>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What the administration is not telling you is that total withdrawlal of the troops was not the preferred plan. The plan was to leave a remnant of a few thousand behind to oversee training. But because our negotiaters bungled talks with the Iraqi government and failed to get immunity for the troops, they pulled them all out. Iraq also recently announced that it wouldn't be having any of our bases there either. So basically Iran has taken over, and this fledging democracy, which we completely failed to establish, is going to be overtaken by extermists and brought under sharia law. We are basically symbolically handing over the control of the country to Iran and leaving in shame and disgrace. God help the Iraqi people.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalys
is/Article/589004/201110211900/Politicizing-Our-Exit-From-Iraq.htm


It's funny how imperialism works. The countries we occupy seem to side with the opposition, why is that?

You're correct though, the Iraqi government is kicking us out. Of course we will leave behind thousands of mercenaries and the CIA will have a shadowy presence. And the State department will be hiring 5,500 more security contractors to protect 17,000 civilians working for the American government in Iraq.

Sounds like to me this is the perfect opportunity for the US or Israel to stage an attack by Iran on Iraq or US troops. Remember the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point that was repetitively aired after the recent fake DEA-Saudi bomb plot.

Boston: FBI Thwarts Own R/C Bomb
Another case of FBI entrapment, proving the only terrorism Americans must fear, comes from within the bowels of their own government.
By Tony Cartalucci

The United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claims to have thwarted their own "drone" bomb, in yet another farcical case of entrapment and fear mongering aimed not at ending the "War on Terror" but perpetuating the mythological, unending conflict. FBI agents apparently strung along another subpar malcontent by providing him with materials, including a model airplane, real C4 explosives, and small arms. Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, was approached by undercover FBI agents and tasked first with building remote detonation devices he was told would be used in Iraq against US troops. FBI agents went as far as falsely telling Ferdaus that one of his devices had killed 3 US troops. The grand finale was assisting Ferdaus in a spectacular, Hollywood-style attack we are told by FBI agents, would have involve simultaneous assaults on both the US Capitol and the Pentagon involving drone bombs and multiple gunmen.

Photo: Your FBI at work - sneaking around the United States, constructing drones made of toy planes like the one above, building bombs, handing out weapons and live explosives to prospective "terrorists" then stopping them "just in time" for sensational headlines to get Americans wringing their hands in fear from what Media Monarchy calls, "terronoia."

According to an AFP report, FBI special agent Richard DesLauriers claimed the sting operation proved ''a committed individual, even one with no direct connections to, or formal training from, an international terrorist organisation, can pose a serious danger to the community.'' DesLauriers fails to explain where, if not from the FBI or other federal agencies, Ferdaus could have acquired C4 explosives for his alleged plot. Additionally, DesLauriers fails to explain how Ferdaus can be considered acting as an "individual" with no "direct connections" to an international terrorist organization, when FBI agents were posing as just that, supplying him with motivation, supplies, explosives, logistics, and weapons.

If convicted, Ferdaus faces 15 years in prison for supporting a foreign terrorist organization and an additional 40 years on other terror related charges. In order to support a foreign terrorist organization, Ferdaus would have to have believed, by necessity, to be in contact with one, again undermining FBI special agent DesLauriers' statement. Ironically, Ferdaus is being arrested, held, and awaiting trial that could see him locked up for most of his life, while the US State Department, Department of Defense, and the White House itself are verifiably supporting foreign terrorist organizations, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), listed as #26 on the State Department's own list, as well as Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) in Iran, listed as #28 by the US State Department.

I agree with the trial westy, but to say the CEO should have vetted information and seen through the lies of professionals is a bit much.

If the sources know one thing, it is how to manipulate--even one of their own.

>> ^westy:

So he is admitting that he himself didn't do his job in vetting what was in the document and checking that the sauces were correct , WASN'T IT HIS JOB TO CHECK THAT THE SOURCES WERE CORRECT ( ie not coming from one guy that was waterboarded). sure he has other people to go over the document but you cannot just say OH THEY TOLD ME SO I BELIEVED IT.
evan if he is or was inosent Why are we still not having a high profile trile of the people that presented the intelligence as being of value ?
Also the Neo-conservatives just wanted an excuse to go to war with these countries the intelligence didn't even matter they had and still have an agenda we dont know about and they simply used the events of 911 and bullshit inteligence as a way to get what they want , they have no intrest in doing whats best for "the people" they are only intrestead in whats best for them and "there people" which is probably 200,000 or so super ritch people.
I dont see why we dont try governments that go to war with people and fail , they are guilty of the killing of many people us troops and people on the other side. If we don't have triles and understand how this can happen then it will happen time and time again.

So he is admitting that he himself didn't do his job in vetting what was in the document and checking that the sauces were correct , WASN'T IT HIS JOB TO CHECK THAT THE SOURCES WERE CORRECT ( ie not coming from one guy that was waterboarded). sure he has other people to go over the document but you cannot just say OH THEY TOLD ME SO I BELIEVED IT.

evan if he is or was inosent Why are we still not having a high profile trile of the people that presented the intelligence as being of value ?

Also the Neo-conservatives just wanted an excuse to go to war with these countries the intelligence didn't even matter they had and still have an agenda we dont know about and they simply used the events of 911 and bullshit inteligence as a way to get what they want , they have no intrest in doing whats best for "the people" they are only intrestead in whats best for them and "there people" which is probably 200,000 or so super ritch people.

I dont see why we dont try governments that go to war with people and fail , they are guilty of the killing of many people us troops and people on the other side. If we don't have triles and understand how this can happen then it will happen time and time again.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.
Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.
"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.
As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.


No, I just try to see the world for what it is. Cut through the bullshit, and find the truth. Regurgitating talking points from sources that over and over lie to me just seems like a fool's errand, but you find solace in being a dis-info/government apologist.

I guess that makes you an "I know, but" kind of person: I know Obama said he was going to end the wars, but we've got finish what Bush started. I know we've killed millions of people, but we're trying to spread democracy. I know we armed and supported Al-qaeda rebels in Libya (remnants of the same ones attacking US troops in Iraq), but "geopolitics is a messy thing". The list is endless.

And "you're either with us or against us" is the same motto used by "progressive" war-mongers like Obama, Hillary, and Reid, not just neocons. I think the real problem is you're just hostile toward the truth whenever it exposes your false reality, whenever it bursts your blissful ignorance of illusion.

And for Tarpley, of course it sounds like "denialism" to you. Narrow-minded government sycophants would equate the two as the same.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

That IS disgusting. We do know who is killing them. The refugees that have succeeded in fleeing to Turkey are telling us it was Assad's troops killing them. The SAME Assad that kicked out all journalists that didn't work directly for him. Defectors who've fled to Turkey have similarly reported witnessing first hand that Assad's secret service executed Syrian soldiers that refused orders to fire upon unarmed civilians.
We KNOW who is killing who. Your refusal to acknowledge it is sick.
---------

Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.
Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.


Sorry, your support for foreign-funded sedition is disgusting. Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.

BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) which is in direct violation of their own contrived UN Security resolution in 1973.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.


Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.

Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.

>> ^bcglorf:

I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.


So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

>> ^WKB:

Such a shame he stepped down. He was a real force of honesty in the senate house. While he may have resorted to lies to prevent his private life from being exposed, which is a shame and is hypocritical, he has done more to expose actual lies that effect this country than most if not all of his colleagues.
Lie and it causes innocent civilians and US Troops to die? Fine... just a misunderstanding... of course. Lie about your underwear and cause no damage outside of your personal life? BURN THE WITCH!1! Absurd. If you are a non US citizen, rest assured that the US cares MUCH more about some dudes underwear than you or your child being ripped asunder by our very own shrapnel.
If he had to step down... WHY oh WHY could he not at least have made David Vitter an example of this hypocritical nonsense in the same breath. He had such courage in his active senate career as congressman... If only he could have displayed the same on his way out.

Fixed.

Such a shame he stepped down. He was a real force of honesty in the senate. While he may have resorted to lies to prevent his private life from being exposed, which is a shame and is hypocritical, he has done more to expose actual lies that effect this country than most if not all of his colleagues.

Lie and it causes innocent civilians and US Troops to die? Fine... just a misunderstanding... of course. Lie about your underwear and cause no damage outside of your personal life? BURN THE WITCH!1! Absurd. If you are a non US citizen, rest assured that the US cares MUCH more about some dudes underwear than you or your child being ripped asunder by our very own shrapnel.

If he had to step down... WHY oh WHY could he not at least have made David Vitter an example of this hypocritical nonsense in the same breath. He had such courage in his active senate career... If only he could have displayed the same on his way out.

if i remember correctly, this is how this racket works.... weapons are developed by private US corporations, using R&D funds supplied by tax dollars.... then those weapons are sold to the US government... the private companies hold the patents on the weapons that were developed using tax dollars... after the US governments weapons order is delivered.. the arms manufacturers make more of those weapons and turn around and sell them to developing countries at a profit to warlords or authoritarian regimes who use them against their own people.....

and now that the rest of the world has the same weapons as US troops, we have to pay for MORE R&D to develop more advanced weapons. and on and on and on and on.

and the stocks in these arms corporations are publicly traded, based on demand.
the easier it is for governments or warlords or cartels to massacre people, the more money the stockholders make.

>> ^Entropy001:
When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.
Well, one could argue that it's more of a difference in the underlying philosophy than quality of engineering. German doctrin was based upon the use of what we now refer to as MBTs (Panzer I-V) while the Brits used infantry tanks (Mathilda, Valentine, Churchill, etc) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser, Crusader, Cromwell, etc), and the US troops deployed infantry tanks (Sherman) and TDs (M10, M18, M36). Once you split breakthrough and exploitation or infantry support and anti-tank warfare into separate vehicles, you're bound to end up with vastly different designs that might draw the short straw more often than not if not used properly.


If you include the lack of resources and manpower in particular, Wehrmacht tanks had to be superior individually, because they were doomed to be inferior numerically. Thus, the US could focus on easier and cheaper production. You don't need Zeiss optics and Krupp steel if you simply aim for number superiority. I'd say both design principles fulfilled their respective roles just fine, even though they could hardly have been more different. Simple, easy to maintain and reliable versus the latest in technology.

The Firefly was nice though, 17pdr was a beast.

Or maybe what I wrote is just a load of cockswallow and the German designs were, in fact, simply superior.

That said, this kitty was one hell of an engineering masterpiece. If they hadn't lost access to rare materials, even the transmission might have worked properly and those buggers wouldn't have broken down every 100km.

Still waiting to see the Panther at Koblenz again, last time was a blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War



When I was younger I had an interest in wars. One war that caught my attention was the Vietnam War. One battle that caught my I was Ia Drang which was the first battle directly with uniformed combat troops. Immortalized in the movie We Were Soldiers.

But soon the war began to take on a different tone, moving from rice paddy to rice paddy, village to village. Where one village worked with the US Troops and another didn't. Where one village ended up burned to the ground by US Troops, and one village killed by the Viet Cong. The use of Firebases.

Here are some photos of the firebases in Vietnam. http://www.landscaper.net/lzpics.htm#FSB%20Aries

Turn to Afghanistan. Moving from opium field to opium field, village to village. The use of Fire Bases.

http://www.google.com/images?q=Photos+of+Afghanistan+firebases&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=M
qEoTOa4AYH68AafrIi6Dw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsAQwAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_support_base

There were some good reasons to be in Afghanistan, just like there were good reasons to be in Vietnam. But the bad reasons always out weigh the good reasons, on bad reason is Civilian Death, on both sides. Would these people be better off left alone? One can argue that Afghanistan is not vietnam because there is no Communist Influence there, some argue that there are only 100 Al Qaeda there. Another large difference is the casualty difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Here's the big difference. Vietnam was about Communism, and Afghanistan is about Terrorism. Wait, doesn't seem that different.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

So the options are:

Leave Afghanistan. Just pick up and leave. Let whatever happen to Afghanistan happen (the Taliban taking the country back and brutalize the populace for daring to go against them in the first place) and allow Al Qaeda leadership a break in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Stay in it for a few more years, build up the country's infrastructure and give the Afghans a shot at some normalcy at the expense of corruption in the central Afghan government and incompetence in the US military's upper leadership.

I'd take the second option. The people calling out for an end to the war are incredibly short sighted and were calling for the intervention of US troops when the reporting of the brutality of the Taliban occurred in the late 90's.