Hillary

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Never said such a thing....

-spence

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No? What's this, then? From 05/11, at 3:01 PM...

"I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

Are yuo feeling all right today?

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're taking that statement out of context. I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya is because of our relationship with the new government...not that this prohibited the movement of any troops after the attack.

-spence

"I said the reason we don't have a large garrison of troops in Libya..."

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.

When the Allies stormed Normandy Beach in June 1944, you could call it an i'nvasion', but not in the sense that I gather you mean... i'm confident that you are likening Bush to Gengis Kahn. The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is that what you said? I don't think so. Here is an exact quote of what you said...

""I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please. The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader."

I didn't take anything out of context. When you posted this, we were not talking about why there isn't a large garrison of troops in Libya. What we were discussing, is why we didn't send in the cavalry to save the folks in Benghazi. That was the context in which you made that post. So do me a favor, please don't claim I took something out of context, when what actually occurred is that you posted something that wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

Well, about the only thing you got right was my quote. You keep referring to my insistence that the Libyan government blocked the movement of US troops to respond to the attack.

The Libyan government actually offered to fly the 4 special ops to Benghazi on one of their own planes, though it wouldn't have taken off until after everything was over.

I'm not sure if you've just made up so much crap you can't remember your own bull#^&#^&#^&#^& or if your effort to understand the situation is just that shallow.

The question being discussed was "why didn't we send in the cavalry to help the folks in Benghazi". It certainly appears that your answer to that question (one of your dozen answers to that question, by the way) was that the Libyans didn't want troops in their borders. And there is no support for that statement you made.

Jim, there was no cavalry to send in because neither the US nor Libya wanted a strong military posture in country. This isn't rocket science.

Another note for you...you said we are a partner with Libya rather than an "invader". Please be careful of your tone with the use of the word "invader", because it obviously implies an immoral motivation.

The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded.

in·va·sion: Noun

entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.

There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country.

Spence, you need to turn off MSNBC, and talk to folks who have served, or talk to ordinary folks who live in the places where we have a large presence. We don't "invade" these places like Vikings for Christ's sakes...we liberate.

Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings. I didn't think you were going to catch that one.

The vast majority of citizens in Iraq see him, and us, in a very benevolent light. For some reason, the places where you get your news, refuse to report on that, but rather, portray us as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqi's thankful that Saddam is gone...but you combined "vast majority" with "benevolent?"

Directly after the invasion, polling suggested that a slight majority supported the US invasion.[9] The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US presence and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war and that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction.[10] Other polls conducted between 2005 and 2007 showed 31–37% of Iraqi's wanted US and other Coalition forces to withdraw once security was restored and that 26–35% wanted immediate withdrawal instead.[11][12][13] Another poll conducted on September 27, 2006, found that seven out of ten Iraqis want US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq within one year. Overall, 78% of those polled said they believed that the presence of US forces is "provoking more conflict than it's preventing." 53% of those polled believed the Iraqi government would be strengthened if US forces left Iraq (versus 23% who believed it would be weakened), and 71% wanted this to happen in 1 year or less. All of these positions were more prevalent amongst Sunni and Shia respondents than among Kurds. 61% of respondents said that they approve of attacks on US-led forces, although 94% still had an unfavorable opinion of al-Qaeda.[14] Despite a majority having previously been opposed to the US presence, 60% of Iraqis opposed American troops leaving directly prior to withdrawal, with 51% saying withdrawal would have a negative effect.[15][16]
A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces was making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006.

Your implication is stupid and deeply offensive to people whose courage, moral character, and willingness to serve others, dwarfs yours.

Keep making things up.

-spence

[justplugit]

Seriously, if the Administration has nothing to hide, release all the unclassified
e-mails, have Rice testify as to who sent her out with the talking points and interview the wounded that were there in real time.
The e mails have already shown the State Dept made the majority of the CIA
report changes and Carney lied that there was only 1 change made when there
were 12 changes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Seriously, if the Administration has nothing to hide, release all the unclassified
e-mails, have Rice testify as to who sent her out with the talking points and interview the wounded that were there in real time.
The e mails have already shown the State Dept made the majority of the CIA
report changes and Carney lied that there was only 1 change made when there
were 12 changes.

You should really read the actual emails released. Interestingly enough they seem to pretty much back what Gen. Petraeus testified to before Congress...i.e. that the process wasn't politicized.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You should really read the actual emails released. Interestingly enough they seem to pretty much back what Gen. Petraeus testified to before Congress...i.e. that the process wasn't politicized.

-spence

Which dated e mail was that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, about the only thing you got right was my quote. You keep referring to my insistence that the Libyan government blocked the movement of US troops to respond to the attack.

The Libyan government actually offered to fly the 4 special ops to Benghazi on one of their own planes, though it wouldn't have taken off until after everything was over.

I'm not sure if you've just made up so much crap you can't remember your own bull#^&#^&#^&#^& or if your effort to understand the situation is just that shallow.


Jim, there was no cavalry to send in because neither the US nor Libya wanted a strong military posture in country. This isn't rocket science.


The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded.



There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country.


Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings. I didn't think you were going to catch that one.



Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqi's thankful that Saddam is gone...but you combined "vast majority" with "benevolent?"




Keep making things up.

-spence

"The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded."

I agree. And in any rational perspective, we helped the people in Iraq, we did not conquer them. Spence, is Saddam not gone? Did the US military confiscate the oil fields? Did we rape all the women, and murder all the men?

"There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country."

And we didn't routinely do anything to cross that line. They have free elections, which we don't try to influence.

"Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings"

Then tell me what you were doing. You said that Libyans want partners rather than invaders, obviously implying that invaders are not partnering with those they are invading. Where in our recent history have we invaded, where our intention was to conquer, rather than liberate? You tell me...I'm all ears.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then tell me what you were doing. You said that Libyans want partners rather than invaders, obviously implying that invaders are not partnering with those they are invading. Where in our recent history have we invaded, where our intention was to conquer, rather than liberate? You tell me...I'm all ears.

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

Not to mention the common sense aspects. Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

It is obvious that "the Libyan people" are ideologically divided. Which perspective should we take, or should we take any or either perspective? How about the perspective of the American people? Do we, as a people, as a nation, have a perspective re the perspectives of the Libyan people? Do we The People have a say about our perspective? Are we even told all of the facts which would allow us to have a perspective? Or is our government acting with impunity, deciding what our perspective is or should be?

Not to mention the common sense aspects.

Let us not mention the common sense aspect of providing security for our people in a dangerous place, or at least a backup plan for emergency support/evacuation. I doubt that if our ambassador had known that he would become a martyr for the cause of being a partner with an unformed nation which wants our help, or doesn't, depending on which perspective we should take, and that his staff would also be martyrs, I doubt that he would take such an assignment. And if he was so deluded, such a mind should not be in charge of a mission where others could suffer the same fate. Nor should a government who would accede to the delusion that all was safe and no support was needed, be in charge of taking in mind the perceptions of Libyans or Americans, especially when it acts with the impunity of disregarding all perspectives but its own .

Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

Radicalization? From the Khadaffi perspective the government that took his place was radical. Liberation from one perspective to another is radical, depending on which perspective you take. I suppose any perspective that deviates from that of a government which acts with impunity would be considered radical by that government.

I don't think "we'd all agree" that US troop presence would make things more difficult for "the new leadership." If we were "partners" with that new leadership, and it reflected the perspective of the Libyan people, our troops could make it easier for it to succeed against opposing perspectives. If the perspectives, on the other hand, are not so clearly defined and delineated, how on earth could we be a partner and with whom? And if we partnered in order to suppress radicalization, isn't that choosing with impunity who to help? So, would nation building with military presence and aid, as in Iraq, be unacceptable and ineffective or more difficult than by partnering in some weak shadow presence that is totally at the mercy of conflicting perspectives?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

Not to mention the common sense aspects. Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

"You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people."

And from where does your keen insight into the feelings of the Libyan people come from?

"I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further "

Who would agree with that? Not me. Again, you're inventing stuff to suit your agenda. You're saying that a heavy presence of US troops will only fuel the fire, not put out the flame? If that's true ( and it's not), please explain why the Iraq Surge was such an overwhelming success? One of us was there, one was not.

Spence, if a spot becomes volatile, the very best thing you can do to preserve the peace, is to have Marines everywhere. Despite what you believe, our presence keeps out the rif-raf,it does not embolden them.