Clusterfuck

[Stinky The Clown]

**Incoming**

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. I hope Obama has better luck convincing these guys than he did with the IOC

about Chicago.

[El Supremo]

2. Like this?

. Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
. French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
. Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
. Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
. No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
. U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
. Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
. Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-NATO-squabbles-leads-bombings-kill-Gaddafi.html

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Yeah

Like that

For openers

[Cali_Democrat]

3. What happened?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Total

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636311&mesg_id=636311

great minds...

[sarcasmo]

6. Pretty much sums it up.

[grasswire]

7. how is that different from FUBAR?

?

[El Supremo]

8. You don't need a lot of entities to be FUBAR.

You can be FUBARED all by yourself. This is a real CLUSTERFUCK.

[grasswire]

10. way beyond SNAFU n/t

[nc4bo]

12. If it's SNAFU that means we've become accustomed to a permanent state of FUBAR.

How pathetic is that?

[grasswire]

13. I'm thinking that 2011 deserves a whole new acronym.

But I'm too numb to make one up.

[nc4bo]

11. Humph, I consider it all SNAFU. A-yup. nt

[unkachuck]

9. I don't know....

....I think it's still too early to tell, I've got my fingers crossed....

....I must admit, finding myself on the same side as war-monger mcCain, makes me extremely nervous....

[patrice]

14. More than 50% likely, but honest question here . . . how does anyone, even of an

exalted nature (say something like that of DU-er MG) have enough information, or assume that they have enough, or that they have the Right, information, so as to be able to deliver such a prediction.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean that it CAN'T happen, so unless someone has specific detailed counter-valing reasons for why it is, and ONLY is, a CF, and CAN'T be anything else, would it not be more intellectually honest to pose any assessment as a probability?

That said, my main reason for bringing this up is the hope of seeing that information, those specific, counter-vailing, high-resolution details that eliminate all probabilities other than cluster-fucked-up-ness.

REALLY just curious, here, wondering how two sets of information, one way more complete than the other, tip the scales and result in a given evaluation, without somekind of weighty configuration that blows absolutely everything else out of the running, and even then any definition of "weighty" needs to be supported relative to other facts, ALL other situational traits etc. . . .

[El Supremo]

15. Nice post Rummy!

[patrice]

16. granularity?

[mod mom]

17. No word better describes what is occurring in this country!

why didn't my recommend count? :mad: who would deny this?