XXXXXX

137 results
1
2
3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

Honestly I don't understand why people think Obama is doing any better. His foreign policy is atrocious and nearly as bad as Bush's. Couple that with irresponsible fiscal policy and you've got yourself a pretty bad administration.
jim_shorts

Could you qualify the claim about foreign policy?

12 years ago

8340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 8340 Posts

Republic, Democrat. doesn't matter who you vote for they both have the same agenda.

12 years ago

deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#53 deactivated-5b78379493e12

Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

And Mitt Romney's vast business experience is going to change things how?

12 years ago

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]
Honestly I don't understand why people think Obama is doing any better. His foreign policy is atrocious and nearly as bad as Bush's. Couple that with irresponsible fiscal policy and you've got yourself a pretty bad administration.
Abbeten

Could you qualify the claim about foreign policy?

Things like drone strikes, continuation of foreign wars, not shutting down Guantanimo Bay like he promised (though honestly that was just a stupid promise to make).

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"]
Honestly I don't understand why people think Obama is doing any better. His foreign policy is atrocious and nearly as bad as Bush's. Couple that with irresponsible fiscal policy and you've got yourself a pretty bad administration.
Vuurk

Could you qualify the claim about foreign policy?

Bombing libya? Thousands of innocent civilians killed in Pakistan due to drone strikes? Not bringing the troops home - simply relocating them to other parts of the middle east. You srs?

What was inherently wrong about assisting Libya? And would you suggest that we just pull our troops immediately out of Afghanistan?

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Bombing libya? Thousands of innocent civilians killed in Pakistan due to drone strikes? Not bringing the troops home - simply relocating them to other parts of the middle east. You srs?

What was inherently wrong about assisting Libya? And would you suggest that we just pull our troops immediately out of Afghanistan?

It was unauthorized. Unconstitutional. Killed civilians. Costly to U.S. We shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs which do not concern us. And yes we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan isn't the only place though. We have bases all over the middle east. Qatar being on of the most populated by the U.S. military. This is incredibly costly and does not help our international relations - especially with Islamic nations.

Yeah if only the US didn't get involved in the Libyan civil war, civilians wouldn't have died.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Bombing libya? Thousands of innocent civilians killed in Pakistan due to drone strikes? Not bringing the troops home - simply relocating them to other parts of the middle east. You srs?

What was inherently wrong about assisting Libya? And would you suggest that we just pull our troops immediately out of Afghanistan?

It was unauthorized. Unconstitutional. Killed civilians. Costly to U.S. We shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs which do not concern us. And yes we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan isn't the only place though. We have bases all over the middle east. Qatar being on of the most populated by the U.S. military. This is incredibly costly and does not help our international relations - especially with Islamic nations.

Literally every act of war is going to result in civilian casualties. That is not sufficient excuse to invalidate an act of war, especially since more civilians would have died had NATO not intervened. And no, it really was not proportionally costly. And you do realize what would happen if we suddenly pulled all of our troops out of Afghanistan, right?

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] It was unauthorized. Unconstitutional. Killed civilians. Costly to U.S. We shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs which do not concern us. And yes we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan isn't the only place though. We have bases all over the middle east. Qatar being on of the most populated by the U.S. military. This is incredibly costly and does not help our international relations - especially with Islamic nations.

Yeah if only the US didn't get involved in the Libyan civil war, civilians wouldn't have died.

They wouldn't have died by *our* hand at least. It would be one thing if the bombing would have been authorized. It was not however, and we have a long history of overthrowing a government and aiding an authoritative regime.

This is not an inherent disagreement with assisting Libya. Your only problems seem to be with the process. What was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

12 years ago

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] It was unauthorized. Unconstitutional. Killed civilians. Costly to U.S. We shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs which do not concern us. And yes we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan isn't the only place though. We have bases all over the middle east. Qatar being on of the most populated by the U.S. military. This is incredibly costly and does not help our international relations - especially with Islamic nations.

Literally every act of war is going to result in civilian casualties. That is not sufficient excuse to invalidate an act of war, especially since more civilians would have died had NATO not intervened. And no, it really was not proportionally costly. And you do realize what would happen if we suddenly pulled all of our troops out of Afghanistan, right?

What would happen? Let me guess, they'd get an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead.

lol quiet, if an Obama intern reads that they might send more misfortuned teenagers to die there

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] It was unauthorized. Unconstitutional. Killed civilians. Costly to U.S. We shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs which do not concern us. And yes we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan isn't the only place though. We have bases all over the middle east. Qatar being on of the most populated by the U.S. military. This is incredibly costly and does not help our international relations - especially with Islamic nations.

Literally every act of war is going to result in civilian casualties. That is not sufficient excuse to invalidate an act of war, especially since more civilians would have died had NATO not intervened. And no, it really was not proportionally costly. And you do realize what would happen if we suddenly pulled all of our troops out of Afghanistan, right?

What would happen? Let me guess, they'd get an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead.

No? The government would implode and the resulting power vacuum would definitely destabilize the country and probably destabilize a lot of the middle east, especially Pakistan.

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] They wouldn't have died by *our* hand at least. It would be one thing if the bombing would have been authorized. It was not however, and we have a long history of overthrowing a government and aiding an authoritative regime.

This is not an inherent disagreement with assisting Libya. Your only problems seem to be with the process. What was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

It is costly to us. It is not our concern. It creates entangling alliances and increases instability in the region when we get involved in these foreign affairs. We can't afford to police the world. We are contributing to warfare and deadly force by bombing them. Also, you can't tell me that oil has nothing to do with it.

It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] What would happen? Let me guess, they'd get an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead.

No? The government would implode and the resulting power vacuum would definitely destabilize the country and probably destabilize a lot of the middle east, especially Pakistan.

Which is a slippery slope. If Pakistan and the rest of the middle east became destabilized, then the terrorists would clearly get a hold of an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead. LET'S JUST KILL THEM NOW BEFORE IT GETS TO THAT POINT!!!!!11

Yeah because it's not like Pakistan has nuclear weapons or anything.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] What would happen? Let me guess, they'd get an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead.

No? The government would implode and the resulting power vacuum would definitely destabilize the country and probably destabilize a lot of the middle east, especially Pakistan.

Which is a slippery slope. If Pakistan and the rest of the middle east became destabilized, then the terrorists would clearly get a hold of an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead. LET'S JUST KILL THEM NOW BEFORE IT GETS TO THAT POINT!!!!!11

First of all, that's not my argument, and second of all, it's not a slippery slope because the contingencies are established. The afghan government is really weak, and the sudden removal of any US support will more likely send it crashing down than not. This would create a power vacuum (obviously) and allow the Taliban to return over the border with Pakistan with greater freedom of action. This would facilitate their ongoing efforts to destabilize the already-rickety Pakistani government. I'm not saying that 'teh turrorists r going to kill us all!' but I AM saying that an unstable nuclear power is a bad thing for everyone.

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Literally every act of war is going to result in civilian casualties. That is not sufficient excuse to invalidate an act of war, especially since more civilians would have died had NATO not intervened. And no, it really was not proportionally costly. And you do realize what would happen if we suddenly pulled all of our troops out of Afghanistan, right?

What would happen? Let me guess, they'd get an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead.

No? The government would implode and the resulting power vacuum would definitely destabilize the country and probably destabilize a lot of the middle east, especially Pakistan.

You think this won't happen when we leave in 2014?

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] What would happen? Let me guess, they'd get an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead.

No? The government would implode and the resulting power vacuum would definitely destabilize the country and probably destabilize a lot of the middle east, especially Pakistan.

You think this won't happen when we leave in 2014?

It might. Who knows. But there's less of a chance of it happening if we do a gradual drawdown and put the pressure on Afghani security forces to step up. While I realize the importance of preventing an Afghani civil war, I also realize that we can't stay there forever.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Which is a slippery slope. If Pakistan and the rest of the middle east became destabilized, then the terrorists would clearly get a hold of an atomic bomb and we'd all be dead. LET'S JUST KILL THEM NOW BEFORE IT GETS TO THAT POINT!!!!!11

First of all, that's not my argument, and second of all, it's not a slippery slope because the contingencies are established. The afghan government is really weak, and the sudden removal of any US support will more likely send it crashing down than not. This would create a power vacuum (obviously) and allow the Taliban to return over the border with Pakistan with greater freedom of action. This would facilitate their ongoing efforts to destabilize the already-rickety Pakistani government. I'm not saying that 'teh turrorists r going to kill us all!' but I AM saying that an unstable nuclear power is a bad thing for everyone.

So why do we need tens of thousands of troops in Qatar?

Because it's a reliable staging area for operations in the region?

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] You think this won't happen when we leave in 2014?

It might. Who knows. But there's less of a chance of it happening if we do a gradual drawdown and put the pressure on Afghani security forces to step up. While I realize the importance of preventing an Afghani civil war, I also realize that we can't stay there forever.

If only Afghanistan was the only place that we are stationed. You realize we have hundreds of bases and outposts in the middle east with troops actively stationed? You realize that we are initiating drone strikes on civilians in places such as Pakistan?

Yes, I am aware we have bases in the middle east. I am also aware that we are staging drone strikes. I'm also aware that those drone strikes are targeted at terrorist cells and are usually good at killing operatives. I'm not fond of civilian casualties and I am open to the idea of stopping drone strikes in Pakistan until we figure out a way to reduce civilian casualties, but I'm not hysterical enough to say that we are 'initiating drone strikes on civilians'

12 years ago

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts

I'm not fond of civilian casualtiesAbbeten

And you'll show that by not voting for the high prince of drone strikes Barack Obama next month?

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] No? The government would implode and the resulting power vacuum would definitely destabilize the country and probably destabilize a lot of the middle east, especially Pakistan.

You think this won't happen when we leave in 2014?

It might. Who knows. But there's less of a chance of it happening if we do a gradual drawdown and put the pressure on Afghani security forces to step up. While I realize the importance of preventing an Afghani civil war, I also realize that we can't stay there forever.

I'm not convinced. We haven't really done anything to fundamentally help Afghanistan fight the extremism that occurs there.

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] This is not an inherent disagreement with assisting Libya. Your only problems seem to be with the process. What was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler? Vuurk

It is costly to us. It is not our concern. It creates entangling alliances and increases instability in the region when we get involved in these foreign affairs. We can't afford to police the world. We are contributing to warfare and deadly force by bombing them. Also, you can't tell me that oil has nothing to do with it.

It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

"It might seem strange that Jefferson, the great champion of the rights of man, would not suggest that the United States use its power to bring about democratic government in other nations. But meddling in the affairs of others he considered morally wrong.

"The presumption of dictating to an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal execrations against the other." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Monroe, 1823.

Wow that quote is ridiculously taken out of context. He was not talking about the US, he was talking about Europe, specifically he was talking about how the European aristocracy was stifling democratic revolutions throughout the continent. In that same letter he writes favorably about the possibility of US intervention in Cuba.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Yes, I am aware we have bases in the middle east. I am also aware that we are staging drone strikes. I'm also aware that those drone strikes are targeted at terrorist cells and are usually good at killing operatives. I'm not fond of civilian casualties and I am open to the idea of stopping drone strikes in Pakistan until we figure out a way to reduce civilian casualties, but I'm not hysterical enough to say that we are 'initiating drone strikes on civilians'

Then you are hysterical enough to ignore reality. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/19/267614/threat-of-death-looming-over-pakistan-us-drones-in-pakistan-kill-98-civilians/

No response Abbeten?

I was eating dinner. I'm not here all the time. And like I said, I'm fine with suspending drone strikes in Pakistan until we sort out the civilian casualties, because I think they're too high. That's not the argument you made, though. You claimed that we 'initiated drone strikes on civilians,' which is incorrect and doesn't even make any sense.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]I'm not fond of civilian casualtiesMrPraline

And you'll show that by not voting for the high prince of drone strikes Barack Obama next month?

I'm not a single issue voter, so no.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] No response Abbeten?

I was eating dinner. I'm not here all the time. And like I said, I'm fine with suspending drone strikes in Pakistan until we sort out the civilian casualties, because I think they're too high. That's not the argument you made, though. You claimed that we 'initiated drone strikes on civilians,' which is incorrect and doesn't even make any sense.

I don't understand you. You are the one who said, "I'm also aware that those drone strikes are targeted at terrorist cells and are usually good at killing operatives." The date proves otherwise. Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed 98% civilians. All I ask is that people are open-minded and more critical of our government. If people were more critical of our foreign policy then this sh*t would not continue, yet most people only focus on what they can see in front of them in their day to day lives.

They ARE good at killing terrorists. We've killed most of the leadership of Al-Qaeda, for one. The problem is that (in my opinion, at least) the cost is too high. I AM critical of our foreign policy, I just don't think that high civilian casualties due to drone strikes provide reason enough for us to vacate the middle east entirely and sever all ties, as you seem to want us to do. There's a medium to be reached.

12 years ago

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="OyVay"]Well I am voting for President Obama... Sucks people assume that I will not just because I am an ugly dude... I guess they see what they want to see. Story of my life. I feel like I am betraying Fox News (which I used to watch religiously and still watch it even though I am not a Republican because it is entertaining in my view) and my father though and Mitt Romney. I feel pretty ****y about it tbh but I gotta vote on the issues. I donated money to his campaign as well but I know it is too late. Also he basically pretty much wins anyways but I am going to try and get early voting done with so I can just be done.OyVay

wtf did I just read? lol

Basically i suck... and people see what they want to see. Always I get the blunt end of this effect and a negative perception

Don't be so hard on yourself. You don't suck.

12 years ago

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] This is not an inherent disagreement with assisting Libya. Your only problems seem to be with the process. What was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler? -Sun_Tzu-

It is costly to us. It is not our concern. It creates entangling alliances and increases instability in the region when we get involved in these foreign affairs. We can't afford to police the world. We are contributing to warfare and deadly force by bombing them. Also, you can't tell me that oil has nothing to do with it.

It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

Did the Massacre of Kurds by Saddam Hussein concern you? Did that justify U.S. involvement in Iraq?

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I don't understand you. You are the one who said, "I'm also aware that those drone strikes are targeted at terrorist cells and are usually good at killing operatives." The date proves otherwise. Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed 98% civilians. All I ask is that people are open-minded and more critical of our government. If people were more critical of our foreign policy then this sh*t would not continue, yet most people only focus on what they can see in front of them in their day to day lives.

They ARE good at killing terrorists. We've killed most of the leadership of Al-Qaeda, for one. The problem is that (in my opinion, at least) the cost is too high. I AM critical of our foreign policy, I just don't think that high civilian casualties due to drone strikes provide reason enough for us to vacate the middle east entirely and sever all ties, as you seem to want us to do. There's a medium to be reached.

I'm going to make the assumption that you are an Obama supporter. I'm also going to make the assumption that while he was campaigning in 2008, you were all for ending the war and pulling out of the middle east. Now 4 years later, Obama has done neither of these things. Yet you still are supporting him and defending his foreign policy. Is this true?

In 2008, I was for setting a deadline and drawing the troops down gradually. Obama has done that. I would have been just as disappointed in Obama if he had decided to immediately withdraw all troops as I would have been if he had decided to extend the war indefinitely. Because neither of those are realistic policies.

12 years ago

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] They ARE good at killing terrorists. We've killed most of the leadership of Al-Qaeda, for one. The problem is that (in my opinion, at least) the cost is too high. I AM critical of our foreign policy, I just don't think that high civilian casualties due to drone strikes provide reason enough for us to vacate the middle east entirely and sever all ties, as you seem to want us to do. There's a medium to be reached.Abbeten

I'm going to make the assumption that you are an Obama supporter. I'm also going to make the assumption that while he was campaigning in 2008, you were all for ending the war and pulling out of the middle east. Now 4 years later, Obama has done neither of these things. Yet you still are supporting him and defending his foreign policy. Is this true?

In 2008, I was for setting a deadline and drawing the troops down gradually. Obama has done that. I would have been just as disappointed in Obama if he had decided to immediately withdraw all troops as I would have been if he had decided to extend the war indefinitely. Because neither of those are realistic policies.

Actually the Iraq withdrawal date was set during the Bush Administration in the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush and Maliki signed. Under the agreement the U.S. and Iraq could negotiate separate agreements to allow for some troops to remain after the withdrawal date if it was felt to be necessary by the two countries.

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] It is costly to us. It is not our concern. It creates entangling alliances and increases instability in the region when we get involved in these foreign affairs. We can't afford to police the world. We are contributing to warfare and deadly force by bombing them. Also, you can't tell me that oil has nothing to do with it. whipassmt

It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

Did the Massacre of Kurds by Saddam Hussein concern you? Did that justify U.S. involvement in Iraq?

Well the Kurds were autonomous by the time the Iraq war started in 2003, but the overthrow of Saddam was something that was long overdue.

12 years ago

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler? -Sun_Tzu-

Did the Massacre of Kurds by Saddam Hussein concern you? Did that justify U.S. involvement in Iraq?

Well the Kurds were autonomous by the time the Iraq war started in 2003, but the overthrow of Saddam was something that was long overdue.

U.S.-enforced no-fly-zones were important in maintainning and creating Kurdish Autonomy.

12 years ago

51726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 9

Member since 2006 • 51726 Posts

Meh.

12 years ago

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] This is not an inherent disagreement with assisting Libya. Your only problems seem to be with the process. What was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

It is costly to us. It is not our concern. It creates entangling alliances and increases instability in the region when we get involved in these foreign affairs. We can't afford to police the world. We are contributing to warfare and deadly force by bombing them. Also, you can't tell me that oil has nothing to do with it.

It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

Not everyone wants to fund a war that's about "doing the right thing" halfway across the world, rather than a necessary war of self-defense. The solution to this would be forming a private militia with the authorization to war against oppressive regimes. Service would be voluntary, and funding would be voluntary. That way those who want to go around the world promoting liberty would be free to, those who want to fund such endeavors would be free to, and those who don't care about overthrowing regimes in third world countries wouldn't have to get involved.

12 years ago

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] It is costly to us. It is not our concern. It creates entangling alliances and increases instability in the region when we get involved in these foreign affairs. We can't afford to police the world. We are contributing to warfare and deadly force by bombing them. Also, you can't tell me that oil has nothing to do with it.

It's not our concern? Says who? I don't know about you, but the massacre of civilian protesters by Qaddafi concerns me greatly. We are all citizens of the world. It was Thomas Jefferson, one of those founding fathers that you love to bring up oh so much, who argued that the US should be an empire of liberty - that we should use our influence abroad to fight against the tyranny of the world. That is not to say that is what the goal of US foreign policy has been for the past century, and that might've not even been the intention of going into Libya, but that is all irrelevant to my question - what was fundamentally wrong with helping the Libyan people overthrow their autocratic ruler?

Not everyone wants to fund a war that's about "doing the right thing" halfway across the world, rather than a necessary war of self-defense. The solution to this would be forming a private militia with the authorization to war against oppressive regimes. Service would be voluntary, and funding would be voluntary. That way those who want to go around the world promoting liberty would be free to, those who want to fund such endeavors would be free to, and those who don't care about overthrowing regimes in third world countries wouldn't have to get involved.

That's nice but we live in the real world.

12 years ago

3140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 3140 Posts

Yeah what we need is for the government to send in private military companies to do these things. Then everything would be dandy.

12 years ago

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

So are you guys just going to make appeals to ridicule, or are you actually going to explain what's wrong with that idea?

12 years ago

137 results
1
2
3

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment