Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, October 21, 2011

NY Post: Khadafy Killed By 20-Year-Old Yankees Fan

Credit, where credit is due:

Khadafy was beaten, bludgeoned and shot by a wolf pack of Libyan fighters as he made a mad dash to escape his embattled hometown of Sirte—but the Libyan tyrant was ultimately done in by Bombers cap-wearing Mohamed El Bibi, 20, who was credited with firing the fatal bullet, according to Arab media.

The photo caption:

MR. OCTOBER: Yankee fan Mohamed El Bibi triumphantly waves Moammar Khadafy’s golden gun as jubilant Libyans celebrate his shooting the dictator dead yesterday.

The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:04 PM | 372 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: international, obituaries, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:20 PM (#3970387)
As if Yankee fans needed another reason to be obnoxious.
   2. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:29 PM (#3970396)
Think globally, act locally Yankee fans! Don't let the Steinies escape to their Tampa stronghold!
   3. Stormy JE Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:31 PM (#3970398)
Like so many Yankee "fans," El Bibi lost all interest in baseball the moment the Yankees were eliminated.
   4. Rally Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:35 PM (#3970404)
Like so many Yankee "fans," El Bibi lost all interest in baseball the moment the Yankees were eliminated


And to avoid this fate, watch the Saudi Arabia royal family send billions for the Yankees to beef up their payroll, and keep these kids out of the streets and watching a Yankee world series.
   5. . Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:38 PM (#3970408)
Told you those hats turned people into ######' gangsters.
   6. Alex Vila Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:38 PM (#3970409)
In order to *really* keep the rivalry going, some Sawx fan is gonna have to take down Kim Jong Il.
   7. depletion Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:44 PM (#3970419)
... in the Dodger Stadium parking lot.
   8. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:48 PM (#3970426)
In order to *really* keep the rivalry going, some Sawx fan is gonna have to take down Kim Jong Il

the Navy Seal that offed Bin Laden was wearing a Big Papi jersey
   9. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:49 PM (#3970428)
What this doesn't show you is what was on the cover:

KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN

Gunman had more hits than A-Rod
   10. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 01:57 PM (#3970438)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.
   11. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3970444)
Fellas, please stop making jokes about the NY Post trumpeting a Libyan rebel as a Yankee fan. You are hurting one of our special Primate's feelings.
   12. villageidiom Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3970445)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.
Yes, this site was devoid of snark prior to 2009.
   13. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:12 PM (#3970455)
What this doesn't show you is what was on the cover:

KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN

Gunman had more hits than A-Rod


That's gotta be in the top 3 NYP headlines, up there with

STAR WARS PLAN TO ZAP RED NUKES

and the one that grafted a weasel's head onto the French ambassador at the UN, though in that case we probably should've listened to the weasel.
   14. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:17 PM (#3970461)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.

Why don't you go over to the Kendrick thread and watch the Obama supporters yuck it up about someone blowing someone else's head off on their porch, you dope.
   15. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:21 PM (#3970463)
Why don't you go over to the Kendrick thread and watch the Obama supporters yuck it up about someone blowing someone else's head off on their porch, you dope.

What the hell does that have to do with war, excrement for brains?
   16. The Good Face Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:22 PM (#3970464)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.


Behold the fierce moral urgency of change!
   17. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:22 PM (#3970465)
and the one that grafted a weasel's head onto the French ambassador at the UN, though in that case we probably should've listened to the weasel.

I enjoy the various Post headlines about Lindsay Lohan. Jail-Loh might be my favorite as it works on many, many levels. So many levels.
   18. spike Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:23 PM (#3970466)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.

At least this guy actually got a couple of the folks he was after, unlike the previous bumbler in chief who couldn't seem to hit water if you put him in the ocean with a map and a compass. For a group that prides itself on being all warry and deathy and stuff, it was amazing how sh1tty they were at actually prosecuting one.
   19. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:24 PM (#3970467)
This isn't gonna be good...
   20. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:24 PM (#3970468)
What the hell does that have to do with war, excrement for brains?

Your whining was about liberals being all jokey about war AND death. Your thesis that this is somehow something having to do with Obama and liberals is just plain stupid, so I pointed out where the conservatives on the board are finding death as funny as ever by their very own selves, with no help from our current administration.

Clearer?


Behold the fierce moral urgency of change!

Oh, Good Face, no, please. We have our differences, but I've never thought you were stupid. Supporting this absurdity cannot be what you want to do. I guess that's concern trolling, but, blech, you really can't agree with this, can you?


BTW, as I did with the Osama frenzy, death is still not something to jump up and down about, IMO anyhow. So now that DOESN'T mean I hate America? Or it does? Can I not win?
   21. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:25 PM (#3970471)
Behold the fierce moral urgency of change!

No kidding. I wish I had saved links to some of those red diaper baby threads back in the day when they would fulminate for hundreds of posts on end about the Bush wars, and contrast that to the stuff we get from them now.

You watch, once a republican is back in the White House again, these guys will be right back to their old ways with all their feigned outrage, pretending how much they hate war within about a month.
   22. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:26 PM (#3970473)
For a group that prides itself on being all warry and deathy and stuff, it was amazing how sh1tty they were at actually prosecuting one.

Weirdly, DODGING wars isn't such good practice for WAGING wars. Ba-zing! And with that, I exit stage left lest I risk my #17 most popular poster rating.
   23. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:30 PM (#3970476)
Obama is the the biggest warmonger in world history as far as I'm concerned. How long do you suppose he can sustain the seven he's got on the go now?
   24. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:30 PM (#3970478)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.

War is so cool and awesome and hip and funny to Joey except when there's a Democrat in charge. Then, it's still coon and awesome and hip and funny, but then he has to work hard to let everyone know that the Democrat shouldn't get credit for anything good that happens anywhere, ever.
   25. . Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:32 PM (#3970479)
No kidding. I wish I had saved links to some of those red diaper baby threads back in the day when they would fulminate for hundreds of posts on end about the Bush wars, and contrast that to the stuff we get from them now.

Bush, Jr. was cosmically awful at waging war effectively. His buffoonish-on-every-level "Mission Accomplished" rally was better satire than Dr. Strangelove.
   26. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:32 PM (#3970481)
He made the Yankee hat more famous than a Yankee can.
   27. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:33 PM (#3970484)
Turns out Obama likes the taste of blood as much as Bush.
   28. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:33 PM (#3970485)
Obama is the the biggest warmonger in world history as far as I'm concerned. How long do you suppose he can sustain the seven he's got on the go now?

Is there no park adjustment for the ones he inheirited? And you call yourself a sabermetrician? Next you'll be praising RBI!
   29. Bob Tufts Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:35 PM (#3970486)
Cue Edwin Starr...
   30. . Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:36 PM (#3970487)
I don't know how anyone can possibly take issue with a successful proxy war that ended Khadafy's dictatorship.
   31. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:36 PM (#3970488)
Is there no park adjustment for the ones he inheirited?


Nixon inherited Vietnam from a bunch of Democrats and ended that war. What's stopping Obama?
   32. Guapo Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:36 PM (#3970489)
I just love how war and death is suddenly, like, so cool and awesome and hip and funny with a community organizer in the White House. Keep those jokes coming, you pathetic hypocrites.


Community Organizer All-Star Barack Obama Makes 8-Year Old Internet Commenter Cry
   33. . Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:37 PM (#3970491)
Nixon inherited Vietnam from a bunch of Democrats and ended that war.

Four years later than necessary, at the cost of thousands more unnecessarily killed and wounded in action.
   34. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:39 PM (#3970493)
War is so cool and awesome and hip and funny to Joey except when there's a Democrat in charge.

Sorry, but you're wrong pal. I'm thrilled that the old terrorist is dead; I wish that it had happened a long time ago. The Marines, the Pan Am Flight 103 victims, and his many other victims have finally gotten some justice after all these years. The taking out of Bin Laden and Ghadafi are about two of the only things he's gotten right in nearly three years.

Sure, I could act like you lying creeps usually do and sit here and pretend that I'm "anti-war" and outraged and that Ghadafi's killing was an unjustified murder, but I'm not going to do that one bit. I'll let you hypocrites put on that little routine once again down the road.
   35. AndrewJ Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#3970495)
I still prefer this comment about yesterday's shooting from Craig Calcaterra:

The young fighter in the Red Sox cap would have gotten him first but he was too busy eating batatan mubatana and drinking tea with a nice reghwet on it back in the fighter guys’ clubhouse.
   36. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:41 PM (#3970498)
I don't know how anyone can possibly take issue with a successful proxy war that ended Khadafy's dictatorship.


Nobody has an issue with it. I think the only angle you are seeing is guys like Joey pointing out the more than obvious absurdity of liberals praising the cold-blooded killing of a "sovereign leader" just a few years removed from hysterically crying at every other use of violence and lack of rule of law.

Personally, I don't care about the political game. People can see the absurdities without having to harp on them, if you ask me.

I'm happy Obama is continuing Bush's bold policy of aggressively killing those that support terror, etc....it's a no-brainer. More killing could be a good thing, depending on who gets killed.
   37. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:43 PM (#3970503)
Four years later than necessary, at the cost of thousands more unnecessarily killed and wounded in action.


Is this your prediction for Obama? What's stopping Obama? He seems to have doubled down in Afghanistan with zero payoff. Iraq? Still there. Guantanamo? Yup. Just asking a question and wondering if Obama meant what he said.
   38. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:46 PM (#3970508)
I don't know how anyone can possibly take issue with a successful proxy war that ended Khadafy's dictatorship.


I have an issue with it. How about the fact that it was none of his ####### business?
   39. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:46 PM (#3970509)
The taking out of Bin Laden and Ghadafi are about two of the only he's gotten right in nearly three years.

And it pissed you off so much that he got something right that you decided to throw a tantrum?

The fact that you'd parse all democrats as peace-loving hippies in communes, and that therefore snarky comments on a board makes all of them lying hypocrite is stupid and ridiculous. Dan Savage himself advocated setting terrorists on fire and throwing them off buildings by the dozen.

Be as conservative and hateful as you want, but at least try to be less hallucinatory about it. Or don't care. Whatever.


I think the only angle you are seeing is guys like Joey pointing out the more than obvious absurdity of liberals praising the cold-blooded killing of a "sovereign leader"

Er, where was this on this board, where Joey made his specifically reactive comment, exactly?
   40. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3970511)
Bush, Jr. was cosmically awful at waging war effectively. His buffoonish-on-every-level "Mission Accomplished" rally was better satire than Dr. Strangelove.

The biggest reason why republicans now have such a hard time fighting our wars effectively is because the lefty creeps of the kind that are so damn overrepresented on this board do absolutely everything in their power to prevent them from doing so.

As much as I dislike Obama, I'm willing to at least let him try to fight our wars as best as he can. Liberals refuse to make the same concession.
   41. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:52 PM (#3970518)
Scumbag dictator eliminated, zero U.S. casualties, zero U.S. wounded, creating good relations with the populace, in about one-tenth the time, for one-thousandth the cost.

How's that Dopey/Cheney thing workin' out for ya?
   42. The Good Face Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:53 PM (#3970519)
Oh, Good Face, no, please. We have our differences, but I've never thought you were stupid. Supporting this absurdity cannot be what you want to do. I guess that's concern trolling, but, blech, you really can't agree with this, can you?


I'm not concern trolling... we're spending billions of dollars we don't have to kill people who aren't even a serious threat to us, let alone an existential threat. I'd cheerfully vote for a presidential candidate who I believed would end our wars, bring our troops home, and slash military spending.


BTW, as I did with the Osama frenzy, death is still not something to jump up and down about, IMO anyhow. So now that DOESN'T mean I hate America? Or it does? Can I not win?


How you deal with your cognitive dissonance is your issue.
   43. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:54 PM (#3970520)
Some rather obvious points:

1) This should go without saying, but many liberals are opposed to our military actions in Libya and many of this administration's anti-terrorism measures.

2) Liberals supporting the administration's military action in Libya is no more hypocritical than Republicans opposing it -- especially after Republicans initially criticized the administration for not getting involved.
   44. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:55 PM (#3970522)
The biggest reason why republicans now have such a hard time fighting our wars effectively is because the lefty creeps of the kind that are so damn overrepresented on this board do absolutely everything in their power to prevent them from doing so.

As much as I dislike Obama, I'm willing to at least let him try to fight our wars as best as he can. Liberals refuse to make the same concession.


Nobody shits the bed quite like you. Nobody!
   45. SoSH U at work Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:57 PM (#3970524)
Joey, aren't you constantly complaining about non-baseball talk at BTF? It's the day after a fantastic game in what's shaping up to be a great World Series, and rather than making any posts* in the Rapid Reaction thread about any of the various tactical decisions that took place in the ninth inning or the tremendous up-the-middle defense by the Rangers or questions about Josh Hamilton's likely effectiveness the rest of the way, you're in here fighting another political battle that you pretty much started.

If I didn't know better, I'd say your protestations about the proliferation of these types of threads are a bit disingenuous.

* I checked. Yup it's zero.
   46. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:57 PM (#3970525)
How you deal with your cognitive dissonance is your issue.

I have none whatsoever, actually.

(And I meant me, with the concern trolling. That I was concerned you were supporting epically stupidshit just because it was banging the liberals.)
   47. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:57 PM (#3970526)
Nobody shits the bed quite like you. Nobody!

Translation: I can't handle or rebut the truth.
   48. spike Posted: October 21, 2011 at 02:58 PM (#3970527)
I don't know how anyone can possibly take issue with a successful proxy war that ended Khadafy's dictatorship.

Because some people that would rather do anything than give the current administration an ounce of praise regardless of what they accomplish, that's how.
   49. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:00 PM (#3970530)
Translation: I can't handle or rebut the truth.

Funny you should mention that, Joey...
   50. spike Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:04 PM (#3970533)
The fact that Obama has brought down two of the Right's biggest boogiemen when Mr. "Smoke them from their holes!" flailed away emptily for 8 years drives Joey's ilk berserk with rage.
   51. tshipman Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:04 PM (#3970534)
Do the conservatives on this board really not see the difference between Iraq and Libya (and bin Laden)?

Let me spell it out for you:

1. Iraq was a situation where we invaded another country with several hundred thousand troops on the basis of obviously (yes, obviously) doctored evidence and no respect for the international community. It's a war that cost more than a trillion dollars, de-stabilized the region, and was done for the express purpose of making the other party seem "weak on defense" for a midterm election.
2. Libya was a situation where we provided air support to an insurgency with no American troops in danger, where we acted in such a way as to increase our standing in the Arab world and the international community. It cost around a billion dollars (so a thousand times less than Iraq) and has been done with zero political grandstanding.

Gee, no difference at all! Besides the trillion dollars, thousands of lives, horrible precedent and general effectiveness, THEY'RE THE SAME THING. And the sick thing is, some of you might actually believe that.
   52. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:08 PM (#3970543)
I'll admit, I had no idea whatsoever that "STOP WAR!" was really a shorthand phrase for "Bombing people from thousands of feet in the air on the cheap is OK."

I'm glad you cleared this up for me. I'll remember this, and I'll be watching you guys carefully the next time a republican president decides to adopt this strategy.
   53. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:09 PM (#3970545)
The biggest reason why republicans now have such a hard time fighting our wars effectively is because the lefty creeps of the kind that are so damn overrepresented on this board do absolutely everything in their power to prevent them from doing so.

As much as I dislike Obama, I'm willing to at least let him try to fight our wars as best as he can. Liberals refuse to make the same concession.


This is absolutely true. Democrats will always be more successful warmongers because the Republican will have to not only defeat the enemy, but the powerful liberal led opposition to any war. When a Democrat wages war, the conservative anti-war protester basically is non-existent. And the liberals mostly sit on their hands. Just a fact, that's all.
   54. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:10 PM (#3970546)
The fact that Obama has brought down two of the Right's biggest boogiemen when Mr. "Smoke them from their holes!" flailed away emptily for 8 years drives Joey's ilk berserk with rage.

I'd actually be fair enough to state that the Qaddhafi thing was WAAAAAY easier now than it was during Bush's terms, with time, circumstance, and extant events of the Middle East contributing significantly.

The Osama thing, well, Obama was just a lot smarter than Bush.


This is absolutely true. Democrats will always be more successful warmongers because the Republican will have to not only defeat the enemy, but the powerful liberal led opposition to any war.

WTF effect did this powerful liberal-led opposition have on any war fought by the Bushes again?
   55. aleskel Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:11 PM (#3970550)
Joey B's posts make the most sense when you remember that, as has been amply demonstrated by the Republican debates, the right wing in the US still think's it's 1979. Which is pretty cool, when you think about it, because at least they still have London Calling to look forward to.
   56. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:12 PM (#3970551)
Translation: I can't handle or rebut the truth.

No, dear, the translation is this: When you're having one of your innumerable bang-spoon-on-highchair moments, you're best ignored or mocked. Much like a toddler.

I truly wish there had been more organized liberal obstruction to Bush's pointless wars, but there wasn't. And, yes, I'm also opposed to Obama's warmongering and broken promises.

Now back to the poo fight you launched in this thread.
   57. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:13 PM (#3970553)
Scumbag dictator eliminated, zero U.S. casualties, zero U.S. wounded, creating good relations with the populace, in about one-tenth the time, for one-thousandth the cost.


It's completely disingenuous to suggest Libya and Iraq are comparable in either complexity or national interest. Iraq is exponentially more complex than Libya. It's disingenuous sniping remarks like yours that set back our ability to exchange dialogue.

All you bring to the table is more tribalism and vilification of the most cynical kind.
   58. spike Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:14 PM (#3970556)
Which is pretty cool, when you think about it, because at least they still have London Calling to look forward to.

Brilliant. Kudos.
   59. The Good Face Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:14 PM (#3970557)
Gee, no difference at all! Besides the trillion dollars, thousands of lives, horrible precedent and general effectiveness, THEY'RE THE SAME THING. And the sick thing is, some of you might actually believe that.


I guess the lives of the people those bombs were landing on don't count? Or the lives of the people who now have to live in a shattered, destabilized country? That's all OK now that a guy you like is responsible for it?
   60. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:16 PM (#3970559)
Liberals supporting the administration's military action in Libya is no more hypocritical than Republicans opposing it


Few, if any Republicans opposed action in Libya. Most did ask questions of the operation which is what should be done during a run up to a war. Asking tough questions and outright opposition are not even close to the same. I bet you couldn't even name 2 dozen Republicans that opposed Libya.
   61. Guapo Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:16 PM (#3970560)
Republican debates, the right wing in the US still think's it's 1979. Which is pretty cool, when you think about it, because at least they still have London Calling to look forward to.


And a Pirates-Orioles World Series.

(Desperation move to bring this back to baseball to forestall the inevitable exile to the Lounge)
   62. bunyon Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:17 PM (#3970561)
I really shouldn't, but:

To the Right: if you simply congratulated Mr. Obama, you might be able to put forth the claim, which is more or less true, that these Obama victories are founded on Bush policies. By reacting the way you are, you discredit your own patriotism and appear nothing more than petty children upset that you didn't score the winning goal.

To the Left: how about we re-visit Libya in 5 years and see if this was really a victory or not? Something tells me that Tripoli isn't the new Philadelphia.
   63. Guapo Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:18 PM (#3970564)
I bet you couldn't even name 2 dozen Republicans that opposed Libya.


Too easy.
   64. PreservedFish Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:21 PM (#3970567)
I spent three weeks in Burma, and I was struck by the number of Yankees caps. I saw something like 20-25. By contrast, I saw 2 Mets caps. I spoke to a handful of these people, and from what I could tell none of them had even heard of baseball.
   65. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:21 PM (#3970568)
To the Left: how about we re-visit Libya in 5 years and see if this was really a victory or not? Something tells me that Tripoli isn't the new Philadelphia.

I think you've got the concept of "victory" a little confused. :-D


I bet you couldn't even name 2 dozen Republicans that opposed Libya.
Too easy.


Hee!
   66. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#3970570)
Lassus, if you don't know the kind of negative impact a guy like US Senator Dick Durbin can have when he says something completely outrageous that attacks not only what America is spending blood and treasure on, but our very motives, you are a ####### moron.
   67. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:24 PM (#3970571)
#57:
It's completely disingenuous to suggest Libya and Iraq are comparable in either complexity or national interest. Iraq is exponentially more complex than Libya. It's disingenuous sniping remarks like yours that set back our ability to exchange dialogue.

Complexity, yeah, of course. Who compared complexity?

National interest? Not buying. A very good case could be made that helping Libya to further the unprecedented events of the past year, and at a proportional fraction of the cost, is a GREATER benefit to our national interest than the Iraq debacle was, or ever could have realistically been.
   68. Greg K Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:27 PM (#3970576)
I guess the lives of the people those bombs were landing on don't count? Or the lives of the people who now have to live in a shattered, destabilized country? That's all OK now that a guy you like is responsible for it?

I don't know...wasn't it pretty shattered and destabilized before the US (or anyone else) got involved?
I have a few Libyan friends who started studying in England at the same time as me (just months before the outbreak of violence). Luckily they brought their immediate families with them, but they still have any number of family and friends back home. In all the conversations I've had with them European and US involvement rank around #57 of things significant to them. The only influence they seem aware of is the moral support of the Western nations which they're thankful for. Obviously I'm only getting one side of it, but it sounds like outside involvement is viewed fairly positively by Libyans.

Of course this is all anecdotes, and I'm sure there were one or two Iraqis claiming the US involvement in their country was great from the get-go.

The odd thing is my closest friend came here to do his PhD in International Crisis Management, though not in his native Libya. Subsequent events have kind of brought his research closer to home.
   69. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:29 PM (#3970579)
I bet you couldn't even name 2 dozen Republicans that opposed Libya.



Too easy.


Every one of these guys supported action in Libya, nice try. This particular vote was the GOP opposing an UNLIMITED stay in Libya. Obama promised "days" not "weeks". The effort was to put a limit on how long the operation would be funded, different than opposing or demanding an immediate end to operations. Had the GOP not been in the details of the Libya policy, there is a good chance US troops would have died, all for a relatively insignificant country of 5.5 million.
   70. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:31 PM (#3970581)
To the Right: if you simply congratulated Mr. Obama, you might be able to put forth the claim, which is more or less true, that these Obama victories are founded on Bush policies.


Agreed. I did just this in #36
   71. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:31 PM (#3970582)
Lassus, if you don't know the kind of negative impact a guy like US Senator Dick Durbin can have when he says something completely outrageous that attacks not only what America is spending blood and treasure on, but our very motives, you are a ####### moron.

Fine, I'm a moron - continue to prove it. Tell or show me what tangible negative effect it had on the Bushes' efforts to wage war. And that's an honest invitation, as I really have no idea of said effect. Maybe I'll learn something I didn't know.
   72. Brian C Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:34 PM (#3970585)
My only general observation here is that people fall back on "hypocrisy" arguments in the following circumstances:

1) They're too stupid to make arguments on more substantial grounds, or
2) They know they'll lose an argument fought on more substantial grounds.

Basically, hypocrisy arguments are really weak tea. They're a favorite of stupid/disingenuous people because they're a good way to wage ad hominem attacks while appearing to be arguing more substantial matters. But they're still ad hominem attacks, and thus basically worthless for anything other than scoring personal/tribal points.

Also, they make for boring, reductive fights. See what's happened here:

"Liberals would never be cheering this on if Bush was still in charge!"
"Oh yeah, well Republicans are just mad because a Democrat did it!"

See how this devolves into dueling advertisements over how stupid each side can be.
   73. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:38 PM (#3970588)
National interest? Not buying. A very good case could be made that helping Libya to further the unprecedented events of the past year, and at a proportional fraction of the cost, is a GREATER benefit to our national interest than the Iraq debacle was, or ever could have realistically been.


It's obvious Arab Spring doesn't happen without the US capturing Saddam, Iraqi's putting him on trial and executing him, then holding elections. I do agree there is an opportunistic element to this success in Libya, 5 years ago, this Libya operation could not have taken place like this. You can cry hysterically that it's not so because Bush did it, but I recommend you don't. You should be pulling for the USA, not Democrats.

That said, I find it very disappointing when Iran was ripe for a similar revolution, the Obama admin refused to lift a finger, they did the opposite, even publicly supported the fascist thugs in power in Iran. They blew a golden opportunity to throw similar support behind the people of Iran. Obama was rightly ripped by the right for his laziness and inaction. The left at the time defended it and used big words like sovereignty. Laughable in light of this weeks events. Perhaps Obama learned his lesson by blowing the opportunity and jumped on this one in Libya, granted only after he was pushed by conservatives.
   74. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:40 PM (#3970593)
Few, if any Republicans opposed action in Libya.


ORLY?

Three key Republican senators said Monday they oppose a proposal by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, to arm rebels in Libya fighting Moammar Gadhafi. They had mixed thoughts on whether the United States should be involved in imposing a no-fly zone in that country to protect protestors from attacks by Libyan war planes.

“I would not suggest either of those courses for the moment,” said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee who indicated U.S. involvement could lead to war.
[...]
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said she would be “leery” of providing arms at this point but said she supports a no-fly zone.
[...]
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, who is also on the Armed Services Committee, credited the diplomatic efforts underway by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and suggested the U.S. work with the United Nations to stiffen and enforce sanctions against Libya.

“Providing arms, I’m not sure that helps us,” Graham said. “I don’t know if you could control right now who would get the arms.” -CNN, 2/28/11


A senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee escalated his party's attacks on the Obama's administration's military action in Libya, calling the move unconstitutional.

“The United States does not have a King's army," Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) said in a statement released Monday evening. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution." -The Hill, 3/21/11


Rep. Michele Bachmann, always prepared to throw verbal bombs at the president, said that “President Obama is taking sides with Palestine over Israel” by supporting NATO action in Libya.

“This is a radical departure from United States foreign policy and the president did it unilaterally without consultation with Congress,” Bachmann said in a post-speech interview with Fox News. “President Obama is taking sides with Palestine over Israel.” -The Minnesota Independent, 3/29/11
   75. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:40 PM (#3970594)
The only influence they seem aware of is the moral support of the Western nations which they're thankful for.



Bingo. Obama shat on the hopes and dreams of Iranians during their Arab Spring.
   76. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:41 PM (#3970596)
Also, they make for boring, reductive fights. See what's happened here:

"Liberals would never be cheering this on if Bush was still in charge!"


Isn't this (your quoted statement) generally true, though? Are you arguing that people (on both sides) approach their analysis of an issue such as this completely objectively, without any regard for who is in office?
   77. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:44 PM (#3970597)
Bingo. Obama shat on the hopes and dreams of Iranians during their Arab Spring.

This strikes me as editorial opinion more than analysis, especially given the quote you used to support it.
   78. Guapo Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:44 PM (#3970598)
Every one of these guys supported action in Libya, nice try. This particular vote was the GOP opposing an UNLIMITED stay in Libya.


Here's the relevant text of the bill. It's H.J. Res. 68.

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE LIMITED USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA.

(a) Authority- The President is authorized to continue the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya, in support of United States national security policy interests, as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Arab League.

(b) Expiration of Authority- The authorization for such limited use of United States Armed Forces in Libya expires one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.


225 Republicans voted against it.

More information here.

Of course, you are probably correct that most of these guys actually did think action in Libya was a good thing, but the Republican Party's current governing principle is that opposing Obama is more important than acting in the interest of the United States, so as a result you get votes like this.
   79. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:45 PM (#3970599)
#74, you seem to have captured the definition of few.
   80. bunyon Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:47 PM (#3970601)
When a Democrat wages war, the conservative anti-war protester basically is non-existent. And the liberals mostly sit on their hands. Just a fact, that's all.

I know it's been awhile, but Johnson's second full term says hi.
   81. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:48 PM (#3970602)
#78, I think the title of the bill is all anyone needs to know what it was about.

Obama should get credit for taking this golden opportunity. Hopefully he gets another opportunity, this time in Egypt (another previously blown one) or Iran or Syria. If we get one or two, or all of those places to flip Bush's dream of a liberated middle east may come true.
   82. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:49 PM (#3970605)
I know it's been awhile, but Johnson's second full term says hi.


No doubt liberals got off their hands. That's why I said "mostly" not "always". There have been many wars.
   83. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:50 PM (#3970606)
I don't know how anyone can possibly take issue with a successful proxy war that ended Khadafy's dictatorship.

Well, there is the question of whether the U.S. had any vital national interest at stake, and also the lack of Congressional authorization. In other contexts, these were deemed (by some) to be important.

That said, I don't see why there should be any surprise or regret that Khadafy got the Mussolini treatement. That's how it usually ends when a despot is finally overthrown.
   84. LionoftheSenate Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:53 PM (#3970608)
Frankly, Obama has been a big surprise when it comes to his willingness to kill our enemy. I think he has proven to be pragmatic, more so than most conservatives expected, or would give him credit for. He does want to win re-election, after all. Bush's aggressive military policies seem to have been maintained. Obama probably figured, once behind the curtain, they work....thus BO changed his tune. You don't hear a peep about Guantanamo anymore, for example.
   85. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#3970611)
I know it's been awhile, but Johnson's second full term says hi.

I only recall the one.
   86. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#3970612)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, mulling a 2012 GOP presidential run, said Wednesday he would "not have intervened" in Libya. And the White House muddled message on the outcome U.S. really wants with murderous Libyan Leader Muammar Qadhafi---stay or go---makes it easy for critics.

Gingrich, interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC's "The Today Show" on Wednesday was asked if a goal of the military attacks should be to throw Qadhafi from power.

Said Gingrich, "i think that now the -- let me draw a distinction. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region that we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces --

"....Having decided to go there, if Qadhafi does not leave power, it will be a defeat for the United States. It will lengthen our engagement. It will increase our costs. And notice, by the way, at least according to this morning's papers, the White House refuses to even tell Congress whether they're going to ask for a supplemental to pay for the war." -Chicago Sun-Times, 3/23/11


[House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana] Ros-Lehtinen expressed concern that Obama has not yet clearly defined for the American people what vital U.S. national security interests are at stake in Libya.

"Deferring to the United Nations and calling on our military personnel to enforce the 'writ of the international community' sets a dangerous precedent," Ros-Lehtinen said.
[...]
"We are currently involved in two wars right now and I don't think we really need to be involved in a third war," said Senator Rand Paul, a fiscal hawk and founding member of the Tea Party caucus in the Senate, referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
"Americans will pay any price to secure our country. But if there's no clear and present danger to the United States of America, I think cost does become an issue," Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Republican who was re-elected last November with Tea Party support, told Reuters. -Reuters, 3/21/11


Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Obama "missed a huge opportunity to talk about chemical and biological and other stockpiles there that worry us greatly and do impact our national and security interests."

He also referenced "other weapons systems we are very nervous about," though he didn't offer specifics.

Rogers, a supporter of U.S. engagement in Libya, said the president's refusal to specify a clear endgame strategy adds "to the skepticism" and the belief that the United States should not "have gotten in if (we) don't know how to get out." -CNN, 3/29/11


Is that enough for you to concede the point, or should I keep going?
   87. Greg K Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:57 PM (#3970615)
I think the difference between Libya and Iran is that by the time of intervention there was a full-blown civil war occuring, with the anti-Gaddafi forces holding 1/3 of the country.

I don't know as much about Iran, but it seems like a very different situation where any outside intervention would have had to have taken such a different form that I'm not sure how you'd compare them.
   88. Ray (CTL) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 03:57 PM (#3970616)
Obama probably figured, once behind the curtain, they work....thus BO changed his tune. You don't hear a peep about Guantanamo anymore, for example.


That's because he closed it one year after his inauguration.
   89. Brian C Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:03 PM (#3970619)
Isn't this (your quoted statement) generally true, though?

Even if it is true, what's the relevance?

Look, our actions in Libya are either a good idea or they are not. This is true regardless of who does or doesn't support it or why they do or do not support it.

The evidence appears to show that no one in this thread has any idea if it was a good idea or not beyond some vague notion of "Qaddafi bad". But, of course, this hasn't stopped anyone here from wanting to have a very strong opinion on it, either. And instead of learning a thing or two about what's going on, they just sling mud at all the hypocrites on the other side of the ideological divide - even though the consensus here seems to be that Qaddafi being dead is a good thing and that the US action here was successful.

In other words, it's just fighting about who was more right or who was right first. And despite being a fight over nothing of substance, it's being fought with such viciousness that ape-like stupidity is the only plausible explanation.
   90. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:05 PM (#3970621)
A few more:

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., who resigned last month as ambassador to China to explore a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, said Friday that President Obama should not have intervened in Libya and that future military engagements should be weighed carefully based on their financial toll to the United States.

“It’s an affordability issue,” Mr. Huntsman said. “With all of our deployments and all of our engagements abroad, we need to ask a fundamental question: Can we afford to do this? That should be driven by the second point, which is whether or not it’s in our national security interest. I felt from the beginning that Libya was not in our core national security interest.” -The New York Times, 5/20/11


[Glenn] Beck said: “America is involved in the third front. If I would have told you four weeks ago that America may now be involved in a war -- in a third war in a third Muslim country in the Middle East, would you have believed me? I believe I did say words similar to that right over there, that it would sweep, destabilize, and drag us all down. We’re in a third war, a third front. God help us all if it all boils over in Libya.” -FOX News (via Media Matters), 5/18/2011


Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who has focused predominantly on cultural issues in his campaign, has been one of the loudest critics of the president on Libya, telling Politico Sunday that he was "hesitant" to say the military campaign begun by the U.S. and allied forces was the right move. "We have some responsibility to move forward," he said. "It's going to take a lot more investment of time and energy because we didn't act in a timely fashion. ... I'm hesitant at this point to say that this was the right thing to do." Santorum said he envisioned a more limited strike. -National Journal, 3/23/11


[Tea Party leader Jamie] Radtke, meanwhile, is part of the GOP field looking to succeed the retiring Webb, along with ex-Sen. George Allen. In a statement issued Monday, she made some of the same points Webb did but in much sharper, clearly oppositional language.

“President Obama’s decision to commit America to a third concurrent war has two serious flaws,” Radtke said. “First, the president has committed American troops to battle without the authorization of Congress. And second, Libya does not present a security threat to the United States, and we have no business being a part of this military intervention.” -The Washington Post, 3/21/11
   91. Endless Trash Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:05 PM (#3970622)
Politics == Sports. Rah rah my team rah rah your team
   92. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:09 PM (#3970624)
#89 makes compelling points.
   93. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:13 PM (#3970626)
Look, our actions in Libya are either a good idea or they are not. This is true regardless of who does or doesn't support it or why they do or do not support it.

I agree with this. And in spite of the fact that many on the left wanted to proclaim the Bush Doctrine a total failure within about a couple of years of the start of its implementation, the reality is that we are probably still many years away from learning whether or not it is vindicated in the end.

The ironic part is that, barring some major unforeseen disastrous event happening, these successes that Obama has had basically guarantee that the Bush Doctrine is going to be continue to be followed for some time to come, regardless of who wins the next election.

In short, whether in our heart of hearts we like it or not, we had all better get used to more wars, more overthrown dictators, and more terrorists killed by Predator drones, because it's going to continue.
   94. bunyon Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:14 PM (#3970627)
I know it's been awhile, but Johnson's second full term says hi.

I only recall the one.


Sort of the point.
   95. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:14 PM (#3970628)
One more, because why not?

Q: Would any of you have gone into Libya?
[Herman] Cain: I've said many times before that US intervention in Libya is inappropriate and wrong. The US does not belong in this war.
[...]
Cain: Pres. Obama did not make it clear what our mission was in Libya, what the American interests were or what victory looks like. We cannot risk our treasury or national treasures (brave men & women in uniform) without knowing those answers. -Cain on Twitter during the "Twitter debate", via issues2000.org
   96. winnipegwhip Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:15 PM (#3970629)
Nothing like celebrating THE MICK's birthday like a killing.
   97. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3970632)
The biggest reason why republicans now have such a hard time fighting our wars effectively is because the lefty creeps of the kind that are so damn overrepresented on this board do absolutely everything in their power to prevent them from doing so.
For six years, GWB got every single dollar and every single piece of legislation he asked for on Iraq, lefty opposition or no. If lefty opposition was what made fighting wars difficult, then Iraq should have been a breeze.

It's completely disingenuous to suggest Libya and Iraq are comparable in either complexity or national interest. Iraq is exponentially more complex than Libya.
You have to admit, invading Iraq played a big part in making it more complex. And I say this as someone who wholly believed in the initial rational for invasion — it never occurred to me that the intelligence on Iraq's ties to the Taliban and nuclear weapons could be so profoundly wrong.
   98. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3970633)
Hey, how 'bout that? "LionoftheSenate (now on my 'High Horse')" appears to have vanished from the thread! Who could have guessed that'd happen?
   99. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3970635)
Why hasn't this been moved to the lounge? C'mon Dan, get on the ball.
   100. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2011 at 04:22 PM (#3970640)
For six years, GWB got every single dollar and every single piece of legislation he asked for on Iraq, lefty opposition or no. If lefty opposition was what made fighting wars difficult, then Iraq should have been a breeze.

I tried this already, moron. Join the club.
Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB owners expected to unanimously approve extension for Rob Manfred next week, report says
(24 - 1:15am, Nov 14)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogOTP 2018 Nov 12 - Why Voting Is Like Baseball (Hint: Both Matter)
(324 - 1:06am, Nov 14)
Last: Ray (CTL)

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2308 - 12:29am, Nov 14)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogDodgers pitcher Hyun-jin Ryu is only MLB player to accept $17.9M qualifying offer for 2019
(41 - 12:27am, Nov 14)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2191 - 11:59pm, Nov 13)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogNYPost: Why Mets may be in hurry to reach David Wright settlement
(21 - 11:01pm, Nov 13)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Chicago White Sox
(33 - 10:51pm, Nov 13)
Last: SoSH U at work

Newsblog2018 Manager of the Year winners | MLB.com
(8 - 10:34pm, Nov 13)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogAngels' Shohei Ohtani Wins AL Rookie Of The Year Award
(48 - 9:54pm, Nov 13)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Today’s Game Hall of Fame Ballot
(33 - 8:56pm, Nov 13)
Last: Willie Mays Hayes

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(183 - 8:30pm, Nov 13)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOlney: Cubs Open to Trading Bryant
(18 - 8:21pm, Nov 13)
Last: bfan

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-13-2018
(17 - 7:26pm, Nov 13)
Last: KJOK

NewsblogRonald Acuna wins NL Rookie of the Year
(8 - 7:17pm, Nov 13)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogLorena Martin levels accusations of racism against Mariners | The News Tribune
(83 - 7:13pm, Nov 13)
Last: Greg K

Page rendered in 0.6521 seconds
46 querie(s) executed