well technically it was just a cease fire so.......Bertster7 wrote:
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.Jay wrote:
and I'm not pissing on the efforts of your militaries troops. Im pissing on hypocrites that do mental gymnastics to justify their position. The same morons that spent years protesting the Iraq war are now cool with intervention.Shocking wrote:
If anything I feel this is a war for public opinion, it's an opportunity to improve relations with the rest of the ME, handed to us on a silver platter.
On the other hand, if we didn't, it would worsen - and subsequently have an effect on the progress we're trying to make in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Are those differences not clear and distinct enough for you? Do you not get the difference?
Unilateral military action = bad
Internationally sanctioned intervention = not bad
More fair to whom? 50.1% of the people? So you'll be ok when that 50.1% votes to strip the wealth from the minority? To segregate them? To kill them off?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, majority rule - democracy. That's exactly what I'd like to see. Whether I disagree with the decisions that might be made, I totally believe in the rights of the majority - rather than of the richest. You might not believe in democracy, but I do. It's not less fair than the current system we have, it's more fair - by definition.Jay wrote:
It does a fantastic job of destroying minority voices and making them irrelevant. The assumption that people of your ilk always make is that your voice will always be in the majority. It won't. If you got your way you'd spend your time whining about how you have no say and how unfair everything is. I have no idea why people still put forth the ridiculous idea that democracy is somehow more fair. It's even less fair than the current systems we have. It's pure majority rule. There's nothing glamorous about that. It's a bludgeon whose intent is to force conformity to the majorities whims.Bertster7 wrote:
The biggest factor is no vetoes and everyone having a voice. Not complete unity, but general consensus. It works for everything else.
For someone that comes off as mildly intelligent you really haven't put a lot of thought into the stances you back.
Yeah, mob rule didn't lead to pogroms or inquisitions or witch trials or anything.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I did say a big majority, so say 80% support, not 50.1%.Jay wrote:
More fair to whom? 50.1% of the people? So you'll be ok when that 50.1% votes to strip the wealth from the minority? To segregate them? To kill them off?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, majority rule - democracy. That's exactly what I'd like to see. Whether I disagree with the decisions that might be made, I totally believe in the rights of the majority - rather than of the richest. You might not believe in democracy, but I do. It's not less fair than the current system we have, it's more fair - by definition.Jay wrote:
It does a fantastic job of destroying minority voices and making them irrelevant. The assumption that people of your ilk always make is that your voice will always be in the majority. It won't. If you got your way you'd spend your time whining about how you have no say and how unfair everything is. I have no idea why people still put forth the ridiculous idea that democracy is somehow more fair. It's even less fair than the current systems we have. It's pure majority rule. There's nothing glamorous about that. It's a bludgeon whose intent is to force conformity to the majorities whims.
For someone that comes off as mildly intelligent you really haven't put a lot of thought into the stances you back.
Yeah, mob rule didn't lead to pogroms or inquisitions or witch trials or anything.
Yes, but now that you've gotten the ball rolling those national identities are done for. The nature of those in power is to collect power unto themselves. You created a weak central EU government with the Lisbon treaty. What you will see in your lifetime is more and more power concentrated in that EU government. Your own national government, cultural identity etc, they will be meaningless because what you want is now subservient to what everyone else in the EU wants. Your opinion doesn't matter unless it lies with the majority.Shocking wrote:
I'm not talking about doing away with the cultural identity of every state, though. I'd still like France to be France and every nation governing itself, just that foreign policy should overlap entirely. Our interests are intertwined everywhere anyway.
A much more loosely based overseeing government than what you'd normally see in a country. I realise that trying to force a single identity will not work.
THAT is what you voted for.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yup, which is being enforced.11 Bravo wrote:
well technically it was just a cease fire so.......Bertster7 wrote:
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.Jay wrote:
and I'm not pissing on the efforts of your militaries troops. Im pissing on hypocrites that do mental gymnastics to justify their position. The same morons that spent years protesting the Iraq war are now cool with intervention.
Are those differences not clear and distinct enough for you? Do you not get the difference?
Unilateral military action = bad
Internationally sanctioned intervention = not bad
A majority is a majority. It matters not if the margin is 1,000,000 or 1 vote.Bertster7 wrote:
I did say a big majority, so say 80% support, not 50.1%.Jay wrote:
More fair to whom? 50.1% of the people? So you'll be ok when that 50.1% votes to strip the wealth from the minority? To segregate them? To kill them off?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, majority rule - democracy. That's exactly what I'd like to see. Whether I disagree with the decisions that might be made, I totally believe in the rights of the majority - rather than of the richest. You might not believe in democracy, but I do. It's not less fair than the current system we have, it's more fair - by definition.
Yeah, mob rule didn't lead to pogroms or inquisitions or witch trials or anything.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Libyan government demands urgent meeting of UN Security Council - AFP via BBC
they are a day too late
they are a day too late
i just wish the US wasnt there.Bertster7 wrote:
Yup, which is being enforced.11 Bravo wrote:
well technically it was just a cease fire so.......Bertster7 wrote:
It's pretty simple, Iraq no international consensus, action not intiated by Iraqis - whereas in Libya there is international consensus and the revolution has been initiated by the Libyans themselves and they are being provided with support.
Are those differences not clear and distinct enough for you? Do you not get the difference?
Unilateral military action = bad
Internationally sanctioned intervention = not bad
Not for the UK (or Poland).Jay wrote:
Yes, but now that you've gotten the ball rolling those national identities are done for. The nature of those in power is to collect power unto themselves. You created a weak central EU government with the Lisbon treaty. What you will see in your lifetime is more and more power concentrated in that EU government. Your own national government, cultural identity etc, they will be meaningless because what you want is now subservient to what everyone else in the EU wants. Your opinion doesn't matter unless it lies with the majority.Shocking wrote:
I'm not talking about doing away with the cultural identity of every state, though. I'd still like France to be France and every nation governing itself, just that foreign policy should overlap entirely. Our interests are intertwined everywhere anyway.
A much more loosely based overseeing government than what you'd normally see in a country. I realise that trying to force a single identity will not work.
THAT is what you voted for.
Well... a big part of the problem is that EU is not democratic in the least. The lisbon treaty was created to circumvent referendums and parliament decisions of individual nations. It went completely past the democratic process. Furthermore, all the terrible politicians somehow end up in the EU council.Jay wrote:
Yes, but now that you've gotten the ball rolling those national identities are done for. The nature of those in power is to collect power unto themselves. You created a weak central EU government with the Lisbon treaty. What you will see in your lifetime is more and more power concentrated in that EU government. Your own national government, cultural identity etc, they will be meaningless because what you want is now subservient to what everyone else in the EU wants. Your opinion doesn't matter unless it lies with the majority.
THAT is what you voted for.
There are so many things in the EU that I disagree with, yet simultaneously I feel that it's a necessary step.
inane little opines
fucking tomahawk is like 1 mil each. fuck fuck fuck. fuck you.
Kudos to you guys for maintaining your sovereignty.Bertster7 wrote:
Not for the UK (or Poland).Jay wrote:
Yes, but now that you've gotten the ball rolling those national identities are done for. The nature of those in power is to collect power unto themselves. You created a weak central EU government with the Lisbon treaty. What you will see in your lifetime is more and more power concentrated in that EU government. Your own national government, cultural identity etc, they will be meaningless because what you want is now subservient to what everyone else in the EU wants. Your opinion doesn't matter unless it lies with the majority.Shocking wrote:
I'm not talking about doing away with the cultural identity of every state, though. I'd still like France to be France and every nation governing itself, just that foreign policy should overlap entirely. Our interests are intertwined everywhere anyway.
A much more loosely based overseeing government than what you'd normally see in a country. I realise that trying to force a single identity will not work.
THAT is what you voted for.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
half a mil, so the 110 missiles are ~62mil dollar11 Bravo wrote:
fucking tomahawk is like 1 mil each. fuck fuck fuck. fuck you.
A big majority minimises the chance of more extreme action. It does make a difference. It shows an overall consensus, not something that just over half of voters agree with.Jay wrote:
A majority is a majority. It matters not if the margin is 1,000,000 or 1 vote.Bertster7 wrote:
I did say a big majority, so say 80% support, not 50.1%.Jay wrote:
More fair to whom? 50.1% of the people? So you'll be ok when that 50.1% votes to strip the wealth from the minority? To segregate them? To kill them off?
Yeah, mob rule didn't lead to pogroms or inquisitions or witch trials or anything.
Fair enough - really it's a European/Arab states problem and should be dealt with by us.11 Bravo wrote:
i just wish the US wasnt there.Bertster7 wrote:
Yup, which is being enforced.11 Bravo wrote:
well technically it was just a cease fire so.......
They're not all fired by the US, they been fired from British subs and the British bases as well - so it won't be quite so expensive.11 Bravo wrote:
fucking tomahawk is like 1 mil each. fuck fuck fuck. fuck you.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 16:20:55)
this is why the US wants to give the lead to Europe in the next few days. but it is almost impossible that the US does nothing. they have by far the strongest military in the world.Bertster7 wrote:
Fair enough - really it's a European/Arab states problem and should be dealt with by us.11 Bravo wrote:
i just wish the US wasnt there.Bertster7 wrote:
Yup, which is being enforced.
I don't understand why the US would have the lead to begin with, the French initiated the assault and are by far deploying the most material/manpower, followed by the brits.
inane little opines
It's a good question.....Shocking wrote:
I don't understand why the US would have the lead to begin with, the French initiated the assault and are by far deploying the most material/manpower, followed by the brits.
Who decided that anyway? Can't for the life of me seeing the french agreeing that the US should have the lead if they're doing most of the work.
inane little opines
isnt it that if the NATO does something military there needs to be a US commander, and i think without the US we wont have enough missiles ready to deploy. if we had to wait for more non US ships it could have taken a few days.Shocking wrote:
I don't understand why the US would have the lead to begin with, the French initiated the assault and are by far deploying the most material/manpower, followed by the brits.
Currently 6 USAFE F-15E from 494FS Lakenheath UK entering French coast heading #Libya for Operation Odessy Dawn c/s PANTHER 69
And I don't understand why NATO command has to be led by a US general...menzo wrote:
isnt it that if the NATO does something military there needs to be a US commander, and i think without the US we wont have enough missiles ready to deploy. if we had to wait for more non US ships it could have taken a few days.
Well tbh the british and french military combined are capable of deploying anything you need.
inane little opines
they are capable but were they ready to strike without US help?Shocking wrote:
And I don't understand why NATO command has to be led by a US general...menzo wrote:
isnt it that if the NATO does something military there needs to be a US commander, and i think without the US we wont have enough missiles ready to deploy. if we had to wait for more non US ships it could have taken a few days.
Well tbh the british and french military combined are capable of deploying anything you need.
At this moment probably not no, still doesn't justify them leading the operation though .
inane little opines
It doesn't. There are examples where it hasn't been - the ground forces deployed in Serbia for peace keeping were under British command.Shocking wrote:
And I don't understand why NATO command has to be led by a US general...menzo wrote:
isnt it that if the NATO does something military there needs to be a US commander, and i think without the US we wont have enough missiles ready to deploy. if we had to wait for more non US ships it could have taken a few days.
Well tbh the british and french military combined are capable of deploying anything you need.