Lanys Forums :: View topic

First, I don't want to be in Libya either.

That said... ANY of you that said about Iraq, "it's ok that there weren't any WMD's, we are promoting democracy and Saddam is bad we should have invaded anyway" better notice your hypocrisy if you are not interested in being in Libya.

You are misrepresenting what I have read from people on this board (myself included) that said it made sense to invade Iraq even though we didn't find WMD's. The reason was the intellegence showed they were there, so it made sense based on that information. If you are planning to paint your house and the forecast calls for rain so you reschedule the painting....are you a fool if it doesn't end up raining? Of course not, you plan based on the best information available at the time.

Having worked in the intelligence community at a fairly high theater level, I can tell with 100% accuracy that there is a culture of politics within that rewards specific (if mostly inaccurate) intelligence that supports an agenda. You can easily build a case for ANYTHING with the proper filter, and that was definitely the case with the intelligence here. There's no disputing this.

The scary part? This happens FAR more often than you'd think. And even worse, the oversight is at a far lower level than the directives. Talk about a massive disconnect in the name of plausible deniability.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Saddam made it too easy to make the case, for both administrations at the time.

It's just honest ambiguity.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/

Quote:

Either this article is wrong, Karthun, you're really poorly researched or just wrong about what genocide is.

the trailer was created with the intention of both destabilizing post-Mubarak Egypt and roiling the Us presidential election.

We should setup a committee that looks at free speech and makes sure it doesn't offend anyone.

The whole situation makes me sick. The extremist behind the murders need to be found AND the extremist behind the movie. Free speech is one thing. Looking at this movie is another. Yelling fire in a theater is not free speech.

Making fun of someone's skyfairy is NOT justification for censoring speech.

Religion is bullshit anyways. Just made up stories meant to manipulate the poor and uneducated.

Quote:

Religion is bullshit anyways. Just made up stories meant to manipulate the poor and uneducated.

Pretty sure religion has been around LONG before people were considered rich or educated.

Here we go again...

These are the people Obama wants to help in Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world ... ml?hp&_r=0

Author:	Devil [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:58 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
I don't think the US should be doing anything in Libya.

Author:	Fribur [ Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:47 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
First, I don't want to be in Libya either. That said... ANY of you that said about Iraq, "it's ok that there weren't any WMD's, we are promoting democracy and Saddam is bad we should have invaded anyway" better notice your hypocrisy if you are not interested in being in Libya.

Author:	Vanamar [ Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:15 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
I don't think the US should be in any theater right now other than Afghanistan. And even then, are we seriously still looking for Bin Laden? =/

Author:	Drajeck [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:55 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Fribur wrote: First, I don't want to be in Libya either. That said... ANY of you that said about Iraq, "it's ok that there weren't any WMD's, we are promoting democracy and Saddam is bad we should have invaded anyway" better notice your hypocrisy if you are not interested in being in Libya. You are misrepresenting what I have read from people on this board (myself included) that said it made sense to invade Iraq even though we didn't find WMD's. The reason was the intellegence showed they were there, so it made sense based on that information. If you are planning to paint your house and the forecast calls for rain so you reschedule the painting....are you a fool if it doesn't end up raining? Of course not, you plan based on the best information available at the time. Now I will also conceed that after I have seen the outcome (and current status) of the Iraq war I would not support the same thing again, even given the same circumstances. I would call that learning from mistakes though, not hypocrisy. It would be much worse to continue supporting a path just because you never want to admit there might be a better way.

Author:	Elessar [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:58 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Drajeck wrote: You are misrepresenting what I have read from people on this board (myself included) that said it made sense to invade Iraq even though we didn't find WMD's. The reason was the intellegence showed they were there, so it made sense based on that information. If you are planning to paint your house and the forecast calls for rain so you reschedule the painting....are you a fool if it doesn't end up raining? Of course not, you plan based on the best information available at the time. Ya know, I know I'm moving away from the original topic here, but I've heard this before and I HAVE to correct it this time. Having worked in the intelligence community at a fairly high theater level, I can tell with 100% accuracy that there is a culture of politics within that rewards specific (if mostly inaccurate) intelligence that supports an agenda. You can easily build a case for ANYTHING with the proper filter, and that was definitely the case with the intelligence here. There's no disputing this. The scary part? This happens FAR more often than you'd think. And even worse, the oversight is at a far lower level than the directives. Talk about a massive disconnect in the name of plausible deniability.

Lanys Forums http://www.lanysboard.com/forums/

Lybia http://www.lanysboard.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8513	Page 2 of 2

Author:	Devil [ Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:56 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
what Drajeck said.

Author:	Tuluvian [ Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:58 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Quote: First, I don't want to be in Libya either. That said... ANY of you that said about Iraq, "it's ok that there weren't any WMD's, we are promoting democracy and Saddam is bad we should have invaded anyway" better notice your hypocrisy if you are not interested in being in Libya. First off, I completely agree with your statement and this is NOT directed at you because of your constant stance so please don't think this at you (or to be honest anyone on these boards directly). Saying that, I see it the other direction. Your statement (and it's polar opposite) is mostly be directed at the news outlets, politicians, and protesters then and now, it is simply amazing the stances they have taken in the past compared to now. It goes both ways, if they're promoting democracy in Libya why weren't they with Iraq? Those who called Bush a warmonger should be crying out the same thing about Obama. Unfortunately for Obama there was never a congressional vote to go into Libya, and the next wave of hacks (republican this time around) can come out and claim whatever they want without the being held liable. Obama used this perfectly in his run up to election with Iraq, he had no vote, but yet we are still there and likely will be after his term(s) are over. Now it will likely (and should) be used against him just the same. Quote: Having worked in the intelligence community at a fairly high theater level, I can tell with 100% accuracy that there is a culture of politics within that rewards specific (if mostly inaccurate) intelligence that supports an agenda. You can easily build a case for ANYTHING with the proper filter, and that was definitely the case with the intelligence here. There's no disputing this. The scary part? This happens FAR more often than you'd think. And even worse, the oversight is at a far lower level than the directives. Talk about a massive disconnect in the name of plausible deniability. Another excellent post and I appreciate your service to the country. The problem becomes, for years prior to Iraq we were hearing the same thing from Clinton. He even made similar speeches to what Powell laid out as the basis to why we invaded as few as 4 years ('98 if you want a date) prior to actually invading Iraq. We were duped by info, information that we heard for years and years assuming it was legitimizing years of bombing and no-fly zones (also conditions of a cease-fire), prior to any invasion/liberation/quagmire. Cases are easily made when previous administrations were telling you the same thing for years prior to Bush becoming President to make the case. Saddam made it too easy to make the case, for both administrations at the time.

Author:	joxur [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:59 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... _in_libya/ Quote: But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government. Either this article is wrong, Karthun, you're really poorly researched or just wrong about what genocide is.

Author:	Bovinity Divinity [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:25 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Quote: Saddam made it too easy to make the case, for both administrations at the time. I dunno, I seem to remember him being pretty open before our second invasion. I'm probably a little hazy, but I'm fairly sure he was letting weapons inspectors in and being somewhat cooperative with them. Some people over here in the US were just bound and determined to blow him up though, regardless of what happened with the actual inspections.

Author:	Tuluvian [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:14 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
He was apparently pretty open prior to Bush even taking office too but yet we still ended up having 2 different Presidents telling us the same thing, and that's the point. The intelligence we were using was telling us otherwise in both instances, faulty info, but still information that was believable enough to gain enough support.

Author:	Leolan [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:32 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Well, the fact that we fought a war against him made people more sympathetic to the idea that he was doing something bad. And Gaddafi's no different. The man's a terrorist directly responsible for the loss of American lives. Even people who think we have no business in Libya are going to be sympathetic to the idea of ousting him.

Author:	Vanamar [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:49 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
While I'm sympathetic to the idea of ousting him, should we really be in the business of toppling leaders of sovereign nations? (legitimacy debates aside here)

Author:	randy [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:01 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Gasoline is used to power cars.

Author:	joxur [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:10 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
It's just honest ambiguity.

Author:	Garborg [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:40 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Hillary Clinton just mentioned online gamers in talk right now while listing all of the people effected by Sean Smith's death.

Author:	Draconi [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:49 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
hmm, wouldn't take the youtube video id for some reason tried it several times, even went back and reread post to make sure I did it right lol so I'll just post link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDS81Ibazdk

Author:	Tranthas [ Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:29 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
That's beside the point. Even if the Magic Sky Zombie isn't bullshit, I'm allowed to say so without fear of oppression except as provided by other people's rights under the same laws. Christians are allowed to come back and tell me I'm a bad person, but they can't gag me or sic the government to penalize me in some way.

Author:	Vanamar [ Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:30 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Hey look, Glenn Beck thinks that Goonswarm Federation is a CIA front. :v:

Author:	Leolan [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:17 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Van: I don't know. I'm not sure the answer's so cut and dry. Then again, I'm not sure that regime change isn't a component of war. I think that might be due to living in a time when my country really hasn't fought a war to save our necks.

Author:	Fribur [ Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:43 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Quote: It's just honest ambiguity. I'm not following you.

Author:	Sarissa [ Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:22 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
I for one would like to see something about the government the rebels would like to stand up. Their military is falling in on itself and essentially they are asking foreign nations to win the war for them. Deciding whether or not the UN likes what they are selling more than they dislike Gaddafi is pretty key. Helping the rebels limp along will only foster resentment and lead to a larger loss of life. In the end they may still lose by attrition.

Author:	Karthun [ Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:12 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
joxur wrote: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/ Quote: But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government. Either this article is wrong, Karthun, you're really poorly researched or just wrong about what genocide is. You still seem confused over what is going on. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/17/l ... -civilians. But hey it is Alan J. Kuperman, the man who things that the US made the right decision to NOT intervene in Rwanda because he estimates that an intervention could have only saved 200,000 people.

Author:	Tranthas [ Sat May 14, 2011 5:45 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
I think we all lose a little global perspective from having never been conquered. I'm happy about that too, don't get me wrong -- but let's not kid ourselves about our inherent ability to understand Libya.

Author:	joxur [ Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:19 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
That worked out real well.

Author:	Neesha the Necro [ Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:52 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
lol

Author:	Vanamar [ Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:31 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
One of the people killed in the attack in Libya was a member of my Eve corp, and a very cool dude.

Author:	joxur [ Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:23 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
I had read that. The news that is unfolding is disturbing.

Author:	Vanamar [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:04 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Either Hilary or Obama should have said "Shoot blues, tell Vile Rat"

Author:	Garborg [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:26 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
The whole situation makes me sick. The extremist behind the murders need to be found AND the extremist behind the movie. Free speech is one thing. Looking at this movie is another. Yelling fire in a theater is not free speech.

Author:	joxur [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:35 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
We should setup a committee that looks at free speech and makes sure it doesn't offend anyone.

Author:	Garborg [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:31 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003085/news#ni36194923 Quote: the trailer was created with the intention of both destabilizing post-Mubarak Egypt and roiling the Us presidential election. Alleged director's IMBd page Sticks and stones...

Author:	Draconi [ Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:45 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia

Author:	Tranthas [ Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:21 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
joxur wrote: We should setup a committee that looks at free speech and makes sure it doesn't offend anyone. We call that the FCC.

Author:	Elessar [ Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:35 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Garborg wrote: The whole situation makes me sick. The extremist behind the murders need to be found AND the extremist behind the movie. Free speech is one thing. Looking at this movie is another. Yelling fire in a theater is not free speech. Free speech is the ONLY thing. Yelling fire in a crowded theater has the intent to cause physical harm as a DIRECT result of the action. The speech itself remains free, but not without consequence in violation of rights. Making fun of someone's skyfairy is NOT justification for censoring speech.

Author:	krby71 [ Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:31 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Elessar wrote: Making fun of someone's skyfairy is NOT justification for censoring speech. Damn skippy. Religion is bullshit anyways. Just made up stories meant to manipulate the poor and uneducated.

Author:	Kenyana [ Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:43 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Quote: Religion is bullshit anyways. Just made up stories meant to manipulate the poor and uneducated. Pretty sure religion has been around LONG before people were considered rich or educated.

Author:	Vanamar [ Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 PM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Kenyana wrote: Quote: Religion is bullshit anyways. Just made up stories meant to manipulate the poor and uneducated. Pretty sure religion has been around LONG before people were considered rich or educated. Religion is a tool created by those with power in order to keep it, with a side benefit of keeping people in control. It takes a reasonably intelligent person, by any standards, to create such a scheme. Especially one that lasts as long as it has.

Author:	Elessar [ Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:19 AM ]
Post subject:	Re: Lybia
Constantine wasn't a total dummy