mud_rake said...
So is it okay for a liberal Democrat to get Americans killed for oil? Granted, Libya didn't kill any of our guys, but it could have.
Very funny. This WAS a joke, wasn't it, Tenth?
So you 'believe' that this Qadafi take-down was all about oil? Are you sure that you aren't confusing this with the GW Bush preemptive War on Iraq in 2003? After all, Saddam had many more millions of barrels of oil than Qadafi.
Further, are you suggesting above that you are sad that no U.S. Military member was killed in the removal of this dictator? Did I read that right? Do you really loathe Obama so much that you are disappointed that not a single Service Member was killed? I surely must have misread your intention, didn't I Tenth?
Isn't it amazing that GW Bush, a war hero [you said this on Paladin's blog] had to declare a war to take down a dastardly dictator like Saddam while Obama used NATO air power to take down this dastardly dictator. No loss of life. No disable Vets. No hundreds of billions of dollars of Tax dollars spent?
That's what really upsets you, Tenth. The president you loathe did something that the 'war hero' could not do. And not only that, but bin Laden was killed on Obama's watch. Double the loathing.
Listen, I would be happy to 'educate' you and the other members of this gang about the OIL issue that you all high-fived here, but it would have to be in a follow-up comment.
Would you like me to educate you and the others here on the Qadafi oil issue or are you all happy to maintain your happy ignorance of this?
Let me know if I can help.August 23, 2011 9:17 AM
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Mud's so smart, What would we do without him?
Here you go Mud. I hope you enjoy what you just asked for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10th,
ReplyDeleteAttempting to prove that Mud_Sling is wrong about everything? It does appear that he is screaming “Hit me if you can find an open spot.” Okay fine.
First – this ain’t over – not by a long shot. Obama at the behest of the Bloodthirsty Valkyries (Clinton, Powers, and Rice) just helped break Libya. It has “only” cost about a Billion dollars (that we know of 7/31/11) so far – what do you bet it’s going to cost a helluva a lot more? As Winston Churchill once observed “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” “Mission Accomplished Mr. Obama?”
Libya about oil? Yes and it’s about oil that goes to France and Italy. Brilliant move by our child President. Qaddafi had largely moderated his behavior and his fear of George W. Bush had lead him to turn over his nuclear program after he saw what happened in Iraq (you know that unimportant war). Anyone have their eye on his chemical or biological weapons stock piles now? How about his MANPADS? We have no (not one, nada, squat) National interest in Libya. Libya wasn’t a problem six months ago – it is now.
If the Libya excursion was about saving Libyan lives we should have addressed it more aggressively. Afghanistan came down in a matter of days and the Iraqi government was history in three weeks. Overwhelming force saves lives in the long run. By dabbling in war and weakening NATO by removing American combat forces Obama actually extended the carnage and conflict. Of course that was probably because Obama never made a case for his war, never took it to the American people or Congress and thus didn’t have the mandate for a larger effort that would have saved thousands of Libyan lives.
Again – George Bush got Afghanistan to where Obama and NATO have gotten Libya in a few days and Iraq to this point in three weeks. It took Obama and NATO over five months. Great job Obama Warrior King. Let that sink in – to take down the government of Afghanistan – several days, Iraq – three weeks, Libya – 5 months.
Pray tell – what is end state? When are we done? No one (probably least of all Obama) knows right now. I was an advocate of Libyan intervention but not “leading from behind.” I’ve worked with the British, French, Italian, Greek, and other NATO armed forces – the only ones that can find their ass with both hands reliably are the British. NATO is America with a little help from Europe.
No doubt you will avoid the issue as you did when you first stumbled on to my site – but from a legal, moral, and Constitutional standpoint – George W. Bush did everything right for both Afghanistan and Iraq while Barack H. Obama did nearly everything wrong for Libya. He might get lucky on this one – but it will be David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy that pull his bacon out of the fire. I’ll be properly impressed if they pay for it.
If your “education” about oil doesn’t include drilling in the Nation with the greatest oil reserves on Earth (the United States) – then don’t waste your time.
One last thing oh great liberal sage – three simple questions:
ReplyDelete1. When George Bush broke the Afghani government in a few days who was left in charge?
2. When George Bush broke the Iraqi government in three weeks who was left in charge?
3. When Barack Obama broke the Libyan government after five months who is now in charge?
Hint:
1. We were.
2. We were.
3. Who freaking knows?
I think it's funny as all hell that
ReplyDelete"Mr stand on the street corner shouting old slogans and holding signs protesting war" Muddy seemed to feel the need to sit this war out and keep his mouth shut.
So tell us muddy, where the hell were you with your signs and bullhorns shouting from street corners this time around?
Where was your outrage that once again, the evil imperial USA was bombing a country full of darker skinned people that had done nothing to us?
Why were you not bitching up a storm that the "he's killing his own people" government justification for all this was all just a lie and sorry excuse?
You certainly have before...why not this time?
He's a bit of "schooling" for you that you won't get from msnbc.
Afghanistan's former government allowed terror groups to operate and train openly there and, washed their funding for them...you know so that leftist group's donations wouldn't be directly identified.
The Taliban needed to go and, any civilized country could see that.
Iraq, just couldn't seem to adhere to the rules imposed on it after the Gulf war. The world tolerated ten years of having patroling aircraft fired on, threats being made by Saddam's regine, genocide of minority populations and, yes the threat of WMD's.
No Saddam didn't have them in mass amounts as we found out but, he always led the world to believe he did in order to keep his "prestige" with the other despots in the region.
So, WMD's were a bust but, if "killing his own people" (with the mass graves to prove it) is good enough to attack Libya without a peep from you, why not Iraq?
Libya, lets see...since 2001 the government there denounced the use of terror, handed over the intel officers who bombed the Pan Am flight, denounced the use of WMD's, turned over their entire WMD program for dismantelment and...was removed from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism while reopening diplomatic relations with the USA.
So, in return, we train and equip infiltrators to destabilize the now FRIENDLY country (and secular government) and become the defacto air force that is bombing the place for a rebel group that nobody seems to know anything about.
BTW smartguy, under Daffy's secular government women were allowed to vote, drive, attend schools, hold government jobs, teach, join the military, choose a spouse, decide on their own what to wear and, be allowed out in public on their own...OBAMA's rebels stated that it is all about to change...backwards!
So much for that liberal ideal of equality eh?
And, after all your "war is wrong" bullshit for the last 10 years, you keep your trap shut now?
Hypocrissy anyone? You seem to have plenty to spare!
For muddy and most other leftists, the only thing "wrong" about war is wholly dependent on if the "wrong" president initiates it.
And, I'll add that you muddy have bitched for years that Bush destroyed America's credibility and OBAMA was going to restore it!
How does that OBAMA credibility look now to every mideast nation with friendly relations toward us?
Obama went after a semi-friendly nation that was no threat to anyone and, was engaging in trade with the west, denounced terror and so, OBAMA deposed it's leader.
I'll bet that move has built trust in America's credibility with every other government over there now!
They're seeing what America now does to nations who normalize diplomatic relations with Obama... they get tossed under the bus for it and,
even the places that didn't completely hate us before certainly have good cause to never trust us now!
Even Bush couldn't fuck things up that bad!
Of course your soft lefty racism could never allow you to hold Obama to the same standard you held Bush to...the soft racism of low expectations...a truly liberal animal in practice and policy.
Thanks, Tenth, for not summarily deleting my last comment. You are growing in tolerance.
ReplyDeleteWould you like me to educate you and the others here on the Qadafi oil issue?
OK, I'd be happy to do that for you:
Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA and Repsol.
Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Gadhafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.
Any questions, clarifications, gentlemen? Just ask.
Mud_Sling -
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about oil - we're talking about war. You challenged us on the issue of War. Why on earth did Barack Obama let the Bloodthirsty Valkyries stampede him and this Nation into war with a country that wasn't bothering anyone?
What you wrote justifies nothing - indeed it is meaningless. Just because your statements for once aren't hateful - it doesn't mean that they have anything to do with the subject matter. You might note that each of my paragraphs relate to your charges and accusations. No so your words.
War - Mud_Sling, we're talking about WAR - why did our President of Peace and "Yes We Can" all of a sudden say to Qaddafi "No You Can't?" Was this about "Change?" Did Qaddafi miss his time to "change?"
Why did I wake up one morning to find that my military was attacking a country that hadn't done anything to us (lately) and indeed was acting in a cooperative and peaceful manner towards us?
Does Colombia or India have to worry about this President? The British cracked down on protesters in London - should we bomb England? You promised help and gave us nothing.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteWe just had a 5.9 magnitude Earthquake - who do I blame that on? Bush? Obama?
Will the earthquake stall the recovery further?
Should we bomb Sri Lanka?
How many jobs were saved or created by the earthquake?
Is Joe Biden still a moron?
Do you know the difference between war and oil?
Mud,
ReplyDeleteI have left all your comments posted until you refused to obey the rules.
This last post is your best effort to engage in discussion of the issues as opposed to just attacking people for not agreeing with you.
However, you are sadly mistaken on
"Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums."
Obama wants energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket." Or did you miss that while you were shouting "Yes we can!"?
As for oil companies losing money - WHAT? You can't possibly expect us to believe that, can you?
Tenth- where did you get your information? Did you make it up?
ReplyDeleteHere is my source:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war/?hpt=hp_t2
[check #10]
Your source??
TGP,
ReplyDeleteHAHA! You got mud-dink wrapped up like a pretzel.
BTW, US troops ARE on the ground in Libya, about 500 of them, or so I am told. Also, foreign press has the pics.
OBAMA = LIAR
LMAO - you quoted an editorial from the Communist News Network (CNN)!?!
ReplyDeleteYou must be the only one who watches it anymore.
Why wouldn't you flip that to the other side where France and Italy were concerned that they didn't want a long and protracted revolution in Libya that would certainly interrupt the flow of oil. So they conned the only country in the entire world who could bring that war to a swift and immediate end. However they didn't bargain with a feckless and faithless ally who didn't know how to call down the wrath of the United States Military on a foe.
President George W. Bush could have ended Qaddafi's reign in a New York minute. Obama - five months.
First, Mud, it looks like you copied and pasted Myth #10 without giving credit. Second, the "views expressed in this article are solely those of Juan Cole." Did you verify any of it through other sources?
ReplyDeleteYour argument that big oil companies lost money because of Libya is refuted below:
"The effects of the lower production were partially offset by the higher oil price, which was inflated by political unrest in oil-producing countries such as Libya."
Notice also how one of the big oil companies you cite has a big bill from last year that they are working to pay off. And they still reported 5.3 billion in profits in the quarter ending in June of 2011. You understand what profit means, right?
"BP has sold $25bn worth of assets in the US, Argentina, Egypt, Venezuela, Vietnam and Colombia - partly to pay for the clean-up operation in the Gulf."
The following quote is from your source. It seems to back up my theory that the problems in Libya are just starting.
"I do not mean to underestimate the challenges that still lie ahead– mopping up operations against regime loyalists, reestablishing law and order in cities that have seen popular revolutions, reconstituting police and the national army, moving the Transitional National Council to Tripoli, founding political parties, and building a new, parliamentary regime. Even in much more institutionalized and less clan-based societies such as Tunisia and Egypt, these tasks have proved anything but easy. But it would be wrong, in this moment of triumph for the Libyan Second Republic, to dwell on the difficulties to come. Libyans deserve a moment of exultation."
I hope I've helped you to understand how to cross check your references now, Mud. That's how they taught me to write in seventh grade. Or did you sleep through seventh grade English composition class?
Gunny,
ReplyDeleteIt was not hard to wrap Mud up. All I had to do was get him to step into the ring.
I am sure we have troops on the ground. Do you suppose US Navy and Marine pilots are doing bomb run while talking to Mohammed on the radio? Only fools who have never served in the military would buy that stupid lie of Obama's.
CS,
ReplyDeleteYeah, check out what I did with his source. Talk about bad English.
I hope everythings alright CS, I just found out about the quake....
ReplyDeleteMy only question in regards to the Libya incident is this.....Why hasn't Joseph Biden saught immediate impeachment proceedings? Isn't he the constitutional educater that swore to go after Bush, had he invaded Iran w/o congressional approval?
TGP- Is your ban on logic lifted?
ReplyDeleteJ.O.B. -
ReplyDeleteThanks for your concern - all is well. I must say that it was a bit of a surprise. My first instinct was to head to the gun cabinet - I thought Mud was coming to trundle me off to the Tundra. But as the movement continued I concluded that it was an earthquake and not the ATF coming through my front door.
Living just South of Washington, DC I did go outside to make sure there wasn't a mushroom cloud on the horizon. The shaking was hard enough to knock things off the shelves and skew all the pictures on the walls.
There was a heartbreaking photo on the news of broken wine bottles at the package store aboard Marine Corps Base Quantico.
J.O.B.,
ReplyDeleteYes. Please feel free to think while commenting.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteYou realize that BP and ENI are neither one American companies? Why do you cite them as your examples of American interests in Libya? I know the answer, so don't try to bullshit me.
Hey Common Snse,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're alright after the earthquake.
I understand that the source of it has been narrowed down to every one of America's founding fathers rolling in their graves.
Sepp - too funny but probably true.
ReplyDelete10th opined that it might be Obama's approval rating hitting rock bottom and the the after shocks were the small bounces off the bottom.
So far our losses appear to be confined to a couple of picture frames - so I have saved or created one or two jobs. However I'm sure that Obama will take the credit.
Tenth- I ignore any of the other comments from your "gang" because this discussion is between you and me. I do the fighting/debating all by myself without any friendly "gang" goons by my side.
ReplyDeleteI'm a lone wolf here.
Tenth- I note that you already dismissed the linked CNN post with, "Very little, if any of it, is based in fact."
Is that so? Give me a few examples of the non-facts.
I'm wondering if, because it was written by a college professor [University of Michigan[ Dr. Cole just pulls stuff out of his ass? Do you suspect that he just makes up stuff? Did you check out his website, his list of resources, his book?
http://www.juancole.com/
How can you declare, Tenth: Very little, if any of it, is based in fact.?
Mud,
ReplyDeleteBy doing my own research and finding multiple sources that refute the good professor's opinions. I'm too busy today with work and a hurricane coming in to do the research for you. Check more than one source before making up your tiny mind.
Muddy,
ReplyDeleteThe link you're citing is so full of crap I'm amazed that you're buying this load of fluff bullshit!
"Myth #1. Gadhafi was a progressive in his domestic policies."
Let's see, he had a secular government, allowed women to choose between wearing a hijab or, not, allowed women to join the military, police forces and civil jobs, go to school and be public administrators in the middle east where that is unheard of and he was the first to do it.
"Myth #2. Gadhafi was a progressive in his foreign policy."
While doing more to modernize African nations who normally would be victims to US welfare stlye "aid packages" perpetually.
Myth #3. It was only natural that Gadhafi sent his military against the protesters and revolutionaries; any country would have done the same.
Take a close look at Napolitano's policy toward Americans who believe in the constitution! And then look at who the government is calling terrorists larely!
"Myth #7. There had to be NATO infantry brigades on the ground for the revolution to succeed."
Since America was equipping the rebels and conducting airstrikes...someone who is capable of doing the training on the equipment and communicating with every pilot who bombed a target in english and in the proper way to guide a jet in for a bombing run!
Or, do you think that every pilot now speaks arabic and every fister speaks english?
"Myth #9. Gadhafi would not have killed or imprisoned large numbers of dissidents in Benghazi, Derna, al-Bayda and Tobruk if he had been allowed to pursue his March Blitzkrieg toward the eastern cities that had defied him."
Daffy had no problems before 2009 after which the Obama administration began training and funding subversives in Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria and, Yemen.
Had Obama left those countries alone, there would have been no armed rebellion for Daffy to quash. Obama set the stage, fanned the flames and became the air support wing for ...who? Nobody seems to know.
And the biggest question of all is, who did Obama just hand over tons of chemical weapons, nerve agents and nuclear material to?
Yes his weapons programs were halted and inspected but, it all still sits...now unguarded...for the nameless, faceless and leaderless rebel cause that Obama just handed those things over to.
Saddam didn't have all the nasty materials that Obama just bombed into unknown hands!
-Sepp,
ReplyDeleteYou might be wasting your time. Mud_Sling is over on J.O.B.'s site complaining that we (specifically me) won't "duel" him.
I guess this forum specifically laid out for Mud_Sling by 10th doesn't qualify as the Plains of Weehawken.
"Lone wolf" BRAHHAAAHAHA! What a crock. Mud_Sling you are a diseased mongrel dog. Calling yourself a "wolf" would imply you have honor - you have none.
You might feel "alone" because there are two self described "conservatives" for every self described "liberal." Now after three years of Obamanation the other 40% think you are full of crap too. Get used to it.
OK, then Tenth, the score is Mud 3, Tenth 0 [if we were doing 'battle.']
ReplyDeleteMud,
ReplyDeleteHow did you score?
10th,
ReplyDeleteApparently he picked an extremely narrow subject that didn't have anything to do with the actual topic that we were discussing (1). Then he found an obscure person that actually said something that appeared to Mud_Sling to be tangential to the actual topic and though unrelated, it sounded cool (2). Then he managed to ignore all of the arguments that did deal with the topic such that he didn't learn anything by visiting (3).
You could catch up quickly and tie by:
Saying something obscene (1),
Call Mud_Sling a moron (2),
and Ignoring the actual topic (3)
That's "scoring" Mud_Sling style.
Better yet - just tell him that you have 5 points and don't explain why.
The title of that link should be,
ReplyDelete"10 excuses that will allow liberals to feel good about Obama's Libyan bombing campaign".
MYTH # 11
"It's only wrong when Bush did it"
In a high school football game, I got called for pass interference and I was upset about the call. The penalty yardage moved the other team down to our 6 yard line. On the very next play, we recovered a fumble and returned it 99 yards for a touchdown. I ran the whole length of the field next to the ref telling him "God knew."
ReplyDeleteGod knows the score, Mud.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteHow did you score?
WEll, not to brag or anything like is common over in this wing of the nuthouse:
1. Libyan oil/blood for oil nonsense
2. Obama is a socialist [other blog]
3. Commander-in-Chief, ex-military [other blog]
How about a challenge for this entire gaggle of gang members here?
Read my latest post, Winning from Behind," and point out my errors. Of course, that would demand some thinking and reasoning, so it would pose quite a challenge to the sparkler heads here.
Or are you afraid to leave this cozy club house and the safety of the other gang members here?
You all are such a hoot!
Mud_Sling,
ReplyDeleteYou are hallucinating again. You were opposed on each of those points with rational arguments that proved you were wrong. You are selectively reading again - as you did to find your "proof"
Oh did you regain control of your blog muddy?
ReplyDeleteOr, will poster's comments be rewritten by one of your moonbat's with editing permissions?
Mud_Sling,
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add to my post on your blog that the "right" didn't make up the "winning from behind" that came from the White House talking points provided to allies in the press.