Reply With Quote
Bumping so VY doesn't miss this.
+googolplex
Bumping so VY doesn't miss this.
Miss what?
I don't think I'm going to change the world or anything - that's why I didn't go to grad school. But saying this has no practical effect is an exageration.
Whether this is desireable, attainable, etc... is up for debate. I presented a side of it - and you have your opinion. What more do you want from me?
Why not?
That's the argument - and I agree with it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but you haven't really said much other than "Dats stoopid."
According to Her Thighness, we are doing this to save lives. With the sides more equally matched, more lives will be lost rather than would over a swift win over the rebels.
Did you think up that cute little nickname all by yourself?
You seemed to be of the opinion that Derrida is correct.
In that case, is there ANY action America can take that would be moral without also being immoral?
Because there's no point in determining morality if said morality is impossible.
If each choice also produces immorality, there is no 'moral' choice.
That's because it is eminently stupid. Should I have to argue about why 2+2=4, as well?
His system of thought works well in small doses, but when applied to everything, falls apart at the seams.
Derria is a critic that doesn't create. He pokes at the flaws in others logic, but doesn't try to provide a complete worldview of his own. (Which makes sense, as the little I've read that he does espouse doesn't stand up to its own internal logic either.)
Don't get me wrong; I think Derrida's work in language/interpretation of text is pretty good. I just don't think that means you can apply some false dichotomy to every facet of life.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...ech-libya.htmlDid anyone else want to know more about the cost of this intervention? Considering this intervention likely wiped out even the most draconian cuts envisioned by the Republicans in the House of Representatives, how the are we supposed to both carry out these kinds of military interventions and pay for them? You know what leadership is? Leadership is announcing to every American that their 2011 taxes will go up by $10 per person in order to pay for what we have done. Leadership is making sure people understand that in these times, you cannot have both guns and butter unless you are willing to pay for both.
Still wondering if VY could answer these in his own terms, rather than reply back with an esoteric philosophical quotation.
I guess nobody disagrees with my last statement, huh?
I take it you disagree with Sec'y Clinton: more lives will be lost because of our intervention, than would have died had we left well enough alone. Correct?
Did she say that?
If so, I misunderstood her words because that is my assessment as well.
I'll have to look again now. I though she said this was a necessary action to save lives.
No no, that's what I thought you were saying.
Maybe I got a wire crossed. Do you agree with Clinton, that US intervention will save lives, or were you saying more lives will be lost because of it?
It was worded somewhat awkwardly.
I'm saying more lives will be lost because of it.
My snap take on that is you're probably right.
Another elective war of indeterminate length and objectives, waged against a country that neither attacked nor threatened us, and in which no vital national interest is at stake, is so not what we needed right now.
My opinion...
Right or wrong, the rebels were easily outnumbered. It would have been a quick decisive victory for Kadhafi. Now that the battlefield is leveled, I see a long drawn out civil war occurring and more regional destabilization than if we all just sat back and ate popcorn.
I'm no fan of Kadhafi, but I like the devil I know better than the one who will likely replace him. Too many radical forces influencing the populace to start this rebellion. I don't see true democratic forces in play, but rather, using democratic words as a way for world acceptance.
Think about this for a moment. If Kadhafi is overthrown, who will replace his sorry ass?
I have no idea. I doubt our government has any good idea. Maybe we've got some stooges we'd like to install there.
Maybe, but it seems there is no plan. Right or wrong, at least we had stated goals for Iraq. What goals have anyone stated over Libya that does not set the stage for a long drawn out civil war?
The heavy emphasis on air power might tend to actually produce the humanitarian crisis that was our ostensible pretext for getting involved in the first place. Maybe it already has.
Vague humanitarian bull , like Iraq.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
