[US Foreign Policy] Declare Victory and Come Home

13839404244

Posts

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited February 14
    and, you know, wanting to eliminate unnecessary suffering and make things better for people is not, IMO, a bad thing.
    it's just that we've got a pretty spotty track record at both the implementation and the understanding of what is actually "better".

    (but really, given the chance, why wouldn't everyone want to live and think just like us? except for those godless _______, I suppose...
    I mean, we're clearly the best and most awesome country that ever was. :P )

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
    PreacherKayne Red RobeEmerlmaster999JaysonFourButtersautono-wally, erotibot300BullheadRickRudeLabelYallSkeithMan in the MistsHacksawMvrckdispatch.o
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    Probably be part of our deal with them.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    JaysonFourNetscape
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people

    VishNubKayne Red RobeKetBraFencingsaxElvenshaeRaiju
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    We did originally have a clear goal... it was just a goal no one wanted or wants to admit to because it is terrible. That goal was revenge. Again, literally no one wants to admit that, and a bunch of people will try to argue it, but we went in there after 9/11 to try and find bin laden and kill as many folks on the way to him as we could cause, fuck everyone, someone punched us in the face and we gotta fuck everyone up for that. The reason we had no clean way to pull out and have been quagmired for 2 decades is because no one wanted to admit that we went in for some pretty unwholesome reasons, and we kept trying to make it look like there were good on the ground reasons we were still there. From fighting terrorism to cleaning up the mess we'd caused, all of it was post hoc reasoning for why we were still there. The reason we originally went in was because we were angry and someone, somewhere needed to pay. There was never going to be a good exit because the achievable goal we went in there for, retribution, was bad and only has bad outcomes for everyone involved.

    It was a direct response to an act of war committed by the organized group Al Qaeda, and by extension the Taliban who were sheltering it. We weren't randomly lashing out at them any more than we were randomly lashing out at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

    YallmanwiththemachinegunMild Confusion
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    We did originally have a clear goal... it was just a goal no one wanted or wants to admit to because it is terrible. That goal was revenge. Again, literally no one wants to admit that, and a bunch of people will try to argue it, but we went in there after 9/11 to try and find bin laden and kill as many folks on the way to him as we could cause, fuck everyone, someone punched us in the face and we gotta fuck everyone up for that. The reason we had no clean way to pull out and have been quagmired for 2 decades is because no one wanted to admit that we went in for some pretty unwholesome reasons, and we kept trying to make it look like there were good on the ground reasons we were still there. From fighting terrorism to cleaning up the mess we'd caused, all of it was post hoc reasoning for why we were still there. The reason we originally went in was because we were angry and someone, somewhere needed to pay. There was never going to be a good exit because the achievable goal we went in there for, retribution, was bad and only has bad outcomes for everyone involved.

    It was a direct response to an act of war committed by the organized group Al Qaeda, and by extension the Taliban who were sheltering it. We weren't randomly lashing out at them any more than we were randomly lashing out at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

    I recall a number of arguments being made that the terrorist attacks were criminal in nature and not necessarily a state action. There's an argument to be made that the stronger state support actually came from Saudi Arabia.

    MorganVKayne Red RobeSleepButtersFencingsaxAistanGnizmoRingoTicaldfjamGiggles_FunsworthOrcaNetscapeMosatiSmrtnikGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherEinzelEvermournSkeithMan in the MistsMrVyngaardLord_AsmodeusMvrckKruite
  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Future Employee of Planetary Acquisitions, Inc.
    Pax Arcadia(PC) Division Agent
    xu257gunns6e.png

  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    steam_sig.png
    GiantGeek2020Local H JayOrcaNetscapeDacBrainleechZibblsnrtGONG-00Man in the MistsMrVyngaardRaijuHacksawMild Confusiondispatch.o
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    I don't know what concessions we'll get, they don't kill any of our troops till after Donald announces we're leaving?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    I don't know what concessions we'll get, they don't kill any of our troops till after Donald announces we're leaving?

    Maybe they act suitably cowed and in awe of the fat orange turd until the Wednesday after the election, at which point the sands run red with non-Taliban blood.

    steam_sig.png
    Elvenshae
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    I don't know what concessions we'll get, they don't kill any of our troops till after Donald announces we're leaving?

    Maybe they act suitably cowed and in awe of the fat orange turd until the Wednesday after the election, at which point the sands run red with non-Taliban blood.

    Honestly I don’t see either party doing anything about that.

    Steam = VishnuOwnz
    Dota2 = Glitchmo
    Preacher
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    that was always going to be the outcome at some point; like even if you accept the premise that the U.S.' position was much more tenable prior to the invasion of Iraq you're still left to answer the fundamental question of what the endgame is; occupy the place for another 50 years while a national civil society (maybe, hopefully) forms?

    honestly this is the one time trump's 'say the quiet part loud' routine might actually lead to a good outcome; if there's no real goal and no commitment to stay there and fight for whatever it is, may as well leave and take as much hardware with us as we can

    NREqxl5.jpg
    TryCatcher
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Ironically, if the goal of invading Afganistan was to reduce the risk of future attacks directly against the U.S., destabilizing the rest of the Middle East did manage to provide a ton of easier targets. Not that that's something that we should be proud about, of course.

  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    VishNub wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    I don't know what concessions we'll get, they don't kill any of our troops till after Donald announces we're leaving?

    Maybe they act suitably cowed and in awe of the fat orange turd until the Wednesday after the election, at which point the sands run red with non-Taliban blood.

    Honestly I don’t see either party doing anything about that.

    Resettle an asston of refugees in Iowa imo.

    steam_sig.png
    CantidoIncenjucarDarkPrimusVishNubGONG-00Hacksawdispatch.o
  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    Sorry, I was thinking ahead to a time when the current administration is not calling the shots and assuming a new one would try to do right when cleaning up our messes. I guess I am an optimist after all despite my protests to the contrary.

    Future Employee of Planetary Acquisitions, Inc.
    Pax Arcadia(PC) Division Agent
    xu257gunns6e.png

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    Sorry, I was thinking ahead to a time when the current administration is not calling the shots and assuming a new one would try to do right when cleaning up our messes. I guess I am an optimist after all despite my protests to the contrary.

    I think what he is getting at is that any group or country should be thinking twice about making deals with the US because even if the good guys are in charge again we’ve shown how quickly we give the reins the bad ones.

    Quire.jpg
    TicaldfjamCommander ZoomSmrtnikBlackDragon480Man in the MistsSleepDarkPrimusIncenjucarGnome-InterruptusHacksawMartini_PhilosopherButtersCalica
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    JaysonFour wrote: »
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Taliban are going to be violating the terms of the agreement as our troops are withdrawing and we're going to politely look away and pretend not to see it.

    They seem the patient sort. They'll probably wait for after the handover ceremony. Then make a lot of new boat people mass graves

    Considering it is a landlocked country and Pakistan probably would not allow refugees free transit through their country...all the more reason for the US to resettle people that put their faith in us.

    Ask the Kurds how well the whole "having faith in the U.S." turned out for them. This is going to on a bigger, so much worse scale, all for Donald to have a win to point to. I expect the U.S. will get enough of a ceremony and concessions enough so it can cover the fact we're going to cut and run and leave the Afghans just like the Kurds.

    Sorry, I was thinking ahead to a time when the current administration is not calling the shots and assuming a new one would try to do right when cleaning up our messes. I guess I am an optimist after all despite my protests to the contrary.

    I think what he is getting at is that any group or country should be thinking twice about making deals with the US because even if the good guys are in charge again we’ve shown how quickly we give the reins the bad ones.


    Any local group should have a healthy level of skepticism about US intervention because even "humanitarian" interventions during Dem administrations, e.g. Clinton, were entirely driven by our grand strategic desires while we ignored other humanitarian crises which didn't intersect with those grand strategic desires. And in some cases our intervention, e.g. Libya, brought a huge amount of instability or were half-assed, e.g. Syria (also unfortunately we had to deal with the ISIS wild card, I still think about when we were asking questions about ISI in team/shift meetings when I was in Iraq in 2011 and what they would do post withdrawal).

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    KaputaMrMister
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Libya was not our intervention

    wbBv3fj.png
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited February 16
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Libya was not our intervention

    NATO participated but it was US led (Obama's own words). And currently we are supporting one of the parties still fighting for control.

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    MrMisterMild Confusion
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Libya was not our intervention

    It was NATO intervention and Secretary of State Clinton led the charge.

    KaputaMrMisterMild Confusion
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    It was also something that the european community was leaning on them for since Ghadafi had been a thorn in the continents ass for decades.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Commander ZoomFencingsaxGiantGeek2020BlackDragon480EinzelshrykeBrodyMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeMild Confusion
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    US lead in name only. We went because france abd italy asked us

    wbBv3fj.png
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    US lead in name only. We went because france abd italy asked us

    AFRICOM had personnel on the ground until at least 2019. Our intervention in Libya didn't end in 2011 with the death of Qaddafi.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    US lead in name only. We went because france abd italy asked us

    AFRICOM had personnel on the ground until at least 2019. Our intervention in Libya didn't end in 2011 with the death of Qaddafi.

    And?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    US lead in name only. We went because france abd italy asked us

    AFRICOM had personnel on the ground until at least 2019. Our intervention in Libya didn't end in 2011 with the death of Qaddafi.

    And?

    Your argument is that Libya "wasn't our intervention".

    We happened to provide naval assets and then air and ground assets for multiple years. And the SecState treated it as a US intervention. And the POTUS openly stated it was a US intervention.

    But for some reason it's not actually a US intervention.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    rahkeesh2000MrMisterMild Confusion
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    US lead in name only. We went because france abd italy asked us
    Not in name only, also in military terms - i.e. we were doing most of the bombing and were the central element to the NATO campaign.

    France might have been more gung-ho for going to war than Washington was on a politicial level, but the US was the most important foreign actor. Frankly I doubt the Europeans would have followed through if they didn't have the US to rely on, although that is speculative.

    MrMisterCptKemzikGiantGeek2020Giggles_FunsworthKetBraMild Confusion
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    US lead in name only. We went because france abd italy asked us

    AFRICOM had personnel on the ground until at least 2019. Our intervention in Libya didn't end in 2011 with the death of Qaddafi.

    And?

    Your argument is that Libya "wasn't our intervention".

    We happened to provide naval assets and then air and ground assets for multiple years. And the SecState treated it as a US intervention. And the POTUS openly stated it was a US intervention.

    But for some reason it's not actually a US intervention.

    Wanna keep the populace onside? Tell them it is in their interest.

    Mere participation in foreign interventions does not confer responsibility or ownership.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited February 16
    I think it can both be true that A) intervention in Libya was driven by pressure from France & Italy (unlike the de facto unilateral invasion of Iraq in the previous decade) and B) once the US became involved they more or less took charge what with outsized amounts of personnel and materiel.

    CptKemzik on
    GiantGeek2020Elvenshae
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    CptKemzik wrote: »
    I think it can both be true that A) intervention in Libya was driven by pressure from France & Italy (unlike the de facto unilateral invasion of Iraq in the previous decade) and B) once the US became involved they more or less took charge what with outsized amounts of personnel and materiel.

    I mean, that's why they wanted US involvement.

    GiantGeek2020FencingsaxLabelElldrenjmcdonald
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited February 16
    If Europe wanted us to fight a war in Libya for them, we had no choice but to go in to. Our hands were tied, because we always say yes to Europe.

    *shuffles the Paris Climate Accords, Iran Nuclear deal, and also every other time we told Europe to go fuck itself out of sight*

    MrMister on
    GiantGeek2020FeloniousmozCptKemzikIncenjucarHacksawMan in the MistsButters
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited February 16
    VishNub wrote: »
    I mean the goal of the Taliban was “continue existing.” The goal of the US was ????????

    Of course the taliban won

    The goal was punishment for September 11, and while the public declaration was to achieve peace, stability and democracy, I don't think many people ever really thought that was possible.
    There is also a danger in just slumping into defeat and declaring the "Taliban" won. It's not some monolithic organisation. How many of the people and leaders from 2001 are still alive? I'd be interested to know.
    Regardless, short of a permanent occupation, I don't think this was worst case.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • GiantGeek2020GiantGeek2020 Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    If our Europe wanted us to fight a war in Libya for them, we had no choice but to go in to. Our hands were tied, because we always say yes to Europe.

    *shuffles the Paris Climate Accords, Iran Nuclear deal, and also every other time we told Europe to go fuck itself out of sight*

    It should be pointed out that the bolded things happened under a President who always says yes to Russia, not Europe.

    Biscuits 3:16 "food Jesus is dead and you killed him"
    Desktop HippieshrykeBlackDragon480brynhrtmnElvenshaeElldrenMild Confusion
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    If our Europe wanted us to fight a war in Libya for them, we had no choice but to go in to. Our hands were tied, because we always say yes to Europe.

    *shuffles the Paris Climate Accords, Iran Nuclear deal, and also every other time we told Europe to go fuck itself out of sight*

    It should be pointed out that the bolded things happened under a President who always says yes to Russia, not Europe.

    "But Trump just tells Europe to go fuck itself" is not a terribly compelling set of examples.

    Commander ZoomElvenshaeElldren
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    If our Europe wanted us to fight a war in Libya for them, we had no choice but to go in to. Our hands were tied, because we always say yes to Europe.

    *shuffles the Paris Climate Accords, Iran Nuclear deal, and also every other time we told Europe to go fuck itself out of sight*

    It should be pointed out that the bolded things happened under a President who always says yes to Russia, not Europe.

    "But Trump just tells Europe to go fuck itself" is not a terribly compelling set of examples.

    He does it because he can, and that he does it demonstrates that we can. Europe had no way to strong arm us into Libya if we didn’t agree to go along. We enjoy the right as NATO members to veto actions, and even if we didn’t, they just don’t have the capabilities to do it without our active military involvement. Indeed, we were annoyed enough about this that at the time Robert Gates publicly upbraided them for not shouldering their share of the operational costs.

    CptKemzikGiantGeek2020Giggles_Funsworth
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Soft power is still power and we were there at the behest of allies we were interested supporting. Pushing Europe further away after Bush was not a good idea. And does not make the intervention a US intervention. It was not done for US interests. It was not done at the USs insistence. The lesson you learn from libya is “be wary lf europe” not “be wary of the US”

    wbBv3fj.png
    monikerBlackDragon480shrykeGnome-InterruptusArdolMan in the MistsStabbity StyleElvenshaeElldren
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Both

    I think they’re also expanding in the Golan Heights

    The Heights have never been on the table. You can hit the entire nation from the Heights with a medium-range Howitzer, there's zero chance Tel Aviv cedes that geography.

    uH3IcEi.png
    Commander Zoom
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Soft power is still power and we were there at the behest of allies we were interested supporting. Pushing Europe further away after Bush was not a good idea. And does not make the intervention a US intervention. It was not done for US interests. It was not done at the USs insistence. The lesson you learn from libya is “be wary lf europe” not “be wary of the US”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

    This article says Hillary Clinton's urgings were more influential and while we would not have done anything to Libya without Europe, we definitely weren't riding in the back seat.
    Mr. Robert Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton’s backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was “51-49.”

    “I’ve always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach,” Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president’s decision might have been politically impossible.

    Having decided to act, Mr. Obama questioned military leaders about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone, the Europeans’ favored military response. When they told him that it could not prevent a massacre, Mr. Obama directed his staff to draft a new, tougher United Nations resolution.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    That article does not say what you think it says

    wbBv3fj.png
  • I N V I C T U SI N V I C T U S Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That article does not say what you think it says

    Hillary Clinton is the butcher of Libya, and I'm not sure why you've dug in to defend her or the US. Would Libya be an open-air slave market had the US not intervened? It would not.

    BY THE HOARY FUCKING HOSTS!
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That article does not say what you think it says

    Hillary Clinton is the butcher of Libya, and I'm not sure why you've dug in to defend her or the US. Would Libya be an open-air slave market had the US not intervened? It would not.

    'Butcher of Libya'? Okay.

    You also didn't refute Goumindong's assertion.

    ElvenshaeExtreaminatusNo-Quarter
Sign In or Register to comment.