Farrakhan has officially jumped the shark.

Wait a sec...He's still alive? Seriously? I thought he was dead.

Please remind me when the last time was that anyone (who knew that he was still alive) took this tool seriously?

nycpeter, Greetings.

Classic Farrakhan - a dyed in the wool firebrand built from scratch. And yes, I believe he is onto something, however it is more likely akin to an addict 'chasing the ghost' than to true revolution.

There is the old chestnut about the four blind men describing the elephant by feel - one has the tail, another an ear, the third the leg while the fourth cannot fathom a creature so tall and broad. Segue to the 'birfers and the rest of the fringe groups squawking 'revolt - revolt!'; all these whack-a-doodles have glaring blind spots and can only focus on their particular gripe, while none propose any significant alternative other than the fact that they want their way.

Farrakhan's trope is more focused on the unfairness of the doctrine of American exceptionalism, even though there is nothing exceptional about it. He correctly sees the racism, religious chauvinism and naked greed that are the hallmarks of this nation - and being the one trick pony he is continues to see it primarily as a black vs. white issue. And since he is addicted to racism he will chase that ghost until he is no longer among us. He is correct when he poses this:

Quote:
FARRAKHAN: "I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world...Why don't you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can't order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?"

Who the hell do you think you are indeed? He is correct because he recognizes the "How dare those Libyans sit on our oil? That is our emerging market!" theme. Humanitarianism from the US? First check the 1830 Indian Removal act for the definition of genocide.

I propose a litmus test to see if there is something to this rant by Farrakhan: Can you picture he and Walt, side by side, brothers in arms as revolutionists? I cannot. I believe this to be nothing more than classic Farrakhan. And he is just as out there as Taitz, Christensen, BDZ, Rondeau et al.

Best.

Jeez, I'm so disappointed that President Obama isn't running the country according to what Farrakhan wants.

These kind of people scare me and are as dangerous to the USA as Al Quadia IMO. What scares me the most is that they are already here in the USA and not in some other Country.

I Pray that we do not end up in anothern War, as I think Iraq and Afghanstian are all we can handle at this time.

Lea, Greetings,

"Allies begin air attacks on Libya" so says the local newspaper 24 hours out of real time. I agree with you (except for the prayer bit) - no more costly 'interventions', however that is how our economy is structured. But of course we have no intention of putting 'troops on the ground'. How long will we keep that pledge, do you think?

Best.

There's not a really good place to put this: Iraq Veterans Against the War shows all signs of being a growing movement. They make the familiar point that this country has had a war economy for decades. They are surely in opposition to our intervention in Libya.

Some of these soldiers speak here:

I for one fail to understand how we got to the point of dropping 2,000 bombs on Libyan soil so quickly. I thought we were just enforcing a no-fly zone? Now we're flying stealth bombers from bases in Missouri into Libyan territory to drop bombs?

What is the aim, here? If it is humanitarian, I find it odd that we're taking no steps to protect the civilian populations of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia from attacks they have suffered from their governments. I conclude that this effort is not humanitarian after all, just as President Bush's invasion of Iraq was not humanitarian. If there is some functional, operational purpose to our attack, then that objective has not been spelled out to me by President Obama. If it is our aim to simply remove Ghaddafi from office, is it realistic to believe that our air attack will be sufficient? Because if it's insufficient, we will be left with a very pissed off Ghaddafi still sitting in power. Don't we risk even further alienating the Muslim world by attacking yet another Muslim nation?

I have 8 million questions about all this, because the President has failed to properly communicate his thought process and his plan of action to us. I realize that most presidents completely ignore the war powers clause of the Constitution, which supposedly forces them to consult Congress before engaging in war. But perhaps if more of them complied with that constitutional requirement, they wouldn't suffer from the problems resulting from a population feeling like it's in the dark. The only president in recent history who has ever properly considered using it is, of all people, President Bush.

Officially the US is there to support NATOs actions in enforcing a no fly zone. The Enterprise has moved out of the Red sea for the Persian Gulf for example. Most of the planes that have gone over have been French. Which is causing the RWNJs heads to explode.

But yeah, in actuality the whole thing is to topple Gadaffi. I would imagine the US simply does not have any spare capacity to do more than play support on this. And at least this had the whole United nations support behind it and the arab league, however temporarily before they stab the West in the back and pretend they were not in support at all. Oops that's already happened.

But, since Bill Kristol has come out saying this is a great idea and the US should be putting down ground troops, this has officially become a bad fucking idea.

But anyway at least the Brits have the balls to come out and say that Gadaffi is a legit target.



By the way there's an interesting article on the whole PSYop stuff going on here http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03 ... ya-psyops/ I wasn't aware that any Lybian ship leaving port would be destroyed, for example

The imposition of a no-fly zone often begins with the elimination of anti-aircraft and other forces on the ground that would tend to enable the sanctioned party to resist and to counter-attack the forces imposing the zone. Indeed, Qaddafi activated anti-aircraft fire during the initial raids. Previous impositions of no-fly zones, such as in Iraq, have often involved preliminary attacks to disable the sanctioned party. One doesn't want to declare such a zone, then get lured into an ambush by a feint at using air power, followed by anti-aircraft fire and hostage taking of one's pilots.

But we can implement a no-fly zone however we want to. We just dropped 45 one-ton bombs on "various targets" in Libya via stealth bombers that took off from runways in Missouri, without a hitch. And however we have chosen to implement the UN resolution, members of the Arab League who had originally requested the no-fly zone were expressing irritation and annoyance, which is principally why I am concerned. Apparently the Arab League had a different idea of how the zone would be enforced than we do.

Besides, the resolution calls for more than a no-fly zone. The resolution "Authorizes Member States... to take all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." Again, are we attacking to protect civilians (which I flatly do not believe), or are we attacking to remove Ghaddafi? If the latter, he seems to have gained a tremendous advantage through our sitting on our hands for 2 or 3 weeks, to the point that it might be impossible to remove him. And if we do remove him, the perception will clearly exist that he was simply removed by the United States. This is a major distinguishing point from Egypt and Tunisia.

I don't know who has advocated within the White House for this action, but I'm curious. This entire decision-making process smells W-ish to me.

Something nobody has yet noted here, that I've seen, is that Obama basically cut Congress entirely out of the process. It has been noticed, however, on threads on The Volokh Conspiracy.

Except, George W. Bush actually did ask for Congressional consent to invade Iraq, in keeping with the Constitution! Didn't I vote for a former constitutional law professor to be president, on purpose? The more I think about all this, the more baffled I am.

I believe the cases are distinguishable. While GWB did seek Congressional approval, what he got was a blank check, the AUMF, that basically said "we abdicate our responsibility entirely, just decide whether you're going to war with Saddam and then let us know after you do it." Obama's decision is somewhat worse, in that he cut Congress entirely out of the process. However, Obama's decision also did not commit ground troops. Even from the early days of conflicts such as those with the Barbary Pirates and the Quasi-War with France, there has been a distinction between full wars and limited military actions to protect immediately threatened American interests.

I am somewhat suspicious of my own distinction, however, because Obama has made it fairly clear that, like the Iraq War, the purpose of these air actions is regime change.

Bush had to because he could not hide behind the "this is an International Operation, not a war" argument, as he could not get a UN resulution authorising the war despite Himself and Blair trying to get one for 2 solid months.

Strictly speaking the US has not declared war on Lybia. Its a UN sanctioned operation, authorized by the UN security council. That's a system which did not exist at the time of the Constitution and is a technicality that allows the president to sidestep congress. In a sense, congress has been replaced by the UN in this instance. Its the world that has declared war on Lybia... really.

Yeah I know. Its pretty much bullshit all round but there it is.

As for the Arab league, as i hinted before, they are all about getting rid of gadaffi without getting their own hands dirty. Now that the french Et al have committed, they can pretend that this isn't that they wanted. You think they didn't know that a no fly zone would involve bombs? hell know. This is all about looking good to their constituents while the West does their dirty work. It suits them to to be oh so shocked and misinform their populace.

Meanwhile In Yemen, The army is defecting to the side of the rebels in increasing numbers.

Farrakhan and Taitz -- two of a kind from opposite sides of the world.

Whereas Orly and her ilk see Obama as the incarnation of Islamic extremism, Farrakhan has a different take on the president:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370170/Were-succeeding-Libya-says-Barack-Obama-rebels-key-city-Ajdabiyah.html

Perhaps Farrakhan can help Taitz in her quixotic quest to unseat the usurper. Adding Farrakhan's gravitas to the already extensive list of distinguished birfers would help to further the cause, yes/no?