GPS, ENIAC, cellular, jets. But yeah, I'm kind of wondering Jay's take on parasite.Shocking wrote:
What jobs are we talking about here? I'm a bit confused because a lot of military tech can be exported for profit.
erm...what?Turquoise wrote:
Proof? Hell, we stopped caring about that after Iraq.11 Bravo wrote:
can you show me any concrete proof of genocide?
At least, this time around we're not fabricating it. We're going by statements, since there was (and still somewhat is) a media clamp-down in Libya.
can someone please show me some solid proof of genocide
He's a bit confused, as those jobs are private sector jobs in divisions of private sector corporations. It's not like the government is building those bombs in government bomb factories with government workers.Ilocano wrote:
GPS, ENIAC, cellular, jets. But yeah, I'm kind of wondering Jay's take on parasite.Shocking wrote:
What jobs are we talking about here? I'm a bit confused because a lot of military tech can be exported for profit.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
NASA receives very little in government funding, it has even proven to be self sufficient with some of it's programs. .. and that is why it must be destroyed.Ilocano wrote:
NASA? National Parks?Turquoise wrote:
even public education?Jay wrote:
The same holds true for anything being supported by tax dollars.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You know the moon is somewhat hollow, I think NASA will be converting it into a death star and then take over the world as an independent country
OR
... hold the world ransom for 100 billion dollars ...
OR
... hold the world ransom for 100 billion dollars ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
No, I'm not confused. How is it a private sector job if the money is coming wholly from the government? It's merely the illusion of a private company. The company would not exist without government largesse, therefore it does not fit the definition of the private sector.FEOS wrote:
He's a bit confused, as those jobs are private sector jobs in divisions of private sector corporations. It's not like the government is building those bombs in government bomb factories with government workers.Ilocano wrote:
GPS, ENIAC, cellular, jets. But yeah, I'm kind of wondering Jay's take on parasite.Shocking wrote:
What jobs are we talking about here? I'm a bit confused because a lot of military tech can be exported for profit.
"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
It's hard to amass proof from an area where journalists don't exactly have free reign. Granted, I would agree that having proof before committing to a conflict is generally a good principle to abide by.11 Bravo wrote:
erm...what?Turquoise wrote:
Proof? Hell, we stopped caring about that after Iraq.11 Bravo wrote:
can you show me any concrete proof of genocide?
At least, this time around we're not fabricating it. We're going by statements, since there was (and still somewhat is) a media clamp-down in Libya.
can someone please show me some solid proof of genocide
so people are tossing around the word 'genocide' and 'slaughtering his own people' and all that other crap is just unproven BS. sad really.
Well if we look at the chain of events, there were protestors - which were dispersed by use of force, then the protestors came back with guns. Essentially a very large rebellion, in which Gadaffi has the bigger weapons.
He's not exactly killing civillians here but in our western book he would be considered as being in the wrong, I guess.
He's not exactly killing civillians here but in our western book he would be considered as being in the wrong, I guess.
inane little opines
Sad perhaps... unexpected, no.11 Bravo wrote:
so people are tossing around the word 'genocide' and 'slaughtering his own people' and all that other crap is just unproven BS. sad really.
You have to sell the war before people buy into it. Embellishing things is just part of the business.
wag the dog ehTurquoise wrote:
Sad perhaps... unexpected, no.11 Bravo wrote:
so people are tossing around the word 'genocide' and 'slaughtering his own people' and all that other crap is just unproven BS. sad really.
You have to sell the war before people buy into it. Embellishing things is just part of the business.
Aside from Gaddafi's own comments on how he will wipe out the rebels?Turquoise wrote:
It's hard to amass proof from an area where journalists don't exactly have free reign. Granted, I would agree that having proof before committing to a conflict is generally a good principle to abide by.11 Bravo wrote:
erm...what?Turquoise wrote:
Proof? Hell, we stopped caring about that after Iraq.
At least, this time around we're not fabricating it. We're going by statements, since there was (and still somewhat is) a media clamp-down in Libya.
can someone please show me some solid proof of genocide
Comments like: "We are coming tonight. There will be no mercy."
"You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets."
"We will show no mercy and no pity to them"
Following comments like that by a rapid advance on rebel strongholds and bombarding them indiscriminately with artilery - what other intent seems likely? Especially considering Gaddafi's proven track record with this sort of thing - rounding people up with secret police and them never being seen again is not that uncommon an occurence in Libya...
Sounds like a normal reaction to an uprising to me. Was he supposed to give up without a fight?
"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
This would be a lot of why I don't mind us getting rid of Gadhafi. I think some people just notice how inconsistent the UN is concerning genocide and oppression.Bertster7 wrote:
Aside from Gaddafi's own comments on how he will wipe out the rebels?Turquoise wrote:
It's hard to amass proof from an area where journalists don't exactly have free reign. Granted, I would agree that having proof before committing to a conflict is generally a good principle to abide by.11 Bravo wrote:
erm...what?
can someone please show me some solid proof of genocide
Comments like: "We are coming tonight. There will be no mercy."
"You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets."
"We will show no mercy and no pity to them"
Following comments like that by a rapid advance on rebel strongholds and bombarding them indiscriminately with artilery - what other intent seems likely? Especially considering Gaddafi's proven track record with this sort of thing - rounding people up with secret police and them never being seen again is not that uncommon an occurence in Libya...
Clearly, there is a business side to our interventionism.
light, sweet, crude . . .
Fair enough, but invading is a "normal reaction" when you have certain business deals you'd like to complete while also resolving a refugee issue.Jay wrote:
Sounds like a normal reaction to an uprising to me. Was he supposed to give up without a fight?
uhh, no. It has become the norm perhaps but it doesnt make it right. Fuck that neocon bullshit.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but invading is a "normal reaction" when you have certain business deals you'd like to complete while also resolving a refugee issue.Jay wrote:
Sounds like a normal reaction to an uprising to me. Was he supposed to give up without a fight?
"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
copying this from wiki;
Two sides of the same coin I guess, rebels refused to engage in diplomacy with Gadaffi, Gadaffi responded with more force, we come inbetween because he has bigger guns.Introduction and overview
The uprising began on 15 February 2011. Gaddafi soon struggled to retain control[26] so responded with military force. Parts of the Libyan military in the east defected and Gaddafi recruited foreign volunteers. From a diplomatic angle, Gaddafi offered talks with opposition leaders through a representative but the rebels rejected this and attacked pro-Gaddafi civilians by their own admission.[53]
[edit] 15 February
In the late hours of the day between 500 and 600 protesters protested in Benghazi. The protestors chanted slogans in front of the police headquarters. The protest was broken up violently by police.[54] The clashes with the police caused 38 injuries.[55] The novelist Idris Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after giving an interview with Al Jazeera about the police reaction to protests in Benghazi on 15 February.[54]
In Al Bayda and Az Zintan, hundreds of protestors in each town called for "the end of the regime" and set fire to police and security buildings.[54] In Az Zintan, the protestors set up tents in the town centre.[54]
[edit] 16 February
The protests continued in the following day in Benghazi and many cities include Darnah and Al Bayda, leading to 4 deaths and 3 injuries.[56] Hundreds gathered at Maydan al-Shajara in Benghazi, and authorities tried to disperse protesters with water cannons.[57]
[edit] 17 February: "Day of Rage"
A "Day of Rage" in Libya and by Libyans in exile is planned for 17 February.[58][59][60] The National Conference for the Libyan Opposition stated that "all" groups opposed to the Jamahiriya and in exile plan protests on 17 February, in memory of demonstrations in Benghazi on 17 February 2006 that were initially against the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and became protests against the Jamahiriya.[60] The plans to protests are inspired by the 2010–2011 Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings.[60] In early February, Jamahiriya spokesperson Muammar Gaddafi met with Libyan political activists, journalists, and media figures and warned them that they would be held responsible if they participated "in any way in disturbing the peace or creating chaos in Libya".[60]
inane little opines
Oh, I agree that it isn't moral by any stretch, but morals don't really apply beyond rhetoric.Jay wrote:
uhh, no. It has become the norm perhaps but it doesnt make it right. Fuck that neocon bullshit.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but invading is a "normal reaction" when you have certain business deals you'd like to complete while also resolving a refugee issue.Jay wrote:
Sounds like a normal reaction to an uprising to me. Was he supposed to give up without a fight?
All that really seems to matter in foreign policy are 3 things:
1) Might
2) Money
3) Propaganda
If you're good at all 3, you're more likely to win. If you don't succeed at least with 2 of them, you'll probably lose.
Aw, hell.. sometimes the strange, insane ramblings of a middle eastern or latin dictator faced with imminent invasion, are worth the price of admission.Jay wrote:
Sounds like a normal reaction to an uprising to me. Was he supposed to give up without a fight?
Kinda the same reason Chavez and Lil' Kim are still running countries.
Court Jesters to the World Stage.
It's a full blown civil war here, not just a select small rebel group vs Gadaffi, we came in between because numerous interests are involved - not just economic ones.
inane little opines
I dont know how it works over in the great states but in the UK im pretty sure there isnt a factory full of civil servants creating all of our military hardware...Jay wrote:
No, I'm not confused. How is it a private sector job if the money is coming wholly from the government? It's merely the illusion of a private company. The company would not exist without government largesse, therefore it does not fit the definition of the private sector.FEOS wrote:
He's a bit confused, as those jobs are private sector jobs in divisions of private sector corporations. It's not like the government is building those bombs in government bomb factories with government workers.Ilocano wrote:
GPS, ENIAC, cellular, jets. But yeah, I'm kind of wondering Jay's take on parasite.
Also id like to add plastic surgery, blood transfusions, and most importantly in recent times the advances in prosthetics to our list of technologies that have quickly developed during conflict.
I do note that you have given up on that part of the argument though.
Are you fucking daft?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I dont know how it works over in the great states but in the UK im pretty sure there isnt a factory full of civil servants creating all of our military hardware...Jay wrote:
No, I'm not confused. How is it a private sector job if the money is coming wholly from the government? It's merely the illusion of a private company. The company would not exist without government largesse, therefore it does not fit the definition of the private sector.FEOS wrote:
He's a bit confused, as those jobs are private sector jobs in divisions of private sector corporations. It's not like the government is building those bombs in government bomb factories with government workers.
Also id like to add plastic surgery, blood transfusions, and most importantly in recent times the advances in prosthetics to our list of technologies that have quickly developed during conflict.
I do note that you have given up on that part of the argument though.
"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
....probably?
You're seriously going to sit here and argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs? A few medical procedures are worth the price of millions of lives in the past century alone? Hardly.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
....probably?
Now, you're either profiting off of the war industry or you're one of those wankers that jerks off to old military histories about Wellington and Monty. Perhaps your one of those that gets his jollies by dressing up in period dress and ramming a fake bayonet into his opponents abdomen. So which is it? No rational human being can possibly make the ridiculous statement that war is in any way profitable for the human race. This is doubly so for people that have actually experienced war as many of us on this forum have. So kindly take your opinion and shove off to the nearest BNP rally.
"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