Are we going to war again?

Yeah, winning if you were trolling just for trolling's sake. But you aren't. You've been hyperbolic and using the same inane Obama criticisms in every political thread. Hey, I disagree with a ton of the stuff the guy is doing, too. But you're REALLY reaching here and talking about normal stuff that every president does, Dem or Rep, without fail.

Nice try at recovering.

 

Not sure where that 2% number came from but I found some too:


Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and is considered Africa's third largest oil producer after Angola and Nigeria.
Oil operation plays a fundamental role in Libyan economic growth, representing 95 percent of exports and 25 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

 

At 42 billion barrels, Libya has the largest proven oil reserves of any African country — equal to about 3 per cent of the global total. Its gas reserves are some 1.5 trillion cubic metres, the fourth-largest in Africa.
But Libya remains relatively unexplored, and the potential for fresh discoveries means that the true total could be far higher. That is why Libya’s return to the international fold has triggered a scramble for drilling rights among international oil companies.
Three of Britain’s biggest — BP, Royal Dutch Shell and BG — have already signed preliminary deals to provide cash and expertise to develop Libya’s investment-starved oil and gas industry. Shell signed in 2004, only months after Libya publicly abandoned plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, and the UN Security Council voted unanimously to lift sanctions.
BP’s much bigger deal, worth an estimated $900 million, was announced in 2007 during a visit by Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, to Tripoli. The company, which withdrew from Libya in 1974 when the country nationalised its oil industry, will explore 54,000sq km — at the onshore Ghadames and offshore Sirte basins.

Taken from :The Sunday Times.

 

^^^^^

LOL at the avatar change.

 

Ok, I'll go out on several limbs.

I too have read and watched many books & documentaries on the history and dangers of radical Islam, and found much of what I learned seriously disturbing as any rational person would. Devaluing life for the sake of furthering dogma, is a horrendous logical virus, an anthropological cancer. Taking scriptures from hundreds of years ago and trying to apply them literally and completely without the good sense to discard or ignore the violent and aggressive bronze age barbarian content is a recipe for disaster. Without writing a thesis and quoting sources, I've generally heard it estimated that this level of fundamentalism is found in anywhere from 8-15 percent of the nearly two billion Muslims in the world, which, a swift burst of mental arithmetic later, amounts to potentially nearly as many people as the entire population of the United States. As far as concerns go, it's not merely paranoid delusion. However, as big as that 8-15 percent amounts to, the other 85-92 percent amounts to... THE OTHER 85-92%. That's a HUGE amount of decent people who have nothing to do with aggressive idiots and don't deserve to be treated as though they do. So to be calling the moderate non-suicidal muslim "anecdotal" is... If 1/3 of the world were radical suicidal terrorists, it'd be game over for civilization already.

Do not even tempt me to drag out the many, many examples of subversive, aggressive, and violence-condoning Christian extremist groups who also do not have the sense to discard the same manner of hateful passages in the bible, & who are working actively and openly at restricting our freedoms to fit their own interpretation of scripture. It's far too easy and only infuriates further. But, it doesn't bother us quite as much, because we know from experience that these jerks are in the minority, the most extreme 10% or so. We don't make the mistake of thinking that all Christians want to return society to the Dark Ages, because we know that most people that are self-described "christian" are so for no other reason than familial, childhood indoctrination or geographical location. If they were born in afghanistan, they would just as certainly be muslim. India, Hindu. North Korea, they'd worship Kim Jong Il. Luckily, religions have a lousy track record of "making" good people & bad people. Peoples nature is determined by many things, but typically people take any religion, cherry pick what fits in with the framework of what is socially acceptable combined with their self-interest, and mold the religion around that. Good people do it, and are usually fine, if sometimes a little quirky/annoying. Bad people do it, and you get the Taliban, the Evangelists and hordes of other moral aggressors. But in traveling, I've found that the vast majority of people everywhere simply want to live simple lives and be left alone to do so in peace.

OneTrack, do you not see the parallels between the language used by the radicals you call out, and your own language in this very thread? You keep using "all" to refer to behavior you've observed in a few and vilify anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with your black and white view of this. This is the root of dysfunctional extremism. Careful that you don't become your enemy. If you turn out to be right, and all Muslims turn out to be as they appear on the News, what is your solution? Kill 2 billion people? I "grew a pair and enlisted in the service. I'm curious what you have in mind.

 

Since you're just making crap up, do whatever you want to.

 

There is one big distinction that isn't being addressed. Christians vigorously root out, condemn, and fire the lethal bullet when it comes to Christian crazies (btw - focusing on recent history, not the inquisition, etc.); the Muslim world typically doesn't do anything to combat Muslim fundamentalists. The 15% of the crazies end up controlling the corridors of power in the Muslim world, ruthlessly putting down any dissent. This is why the Muslim Brotherhood is a continuing problem in Egypt, even though they are the minority. Or the reason the Taliban was able to rise to power. And explains the current regimes in Iran and Syria.

Too often, when Muslims rise to power, they reform the government according to Sharia law. When Sharia law is in place, it is fertile ground for Wahabi schools and reinforcing principles of crazy Islamic radicalism. All it takes is one cleric who feels that jihad is one of the pillars of Islam (which isn't how most of them feel) under Sharia law and you have a problem and very little recourse for stamping it out. Sharia has no tolerance and is rule by fiat. Christians may have founded this country on Christian principles, but were wise enough to recognize that a free people can never be truly free if they are constrained to be of one religion.

As somebody who studied in the near east during college, I couldn't agree more that the problem is a few bad apples. I could tell numerous stories about how warm and friendly Palestinians and Arabs were to me, a Christian. By in large there is much to like about them. But nobody in the middle east is willing to stand up to the bad apples and root them out. Therein lies the problem and the distinction - Christians in our country won't stand for those Christian fundamentalists to do what Islamic jihadists do (Waco, Texas is an example), whereas is often seems the 85% turn their backs or put their heads in the sand when it comes to dealing with jihadists. And sometimes their actions even suggest the 85% secretly support the jihadists - for example the celebration in Gaza over the brutal knife murder of an entire Jewish family in their sleep (Mom, Dad, two children, and a baby - there was dancing in the streets in Gaza over this act) a couple weeks ago.

Until I see some evidence that the 85% of peaceful Muslims are willing to do something about Islamic radicalism, it is hard for me to agree with your point of view.

 

See what you started, Liz!

 

If every Muslim who kills is a representative of his religion, does Christianity get the blame for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis dead due to the orders of George W. Bush?

 

Serbs didn't leave Yugoslavia, Muslims did.


Anyway, more numbers here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden (40,000 Muslims in Malmo, Jews leaving, ...)

In a survey conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres on behalf of the UK-based think tank Open Europe in March 2007, 56% of the Swedish respondents agreed with the statement that "Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat for our country".[27]

 

At least Bush had Congess go along.

(CNN) – Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the seven-term liberal Democrat from Ohio who has twice run for the White House, says President Obama committed an "impeachable offense" in deciding to authorize U.S. airstrikes over Libya Saturday without the consent of Congress.

 

^^^

Q: does the president need the consent of congress before taking military action?

A: no. we didn't for korea and vietnam to name a few.

(obama's just following precedent)

humanitarian issues + oil = no brainer

but it is hi-larious hearing conservatives act like peace-loving hippies. : ) if this was bush dropping bombs on some evil dictator because he "felt" like it was the right thing to do, faux news would be leading the war parade.

you're right, i forgot! of course, there was a fair bit of...misinformation being thrown around.

v v v

 

For some reason everyone forgets this. Joint resolution of Congress. Now we are using our military to support a rebel army attacking a sovereign nation. A bridge too far

 

He reiterated that “we do not provide close air support for the opposition forces, we protect civilians.” But then came the confusion: “Some in the opposition may be civilians…if they were attacked...we would protect them from attack.” General Ham

 

You said 30% of Malmo was foreign born (muslim.) This implies that 30% of the population of Malmo are immigrants who are Muslim. Someone who wasn't dishonest wouldn't make that claim.

Your own links show you pulled that out of your a**.

 

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama, 20 Dec 2007

 

i'll see that quote and raise you two:

"F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney

 

If you look into the breakdown of fatalities in Iraq, you will see that the vast majority are from terrorists trying to destabilize the Iraqi government. Fatalities that have no strategic importance and are purely done to extract body counts. Those deaths are the direct result of conscious decisions by radicals to kill people for their own political needs. The Iraqi government was promised to be handed over and long been handed over to the Iraqi people. But these radicals killed and maimed to sow chaos and terror to impose their political will.

We do not see, what we do not WANT to see.

 

Most soldiers that have served and I have talked to, and I have a couple in my family, say thatthe average Iraqi loves the US for what it has done. They'd rather have us stay than go. But then the radicals are the ones getting all the press.

The alternative was to live in a country with a mad man ruler and two crazy sons who like to pick up their daughters and rape and torture them for pleasure. I think the choice is pretty obvious.

We may have not liberated the entire region, but it is plain to see that what we have sowed is reaping these protest and calls of freedom. Only time will tell if the end result will be for the better, but we have done our part.

edit: if you can't see that fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan led to the fall of communism worldwide, then whats gone on, and whats going on in the middle east now, will not make any sense. btw, you do know that Stalin, Pol Pot, and his ilk killed X times more than Hitler did.