of all US presidents.
The term "useful idiot" originated as a pejorative describing "Western dupes" of the Soviet union during the cold war, who the communists actually held in contempt. ( more on this in link below ) Later usage came from conservative activist Howard Philips when Reagan
was trying to thaw cold war relations with the USSR ( I actually thought RR was merely an idiot, but that's neither here nor there )
Seems like "useful idiot" could also apply to BHO;for those of us who voted for him for his stance against entering Iraq war, his foolish foray into Libya is a bitter pill indeed.
For over 45 years, U.S military intervention in foreign countries has been a disaster. Yet BHO rushes into to prevent "humanitarian disaster" from a despot. But, why Libya & not Baharain, Yemen or Darfur ? Who is "pulling" BHO's strings ? Oil companies ? The Arab League ? Council on Foreign relations ? ( Jesus, I'm starting to sound like Mein )
U.S. miltary interventions in Iraq & Afghanistan have turned out to be tragic wastes of $ & lives; if left unchecked, Libya could turn into same "sinkhole". If BHO wants to salvage his presidency ( which he could still do ),then best to get out of Iraq Afghanistan & Libya post haste. If not, he'll be entering "Hall of shame" with GWB.
I will now refer to GWB & BHO as "pliable presidents". POTUS's are supposed to be made of "sterner stuff", but, more likey composed of material found below :
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 7:57:20 AM
As with all US presidents , Obama is a classic lackey of the imperialist running dogs of capitalism. He will carry out the orders of his capitalist masters. Why did you expect something different from him? All US presidents protect the interests of the capitalist class!
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 9:09:12 AM
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 9:20:25 AM
he was gonna bomb that aspirin factory but Obama is the first President to not address the nation before bombing from the Oval Office so yea he is being the world President 
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 9:26:39 AM
MG from office or something to that effect?
Yea, Obama said Gaddafi needs to go even though he is not the target of coalition military operations.
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 10:20:49 AM
Iraq and Libya! That's OK! It will all become very clear to you, soon! But, if you've got some time on your hands, write out two lists. One comparing how they are the same, and one comparing how they are different. I bet you can already get my drift.
Unlike Iraq, The Libyan War was not debated and approved by Congress.
The U.S. didn't try to play nice with Saddam Hussein, before invading.
Public support for the Iraq war started high and slowly dwindled down.
Public support in America and across the World in favor of war against Libya, started low and will quickly plummet.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1562087.ece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/us-action-in-libya-sparks-concern-among-some-lawmakers-over-congresss-role/2011/03/19/ABfYAfy_blog.html
http://lewwaters.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/obama-complicity-in-crimes-of-muammar-gaddafi/
Photo below, U.S. jet down in Libya.
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 7:41:18 AM
"Unlike Iraq, The Libyan War was not debated and approved by Congress."
1. Engaging in a military actions does not equate to invading a country, and starting a war.
2. Yes, it was debated and approved by Congress being sold a pack of lies.
"The U.S. didn't try to play nice with Saddam Hussein, before invading."
Read your history books. Hussein was treated as an ally.
"Public support for the Iraq war started high and slowly dwindled down."
Once again, they sold the war on a pack of lies.
Public support in America and across the World in favor of war against Libya, started low and will quickly plummet.
Once again, military action does not equate as a war.
mattradd" "Try again!"
"Once again, they sold the war on a pack of lies."
What "verifiable" proof do you have that the Libyan Rebels did not also sell packs of lies?
History in my lifetime, does not recall, George Junior playing nice, or being an ally, or friend of Saddam Hussein.
Please Provide links, preferably with photos to authenticate your memory of George and Saddam playing nice.
By the way, if someone throws fire bombs in my yard I would consider that, an act of war, no matter what my neighbors delude themselves into believing.
Saddam Hussein. But, you seem not to understand anything about diplomacy. Perhaps someone on the right can instruct you.
Your first argument is totally bogus, and you know it. With our satellite technology, we know exactly what's happening on the ground.
Regarding your last comment, I have no idea what you're talking about.
mattradd "Your first argument is totally bogus, and you know it. With our satellite technology, we know exactly what's happening on the ground."
"Regarding your last comment, I have no idea what you're talking about."
During the Iraq hearings Colin Powell,a man I trust and respect, was duped by satellite photos. I am wondering , are the satellite photos and analyzing in Libya , now fail safe?.
George Tenet head of the CIA from 1997 until after the Iraq war started,was responsible for a report that concluded Iraq had chemical and bio weapons.
When he wrote his book, he back pedaled and said something to the effect, he was not cautious in judgement and he had been misinformed by some sources.Ahem.. some of the sources being satellite photo analysis.
He was also in charge in 1999 when the Chinese embassy was bombed in Yugoslavia by ACCIDENT.
They certainly didn't use street maps to zoom in,when they accidentally bombed the wrong place.
Is there a possibility of a Cheney or Rumsfield clone in the background, analyzing satellite photos in Libya for their own hidden agenda?
Not sure which last statement you didn't understand? My last statement on one post above is regarding the FACT, more than half the world, is not in favor of the military actions taking place in Libya. If it doesn't end soon,many of the minority in favor, will quickly abandon ship, not only here, but in France and Britain.
My last statement on the other post was directed at those, who don't see our Jets dropping bombs on Libya, as an act of war.
Hopefully it will be over within 90 days or Congressional approval will be required to continue funding, unless there is another hidden surprise to be revealed.....
Regarding your link I believe diplomacy is always the desired alternative, if it isn't wishy washy, and overflowing with hypocrisy.
When I look at the news and read our diplomats expressing one thing this week, and something completely different the following, it makes me wonder, do the followers bother to read between the lines?.
If only Reno had used diplomacy,or at the minimum stealth arrest, when dealing with the Branch Davidians, a lot of dead children would be living as adults.
Too bad for those children, they didn't have the United Nations on their side.
I hope all goes swift and well in Libya.
I have a bad feeling, I hope its wrong, coming soon,a clusterfuck with many more Libyan civilians dying, than anticipated by the experts of exact.
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 9:21:51 PM
the two places but the goals of the imperialist capitalist class ar always the same.
... but puppet BHO, even if he ends the "war" in Iraq will still be leaving a PERMANENT U.S. military installation there, just as puppet Bush announced would be done. That is because the same people who pulled Bush's strings also pull BHO's.
Who are these people? Good question. Dunno. But objective observation indicates that such a circumstance exists; otherwise actions of politicians would more closely match their rhetoric instead of duplicating the actions of predecessors so closely as to be indistinguishable.
This is no surprise to those of us that realized from the beginning that Obama is simply another politician who was simply saying whatever was necessary to get into office.
I find it highly amusing how quickly the left will turn on their own, Kucinich is the one leading the charge against Obama, even going so far as to use the "I" word.
No Doubts, If McCain had won, he would have also invaded Libya, with or without congressional approval.
I disagree with Kucinich on a lot of things politically, but I respect him as a man who has values and principles, and who is not for sale to the highest bidder.
The fact that I disagree with his values and principles notwithstanding, the fact that, unlike BHO, he is not for sale, is admirable for a politician in the modern era.
Presidents are representatives of the people. They're supposed to bend to the people's will. But as recent approval ratings have indicated, the last couple Presidents have not done so.
So who's pulling Obama's strings?
of all US presidents.
I wish this was one of those times.
But the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan bear almost no meaningful resemblance in intent, scope, or presidential discretion to the Libyan incursion. Both Iraq and Afghanistan involved invasions by US land forces; in Libya, we are just firing missiles; the President has made clear there will be no ground invasion.
The intervention in Libya is to protect civilians from slaughter by military. We invaded Iraq to find those weapons of mass destruction; Saddam had been killing the Kurds and other civilians for years and we did nothing.
Afghanistan was largely a revenge-based incursion where now we are mired in a civil war against Afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. Besides, we are the ones who are killing civilians there with our drone attacks – not any organized military. Whether we have killed more innocents than the Taliban is an interesting question.
Just too different to compare.
But the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan bear almost no meaningful resemblance in intent, scope, or presidential discretion to the Libyan incursion. Both Iraq and Afghanistan involved invasions by US land forces; in Libya, we are just firing missiles; the President has made clear there will be no ground invasion.
The intervention in Libya is to protect civilians from slaughter by military. We invaded Iraq to find those weapons of mass destruction; Saddam had been killing the Kurds and other civilians for years and we did nothing.
Afghanistan was largely a revenge-based incursion where now we are mired in a civil war against Afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. Besides, we are the ones who are killing civilians there with our drone attacks – not any organized military. Whether we have killed more innocents than the Taliban is an interesting question.
Just too different to compare.
on terrorism to replace the "Cold War". That in effect gives the capitalist's lackey, Obama cart blanche to run roughshod over the entire planet.
of the mideast violence can be defined as military activities to support the imperialism of the capitalist class.
Of course, as usual, you're too obstuse to have picked that up.
BTW, I'm all in favor of the predator drone program ; if there's "collateral damage", that's simply the "fortunes of war". Want that to stop ?
The Pak government/military/intelligence forces know where OBL ( or UBL ) Ayman Al Zwahiri & Mullah Omar are hiding. Tell them to pressure the Wazirisitan tribesmen to give up those 3 motherfuckers & the inadvertent killing of civilians will stop.
Priapus "BTW, I'm all in favor of the predator drone program "
If the Predator drone program is indeed intended to slow the spread of terrorism, would not accidental killing of civilians, also accidentally increase the terrorist ranks?
Putting the shoe on my foot. If gang wars escalated into my neighborhood, and the winning gang,accidentally killed my family members, I have no doubt, I would terrorize the victorious gang, no matter the consequences, of my vigalante methods.
In other words I agree with the predator drone program in theory, however I believe accidental killings of civilians, is a most self defeating defense.
By the way, In the recent past,I was completely in favor of the predator drone program, before I realized the Predators aim, was not always on target.
idiot," your non-obtuse readers understood you meant "COULD BO become a useful idiot."
As when you talked his "foolish foray into Libya, the non-obtuse understood you mean his foray COULD become foolish.
And when you said he should get out post haste, you meant he should get out post haste if this "morphing " occurs which really means he should wait and see, right?
I think I was right - Sometimes you just can't beat an intelligent and insightful post by Priapus. I just wish this was one of those times.
IF "Libya debacle" continues, will GUARANTEE several U.S. pilots shot down, ( these things always happen ),will become POW's, imprisoned & tortured,then go before cameras in propaganda exercise "condemning" U.S. intervention in Libya.
Do you want a witness a "spectacle" like that " ?!
Or, worse yet, numerous U.S. pilots killed in action. Don't think that will happen?! Guess again. Longer this goes on, those scenarios will become inevitable. Obviously you don't know your history. This "ill defined Libya foray" is not worth ONE American life.
Marikod, you're "morphing" into a GWB/Cheney
"chickenhawk"-------tsk, tsk.
I noticed you didn't respond to the "predator drone" section of my previous thread-----obviously, you know I'm right-----
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 12:35:22 PM
Do you want a witness a "spectacle" like that " ?!
Or, worse yet, numerous U.S. pilots killed in action. Don't think that will happen?! Guess again. Longer this goes on, those scenarios will become inevitable. Obviously you don't know your history. This "ill defined Libya foray" is not worth ONE American life.
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 12:35:22 PM
Quote :
Overall, coalition fixed-wing aircraft flew 15,825 strike sorties during the war.21 Only the one A-10 was lost to enemy action for a minuscule loss rate of .0063 percent, continuing a trend of ever-fewer aircraft lost per combat sortie that reaches back to World War II. Many reasons account for this trend: better-built aircraft; better tactics; better support equipment, such as electronic jamming pods and decoy flares; better crew training; and a well-established ability to seize air superiority by quickly destroying any significant aerial resistance.
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/spr05/whitcomb.html
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 1:12:00 PM
and then we will see if you still consider it "collateral damage."
But I do agree with you that you are on the right on this issue.
marikod " Saddam had been killing the Kurds and other civilians for years and we did nothing.
Just too different to compare."
Part of the congressional hearings on Iraq ,broadcast daily on radio, were devoted to Saddam Husseins ruthless killings of innocent civilians, as well as rape and torture rooms hosted by his sons.
Many people believed Hussein had to go, regardless of WMDs.
If my memory serves me correctly, Hussein wiped out a hundred or two, innocents from a town where a few failed assassins resided.
The comparitive description I hope doesn't bear fruit.
QUAGMIRE
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 2:22:19 PM
imperialist running dogs of capitalism thought he was. If Obama keeps going at this pace he might have to restart the draft. The right wing capitalist politicians wont object either because they love defense spending.
What Gadaffi is doing to his people attacking from the air, tanks, etc. is not happening in Baharain, Yemen. Darfur is gone case at the moment since civil war is been going on for over a decade. Different situation entirely.
Criticize and question all you want and anyone you wish but, heavens sake use some logic instead absurd logic to prove whatever you are trying to prove.
The world has some humanitarian responsibility and should not stand around when mad man slaughters people to stay in power.
I voted him for BHO also, and I like the way the administration used diplomacy and took back seat role instead of going there guns blazing.
was trying to thaw cold war relations with the USSR ( I actually thought RR was merely an idiot, but that's neither here nor there )
Seems like "useful idiot" could also apply to BHO;for those of us who voted for him for his stance against entering Iraq war, his foolish foray into Libya is a bitter pill indeed.
For over 45 years, U.S military intervention in foreign countries has been a disaster. Yet BHO rushes into to prevent "humanitarian disaster" from a despot. But, why Libya & not Baharain, Yemen or Darfur ? Who is "pulling" BHO's strings ? Oil companies ? The Arab League ? Council on Foreign relations ? ( Jesus, I'm starting to sound like Mein )
U.S. miltary interventions in Iraq & Afghanistan have turned out to be tragic wastes of $ & lives; if left unchecked, Libya could turn into same "sinkhole". If BHO wants to salvage his presidency ( which he could still do ),then best to get out of Iraq Afghanistan & Libya post haste. If not, he'll be entering "Hall of shame" with GWB.
I will now refer to GWB & BHO as "pliable presidents". POTUS's are supposed to be made of "sterner stuff", but, more likey composed of material found below :
-- Modified on 3/22/2011 7:57:20 AM
It seems to me that for the most part the people on this forum lean a bit to the right.
You know...those guys who in other words say "every man for themselves", or is it buisness??
But when it comes time to let other people do just that we step in and give them a hand kicking someone's ass.
Just doing the right thing I guess.
Maybe they work for the defense industry?
-- Modified on 3/24/2011 8:31:19 AM