Originally Posted by Justin '77

I've been dissatisfied with my response to this very good question. Fortunately for me, someone else wrote one that gets to the core of the matter better than I was able:

Yeah; that.

I agree that this is a better response. However, one should not dismiss data based on the source. The Arab nations that have monarchies appear to be doing "better" at handling the unrest then the Arab nations with dictators. This might lend some credence to the Air Force Colonel's observation that Professor Kaiser passed along to us.

Note that I did not disagree with your reasons for suspicion of the data, only with what appeared to be a propensity to disregard data based on the source which is why I asked the question. Thank you for the clarification.

I am taking it that this is a 4T event for this/these society(s) since it is a mostly unified response from non-religious (idealist) youth that are jonesing for a life (including multiple statements from them about "rebuilding" there society) that would make them civic.

If that is the case, WHERE in the 4T are they? Begining climax? Catalyst of the 4T? The middle where there is a demand for public order? Personally, I hope its almost over, but that might just be wishfull thinking based on the poll for another thread and "wishfull thinking" gets you nowhere except maybe backwards.

Let us not forget, as our ruling class scrambles to "do something" ostensibly for the benefit of the Libyan people... Libya has oil. Egypt and Tunisia do not.




Clearly, they remember that fact in Libya. Enough to know the appropriate language to use.

Not to mention that our country can't afford to do any more "nation building." If they don't want us there, and we can't afford to be there, we should not be going there.

EDIT: Not to mention that, when we go there, autocrats in other Middle Eastern nations will try to get their people to project their anger on us again.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Not to mention that our country can't afford to do any more "nation building." If they don't want us there, and we can't afford to be there, we should not be going there.

EDIT: Not to mention that, when we go there, autocrats in other Middle Eastern nations will try to get their people to project their anger on us again.

Uh yeah, you would think people in our government would realize that generally when we go sticking our noses into other people's business, it often comes back to bite us in the butt. But yet, we still hold onto the idea that it our duty to police the world. And then people here in America wonder why people in other countries hate us.

Remember the nosey neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz from the TV show Bewitched? Yep, that's us.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Uh yeah, you would think people in our government would realize that generally when we go sticking our noses into other people's business, it often comes back to bite us in the butt. But yet, we still hold onto the idea that it our duty to police the world. And then people here in America wonder why people in other countries hate us.

Remember the nosey neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz from the TV show Bewitched? Yep, that's us.

And unfortunately we're not even the Season 1 or 2 Mrs. Kravitz that was nosey but lovable & sweet.



No... we're the Season 3 through 8 Mrs. Kravitz who takes on an irritating moralizing approach.



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

And unfortunately we're not even the Season 1 or 2 Mrs. Kravitz that was nosey but lovable & sweet.



No... we're the Season 3 through 8 Mrs. Kravitz who takes on an irritating moralizing approach.



~Chas'88

According the message scrolling along the screen on CNN, I see "Mrs. Kravitz" is considering military intervention.

I think some folks officially or not could help the situation by sending various kinds of help to the rebels, and let them do the fighting themselves. A no fly zone might be a trap; we'd have to do heavy air strikes against anti-aircraft sites. If Libya became a massacre of civilians like Rwanda I can understand why a multi-lateral action might be needed. This is similar to what is being done (but not enough is being done) in Darfur. It's not happening yet in Libya on that scale.

The Small Wars Journal has reinvented the wheel --- I mean, the Evil Overlord's Advice Manual --- real life version. "Dear Gaddafi.... find attached...."

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...vil-dictators/

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The Small Wars Journal has reinvented the wheel --- I mean, the Evil Overlord's Advice Manual --- real life version. "Dear Gaddafi.... find attached...."

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...vil-dictators/

The other day while taking my son to school, the radio station we were listening to was listing off recent quotes. These were all very bizarre and irrational statements. The game was to guess who said it, Gaddafi or Charlie Sheen. And the funniest part was that it really hard to tell which one said it.

And while we are all focused on the debt ceiling, some good news (I think) from Syria.

A Syrian Major-General has deserted Assad’s army along with a group of other officers and joined the rebels.

In an Arabic video clip posted on Youtube on July 29, 2011, the officer, Major-General Riad El As’ad is seen in the company of other officers, announcing the establishment of the “Free Syrian Army whose main goal will be to fight the army of oppression headed by President Bashar Assad”.

As’ad accused the Assad regime of crimes against the Syrian people and called on the officers and soldiers in the Syrian army not to aim their weapons at the people. He further called on them to join the Free Syrian Army.

The major-general warned that the Free Army will eliminate any soldier who acts to harm his own people. The present army commanders do not represent the army, he continued, they are acting for the criminal gang that controls the media and prevents the people from obtaining truthful information on what is happening.

Here.

James50

So it looks like the Libyan rebels (with Nato support) are working hard tonight to depose the Gaddafi regime. Apparently lots of gunfire in Tripoli. Some sources say Gaddafi has already fled.

If you are willing to be neutral about events of another time and place...

Tripoli today - Saigon, late April 1975.

The rebels have captured Tripoli. A few reports indicate that Gaddafi is dead. YAY Libya!

Originally Posted by Odin

The rebels have captured Tripoli. A few reports indicate that Gaddafi is dead. YAY Libya!

1) That's YAY! US Navy and US Air Force;

2) Seems a tad premature on Qaddafi.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) That's YAY! US Navy and US Air Force;

2) Seems a tad premature on Qaddafi.

Actually it was more of a Nato effort with the US providing some but not all of the means. Most importantly, we did not lose a single person in this effort. Maybe something along the same lines should have been considered for Iraq.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Actually it was more of a Nato effort with the US providing some but not all of the means. Most importantly, we did not lose a single person in this effort. Maybe something along the same lines should have been considered for Iraq.

-Bull. The only thing holding it together was the US, and the US & UK did most of the fighting. Just like Iraq.

BTW, good thing Qaddafi never got nukes, huh?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Bull. The only thing holding it together was the US, and the US & UK did most of the fighting. Just like Iraq.

Nothing was incorrect about my statement" with the US providing some but not all of the means" and "Most importantly we did not lose a single person in this effort".

Yet you write "Bull". Have we lost any soldiers in this operation? Do you want to hairsplit what 'some' means in reference to the "US contribution"? Have fun at it since thats more your gig than mine. I stand by my statements as accurate.

Here's a nice table as to the different nations contributions:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=0

The US provided most in some aspects, some in others, and none (in sorties flew), in another.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

...Have we lost any soldiers in this operation?

-Is your argument that we should only fight the very most incompetent opponents?

Originally Posted by Hutch74

...
Here's a nice table as to the different nations contributions:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_US#gid=0

The US provided most in some aspects, some in others, and none (in sorties flew), in another.

-Uh, FWIW, it says we flew 2,000 out of 5857, and the Brits flew 1,300 (round numbers?) out of 5,587.

No mention of who actually did what, and who was actually effective, but we won't see that for a while. I do know that the French actually flew bombing missions. Sometimes they actually hit what they were aiming at. But the French weren't going to fight Saddam in 2003, since he had a good chunk of France in his pocket. You work with what you can get. And the fact anyone other than the Brits stuck around for Libya is because 1) We were there to hold their hands and 2) We kept them supplied (including the Brits).


Anyone who tries to rely on the Europeans will discover that they're leaning on that proverbial reed.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Is your argument that we should only fight the very most incompetent opponents?

I assume by your answer you concede I am correct that we have lost zero soldiers. And no that is not my argument. How you are able to infer that is beyond me. My argument is solely related to the incompetence of the Bush administrations handling of the Iraq war, which was unnecessary, and an expensive distraction in terms of time, lives, and money.

Yes. We'd be much better off with Saddam still in power.

C'mon.

Obama can't handle what's on his plate now. But with Saddam still in power to make trouble as the spirit moves him? He'd be lost.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Yes. We'd be much better off with Saddam still in power.

You have no way of knowing whether the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia would have spread to Iraq to topple Saddam as it did Gaddaffi. But to answer the question we'd be better off as a nation had we focused entirely on Afghanistan instead of Iraq taking center stage.

But I'm guessing you're one of those that believe we should also be going into Iran and Syria as well. I'm guessing you're a war hawk. I could be wrong, but...

C'mon.

Obama can't handle what's on his plate now. But with Saddam still in power to make trouble as the spirit moves him? He'd be lost.

Obama has a big economic mess on his plate now. The GOP proposal of more tax cuts isn't going to solve this problem as it just gives the well to do more money that they won't spend.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Which still equals Bush not seeing any combat. Even Abraham Lincoln had more action in burying the dead after the Black Hawk War than Bush ever did.

-And? As a general rule, you go where they send you.

I have a whole thread on it:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...414#post250414

Originally Posted by Hutch74

You have no way of knowing whether the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia would have spread to Iraq to topple Saddam as it did Gaddaffi...

-We're seeing the results in Syria. And so far, Egypt is a military dictatorship. Other than Israel, the freest country in the Middle east is, well...

Iraq.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

But to answer the question we'd be better off as a nation had we focused entirely on Afghanistan instead of Iraq taking center stage...

-Again, Saddam would be having a field day right about now. Who'd stop him? The French? The Germans? The Russians? They were all in his back pocket, remember?

Originally Posted by Hutch74

But I'm guessing you're one of those that believe we should also be going into Iran and Syria as well. I'm guessing you're a war hawk. I could be wrong, but...

-Syria, no; Iran, maybe. I would have advised against Libya for the same reason I was against Bosnia and Kosovo- I didn't trust the guys we were supporting. Now, it's turned out well, for now. But again, because of us, not the Europeans.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

...The GOP proposal of more tax cuts isn't going to solve this problem as it just gives the well to do more money that they won't spend.

-That's funny. If punishing the rich for creating wealth worked, Greece would rolling in clover. My advice: watch the European welfare states.

The reasons businesses (rich or otherwise) aren't spending money is the same one as 1937: They're afraid to invest, because we have a POTUS who makes a hobby out ofpolicies which are counter-productive (or unpredictable). Why should they risk money on Obama, other than to contribute to his re-election campaign in hopes of buying him off?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-And? As a general rule, you go where they send you.

I have a whole thread on it:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...414#post250414

I suppose it helps as to where they send you when your dad is a Congressman later appointed US Ambassador to the UN.

-We're seeing the results in Syria. And so far, Egypt is a military dictatorship. Other than Israel, the freest country in the Middle east is, well...

Iraq.

.

Syria is still too early to tell what will happen there. Could be Assad holds onto power. Could also be once Gaddhafi disposed of, you'll see more and more volunteering to challange the Assad regime. No way to know yet.

And Iraq being free? I suppose if free means a few steps above anarchy. It's still quite unstable. That we still have a significant presence there sort of makes your idea of 'free' kind of meaningless. Unless that is your preference for a nation. So unstable you get to do whatever you want.

-Again, Saddam would be having a field day right about now. Who'd stop him? The French? The Germans? The Russians? They were all in his back pocket, remember?

And this is important to most Americans why?

-Syria, no; Iran, maybe. I would have advised against Libya for the same reason I was against Bosnia and Kosovo- I didn't trust the guys we were supporting. Now, it's turned out well, for now. But again, because of us, not the Europeans.

Us and the Europeans, working together under a mandate from the UN, with the Libyan rebels doing most of the hard work.

-That's funny. If punishing the rich for creating wealth worked, Greece would rolling in clover. My advice: watch the European welfare states.

The reasons businesses (rich or otherwise) aren't spending money is the same one as 1937: They're afraid to invest, because we have a POTUS who makes a hobby out ofpolicies which are counter-productive (or unpredictable). Why should they risk money on Obama, other than to contribute to his re-election campaign in hopes of buying him off?

They're afraid to create jobs because consumers aren't spending. They're uncertain of the future, and demand is down. Consumer spending makes up 2/3rds of the economy.

If conservatives were really serious about jump starting the economy, they'd suggest massive tax cuts or rebates at the middle and bottom. Those who have no choice but to spend. The rich will reap a bit of that windfall when it trickles up.

Why give hundreds of billions in tax cuts to the rich who will just stick it in their bank accounts since they're uncertain of the future, then have the banks have even more deposits they don't know what to do with?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If you are willing to be neutral about events of another time and place...

Tripoli today - Saigon, late April 1975.

Dammit, brower, now you've triggered a Billy Joel earworm!