Well, you gotta give the Libs credit for being consistent."President Barack Obama said military action was not his first choice" ##
I get the impression that virtually nothing he has done has been in any way a matter of his choice; the choices have been made by others.
I guess since the last War for Oil was so successful, the men behind the curtain, who pull Obama's strings and make him do whatever the hell they want him to do (you know, the Jews), are now starting yet another war for oil.
Never mind that the last war for oil was Iraq, and that Iraq only produces about $50 billion in oil a year, and we are spending well over $100 billion to procure it. Operating at a 100% loss is no big deal for the Jews who run the world, and who rape Obama repeatedly in the Oval Office, and who are enslaving all of us, using mind-control through the internet, and doing it all to keep the Muslims and Socialists down (even though the Jews invented Socialism) blah blah blah blah blah.
But seriously folks, why would we start another War? Why? Why? Oh, why why why why why?
Then again, maybe Obama ran up against a power not only greater than himself, but even greater than the Jews, you know, a power called REALITY? You know, the REALITY that there are bad people in the world, like Ghaddafi, who threaten to massacre their own people, just to hold onto the power and money they have. Who knew?
Not the Libs.
So, here we are mired in another war for oil. March 20th, the same day the Iraq War started. Curses, foiled again. I guess the Long March will take even longer, Libs.
By the way, I don't like the idea that we are in Libya helping bad guys fight against bad guys. I'm not exactly a supporter of this Police Action, or whatever we want to call it.
Just for the record.
I do have one question: When are we going to go to war against the people who think everything is some nefarious plot against their Pollyannish world views?
12 comments:
maybe im misunderstanding this pasto but this is your friend?
and these are your friends words?
ive got soem liberal friends and beleive me we dont see eye to eye at all, but if they said anything akin to joooos control the world I would shitcan the friendship.
im perfectly willing to have differneces of opinion but I cant be friends with soemone I see as being a conspiracy joooo hating nut. to me thats the ultimate test of rationality and basic goodness versus evil.
for whatever reason it just is.
when you get to the nut of the matter, to me its the quintisential mark of a kook.
rumcrook,
The quote is from a friend of a friend, and it is as follows:
"So now we're at war with Libya, too?
"President Barack Obama said military action was not his first choice" ##
I get the impression that virtually nothing he has done has been in any way a matter of his choice; the choices have been made by others."
The guy did not say the Jews were pulling Obama's strings. I extrapolated that. If I were to ask the guy if it's the Jews who are behind this, I would imagine he would say, NO, not the Jews; the International Corporations, the Bush Family, etc. You know, all the usual leftist crapola.
But, you and I both know, eventually it all comes down to the Jews.
Like, for instance, have you ever heard anyone on the Left really criticize the bullshit that comes out of Helen Thomas' mouth?
Anyone who believes Obama, "nothing he has done has been in any way a matter of his choice; the choices have been made by others..." IS indeed a kook. Don't you think?
I mean, think how insane that comment is. Obama is the President of the United States, and this guy thinks he sits there in the Oval Office quaking in fear of the interests of others.
This guy is a kook, but he did not specify the Jews.
I left a couple of comments at Jihad Watch, and since my views haven't changed since then, I'll repeat them here:
If this war is about profits for oil companies, then I am all for it. The day oil companies can't make a profit is the day they'll stop exploring, drilling, refining, shipping, and selling it to the likes of me. I happen to use it a lot. My shoes are made of it, for example, as are most of the things in my house and most of the things in my daily life, like nearly everything, including the packages filling trucks burning the gas that takes it to the places I buy all this stuff from. Oil is good. If it takes war to maintain this Modern life we live, then that's the price we pay for this life. If oil companies won't do all this for free, then another price we pay is money. It's a bargain, it seems to me.
Followed by a comment:
If I read you post right I could translate into "Kick their ass, take their gas." Which I agree with.
But not only will America get a cent of a discount on oil for her trouble, but she'll receive scorn from the world for warmongering and more debt for her taxpayers.
And possibly lose more of our servicemen and women. Muslims on any side aren't worth it.
To which I responded:
Yes, R.K, that would be my take on this and similar situations: "Take their gas and kick their ass." Here, to quote out of context a great expression from Clemenceau, "War is too important to leave to the military." The question is, "Who should kick ass?" I'm with Kepha and others on this score for the most part: we have little to gain from intervening in these sectarian wars between tribal Muslims, and we have lives to lose, all for little we want and much we definitely want to avoid.
Here, at the risk of showing myself to be a "junior Machiavelli," as
Spencer recently tagged someone, I offer my humble opinion that 'small is beautiful.' I mean that it pays us nothing to wage full-scale government level war against a tribal backwater/desert wasteland for the sake of-- whatever. In simple economic terms we could never recoup our investment, even were we to try, which is never the point of war in Modernity. But economic gain is a primary concern of people who wage war for reasons other than sentiment. The bright side of this is that one needn't be a thug, as it were, to wage war for profit: one can, by thinking small and acting even smaller, as it were, do great things in the world that do in effect become moral. Grand schemers who wish to annihilate all of Islam with some silver bullet or nuclear weapons or a world-wide embargo of oil are deluding themselves, assuming they take themselves seriously. A serious person will assess the likelihood of making a reasonable profit from a reasonable venture, that being, hypothetically, taking some profit from the greater mass available, in this case, from Libya. I mean that individuals, perhaps working together for a mutual interest, will do some tiny thing that will maybe make for them a significant profit, without seriously damaging the ummah for all of time. I think small, and the smaller the better. I mean that one should act on an inter-personal basis with wealthy Muslim radicals, and in that way convince them to contribute to ones own happiness and diminish the Muslim happiness in doing so. Why involve a nation's military when a guy can do the same work on a tiny scale a million times over, making a profit, making the world a better place by the effort.
Of course, one must needs provide some service or some such thing to the jihadi to make him pleased to contribute to the eventual downfall and continuous weakening of Islam. Seems I'm just not so clever as to figure out what that would entail, so I remain a poor lost soul with no great expectations.
Why another war?
Obama is campaigning to get re-elected in 2012.
Yeah, I know that my statement sounds far fetched.
But America doesn't change Presidents during a war.
Besides, now Obama wants to look like some kind of strong man as well -- the strong man who stands up for oppressed people.
Never mind that he is selective as to which oppressed people he champions.
My friend LA Sunsett wrote this essay yesterday. Some points there worth considering. Excerpt:
We know that Obama likes dictators (at least the Latin American versions).
He loves Hugo Chavez. We all know Chavez fits the socialist model that the President was educated to believe in. We all know that Bro. Hugo is the modern-day replacement for Fidel Castro's failed leadership in Latin America, for failing to implement the true communist paradigm in Latin America.
We know that he loved former President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. You may remember him as the man who tried to illegally modify the Honduran constitution, so he could run for another term... for the purpose of implementing a Chavez style economic and political system. When the Honduran Supreme Court ruled against Zelaya and his underhanded plan of action, both Obama and Chavez did everything they possibly could to subvert the rule of law in that country.
What we do not know is why Obama is not supporting dictators a half a world away in the Middle East....
More at the above link.
For all the talk about its being a coalition effort in these attacks on Libya, isn't the United States doing most of the work? I saw a figure about those Tomahawk missiles.
I keep asking the same question over and over again: EXACTLY WHO ARE THE REBELS IN LIBYA?
" EXACTLY WHO ARE THE REBELS IN LIBYA?"
It doesn't matter, AoW. We have no strategic goal.
This is only about Obama reacting to one kind of pressure or another
DAg writes: individuals, perhaps working together for a mutual interest, will do some tiny thing that will maybe make for them a significant profit, without seriously damaging the ummah for all of time. I think small, and the smaller the better. I mean that one should act on an inter-personal basis with wealthy Muslim radicals, and in that way convince them to contribute to ones own happiness and diminish the Muslim happiness in doing so. Why involve a nation's military when a guy can do the same work on a tiny scale a million times over, making a profit, making the world a better place by the effort.
Of course, one must needs provide some service or some such thing to the jihadi to make him pleased to contribute to the eventual downfall and continuous weakening of Islam.
I respond: We are doing this in a million small ways, and we are doing it as a result of the Free Market. The Free Market means we buy their oil. When we buy their oil, some of them come out as winners, but more come out as losers (hundreds of millions of individuals who gain nothing from the sale of oil from Arab land). Those who come out with nothing are resentful of those who gain profit, and thus there is constant stress and anger in the Ummah.
So, what you prescribe is already being done.
Additionally, people always wonder why we buy the oil of our enemies. The answer to that is, when we buy their oil, that makes them salesmen to us, and they have to work to ingratiate themselves to us.
Ed Driscoll over at PJMedia has another take:
"In the 1970s, if you wanted to make movies, you worked in Hollywood, and took your chances with the earthquakes, and the city’s myriad other woes. Where else are you going to go?
Having just punked the anti-war far left, Obama is similarly asking them — where are you going to go? He’s got them in his pocket. Going to vote Nader? I don’t think so. Hillary? She’s in too deep with the administration. Screaming about impeachment, or being duped? You’re just allowing him to rhetorically triangulate towards the center, and play the far left off the rest of America."
“How Obama Crushed The Dreams of A Generation (of Lefties)”
Anonymous,
I don't know about you, but I find it a bit funny.
I lost my sense of humor with Obama in Nov. 2008. But I do catch your drift.
There's yet another perspective posted at FR:
Make no mistake about this. The libya air war is a direct attack on what was shaping up to be yet another Chinese client state in oil country. Gaddafi was making the same mistake Saddam made pre 2003: preparing to give control of large in-ground oil reserves to the Chinese. Western oil contracts were already up for review and cancellation. The PRC was aggressively adding "technicians," pipelines, drilling rigs and oil concessions there. Not to mention Chinese-supported Iranian outposts along the southern Libyan board funneling arms to guerrilla fighters seeking to overthrow Chad and Niger, where the Chinese have been trying to gain footholds.
This attack is a real setback for the Chinese, who have had sand kicked in their face once again without being able to do much about it. I suspect the only reason we were slow to institute the no-fly zone is that the Chinese had positioned a missile frigate in the line of fire, ostensibly to help evacuate the hundreds of Chinese nationals in Libya.
The question I have is: what carrot or stick was sued to get the Russians and Chinese to withhold use of their UN veto power so that the attack could proceed. Interestingly, China last week was allowed to buy in to a refining, petchem project in Saudi. Maybe that was the sop they have been offered for likely losing out on building massive 600kbd refinery in Egypt (for peanuts) now that Mubarak is on his way out.
Look where else we are rolling up two-bit tyrannies: Yemen and Syria, also heavily aligned with the Chinese through arms deals, if not much outright oil. Posters here who chafe at this military action as simply one of Obama's follies have no conception of the geopolitical stakes involved, the thorough-going involvement of the national security apparatus and the essential need to do something effective before you have Chinese boots on the ground. That is what drove Bush's 2003 Iraq invasion (since UN sanctions would have been lifted at the end of that year, allowing the Chinese to garrison the Al Adab and Halfaya fields there). Without a doubt, President Obama has been a bystander in this matter. Frankly, it is way above his pay grade.
It is interesting that in 2009, Gaddafi intervened to stop the Chinese (CNPC) from buying Canadian independent Verenex, which had found several large oil fields in Western Libya near Tunisia in the Ghadames Basin. I suspect he was worried that allowing that deal to go through might have brought Washington down on his neck then. Libyan state ownership of Verenex, though, might be merely a way of laundering that oil into the hands of the Chinese, who now count Libya as one of their largest crude suppliers, surpassing Angola (which has cooled to Chinese inroads).
8 posted on Monday, March 21, 2011 7:05:17 PM by Tenega
Thanks, bro.
My inclination is to believe the sand kicked in the face of China is more incidental, and not the primary purpose of this mission.
I'll send that around and see what other people think of that scenario.
Post a Comment