodthirty, because relatively few US soldiers died on his watch, but that's probably got something to do with the fact that he favoured the comparably indiscriminate and politically expedient killing provided by drone strikes and bombing runs over the far less voter-friendly action of putting "boots on the ground".

Again, you're off the mark. What you're saying is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. Drone strikes are considerably more discriminate than manned air crafts per their ability to loiter above their targets for as much as 24 hours, collect photos and intelligence, and strike with higher discretion than a flying-by military aircraft or a manned delivery system located miles away.

I oppose the vast majority of US military action, and I oppose the use of drones on philosophical grounds (politically and morally, I think there is something uniquely fucked up about inflicting massive wartime deaths without reasonably endangering your own personnel and doing so per the usage of exclusive technology), but they are by most appraisals more surgical than previous methods of bombing and result in fewer civilian deaths. I mean....check out the civilian casualties we racked up in Vietnam for an alarming contrast.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._how_unmanned_aircraft_reduce_collateral.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html

A writer for Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/25/drones-kill-more-civilians-than-pilots-do/) made the opposite argument, but completely whiffed on addressing his data set. That is, while acknowledging that civilian deaths in battlefield countries were exponentially lower per the use of drones, he countered with the alarmingly adverse effect in non-battlefield settings such as Pakistan. But this hinges on the nature of the targets and the definitions of "civilians" versus "combatants" when outside of the active battlefield, where its harder to readily identify hostile groups as combatants.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

You're not very familiar with US presidents if you think Obama's presidency was more militant than the norm. Obama was exponentially more of a hawk than any of his voters had hoped and expected, but that lower bar of expectation shouldn't serve to blow his policies out of proportion either.

I didn't specify that his administration was more "militant". I said his presidency was marked by the "wide spread" of war. I guess it could still come down to how you define "war", but which American president governed over the consistent bombing of more countries than Obama?
He bombed:

1. Somalia
2. Afghanistan
3. Yemen
4. Pakistan
5. Iraq
6. Syria
7. Libya

He also massively expanded the US' special operations presence from 60-odd countries under Bush, to 134 countries (70% of the world's countries).
Additionally, when you consider the consequences of the Syrian Civil war and the decimation of Libya, which American president has been responsible for spreading (or helping to spread) conflict farther and wider than Obama?

I'll admit to loose language, but, for the moment at least, I stand by my assessment of Obama as a "bloodthirsty" leader, who spread conflict farther afield than is the norm, even by American standards.

Again, you're off the mark. What you're saying is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. Drone strikes are considerably more discriminate than manned air crafts per their ability to loiter above their targets for as much as 24 hours, collect photos and intelligence, and strike with higher discretion than a flying-by military aircraft or a manned delivery system located miles away.

I oppose the vast majority of US military action, and I oppose the use of drones on philosophical grounds (politically and morally, I think there is something uniquely fucked up about inflicting massive wartime deaths without reasonably endangering your own personnel and doing so per the usage of exclusive technology), but they are by most appraisals more surgical than previous methods of bombing and result in fewer civilian deaths. I mean....check out the civilian casualties we racked up in Vietnam for an alarming contrast.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._how_unmanned_aircraft_reduce_collateral.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html

A writer for Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/25/drones-kill-more-civilians-than-pilots-do/) made the opposite argument, but completely whiffed on addressing his data set. That is, while acknowledging that civilian deaths in battlefield countries were exponentially lower per the use of drones, he countered with the alarmingly adverse effect in non-battlefield settings such as Pakistan. But this hinges on the nature of the targets and the definitions of "civilians" versus "combatants" when outside of the active battlefield, where its harder to readily identify hostile groups as combatants.

This is interesting stuff. I'll look into it, but my opinion of drone warfare is similar to yours, so I doubt it'll change my mind about the man's "bloodthirst".

You're also being a little bit pedantic here. It wouldn't meaningfully change my statement if we removed the term "comparably indiscriminate" from it:

An American might not think that Obama is bloodthirty, because relatively few US soldiers died on his watch, but that's probably got something to do with the fact that he favoured the politically expedient killing provided by drone strikes and bombing runs over the far less voter-friendly action of putting "boots on the ground".

Having said all that, as I admitted above, the language in my post was a bit loose.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The "bloodthirsty Obama" comment doesn't hinge on Libyan intervention alone. Obama's presidency was marked, even by American standards, by the wide spread of war.

Libya is but one reason I think of Obama as bloodthirsty.
The largely ineffective American approach to the war against ISIS; the idiot determination to see Assad be overthrown; the expansion of the drone war (and war in general); the alternately dismissive and aggressive rhetoric toward Russia; the expansion of American special operations around the world, etc, etc.

An American might not think that Obama is bloodthirty, because relatively few US soldiers died on his watch, but that's probably got something to do with the fact that he favoured the comparably indiscriminate and politically expedient killing provided by drone strikes and bombing runs over the far less voter-friendly action of putting "boots on the ground".

Honestly this is mostly ridiculous criticism with the exception of the drone campaign. I don't see how the war against ISIS or Obama's actions in the Syrian civil war show him to be blood thirsty, his efforts there were pretty tepid compared to what the American FP establishment wanted. The determination to take out Assad comes from the old guard and if anything Obama was criticized for not being aggressive enough as evidenced by his failure to enforce his red line. The fact that he favored special forces operations over boots on the ground contradicts your bloodthirsty claim since that method leads to fewer American deaths and collateral damage in the target country.

Again though, this doesn't shift responsibility from the American administration for choosing to be a part of what turned out to be an unsurprisingly disastrous intervention.

Sure but the American administration is made up of more people than just Obama.

You're also alluding to more Arab League support than actually existed. Yes, they voted in favour of intervention, but it was not long before they started changing their minds, and not a single Arab League nation was actually active or involved in the intervention itself.

Well of course they wouldn't be involved, they always want us to do the dirty work if they can get away with it. As for them turning on the intervention, sure that's fair to point out and it happened because the NATO coalition got greedy and fought for regime change which was not what the UN resolution called for. But again, Obama is not solely or even primarily responsible there

Being a weak leader isn't much of an excuse. Even less so when you've knowingly taken on the burden of being at the head of the most powerful military on the planet.
Did Obama have a choice about being there, or did he not?

I didn't say weak, I said he lead from behind. That means he let the UK and France, the powers that actively wanted to intervene, lead the mission. He had a choice but as I said, every administration has a give and take among the various interests represented by its members and the Libya intervention was a bone for the hawks like Clinton in exchange for his less interventionist stance elsewhere

 

[Islam Imamate]

Churchill said things about the third world that would make Trump seem like Jane Fonda. But many on the left are fawning over him now like they invented him.

Churchill was a POS, anyone on the left fawning over him either needs to do more research on the man or already has and doesn't care that he was a POS.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Honestly this is mostly ridiculous criticism with the exception of the drone campaign. I don't see how the war against ISIS or Obama's actions in the Syrian civil war show him to be blood thirsty, his efforts there were pretty tepid compared to what the American FP establishment wanted. The determination to take out Assad comes from the old guard and if anything Obama was criticized for not being aggressive enough as evidenced by his failure to enforce his red line. The fact that he favored special forces operations over boots on the ground contradicts your bloodthirsty claim since that method leads to fewer American deaths and collateral damage in the target country.

Syria was a clusterfuck of American ineptitude until Russia intervened.
It was also an example of what sort of dragged out horror show can be made of an already horrific war when one decides to go in and start dropping bombs and paying fanatics to fight, instead of actually trying to win and having a long-term plan.

Regarding special forces, as I said, as an American you probably think it proves the opposite of my statement, but he didn't do it to spare American lives, he did it so that America could militarily operate on a far broader scope than before without drawing the attention of the media and public.

Well of course they wouldn't be involved, they always want us to do the dirty work if they can get away with it. As for them turning on the intervention, sure that's fair to point out and it happened because the NATO coalition got greedy and fought for regime change which was not what the UN resolution called for. But again, Obama is not solely or even primarily responsible there

Source?
As I recall, they turned against intervention because they signed up for a no-fly zone and got cold feet over all the civilians getting blown up.

I didn't say weak, I said he lead from behind. That means he let the UK and France, the powers that actively wanted to intervene, lead the mission. He had a choice but as I said, every administration has a give and take among the various interests represented by its members and the Libya intervention was a bone for the hawks like Clinton in exchange for his less interventionist stance elsewhere

I know you didn't. I did.

He let the French and british take the lead on a military intervention to which he, as leader of the free world, gave moral and material support.

 

[machidafan99]

Also, it's Gaddafi, not Gadaffi.

this is sherdog...his reference also violated the MLA guidelines on style & citations.

 

[P4p Islam]

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

What year are we in?