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

[giblets]

Wait, are we supposed to be bombing countries on the other side of the world to advance our interests? I think some call that "imperialism".

[DaShi]

You proclaim that I hate Obama.

This is the post of a rational man: "I don't hate him for having a naive and foolish view of international affairs." Seriously? Given your posts here, you are in no position to criticize anyone on international affairs. [cough] "In sum, the President had no idea how much time it would take to overthrow Qaddaffi when he confidently predicted that it would take 'days.' As a result, there is good reason to discount his ability to make considered judgements in matters of foreign policy."[/cough]

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.

I've already listed the evidence of your behavior here. Only you can redeem yourself. My posts can't change what you did. Or you could simply ignore it all and jump to some other point to argue about as if nothing else happened. Or you could actually try to maintain a consistent arguments and rely a lot less on conservative bloggers.

So how about this: Isn't this a little absurd? I'm not entertained by this. I quite seriously would rather you define what Obama's "timetable" was and state why its failure in that time frame greatly harms the United States. On the other hand, if you can't name those benefits, then by all means persist in proclaiming that I'm a fanatic, 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.

Seriously? Take a look at yourself.

[DaShi]

Wait, are we supposed to be bombing countries on the other side of the world to advance our interests? I think some call that "imperialism".

Well, we're certainly not going to bomb countries to hurt our interests.

[Barnabas]

I can't help but find this bombing of Lybia an imperialist intervention.

[Aeson]

Well, we're certainly not going to bomb countries to hurt our interests.

That's debatable...

[DinoDoc]

Wait, are we supposed to be bombing countries on the other side of the world to advance our interests?

Why bomb them otherwise?

I think some call that "imperialism".

So?

[Zevico]

This is the post of a rational man: "I don't hate him for having a naive and foolish view of international affairs."

Yes it is. Why should I hate him for being naive? That would be silly. There is every reason to call him out on incompetence. There's no reason to hate the man for being incompetent.

Only you can redeem yourself.

Redemption is sought in places of worship. As I said, I'm not in the business of engaging in religious disputes.

Or you could simply ignore it all

Ignore what? The fact that I made a mistake and didn't check one fact properly? No, I haven't ignored that. I've admitted it.

Or you could actually try to maintain a consistent arguments

My arguments are not inconsistent. Simply asserting that they are does not make it so. You may be used to a lazy, state-the-conclusion-and-damn-the-reasoning style of posting but the truth is that just bald-faced conclusions contribute nothing without the reasoning, analysis and evidence to back them up.

and rely a lot less on conservative bloggers.

Actually, my error was my own.

by all means persist in proclaiming that I'm a fanatic

If you can't get your head around the fact that I don't hate people for being incompetent, then you have difficulty understanding those with opinions that differ from your own. And the hallmark of a fanatic is an inability to understand views differing from their own.

or that I'm intellectually dishonest, or a liar and a hypocrite, or what have you.

No, those are accusations you've made against me, all on the (false and unfounded) basis that my error of fact (and silliness in failing to check a source) evinced bad faith. Accusations for which you haven't apologised. I don't accuse you of being any of those things.

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.

That's what I said. You still haven't responded.

[Dauphin]

Why bomb them otherwise?So?

Because it's in the administration's interest, not necessarily the US's?

At least that was what was claimed with Clinton's wagging the dog.

[Zevico]

Dino's point was that wars should be conducted only to advance the national interests of the nation engaged in the war. Whether or not some call that war "imperialism" is irrelevant.

When nations refuse to advance their national interests--by way of war, if necessary--their downfall will soon follow. And if they wilt away from advancing their national interests at the mere suggestion that "some people" might think war is imperialism, the same result will occur.

[Dauphin]

My point was a flippant one that war is politics, just as much as it may be about "national interests".

Falklands war is a good example.

[giblets]

Dino's point was that wars should be conducted only to advance the national interests of the nation engaged in the war. Whether or not some call that war "imperialism" is irrelevant.

When nations refuse to advance their national interests--by way of war, if necessary--their downfall will soon follow. And if they wilt away from advancing their national interests at the mere suggestion that "some people" might think war is imperialism, the same result will occur.

You know I specified "on the other side of the world", right? I think it's pretty absurd to claim the US would "wilt away" if it stopped getting entangled in middle eastern conflicts.

[rah]

I too would like to here what types of benefits the US is going to get for spending billions of dollars worth of munitions on a **** hole on the other side of the world.
The only reason I support the help is that it pisses off the thug in SA. Every other possible benefit that I think possible will be offset by all the suffering that's going to happen in the aftermath.
So what benefits do people think we're going to get out of this? Our European allies are still going to hate us when regardless of our continued support.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its stimulative. If only we could break all the windows.

[Sava]

Our European allies are still going to hate us when regardless of our continued support.

I thought they love us now because Obama is President?

[Dauphin]

I thought they love us now because Obama is President?

Of course not. Europeans hate you for your freedom.