Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 19

 

2011-03-22 10:22:52
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5232|Massachusetts, USA

UnkleRukus wrote:

Shocking wrote:

hm... I would say the cruise missile strikes on Iraq in 93 and 96 were justified.

If we would have done nothing in this whole Libya thing it would have had a very negative effect on our image in the ME, I don't think we had much of a choice.
It was a dammed if you do dammed if you don't sort of thing.

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No Mek, none of that matters. It doesn't matter if Cameron is a dictator or not. You are projecting your morals onto other people, the same way neo-cons want to. Are you a neo-con? I know that's a dirty word but you're making the exact same justifications they made before the Iraq invasion.

It is never right for one country or group of countries to interfere inside of another sovereign nation. It is just as wrong for the US to interfere in Mexican elections as it is for us to bomb Libya. We don't have any right to interfere, even if the people want us to.
because "wars never solve anything except for ending tyranny, slavery", etc.......?

Sorry Jay? sometimes you have to interfere for those that can not help themselves.
If you're referring to the Civil War you need to realize, the war was started only to keep the states united at first. The Slavery debate may have been a factor, but that wasn't the cause.

War is one of those things you can't really justify until decades afterwords.

Last edited by UnkleRukus (2011-03-22 10:23:22)

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-03-22 10:26:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6848|USA

UnkleRukus wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Shocking wrote:

hm... I would say the cruise missile strikes on Iraq in 93 and 96 were justified.

If we would have done nothing in this whole Libya thing it would have had a very negative effect on our image in the ME, I don't think we had much of a choice.
It was a dammed if you do dammed if you don't sort of thing.

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No Mek, none of that matters. It doesn't matter if Cameron is a dictator or not. You are projecting your morals onto other people, the same way neo-cons want to. Are you a neo-con? I know that's a dirty word but you're making the exact same justifications they made before the Iraq invasion.

It is never right for one country or group of countries to interfere inside of another sovereign nation. It is just as wrong for the US to interfere in Mexican elections as it is for us to bomb Libya. We don't have any right to interfere, even if the people want us to.
because "wars never solve anything except for ending tyranny, slavery", etc.......?

Sorry Jay? sometimes you have to interfere for those that can not help themselves.
If you're referring to the Civil War you need to realize, the war was started only to keep the states united at first. The Slavery debate may have been a factor, but that wasn't the cause.

War is one of those things you can't really justify until decades afterwords.
yer reading a little too deep into it. Point is, sometimes, just sometimes, intervening and getting involved, is a good thing and just.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-22 10:26:45)

2011-03-22 10:29:51
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5232|Massachusetts, USA

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Shocking wrote:

hm... I would say the cruise missile strikes on Iraq in 93 and 96 were justified.

If we would have done nothing in this whole Libya thing it would have had a very negative effect on our image in the ME, I don't think we had much of a choice.
It was a dammed if you do dammed if you don't sort of thing.

lowing wrote:


because "wars never solve anything except for ending tyranny, slavery", etc.......?

Sorry Jay? sometimes you have to interfere for those that can not help themselves.
If you're referring to the Civil War you need to realize, the war was started only to keep the states united at first. The Slavery debate may have been a factor, but that wasn't the cause.

War is one of those things you can't really justify until decades afterwords.
yer reading a little too deep into it. Point is, sometimes, just sometimes, intervening and getting involved, is a good thing and just.
True, but how do you know if it is a good thing and just. Was Vietnam a good thing, and just? What about the Spanish-American War, or the Philippine Revolution in the early half of the century? Granted those places were needed to maintain The US Navies coal burning warships but I'm sure there were better alternatives than war.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-03-22 10:53:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

No, there would have been no need to intervene then. Gaddafi put it upon himself by making the rebels who they are, after he started firing/bombing on protesters who were just trying to do what Egypt/Tunisia did. It's on him. The way he did it, jetting in foreign mercs, killing his soldiers who didn't follow the orders, you saw Pilots defect to Malta etc.. saying the same shit.

That's some more stupid logic from you, did we intervene in Egypt to save Mubarak?
So you're only ok with intervention when there's some fluffy bunny rebel group on the receiving end of aid? Who's to say the rebels are any better than the current group in power? That logic is so infantile it's not even cute. "Rebels r kewl, i like rebels because i r rebellious".

The kewl rebel group in the late 70s and early 80s was a group of Marxists in Nicaragua who wanted to overthrow the Somoza faction. They called themselves the Sandanistas. Perhaps you've heard of them? Joe Strummer even named a pretty fantastic Clash album after them. Lefties of the world rejoiced. Reagan became public enemy number one when his administration sent money to their opposition, the Contras (hence all the Reagan hate among punk bands in the 80s).

Anyway, fast forward thirty years and the Sandanistas are still in power. Daniel Ortega, the leader of the FSLN (sandanistas), has thus been in control for a very long time. This has made him extremely wealthy. His country still remains extremely poor.

Now, do I know that the country would've been better off under the Contras? Absolutely not. No one does. This is why picking sides and enforcing your will is retarded. Is Gadhafi a horrible human being? Undoubtedly. Was Saddam? Also undoubtedly. Problem is, the nations they ruled were sovereign. Because they are sovereign, it's up to the people themselves to decide their fate. It's not the UNs job to go bullying people and it's not their job to pick peoples government for them. To somehow separate what happened in Iraq from what is happening in Libya takes mental gymnastics and leaps of logic I'm unable to perform. I see them as two sides of the same coin. The only difference being one is popular with the mob and the other is not. What controls a mob? PR.
Good points...  Nicaragua is a good example of a country that hasn't been very good at self-rule in general.  Theoretically, they'd be better run directly by a Western nation, but of course, that would be far more expensive than it's worth to any prosperous economy.  So, instead, we tend to prop up authoritarian regimes with a relatively small amount of money instead.

With Egypt, there's more evidence of an actual transition towards a functional democracy, but most of the Middle East and North Africa will probably be destined to be run under a series of authoritarians (Western-friendly or otherwise).

It's anyone's guess what Libya will become under the rule of these rebel groups, but I suppose we might be able to force a semi-democracy onto them a la Iraq and Afghanistan.
2011-03-22 10:56:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6848|USA

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Shocking wrote:

hm... I would say the cruise missile strikes on Iraq in 93 and 96 were justified.

If we would have done nothing in this whole Libya thing it would have had a very negative effect on our image in the ME, I don't think we had much of a choice.
It was a dammed if you do dammed if you don't sort of thing.
If you're referring to the Civil War you need to realize, the war was started only to keep the states united at first. The Slavery debate may have been a factor, but that wasn't the cause.

War is one of those things you can't really justify until decades afterwords.
yer reading a little too deep into it. Point is, sometimes, just sometimes, intervening and getting involved, is a good thing and just.
True, but how do you know if it is a good thing and just. Was Vietnam a good thing, and just? What about the Spanish-American War, or the Philippine Revolution in the early half of the century? Granted those places were needed to maintain The US Navies coal burning warships but I'm sure there were better alternatives than war.
I have no answers for that, however, a govt. murdering, and committing genocide are pretty good reasons to go to war in any rational persons book I would hope.
2011-03-22 10:58:58
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5232|Massachusetts, USA

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:


yer reading a little too deep into it. Point is, sometimes, just sometimes, intervening and getting involved, is a good thing and just.
True, but how do you know if it is a good thing and just. Was Vietnam a good thing, and just? What about the Spanish-American War, or the Philippine Revolution in the early half of the century? Granted those places were needed to maintain The US Navies coal burning warships but I'm sure there were better alternatives than war.
I have no answers for that, however, a govt. murdering, and committing genocide are pretty good reasons to go to war in any rational persons book I would hope.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Which is why I think it was necessary in a way to take Saddam out of power. He was the reason for the Kurdish genocide, and now they can rebuild. Do I agree with the longevity of which we stayed in Iraq? No, could we have done a better job? Yes.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-03-22 11:07:54
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...
Oh man the hypocrisy of people is hilarious. Everyone's arguing about how we're doing the right thing in Libya and that we have a moral duty to stop him. Why were none of these people so supportive during the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Why did they all shout 'war crimes!'? We stood and watched for 10 years while the man was killing more than 2 million in his own country, yet when we invaded those moral highground principles were nowhere to be found, he didn't provoke it after all. Gadaffi is a saint compared to him, but he kills 1500 people and it's suddenly a genocide that needs to be stopped.

It's a bit scary to see how much power the media actually has, this is unbelievable. Everyone is supportive of this action, and it could just as easily be swayed the other way if CNN starts broadcasting our 'war crimes'.
inane little opines
2011-03-22 11:09:27
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6195|Vortex Ring State

Shocking wrote:

Oh man the hypocrisy of people is hilarious. Everyone's arguing about how we're doing the right thing in Libya and that we have a moral duty to stop him. Why were none of these people so supportive during the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Why did they all shout 'war crimes!'? We stood and watched for 10 years while the man was killing more than 2 million in his own country, yet when we invaded those moral highground principles were nowhere to be found, he didn't provoke it after all. Gadaffi is a saint compared to him, but he kills 1500 people and it's suddenly a genocide that needs to be stopped.

It's a bit scary to see how much power the media actually has, this is unbelievable. Everyone is supportive of this action, and it could just as easily be swayed the other way if CNN starts broadcasting our 'war crimes'.
media is really the fourth estate, eh
2011-03-22 11:10:24
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...
no shit, and it has the power to make or break all the others.
inane little opines
2011-03-22 11:13:02
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6972|Moscow, Russia

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No Mek, none of that matters. It doesn't matter if Cameron is a dictator or not. You are projecting your morals onto other people, the same way neo-cons want to. Are you a neo-con? I know that's a dirty word but you're making the exact same justifications they made before the Iraq invasion.

It is never right for one country or group of countries to interfere inside of another sovereign nation. It is just as wrong for the US to interfere in Mexican elections as it is for us to bomb Libya. We don't have any right to interfere, even if the people want us to.
because "wars never solve anything except for ending tyranny, slavery", etc.......?

Sorry Jay? sometimes you have to interfere for those that can not help themselves.
who's to tell where do we have "slavery" or "tyrrany" though?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-03-22 11:22:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6848|USA

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:


True, but how do you know if it is a good thing and just. Was Vietnam a good thing, and just? What about the Spanish-American War, or the Philippine Revolution in the early half of the century? Granted those places were needed to maintain The US Navies coal burning warships but I'm sure there were better alternatives than war.
I have no answers for that, however, a govt. murdering, and committing genocide are pretty good reasons to go to war in any rational persons book I would hope.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Which is why I think it was necessary in a way to take Saddam out of power. He was the reason for the Kurdish genocide, and now they can rebuild. Do I agree with the longevity of which we stayed in Iraq? No, could we have done a better job? Yes.
I honestly believe we would have done a better job if it were not for the liberal opposition trying to derail any and all efforts toward progress by doing the shit they did, Abu Ghriab is a perfect example.
2011-03-22 11:26:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6848|USA

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No Mek, none of that matters. It doesn't matter if Cameron is a dictator or not. You are projecting your morals onto other people, the same way neo-cons want to. Are you a neo-con? I know that's a dirty word but you're making the exact same justifications they made before the Iraq invasion.

It is never right for one country or group of countries to interfere inside of another sovereign nation. It is just as wrong for the US to interfere in Mexican elections as it is for us to bomb Libya. We don't have any right to interfere, even if the people want us to.
because "wars never solve anything except for ending tyranny, slavery", etc.......?

Sorry Jay? sometimes you have to interfere for those that can not help themselves.
who's to tell where do we have "slavery" or "tyrrany" though?
honestly? I know what you are saying, and I really can not answer it. Do we blindly follow what our govt. tells us? I hope not, do we really on the media to keep us informed unbiasedly? that has been proven to be a bad idea. Who is left to trust?

Very good point
2011-03-22 11:28:41
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...
There was WAY more reason to dispose of Saddam than there is of Gadaffi. The man killed over 2 million of his own in less than 10 years (bombing villages for no reason with weapons), pursued WMD programs in which he already achieved chemical and biological weapon capabilities, tried to assassinate a former president in Kuwait, invaded Kuwait, used WMDs on Iranian soldiers and had a very clear hatred for our regimes and culture. He even briefly pursued making nukes. (Pretty much all of these details were left out in media reports, by the way)

Yet, when we invade Iraq, we're war criminals but when Gadaffi kills 1500 people he's the goddamn devil and we absolutely need to intervene.

People are crazy

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-22 11:29:11)

inane little opines
2011-03-22 11:29:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5554|London, England

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:


I have no answers for that, however, a govt. murdering, and committing genocide are pretty good reasons to go to war in any rational persons book I would hope.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Which is why I think it was necessary in a way to take Saddam out of power. He was the reason for the Kurdish genocide, and now they can rebuild. Do I agree with the longevity of which we stayed in Iraq? No, could we have done a better job? Yes.
I honestly believe we would have done a better job if it were not for the liberal opposition trying to derail any and all efforts toward progress by doing the shit they did, Abu Ghriab is a perfect example.
Wait, so you're cool with what they did?
"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
2011-03-22 11:33:38
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Shocking wrote:

Oh man the hypocrisy of people is hilarious. Everyone's arguing about how we're doing the right thing in Libya and that we have a moral duty to stop him. Why were none of these people so supportive during the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Why did they all shout 'war crimes!'? We stood and watched for 10 years while the man was killing more than 2 million in his own country, yet when we invaded those moral highground principles were nowhere to be found, he didn't provoke it after all. Gadaffi is a saint compared to him, but he kills 1500 people and it's suddenly a genocide that needs to be stopped.

It's a bit scary to see how much power the media actually has, this is unbelievable. Everyone is supportive of this action, and it could just as easily be swayed the other way if CNN starts broadcasting our 'war crimes'.
Pretty much.  Although, the fickleness of the public is why people deserve to be deceived.  Even if the media was objective and truthful in all of its reporting, it wouldn't remove the petty nature of most humans.

Instead, it's just a matter of figuring out ways to profit from whatever conflicts we engage in while also profiting in the ones we don't.
2011-03-22 11:37:35
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much.  Although, the fickleness of the public is why people deserve to be deceived.  Even if the media was objective and truthful in all of its reporting, it wouldn't remove the petty nature of most humans.

Instead, it's just a matter of figuring out ways to profit from whatever conflicts we engage in while also profiting in the ones we don't.
I'm honestly dumbfounded. For years I argued with people I know about why it's a good thing that we were in Afghanistan, they all opposed. Yet now, with Libya, every single one of them - up in arms about his war crimes, cheering on our participation in the NFZ enforcement.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-22 11:37:57)

inane little opines
2011-03-22 11:39:12
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5232|Massachusetts, USA

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:


I have no answers for that, however, a govt. murdering, and committing genocide are pretty good reasons to go to war in any rational persons book I would hope.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Which is why I think it was necessary in a way to take Saddam out of power. He was the reason for the Kurdish genocide, and now they can rebuild. Do I agree with the longevity of which we stayed in Iraq? No, could we have done a better job? Yes.
I honestly believe we would have done a better job if it were not for the liberal opposition trying to derail any and all efforts toward progress by doing the shit they did, Abu Ghriab is a perfect example.
Both parties have its retards and both have their gems. You can't put the blame on an entire political party just because of some jackass who wants to further his career.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-03-22 12:10:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Shocking wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much.  Although, the fickleness of the public is why people deserve to be deceived.  Even if the media was objective and truthful in all of its reporting, it wouldn't remove the petty nature of most humans.

Instead, it's just a matter of figuring out ways to profit from whatever conflicts we engage in while also profiting in the ones we don't.
I'm honestly dumbfounded. For years I argued with people I know about why it's a good thing that we were in Afghanistan, they all opposed. Yet now, with Libya, every single one of them - up in arms about his war crimes, cheering on our participation in the NFZ enforcement.
Wait a few months.  When the shit hits the fan, they'll switch sides.

We all do it.  We all need someone or something to blame.
2011-03-22 12:16:32
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5554|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much.  Although, the fickleness of the public is why people deserve to be deceived.  Even if the media was objective and truthful in all of its reporting, it wouldn't remove the petty nature of most humans.

Instead, it's just a matter of figuring out ways to profit from whatever conflicts we engage in while also profiting in the ones we don't.
I'm honestly dumbfounded. For years I argued with people I know about why it's a good thing that we were in Afghanistan, they all opposed. Yet now, with Libya, every single one of them - up in arms about his war crimes, cheering on our participation in the NFZ enforcement.
Wait a few months.  When the shit hits the fan, they'll switch sides.

We all do it.  We all need someone or something to blame.
Speak for yourself.
"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
2011-03-22 12:19:41
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5232|Massachusetts, USA

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shocking wrote:


I'm honestly dumbfounded. For years I argued with people I know about why it's a good thing that we were in Afghanistan, they all opposed. Yet now, with Libya, every single one of them - up in arms about his war crimes, cheering on our participation in the NFZ enforcement.
Wait a few months.  When the shit hits the fan, they'll switch sides.

We all do it.  We all need someone or something to blame.
Speak for yourself.
owned
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-03-22 12:24:41
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6828|Finland

Shocking wrote:

There was WAY more reason to dispose of Saddam than there is of Gadaffi. The man killed over 2 million of his own in less than 10 years (bombing villages for no reason with weapons), pursued WMD programs in which he already achieved chemical and biological weapon capabilities, tried to assassinate a former president in Kuwait, invaded Kuwait, used WMDs on Iranian soldiers and had a very clear hatred for our regimes and culture. He even briefly pursued making nukes. (Pretty much all of these details were left out in media reports, by the way)

Yet, when we invade Iraq, we're war criminals but when Gadaffi kills 1500 people he's the goddamn devil and we absolutely need to intervene.

People are crazy
Blix never found WMD:s. He said that there are no signs of WMD:s. Nevertheless, the U.S. attacked due to alleged WMD:s. That's probably the main reason of the outcries of war crimes.

Had the reason been to end an evil regime (jumpstarted by the U.S. back in the day btw) and end crimes against humanity, the attitude of the public, I believe, would've been that the actions are justified. Had it gone through the UNSC with a 100% approval, the public wouldn't have been so much against it. Did it? No, really, did it? I can't remember. Seriously. At least there wasn't much about it in the media, if it did.

Media, yeah. They spin it, we believe it. Media pretty much dictates what we think. Media controls us, but who controls the media?

This has gone beyond upholding a NFZ, but that was clear in the resolution, which wasn't poorly written at all (as I remember reading somewhere here earlier), but written deliberately to start an international war against the Libyan leader Gaddafi.

That's what I think. Doesn't matter if I think it's right or not. We can just hope that it's over fast and final, and doesn't become another Iraq/Afghanistan/Chechnya, where the war never really ended, it stayed and simmered.

That depends on the Libyan people though. And how welcome they feel that international intervention is. Right?
I need around tree fiddy.
2011-03-22 12:26:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shocking wrote:


I'm honestly dumbfounded. For years I argued with people I know about why it's a good thing that we were in Afghanistan, they all opposed. Yet now, with Libya, every single one of them - up in arms about his war crimes, cheering on our participation in the NFZ enforcement.
Wait a few months.  When the shit hits the fan, they'll switch sides.

We all do it.  We all need someone or something to blame.
Speak for yourself.
Ah yes, fight the good fight.  See where it gets you.
2011-03-22 12:28:11
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...

DonFck wrote:

Blix never found WMD:s. He said that there are no signs of WMD:s. Nevertheless, the U.S. attacked due to alleged WMD:s. That's probably the main reason of the outcries of war crimes.

Had the reason been to end an evil regime (jumpstarted by the U.S. back in the day btw) and end crimes against humanity, the attitude of the public, I believe, would've been that the actions are justified. Had it gone through the UNSC with a 100% approval, the public wouldn't have been so much against it. Did it? No, really, did it? I can't remember. Seriously. At least there wasn't much about it in the media, if it did.

Media, yeah. They spin it, we believe it. Media pretty much dictates what we think. Media controls us, but who controls the media?

This has gone beyond upholding a NFZ, but that was clear in the resolution, which wasn't poorly written at all (as I remember reading somewhere here earlier), but written deliberately to start an international war against the Libyan leader Gaddafi.

That's what I think. Doesn't matter if I think it's right or not. We can just hope that it's over fast and final, and doesn't become another Iraq/Afghanistan/Chechnya, where the war never really ended, it stayed and simmered.
The only thing he didn't have was nukes, he used WMD's during the Iran/Iraq war and on the kurdish villages. WMD's isn't just restricted to nukes, he had already proven that he possessed both chemical and biological weapons.

Turqouise wrote:

Wait a few months.  When the shit hits the fan, they'll switch sides.

We all do it.  We all need someone or something to blame.
Haven't changed my opinion on Iraq/Afgh, I complained loads about how things were done - but never on why we were there. I won't change my opinion on Libya either.

Gadaffi has to go if we want to get anywhere.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-22 12:29:44)

inane little opines
2011-03-22 12:34:08
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5782

I think invading Iraq in 03 was stupid and I think this thing in Libya is also stupid. I don't care how many of their own people they killed, it's not our problem.
2011-03-22 12:34:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6601|North Carolina

Shocking wrote:

Haven't changed my opinion on Iraq/Afgh, I complained loads about how things were done - but never on why we were there. I won't change my opinion on Libya either.

Gadaffi has to go if we want to get anywhere.
Removing Gadhafi won't change a whole lot other than stabilizing Libya.  The rebels may or may not allow for a transition toward a democratic government, and we may or may not choose to support this transition.

Whatever happens, oil deals will be made, and people will die.

I don't understand why certain people are defending Gadhafi, but at the same time, I don't particularly care what happens to the people of Libya either.

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 19

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard