Gadaffi Sodomized

[copacetic]

Perhaps now, you can understand why I get so frustrated with the anti Obama crowd around here, who salivate at the thought of pointing a finger directly at him for absolutely everything.

As long as your attitude is consistent with your annoyance at people's general contempt for Mr Bush, I can understand your annoyance.

Generally though, it's Obama's administration that people have an issue with, or more accurately just the general state of the USA's behaviour in many respects, regardless of who's the president.

I'm still curious if you find that article anti-American drivel.

 

[Fader4]

I really don't get why this is laid at Obama's feet though.

I mean... do we call Zuma a fraudster because Bheki Cele did a dodgy lease agreement? No. We just expect Zuma to ensure that those responsible are punished.

If Zuma doesn't see to it that those people are punished it doesn't necessarily mean he is corrupt. He may just as easily be a useless ineffectual president.

Obama has to authorize these strikes though.

To be fair, bush started them but under Obama the campaign has intensified significantly... some would say its one of the pillars he will base his "national security" credentials on for the upcoming elections.

The civilian deaths and the fact that due process and other basic legal principles have apparently been tossed out the window is a problem for me.

http://www.countercurrents.org/woods120811.htm

 

[Fazda]

At the same time it is the president that holds that ultimate responsibility. He will be judged negatively for failing to sort out problems.

This is why I don't follow American politics. Everything is so polarised and filled with mud-slinging. I can't see the wood for the trees when I read this stuff.

I don't wish to derail this thread any more, suffice to say that the anti Obama crowd use the Buck stopping at O's desk to blame him for everything from Global warming to the Japanese Tsunami. They haven't stopped whinging since he won the last election.

There ends my story for today

 

[Nerfherder]

Perhaps now, you can understand why I get so frustrated with the anti Obama crowd around here, who salivate at the thought of pointing a finger directly at him for absolutely everything.

Exactly... dude can't catch a break.

Not allowed to intervene, then criticized for waiting too long, then they question what the US did when they did intervene.


Now its his fault some one stuck something up G-daff's postbox.

I'm pretty sure Obama didn't send a Marine to go put the gay on him.... the crowd did that themselves.

 

[Fader4]

I don't wish to derail this thread any more, suffice to say that the anti Obama crowd use the Buck stopping at O's desk to blame him for everything from Global warming to the Japanese Tsunami. They haven't stopped whinging since he won the last election.

There ends my story for today

You will find that most people who are criticizing the way America (mis)behaves on the world stage have been doing so since before Obama came to power. You should draw a distinction between partisan/right wing trolling of Obama and those who have valid criticism of american foreign policy.

 

[porchrat]

Obama has to authorize these strikes though.

Says who? I imagine that with everything going on in that government it is impossible for him to actually know exactly what is going on everywhere and to personally read over and give the go ahead for absolutely everything. Especially when it comes to military operations that I imagine need ot happen relatively fast. So far all I've read are the links you've provided but even they don't say Obama personally orders these people killed. Just that his administration does... which is entirely different.

To be fair, bush started them but under Obama the campaign has intensified significantly... some would say its one of the pillars he will base his "national security" credentials on for the upcoming elections.

The civilian deaths and the fact that due process and other basic legal principles have apparently been tossed out the window is a problem for me.

http://www.countercurrents.org/woods120811.htm

I agree that you don't just bounce around the globe killing people. However I just don't understand why it is placed on Obama as an individual.

To me it just seems a lot like calling Zuma a fraudster because Cele signed a dodgy lease. Sure that dodgy lease certainly makes Zuma's administration on the whole look dodgy but it doesn't say anything about him as an individual. To start saying things about Zuma or Obama as an individual based on the actions of those in his administration seems rather illogical to me.

 

[FrankCastle]

Anyway BOT.
I think the Libyans have done themselves a disservice by taking the gadfly out in the manner that they did.
Instead of sinking to his level of barbarism they should have locked the b@stard up until they could sort out a proper trial. Now I know there’s every chance that the outcome of any trial would ultimately still have led to the execution of Gadaffi, but at least through the process the people of Libya would have had the opportunity to hang out his dirty laundry for all to see.
Maybe if the world got to hear the truth of the suffering handed out by the crazy SOB from the people who actually suffered under his rule, we wouldn’t have all of this sad idol-worship by some nutters who will support any mad b@stard just because he once upon a time thumbed his nose at the west

Not really.His gruesome death sends a very strong message out to would be dictators lurking in the background hoping to cash in on his demise.One wrong move and you get a very unceremonious poke up the backside-literally.
The world has been hearing about his brutality and oppression for decades.What's more to know.Its there for all to see so a trial would just be another sensationalist media frenzy.

 

[copacetic]

[-]I'll remember not to bother directing any posts towards you in the future then, Fazda.[/-]

Or perhaps more reasonably, is there a reason you seem to have ignored all my posts I specifically directed at you?

 

[FrankCastle]

Obama has to authorize these strikes though.

To be fair, bush started them but under Obama the campaign has intensified significantly... some would say its one of the pillars he will base his "national security" credentials on for the upcoming elections.

The civilian deaths and the fact that due process and other basic legal principles have apparently been tossed out the window is a problem for me.

http://www.countercurrents.org/woods120811.htm

Lets face it Bush started Guantanamo to house so called terror suspects up until such time they can be convicted.They probably can't find sufficient evidence to capture and detain these men so it makes sense just to take them out.Its cheaper,simpler and the they'll have the blessing of the majority in the US.What more could you ask for.

 

[McSack]

Not really.His gruesome death sends a very strong message out to would be dictators lurking in the background hoping to cash in on his demise.One wrong move and you get a very unceremonious poke up the backside-literally.
The world has been hearing about his brutality and oppression for decades.What's more to know.Its there for all to see so a trial would just be another sensationalist media frenzy.

I think most would be dictators have a serious god complex and don't give a ***** one way or another because they don't believe it will ever happen to them. IMO the current crop of would be liberators in Libya are soon going to be shooting the shyte out of eachother as they jockey for position.
The world may have been hearing about the gadfly's brutallity for years, but there are still people who think the sun shone out of the same place the pole entered brother leader's posterior. One need only look at the condemnation of Gadaffi's death by our very own government. Why, we have people on this very forum who seem never to have heard of Libyan death squads

 

[Alan]

I agree that you don't just bounce around the globe killing people. However I just don't understand why it is placed on Obama as an individual.

To me it just seems a lot like calling Zuma a fraudster because Cele signed a dodgy lease. Sure that dodgy lease certainly makes Zuma's administration on the whole look dodgy but it doesn't say anything about him as an individual. To start saying things about Zuma or Obama as an individual based on the actions of those in his administration seems rather illogical to me.

He as president could put a stop to it tomorrow. I don't recall Bush not being blamed for the actions of his administration. Why now with Obama.

Lets face it Bush started Guantanamo to house so called terror suspects up until such time they can be convicted.They probably can't find sufficient evidence to capture and detain these men so it makes sense just to take them out.Its cheaper,simpler and the they'll have the blessing of the majority in the US.What more could you ask for.

The problem for me is the people who made a huge issue over Gitmo and the rights of detainees for political gain to the detriment of national security have vastly increased the use of drone strikes now they're in power. If it wasn't okay to detain people then how the hell can they justify blowing up suspects now?

A drone strike is what nailed Gaddaif's convoy with the help of a French jet

Officials: US drone fired in Gadhafi strike; administration looking ahead to Libya’s future

 

[Fazda]

[-]I'll remember not to bother directing any posts towards you in the future then, Fazda.[/-]

Or perhaps more reasonably, is there a reason you seem to have ignored all my posts I specifically directed at you?

My apologies, I don't know what I've missed, but I've been in and out the whole afternoon, and only answering where I thought necessary. What was it you wanted me to answer, or must I now go back through 100 odd posts??

 

[Fazda]

He as president could put a stop to it tomorrow. I don't recall Bush not being blamed for the actions of his administration. Why now with Obama.



The problem for me is the people who made a huge issue over Gitmo and the rights of detainees for political gain to the detriment of national security have vastly increased the use of drone strikes now they're in power. If it wasn't okay to detain people then how the hell can they justify blowing up suspects now?

A drone strike is what nailed Gaddaif's convoy with the help of a French jet

Officials: US drone fired in Gadhafi strike; administration looking ahead to Libya’s future

Enter our Prime Obamabasher stage right...

 

[copacetic]

My apologies, I don't know what I've missed, but I've been in and out the whole afternoon, and only answering where I thought necessary. What was it you wanted me to answer, or must I now go back through 100 odd posts??

Oh ****!

Sorry man. Nothing important, if you just missed the posts it's of no import.

I thought I was being ignored on purpose lol.

 

[Fazda]

Oh ****!

Sorry man. Nothing important, if you just missed the posts it's of no import.

I thought I was being ignored on purpose lol.

Me ignore you on purpose?? Never!!

 

[copacetic]

Me ignore you on purpose?? Never!!

 

[Fazda]

Hopefully I've answered whatever it was that you wanted to know!

 

[Fazda]

I've always gotten the impression from your posts that you are an eminently sensible guy.

Do you really feel that Glenn Greenwald's writing is simply anti-American guff?

Have you read that particular article we linked to?

AHA! I have now found what you were asking me about. Sorry, I missed it along the way.

I'm afraid that I DO really feel that Glenn Greenwald is on a mission of his own. He manages to take decisions made in government and lay them entirely on the shoulders of the President. I honestly believe that he is deliberately misleading his readers in an attempt to further his own view.

That's my view anyway...

I think I am well read enough to disagree with him, and we'll have to leave it at that.

 

[copacetic]

AHA! I have now found what you were asking me about. Sorry, I missed it along the way.

I'm afraid that I DO really feel that Glenn Greenwald is on a mission of his own. He manages to take decisions made in government and lay them entirely on the shoulders of the President. I honestly believe that he is deliberately misleading his readers in an attempt to further his own view.

That's my view anyway...

I think I am well read enough to disagree with him, and we'll have to leave it at that.

I'm still trying to fathom my way around American politics, so I won't be disagreeing or agreeing with you quite yet.

I'm not sure where the president's powers lie. Two sides to that coin I suppose; Either he takes responsibility for what his government is doing, or he cannot be held accountable because he is lacks power. Neither seems like a winning proposition.

Things I can, and do lay at Obama's fee though, are when he says for example that his government will support and protect whistleblowers, and in reality more people have been gone after for whistleblowing under Obama, than all other US presidents combined.

Anyway, it's a complex subject, one I am still trying to get my head around.

I can't help but be swayed by Greenwald's arguments, they are very eloquent, and point towards proof, for everything he says.

I'm always willing investigate other avenues of information if anyone would like to suggest where I can look.

 

[Fazda]

For a start, you can stop reading Greenwald!!

As a History teacher, I have always tried to get my students to read as many points of view as possible, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

Read about something, get as many diverse points of view as you can, and then create your own point of view, in the knowledge that you have looked at something from every angle.

The biggest problem with American politics is that you will either be reading a Republican or a Democratic POV, and they will never agree as long as there is salt in the ocean.