Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Current Adminstration still wants to send aid money to Libya

by lylesg / September 13, 2012 10:22 AM PDT

Is John Kerry really an earthling? Personally, I wonder if a secret NASA mission to Mars might have brought him back as some sort of experiment.

A group of House conservatives is calling for foreign aid to Libya and Egypt to be stripped from a six-month federal funding bill set for a vote on Thursday.
"It would show a tremendous amount of leadership from this administration, in light of the recent developments, if the president were to come back and demand that the amount of money that is in the [continuing resolution] for Libya and Egypt be stripped. That would be tremendous leadership," Landry said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/249071-house-conservatives-consider-stripping-foreign-aid-to-libya-from-spending-bill


Senator Rand Paul is filibustering the Senate until he gets a vote on his bill to end aid to Pakistan, which now also names Egypt and Libya as countries that "don't act like allies" and therefore don't deserve U.S. aid.
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed this week in Libya in a violent attack on the U.S. Consulate, and protestors stormed the U.S. embassy in Egypt.
"They cash our check and they laugh at us," Paul said.
"Cutting the aid to any of these countries in this way and this fashion is not a way to honor Chris Stevens," Kerry said. "The senator from Kentucky might be really surprised to know that the Libyan people are grateful to the U.S. and are mourning the deaths of our people."


<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<font size="3" face="Calibri">http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/249399-sens-paul-kerry-argue-over-ending-aid-to-middle-eastern-countries</font>
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font>

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Current Adminstration still wants to send aid money to Libya
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Current Adminstration still wants to send aid money to Libya
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Yeah, that's the answer
by Josh K / September 14, 2012 12:42 AM PDT

Help ensure they can fight off the terrorists trying to throw a wrench in the "Arab Spring" by cutting off aid to what we consider the legitimate governments of those countries. I'm not familiar with Landry but Rand Paul is certifiably insane.

My opinion is that abandoning them now would be a huge mistake.

Collapse -
In 1986......
by lylesg / September 14, 2012 7:24 AM PDT

After the CIA determined that Libyan forces had killed Americans in Germany, President Reagan bombed Gaddhafi's house. We didn't have anymore trouble out of them for a long time. Obama is pretty disgusting when it comes to foreign affairs. IMO.

Collapse -
You really think the two situations are similar?
by Josh K / September 14, 2012 9:09 AM PDT
In reply to: In 1986......

Then you have even less grasp of what's happening than Sarah Palin does, and that's saying something.

Collapse -
If you do not see the similarity.....
by lylesg / September 14, 2012 9:29 AM PDT

in that terrorists killed innocent Americans in both situations then you are about as clueless as Joe Biden and John Kerry. The difference is that Reagan let them and the rest of the ME know that America would not stand for such terrorists actions. Obama, on the other hand gives lip service from the podium and then likely told the Egyptian Brotherhood president over the phone that if he wants the aid monies to keep coming in he better step forward (after 2 days of nothing) and act concerned. That's about the size of it.

Point being, Reagan took charge and nobody for one minute saw him as a weak leader. Obama makes apologies to the muslim world they do not respect him.

Collapse -
You need to see the DIFFERENCE
by Josh K / September 15, 2012 3:25 AM PDT

In the case of the German attack (and Pan Am 103), the terrorists were acting with the full cooperation and support of the government. In this case, they were not. In fact one theory is that pro-Ghadafi operatives are behind it all.

Collapse -
You are missing my point, or totally ignoring.....
by lylesg / September 15, 2012 4:18 AM PDT

it's not about what terrorist group/leader did what and where. It's about terrorism in general and the attacks on innocent Americans. Are we going to allow such evil malicious actions to happen unanswered? Why the hell would we want to send aid to the so called peaceful muslims who are supposedly crying and grieving with us when they sit back and allow this crap to go on right in their own front yards? It was obviously a planned attack and not that it matters.

The Libyan government are responsible for their peoples actions they should have to answer for them. Instead, they expect aid money to be sent to them and for the US to damn the makers of some film.

Collapse -
The Libyan government....
by Josh K / September 16, 2012 10:56 PM PDT

.....wants to put a stop to this as badly as we do. We can either:

1) Try to help them.

2) Bomb them.

You really want to start bombing every country that has Al Qaeda operatives living in it even if the governments don't want them there? 'Cause if you do, you'll have to turn some of those bombs on the Good Ol' US of A since there are plenty of them right here.

Collapse -
You're now getting down to the true questions....
by lylesg / September 17, 2012 12:32 AM PDT

we should be asking. (BTW, I never suggested bombing)

Q: Could the Libyan govt have protected our embassy from attack?

A: Apparently so. They say the attack was preplanned and Muslim leaders in Libya now say that embassy officials were warned three days in advance.

Q: Should we hold the Libyans responsible?

A: Of course we should and without apology for our right to expression of free speech. I am not implying that some movie is the culprit, too.

Q: Should we "bomb" a Libyan facility in retaliation?

A: IMO, not yet. However, we should withhold all financial aid to the Libyans until further investigation, hopefully, brings better light on what actually happened. Then we proceed with caution and the Libyans know that they all will be held responsible if Americans are slaughtered and the murders could have been prevented.

Rep Mike Rogers of Mi, gives a very good take on what our policy should be.

"..think it's probably better that we have some influence in Egypt that we can have conversations about, hey, you don't want to provoke Israel, you don't want to continue on with this anti-Americanism. But it has to be conditioned. We shouldn't just give the money and hope for the best. That's not going to work."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east?page=4#ixzz26jmhEmE6

Collapse -
You're still taking the position.....
by Josh K / September 17, 2012 12:46 AM PDT

......that the Libyan government had something to do with this.

There were protests in Australia too; should we threaten them as well?

Collapse -
You are wrong! I have not taken that position.
by lylesg / September 17, 2012 1:22 AM PDT

I never said the Libyan govt had something to do with the attacks and slaughters. What I did say is that the Libyan govt. are responsible for protecting our embassy and they should be held accountable for not doing so. They knew what was coming.

Collapse -
You're still advocating....
by Josh K / September 17, 2012 1:33 AM PDT

....."holding them accountable" where I'm saying we need to work WITH them to bring the people responsible to justice and help end the violence.

They are trying -- it's a new government and they're not a finely tuned machine just yet. We can either help them and develop a new ally in the region, or we can be antagonistic.

Collapse -
what is your suggestion
by James Denison / September 17, 2012 2:51 AM PDT

that would constitute "working with them"? Give some examples, other than tossing good money after bad, that would qualify as "working with them".

Collapse -
Sharing intel, providing training....
by Josh K / September 17, 2012 2:55 AM PDT

.....to their police and military, establishing a cooperative relationship that would allow us to prosecute whoever gets caught, etc.

Collapse -
(NT) When current policy fails it's time to change direction.
by lylesg / September 17, 2012 5:50 AM PDT
Collapse -
And I think it's too soon....
by Josh K / September 17, 2012 6:12 AM PDT

......to conclude that any policy has failed. This is a new government trying to rebuild a country that's been living in a state of war and chaos for quite some time.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be firm and clear that we expect our diplomats to be safe; we should and we have (Hillary issued a statement to that effect the other day). It just sounds to me like you're looking for more, some kind of retaliation against a government that did not support what happened and is working with us to bring those responsible to justice.

Collapse -
RE: some kind of retaliation
by JP Bill / September 17, 2012 6:18 AM PDT

That's how you(America) ended up in Iraq?

Collapse -
(NT) Perhaps you might understand the concept of "Tough Love"
by lylesg / September 17, 2012 8:36 AM PDT
Collapse -
And by the way --
by Josh K / September 17, 2012 1:36 AM PDT

We ARE doing what you want -- we've sent warships into the area. We're ready to act if we need to.

Collapse -
I have an even better idea
by James Denison / September 17, 2012 1:28 AM PDT

stay out of the world's hell holes until they've quit killing each other off first. That way there's no problem with assigning blame later if we put an Embassy there. And lest some foolish person mentions Australia, I would point out there's a difference between a protest under control of the local govt and those not controlled by local govt. Of course it's hard to believe anyone would make such a foolish comparison, but you never know.

Collapse -
RE: stay out of the world's hell holes until
by JP Bill / September 17, 2012 4:06 AM PDT

stay out of the world's hell holes until they've quit killing each other off first.

And THEN you go in? For what purpose?

Why go in at all?

Collapse -
Of course there is the minor detail....
by Josh K / September 17, 2012 4:19 AM PDT

.....that the local government in Australia has been there for ages and the local government in Libya has been there for a couple of months.....

Libya is a country trying to dig out from under 40+ years of dictatorship, and still dealing with pro-Ghadafi sympathizers and other troublemakers trying to spoil what they've done. We can either try to make this situation better or we can make it worse.

Collapse -
Another question...
by J. Vega / September 17, 2012 1:29 PM PDT

The current administration would have us believe the latest violence is caused by a trailer for a movie that may not even exist. If it was a major factor, there is another question that we might ask. In a little while Hollywood will release the movie about the raid that killed. With the current demonstrations/attacks we have seen a sign put up on an embassy warning that there are a million and a half Bin Ladins. Crowds are shouting "Osama, Osama, We are all Osama!"
How will those people react when the movie comes out, considering the raid details put out by the Obama administration? Those details said when the Seals entered OBL's room he used a woman for a shield. I would think that hiding behind a woman will be taken as calling OBL a coward, and will enrage the further Muslims. We shall see what happens when the movie is released.
Here is just a thought that hit me. To diffuse such a reaction, you would have to go back and change history, eliminating Obama's information release that showed OBL as acting in a cowardly way. But, how can you change history?
My thought is a possible answer. There has been a lot of press about the book telling about the raid, authored by a SEAL who was on the raid. A lot of the press talks about why would a SEAL release that information, considering their oaths about secrecy. Could it be that that that book was created not by that SEAL, but by others, and the SEAL was assigned or volunteered to say that he composed it. The treason for such a thing would be that the book says that OBL, just heard the noise, peeked around his room door, and was immediately shot through the head. This eliminates any thoughts of him acting in what Muslims would feel to be a cowardly way. He just peeked around a door, and died before he did anything. No dishonor at all. If that version of his death replaced Obama's previous version, it could eliminate future rage about his death. Just a thought.........

Collapse -
You're really reaching, J
by Josh K / September 18, 2012 12:05 AM PDT
In reply to: Another question...

That's quite an elaborate conspiracy you've cooked up there.

Collapse -
I talked about this before. Libya's new government is weak
by Ziks511 / September 14, 2012 3:09 AM PDT

and in need of help stabilizing Libya and fighting off the factions. The terrorists were not connected in any way to the Libyan government but were at the very least in sympathy with Al Qaeda. Additionally, some of them according to BBC News have been rounded up by the Libyan army which shows good faith on their part.

When I wrote my post supporting your position of cutting off aid et cetera I specifically exempted Libya because of these reasons. You can't hold a government responsible for the actions of terrorists, unless that government is giving aid and comfort to those terrorists and is aligned with them. This is clearly not the case in Libya.

Rob

Collapse -
In these Islamic countries
by James Denison / September 14, 2012 4:14 AM PDT

it's like wondering which monkey tree will empty out and go on a rampage and which will wait for the next time. Supposedly the Libyan forces stepped back from this during the attack. They needed US Marines there who would have fought for them instead.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?