I can really start to see this guy as president now

[BT]

Twernt my suggestion.  Very clearly "The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit", with the then subsequent backpedaling "... it may or may not turn out to benefit the US, the EC or both"

The point is he clearly stated prior to your accusation of backpedaling that things might not turn out as planned. so ergo no backpedaling.

[sirs]

Ergo, you'd be wrong, as he made clear his position, then backpedaled from it, like he's been doing with RR.  But cudos on the defensive effort

[BT]

Ergo, you'd be wrong, as he made clear his position, then backpedaled from it, like he's been doing with RR.  But cudos on the defensive effort

Or you could be wrong , as the evidence suggests.

[sirs]

The evidence suggests the contrary.  In fact, your presentation of the "evidence" appears to be a design to insulate criticism, as someone can make 1 comment, saying 1 thing, then make another of a different bent, and be allowed to remain within that bubble of immunity, as apparently it can be either/or

Interesting

[BT]

The evidence suggests the contrary.  In fact, your presentation of the "evidence" appears to be a design to insulate criticism, as someone can make 1 comment, saying 1 thing, then make another of a different bent, and be allowed to remain within that bubble of immunity, as apparently it can be either/or

Interesting

In this case. His statements do not contradict each other.

Could the no fly zone be to the benefit of Europe and the US?

Is it possible that the no fly zone might not work as intended?

or using my original analogy.

Can it be beneficial to invest in the stockmarket.

Is there a guarantee that those investments will turn out as expected?

Perhaps you would be better served in examining why you made your statements instead of inferring motivations into why i made mine.

[sirs]

The evidence suggests the contrary.  In fact, your presentation of the "evidence" appears to be a design to insulate criticism, as someone can make 1 comment, saying 1 thing, then make another of a different bent, and be allowed to remain within that bubble of immunity, as apparently it can be either/or

Interesting

In this case. His statements do not contradict each other.

Sure they do.  He emphatically said they U.S. and EU were in Lybia for their own self interests (constant criticism applied to Bush, by the likes of Xo, when we were in Iraq), then quickly backpedaled to maybe/maybe not their doing it for their own self interests

It's irrelevant what YOU think our self interests are, YOU didn't make the contradictory statements

[BT]

He emphatically said they U.S. and EU were in Lybia for their own self interests

Is that a true statement? Would a no fly zone be in European and US self interests?

then quickly backpedaled to maybe/maybe not their doing it for their own self interests

Actually he never claimed it wasn't in their self interests. He claimed that their actions may not turn out how they planned. Prior to the blanket statement you are trying to infer could cause whiplash.

It's irrelevant what YOU think our self interests are, YOU didn't make the contradictory statements

My issue is not with XO's statement. It is with your erroneous inference and deductive conclusion.

[sirs]

He emphatically said they U.S. and EU were in Lybia for their own self interests

Is that a true statement?

Not really relevent to the point made with the subsequent maybe/maybe the're not doing it for their own self interests

Not sure why your having such a hard time with this, since I'm not making the point of self interest or not.  Xo is the one making the inconsistent conclusions

[Xavier_Onassis]

I made no conclusions at all. I merely said that both the US and Europe thought it was in their best interests to intervene i  Libya, but that the result may or may not be what they hoped it would be.

I do think that the odds are slightly in favor of this being the right move.

Of course, we shall never know whether Qadaffi would have stormed Benghazi and exterminated his opposition one by one as he said he would do. Perhaps he had the power, but not the will to do this, perhaps he had the will but lacked the power. Since he cannot take over Benghazi now, we shall never know what was prevented.

[sirs]

Of

I do think that the odds are slightly in favor of this being the right move.

But of course.....it's a Democrat who made the call to go in

[Xavier_Onassis]

That has nothing at all to do with anything.

[R.R.]

I merely said that both the US and Europe thought it was in their best interests to intervene i  Libya

And then you backpeddled and admitted that it may not be in the U.S.'s best interests when pressed by Sirs. You are in asscovering mode right now, which is what happens when you defend or justify every boneheaded thing somebody with a "D" after their name does. You are trying to cover yourself no matter what happens, and it is disgusting.

We need to be paid back by the Arab states for our involvement and initiation of the Libyan war. Let us see if Obama is competent enough to do that. We don't have money to throw around right now.

[BT]

And then you backpeddled and admitted that it may not be in the U.S.'s best interests when pressed by Sirs.

Where did he say that?

[Xavier_Onassis]

And then you backpeddled and admitted that it may not be in the U.S.'s best interests when pressed by Sirs. You are in asscovering mode right now, which is what happens when you defend or justify every boneheaded thing somebody with a "D" after their name does. You are trying to cover yourself no matter what happens, and it is disgusting.
==========================================================================
While is is rather pleasant to know that I have managed to disgust you, I do not make Middle Eastern policy, nor do I believe that anything I say in this rather obscure chat forum will have any effect whatever.

I was simply commenting that the US and Europe both had reasons, though not identical reasons, for trying to stem the violence in Libya and to bring around the end of Qaddaffi.  Qaddaffi is a mercurial and rather ineffective leader. Libya has so few people and so much oil that it should be a cinch for him to make every Libyan happy, in the same way that the Emirs of the UAE seem to have made all the Emiris happy. Money can buy rather a lot of happiness, certainly enough to render political opposition somewhat moot, and Qaddaffi has not managed that.

Then I simply mentioned that they seemed to have a pretty good understanding of the situation, but that this did not mean that everything would turn out as they planned. The Libyans are the major unpredictable factor here, after all.

[R.R.]

That was a very convoluted answer. It's like you are dancing on the top of a pin to explain your contradictory statements to Sirs about Libya. Now, BT is doing a good job trying to bail your dumb ass out, and I give him credit for that. But I frankly don't think you deserve it.

The fact is the Libyan war is not in our interests. We do not purchase any oil from Libya. This war is in the interests of Europe and China, who do purchase a lot of oil from Libya, and they want it to keep flowing. We should not have gotten involved in this mess. We should have consulted and that's it. We could have provided our best minds to come up with strategy, but that's it. We don't have the money right now to get involved in a civil war in Libya. We have spent a billion dollars for what? The best we can hope for now is a stalemate. Gaddafi may not even leave power. Obama is a joke.