Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[Cort Haus]

peacekeepers

For how many years / decades this time?

[Cort Haus]

Our economy is in deep ****, we can't afford to police our own cities apparantly, and now we're looking at babysitting a political vacuum of uncertainty for infinity. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT! :rage:

[Dauphin]

Germans should go back in. Desert Fox FTW!

[BeBMan]

I fully trust our gov to be dumb enough to do it.

[C0ckney]

what's rommel's grandson up to these days?

[Uncle Sparky]

Libya was under Italy for a while. Have them look after it. What could possibly go wrong?

But seriously, atrocities are being committed by both sides. Looks like we backed a bunch of winners again.

[Zevico]

Yes, I didn't remember one fact (and got it wrong).

Here's a simple question: how will this entire operation help America? Or any European country, or the West in general?

Answer: it's a surprise!

[DaShi]

One fact that you've been ranting about endlessly despite no one else talking about it. Yes, you irrationally hate Obama. We get it and don't care.

[Zevico]

One fact that you've been ranting about endlessly despite no one else talking about it. Yes, you irrationally hate Obama. We get it and don't care.

I've pointed out that there are no actual benefits to this operation, you fail to specify any benefits, and the conclusion you reach is that I "irrationally hate Obama"?

Do I "irrationally hate" David Cameron, Sarkozy, Julia Gillard (the Australian PM who supported this war)? Do I hate you? Do I hate everyone with whom I disagree?

Of course not. It is foolish to hate people for their politics.

You simply assume that I hate Obama--you don't actually know whether or not I do.

Even if I did, what would it matter to you? Your task here is not to divine my personal feelings from an internet posting but to discuss the merits of this operation. Personal feelings have nothing to do with that.

If you think the war is beneficial to American interests, state why.

[DaShi]

No, I know.

[Zevico]

No, I know.

Yes, now you know I don't hate him for having a naive and foolish view of international affairs. Congratulations.

Alternatively, I suppose you may have such a fanatical view of the world that you simply cannot conceive of that possibility. Which is the far more likely possibility (heck, practically a certainty) given your tendency to post little by way of substance and a great deal by way of immature insults.

[Zevico]

By the way, if you are a fanatic you really should have mentioned it first. I don't engage in religious disputes.

[DaShi]

Oh boohoo. You've been shown to be a hack. Is it worse that no one cares?

Look, this thread has shown that you didn't address Oerdin's article in favor of an anti-Obama rant (post #270), that Kurtz is either extremely biased or a fool but you'd still do him (posts #265 and#271), that you can't read or reason(posts #251, #252, #253, #254, #266, #276, #277, #278, #281, #282, #283, #293, and #294), that you're obsessed with Obama (nearly all your posts here prove this, but #294 is especially bad since all of your criticisms have been demolished), that you're a hippocit or a liar (posts #273 and #277), and that you have no understand (truly none whatsoever) of international policy (posts #277, this is especially hilarious because not only was your assumption shown to be wrong but the implications that you drew from it were so out of touch with reality).

So what's that left you. Now you're just throwing out insults ("the war is Libya is bad just because," "you're a fanatic because you don't believe Obama is a fool like I do") in every direction hoping something sticks. The ravings of a man at the edge of sanity and hope.

[DaShi]

Here's a tip for your response: read what people actually write, not what you assume they wrote. Here's a better tip: just don't respond.

[Zevico]

I humbly submit to your judicial assessment of my personal whims and qualities. Unfortunately, that assessment doesn't actually prove anything about the Libyan invasion at all. How long can this go on? I ask you for a statement of your view as to why the invasion benefited American interests; you proclaim that I hate Obama. You say Obama's "gamble" paid off--I ask you what that gamble is or was (his "definition of success"). You proclaim that I hate Obama.

Isn't this a little absurd? I'm not entertained by this. I quite seriously would rather you define what Obama's "gamble" was and state why its success benefits the United States. On the other hand, if you can't name those benefits, then by all means persist in proclaiming that I hate Obama, or that I'm intellectually dishonest, or a liar and a hypocrite, or what have you. If that's what you call an adult conversation about politics, then please, by all means, continue. My object is not to dispel your illusions about my personality. My object is to obtain your opinion or that of anyone else willing to actually specify what the United States got from this mess. If you have one at all, that is.