Reply With Quote
The burden is all yours - you initially said that we shouldn't intervene to stop genocide.
Seems to be working so far.
The burden is all yours - you initially said that we shouldn't intervene to stop genocide.
You're closed minded because you presume that military intervention can only work in a particular way - i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan.
My point is that military intervention is not inherently as ed as the operations in those two countries would make it seem. That, intervention can sometimes work, and work for good.
Of course they're different but they've also got characteristics that are the same. For one, they all require an intervention using ground forces which always leads to more problems.
Am I willing to play my PS3 while people die?Still waiting on your alternative. Are you sticking to "sit on my ass and play ps3 while people die?"
YES
It is neither my responsibility nor is it possible for American intervention to save the world. I don't feel the least guilty about it. What I feel more guilty about is our active action that leads to death. 100,000 dead in Iraq due directly to our invasion.
The alternative is to do nothing. Its acceptable.Still waiting for that alternative.
LOL I'm the one with moral relativism? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLWere the rebels indiscrimately killing Quadafi supporters? You're argument essentially boils down to: "we shouldn't stop the janjaweed because they have Sudanese supporters." Enjoy your moral relativism.
Thats not the message it sends. Thats the message you WANT it to send.The message this sends is that a tyrant shouldn't kill his own people. What's wrong with that?
Innocent people will die as the result of our actions. You can't prevent innocent people from dying around the world. I don't bear the cross of having to save everyone in it. Thats your issue, not mine and it leads you to believe its actually possible.So you're solution is to do nothing because any action we take would be "tainted," right? In other words, we literally should let innocent people die because Libya has oil.
The problem is that it doesn't have the intended consequences you want it to and its not free. The billions used in this action could be used to save lives right here at home, yet you don't acknowledge that. You somehow think that we should save the world but what about the budget cuts here at home that will cost lives here? You are ok with that?And even if one governs the other - why is that bad if it ends up saving lives. You agree that we're not talking about a nation-building program here - so if some bombs 1) stop the murder of innocents and 2) protect valuable natural resources, what's the problem?
I've told you my alternative. The expenses relative to the entire DOD budget is about as red as herring gets. The point is that we're spending money in Libya while cutting programs here at home.Do you have statistics on the relative cost of this operation is compared to the overal DoD budget?
Also, what's your alternative?
Why are Libyan lives more important to you than those here at home?
No, it's not. And what's your alternative?
No, your facile non-violence position is what enables genocide.[/QUOTE]
Oh ok.
!!!
Really? People aren't dying in Libya anymore?
I also find it ironic that the one who is citing "history" is able to lump literally every military intervention ever, genize them, and say they all ended up the same.
Score a point for nuance and attention to detail
Yes. They're not.
Really? People aren't dying in Libya anymore?
Do you understand the stupid you say is stupid, when you say it?
I never said they ended up the same.
VY thinks I'm stupid.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/afri...libya-march-22
Seems to me people are still dying in Libya.
Personally I'd like someone - anyone - to explain to me how this is successful in the long run or for that matter what defines successful.
Explain then why Libya will require a ground invasion like the others
Weren't you complaining about Rwanda, Tibet, all of sub-saharan Africa earlier? And now your position is to let them rot because they ain't my problem? And you were accusing me of hubris before?
You also realize that you directly benefit from the suffering people in those countries endure, right? But you'd rather play ps3, right?
You're a good liberal.
Lol is an argument now?
nope, that's the message you think it sends.
I get it. 1 American = 5 Libyans.
Do you have any proof that had the US not acted, money instead would have been diverted to "save lives here at home?"
Libyan lives aren't more important - but you seem think American ones are more important than theres. Also, please give me some proof that the money spent on the Libyan action was going to be diverted to something else?
Never has an air campaign alone been successful in stopping the killing of civilians. Never. What about Libya is supposed to give me a new found belief that this will be the first case?
For one, its an active civil war and the rebels aren't going to stop fighting. There will still be an active civil war which will lead to more civilian deaths. Furthermore when do you stop the no fly zone? Never? If and when you stop it and there is still a civil war then you'll see a resumption of what happened prior to the no fly zone. How do you stop the civil war with simple air action? Qadafi isn't going anywhere and he's not alone.
Complaining? No, I was pointing out how selective our intervention is. I'm not sure why you think me enjoying my PS3 is somehow a knock on me but you're free to continue to bring it up.
Weren't you complaining about Rwanda, Tibet, all of sub-saharan Africa earlier? And now your position is to let them rot because they ain't my problem? And you were accusing me of hubris before?
You also realize that you directly benefit from the suffering people in those countries endure, right? But you'd rather play ps3, right?
You're a good liberal.
I don't directly benefit from the suffering of those in Rwanda but I'm beginning to get used to you making pretty outlandish claims. If you would love to explain that one I'm all ears.
Is my position to let them rot? No, my position is that we can't save the world.
LOL is what I use when the arguments you pose are too stupid for an actual response. To be quite honest, most of your arguments deserve nothing more but I'm bored.
Lol is an argument now?
Ok. If you'd care to show me some proof that this conflict is being perceived the way you believe it to be then I'm all ears.
nope, that's the message you think it sends.
Ok
I get it. 1 American = 5 Libyans.
Why do I need proof of that? My stance is that the money can be spent in a more productive manner here at home.Do you have any proof that had the US not acted, money instead would have been diverted to "save lives here at home?"
Yes, I believe that American lives should be more important in the eyes of the American government.
Libyan lives aren't more important - but you seem think American ones are more important than theres. Also, please give me some proof that the money spent on the Libyan action was going to be diverted to something else?
I don't see the need to prove that. I can be upset at my government spending money in a poor fashion when they do so without proving that they would have spent it differently.
Your logic is extremely odd.
Just for discussion's sake, an alternative.
We support the no-fly zone. We provide use of our bases, we provide intel, we provide humanitarian aid, but we don't get involved in the bombing. We tell the international community that given our current situation we don't think it's appropriate for us to get actively involved in another armed conflict at this time. We tell France, England and whomever else that we're fine with them taking out Gaddafi if that's what they want, but we're sitting this one out.
Thoughts/comments/concerns?
Honest question.
I'm pretty sure the NATO air bombing campaign is what led Milosevic to abandon power. Yes, KFOR was sent in to maintain the peace - but Milosevic capitulated prior to the infantry being sent in.
You stop the no fly zone when Quadafi stops killing his own citizens. Or is removed from power. And you're conflating the no-fly zone with ending the civil war, which was never the case. The no-fly zone was imposed to force cooperation with the cease fire.
No, your position is to let them rot. You're claim that "we can't save the world" is just the excuse you use to make yourself feel better. Plus, you still haven't explained why selective intervention is worse than no intervention at all.
Most importantly, the whole "not my responsibility" mentality is exactly what facilitates genocide, mass atrocity, tyranny, etc... in the first place. It's what happened in Armenia and Cambodia. It's what happened in Rwanda and Burundi, and it's what happaned in Sudan. But what the do you care, right? Not your responsibility.
I never said you directly benefit from the people of Rwanda. However, you do directly benefit from the intentional destablization of Angola - which oil companies use to thier benefit in extracting oil for US consumption and to the detriment of Angolan citizens. And you do directly benefit from the children in South East Asian sweatshops who make for you at bargain basement prices. There are more examples...
You do realize that calling an argument stupid doesn't make it stupid, right? But I'm glad to see that you're infatuated with yourself ... I guess all fat people really are narcissists, huh?
You're the one saying that it will only be perceived in one way, so you tell me.
You need proof of that because that's the argument your making, but I understand that this concept is novel to you.
You're absolutely right, that money can be spent in a more productive matter. That's wholly irrelevant. You have to prove that it was going to be spent in a more productive manner?
How many Americans have been killed so far?
That sounds totally reasonable.
Ground troops were involved with your first and only example rendering it completely moot. In the history of 20th and 21st century intervention you can only think of one example and its not even applicable? That doesn't bode well for your viewpoint.
How do you remove Quadafi from power with just air attacks? The rebels aren't going to be able to do it. No military analyst that I've read has said there's anything more than the slimmest hopes of Quadafi being defeated via air attacks but perhaps you have other information?
This is ing rich. If you're so god damn invested why are you posting on a message board instead of fighting those atrocities? Somehow I'm now responsible for the entire world but you get to sit here and post because you"care"? You've done so much projecting in this thread its amazing. I don't need to feel better because I don't have anything to feel bad about. Yeah, what happens to those people is absolutely atrocious but I don't take it upon myself to save the world as you apparently do.
No, your position is to let them rot. You're claim that "we can't save the world" is just the excuse you use to make yourself feel better. Plus, you still haven't explained why selective intervention is worse than no intervention at all.
Most importantly, the whole "not my responsibility" mentality is exactly what facilitates genocide, mass atrocity, tyranny, etc... in the first place. It's what happened in Armenia and Cambodia. It's what happened in Rwanda and Burundi, and it's what happaned in Sudan. But what the do you care, right? Not your responsibility.
If you want to make it your life's mission to rid the world of these atrocities then by all means grab that bull by the horns and go to town. But your lectures on a message board are beyond hypocritical.
I promise you my oil consumption is lower than yours. I absolutely guarantee it. I also don't buy clothes made in sweatshops and I promise you that I was avoiding purchasing such clothes long before you even knew about the issue. But please, continue to tell me how I am holding people down. Its amusing.I never said you directly benefit from the people of Rwanda. However, you do directly benefit from the intentional destablization of Angola - which oil companies use to thier benefit in extracting oil for US consumption and to the detriment of Angolan citizens. And you do directly benefit from the children in South East Asian sweatshops who make for you at bargain basement prices. There are more examples...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=108
You do realize that calling an argument stupid doesn't make it stupid, right? But I'm glad to see that you're infatuated with yourself ... I guess all fat people really are narcissists, huh?
More projecting. Just how fat are you?
I grow tired of your circular arguments but just do some searching on arab public opinion of the united states and I'm sure you'll have the proof if you really want it.You're the one saying that it will only be perceived in one way, so you tell me.
My position was never that it was going to be spent in a better manner. You're asking me to claim something I never claimed. Have fun with that.
You need proof of that because that's the argument your making, but I understand that this concept is novel to you.
You're absolutely right, that money can be spent in a more productive matter. That's wholly irrelevant. You have to prove that it was going to be spent in a more productive manner?
How many Libyans have died so far?How many Americans have been killed so far?
I laugh that MIG and VY separately came to consensus on a reasonable alternative.
So let me get this straight. Milosevic capitulated as a result of the NATO bombing campaign - and - without a single ground troop being sent in. And you think this is badprecedent for me? When the goal of the current campaign is to oust Quadafi from control? What are you not getting?
I never said I was invested. My point has only been that the United States government has an obligation to intervene. But instead of addressing this point, you went off on some wholly irrelevant tangent about message boards and oil consumption. And in doing so, you've conceded
1. The fact that American society -- not just you -- directly profits from the destruction of third world nations
2. The logic of "I don't care, its not my responsibility" is literally the exact logic that facilitates genocide - beginning in Armenia, 1915 and running through present day Darfur.
My life's mission, and what I or you do on a personal basis is irrelevant to this debate. Moving goal posts because you're original position makes you seem like a selfish, narcissistic, self-absorbed prick won't work.
You have yet to come up with a reason why, given the above, the US doesn't have an obligation to engage in humanitarian intervention. I'm waiting.
Fascinating. We're all really proud that you're a hippy. Now explain the relevance of this to your position that the American government shouldn't intervene to stop genocide and that we American's should instead play ps3 all day
What the is this projecting ? Instead of using the three brain cells lodged between the fat in your skull, you just say is stupid. Just because you say something is stupid doesn't make it so.
I'm also in pretty good shape - I'd guess much better than your ps3 playing fat ass is.
lol ok. This coming from the guy complaining about the burden of proof.
lol x3. So you have no proof, huh? Keep moving those goal posts.
So no Americans have died yet, right? Keep moving those posts.
Last edited by vy65; 03-22-2011 at 06:19 PM.
That is pretty lulz. TBH, I dunno how a guy who says we shouldn't be invovled in the conflict can support being directly involved in the conflict tbh
Run back to your video games you stupid fat .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
