Random observations on 9/11

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

Breaking news that the attack was pre-planned by individuals associated with al-Qaeda with the protest used as a diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_c1

Looks like Obama's handling of the Arab Spring really needs to be examined to see how what began as protests for Democracy has turned into Muslim control of governments and al-Qaeda base camps.

from the end of the article you linked:


Despite concerns over the growing audacity of Salafist-jihadist groups, the victory of secular parties in elections in July had created a measure of optimism about Libya's future.
Benotman tells CNN the reality is that a large majority of Libyans, including the majority of Islamists, are opposed to al Qaeda's ideology of global jihad. He predicts a backlash against the perpetrators of the attack.

"People will curse them for this," he told CNN.



i don't think it's muslim controlled govts you have to worry about, but govts that are in agreement with al qaeda. libya isn't one of those.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

from the end of the article you linked:


Despite concerns over the growing audacity of Salafist-jihadist groups, the victory of secular parties in elections in July had created a measure of optimism about Libya's future.
Benotman tells CNN the reality is that a large majority of Libyans, including the majority of Islamists, are opposed to al Qaeda's ideology of global jihad. He predicts a backlash against the perpetrators of the attack.

"People will curse them for this," he told CNN.



i don't think it's muslim controlled govts you have to worry about, but govts that are in agreement with al qaeda. libya isn't one of those.

Both the Egyptian and Libyan governments have gone to the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has opened camps in Libya since that government cannot fully control its territory. I don't think it is clear that the extremists will not have the power at the end of the day.

Regardless, Obama's failure to support those rising up with the goal of democracy against dictators will likely have a long lasting negative effect. The opportunity was there to support those who wanted to turn their nations into democratic states, but they did not get the expected support from the country that is supposed to be the model for the spread of democracy. With our support and encouragement, it is possible that the Iranians would have joined the Abab Spring to overthrow their theocracy, likely our biggest threat today.

However, Obama is such a weak leader that he was afraid to support these people without the support of the Russians and Chinese who likely are withholding that support because they don't want the spread of democracy and they can make this country look foolish knowing Obama is a weak leader. The result is the message that if people rise against their terrorist and dictatorial governments they can expect no support from the U.S. and its allies. A missed opportunity that will have consequences.

People need to realize that this administration is not only a failure with domestic policies, but foreign as well.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

Both the Egyptian and Libyan governments have gone to the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has opened camps in Libya since that government cannot fully control its territory. I don't think it is clear that the extremists will not have the power at the end of the day.

Regardless, Obama's failure to support those rising up with the goal of democracy against dictators will likely have a long lasting negative effect. The opportunity was there to support those who wanted to turn their nations into democratic states, but they did not get the expected support from the country that is supposed to be the model for the spread of democracy. With our support and encouragement, it is possible that the Iranians would have joined the Abab Spring to overthrow their theocracy, likely our biggest threat today.

However, Obama is such a weak leader that he was afraid to support these people without the support of the Russians and Chinese who likely are withholding that support because they don't want the spread of democracy and they can make this country look foolish knowing Obama is a weak leader. The result is the message that if people rise against their terrorist and dictatorial governments they can expect no support from the U.S. and its allies. A missed opportunity that will have consequences.

People need to realize that this administration is not only a failure with domestic policies, but foreign as well.

what was Obama supposed to do?

Didnt he basically have Ghadaffi killed? (spelling?)

Were we supposed to continue to support Mubarek who had billions in personal wealth while egyptians live off of $2 per day?

Bush already tried the spread of democracy thing in Iraq... look where that got us.

People might think Ron Paul is crazy when it comes to foreign policy, but I think he's correct.

Obama is not the problem. The two party system is the problem.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

what was Obama supposed to do?

Didnt he basically have Ghadaffi killed? (spelling?)

Were we supposed to continue to support Mubarek who had billions in personal wealth while egyptians live off of $2 per day?

Bush already tried the spread of democracy thing in Iraq... look where that got us.

People might think Ron Paul is crazy when it comes to foreign policy, but I think he's correct.

Obama is not the problem. The two party system is the problem.

There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.

Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.

Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.

Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.

Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.

but, what is the point in supporting democracy, if we are then going to bitch about what party takes power in those countries? that doesn't make much sense to me.
as for the attacks on the embassies, exactly what do you feel is swift or appropriate?

[my miss storm cat]

Out of here and nowhere near as educated and eloquent as others obviously but sure okay you're right and the next time anyone tries to stand up to Ahmadinejad, for example, let's just keep our mouths shut and watch.

Obama is the President and leader of the free world.

Those people needed to know they were being heard and he was silent.

Way to go.

Out of here.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Out of here and nowhere near as educated and eloquent as others obviously but sure okay you're right and the next time anyone tries to stand up to Ahmadinejad, for example, let's just keep our mouths shut and watch.

Obama is the President and leader of the free world.

Those people needed to know they were being heard and he was silent.

Way to go.

Out of here.

i'd rather you answer my questions. show me where i'm incorrect in my thinking.
if we go and support democracy, and the muslim brotherhood is elected by the majority, would you feel that we succeeded? because pointman says we should support democracy, but then lists the two cases where elections were held, and complains about who was voted in. that's not logical.

and, no, obama is NOT the leader of the free world. he's the president of the u.s.
we can't say we are supporters of democracy. look at mubarek in the early stages of the egypt uprising. look at bahrain. two examples where our foreign policy doesn't match our supposed ideals. look at our support, for years, for saddam hussein. that didn't square with our 'mission statement' either.

i'd say much of our foreign policy is based on the same thing as our domestic.

follow the money.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Out of here and nowhere near as educated and eloquent as others obviously but sure okay you're right and the next time anyone tries to stand up to Ahmadinejad, for example, let's just keep our mouths shut and watch.

Obama is the President and leader of the free world.

Those people needed to know they were being heard and he was silent.

Way to go.

Out of here.

Obama is the President of the United States of America. just a correction there.

Sure, lets fight Iran. That's just what we need. Why not go to war with China and Russia while we're at it. World War 3 is the answer.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Way to go.

Out of here.

I do want you to know that when i said "stay out of it"... I didnt mean anyones opinion here. that we should stay out of the middle east.. thats what i meant.

Derka derka derka oi oi oi

or something.

Way to go Shillary!!

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but, what is the point in supporting democracy, if we are then going to bitch about what party takes power in those countries? that doesn't make much sense to me.
as for the attacks on the embassies, exactly what do you feel is swift or appropriate?

I think that you missed my point. What I am saying is that Obama's lack of real support for the Arab Spring was a missed opportunity for us which could have spread in a big way and is becoming an opportunity that terrorists are seizing upon. While I hope that you are right and the vast majority of Libyan's really don't agree with global jihad, the jury is still out at this point as to who is really going to have control. Hopefully both Egypt and Libya will have democracies, but it appears that our willingness to stay out of it for the most part is allowing dictatorial factions against our interests the opportunity to grab control of the government.

The lack of support for the Iranian Arab Spring is indefensible IMO. Obama did not have Gaddafi killed, we were just one part of a coalition that provided no-fly zones which led to his killing.

Egypt is not a democracy yet, the military is still running that country, it remains to be seen if real democracy will occur there. As for swift action, those responsible must hunted down and be held accountable to send the message that violence against our embassies and diplomats will not be tolerated.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

. As for swift action, those responsible must hunted down and be held accountable to send the message that violence against our embassies and diplomats will not be tolerated.

I'd like to see Libyian leaders and Libyian military hunt down and hold accountable the murderous people from yesterday. Now maybe that could send a message.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I think that you missed my point. What I am saying is that Obama's lack of real support for the Arab Spring was a missed opportunity for us which could have spread in a big way and is becoming an opportunity that terrorists are seizing upon. While I hope that you are right and the vast majority of Libyan's really don't agree with global jihad, the jury is still out at this point as to who is really going to have control. Hopefully both Egypt and Libya will have democracies, but it appears that our willingness to stay out of it for the most part is allowing dictatorial factions against our interests the opportunity to grab control of the government.

The lack of support for the Iranian Arab Spring is indefensible IMO. Obama did not have Gaddafi killed, we were just one part of a coalition that provided no-fly zones which led to his killing.

Egypt is not a democracy yet, the military is still running that country, it remains to be seen if real democracy will occur there. As for swift action, those responsible must hunted down and be held accountable to send the message that violence against our embassies and diplomats will not be tolerated.

yes, it was a missed opportunity in that we first tried to keep mubarek in power. he missed the boat on that one, and then tried to change course. that only painted us in a worse light.
and yes, nato was the predominant force in libya. however, i feel that we have stretched ourselves too thin, into too many directions, and gotten involved outside of our 'sphere of influence' which for decades was north america alone. makes you wonder why we try to so hard to have all these allies, if we're still going to 'go it alone' and fund so much of this on our own. we've made so many errors in foreign policy for so long...it's not something we can fix overnight. but i think the first thing we should do is pull back.
the second thing we should do is be consistent. we are ignoring some damned good advice from some who came before. we were cautioned about getting involved in european affairs, those countries have been fighting each other for a couple millenia. we were also told 'don't have constant allies' and that's also a good point. just because someone is an ally, doesn't mean they're always right, or that we should always support them. it keeps you from standing for what's right, which demeans you in the end.
the spanish american war was fought because of our interests here. ww 1 was not. ww 2 was a mess, with ww1 being a big catalyst for two. we shouldn't have ever gotten involved in 'nam, which was caused by whom? france. what as ww1 over? europe and her empires. it had nothing to do with us, or our interests. we weren't a superpower until after ww2-but we managed to turn the tide in not one, but two conflagrations even tho we had next to no army leading up to both of those wars.
now look at us. and what has been gained, here, by us being everywhere? joseph stalin was our 'ally' in ww2. why? that's absurd. did you see the news yesterday, where the u.s. and u.k. willingly covered up the murder of thousands of poles by the russians, that we blamed the nazis? because we didn't want to 'alienate' our ally. he needed us far more than we needed him. that's when we started all that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap, and where are we now? look at all the years after ww2. we had a war started because germany invaded poland. hello! russian then invaded poland. decades of cold war from our erstwhile ally.
afganistan, largest recipient of foreign aid from us in the years leading to 9-11. we supported them vs the ussr, and for what? where did that get us? nowhere.
saddam hussein, dictator, an 'ally' during their war with iran.
mubarak, dictator, an ally in egypt. it makes no sense. and you want us more involved?

sorry, i completely disagree with that. we need to go back to how we were in the years before ww1. here, until absolutely, positively needed. and meanwhile, a country that others will want to emulate. but we need to quit thinking we should have a finger in every damned pie that comes down the pike.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.

Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.

Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.

so more war?

i swear I remember Obama calling the order to bomb Libya (why do I always think of woman parts when typing that country's name? lol) to support the people who wanted to overthrow the government.

Syria is hypocritical... why not intervene there when we intervened in Libya?? Syrians are not as important to us maybe? I dont know.. it seems hypocritical on our administrations part. I do know our goverment has thrown its verbal support behind the rebels in Syria, just not fire power support.

Personally, I dont want to mess with China or Russia. Doesnt seem like a smart thing to do at all.

We dont own the middle east... there are no American States or territories there. Either we are going to support every damn thing with our military and tax money or not. It's a tough situation. Nothing you posted above seem to be better solutions than what has already been done, IMO. Just more money and more lives.

Ron Paul! Lets protect our borders with the best of our strengths.

I'm tired of being the world police, the world "leader". If you look throughout history, once a country becomes the "world leader" it is ALL downhill from there.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so more war?

i swear I remember Obama calling the order to bomb Libya (why do I always think of woman parts when typing that country's name? lol) to support the people who wanted to overthrow the government.

Syria is hypocritical... why not intervene there when we intervened in Libya?? Syrians are not as important to us maybe? I dont know.. it seems hypocritical on our administrations part. I do know our goverment has thrown its verbal support behind the rebels in Syria, just not fire power support.

Personally, I dont want to mess with China or Russia. Doesnt seem like a smart thing to do at all.

We dont own the middle east... there are no American States or territories there. Either we are going to support every damn thing with our military and tax money or not. It's a tough situation. Nothing you posted above seem to be better solutions than what has already been done, IMO. Just more money and more lives.

Ron Paul! Lets protect our borders with the best of our strengths.

I'm tired of being the world police, the world "leader". If you look throughout history, once a country becomes the "world leader" it is ALL downhill from there.

It did not have to be war, but more support for those trying to overthrow these terrorist governments and help in organizing true democracies instead of sitting on the sidelines. You touched on my point with Syria, we have sent no clear message to anyone and no analyzation can justify action in Libya but no action in Syria. Isolationism is worst possible policy and has never worked. Look where it got us with Hitler.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

It did not have to be war, but more support for those trying to overthrow these terrorist governments and help in organizing true democracies instead of sitting on the sidelines. You touched on my point with Syria, we have sent no clear message to anyone and no analyzation can justify action in Libya but no action in Syria. Isolationism is worst possible policy and has never worked. Look where it got us with Hitler.

I dont think Germany in the 1930's compares at all to the middle eastern problem.

and it is completely impossible to do all this government and military intervention and also lower taxes and have an economic recovery. We are simply draining our resources.

I dont know... I'd just rather other countries deal with their own problems and we can deal with our own problems.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by pointman

Both the Egyptian and Libyan governments have gone to the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has opened camps in Libya since that government cannot fully control its territory. I don't think it is clear that the extremists will not have the power at the end of the day.

Regardless, Obama's failure to support those rising up with the goal of democracy against dictators will likely have a long lasting negative effect. The opportunity was there to support those who wanted to turn their nations into democratic states, but they did not get the expected support from the country that is supposed to be the model for the spread of democracy. With our support and encouragement, it is possible that the Iranians would have joined the Abab Spring to overthrow their theocracy, likely our biggest threat today.

However, Obama is such a weak leader that he was afraid to support these people without the support of the Russians and Chinese who likely are withholding that support because they don't want the spread of democracy and they can make this country look foolish knowing Obama is a weak leader. The result is the message that if people rise against their terrorist and dictatorial governments they can expect no support from the U.S. and its allies. A missed opportunity that will have consequences.

People need to realize that this administration is not only a failure with domestic policies, but foreign as well.

This is a great post.

You nailed it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

This is a great post.

You nailed it.

no, he didn't. we helped topple qaddafi, to what end? they had elections, but the 'wrong party' won?
we tried to keep mubarek in power, because it was better for us. but once our govt realized he was going whether we liked it or not, we switched sides. that got us nowhere. it just showed that portion of our foreign policy sucked.
we went into iraq, and that's a mess. so, we're supposed to go into iran? so there's another mess to go with iraq and afganistan? what about bahrain? they want democracy, and we ignore it, because the rulers of bahrain don't want that. so, we placate the rulers because we have a base there. thus, we are ignoring people who supposedly want democracy.
when we support overthrows, and they have elections, some of us don't like the results, because it's the 'wrong kind' of democracy-many are unhappy that the muslim brotherhood won the election. doesn't square with us wanting elections, does it?
lol it's a huge clusterf*ck.

the u.s. government = snafu. and we all know what that means.


and yeah, russia and china are witholding support because of money and power. you know, like we do.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, he didn't. we helped topple qaddafi, to what end? they had elections, but the 'wrong party' won?
we tried to keep mubarek in power, because it was better for us. but once our govt realized he was going whether we liked it or not, we switched sides. that got us nowhere. it just showed that portion of our foreign policy sucked.
we went into iraq, and that's a mess. so, we're supposed to go into iran? so there's another mess to go with iraq and afganistan? what about bahrain? they want democracy, and we ignore it, because the rulers of bahrain don't want that. so, we placate the rulers because we have a base there. thus, we are ignoring people who supposedly want democracy.
when we support overthrows, and they have elections, some of us don't like the results, because it's the 'wrong kind' of democracy-many are unhappy that the muslim brotherhood won the election. doesn't square with us wanting elections, does it?
lol it's a huge clusterf*ck.

the u.s. government = snafu. and we all know what that means.


and yeah, russia and china are witholding support because of money and power. you know, like we do.

you nailed it.

i really dont understand what pointman and miss cat want us to do regarding democracy in other country's that we should have no part of.

Put in our own leaders? Like we did with Saddam, Mubarek and quddafi to begin with? How is that democracy.

Please tell us how to handle foreign policy!

My suggestion is to stay out of it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you nailed it.

i really dont understand what pointman and miss cat want us to do regarding democracy in other country's that we should have no part of.

Put in our own leaders? Like we did with Saddam, Mubarek and quddafi to begin with? How is that democracy.

Please tell us how to handle foreign policy!

My suggestion is to stay out of it.

we've expanded our sphere of influence to the entire world. (today the world, tomorrow the universe?! ) it's been a mistaken foreign policy for years. and where has it gotten us? broke.

you can't 'support democracy' and then expect it all to end like it did here. how often have we actually seen that happen?
you can't say, we want free elections, and then say 'but make sure you elect the party we like'. lol how would that be an improvement for said country?

so, to hell with trying to figure out what would be best for everyone. it's impossible. so, can we start worrying more about what's best for this country???