UN authorizes `all necessary measures' in Libya

[Al B. Sure!]

Is it just me or does Qaddafi look a little like Sly Stallone? Not Rocky/Rambo Sly... 2011 old ass Sly?





I also wondered if, because Qaddafi had been a colonel in the Libyan military, if he used to be a bit more demure back in the day? Judging from old pictures, he was.



I think he started getting flamboyant in the late 70's.

[Asher]

Asher has expressed his opinion on this in the US military budget thread... Asher thinks the Cold War was America's fault because without American arrogance, the Soviets would have been chill.

That's not what I said, and it figures you'd be lost in the nuance.

I said that without the America and its aggressive military budget, there would be no Cold War. Which is a factual statement.

[Asher]

The usual anti-American claptrap. Or is it a product of thoughtful analysis? I doubt it.

The Americans cooperated with Iraq to counter Iran. They saw Iran as the greater threat. Hardly an immoral decision, unless, of course, dirtying one's hands by making political decisions is intrinsically wrong. No informed observer is likely to infer that the United States viewed Hussein and his crew as good people; they were bastards but (to use the well known phrase)--they were our bastards, in that time, in that place and under those circumstances. Sometimes people who have to choose to work with immoral regimes to counter greater threats. This should be very basic and easy for you to understand, but it is easier not to.

As to Ghaddaffi--well, the man was always a dictator and no one disputed it. If you think no one should buy oil from dictators (and you don't) then welcome to your new, crippled economy. If not, then what on earth are you complaining about? A photo opportunity? Do you seriously think photo ops are the be-all-end-all of Western policy?

Photo ops show complicity, superficial or not. It shows cooperation to some extent. It shows recognition of them as a valid government.

It's no anti-American claptrap. Yes, they chose to side with Iraq instead of Iran. But you're completely missing the real point -- that they sided with anyone. The USA continually funds and supports one side in favour of the other, then it comes to bite them in the ass as the other guy turns out to be bad, too. The point is the constant meddling isn't making things better, it's just pissing people off and tossing one awful regime from power, making space for another to take its place. All at the expense of the American taxpayer.

BTW -- Iran was no great threat to the USA when the USA was supporting Iraq. And anyone who wants to seriously argue that they were can go ahead and just tell me their names so I can put them on my ignore list and save us all some time.

And as for your comment about oil, are you mental? If everyone agreed to stop buying oil from dictators, the Canadian economy would be soaring to record heights. Hell, right now we're making billions of dollars off the increased price of oil due to the constant conflict the dictators bring us.

[DinoDoc]

I said that without the America and its aggressive military budget, there would be no Cold War. Which is a factual statement.

It's also a meaningless statement.

[Asher]

Asher is a closet authoritarian.

He supports this by claiming the other party leaders are terrible (they are).

WTF?

I'm anti-authoritarian. The faults of Harper are specifically pertaining to his desire for more authoritarian government. The ideal situation is a minority Conservative government -- Harper as the PM, but on a leash. The problem is the other parties are so ****ing inept, it's a de facto majority as none of them want to face an election.

[Asher]

It's also a meaningless statement.

It was certainly provocative enough to confuse a lot of the less-than-intelligent posters. Which is meaningful in its own right.

[Asher]

Alby -- this should explain everything.

Last election, it was a two-horse race with potential prime ministers being Stephane Dion (Liberal):


Or this guy (Conservative):

[Al B. Sure!]

The tenses threw him off. He's obviously a native French speaker.

This question of 'If you were the PM NOW, what would you HAVE done?' could be confusing to someone who isn't a native speaker. It's clear to us as native speakers but it's combining two tenses and that threw him off.

[Asher]

I think the tenses threw him off. He's obviously a native French speaker.

This question of 'If you were the PM NOW, what would you HAVE done?' could be confusing to someone who isn't a native speaker. It's clear to us as native speakers but it's combining two tenses.

Yes, but having inadequate English skills for a country that is majority anglophone is obviously a major strike against him. And he's a whiney little *****. This one attack ad pretty much single handedly sunk his campaign:


That's not even mentioning his policies, which were hilariously bad. For instance, he thought it'd be a great idea to pitch a carbon tax when the economy was hitting the skids.

[Asher]

What's even more amazing is after the election, which he soundly lost, he angered the majority of Canadians by trying to become a PM by forming a coalition with all of the other parties, including the Quebec Separatists. That's technically legal in Canada, and it's happened in many other countries, but the prospect of Stephane Dion being a PM was so terrifying that it set off a ****storm that the Liberals have yet to recover from.

What's even MORE amazing is they put in a leader to replace Dion who has barely spent any of his life in Canada (especially recently), is a pointy-headed academic who descends from a Russian Tsar, and is somehow polling even lower than Dion ever has.

[notyoueither]

Cheer up. Next comes Justin Trudeau.

[Asher]

How barbaric.

[Zevico]

It's no anti-American claptrap. Yes, they chose to side with Iraq instead of Iran. But you're completely missing the real point -- that they sided with anyone. The USA continually funds and supports one side in favour of the other, then it comes to bite them in the ass as the other guy turns out to be bad, too. The point is the constant meddling isn't making things better, it's just pissing people off and tossing one awful regime from power, making space for another to take its place. All at the expense of the American taxpayer.

1. Why, in your view, did America support Iraq? Present a summary of their reasons. Then explain why they were wrong. Resorting to simplistic "it pissed people off" explanations is not good enough. I can hardly agree or disagree with your case if you put it so sparsely, and in the abstract, without resort to the particular circumstances of the Iran-Iraq conflict, their various interests at that time, etc. Put in the abstract, by the way, "pissing people off" as a reason for not going to war is sensible enough, but in politics war is a choice of last resort. The point is that the Americans took the view that it was less important than the aim they had in mind in supporting Saddam; your point is that they shouldn't have. Now, why is that? Or am I, as a mere lesser mortal, not privy to your reasons?
2. The "other guy turning out to be bad" statement is wrong. The US knew Saddam was bad well before they chose to support him. Everyone did. They afterwards chose to invade him--not because he was "bad", but because the US leadership and Congress determined that he was a threat to their national security.

[notyoueither]

You're not making the process sound attractive.

[notyoueither]

How barbaric.

That's not a very good word.