Obama Says NO To Syrian Democracy

Submitted by: 5cats 6 years ago in
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/14/syrian-protesters-get-muted-response-from-us/

20 protesters per DAY killed, but Obama still silent on Syrian struggles. Not enough oil there? What do you say, I-A-B?
There are 158 comments:
Male 2,893
Yet another example on how he`s a complete f*cking moron.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Oh, and thanks for being interested in statistics. It shows the caliber of your intellectual ability.[/quote]

Well thanks, but I got a feeling after this talk Crakr`s gonna come along and blow smoke up my ass regarding credibility. Then again he`ll probably just get weary of this and just move along to the next hot button topic.

hehe
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Oh, and thanks for being interested in statistics. It shows the caliber of your intellectual ability.

*tips hat*
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Cajun - agreed.

I think the war isn`t about oil due to my calculations, but like you state, there is too little information.

However, there is enough data to make the statement that the Iraq war was not due to need for oil, because there was no difference in Clinton and Bush`s imports in oil, refined products, or petrol products from Iraq to the US (p > 0.05).
0
Reply
Male 5,620
For future reference.. you need to compare things that are similar.. like presidential terms.. but that isn`t truly fair either, because you have to account for time.. inflation, demand, cost, etc.

Your groups also need to be similar in size.

link concerning sample size and how it alters results
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@elkingo

Then can we at least conclude that to say this war in Libya is about oil would be a premature assertion right now as there is a tremendous lack of data.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
*more... typo not "mote" haha.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
also.. there is too many confounding factors in that comparison.. 2003 to 2011 is just too large of a difference.

It would be like measuring what a 5 year old kid eats daily in 2003 to what he eats at age 13 in 2011.. OBVIOUSLY it is going to be a lot more. A whole hell of a lot mote.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Wait... "I found 912 samples of gas prices between 3/25/2003 - 12/29/2008. Starts out at 2USD per gallon and ends at the same price but not before gradually rising to and peaking at $4.50 very late in Bush`s term.

I found 8 samples of gas prices between 2/21/2011 - 4/13/2011. Starting out at 3.34 USD and ending at 4.1. "

Did you compare 8 samples to 912 samples?

lmao... *face palm*

You can`t do that.. it won`t give you a legitimate t-test


You have to compare it to equalish groups... You can`t compare that large of a difference. It just won`t give you valid results.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"The t value was 5.98"

what was the df though?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Click the "actual prices" link at the bottom of this page to see the data I used.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The t value was 5.98
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]You have to use them all for it to be valid. Not just 8.[/quote]

What do you mean? I could only find 8 data points for that time period. That IS all of them. If that`s not enough data points then Crakr is making a premature assertion based on gas prices.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"I found 8 samples of gas prices between "

You have to use them all for it to be valid. Not just 8.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
(continued)

for it to be valid. Also the p value must be below 0.05 for it to be a statistical difference.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Cajun -- you have to do a near equal sample, and something is off if your statistics have a crazy value like "p = 1e-4."

Reporting JUST the p-value doesn`t tell anything either. You have to report the entire thing.

My t-test had a degree of freedom of (9) because I used a max of 8 in one group, and you add 1 for the stats to come out right.. 8 + 1 = 9.. that just tells the degree of freedom. That means in the final calculation that is how many samples that are free to vary. If more than that varies.. for example if I had a statistic like you are reporting... where p = something so low it requires exponent... or if for example say I got the stat: t(9) = 11.. that means the comparision isn`t possible. If you are running t-tests it is important to note the degrees of freedom (df) the actual t statistic, and the p value.

for example: t(df) = t stat, p < 0.05 --> t(9) = 0.161, p > 0.05

The t statsistic has to be between 0 and 9 f
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Gulf War has a mean gas price of $2.44 with a standard deviation of 73 cents.
Libyan Uprising has a mean gas price of $3.85 with a standard deviation of 26 cents.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Let`s take a look at the statistics:
Same with elkingo`s critique I will use an unpaired two-tailed t-test.

I found 912 samples of gas prices between 3/25/2003 - 12/29/2008. Starts out at 2USD per gallon and ends at the same price but not before gradually rising to and peaking at $4.50 very late in Bush`s term.

I found 8 samples of gas prices between 2/21/2011 - 4/13/2011. Starting out at 3.34 USD and ending at 4.1.

p = 1e-4

This says that there is a significance and further says gas prices changed more significantly from Bush`s involvement in Iraq than they did from Obama`s involvement in Libya. Then again it could be too early to tell.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Libya`s light sweet crude supply effects the whole global commodities market[/quote]

So does Canada`s and much more than Libya does.

[quote]Also, I can`t believe you don`t know the difference between chasing Gaddaffi`s planes and helicopters out of the sky and dropping bombs (some reportedly on civilians).[/quote]

Strawman argument. I know the difference. I also know there`s a big difference between bombing a country and invading them.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cajun: Once again, Libya`s light sweet crude supply effects the whole global commodities market, no matter who buys it the supply is now gone. That is why gas prices have risen to nearly $4 a gal here now.

Also, I can`t believe you don`t know the difference between chasing Gaddaffi`s planes and helicopters out of the sky and dropping bombs (some reportedly on civilians).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Enforcing a no-fly zone is not the same as dropping bombs. [/quote]

How did you come up with that conclusion?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]This war in Libya is about oil, much more so than Iraq[/quote]

<sarcasm>Oh yeah because we don`t refine Heavy Sour Crude and import ten times more oil from Iraq.</sarcasm>.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Lets stay out of this and Libya let the UN turn Libya into another mess they`re great at creating. That way we can throw that in the faces of all Europeans and tell them it`s a war for oil like they`ve been so quick to do for ages now not too different now are we??
0
Reply
Male 1,360
Is the Washington times a credible source?
Isn`t it owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon`s Unification Church?
0
Reply
Male 55
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH! This guy is such a liar. We can get involved in all these other countries` business when they don`t ask us but when they do, he turns a blind eye because he`s evil. IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!
0
Reply
Male 25,417
meh....
0
Reply
Male 93
I guess I missed the part where Mr Obama was suddenly anointed as overlord and granted unlimited powers to decide which regimes stand and which fall.

Perhaps I was away when the majority decided that we would have a global policeman, and that Mr Obama was the best man for the job.

This post is about as bone-headed as I’ve ever seen here. Somebody at I-A-B must be bored.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: Enforcing a no-fly zone is not the same as dropping bombs. But apparently you can`t distinguish that difference.

This war in Libya is about oil, much more so than Iraq. I`m fine with that, but Obama nor NATO has a plan for regime change and that is what needs to take place. Instead this will end up being a protracted mire, All because Obama has failed to step up to the plate and lead.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
By the way, when we say conservatives would criticize anything Obama did, we really, really mean it.

Newt Gingrich:

March 7th: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening"
“All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we`re intervening…. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes."

March 23: "I would not have intervened…. I would not have used American and European forces, bombing Arabs and that country"

Well... everyone flip flops a little... unfortunately for Newt, he doesn`t think so.

"You can’t flip-flop and be commander-in-chief.”
0
Reply
Male 4,546
5 Cats:

Here is your quote discussing the Iraq war: "#1 The UN authorised it"

"However, for a resolution to pass, a supermajority of 9 out of 15 votes are needed. Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war."

The UN did not support the Iraq war. Not at all.


Also, "It is time for the Syrian government to stop repressing its citizens and to listen to the voices of the Syrian people calling for meaningful political and economic reforms." is not "No" to democracy.

It is no, to immediate invasion. Which is good.

Later intervention would be good, but right now, nope. As for your "20 a day die in Syria", this is nothing compared to the >1000 death toll by the end of February and the many more since.

I`m happy dealing with Colonel "I will burn all of Libya" Gaddafi first.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Now I`ll have to tell you:

For monthly stats I could only go as far back as 1994.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]eight data points[/quote]

...per data set.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Wait a minute:

Your site uses an unpaired two-tailed analysis we`re only using eight data points. There`s a problem with sample size.
If you look at monthly data you get a VERY small p-value (try 5.9e-7).
0
Reply
Male 5,620
t(9) = 0.161, p > 0.05

If you dissect my t - statistic.. I only ran an analysis on 8 years (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 = Clinton & 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 = Bush which gives 9 degrees of freedom the section (9) beside my t). If you ran more than or less than me, you would get a different statistic. At any rate, the p value is greater than 0.05 so there is no significant difference.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
What that basically means, if the significance is 0.05 there is a 95% chance you are right. Which is what most statisticians accept as a normal (standard) margin of error. Anything more than 0.05 is considered not significantly different -- even if it is 0.051. Actually, most statisticians will not report significance on 0.049 levels. We are just not comfortable with that much chance for error.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
oops sorry

&#945;-level = alpha level
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Popular levels of significance are 10% (0.1), 5% (0.05), 1% (0.01) and 0.1% (0.001). If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than the &#945;-level, the null hypothesis is thus rejected."

wiki
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]none of these wars have anything to do with oil[/quote]

I`ll agree with you there since their production levels are (almost) on par.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
lmao

@Cajun.. it is only significantly different if the p value is less than 0.05.

But thanks though, you are helping the cause.
0
Reply
Male 63
This is the part of the movie where you two would look deep into each others eyes and passionately kiss.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Okay so this is only about Iraq:
Iraq did produce more oil under bush:

t = 1.9556
p = .0708

Actually are you sure you`re inputting these numbers correctly?

Exports:

t = 1.97
p = .0689
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I was showing data that shows how none of these wars have anything to do with oil. Yet, democrats accuse Bush of going to war for oil under the same statistical power of Obama.

Why are they not protesting Libya or Syria?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@ cajun, based on your link:

Iraq did not significantly export more oil through the years between 1993-2000 and the years of 2001-2008, t(9) = 0.161, p>0,05
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh wait a minute how are we talking about refined products?

We`re talking about crude oil.
Comparison of crude oil exports by country.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I loaded only data for Clinton: years 1993-2001
Bush, 2001 - 2008
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@ Cajun -- I posted two of those earlier. There is nothing significant about the data. It stays STATISTICALLY the same -- which is why I posted it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@elkingo

One more thing: Sorry I`m not a real statistics fanatic but run the numbers again: last I checked Clinton wasn`t in power between 1990-1993 (that was Bush Sr.).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@elkingo
Whoops sorry. Here`s a better infographic:




Now imports didn`t go up but, they remain consistently higher than Libya.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Pedo Bear: Contributing to IAB gives people clout here and that`s not just my opinion. Why ? Because it makes IAB better and brings in more people and grows the site.

Conversely someone attempting to tell another to "leave", Just because they don`t like them, doesn`t help grow IAB.
0
Reply
Male 997
@crakrjak Once again i have no problem with you replying, or replying in kind. I have a problem with what you re-iterated in your reply to me. The message boards are as amusing to some people as content posted. Sure you having over 7000 posts would agree. The 79 posts count to contributing to the site.
You`ve been here awhile and have been known to rub some people up the wrong way with your views. This guy probably a preachy city liberal who thinks you`re a country yokle who doesn`t understand science so uses IAB to preach your beliefs onto others. Decided not to criticize a single argument but the way you go about it. Want to attack back because of that fine no problem.

I would just advise not to use an argument which gives the impression you think you`re better then people because you have submissions. Doesn`t put you in a nice light, and even the mods get into arguments when they use that.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
t-test results

If you don`t believe me, feel free to run your own t-test on the link or any other free online t-test. Hell, impress me.. run an Anova
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Furthermore, from this data linkpresident Bush significantly imported more oil than Clinton t(14) = 4.13, p < 0.01.

What you do with this data is up to you. But, facts remain. No significant amount of oil came from Iraq under Bush, yet oil imports rose (keeping gas prices and other products down.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
*ahem*

Compare the means of the years George W. Bush was president to his predecessor Bill Clinton.

I am looking at the exports from Iraq over 16 years via: link

I ran an online t-test, to see if they actually differed or not. Here is the results:

t(12) = 1.02, p > 0.05.

This statistic says there was NO difference in the amount of oil exported from Iraq to other countries between years of the Bush presidency, and the Clinton presidency.

0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]Forgive me if I reacted with anger when you suggested that I don`t know what I`m talking about when it comes to the global geopolitics of oil.[/quote]
True enough @davymid! I`ll keep that in mind. Sorry if I stepped on your metaphorical toes there, eh?

@madest a `no fly zone` IS WAR! NATO`s killing soldiers, killing civilians, blowing stuff up = war!

[quote]I think it is the Syrian government, not President Obama, who says no to democracy in Syria.[/quote]
That`s true enough @NotThatSmrt, but the point is that Obama helps attack Libya, but won`t even MENTION Syria`s struggle.
The rest of your Bush-bashing is pathetic, dude! It`s like you`re chanting a religious hymn or something...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Notice how oil imports from Iraq went up during the Bush admin?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@elkingo

Do you Syria or Libya mentioned anywhere on this page (it`s the same source)?

And don`t get me started with the LSC crap Crakr I invalidated that assertion last time. We do refine heavy sour crude because it is cheaper to extract (and find) than light sweet crude.
Yes we do refine heavy sour crude
0
Reply
Male 2,422
President has to do what`s in the interest of American`s. That`s his job. That means picking and choosing when and where to fight.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
@5Cats: @xiquiripat: Yes they`re stable... as most dictatorships are. Peace with Israel? Aside from invading them over and over again? Hummm. And they DO support and export terrorism, lets not forget that!

The last time Syria invaded was almost half a century ago. Though there is no official peace treaty and they have threatened to invade, the Syraian leadership knows it has a lot to lose if it does so. The Syrian people may not understand that and let their resentment lead them into war, a fact that Israel is well aware of. Israel Fears Alternative if Assad Falls

And Syria may export terrorism, but we can deal with it. Israel has. We may not be able to deal with a greater middle east war that combines Jihad with scud missiles which could witness slaughter on the scale of the Iran-Iraq war. Ultimately, the American
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Pedo_Bear: Normally I can accept criticism either by ignoring it or responding to it in kind.

The exception comes from people who make statements as if they own IAB without contributing to it`s relief of boredom mission, or just troll for the sake of trolling.

Anyone that states "screw you. everything you say, screw you." & "Get the fu-ck off your soapbox and leave this site alone.", has lost any capability for reason and thus deserves no pity, in my humble opinion.

I`m not a mod, That is correct. That doesn`t mean that I can`t share the same wisdom that most mods have expressed here before. You don`t have to be a firefighter to know how to douse a fire.
0
Reply
Male 997
@crakrjak also I agree with what you about relieving boredom but your wrong with "mytbozak: I`ve contributed over 115 approved submissions to IAB, You`ve contributed nothing. "

He`s contributed 79 posts, you`re not a mod stop acting like one. You have as much rights on this site as everyone else here. I`ve always hated the argument on submissions, it`s an imperfect system but the one we have until something better comes. Because someone doesn`t spend all day searching the net and submitting a link before someone else doesn`t make their opinion any less then yours. Or because they submit things which then wind up being posted with different credit once again doesn`t mean they have any less right then you. Shouldn`t be used as an argument when its a point of contention for people who submit and never see anything come out of it.
0
Reply
Male 63
I might be wrong, but I think it is the Syrian government, not President Obama, who says no to democracy in Syria.

@handimanner
You sir, are a tool. Do all of you idiots realize that bush had 8 years to drive this country into the ground? But somehow because this president wasn`t able to wave a magic wand and turn the entire country around in two measly years he`s failed us? WTF have you accomplished in the last 2 years of your life? I`m so sick of you spineless, retarded, fickle, and shortsighted fair-weather dems.
With friends like you, and the blind aggressive lunacy of the conservatives, we`re lucky this government has made any progress at all.
0
Reply
Male 997
@CrakrJak To quote Saudi Arabia, it`s speculation rather then shortfall which is causing the spike. There is a lot of unrest in the middle east therefore people are scared and price is rising. Fear of it spreading is more the problem.

But i stand by what I said opec only accounts for 40% of the worlds Oil production now and granted Libya is the worlds 12 largest exporter but Libya(still running at half output btw)and Algeria accounts for less then half the spare capacity of Opec. Yes its higher grade purer because it has a lower sulphur content,Saudi Oil is a low grade substitute but a substitute none the less. You can argue that it wont be barrel for barrel replacement for a few weeks.

Also america has its sweet oil with ANS and WTI , it doesn`t need Libyan oil which will be more expensive and be more geographically problematic to export to america why Libya exports to Europe
0
Reply
Male 2,143
I wrote the white house and told `em - at the same time I cancelled my democratic party affiliation - that I wouldn`t make the mistake of voting for Obama again. What about ending the frikken wars does this fool not recall. He`s a flippin toady.
0
Reply
Female 2,695
staying out of foreign affairs like it should be
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@CJ, Touche.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mytbozak: I`ve contributed over 115 approved submissions to IAB, You`ve contributed nothing.

As Davy and the other mods have said before, This site is about relieving boredom. That doesn`t always mean the posts have to be funny, many times they are thought provoking and controversial.

If you want to see more `funny` videos then may I suggest you contribute some yourself.
0
Reply
Male 469
Wow iab our president does not have to get involved in every protest in other countries.
0
Reply
Male 585
Jesus fu-ck CrakrJak. Get the fu-ck off your soapbox and leave this site alone. I come here to laugh. And just in case you wanna use up 4 more blocks to tell me im sooo wrong, screw you. everything you say, screw you.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: [quote]Sadly our country is over run by dumb people we can be duped by morons who can`t pronounce the word `nuclear`[/quote]

It`s also overrun by morons who don`t understand global commodities markets and can`t spell Libya correctly, Like you.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Pedo Bear: What you clearly do not understand is that `light sweet crude` is a worldwide commodity no matter who actually buys it.

An example, Let`s say Brazil has an early freeze this season and it ruins the orange crop there. Even if the US would`ve bought almost all those oranges it will still effect the market for oranges worldwide negatively.

The same happened when `mad cow` disease first shown up, Beef prices around the world went up because of the embargoes that where sanctioned.

In a post Gadaffi Libya, The oil could go to Europe but I have a feeling the US will want in on it too and despite who buys it, it still effects the prices here at the pump.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davy: [quote]I changed the wording on my own post to get the message right before finalising the comment and posting.[/quote]

You changed a mispelled word, changed `english` to `latin` and added a whole new paragraph.

We all make mistakes but calling out someone, when you make the same type of errors is `Pot meet kettle` in my book, and you`ve done the same to me as well.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
BrimstoneOne: [quote]...there wasn`t any support for an Iraqi invasion.[/quote]

Au contraire, There was a lot of support and willingness globally to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, He was an evil bastard and his time was up.
0
Reply
Male 955
wait wait, so you`re surprised we`re not going to war for a country that doesn`t provide us some sort of resource in exchange? Just checking.
0
Reply
Male 997
oh and one more thing elkingo no point publishing raw data unless you put it into perspective. Like my graph showing import as total percentage of oil import. Which coincidently show`s what Madest is saying Libya is important for Europe. In reality the US can go without oil from Libya and Syria and many others. Especially as OPEC has more then enough spare capacity to take up the slack.
0
Reply
Male 997
It`s not about the oil for the US, when is your country going to stop attacking your gov. over every action saying OIL. As I said a no fly zone was put up because France and UK were going to go in with or without. Poorly executed plan of attack would have not been good for the US who are allies why they made sure they had UN, arab league, rebel and NATO support then entered set it up and handed over control as quickly as they could.


Syria is different, UK and France aren`t rushing in, Syria wont get Arab nations support, Syrian protesters haven`t asked for help and Iran won`t stand for it.

and @ elkingo It`s hard to believe your academic qualifications when you cannot spell Haiti until corrected.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
elkingo, You have the logic of a Palin. If you knew about Lybia and her oil you would know she is more important to Europe than the United States. I`m not going along with your insistence that the No-Fly-Zone will lead to war. We held a NFZ on Iraq for 10 years and would have never went to war in Iraq had we had an honest leader. Sadly our country is over run by dumb people we can be duped by morons who can`t pronounce the word `nuclear`.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I will give you a hint: It is about the same as it was in 1998.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Now what I challenge is this: If the Iraq war was about oil.. I dare anyone to go and look up how much oil we import annually from Iraq. See for yourself how much it has changed since the war in Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Here is the main reason we are remotely involved with Libya.


Likewise, here is why Syria is not a concern:





0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davymid: I noticed that you corrected the post below 3 times yourself, So Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.[/quote]
Wow, I changed the wording on my own post to get the message right before finalising the comment and posting. I truly am a hypocrite.

[quote]@davymid: I work full time bro, 8 & 1/2 hours a day. It`s exausting!... Your `points` are moot, or imagined. [/quote]
Dude, with due respect, you work at a child`s day-care in Winnipeg. I work full-time too, in the oil industry. I have a PhD in petroleum geoscience. Just last week I spoke at a keynote speech and moderated a technical session at the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) conference in Houston. Forgive me if I reacted with anger when you suggested that I don`t know what I`m talking about when it comes to the global geopolitics of oil.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I didn`t `confuse` war with anything. I was simply pointing out that military action can lead to war and regardless of war, military action, or humanitarian efforts -- they cost billions of dollars.

Now, my point is this:

If we can`t afford it for Afghanistan or Iraq, how can we afford it for Libya, Syria, Egypt, Haiti, or Japan? It is very simple really.. if we can`t afford to be one place, we really shouldn`t go to other places.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Clearly your inability to spell Haiti is your smallest problem. You confuse humanitarian missions with bombing people. You confuse no-fly-zones with war. Once again I ask, how does anyone hold an intelligent conversation with you?
0
Reply
Male 39
Yeah! Why haven`t we invaded North Korea, and where were we in Burma, or Sudan, or Rwanda, or any other place where people are dying? Didn`t anyone see Team America? The directors of that movie had a vision!
0
Reply
Male 2,229
Why in hell would any one want to get the Americans involved anyways? The only reason the American are involved with Egypt, and Bahrain, is they sold poo ton of weapon to Egypt, and and Bahrain is home to a navel fleet base for the Indian Ocean.

In the case of Egypt, it`s more with "we don`t care as long as you continue to buy"; and with Bahrain it`s a nudge, nudge, wink, wink "we`ll ignore what your doing as long as we can keep our base here"

These are just a very small example of how some America`s diplomacy works. Other times there`s violence.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@madest -- sorry for misspelling Haiti. I guess that makes every single point I made moot.

My point is this: If we can`t afford to go to war, and it does not benefit our country. How can we afford to go to war with Libya? How can we afford to send humanitarian aid to Japan or Haiti?

When people start saying one thing is hurting our economy and people, you can`t very well go around making exceptions on the basis of what is right and wrong, nor can you do so on the basis of "It isn`t our responsibility."

0
Reply
Male 7,378
Screw you elkingo, How is it possible to equate humanitarian missions in Haiti (that`s how it`s spelled btw) and Japan with choosing sides and killing their opposition at their behest.
Read the constitution sometime and get an idea of what America is supposed to be about.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
It could look something like this:


0
Reply
Male 2,229
Err...5Cats, there wasn`t any support for an Iraqi invasion. The support for said "war" came from the 1% of Americans that control the majority of the wealth. Of which made them even wealthier, and is still give more to them...
0
Reply
Male 5,620
We only created a no fly zone over Lybia and turned it over to NATO. Not our problem.
The entire mid-east is ruled by 3rd rate dictators and retarded monarchies. The best thing the US can do is rid ourselves of their problems. Perhaps make internet access available to anyone in the mid-east and sit back and watch the show.

-- I support this message. I think we should construct a very large (large enough to be seen from satellite) set of hands. One grabbing a set of balls, and the other giving the rest of the world a big middle finger. Oh, it should glow in the dark too -- you know like an old casper doll.

0
Reply
Male 7,378
We only created a no fly zone over Lybia and turned it over to NATO. Not our problem.
The entire mid-east is ruled by 3rd rate dictators and retarded monarchies. The best thing the US can do is rid ourselves of their problems. Perhaps make internet access available to anyone in the mid-east and sit back and watch the show.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Not least from a 40-something guy from Winnipeg who works part-time at a child`s day-care and puts a "LOLZ!" after his posts."

I am 30.. I work two full time jobs -- one as a therapist, and one as a research assistant. I attend major psychological conferences, and have published research. Albeit, I am from Kentucky. I am married, and happy in life. I don`t typically put common internet acronyms in my posts, but I occasionally use them.


Am I qualified to `hand you your arse`?
;-)
0
Reply
Male 19
So what, you expect him to get USA in poo with every country that`s being non-nice individuals?

How crazy are you draters?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
madest, this whole argument started over a simple premise:

Is it not our fight for the right reasons?

Libya isn`t our fight either. Hatti was not our responsibility. Japan was our enemy 50 years ago.. should we not help them either?

Why are we picking only certain people to engage when our country can barely support itself? Unless! Of course, as some are pointing out, it benefits us to help certain people.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Who cares? Let the Syrians take their own leader down. Not our problem.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
davymid, "I love you too, Elkingo."

haha I love your wit man, seriously. If the situation was a bit different, I am sure we could discuss a great many things over coffee.


I myself think all these wars are a bit of nonsense. I think Iraq and Afghanistan could have been avoided, but as it was -- they were not.

I think it is a but ludicrous to call these or any other war an `oil war.` I personally, have not saw any benefice from these wars. Gas in my region has continuously went up, and not just under Obama. Gas here was 3.80 cents this morning. Before Afghanistan is was around 2.20 per gallon.

I see my neighbors out of work (unemployment locally is 11.5%) and I fear for my own job. It is getting more costly to live. I can`t see any benefit to my security in either cheaper oil, nor cost of living, nor better jobs.

0
Reply
Male 573
I liked Obama of 2008, I liked the Republicans... never.
0
Reply
Male 40,361
@davymid: I work full time bro, 8 & 1/2 hours a day. It`s exausting!

I copied the spelling from a previous poster, idk how to spell in Latin! Is this `Life Of Brian`? We gonna conjugate verbs next?

Your `points` are moot, or imagined.
As @Crackr has mentioned: Libya`s oil isn`t seperate from the rest of the world. If it gets cut off, the prices rise around the globe. How is this NOT `blood for oil` since the `massacres` alleged never happened and didn`t happen when Ghadaffi`s troops took several cities?

Your numbered points:
#1 - same as Iraq (USA was the #3 investor)
#2 - same as Iraq (where the `oil goes` is moot)
#3 - same as Iraq (all the USA needed to do to get the oil was drop the sanctions)
#4 - same as Iraq (it was UN sanctions)
#5 - sad, `ad hominEm` attack. Did you even look at my previous posts? Does the reality of 90+% Democrat support for Iraq escape you?
0
Reply
Male 40,361
@davymid: It is `proper` to capilize the letter "e" in "proper English"... tit for tat bro!

(and I`ve cut down on the `lolz` stop carrying a grudge, it`s bad for your karma dude!)
(also it`s moot, my facts remain unchanged, and unchallenged.)
0
Reply
Male 39,610

Here`s a novel thought that U.S. politicians never think of.... It`s None Of Our Business - Stay Out Of It.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]TL;DR[/quote]

Local colleges offer adult literacy courses. Since you regard a few paragraphs of simple text to be too long to read, you would benefit from one of those courses.

0
Reply
Male 3,076
TL;DR
0
Reply
Male 997
(cont) peoples friends won`t jump in. Gaddafi wasn`t like by the rest of the middle east. Wider conflict wouldn`t ensue, Syria would lead to a wider conflict.
0
Reply
Male 997
America didn`t wan`t to get into Libya, America wanted nothing to do with it. David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy got you guys into it.

States had two options, do nothing and watch two of it`s closest allies take action without them and fail like with the Suez Canal, or enter set up so little more was needed and pass it off to be babysat by rest of NATO.

Libyan ex pats have held thank-you vigils around UK and even outside my university. Syria as much as I`d love to be toppled is a different dynamic. Europe is having arguments over what to happen in the quagmire that is Libya, so wont be pushing into another fight when they`re struggling to get nations for this one.

Syria`s is being helped by Iran, they have a history of being anti-western and anti-semite. Where the rebel fighters have thanked intervention in Libya we would become a occupation force in Syria and Iran`s mind.

You need to pick your fights, namely the ones where peoples friends won`t j
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Why are these captions even allowed? All they do is make your site look retarded.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
It`s interestig to see how the political venue som places have been divided in two part: left and right. In a world so complex that any set of directions or colors wouldn`t be diverse enough to explain a tenth of it, the political arena seems to polarize into a black- and white trench war. Not just in the US but Europe as well.

Regardless of the events that put us in this situation - the climate for the havocs to run amoc is perfect. A more divided world is easy to conquer.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Forget the topic of the OP, the obsession crakrjak has with davy is far more entertaining.
0
Reply
Male 37
Holy poo you insecure closet homo stop spamming.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: I noticed that you corrected the post below 3 times yourself, So Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Oh yes @davy, you`ve "made a point" although I doubt you realize what that `point` is...[/quote]
Wow, 5Cats. I`ve never had my ass handed back to me so succinctly. Not least from a 40-something guy from Winnipeg who works part-time at a child`s day-care and puts a "LOLZ!" after his posts. You sure got me fair and square, I lose. You`re right, I probably don`t even realize what the `point` is. Since I only lived in Tripoli for two years.

But hey, what do I know? I`m just another libtard.

p.s. It`s "ad hominem" with an E, not "ad hominim". Not being a grammar nazi, I just want to make sure that when you attempt to subvert the conversation away from the point at hand that you do do so in proper english.

Hey, if you`re going to insult me in Latin to make a point, at least spell it right.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
What is the main hypocritical point here is the left stormed out, screamed, marched and held big signs saying "No Blood For Oil", "Close Gitmo Now" and "War Criminal" by the thousands.

Where are these liberals now ?, Did Obama send them to the gulag ?

No, of course not. Those liberals are at biting their tongue because they don`t want to lose their messiah in the 2012 election.

The signs 5 years ago should`ve had this disclaimer at the bottom, "*Unless Obama is President, Then it`s OK."
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davy: [quote]...the petroleum would still go to Europe.[/quote]

Yes, It would but that doesn`t obviate the fact that it still effects the `light sweet crude` commodities market, which in turn effects our prices at the pump here in the USA.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: [quote]Iraq has vastly more reserves than Libya has.[/quote]

Which does the US really no good, because of the `heavy oil/high sulphur` nature of it`s reserves.
That oil will be sold to Russia, Turkey, China, India, etc.. where they have little or no environmental restrictions on refining it.
0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]on Fox News.[/quote]
And he concludes with an `ad hominim`. Undercuts himself, thinks he`s made a point. Oh yes @davy, you`ve "made a point" although I doubt you realize what that `point` is...
0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]to overrun Benghazi, with the massacre that would inevitably have followed.[/quote]
Absolute bull-poo, which a submission of mine has attested to.
Kadaffi has taken several rebel cities, and has NOT massacred anyone. Obama Lied! Something, something...

[quote] risks damage to facilities [/quote]
So that`s what it`s all about then? Blood for oil? And the left is OK with this after 8 years of SCREAMING? And y`all liberals call us Cons names? It Is To Laugh!!!
0
Reply
Male 6,737
"Let`s just go to war with everyone. That will fix the budget."

Exactly.

But the right will always point out things like this to dig at Obama.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
4) Far from begging for oil, the US maintained sanctions on Libyan oil throughout the 1980s and 1990s that shut its firms out of the market. We might be suspicious of the West`s subsequent dealings with Col Qaddafi, but decades of isolation had shown no signs of loosening his grip.

5) Conversely, right-wingers, those not shamed into silence by the fiasco in Iraq, should accept the benefits to the US`s tarnished reputation of a genuine humanitarian operation and stop seeing phantasms among the Libyan opposition of any Islamist group they may have heard of on Fox News.

Yeah, I`m done. People will make up their own mind.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
2) Any Libyan government, of whatever type, will be reliant on hydrocarbon exports to maintain the economy and keep itself in power. Imagine that, post-war, the Chinese, Russians and Venezuelans ended up running all Libyan oil production. For logistical and economic reasons, the petroleum would still go to Europe.

3) Prolonging the fighting extends the time that Libyan oil is out of the market, risks damage to facilities and virtually ensures that Col Qaddafi, if victorious, will expel western companies. If the West wanted Libya`s oil, the cynical route would have been to give the colonel the green light to overrun Benghazi, with the massacre that would inevitably have followed.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I`ve said it before this war with Libya is about oil, that`s why he doesn`t give 2 craps about the other countries so called `freedom protesters`[/quote]
Alright, let’s get down to facts and cull the bullcrap. Here are some very good reasons why going to war in Libya doesn’t make sense:

1) Before the uprising against Col Muammar Qaddafi, European and American companies - including the US`s Marathon, Hess, Occidental, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil; Suncor of Canada; Italy`s Eni; Repsol of Spain; the UK`s BP; Anglo-Dutch Shell; Total of France; and Germany`s Wintershall and RWE Dea - were the leading operators in Libya.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
In an attempt to drop some sense into this thread which is quickly filling up with bullsh*t due to limited bandwidth:
0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]What say you @davymid?[/quote]
@davymid admits his weakness! yay!

[quote]If not Americans could expect to pay over 3.60 a gallon for gasoline.[/quote]
Love the stealth slam on BHO! lolz!

[quote]when will the hypocrisy end?[/quote]
Hopefully after 2012 @OutWest! Hope there will be a change, eh?

[quote]you guys are pretty predictable.[/quote]
Oh contrair! It`s the Dems & the Libtards that are `predictable` eh? I offer a diverse selection of my interweb journies as fodder for IAB, but the left? They march like robots towards oblivion... (I hope!)
0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]I like how davymid starts all of his rebuttals with ad hominem.[/quote]
Bless you @elkingo! For pinting that out!
What say you @davymid?
[quote]the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing conservatives[/quote]
Oh? Hypocritical how?
[quote]the conservative-led internationally illegal invasion of Iraq[/quote]
OH! I see. "conservative led" which is why 90% of the DEMOCRATS supported it?
Oh! I see. "illegal" in that:
#1 The UN authorised it
#2 3X as many nations supported it (as opposed to BOH`s invasion of Libya. Oh yes, it`s an INVASION of their soverign territory, eh?)
[quote]Iraq: No request for help.[/quote]
Except from the Kurds... the Shiites... the Suni... other than that? Heck no!
@Davymid I`m glad you`re a geologist because you`d make an AWFUL historian.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I like how davymid starts all of his rebuttals with ad hominem.[/quote]
I love you too, Elkingo.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davymid: ...Iraq (which has 10x the amount of oil Libya has)... I`m calling BS on that Davy because I looked it up and Libya produces more oil than Iraq does.[/quote]
Fair point, CJ. But oil production does not equal oil reserves. Russia and the US have vast production, in the top three in the world. That is a very different thing from untapped and underexplored potential oil reserves. Take it from a professional new ventures oil exploration geologist (with a cheeky PhD thrown in there). Iraq has vastly more reserves than Libya has.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I for one am glad we went to war with Iraq for oil though.. If not Americans could expect to pay over 3.60 a gallon for gasoline.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I like how davymid starts all of his rebuttals with ad hominem. It really defines the style of argument we can come to expect to relieve our boredom.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: Again, I don`t care that this war against Gaddaffi is about oil, But I want to see it won, I want to see a clear plan of regime change. Not this namby pamby approach Obama has taken.

This half-hearted attempt is frought with peril, and is completely hypocritical. I believe Obama would garner some respect if he owned up to the fact this war is about oil and devised a real plan of regime change instead of this hands-off sideline method.
0
Reply
Male 546
and when will the hypocrisy end?

When those on both sides of our political aisles acknowledge that hypocrisy is truly the only bi-partisan political actions that exist.

Stop drinking the koolaid of your party and see the truth.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: [quote]...Iraq (which has 10x the amount of oil Libya has)...[/quote]

I`m calling BS on that Davy because I looked it up and Libya produces more oil than Iraq does. Plus Libya produces light sweet crude, the same kind of oil that our refineries refine, Iraq produces mainly `heavy oil` loaded with sulphur that our refineries can not refine due to EPA regulations.
0
Reply
Male 39,610

@ CrakrJak - you say that like you don`t think oil is worth fighting over. Try living without oil for 1 day. You can`t. It`s the blood of the country and without it, we die. Everything comes to a hault, not just cars.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I`ve said it before this war with Libya is about oil, that`s why he doesn`t give 2 craps about the other countries so called `freedom protesters`.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I love the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing conservatives claiming Barack Obama is only declaring war on on Libya to get at their oil. It`s delicious in its irony, especially when compared to the conservative-led internationally illegal invasion of Iraq (which has 10x the amount of oil Libya has) to find those pesky WMDs, which are apprently lost down the back of the couch somwhere. This is how I see it:

Libya: People asking for help. Arab League support. NATO/UN steps in to stop people from dying.

Iraq: No request for help. USA defies every international resolution to invade anyway, to find those WMDs. Thousands dead, no WMDs to be found.

Skip forward 10 years, now the conservatives are accusing Barack Obama of warmongering (since the US is part of NATO, after all). All the while having tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, fighting a rearguard action against all the al-qaeda sympathetic insurgents, which they helped create in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Read the description, made a tiny bet to myself that this was a 5Cats submission, clicked, and sure enough. I retain my 100% scoring record.

If only this were a vaguely anti-republican post, then I could count on yusuksomuch to make a comment with at least one instance of the word "lemmings", to complete my bingo card.

Jeez, for a website dedicated to relieving boredom, you guys are pretty predictable.
0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]...the majority American conservatives are white...[/quote]
AAAAnnnd: the majority of Americans are white too! Just thought I`d support you @Oldfrt :)

[quote]Syria has been a fairly stable... and has kept the peace with Israel[/quote]
@xiquiripat: Yes they`re stable... as most dictatorships are. Peace with Israel? Aside from invading them over and over again? Hummm. And they DO support and export terrorism, lets not forget that!

[quote]Obama has shown that he is willing to go to war for EUROPE`S oil.[/quote]
While breaking the law to stop America from drilling it`s own oil. Yet he crows about expanding America`s resources? (which have NOT `expanded` under his watch, btw)He`s clearly delusional, as are most liberals..
0
Reply
Male 40,361
[quote]I`m sick of the whole thing... I`m moving to Costa Rica.[/quote]
My thoughts EXACTLY @osirisascend!! Costa Rica would be my first choice, Guatamala a close second...
But really, if Obama DID do something worthwhile, I`d be quick to praise him! I was the same with Clinton, when he, once or twice, did something the right way I said "Hey! Good job!"
There`s 100s of things BHO could do RIGHTLY and make the USA and the whole world a better place, but time after time he chooses the WRONG path... *sigh*
@jamie76: Ok bro, tell me: WHY does he attack Libya (based on UN resolutions) BUT NOT Syria (which also has UN resolutions) or any of those other nations?? Eh? Is there `logic` or `reasoning` behind the killing and $$billions$$ spent? No? Yes? Please liberally explain.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Obama has shown that he is willing to go to war for EUROPE`S oil.
0
Reply
Female 535
funny faces teehee
0
Reply
Male 2,422
It`s basic geopolitics. Like Egypt Syria has been a fairly stable part of the Middle East and has kept the peace with Israel. Just because a revolution is "democratic" doesn`t necessarily mean we should support it especially since the protesters have marked anti-american and anti-israeli tendencies. There`s no guarantee the Syrian people will not decide to try to retake the Golan Heights and spark a greater middle east war that will drag in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Why should we waste our blood and treasure to help a movement which would likely hurt us in the long run? You have to pick and choose your battles, especially if you don`t have the capacity to fight them all. Libya is remote from the wider middle-east, an oil exporter, and run by one of America`s original arch-enemies. It`s there that we get the biggest bang for our buck, especially since we`re covered by the Arabs actually asking us to do it, a UN resolution, and the wider NATO alliance doing the heavy lift
0
Reply
Male 2,384
its all just politics, drat government. its only an illusion put on by corporations who fund their interests only
0
Reply
Male 3,745
let em burn...
0
Reply
Male 335
Let`s just go to war with everyone. That will fix the budget.
0
Reply
Male 749
@Gerry1of1, for once I agree with you.

I may not agree with you often, but I still enjoy your posts. Keep it up,
0
Reply
Male 253
Imho, President Obama`s policies, domestic economic and foreign, are far more similar to Bush`s or any potential GOP candidate`s would have been, than either side would ever be willing to admit.

That said, I believe doing nothing is wrong. However, we don`t know whether we`re doing nothing or not because we don`t have security clearances, do we?
0
Reply
Male 39,610

no. we can`t afford it.

to maintain a no-fly-zone in Lybia costs 100 million dollars a week. We`re operating in deficit now and have to borrow money.

no, no more. Regardless of whether the people are deserving or not, we don`t have the resources. Let the UN do this without us.
0
Reply
Male 749
@jamie76, How`s that kool-aid tastin? Middle of the road? You have to be kidding me.

I`ll concede that the majority American conservatives are white, but that does NOT mean they are racists. Some of the best conservative thinkers today are black, including Thomas Sowell (who has my vote as the smartest man in America), Walter Williams, Allen West, and J.C. Watts to name just a few.

Calling normal conservatives racists is getting tired and has always been baseless. Try arguing facts once in a while, like the fact that the Black community has been doing MUCH worse as a whole since liberal welfare policies have been in place.
0
Reply
Male 3,625
jamie76: oh and he`s black and if you think that doesn`t matter to them then you are forgetting HOW WHITE the CONSERVATIVE party really is...

Obviously you have never heard of Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. He`s black, and a Republican.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
damned if he does, damned if he doesn`t, i think we should just start taking care of ourselves and let the rest of the world blow themselves up.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
here is the bottom line

CONSERVATIVES WILL BE AGAINST ANYTHING OBAMA DOES NO MATTER WHAT IT IS.

He is the worst kind of Democrat to them, a Middle of the road, intelligent and reasonable person...which they fear more than any other.

oh and he`s black and if you think that doesn`t matter to them then you are forgetting HOW WHITE the CONSERVATIVE party really is...
0
Reply
Male 2,345
so let me see if I get this...

when Obama recongizes our obligation as a UN member nation to uphold the sanctions passed by the UN and joins in the fight to free Libya, he is doing wrong according to the conservatives

BUUTTTTTT

When he keeps us out of another struggle in Syria he is doing BAD?

cons, make up your damn minds you racist, bigotted assmunches.
0
Reply
Male 12
@ggolbez you are totally right.
0
Reply
Male 37
LOL @ Conservatives. Uou call him a traitor and breaking the constitution when the U.S. joins the U.N. effort in Libya, then bitch and complain about him not helping when he doesn`t want your bullpoo and stays out of Syria. You people are drating pathetic.
0
Reply
Male 3,058
@ 5Cats: What say we just let Israel handle Syria?

Let`s get serious for just a moment... If the President DID decide to "do something" about Syria, you`d be leading the crowd with torches and pitchforks, screaming about how "Obama`s getting us into another war!!!"

It doesn`t matter what the man does at this point... You`re going to take the opposite side.

I`m sick of the whole thing... I`m moving to Costa Rica.
0
Reply
Male 40,361
Isn`t it strange that BHO goes into Libya, but ignores all those other nations with very similar rebellions going on? Syria is an ACTIVE supporter and exporter of terror. There is no doubt about it! Yet they kill civilians galore: no response. Not even a mention in a speech? Nothing! The UN has passed the obligatory resolution, can`t Obama even SAY: Hey, cut that out! To Syria? NOPE! He`s voting "present" yet again.

The Obama Doctrine: Fiddle while the whole world burns...
0
Reply
Male 1,931
I am of the opinion that America should stay out of other countries business, for the most part. Yes, if there is another world war, sure. But we can`t be going into every middle eastern country and sort out every problem that arises. We should be focusing on ourselves first.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Because Assad is a Shiite already.
0
Reply
Female 95
I feel dumb for thinking during election 2008 that Obama would somehow be a different president lol, damn you politicians and your shiny election speeches! Reality sucks
0
Reply
Male 40,361
Link: Obama Says NO To Syrian Democracy [Rate Link] - 20 protesters per DAY killed, but Obama still silent on Syrian struggles. Not enough oil there? What do you say, I-A-B?
0
Reply