This is really sad. “Whose side are you on?” That’s straight up wingnut warblogger talk circa 2003.
I should know.
This post is in: War, Fucked-up-edness, PUMA = Propping Up McCain's Ass
This is really sad. “Whose side are you on?” That’s straight up wingnut warblogger talk circa 2003.
I should know.
Comments are closed.
srv
Why is it sad – not like she opposed the AUMF or Saddam=Hitler line before. SOP for her.
artem1s
Ron Paul is still an @sshat.
Ron Paul worries Fort Knox gold is gone
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
*(headdesks repeatedly)*
slag
And here I was going to ask for a BJ 2012 campaign ActBlue page today. But instead, I’m going to revert to my usual I-fucking-hate-these-people mindset and just hope that it passes sometime this year.
arguingwithsignposts
obligatory which side are you on, billy bragg edition
lethargytartare
I’ll agree that’s some grade A bs coming out of the SoS’s mouth, but how can I take someone seriously who composed this phrase:
“becoming more and more identical?”
/grammmar nazi
arguingwithsignposts
@lethargytartare – wow, a grammar godwin!
Yutsano
I’m not sure I understand Glenn’s point. In fact I read it three times and I still don’t get it.
joes527
I was surprised by that too. Grammar goofs like that are fairly unique in his writing.
Hunter Gathers
I’ll take Stupid Fucking Bullshit for $1000, Alex.
funluvn
Tearing a page out of the George W. Bush / Karl Rove book of Political Nastiness is not what Democrats need to be doing at this point in time. The inner circle really does need to get out more.
lethargytartare
@ joes527
I saw what you did there…
neil
Glenn is twisting her words. It’s true that the House is doing what Gaddafi hopes they do. Is she actually not allowed to make that point without people turning that into “objectively pro-Gaddafi”?
cleek
it’s ugly. but the only surprising bit is that she’d use that phrasing. the sentiment sounds exactly like Hillary.
PUMA!
Culture of Truth
If you tolerate that rhetoric you’re objectively pro-Rovian!
SteveinSC
Slightly, but not really off topic here, I think there is reason to ease off a bit about the pitiful speech Obama made and the overall picture. As anyone knows, I am quick to equate Obama to Harold Ford for his lack of balls. Nevertheless, the reduction of the surge in Afghanistan plus the talk of staying until 2014 should be taken in the greater context. For example, Karzai has spoken of peace talks between the US and the Taliban. Also Karzai has taken more Taliban-like stances on women’s rights. If the talks are going on, and while they were denied in the past, the positions of the various players would indicate to me that something is afoot and the players stances are interrelated, understandable and to be expected. So there.
boss bitch
Well isn’t that the ‘in your face’ rhetoric that people love so much about Hillary Clinton? Isn’t she the one with the massive brass ones? one of which I’m told she needs to give to Obama.
gex
I wonder how much this has to do with our military having a tendency to want to call the shots and bully around a D administration.
ETA: Mo’ wars, mo’ money.
stormhit
Guess we should withdraw from the UN, as the left has clearly decided it’s totally useless and irrelevant.
Catsy
Wow, Clinton needs to stick a cork in that bullshit. It doesn’t sound any better directed against the assholes in Congress than it did directed at lefties.
The GOP might be willing to blow up the economy for political gain and kill or otherwise harm countless Americans by sabotaging the ACA, but that doesn’t mean they’re on the same side as someone brown like Qaddafi.
neil
I also don’t get where the meme that the war is “increasingly quagmire-like” comes from. From what I’ve read, the rebels have regained their momentum and are gaining territory again while Gaddafi becomes weaker by the day. From the start they said it would take several months; it’s been several months, and now the end is in sight.
Remember, when Gaddafi is gone, the war is instantly over for America. There will be no 5-billion-dollar American military bases to construct or infrastructure to rebuild after it got destroyed, because we’re not destroying infrastructure. (Surely we’ll be selling the new Libyan government a bunch of new weapons to replace the ones we blew up, but that’s different.)
The entire Libyan war to date has cost approximately as much as two days in Iraq in 2007, FWIW.
Davis X. Machina
The “Who Lost Afghanistan?” campaign literature is already printed and warehoused. The TV ads and radio spots proclaiming the GOP as the party that really cares about women, and about religious freedom, freedom of expression and pluralism are already made.
We have all been here before. I’m waiting for the posters advertising the “Who Promoted Peress?” rally……
Martin
Yeah, that is sad.
She should be pushing the larger argument – does the UN and NATO matter, and should the US be a useful component of either organization? If we back out of these quite small activities when they arise, and refuse to back out of much larger conflicts that the US is undertaking almost unilaterally, then it really suggests that the US doesn’t think the UN or NATO matter at all. The GOP is certainly cool with the former, less so with the latter, but Dems should be violently opposed to both.
Honestly, if Congress backs us out of this, we should step out of NATO and the UN Security Council. Both organizations need reliable members, and if we can’t even support flying drones overhead (which is all we’re doing now) then we’re simply an unreliable member.
kd bart
OT- Rest in Peace Lt. Columbo (Peter Falk)
neil
I also have to say that I think the line is somewhat more valid considering that the war has not only already begun, it appears to be well on its way to ending. In my opinion, it’s much more dishonest to say that you’re on Gaddafi’s side if you don’t want to attack him, than it is to say you’re on Gaddafi’s side if you want us to stop attacking him when he’s on the ropes.
Skippy-san
Wait a minute! Its not about being on Khadafi’s side-its about judging whether ANY Libyans are worth the life of a single American. Or if intervention in Libya somehow advances the US national interest. The answer to those two questions is a resounding NO.
If the Libyans want to have a revolution and get rid of Khadaffi, hey, they can go do it. That does not mean that we have to expend money and people and time-none of which we have-on Libyans. Who in the end will not be our friends or sell us oul any cheaper anyway.
This poll shows the people have it right, US foreign policy should be about narrow minded US self interest. Intervention in Libya is not in our interest, now and in the future.
boss bitch
Its a quagmire because Gaddafi was not caught within the acceptable time period. don’t know what it was but apparently it has passed.
Zagloba
Dear [people who support whatever war is currently being waged]:
Vigorous public debate of tactics, especially planned tactics, can significantly harm the prosecution of war. This is because tactics are secret.
Vigorous public debate of strategy cannot, because strategy is public. Everyone knows what your war aims are, and everyone will know when they change, whether that’s due to unaccountable power politics or democratic power politics. Stop treating the people of the country like idiots now.
Martin
I wouldn’t say ‘in sight’. Conflicts are often exceedingly stubborn in their final phases, but overall I agree, there is definitely momentum against Gaddafi. When we pulled out our planes, the front line was somewhere south of Benghazi. It’s now just west of Misrata and Gaddafi controls considerably fewer cities than before. Civilians casualties due to NATO action appears to be in the dozens, which suggests that they’re still being quite selective.
arguingwithsignposts
More billy bragg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BgsHb3jPMM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Martin
I just wanted to see how that would read.
neil
There was a period when it seemed unclear whether the rebels were even going to be able to advance after the front was pushed all the way back to Benghazi, but (here are some more words that I heard a lot from 2003-2008) tangible progress is being made.
The crucial point is that this war has a clearly defined end-state. It’s so ridiculous that there’s a concerted, bipartisan effort to end a small war with clearly defined, achievable objectives, while everyone ignores the two big wars with no objectives.
Derf
” the administration’s rhetoric in attacking Libya war critics was becoming more and more identical to the Bush administration’s on Iraq; apparently, the more unpopular a war gets, the more desperate and bullying the White House’s attacks on critics become. ”
Oh yea John Galt Cole, the Obama admin and the Bush admin are the same damn thing…..lol
My god are you an idiot. 1) for reading Greenwald in the first place, 2) for believe garbage like this.
Still nothing but crickets from you regarding the announcement of the beginning of the pull out from Afghanistan. CRICKETS!
Instead you do the predictable thing…go looking for bad war news elsewhere! You should hold your head down in shame!
Of course the usual suspects keep coming out of the woodwork. As predicable as a cuckoo clock. To nobodys surprise ‘former’ republican Cenk (who now claims he speaks for progressives?!) came out yesterday with an attack on Obama. Nothing but bottom feeders and you are no different John Galt Cole.
Trurl
Deadly.
neil
I remember that the military types were saying that it would take at least several months and possibly past the end of the year. It seems like they are still on schedule, and crucially, still making progress.
HRA
I took this from another site and it’s not the only place it is at where they are discussing what Hilary Clinton said in an interview about Libya.
“Speaking with reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) acknowledged that there are “clearly divisions” in the GOP over the “constitutionality” and “cost” of the Libyan campaign. However, in a moment of rare candor, McConnell noted that his colleagues might not be so quick to denounce the president if he were a Republican. Asked if he was concerned about “the isolationist streak of some in the Republican Party,” McConnell said, “There is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side”:”
The above shows yet another example of how the Dems (me being one now) do not ever show the support for each other politically.
Davis X. Machina
Someday there’ll be something, some international agency, to provide receivers-in-possession for countries that are badly screwed up, with regimes that are lethal to their own subjects. Or at least send in a fire brigade to put the fires out.
It’ll be a big step forward. And the GOP will fight its creation every step of the way. After it’s created, they will fight US participation in it every step of the way.
And after it works, they’ll take credit for it.
Someday.
MomSense
@Yutsano.
Glad I’m not the only one who has no idea what Greenwald was trying to say there.
If Gaddafi had in fact killed 150,000-200,000 of his own citizens as he promised to do, what would the discussion be today?
I don’t see any parallels between the Libyan action and Iraq.
quannlace
Plus she had the ‘crazy eyes’ while she was saying it.
ABL
indeed.
Mike Goetz
Our NATO allies (and us, presumably) already have diplomatic plans in place for post-Kaddafi Libya. The end is near.
For Congress, now is the perfect time to limit Obama to doing the things he is already doing, and won’t be doing anymore in a month or two. What a bunch of heroes.
Trurl
Just one more Friedman Unit, citizens! Don’t give up now!
Meanwhile, after the House passes the defunding bill, it will be promptly smothered to death by Harry Reid.
Obama 2012: Four More Wars
Tsulagi
Yeah, what’s not so old is not so new again.
To be fair, at least in this rinse and repeat cycle she put in a little fabric softener rather than going with the full on “Yer either with us or agin us.” Next up, this admin’s version of mission accomplished, just a few deadenders messing with the celebration. Sure as shit hope they aren’t planning for a CPA down the line. That was a rousing success.
Catsy
Gosh, why didn’t they ever think of that?
j low
@Martin- So…Ummm….ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!! Godwin’s was invented just because of idiocy like that. The Libyan governments brutality in a civil war equals the methodical extermination of 6 million people. Ugh.
Tuttle
Sex.
It’s OK if you’re a Republican.
War.
It’s OK if you’re a Democrat.
Oi.
neil
Dude. It’s been three months. Nobody said it would be over by now; in fact, the military said it wouldn’t.
I’m pretty sure the FU critique only counts when several FUs have already come and gone.
Davis X. Machina
This will be followed by a nice, civil argument about at which point a difference in degree is in fact a difference in nature.
Or not, as the case may be.
arguingwithsignposts
wow, firebaggers are up early!
neil
Where do you get that from? The last four presidents have all started wars/conflicts/hostilities/not-quite-hostilities. Obama and Clinton were both rebuked by the House. Bush and Bush were both lavished with praise and billions of dollars.
arguingwithsignposts
@MomSense:
Greenwald is saying Obama is worse than Bush (!) and using 10,000 words to do so.
Mike Goetz
There is no “defunding bill”. The bill would limit the US to doing those things it is already doing, and prevent it from doing things it is not doing and has made very clear it will never do. According to Kucinich, he supports the bill because Obama “could very well escalate the war”. It’s a bill to assuage his own fevered imagination.
Trurl
Obama to Members of Congress: Action Versus Libya to Last ‘Days not Weeks’
Ryan S
Which didnt pass.
neil
after the House passes the defunding bill
The defunding bill already failed. So, to recap, today the House rejected a bill to authorize the war and rejected a bill to end the war. Way to get it done, guys.
Amir_Khalid
@Martin #23:
This. It’s a point that many in this debate seems to have missed. There is a global security order, however rudimentary it might be at this stage, and the US has an important role in it. It signed up for that role by joining in the treaties that formed the UN and NATO, among other bodies. If it abdicates that role because Congress refuses to authorize participation, bang goes the US’ international credibility and good name. Who would dare trust their word then?
But that’s only America’s problem. You know what’s worse for the rest of the planet? There’s no other country that has the military resources and the willingness to step in to do the needful when it’s called for by the UNSC. I didn’t see Russia putting their hand up to join in the Libya action.
El Tiburon
Wuh-Woh! Firebagger day yesterday, Glennzilla today.
Oh, the humanity!
neil
Trurl, there’s a reason we quote articles and not headlines.
the period that the US would be involved in heavy kinetic activity would be “days, not weeks,” after which he said the US would then take more of a supporting role.
This is what has happened. The U.S. has not totally stopped bombing, but other NATO members are taking the leading role in direct hostile action/heavy kinetic activity(?).
Tuttle
Obama and Clinton were both rebuked by the House. Bush and Bush were both lavished with praise and billions of dollars.
I’m not talking about congress, I’m talking about YOU.
The right doesn’t care if their politicians blow goats, the left doesn’t care if their’s blow up goat herders.
Davis X. Machina
Is there an elected representative in existence, who, when asked to define his dream, would not answer “A chance to vote for and against the same thing, at the same time, to cheers”?
Ryan S
Geez reading comprehension fail much. It wasn’t a authorization bill that hasn’t even been proposed yet. It was just a
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
glenn bragg, glenn beck, glenn close, glenn greenwald,glenn frey, i don’t think there is anyone named glenn that you can trust. i say we force all the glenns into fema trailers, then load the trailers onto trains and ship them into yucca mountain.
j low
@Davis X. Machina- I would think that the “difference in degree vs. difference in nature” applies rather well to the fact that we did not intervene in WWII to save Jews, Gypsys, Leftists, or homosexuals and we are not intervening in Libya to save Libyans.
Trurl
My bad. Guess that required necks to be stuck out just a bit farther than they were comfortable with.
Shawn in ShowMe
Questioning other folks patriotism is a rhetorical tactic that as old as government itself. It’s not going anyway anytime soon. When Obama signed up Hilary as his Secretary of State her partisan rhetoric was a part of the deal.
Better to have her inside the administration firing at Republicans than taking potshots at Obama outside of it.
stuckinred
kd bart
While Murder, Inc. mainly revolves around the capture of gangster Lepke, the most compelling character is hit man Abe Reles, excellently played by Peter Falk in one of his earliest movie roles. He got an Oscar nomination as a result. Those who know him mostly as the calm Lt. Columbo will be very surprised by the intense rage Mr. Falk puts in his performance especially during his “take” speech he gives to a married couple who have no choice but to accept his offer of an apartment he gives them.
Chyron HR
You’re either with Glenn Greenwald or you’re evil. Why can’t you Obotomised Obots understand that?
neil
Chyron HR: See, this is why Glenn writes 10,000-word pieces. If you distill his point down to a few sentences it sure doesn’t look so impressive.
Davis X. Machina
I think that’s a contestable statement.
burnspbesq
I think I’m missing something here.
Is it possible to both (1) support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people to get out from under a vicious despot and (2) think that the United States doesn’t have enough of a dog in that fight to make it sensible to commit our armed forces in support of the Libyan peopl? Or does your head automatically explode if you try to think those two thoughts simultaneously?
Greenwald is an insufferably pompous and sanctimonious douchebag who is in love with the sound of his own voice and desperately in need of a good editor. But his heart is in the right place and he is often right on the merits. I think he’s right on the issue of Clinton’s rhetoric. You should be able to question the wisdom of your country’s policies without having your patriotism called into question.
Trurl
And that doesn’t count as continued [excuse my gagging] “heavy kinetic activity”? What is it then? “Moderate kinetic activity”? Exactly how many drone bombs would need to be fired before it counts as “heavy”? Or is it one of those “I know it when I see it” things?
And while we’re on the subject, can you tell me what “is” is?
MomSense
@arguingwithsignposts
Seems like that is the point of every Greenwald article. Guess he has Gone Hamsher again.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gone+hamsher
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m betting there will no ominous talk today of seeing IP addresses.
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
I see this as just SOP administration spin. I mean, is it just me, or does this feel a LOOOOONG way from the bullying and pummeling meted out by BushCheneyCo to get us to lie back, relax, and not get our pretty heads too worried about the unfolding horror show in Iraq?
MomSense
@Trurl
Here is an article that deals with hostilities that may provide you with another interpretation to consider.
http://roadkillrefugee.posterous.com/
neil
I saw this, but I don’t think it’s just “expressing support” or rather that this support has legal force. Most news sources describe this bill as authorizing the war for one year.
burnspbesq
@Trurl:
Your schtick has become tiresome.
Just for giggles, tell us who you are supporting in 2012.
Rick Taylor
Yup! Though it’s not exactly surprising coming from Hillary Clinton.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
Davis X Machina: Or maybe it was just a cheap appeal to emotion that overlooks the many differences between the two situations.
Because it was a bullshit comparison.
neil
Don’t make it too complicated. Obama said that the U.S. would take the lead in the first week or two of the war, which it did, because only the U.S. had enough of an arsenal of cruise missiles to cripple Gaddafi’s air defenses. Once the air defenses were gone, though, England and France took the lead in blowing up stuff, while the U.S. stepped back to a minor bombing role and more of a support role — refueling French bombers in flight, etc.
After a few days the U.S. cut back its attacks drastically and increased its support role. Just what Obama said.
j low
@Davis X. Machina – Riiiight. Just America watching out for the
little guyoil.Trurl
Hmm…
On the one hand, I have the unanimous opinion of the Chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General, and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. On the other hand, I have the conflicting opinion of an anonymous “lawyer by day, shabu shabu by night”.
How is a layman in legal matters such as myself to decide which of the two opinions has more credibility?
Mike Goetz
Boy, they really resolved all those thorny Constitutional issues with those two votes today, didn’t they?
Why should Obama wait to figure out what these pantywaists think? Get back to me when you get your shit together.
All they (left and right) want to do is make a show of yelling at Obama and be a general nuisance.
Larime the Gimp
So they all line up to tell that bad Mr. President that his war just isn’t acceptable.
And then vote to keep funding it anyway.
This is why Congress has an approval rating that couldn’t buy alcohol.
I’m not exactly sure where I come down in this argument, but these fuckersare paid to make these decisions.
neil
The oil card doesn’t make much sense to me here, either. Gaddafi, wealthy and unembargoed, was always a member in good standing of the selling-oil-to-the-West club, not like Hussein, who couldn’t produce Iraq’s fields as fast as the Western oil companies would have done.
The best thing as far as oil is concerned would have been to allow Gaddafi to re-consolidate his power back in March, and get the pumps going again. Instead, the UN started the war and the pumps have been dry since.
Trurl
As surely as the sun rises in the east, the exhausted Obot unable to marshal yet another excuse for the inexcusable, falls back on “Well, what’s your idea?”
My idea is to stop supporting warmongers – even ones with a (D) after their name.
neil
Why should Obama wait to figure out what these pantywaists think?
I think that they made it abundantly clear what they think.
Vote 1: “We don’t want you to fight this war”
Vote 2: “But we’re not going to do anything to stop you”
That’s how I assumed they felt about it, but it’s nice to see them make it explicit.
burnspbesq
@MomSense:
Good link. This is also a useful take on the subject.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/06/koh-on-koh/
burnspbesq
@Trurl:
Non-responsive. Try again.
neil
As a generally anti-war person myself, I can’t think of any better use for America’s ample inventory of war machines than to use them to destroy the war machines of a dictator whose hold on power depends on his ability to use those war machines against his people.
There’s a difference between being anti-war and being isolationist. And there’s a difference between starting a war and joining one.
FlipYrWhig
I sort of like the idea that Congress might actually try to flex whatever muscles it has if there’s a war policy with which it disagrees. I’m sure it’s not a reliable precedent (shades of Bush v. Gore), but it’s an interesting development.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m on Qaddafi’s side because of the pornstache.
eemom
I dunno ’bout no Greenwald, but I kind of think she was just pissed off at the moment and snapped back — like the time when, as Sec State, she was giving a speech somewhere and some clown asked her what her husband thought.
It’s understandable and human, if not very Secretarial.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
Hey, for once I agree with
an insufferably santimonious and pompous douchebagBurns (Hey, did you know that he isan insufferably sanctimonious and pompous douchebaga lawyer?)MomSense
@Trurl
Both you and I are commenting on our opinions of the legalities of the Libyan action. Of course, anyone can comment. I can post some other links of super duper constitutional law scholars who make similar points. I just happened to think that shabu shabu said it very well.
I don’t know your process for evaluating different opinions, legal or otherwise. I am merely suggesting that you read this opinion and consider it. I can post more links if you like or you could research some others and post them.
Did you read the link? Do you have any comments on it? Anything there that you think has merit? You didn’t say anything about the argument he was presenting so I have no idea if you found anything of value or not.
eemom
@ fuckhead
I wish folks would stop posting pictures of him all over the place. He is one hideously ugly motherfucker.
Jay B.
So you were in favor of Iraq, then?
Just Some Fuckhead
@eemom:
At long last, we can agree on something.
Dr. Squid
Have the heads of riverdaughter and Hillaryis44 exploded yet? And can we get video?
Dr. Squid
Have the heads of riverdaughter and Hillaryis44 exploded yet? And can we get video?
Martin
I didn’t say that. But if you’re going to beg…
The very same arguments were trotted out arguing against US intervention in Europe in WWII, even after German U-boats were sinking ships off the east coast. We got involved because of Japan, and without that, FDR might never have been able to convince Congress to go to Europe.
And the US public generally didn’t know about the extermination of 6 million people until we crossed the Rhine, so you can hardly trot that out as a justification with the public for support for the war.
I made a snarky hindsight inference in my post to point out that all decisions – even the decision to not intervene – carry a cost. That statement by Skippy-san was made CONSTANTLY through 1940-1941. It was only after the war that the magnitude of what that meant was fully realized, which is what you reacted to. There was no reference in the argument to 6 million people being systematically exterminated. Far from it:
ANY Jews. Skippy-san is making a direct argument that Libyans as human beings are worth less than Americans. You’re making a direct argument that Libyans as human beings are worth less than Jews. I’ve always made the argument that like it or not, we weight these military decisions in rather cold terms of return of investment of human life. What if we could save 1,000 Libyans for the cost of 4 Americans? Would it be worth that? What about 10,000 Libyans for the cost of 10 Americans? Right now the calculus is probably thousands of Libyans for the cost of 0 Americans and millions of dollars. And Skippy-san is saying that even THAT isn’t worth it. I wonder in adjusted dollars whether a Libyan life is even worth what a good slave in the south would have cost to Skippy-san.
eemom
@ fuckhead
I agreed with Cole on the next thread. This must be my lucky day.
MomSense
@burnsbesq
Good background information as to how he approaches his work. Thank you.
Poopyman
@Neil:
And now?
Whiny little surrender monkey ….
Martin
@burnsey:
Sure, but after roughly 4 decades, I think we can assert that (1) is impossible without (2). And that was basically the conclusion of the UN. Not everyone’s bootstraps are strong enough. Sometimes people need help. A healthy chunk of the Libyan people took the first important steps – they committed to a course of action, they merely lacked the means to finish it. Add that Libya was considered a heavily armed terrorist state until quite recently, and we can draw a distinction between it and say, neighboring Tunisia.
Monala
@ 70.burnspbesq @ 2:42 pm
Co-sign. There may be good reasons to remain in Libya (I’m on the fence), and Greenwald may be a blowhard (he is), but can we dispense with the, “if you’re not with us, you’re against all that is holy and good” rhetoric?
aisce
@ martin
first the holocaust, now slavery. goodness, you’re a troll. just a silly, silly troll.
and you had never even heard of benghazi or misrata in your life until four months ago. just saying.
eemom
@ aisce
No he isn’t.
He’s one of the few people here capable of thinking outside the knee-jerk box and asking provocative questions.
What exactly is your reasoned, intelligent answer to the point of comparison to WWII? Or don’t you have one?
goodness you’re a troll. just a silly, silly troll.
Linda Featheringill
Martin #31
Unfortunately, the Jews didn’t have a successful revolution, although they did revolt a few times. And while we were at war with Germany, we didn’t rush over there and arm the Jews and supply air support, etc. And that turned out really well.
[ETA: I am agreeing with Martin.]
And yes, I am a pacifist and am conflicted about this whole situation.
However, I fear that if Ghaddafi [or however it’s spelled] would extract a terrible revenge from the rebels and their supporters if he somehow won this conflict.
I do feel that the lives and well being of the people in Libya are more important than my calm self righteousness.
Charles
For those who pine away thinking of what a Hillary presidency might have been, this is not a one-off for her. She has consistently been more hawkish than Obama. During the Honduran coup, she refused to acknowledge that this was a military coup, requiring a cutoff of funds. Cables released by Wikileaks show her on the side of the Haitian right-wing in running the recent sham election.
I am not thrilled with the president we have. I opposed the direct intervention of American force in Libya. But I am well aware that sometimes what might have been is worse than what is.
eemom
it’s one thing — a good thing, imo — to be a pacifist and oppose unjustified military aggression.
I don’t think that turning a blind eye to the suffering of others at the hands of ruthless dictators, who can’t help themselves and who we ARE in a position to help, is the same thing as pacifism.
LanceThruster
There are 3 types of people in this world:
1. People that agree with me
2. Hitler
3. People that are worse than Hitler
Now which are you?
XXX000 ~ HRC
aisce
@ eebitch
proportionality.
or more specifically, the wild discrepancy in size and intensity of the threat.
you can support the libya action (and i do) without shamelessly invoking the shoah and telling people they would have made good slaveowners.
because, generally, if you have to resort to such desperate trollish behavior, actual thinking people might suspect you’re less sure of your own argument than you imagine yourself to be.
j low
Aren’t we all pacifists? We live in a pacifist country. That’s why we are pacifying Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and terror in general.
Corner Stone
@Shawn in ShowMe
Hilarious. Now pull the other leg. You think HRC utters a statement that’s not pre-cleared by Obama?
Are you saying he’s not the boss? Or are you saying he’s scared to ask for her resignation?
Corner Stone
@Charles
I’ll ask you the same thing. Do any of you geniuses think she’s off the reservation?
Because if she is, what’s the next step in this logical train of thought?
El Cid
As long as you do so only to yourself, and never to do so (even internally) in a manner which might fail to be complimentary to your preferred political party.
j low
Eemom #108. Right. Just because you ask a question that makes you look like an asshole does not mean you are asking hard questions or “thinking outside the box”. There is even a “law” about this particular type of absurdity. You know… starts with a G.
General Stuck
Thank the lard this isn’t my blog, or your sexist ass would be drop kicked out of here and into the next time zone for the rest of eternity, and two days after that. As it is, you will likely get away with it. Too bad.
eemom
@ 118
I don’t base the hard question/thinking outside the box assessment on whether the question makes one look like an asshole. I base it on, you know, the substance of the question.
imo Martin’s comments on this thread alone demonstrate more actual thought than you and aischole together have likely engaged in this century.
And just because you can slap a smart ass meaningless label like “Godwin’s law” on something doesn’t make it any less of a valid point.
Which you would recognize if you ever actually thought about shit.
eemom
@General
thank you mon General.
Of course, as is well known, I’m a notorious sexist myself, having called my fellow females twats upon occasion.
neil
No. I swear, does anyone pay attention to even the hugest details of wars? We destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, established an occupation building huge permanent military bases there and proceeded to make war against the population (“insurgents”), leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Meanwhile, Iraq didn’t have any war machines, nor any WMDs. They didn’t get a single plane off the ground during the invasion. Two decades of being on the losing sides of wars and embargos meant Saddam didn’t have a meaningful collection of war machines, and he hadn’t used them against his own people in quite a long time.
j low
Eemom @120- If a person already agrees with you then you must be very easy to impress. Taking a persons writing and substituting Jews for “x” is fucking parlor trick. And while I don’t approve of aish making up a playground insult version of your name, I see that you were quick to get down on the same level. Speaks highly of your “substance” and all that.
Martin
I think you have me confused with someone else.
Again, you’re missing my point. You only know the size and intensity of the threat Hitler presented because we’re looking backward on the event. Before we had entered the war, 300,000 Jews are estimated to have been killed by German death squads. 10s of thousands of Jews and other groups were dying in Warsaw in 1940. Jews were being gassed to death before 1940.
Now, put those facts in the context of what people were saying in the US in 1940 and 1941, using the very arguments that were presented above – Germany didn’t present an existential threat to the US. People dying in Europe didn’t affect the US. We couldn’t afford while we were trying to recover from the Depression, and so on. Truth is, those very arguments helped Germany consolidate power on the continent to the point that we had to start the war in Africa, rather than in France. Had we gotten involved even in late 1939, we might have been able to end the war 3-4 years earlier. How many Jews would have been spared simply through early intervention?
What will be the outcome in Libya? Nobody knows, just like nobody in the US knew in 1939 what the next few years were going to bring. Gaddafi has the military capacity and power to kill hundreds of thousands. We know he’s willing to kill thousands – he’s done it before. Would that have happened? Don’t know, but it was certainly heading in that direction. Could we stop it with a minimum risk to US lives? Yes. Were we in a position to stop it? Yes, we had 3 carriers in the Mediterranean at that moment. Would we regret not acting if 100,000 people in eastern Libya died? I’m pretty sure we would have. Would there be any hope of a leadership change if Gaddafi was successful? Almost certainly not.
Nobody knows the outcome of these things, of acting or of not acting. WWII gives us both sides – had we acted sooner, we could have likely saved millions of lives. Had we not acted at all, things probably would have been massively worse than they were. From the Jews vantage point, we should have intervened much sooner, but thankfully we intervened at all.
j low
@Martin- The finer point that you are missing is that this blog post is based on our Sec. State saying that if you do not support US military action in Libya then you are a SUPPORTER OF GADDAFI. That is fucking offensive. I am a supporter of the rebellion, and was terrified for them when it looked like it was going to be a slaughter, but I do not trust that US motives have anything to do with liberty. And do you really believe that US motivations in WWII had anything to do with the Jews?
Martin
Of course it can be. But the arguments presented by Skippy-san are IDENTICAL to the arguments presented by Americans left and right opposing the US entry into WWII. I just wanted to see how identical arguments, made out of some ideological purity would look in an identically similar context. I didn’t Godwin someone’s rant about health care or the price of gas, I did it about whether or not the US should consider the cost of human life in the calculus of whether to go to war or not. Skippy-san said we shouldn’t. With my substitutions, his statement could have been a word-for-word opposition to military action by someone in 1940. There really wasn’t anything hypothetical about what I converted his statement into – it perfectly captured the non-imaginary, non-hysterical, non-nutpicking attitudes of about half of America at that time. It also didn’t make any references to what we now know happened – it’s every bit as innocent (and not necessarily wrong) a viewpoint on what would come in WWII as we would make today on Libya.
Bottom line, you make the best decisions you can with incredibly imperfect information. We made a perfectly reasonable decision with respect to WWII, but in hindsight, I think people would agree that we could have made a better one had we had future knowledge. That’s exactly the spot we’re in now. I was merely trying to point out to Skippy-san that he might consider breaking out of his ideological bubble.
j low
@Martin- I missed that Fireside Talk where FDR told America that if you did not support US Military action in WWII, then you were a supporter of Hilter. You write very well. Have you thought of working for the Brookings Institute?
Martin
I’m missing the point?
Of course US motivations had nothing to do with the Jews. Fuck, they had nothing to do with Europe. We declared war on Japan. Next day Germany declared war on us, and we declared war back. We had to be dragged into both conflicts. My point is that armed with hindsight, would any of the pacifists here apply the metric that:
to our decisions to enter WWI, WWII, or even any of the conflicts that many liberals wish we had gotten in on such as Sudan. Skippy-san quite directly stated that Libyans (in any quantity) aren’t worth the life of a single American. Who here is going to defend applying that same measure to Jews, or Muslims, or Canadians, or whoever? I mean, we talk about racist statements here all the time, and I’m shocked that people are rushing to Skippy’s defense on the statement that Americans are supremely deserving to live on this planet.
FlipYrWhig
@j low:
Have you seen this before? When You Ride Alone, You Ride with Hitler.
neil
The trope that “if you do/don’t do you’re helping Hitler” was not at all uncommon during WW2. cf
Martin
I never defended Clinton’s statement. Quite the opposite, if you’d take the time to read. Further, I never laid down a strong defense of FDRs position, only noted that in hindsight, it became clear that it was the right one, but that at the time it was difficult to judge. It’s too easy knowing the outcome to pick the right side there.
For the record, I was a strong supporter of Iraq I, a not-enthusiastic supporter of Afghanistan, and an opponent to Iraq II.
Martin
Wow. I had never seen that before. I should post it at work since they discontinued our carpool subsidy.
Catsy
@j low:
And this “law” does not mean what you think it means.
Thank you for playing.
j low
@ 129- I stand corrected. Maybe next time Hilary should just make a poster.
neil
Since somebody else posted my poster first, here’s another example (with bonus racism!). And another and this similar one. And, and, and I probably shouldn’t add any more links.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Chyron:
I guess I’m evil. Cool! :)
j low
@ Catsy- I do see your point. I took a law that has the word Nazi in it and equated it to Martin’s post that also has the word Nazi in it. That was a bridge too far. IMO not unlike Martin’s trick to have GG hypothetically support standing aside during the holocaust.
And you are welcome. It is clear that you keep your claws sharp.
FlipYrWhig
@ Martin: I have always wanted a copy of the poster “Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?“
Martin
I’ve got two kids, so there’s a pretty good chance mine is.
Martin
I never brought GG into it. I didn’t even bring opponents of Libya into it, unless they chose to bring themselves. My comment specifically was directed at Skippy-san, and only at Skippy-san. Not my fault a bunch of people decided to defend his viewpoint that saving the lives of non-Americans was an insufficient reason to ever enter a military conflict.
Skippy-san
@Martin
Hey Martin-I was flying on airstrikes bombing Libya long before you knew who Obama was. Were you chasing Libyan patrol boats in the Gulf of Sidra in 1986? I doubt it. I know I was-I’ve got the log book to prove it.
Your analogy to WW-II and your continued arguement that I somehow hate Arabs falls flat on its face. First-the US did not become involved in the World War until 1941 because: 1) we were attacked and Hitler declared war on us and 2) FDR was keenly aware that US public opinion was against our intervening in what was seen as just another in Europe’s long list of wars. I’d also point out that defeating Nazisim was our goal-which had only an ancillary amount to do with concern over the Holocaust. America was attacked-and on Dec 10, 1941 Germany declared war on the US. We had to fight at that point.
Whether you like it or not-US foreign policy has to be about narrow minded self interest. Otherwise-why aren’t we bombing (in no particular order): Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan, Syria, Myanmar? What makes the lives of Libyans somehow more imporant that others in the world?
We cannot be the world’s policeman. It didn’t make sense when there was a Cold War-and it certainly doesn’t make sense now in the multi-polar world where are real enemies ( China, Russia, and India) get a free ride off of our involvement in conflicts that do nothing but causes us to burn up our resources with no return.
Plus-and please get this through your head. NO FLY ZONES DON’T WIN WARS or save lives. If we really want regime change in Libya , then follow the Powell Doctrine and use OVERWHELMING FORCE and get the conflict over with quickly. Except of course-our European allies haven’t spent zip diddly on defense in recent years. ( As the SECDEF so pointedly reminded them).
Given a choice between helping Libyans or helping Americans-you will forgive me if I pick Americans.
j low
@ Martin. Ah- that’s a shame. There are so many GG haters here, and because you did not @reference skippy-san’s comment (I missed the comment and have not noticed that name before- thought it was your pet (insult) name for GG) in your post I assumed that you were referring the blog post and GG’s article at large. That assumption led me to believe that you were bringing the Holocaust into the argument in defense of Hillary’s “which side are you on” BS. For the record I think that all lives have equal value. It is part of what makes me extremely uncomfortable with the way we execute this and other wars. I apologize for my error and my tone (though I still think your use of the Holocaust was inappropriate).
Martin
That’s awesome, thanks for doing that. You should fax your credentials to Cole as proof, though.
Doesn’t. Never argued that it did. What I did argue is this:
Can we be effective in Libya at a reasonable cost of both the lives our military as well as civilians on the ground? Possibly. Certainly moreso than we can in Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan, Syria, and Myanmar. I’m sure you can see the tactical differences between trying to do this in Libya and those other places, either our ability to get aircraft into those places or our ability to see what’s on the ground, or our ability to discern military from civilian targets, or the on-the-ground ability of those we’re trying to help.
Ask any firefighter if they rate the life of someone on the 2nd floor of a burning building higher than someone on the 9th floor? They’re almost always going to go for the person on the 2nd floor first, not because that person is more valuable, but because they’re far, far more likely to be able to help that person sooner than the one on the 9th floor. You’re assigning moral value to something that we measure purely in pragmatic terms. It’s why a child dying from abuse is more tragic than a child dying from cancer – the first one isn’t worth more, but it’s something we feel we can prevent, whereas we know we can’t yet stop cancer.
So here’s the real question: What’s the moral cost of not intervening in a situation that we’re sitting there watching unfold? What if Gaddafi really did go through with his effort and wiped out half of Benghazi? Would we all be sitting back and thinking ‘Whew, thank goodness we didn’t help those people – that would have cost us quite a few bombs that we can’t afford, and I feel much better knowing that Obama wouldn’t help prevent a UN recognized humanitarian crisis without an explicit declaration of war by Congress! We sure dodged a constitutional bullet there!’ Or would the same people that use our inaction in Sudan’s humanitarian crisis as an excuse to do nothing here be coming back and wondering why we sat by and did nothing? Or would most of us be ashamed that we did nothing and demand some pictures of Tunch to take our mind off of our collective guilt?
We weren’t given a choice between those two. They’re independent decisions. See anyone can do it:
It’s an easy game. Why can’t we help Americans *and* Libyans?
General Stuck
Excellent comment Martin!!
amk
False equivalency,cole. neocons’ with us or against us was all about war profiteering and pillaging.
Skippy-san
Can we be effective in Libya at a reasonable cost of both the lives our military as well as civilians on the ground? Possibly.
Bullshit. The simple truth is-that NATO and the United States is doing this in a half assed manner. We are not doing it in a means that makes any sense from a purely military standpoint. If we did, we would have surged a carrier from Norfolk and perhaps taken one frome the Gulf. We would have put them in the Gulf of Sidra and where they could have tripled the sortie rate with out using half the tankers we are using now and having pilots fly ass busting 6 hour missions from Aviano and other air fields. If it is supposedly “worth doing” (and I remain convinced it’s not)-then its worth doing right-with overwhelming military power that crushes Libyan opposition up front. That saves American and Libyan lives in the long run. And even at that-if you want Khadaffi gone, its going to take a better quality force on the ground than the Libyan insurgency has proven themselves to be.
Oh wait, the reason we are not doing that is-wait for it-the American military is a little busy now fighting three other wars ( Somali pirates, Afghanistan and Iraq) for ungrateful Arabs. And every time now we commit additional forces anywhere-we are doing it at significant cost and risk to American servicemen elsewhere-and a huge increase in their operational tempo that has already been strained by the current pace of operations. There is a finite limit to what we can do-and we hit long before Libya.
Maybe the better question you should ask yourself is why aren’t the other Arabs doing this? Why aren’t they taking the lead and attacking Libya-with all of the money and arms we give them? They have the Armies and the Air Forces to greatly help NATO. but they aren’t doing anything to help them.
And in the end and the rebels win? They may in fact to be a lot worse from a US interest standpoint than the current regime. Does your moral pompousness extend to condemning the tribal bloodshed that will take place when the rebels take Khadaffi’s tribal and governmental strongholds? When they capture his sub-Saharan mercenaries? Somehow I think your beloved UN will turn a blind eye to that.
This is a lose/lose situation for the US- this conflict is drifting toward two equally bad outcomes. First a stalemate and simmering civil war, or Khadaffi manages to win. Either case is a disaster. There are no trend lines point to the rebels gaining the upper hand under the present ROE.
So spare me the moral outrage-we don’t get to help both Americans and Libyans. Just Libyans-at an unacceptable cost to ourselves. Sorry Martin, Libya isn’t worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier.
eemom
just fwiw, anybody wasting their time arguing with this “skippy” thing might want to click on its name and check out its blog, to see what a disgusting, filthy, truly misogynistic thing it is.
burnspbesq
@ Trurl:
You’re a fucking liar. You don’t have the unanimous anything. Ever hear of Harold Koh?
AAA Bonds
SERIOUS JOEMENTUM ON GADDAFIGATE
AAA Bonds
Bloodthirsty chickenhawks up the shitter in this thread.
Hope you can amble your fat asses between the fridge and back, else Gaddafi will win our freedoms! ! ! !
AAA Bonds
I TOTALLY LOVE A WAR OF CHOICE TO OVERTHROW AN ARAB DICTATOR, THAT’S DEFINITELY WHY I VOTED FOR OBAMA
AAA Bonds
Seriously, survey these bomb-em-free lardass lawyers, the Jonah Goldbergs and Andrew Sullivans of the Democratic Party
Skippy-san
147@eemom
Stay classy, eemom. My blog is anything but filthy.