Libya

[christo-f]

the constitution has been the biggest failure in limiting government i can think of. i think christo is right in this regard. it is fantasy to think that a piece of paper can limit the power of the government. but i do think if it WAS possible, society would be better off.

 

Good chance you'd be correct on that, I'd say.

[abcs]

ok it sucks. France and England gets their oil from Libya. We need to back them up because they

back us up. Why couldnt Barry just come out sayin that? "America we need to back up England and France because they are our allies and they need this." I wouldnt even be mad... would take it with a grain of salt because i realize we drag them into pretty much every fool armed conflict that comes along that has nothing to do with them. Instead... Obama came out talking about how we are bound by whats right and pretty much committing America to upholding some moral modicum for the foreseeable future. Color me a sociopath but i dont really care 1 way or the other about the civil rights of Libyans, Afghanis, or Iraqis. Syrians or any of them for that matter. 1 way or the other I do place merit in looking out for friends and allies. Not people umad at their govt.

[Zig]

and the supreme court is probably the most guilty in this whole scam because they some how unconstitutionally took over the monopoly of interpreting the document.

 

that's a good fucking point. but if the constitution is a failure at limiting government, it was at least the most notable attempt and outline as a basis for the basic universal rights of free humanity ever written. i also see people calling the constitution outdated, or insinuating that it is old and out of touch with present times. i disagree with that, because if you think about it the idea of freedom and liberty is actually very young. what is old and outdated is tyranny, feudalism, serfdom, slavery, etc. which has been the norm for humanity since the beginning of civilization.

 

i don't mean to hijack this thread, but i think it is relevant... so i'll ask if you can please briefly explain to me how the supreme court did take a monopoly over interpreting the constitution. it seems to me that whenever president's or authority knowingly exhibit what we would deem unconstitutional there is always some interpretation put out that justifies that action as within the context of constitutional law which is very interesting to me.

[lord_casek]

CIA analyst owns CNN anchor bitches

[angelofdeath]

that's a good fucking point. but if the constitution is a failure at limiting government, it was at least the most notable attempt and outline as a basis for the basic universal rights of free humanity ever written.

 

indeed.

there are two arguments one can make on this.

i sympathize with them both. i become more anti federalist every day.

 

the first argument is the constitution has always had faults, but as written it is a very decent document. and further, it is the supreme law of the land. if there was a way to 'return' to the document as written we would be much freer. any attempt to establish real liberty in this country again would also most have to start with a return to constitutional type government of some sort.

 

the second argument which i give more credibility to as the days go by is that the constitution was a coup d'tat. it was specifically designed by the big government types to be elastic and give us big government over time. the 4 key clauses (commerce,, general welfare, necessary and proper, supremacy) are the main bed rock of the expansive government school.

 

but all this aside, the constitution is the supreme law of the land and in so much as it does defend liberty, it should be defended. i think christo's view that the constitution does not restrain government, etc is 100% valid. i think it is an abysmal failure. where we diverge is he is statist to the core and i want a free society. i do not believe that since the world tramples on liberty, that this means it cannot or does not exist and that humans are not born with inalienable rights.

 

i don't mean to hijack this thread, but i think it is relevant... so i'll ask if you can please briefly explain to me how the supreme court did take a monopoly over interpreting the constitution. it seems to me that whenever president's or authority knowingly exhibit what we would deem unconstitutional there is always some interpretation put out that justifies that action as within the context of constitutional law which is very interesting to me.

 

judicial review goes back to common law. but in america, judicial review was indeed one of the first acts of 'judicial activism' after ratification of the constitution. now, what im about to say doesnt mean im 100% opposed to judicial review in theory, but i am saying its unconstitutional. marbury vs madison established the precedent for the supreme court to have a monopoly over interpretation of the constitution and essentially being the final sole arbiter in what is 'constitutional.' when this ruling came down, jefferson and the anti federalist camp believed this would put americans under the jurisdiction of despotism, i.e. unelected oligarchy. there is no provision in the constitution that gives the supreme court the ability to nullify acts put forth by the other branches of government. so its pretty hypocritical on its face. the court has power to nullify laws that it deems unconstitutional, yet this power appears no where in the constitution.

 

the more anti federalist/'small r' republican view was that no branch exercised more authority over the other. and they went further to say that the people acting their their state legislatures also held authority to nullify unconstitutional federal laws within their states jurisdictions.

 

put another way... how in the world can a party of a contract be the sole arbiter of what is constitutional? its like if my family and caseks family had a dispute, and i say..'well, we'll take this issue up with my mother and have her decide the outcome.' do we think that someone tied to one party of the contract is not going to be biased to one side? it is no coincidence that between 1937 and 1995 the supreme's didnt strike down ANY laws. so it is no surprise the supreme court consistently rules in favor of whatever government wants to do and against the constitution. govt grows and liberty shrinks. this is the natural course of things.

 

and applying this topic to obama and libya... he said in congress when he was supposedly 'anti war' that the president doesnt have authority to go to war unless we are under immediate threat of attack and he must only act in defense. now the supposedly anti war left is lining up in droves behind obama. i gotta give it to the kucinich camp... the guy is consistent. only congress has the power to declare war. all of the anti war left should be calling for impeachment of obama just like kucinich is. they should all be marching calling for throwing obama in jail just like the used to when bush was in office (and rightfully so) this shows me that the left is just as non principled as the right. both parties want power and they want to be the ones trashing the constitution and engaging in undeclared wars, etc. i used to think the left was a decent 'brother in arms' so to speak in defense of civil liberties and being against foreign adventurism (except for the 'humanitarian' nonsense). where did obama suddenly get authority to carpet bomb foreign countries that posed no threat to the US? well...uh..... bush did it! uhhhh, clinton did it! first bush did it! reagan did it! johnson and nixon did it! truman did it! so because these tyrants did it... it must not suddenly be ok.

[angelofdeath]

CIA analyst owns CNN anchor bitches

 

scheuer is the man (even though still a spook at heart)

[lord_casek]

scheuer is the man (even though still a spook at heart)

 

 

He did an awesome job at pissing off that one anchor. Did you see her defensive stance at the end? Arms all crossed...haha!

[angelofdeath]

"teh US'z is not teh bankrupt$*&%!"

[christo-f]

scheuer is the man (even though still a spook at heart)

 

and spooks are bad by default?

 

Casper was friendly and Geena Davis was pretty hot in Beetlejuice.

 

 

 

From what I'm aware these kinds of people are usually against big government and the US and their respective countries involving themselves in strategic adventure.

[angelofdeath]

and spooks are bad by default?

 

From what I'm aware these kinds of people are usually against big government and the US and their respective countries involving themselves in strategic adventure.

 

if this were true, then they would all resign...:D

 

i think people like scheuer, tony shaffer, etc are more or less in the minority. if they were against foreign adventurism, then why on earth is it there job to do it?

[christo-f]

I'm not sure you understand the core role of the covert foreign services and analysts. It is to collect information, analyse it and advise the leadership and appointed bureaucrats. Espionage is not the core mission of intelligence agencies.

 

If you've seen the movie Syriana I would direct you to the scene where Clooney is trying to convince the NSA woman (who incidentally seemed to look like Condi Rice) and an ideological/business org that their sentiments of Iran were incorrect and overly optimistic. That movie had a few ex-spooks on set advising and from what I've read is how things often play out.

 

Collecting a govt paycheck does not make you part of what is wrong. In a world of long-range weapons, great power projection capabilities, trans-national terrorism, international markets, high technology, etc. etc., you need to be informed, regardless of your foreign policy. That will never change and all common sense says that it shouldn't.

[angelofdeath]

im not saying there arent some decent people in there, or that shouldnt be any intelligence gathering...nor am i saying spy craft is their 'core mission.' these covert espionage acts overwhelm and blacken the name of what is good out of any of these agencies. what im saying is that these covert agencies have and are used to meddle in other nations affairs, rig elections, assassinations, operate predator drones and are one of the main forces behind an aggressive foreign policy in general. NSA would not be reading emails, bank records, or listening to phone calls without warrants if they were believers in small government. they wouldnt be torturing or throwing people in soviet gulags, the list goes on and on.

 

i think lots of these hollywood movies tend to take exceptions and make them the rule. since these people are firm believers in government in general, they tend to always show someone in the government as being the good guy. if these 'good' people comprised most of the US government for instance, we would not be an empire, we'd be a republic.

[christo-f]

ok it sucks. France and England gets their oil from Libya. We need to back them up because they

back us up. Why couldnt Barry just come out sayin that? "America we need to back up England and France because they are our allies and they need this." I wouldnt even be mad... would take it with a grain of salt because i realize we drag them into pretty much every fool armed conflict that comes along that has nothing to do with them. Instead... Obama came out talking about how we are bound by whats right and pretty much committing America to upholding some moral modicum for the foreseeable future. Color me a sociopath but i dont really care 1 way or the other about the civil rights of Libyans, Afghanis, or Iraqis. Syrians or any of them for that matter. 1 way or the other I do place merit in looking out for friends and allies. Not people umad at their govt.

 

Actually France and especially the UK get very little of their energy from Libya.

 

 

 

This is a more informative set of pics and info:

 

 

 

 

 

As for why Barry isn't more honest, in a way that both you and I would appreciate is because the US is essentially an ideologically/theologically based culture and I don't think the cold realities of foreign policy would go over well with most of the electorate. Plus, to understand why the US should have Western Europe's back you have to have a basic grasp of history, geopol and technology. Most people don't have that.

[lord_casek]

I saw a video the other day of a spook teaching the rebels how to use rocket launchers.

Pretty funny. There he was, black mask, black overalls, white face, sunglasses...

[christo-f]

Ha, yeah I read they were training them at a 'secret facility' in Libya.

 

I figured that 'secret facility' could otherwise be termed as 'an uninhabited part of the desert'.

 

Good chance the trainer was actually military rather than intelligence.

[lord_casek]

Ha, yeah I read they were training them at a 'secret facility' in Libya.

 

I figured that 'secret facility' could otherwise be termed as 'an uninhabited part of the desert'.

 

Good chance the trainer was actually military rather than intelligence.

 

 

Perhaps. he didn't want his face seen, though.

 

Upped that analyst video for you. Watch it with VLC player. http://www.videolan.org

http://www.mediafire.com/?6loqdt449rnpybp

[christo-f]

SF are the same as int. on that account, especially when in country considering and E&E could be on the cards for them at any given moment.

 

Cheers, will watch later.

[Zig]

thanks for that explanation aod very interesting

[cunt sauce]

These guys got connectssss

 

LIBYA

 

TUNISIA

 

SAUDI ARABIA

 

YEMEN

 

JORDAN

[Ages831]

its the u.s what do you expect we are our own worst enemy

[toluene_causes_tumors]

april 7th 2011

WSJ

 

ABU DHABI (Zawya Dow Jones)--The U.S. backs the sale of oil by Libya's rebels and supports Libya's Transitional National Council in exporting oil, energy secretary Steven Chu said Thursday.

 

"The United States is supportive of that sale and supportive of the transitional government for that sale," Chu said at a press conference at a clean energy event in Abu Dhabi.

 

An oil tanker departed the northeastern port of Marsa al-Hariga in Libya on Wednesday carrying one million barrels of oil, marking the first sale of oil by Libya's rebel government since an uprising against Col. Moammar Gadhafi began on Feb. 17.

 

Libya's transitional government has been formally recognized by France, Italy, and Qatar. Members of the rebel government met with U.S. envoy Chris Stevens on Wednesday in talks meant to give the U.S. a better sense of the opposition leadership.

 

-By Nour Malas and Wayne Ma, Dow Jones Newswires; +971502890223, nour.malas@dowjones.com

 

Copyright © 2011 Dow Jones & Co.

[toluene_causes_tumors]

"clean energy event"

lol

[!@#$%]

^yeah. clean coal, green oil.

 

:rolleyes:

[!@#$%]

rest in peace tim hetherington

 

 

Tim Hetherington, the esteemed photojournalist and an Oscar nominee for a gritty and harrowing documentary about the Afghan war, has been killed in the war-torn Libyan city of Misrata, according to the president of the agency that represented him.

 

Another journalist was seriously wounded but his or her identity was not disclosed. Panos Pictures, which employed Hetherington, confirmed that the photographer's family had been notified.

"We're still trying to figure out front lines or house (referring to where he was when killed)," said CSPR agency president Cathy Saypol. "The only thing we know is that he was hit by an RPG with the other guys."

 

His last Twitter entry appears to have been made on Tuesday: "In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO."

 

A British native, Hetherington was nominated for "Restrepo," a documentary film he co-directed with journalist Sebastian Junger that received an Academy Award nomination this year.

Hetherington spent eight years in West Africa and has reported on social and political issues worldwide, most notably the Liberian conflict.

[the.crooked]

I read about that. Rugged. And best of luck to the others wounded.

[!@#$%]

ahh, war #4

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T2

 

(CNN) -- NATO jets pounded Libyan ports overnight, destroying eight of Moammar Gadhafi's warships, an alliance spokesman said Friday.

 

NATO targeted the ships in Tripoli, Al-Khums and Sirte after it was apparent that Gadhafi's forces were increasingly using naval vessels to launch attacks on civilians, said Mike Bracken, NATO's military spokesman. He said Gadhafi was indiscriminately mining waters in Misrata and hampering the flow of humanitarian aid.

 

"He was using maritime forces to lay mines. These were legal targets," Bracken said at a briefing in Brussels, Belgium.

 

Bracken did not say whether crew members were aboard when the ships were hit.

 

Bracken said the NATO campaign was progressing and that Gadhafi's combat power had been severely curtailed.

 

 

 

 

 

he has totally dug in.

i saw a crater blasted by a bomb, it was obvious there was a bunker down there, just a few feet away they'd installed a children's playground, complete with a merry-go-round.

twisted shit.

[RIPS]

so more than two months later... new somalia/afghanistan?...

[!@#$%]

hmm, hopefully not.

afghanistan, aka The Graveyard of Empires has geographic strategic importance and i don't think Libya could eve gain that kind of historical significance.

 

however with somalia, yes there could be an unfortunate parallel.. a country divided, progressive and peaceful in one area, dangerous and backward in another.. hotbed of extremism, total lack of true legitimate governing authority.. wartorn. it's a valid comparison i think but still too early too call.

 

africa is in a sad state.

[Inappropriate_Responder]

 

is'he is'he dead?

[christo-f]

Pretty serious chance her's dead.

 

I'm seeing lots of footage that looks very much like him. I wouldn't be overly confident though as it's a combat zone and body doubles are harder to pick in the heat of the moment.

 

That pic above is strange, though. Shirt is the wrong colour and too clean.