How long will let Obama lie to you? Now war in Libya

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Alias3000, Mar 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182
    I know I know...we had to help...yada yada...

    when will people wake up realize this guy is the Black George Bush?
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    the interesting thing to pay attention to right now is china. africa was ultimately supposed to become theirs to own. forces are starting to consolidate into groups. change is coming...
    test
  3. DethStryque

    DethStryque DethStryque theInvincible

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,082
    I am very much of the opposite opinion.

    If I understand the data aright,what China was attempting to do was strategically acquire both the mineral wealth of Africa and open up specific select markets in Africa without being bogged down in internal African politics. I am not aware as to how successful or unsuccessful they have been in that venture.I do know,however,that the USA and the West are closely scrutinizing China's efforts and methods and will NOT let China make major inroads into Africa because Africa still remains the world's most minerally diverse continent and is amazingly important in many ways.
    test
  4. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah its a huge part of the future for china as a superpower. basically whats happening right now though is the west (france, england, usa) are going into Libya, setting up control, and splitting up the resources.

    so im wondering if this is pre-emptive a move against china, ultimately.
    test
  5. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,155
    you could very well be right.
    test
  6. KRich662

    KRich662 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,043
    Different than the Iraq war. The people of Libya were asking for our help, in Iraq, we just decided to bomb them, and then go help them rebuild.

    Different situation.
    test
  7. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i have to give you credit... you made that post predicting another war on the middle eastern front and a week or two later here we are... but i'm not so sure this has anything to do with china. china is pretty powerful and all, and people are wondering when exactly (or if) that power paradigm is going to shift. personally i dont think it can happen yet (if ever) because the two countries depend too heavily on eachother. it seems like it would be madness to go to war with china anytime in the near future, even though our military budget dwarfs theirs

    i've heard the common answer is that this war is for oil but that doesn't actually make all that much sense since to me the best thing for oil prices prolly would've been a quick and brutal slaughter of the opposition

    so what exactly is this all about? posturing? hegemony? world peace......?
    test
  8. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    it's a different situation from iraq, just like iraq was a different situation from vietnam yet comparisons were made. its a little early in the game for that now, but one striking similarity to bush's invasion is that obama also didn't get approval from congress. as far as i understand this is essentially a criminal war from u.s. standards. and the one thing he did have that bush didn't was hindsight. he saw what trouble we were in but decided it was up to him to start another war? maybe he thinks this will be an easy victory and earn him some brownie points in the upcoming election.

    and for the record i dont care if some libyans requested our help. we shouldn't be getting involved in other countries civil wars.
    test
  9. DethStryque

    DethStryque DethStryque theInvincible

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,082
    As is oftentimes the case,the U.S.A.'s involvment overseas has multitiered benefits risks and drawbacks,and definitely has a specific benefit for the USA. Remember also and always that President Obama is privy to many many pieces of intelligence of the highest level of sensitivity that is never ever available to the American public or the knowitall media.With that in mind,there are still some benefits that we can extrapolate right off top that are likely major issues in President Obama's decision:

    1) THE MIDDLE EAST. For some reason some of the masses of the rest don't think that the Oil Sheiks aren't aware that oil is finite and they want to use the power and profit from oil to extend into a hegemony over other energy sources or at least be independent of the West when these Oil Sheiks lose their undisputed hegemony over world energy.Libya is not only strategically located in Africa,has ties to the Sheiks via Islam,has been involved to some degree in the conflict with Israel,it also has a storied past in the Motherland and significant resources that can be exploited and developed similar to what China has done but using means acceptable to the USA without mandating U.S. troops on the ground or massive drainage on the U.S.'s economy...if the U.S.A. changes her mind? The notoriety of Kadhaffi is such that pretty much whatever blow struck or action taken by the U.S.A. will be looked upon favorably by the international community and will send the message crystal clear to the rest of the world that America will really go to parts previously shunned to protect her economic security.In one shot? The U.S.A gets to get to line up Arabic support,check Arabs thinkin crazy,explore the option of accessing Africa's massive resources,rally the international community behind her,tell China in a way that doesn't cause her to lose face:"Hey,the U.S.A. is STILL da big dawg on Earth and we can do what you do but better",President Obama gets to punch political opposition and rightwing nutjob critics of his international diplomacy and aggressive stance on American security in their noses,send a message that reverberates throughout Africa like:"Aight don't act an ass,or you're next.That means you,Sudan,Kenya,South Africa,Ivory Coast,Nigeria,and anywhere else we want cuz all of yall got resources that we could really use to strengthen ourselves economically."

    and

    2) This is nothing like Bush or his policies.Bush would cowboy this whole operation,regardless and irrespective of the opinion and position of the international community.The U.S.A. has scrupulously observed international law,so President Obama actually HASN'T violated international law and his actions are squarely within the scope and power of the President.If for any reason he was not actually in scrupulous observance of law,be assured that the racist rightwing superelitist Republicans would scream this to high heavens and maybe even initiate impeachment proceedings to damage him as much as possible for 2012 because the Republican chumps have nobody of substance or with the requisite I.Q. political clout charisma etc. who can beat President Obama.So our President is in full cooperation with both U.S.A. and international law.What you guys REALLY mean is that you don't like his decision in this regard visavis another war.Well,his speech very clearly allays most of those fears.

    YouTube - President Obama's Speech on Libya
    test
  10. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    test
  11. DethStryque

    DethStryque DethStryque theInvincible

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,082
    Again,if he overstepped his authority? The extremists who control the House--especially the Tea Partyers--would be moving Heaven and Hell to impeach him.At the very least? They'd be screaming about the "imperial presidency" and making all manner of senseless accusations vs President Obama in the name of the American people.They'd be shrieking and organizing.Their silence is DEAFENING in this regard and undercuts,frankly,the validity of most other arguments about legality and constitutionality.

    Now I'm going to read/watch the info from that link you posted...

    ...read the link.It stated precisely what I expected,which is that the paranoid calls and fears about the U.N. dictating to the U.S.A. is as usual completely without substance or validity.The U.S.A. is still the dominant power in the Security Council,and the Security Council by and large dictates to the U.N. The actions of President Obama are wholly legal and within the right of the Presidency.Off top,just guessing without even doing research but drawing upon Presidential precedence,I'd say that President Obama could issue an Executive Order for the very limited scope of combat we're seeing in Libya and poof! It's legal and gives the Deth Stryque to all that other nonsense.
    test
  12. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    thats not all it said, it also said that the only circumstance that the president has authorization to provide armed forces to the security council without authorization by congress is if its for some sort of peaceful deployment.

    the fact is that a lot of congress actually supports action in libya they're just insulted that they weren't pandered to first.

    Strassel: Obama, Libya and Congress - WSJ.com

    but people are complaining. and it is basically side stepping the laws that are set up for going to war. he doesn't actually have authority to meddle in foreign civil wars without congressional authorization. the war powers resolution act gives the president a limited exception in issuing troops without getting congressional authorization and it is in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." in that case the president has 60-90 days to get the appropriate approval from congress.
    War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i just don't get it. we're in debt, we need to be fucking around in civil wars? and what do you think might happen when there is a power vacuum and the government is collapsed. are we gonna set up a democratic government of the people or is the country going to split on ethnic lines like in iraq. rebels have already targeted black immigrants suspected of being 'african mercenaries.'

    i'll admit i have some hope that this wont be anything like iraq because in this case the people seem to support us and so maybe we will get some cooperation and benefit in the long term. but i think these kind of policies are wrong in general, and we need to thoroughly stamp out the precedents that are being set. the president is being turned into the new emperor.
    test
  13. KRich662

    KRich662 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,043
    Obama doesn't need permission from congress. Congress passed an act that allows the presidents to deploy American troops for 60 days without a declaration of war
    test
  14. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    read the wikipedia link above.

    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

    what this says is that the president must get permission from congress for deployments to war except in the circumstance that we're attacked somehow. then those forces could remain in those wars oversees for 60-90 days to get the proper approval.
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think its about ideology, ultimately.

    the west can be described as a small group of elite men representing a small group of elite nations who have been attempting to set up a very large system of unequal exchange.

    unequal exchange can be described as a means of obtaining cheap resources and cheap labor by establishing top countries on one pole and bottom countries on the other

    through this the top can obtain cheap resources and labor from the bottom. the bottom enables the top, essentially.

    this has been also called: free trade

    this allows the greatest possible wealth for the small group of nations that make up the top pole and the the small group of elite men that represent them.

    but to perpetuate this system there must always be countries on the bottom. much of the world falls into that category.

    the west represents the ideology of globalist imperialism: where a system of unequal exchange is created and enforced through world-wide military might.

    china (and other nations too) i believe ultimately want to become autonomous and to seperate from this system that keeps them stagnantly beneath the west as enablers. i believe they want to become autonomous and supplant the west as the prominent resource consumers. i think that expanding out into the continent of africa represents this desire and also the creation of trade partnerships like BRICS (brazil, russia, india, china) as a way to create productivity without having to depend on the west

    essentially, globalist imperialists vs nationalistic soverigntists

    a conflict of ideology, i think
    test
  16. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,182
    And Barry Obama says this is a temporary move, but watch him keep us there for the next 5 years minumum.
    test
  17. DethStryque

    DethStryque DethStryque theInvincible

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,082
    ^^^^This is essentially EXACTLY what it boils down to,despite the more sincere people with the more fairminded vision (like Obama) on one side and the more hawklike rapacious imperialist oftentimes elite and racist mindsets (like Bush and Reagan) and the overwhelming masses of people in-between (like Clinton Carter and Johnson) etc.
    test
  18. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    ^essentially i agree with you guys about the west. but what makes us so sure china and the bric countries don't simply want to be the next top powers? who most definitely do seem to embrace globalism and are also ruled by a small group of elite men that have a terrible history with handling the poor.
    test
  19. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Barack Obama 2007
    test
  20. Froggie Fresh

    Froggie Fresh THe Elite of Times!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    356
    In the last four years I know a lot of people have woke up to the incompetence and corruption within our government but it's still a very large percentage that either don't care or don't believe that Obama's job is to destroy this country

    it's still a large percentage of people that turns a blind eye to our 14 trillion dollar debt and the fact that every other country is dropping the dollar as their national currency...people are ignoring the fact that we're practically fighting 3 wars...that the government has used the crisis in Japan to outlaw the production of Nuclear reactors in the U.S...they used the BP oil spill to outlaw drilling in the U.S, further crippling this Nation to have to depend on foreign products which will catapult us deeper and deeper into debt...

    it's still a large amount of people that don't know the real meaning of the American constitution...We still have the power to impeach and get rid of every corrupted politician we have leading our country into turmoil...we still have the power to take back our country...

    but who's gonna listen???

    people are more interested in the color of Chris Brown's hair than they are about politics and the well being of themselves and their kid's future!

    that's why I prepare myself everyday like it's my last...because I know niggas is stupid!
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)