|
shotgunbadger posted:So you think America needs to be Spider-Man, if Spider-Man used a shotgun instead of webs? You haven't answered the question, do you think States have/should have complete Sovereignty without any intervention by the international community at large?
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Baddog posted:False. Can you answer my multiple choice though? You're in a desert, walking along in the sand. Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? While walking, you look down. You look down and see a tortoise, Baddog. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Baddog. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. You're not helping! Why is that, Baddog?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:So you would not intervene in the Rwanda situation with any sort of action? No I just don't get the logic of 'well we let THIS slaughter happen, better overreact next time (like Kosovo)'. I mean, your rational has America as pretty dumb and bumbling, like if Mr Bean occasionally blew up a house, I don't see how that makes it better to you then 'well we can't exploit these guys if we 'help' them, so gently caress it'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
I find it very amusing that the people who most vehemently denounce the concept of 'gently caress you, got mine' and all that it entails in the sphere of national economics and monetary policy are also some it's most vocal proponents in the sphere of international relations and global politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:You haven't answered the question, do you think States have/should have complete Sovereignty without any intervention by the international community at large? I think the concept of 'the world's police' is old and imperialistic as hell and needs to be scoured from our foreign policy, that's my core point in all this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:No I just don't get the logic of 'well we let THIS slaughter happen, better overreact next time (like Kosovo)'. I mean, your rational has America as pretty dumb and bumbling, like if Mr Bean occasionally blew up a house, I don't see how that makes it better to you then 'well we can't exploit these guys if we 'help' them, so gently caress it'. Okay, first thing you need to understand is that the vast majority of people here (including me) do not have anything remotely resembling a favourable opinion of American foreign policy (and domestic policy, for that matter, but that's another discussion). Thus, we're happy whenever they do something every once in a while we can support on moral/logistical grounds, even if we think they're complete fuckwits most of the other time. This is one such occasion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Sorry we couldn't help out there, let's see if we can help out here and not make the same mistake. OK, the next time people in absolute shitholes mass murder each other I am sure we will be swooping in immediately, without delay, to put a stop to it. Well, France will be swooping in immediately to set up refugee (re)rape camps garrisoned by people in powder blue helmets. But that's about all that will happen. France and Britain were more than capable of securing Libya themselves, we didn't need to get involved past sending a bomb-sniffing team or two for the token "multi-lateral" stamp on their surely altruistic efforts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:No I just don't get the logic of 'well we let THIS slaughter happen, better overreact next time (like Kosovo)'. I mean, your rational has America as pretty dumb and bumbling, like if Mr Bean occasionally blew up a house, I don't see how that makes it better to you then 'well we can't exploit these guys if we 'help' them, so gently caress it'. Obviously we have to treat each situation different and weigh the merits of intervening objectively and independently. But certainly in the past there has been great harm caused by non-intervention, and I believe that we will do more harm than good by not intervening in the Libyan situation now. Also, the Rwanda story is more complex than you're letting on. We should have intervened, but the reason we didn't mainly had to do with the legacy of Somalia within the Clinton administration. It's not so simple as "no oil, lol!" If that were true, Somalia never would have come up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:No I just don't get the logic of 'well we let THIS slaughter happen, better overreact next time (like Kosovo)'. I mean, your rational has America as pretty dumb and bumbling, like if Mr Bean occasionally blew up a house, I don't see how that makes it better to you then 'well we can't exploit these guys if we 'help' them, so gently caress it'. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but other than the KLA being shady, and the casualties of civilians (which I didn't think was that high a number) in Serbia, was the Kosovo air strikes such a disaster? Milosevic fell, Kosovo is turning into its own country, and Albanians are the biggest supporters of the US in pretty much the whole world (from what I've read, they even went crazy when GW visited them a couple years ago).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
quote:Saleh also sent a message via his foreign minister to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Yemen's powerful neighbour and the on-and-off backer of the Yemeni leader. The contents of the message were not known. I think we can all wager a guess on what the content was. How important is Yemen in the oil/wealth/stability scale? Or in other words; any specific reason why the Saudis would care?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:Okay, first thing you need to understand is that the vast majority of people here (including me) do not have anything remotely resembling a favourable opinion of American foreign policy (and domestic policy, for that matter, but that's another discussion). OK, intervening militarily in an oil rich country is only appropriate when European countries will benefit/are backing it. Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Obviously we have to treat each situation different and weigh the merits of intervening objectively and independently. But certainly in the past there has been great harm caused by non-intervention, and I believe that we will do more harm than good by not intervening in the Libyan situation now. Clearly you don't understand that there are only two choices, we ether intervene for any reason at every opportunity or we never do anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Baddog posted:OK, intervening militarily in an oil rich country is only appropriate when European countries will benefit/are backing it. Gotcha. I'm not sure how you took from my previous post (in which we have said that we were often frustrated with the USA's poor decision making in the process) in that we believe this situation to be somehow appropriate while others were not. That's not true. I believe intervention to have been justified in cases in the past, and in some cases were intervention occurred I don't believe they should have. More to the point, the actual reason they're intervening here is, as far as I'm concerned, secondary. They are helping get a madman out of power. That's reason enough for me to support this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:More to the point, the actual reason they're intervening here is, as far as I'm concerned, secondary. They are helping get a madman out of power. That's reason enough for me to support this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Clearly you don't understand that there are only two choices, we ether intervene for any reason at every opportunity or we never do anything ever. Well, lets just be honest with ourselves, and admit that we don't do poo poo unless its in our strategic interests. Or in this case, France's. I don't know why they can't do it on their own though, that is my problem. They aren't helping us out a great deal with our other wars. We're loving broke. They should be able to carry their own (dirty) water in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:I think the concept of 'the world's police' is old and imperialistic as hell and needs to be scoured from our foreign policy, that's my core point in all this. The rebels asked for help and we have the means to provide it, so why shouldn't we? It's really hard to compare this to other UN actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but other than the KLA being shady, and the casualties of civilians (which I didn't think was that high a number) in Serbia, was the Kosovo air strikes such a disaster? Milosevic fell Don't mix things. Milosevic didn't fall because of Kosovo, he fell because of the first ever Yugoslavian presidential elections more than a year later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Well, lets just be honest with ourselves, and admit that we don't do poo poo unless its in our strategic interests. Or in this case, France's. I don't know why they can't do it on their own though, that is my problem. They aren't helping us out a great deal with our other wars. We're loving broke. They should be able to carry their own (dirty) water in Africa. Here's a hint, look at all the countries that Hillary Clinton has traveled to in the past month that have been having protests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Baddog posted:OK, intervening militarily in an oil rich country is only appropriate when European countries will benefit/are backing it. Gotcha. Its so easy to spot the people who haven't been following this thing since its start. Its pretty easy to hear middle east war and instantly think iraq, but unless your only qualifiers are brown people, and sand this is a pretty different situation. Seriously go read the AJE blog of the first week. The amount of human suffering recorded and put on youtube/facebook/tweet made not intervening pretty out of the question. Libya also only has like 2% of the worlds oil so It would be great of people would stop making that argument. This is a good chance for america to show that it can make a purely altruistic move, and I still hope we can get through it without monetizing it in some horrible way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:I think the concept of 'the world's police' is old and imperialistic as hell and needs to be scoured from our foreign policy, that's my core point in all this. You can thank Teddy Roosevelt for the 'talk softly, carry a big stick' mindset that the government still retains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:Okay, first thing you need to understand is that the vast majority of people here (including me) do not have anything remotely resembling a favourable opinion of American foreign policy (and domestic policy, for that matter, but that's another discussion). However maybe everyone should wait more than 48 hours into the campaign to start talking about how much better/different this is to Iraq/Afganistan/Kosovo/etc? I support the actions we're taking in -Our mission is poorly defined -We will be involved in Lybia for much longer than a couple weeks -Our involvement will grow beyond firing missiles from offshore -We will kill innocent civilians -Whatever arrangement ends up existing in Lybia, it will be far from perfect -A vast number of Lybians will not like us at the end of all this Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Nice job infringing on the Libyan people's right to be burned alive or shot in the back of the head, fascist. Yeah no kidding. Once Gaddafi's gone, who's going to pay for all the fun rides?  WHY IS THE UN STOPPING THIS?!?!?! HE ONLY WANTS TO ENTERTAIN!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
it's Libya. the "i" comes first
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
PenguinBob posted:it's Libya. the "i" comes first
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
sweeptheleg posted:Its so easy to spot the people who haven't been following this thing since its start. Its pretty easy to hear middle east war and instantly think iraq, but unless your only qualifiers are brown people, and sand this is a pretty different situation. Yeah, that and conservatives seem to be taking a similar line of of "Oh look at this liberals, Obama is starting an oil war aren't you red in the face" when the argument makes no sense. This is not about the US or WMD's or unilateral action in defiance of the UN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Here's a hint, look at all the countries that Hillary Clinton has traveled to in the past month that have been having protests. What are you saying, that she's been traveling around Europe being wined and dined by very pretentious people, and they have her convinced that this time when Europe interferes in Africa, it is for the right reasons? Or that she feels sorry for not coming out in support of democracy in Egypt until well after Mubarak was done, and is determined to get well out in front of this one, actively, with some gusto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Well, lets just be honest with ourselves, and admit that we don't do poo poo unless its in our strategic interests. Or in this case, France's. I don't know why they can't do it on their own though, that is my problem. They aren't helping us out a great deal with our other wars. We're loving broke. They should be able to carry their own (dirty) water in Africa. And for once, we do have strategic goals (aiding a potentially friendlier (proto)government in a nation that exports a critical resource) aligning with more idealistic ones, all wrapped up in the package that at this stage in the game it can be done within modest means. Time may prove any or all of the above to be illusory, but since the main argument espoused against are some broadly sweeping statements that completely ignores all possible nuance to see things in strict black and white, I'm willing to give the current action the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
PenguinBob posted:it's Libya. the "i" comes first "If it says Libya Libya Libya on the label label label" gently caress it. I'm old. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Baddog posted:What are you saying, that she's been traveling around Europe being wined and dined by very pretentious people, and they have her convinced that this time when Europe interferes in Africa, it is for the right reasons? "Hillary Clinton arrives in Tunisia The visit is the first by senior US official since mass protests led to the overthrow of president Ben Ali." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201131705453353538.html "US secretary of state says she will meet representatives of opposition council, as France, UK call for Gaddafi exit." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/03/2011310101413705407.html "US secretary of state says rulers in Middle East must enforce political and social reforms or face backlash." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/02/2011251100455802.html Because we obviously don't care about what happens to brown people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
PenguinBob posted:it's Libya. the "i" comes first Labia 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
^^^ Oh gently caress you. US cruise missiles to penetrate Labia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Because we obviously don't care about what happens to brown people. There are words coming out of the thousand maws of the US MIC and none of them seem to match up with reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but the far-left in America should never again attempt to speak about foreign affairs. Most of these people are just as bad as teabaggers.quote:Dennis Kucinich: Obama's Libya Attack An Impeachable Offense http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/dennis-kucinich-calls-says-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense-for-obama.php
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:"Hillary Clinton arrives in Tunisia US secretary of state visits Ivory Coast, says US will support the new democratically elected president, despite the security forces of the old president killing hundreds of protesters calling for him to step down... oh wait that didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Baddog posted:US secretary of state visits Ivory Coast, says US will support the new democratically elected president, despite the security forces of the old president killing hundreds of protesters calling for him to step down... "Johnnie Carson, US assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, said that "the era of stealing African elections is over". Carson said that while "the US had no plans to engage or intervene militarily ... it would take steps against Gbagbo, his family and associates, including travel bans and sanctions, if he refused to step down." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/10/20101030114216824501.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Don't mix things. Milosevic didn't fall because of Kosovo, he fell because of the first ever Yugoslavian presidential elections more than a year later. Woops, my fault there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/03/libya_un_airstrikes_aid_rebels.html Boston Globe put together a bunch of pictures from recent events in Libya. They always manage to capture the feeling of events with pictures really well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
cioxx posted:I'm sorry, but the far-left in America should never again attempt to speak about foreign affairs. Most of these people are just as bad as teabaggers. I so will I die waiting if I ask you to either show that We need more news or something because reading about shotgun spiderman, left wingers, and rwanda aren't what I came here for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:"Johnnie Carson, US assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, said that "the era of stealing African elections is over". I think that's what he said before they started killing people, and I think this is the link you wanted. http://nigeria.usembassy.gov/pr_12092010.html Now that they are killing people, we've gone from aggressive threats of "travel bans" to "ignore".
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
cioxx posted:I'm sorry, but the far-left in America should never again attempt to speak about foreign affairs. You're in luck, ghosts can't talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 19:45
|
|