"The “humanitarian” intervention introduced to save lives believed to be threatened was in fact a political intervention introduced to bring about regime change."
http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-now-n..._ground-082211


Just great to see our troops used under false pretenses. Wasn't a "Humanitarian" intervention at all. Let's see if the media reports the truth. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Actually, in this op-ed, he didn't "admit" anything. He simply stated his opinion.

What does he base that opinion on? Is it valid?

The President just now said the future is up to the Libyans, or words to that effect.

- Jack

 

Anyone who knows anything about the power brokers in D.C. knows who the President of the Council on Foreign Relations is. In fact, many people in Presidential cabinets are members of the Council. His "opinion" holds much weight.

If you read their own magazine, "Foreign Affairs", you will see what happens in the world months/years in advance. I would suggest that you become a subscriber.

 

You're side-stepping the questions again, Frank. And ignoring the fact that you drew erroneous conclusions from that Op-Ed.

- Jack

 

And another potentially interesting thread dies after the moderator badgers the member.

To summarize:

Frank finds an interesting article about a timely topic. He decides to share, and also questions whether the media will cover the angle presented by the author.

The author uses the term 'in fact'. Frank characterizes this as an admission in the thread title.

The mod is adamant that the author is expressing an opinion, and not admitting to anything. Mod questions the author's credentials and the validity of his opinion. Then the mod throws in a non-sequitor from the POTUS.

In response to the mod's questions regarding the validity of the author's opinions, Frank attempts to establish the credibility of the source.

Unsatisfied Mod criticizes Frank for sidestepping and drawing erroneous conclusions.


So did I miss anything?


BTW, thanks for the link, Frank. It gives food for thought, and I'm sure I would not have seen it if you had not posted it here.

 

One more example that we need to worry about our own country and stop policing the world.

 

Dirt Bike - I'd have to say, "You missed EVERYTHING"!

And, I'm not speaking as a "mod" in any of this. I'm just an ordinary member like you and Frank. There's no way I'm exercising any "mod" powers against Frank, or now you. You are both entitled to your opinions and really have a lot of leeway in how you wish to address me. I have a very thick skin and don't take offense easily.

Once again though, I'll try to explain. The title of Frank's thread is: "CFR President Admits Libya Action Was For "Regime Change"". The word "admits" is a powerful one. It implies prior knowledge and collusion at a minimum, and is usually associated with "guilt". Here's the first three ways of using that word from Mirriam-Webster:Now, Frank is not stupid, so I have to believe he intentionally mis-characterized Dr. Haass' remarks, which were, simply, opinion. That opinion may actually be well-formed, but it is still just opinion.

Had Frank presented this link as an informed opinion, I would not have found fault with it. But, Frank asserts something in his post at the start of this thread that is simply not true! And, much as I am reluctant to say this, I think it's a habit with Frank. His insertion of the word "admits" is later strengthened by this statement: "Let's see if the media reports the truth." Again, he's granting a level of credence to an opinion that is simply not justified, but it reinforces the idea that we were definitely in Libya for regime change.

Now, you say this: "Mod questions the author's credentials and the validity of his opinion. Then the mod throws in a non-sequitor from the POTUS." How is my asking, "What does he base that opinion on? Is it valid?" a question about the author's credentials? Aren't we, the citizens of a "free society" allowed to ask questions like these? Or, are we just sheep?

The so called "non-sequitor" from the POTUS, was in response to Dr. Haass' statement at the end of his Op-Ed: "US president Barack Obama may need to reconsider his assertion that there would not be any American boots on the ground; leadership is hard to assert absent participation. I was listening to President Obama's address and it seemed to counter that statement. I simply reported on this fact (without embellishment).

Words are important! They shape people's ideas and convey information. I will always fight against misinformation that is brought about by sloppy reporting or deliberate misquoting/twisting of fact. It is why I am reluctantly entering into these discussions here.

I'd much rather talk about trucks.

- Jack

 

I would tend to believe the President of the Council on Foreign Relations knew what the "end game" of the humanitarian intervention was when it started. But thats just me...

 

Fair enough, Harley. I cannot argue with that!

And, Alex - I agree with you completely too. Please, let's stop trying to be "boss of the world". We desperately need to get our own house in order.

- Jack

 

I personally believe meddling will be our downfall. Somewhere I saw the projection that we will be in Afghanistan until 2024?!?! That is just unacceptable to me. I understand that they killed a lot of people on 9/11 but if its about revenge haven't we had enough? Grant it bringing our boys home will leave a lot of unemployed soldiers. Its kind of ironic that we are over there fighting but we can't even keep illegals from crossing the border into this country.

 

With all due respect Jack, if you knew the political clout/power the President of the CFR has, you would know that even an op-ed from him carries much weight.

Next time you're on google, search for a list of current/former members of the Council. When these men/women throw their "opinions" around in closed door meetings, many times their "opinions" end in blood being spilled around the world.

The gravity of their "opinions" is not lost on me.

 

That's fine, Frank. No complaint with that statement. Op-Ed's from a number of people should carry great weight. Among them, people like Colin Powell, on the subject of military intervention, John McCain, on the subject of prisoner treatment, and so on.

I'm not changing the subject, just showing how I CAN agree with you.

I could only wish our Country's leadership would pay attention to some of the more "well-reasoned" of these Op-Eds.

I imagine we'll find out pretty quickly how things pan out in Libya. Didn't I say, back before our involvement, that I thought we should stay out of it? (I think I did, but it may just be my dementia catching up with me again.)

- Jack

 

This I have to ask, how does one find out the political clout / power this person has ?

I mean as in fact, not a past performance is representative of future performance ( telling the future by being correct in the past ).

I have seen 2 times where you have said basically this much, which without any proof of it, the claim of power or clout is just that an opinion.

How about an org chart, or other line of responsibility.

I am asking this, not having read the magazine, and I will say thank you for the reference on it, I plan on subscribing. It will be a nice addition to The Economist that I get now.

 

You're about as demented as a fox in a hen house.

Yum, them chicks is some gooood eatin'!

 

The CFR has been influential in 'recommending' policies on our foreign policy for many decades (essentially since the 1920's-30's). A comprehensive study of those policies will show that they generally favor the United States taking an interventionist stance in world affairs. In fact, in their magazine, they even speak about how the President and other elected officials can 'transform' the general consensus in D.C. and sell these policies to the American people.

Off the top of my head, just last year I read an article in Foreign Affairs that recommend we should start negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Lo and behold, a few months later it is reported on CNN and Fox that we are doing so.

I would also recommend a visit to youtube to watch various people in various cabinet positions and various world leaders speaking in front of the Council on Foreign Relations. I haven't checked lately but I believe they also have videos on their www.cfr.org website. Let's just say it's very interesting to see what some people say when speaking before the Council.