View Full Version : Getting involved in Libya
Why is it in America's interest to get involved in Libya? What do we have to gain/lose?
I know it is unpleasant to discuss military conflict when you could be watching the NCAA playoffs, I say that because when Obama interuppted the Texas/Oakland basketball game today to announce the US position there were yells and jeers to "Shut the F up" by many in the crowd of a local sports bar.
What do you think? Is this another opportunity for us to flex our military muscle?
Is it a Left/Right issue?
Peace
It seems to me a moral issue: do you have a duty to render aid to others? And if so, under what circumstances? And at what cost?
Sticky issue. If you 'render aid to others', how far does that extend? To every mid east country that has protestors that are shot by those in charge? That list is getting pretty long.
And of course, who pays for it? Will those who want military intervention be willing to have their taxes increased? Probably not, so what other programs do we cut?
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-11, 12:02am
It doesn't seem they actually get the rendering aid part right when they do it, even from a practical standpoint. It seems it quite often leads to causing more harm than good. Whether this is unintended or not so unintended consequences .....
I don't think I'd rely on the U.S. military as a force for good in the world, it seems just as likely (really more likely) to do be doing harm somewhere.
I have to take offense at the characterization of the U.S. Military as not being a force for good in the world. Our soldiers and sailors are as we speak providing life-saving aid and comfort to those in Japan, Haiti and wherever there are natural disasters. Our Armed Forces, however, are only as strong as their Commander in Chief, who has an infantile view of foreign policy. As he begins his South American tour (why? why now?), Japan is in crisis, the middle east is in meltdown - so why is it in our interest to get involved in Libya? For once (maybe 2 X now), I agree with Best on this, its not. The useless involvement of the U.N. though - is not a good idea either. You talk about not being a force for good - look at the U.N.
People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.
Wouldn't want to meddle.
iris lily
3-19-11, 10:19am
People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.
Wouldn't want to meddle.
I don't mind if UN forces which include Americans go in, but I'm not buying the insane despot reason to spur American action. If the rest of the world doesn't think it's worth saving their fellow men, why should I? sorry.
There are plenty of civil war slaughters we stayed away from (as a uniquely American force) why now is this one special?
I would buy one reason being that it's in that tricky middle east area but that's also enough reason to stay away form it.
Zigzagman
3-19-11, 11:04am
Agree that if anything it should be a UN effort and that should be limited at best. Any intervention will always have unexpected consequences - always. I'm thinking that this would be a good time for UK and France to take the lead if anything is done. I guess the biggest concern is where does this end? Which countries are important enough for intervention? (Yemen, Bahrain, Sudan, etc) What is the determining factor? Geopolitical problems will never go away - I think the US is making more enemies around the world with our "Do as I say" attitude and that is not good for long term stability.
I proudly wear my "I'm already against the next war" T-shirt when attending public functions, including VFW sponsored events. No very popular with many of my colleagues (vets) but those that actually have been in combat know exactly what I mean.
Peace
I think we should start with intervening/helping when asked and priority to our allies - which Middle Eastern countries allow us to keep military installations, provide strategic geographic access, etc.
At least France and Britain taking the lead.
Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.
You mean like we've been doing for years regarding North Korea, Iran, China and others? This obviously is an emotional issue. In this day of ubiquitous video, no one wants to see 'freedom fighters' be crushed. But in terms of money and human lives, we cannot afford to be the world's police force everytime a large group of protestors wants help against an oppressive regime.
But if you think we should be, are you willing to pay more taxes to finance this sort of involvement? 'Yes' or 'no' will do.
If 'no' do we then start cutting even more from science, education, women's health care, 'click and clack' and the like to pay for it? Or do we say again 'just charge it'?
We're already charging all those things, borrowing 40% of every dollar spent. If we're going to mortgage our future for immediate gain, I'd rather fall on the side of life and liberty than 'click and clack'. It's less a matter of cost than priorities.
So that's a 'no'. Got-cha.
Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
We are already involved in two useless wars. If you consider the US as an Empire that controls the world than yes we should take the lead in all wars. What about our friends in the governments of Bahrain and Yemen. These dictators are also killing unarmed civilians and we are not sending in jets.
So that's a 'no'. Got-cha.
No, I don't think you do 'got-me'. But carry on.
We are already involved in two useless wars. If you consider the US as an Empire that controls the world than yes we should take the lead in all wars. What about our friends in the governments of Bahrain and Yemen. These dictators are also killing unarmed civilians and we are not sending in jets.
I would not consider the US as an Empire. I'd rather consider us a force for good in a troubled world, but maybe that's just me.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-11, 1:01pm
People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.
Wouldn't want to meddle.
Well people are also being killed by our bombs in the middle east right now. And that is a DIRECT result of our meddling. Yes, yes, Saddam, was also a bad guy. He was more than that: he was evil. But look at the mess we made by intervening.
So I can pretend the U.S. military is some saint whose only decision is "who should I save today?" (mother Teressa in a stealth bomber or something). But I would have to ignore all factual evidence right in front of me (the current wars) to do so. There's a lot, lot, of U.S. intervention in the world that has not been positive but the current wars are an example that's not even very controversial. Note that I don't argue, the U.S. military has never done any good ever anywhere. That would simply be incorrect. Just that the force you want to mobilize, another dog of war let loose ... have done an immense amount of damage in the world also.
Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
From a real politic perspective we just don't have a lot of moral credibility left in the world (nope this isn't saying other countries don't also have some pretty bad foreign policy on their record, it's just we don't have a lot of credibility). And if it's not purely us doing it, it won't purely be us paying for it (of course the U.S. often ends up bankrolling much of even consensus endeavors and if so this is only so much help but ...).
On the deficit: I don't like how insanely in debt we are either, really it's extremely troublesome. But if we are going to spend money, and even money we don't have, I would rather it be on peace than war. What I'd love to see funded beyond all else is green energy and sustainability (yea I know it's just a little matter of the planet we live on but ......). If we are going to mortgage our future on a monetary level, lets gain something that is worth far more than money: that of which all wealth assumes and takes for granted: natural capital. So that might be my top choice, but yea I'd also rather finance education (though truth be told I prefer this done on a state level, now if only the federal government wasn't stealing so much more from my state than it gives back!), food stamps, social security. Click and clack over bombs and fighter planes.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-11, 1:14pm
I proudly wear my "I'm already against the next war" T-shirt when attending public functions
Yep. Note that wars are always either justified on humanitarian grounds or else on rightful vengeance (punishment) grounds. The Iraq war was justified on both at one time or other: phony revenge for 9-11, then bringing democracy etc., never mind that the reasons kept switching. And yet very few wars are actually justifiable if you take a long term perspective (no wars since world war II I'd argue, yes fine I throw warmongers the bone of WWII, now throw me the bone of all the wasted wars since then!). They were all justified at the time, they were none justifiable with the long view of history. Lives and wealth and hope were squandered on them. Ha, I'm almost arguing "I'm already against the next war" makes sense from a probability perspective, even when we don't even know where that war is yet.
As for where we decide to intervene to "save" people militarily: It's either completely selfless or must be selfish (and warmongers often can't even make up their mind on this). In one minute it's because it's moral to intervene because people are being killed. And the next minutes it is: we should only intervene where we have a strategic interest. Some kind of: yes we have a moral obligation but only if I also get mine. Now what would the strategic interest in Libya be again? I forget, I need to go to the store and maybe FILL UP THE TANK on the way :laff:
If we, as a people, never attempt good for fear of less than stellar results, we cannot call ourselves moral. If we are not willing to do what's right for fear of what others may think of us, we have no principles. Ambiguity is never a virtue.
It seems to me a moral issue: do you have a duty to render aid to others? And if so, under what circumstances? And at what cost?
The thing is, IMHO, without thinking through your moral foundation your further reasoning and actions are unguided, and likely to be more driven by rationalizations and expediency.
What moral standard do you use in deciding to render aid?
loosechickens
3-19-11, 1:49pm
"Our Armed Forces, however, are only as strong as their Commander in Chief, who has an infantile view of foreign policy. As he begins his South American tour (why? why now?)" (catwoman)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Au contraire, IMHO. It actually shows almost brilliant depth of knowledge of foreign policy, and history of U.S. involvements.
The accomplishment of managing to get the U.N. to spearhead this action, bring along the support of the Arab League and other Arab leaders, several European nations, and disappear into the background so that enemies such as Al Qaeda cannot market this in the Arab world as the heavy hand of the U.S. is not only incredible, but effective. And going on with the scheduled Latin American trip (remember also that Latin America is very important to our own economy), just reinforces that message in the Arab world......this is NOT a U.S. crackdown. It is an international effort to isolate a leader who is far past his "sell by" date, provide assistance to forces in Libya trying to reach for a more democratic form of government, and much more likely to be successful than if the U.S. HAD spearheaded it, and gone in with our own military, although we are a full partner in the international effort. And helps the Middle East move toward a greater level of freedom and toward more democratic forms of government.
Some Presidents do not have the ego needs to strut around on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit to prove they are leaders. Snarky, I know, but real leadership is often quiet, unseen, consensus building and long term in outlook. JMHO, take it for what it's worth.
Big changes are coming in the Middle East. We can breathe gently on those we feel will be best in the long term for worldwide relationships among nations, or we can do as we've done so many times in the past, seldom learning from history. In my way of seeing it, this President, far from being "infantile" in any way, is a long term, in depth thinker, with an ability to hold lots of contradictory viewpoints in hand and find ways to move toward common ground.
Au contraire, IMHO. It actually shows almost brilliant depth of knowledge of foreign policy, and history of U.S. involvements.............
In my way of seeing it, this President, far from being "infantile" in any way, is a long term, in depth thinker, with an ability to hold lots of contradictory viewpoints in hand and find ways to move toward common ground.
Or maybe he's just waited to see what others thought before deciding to follow the pack. It's hard to say.
The thing is, IMHO, without thinking through your moral foundation your further reasoning and actions are unguided, and likely to be more driven by rationalizations and expediency.
What moral standard do you use in deciding to render aid?
In my mind, it's the same reasoning you would use when you see a husband beat his wife and abuse his children. Intervention may require an extreme cost, but what price can you place on inaction?
Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
Well, I am not arguing the moral POV. I am arguing the $$$ POV. Let the French spend their money.
Oh this sucks, now we have bombed Libya.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-11, 5:34pm
Oh this sucks, now we have bombed Libya.
That sucks. 3 foreign wars now? Of course we are also bombing Pakistan as well.
Sorry, Loose, really have to disagree with you on the Brilliance of BHO in the foreign policy realm, he only acts from a poliitcal perspective - will it cost him votes in the re-election bid? that's his primary concern.
Gentlemen may cry peace, peace - but there is no peace. - Patrick Henry
I'm thinking that many in the Navy are rejoicing that they might finally get some combat pay - you know how the patriots are....:(
My dreams of hope and change are quickly fading but I have resigned myself to being different.
Once our citizens personally experience war I think that will change and it will happen - mark my words. We cannot expect our actions of the last decade not to have consequences.
What a world we leave our children.
Peace
The Storyteller
3-19-11, 6:15pm
Peace With Justice.
I'm fer it.
The Storyteller
3-19-11, 6:19pm
Sorry, Loose, really have to disagree with you on the Brilliance of BHO in the foreign policy realm, he only acts from a poliitcal perspective - will it cost him votes in the re-election bid? that's his primary concern.
Yeah, that's a load of hooey. I don't believe any president, now or in the past, has ever been that callous. Even the worst of them only go to war because they believe it is the right thing to do. Whether they are correct in their belief, or whether we agree with them... whole different animal.
loosechickens
3-19-11, 7:14pm
"Sorry, Loose, really have to disagree with you on the Brilliance of BHO in the foreign policy realm, he only acts from a poliitcal perspective - will it cost him votes in the re-election bid? that's his primary concern." (catwoman)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more, but that doesn't surprise you, does it?
I tend to agree with Storyteller, myself. I'm even willing to give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt in that after the horrors of 9/11, he may have lost his head and overreacted, but I don't doubt that he made his decisions in the sincere belief that he was doing the right thing. I might not have agreed, (and I might have little patience for his little "flyboy" theatrics on the aircraft carrier), but I don't doubt his sincerity in caring about his country, and I don't think that President Obama makes his important decisions involving the lives of Americans based on his own political fortunes.
But, believe as you like. He's the President and in charge, and he'll make the decisions he'll make, and you will hate pretty much every one and believe the worst of him in the process. What is new?
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
This was in another thread, but seems worthwhile for practically every subject we discuss here and always good to keep in mind, no matter which side we find ourselves on in any given situation:
http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm
IshbelRobertson
3-19-11, 7:43pm
Whilst I am ambivalent about my country's role in assisting the Libyan 'no-fly' zone - I am bemused by the American stance over riots and disorder in Yemen and Bahrain.. both countries with major human rights issues, but both great allies of the USA... hmmmmmmmmm
No, I don't think you do 'got-me'. But carry on.
No, not 'got-cha' in that sense, but in the sense that I understand where you are coming from - you want military action, but are not willing to pay for it.
No, not 'got-cha' in that sense, but in the sense that I understand where you are coming from - you want military action, but are not willing to pay for it.
Of course what I actually said was that we should prioritize our spending, giving preference to life and liberty. But please continue misrepresenting my clearly written words. It's mildly amusing.
edit: my reply below is to your original post which you have significantly edited, but I won't take the time to change what I said. Wish now I had quoted your first reply. Respond or not as you wish.
~~~~~~~~~~
LOL, glad to be able to introduce a bit humor into your dreary life. ;)
If you are unwilling to raise taxes, how do you propose we pay for this latest military adventure? Cutting medicare, social security, the military (opps, guess not), subsidies to the oil companies? If not these, what?
I know it's a tough one, but if attacking Lybia is so righteous, you failed to explain why we also shouldn't take action against N.Korea, Iran, and China since they too are bullies and have a history of killing their own people. Of course you don't have to answer if it's too tough for you to come up with something rational.
edit: my reply below is to your original post which you have significantly edited, but I won't take the time to change what I said. Wish now I had quoted your first reply. Respond or not as you wish.
~~~~~~~~~~
LOL, glad to be able to introduce a bit humor into your dreary life. ;)
If you are unwilling to raise taxes, how do you propose we pay for this latest military adventure? Cutting medicare, social security, the military (opps, guess not), subsidies to the oil companies? If not these, what?
I know it's a tough one, but if attacking Lybia is so righteous, you failed to explain why we also shouldn't take action against N.Korea, Iran, and China since they too are bullies and have a history of killing their own people. Of course you don't have to answer if it's too tough for you to come up with something rational.
I'll repeat, you pay for necessary expenditures by prioritizing your spending, and if you have to borrow (as we currently do), at least mortgage our countries future on the preservation of life and liberty rather than on discretionary programs designed to buy votes. After you've done that, let's talk about raising taxes because it's necessary, not because we simply want more and more and more.
I don't know that attacking "Lybia" or even Libya is "righteous" (I'm not even sure what that means), although I do believe that preventing despots from bombing their citizens should be a major focus of our foreign policy as well as a proper role for our military outside our own borders. That same belief applies in North Korea, Iran and China, although none of them are currently bombing their cities and strafing their citizens from helicopter gunships. If they were, then I think we should be doing everything possible to prevent that as well.
If you disagree with any of that, please elaborate so that we can discuss it in a rational manner. Or, if you'd rather to continue being confrontational and condescending, while misrepresenting my words, that's OK too.
If you disagree with any of that, please elaborate so that we can discuss it in a rational manner. Or, if you'd rather to continue being confrontational and condescending, while misrepresenting my words, that's OK too.
My apologies that my words are condescending or confrontational - as you know, that is a reflection of the original tone of your now-edited 'intended to insult' reply.
As to further discussions with you on this matter, no thanks. At least not today. ;)
My apologies that my words are condescending or confrontational - as you know, that is a reflection of the original tone of your now-edited 'intended to insult' reply.
For anyone who may be wondering, I believe my unedited response was along the lines of "Of course, that's not what I said and you are wrong. But if you'd rather speak for me so that you can apply your prejudices to my words, feel free." The post was intended to reflect the self-satisfied "got-cha" reply to my earlier post.
Upon reflection, I edited it to better reflect what I actually said as well as taking out the reference to anyone else's prejudices. I also added "clarity" to the "reason for edit". I should have also added "scale back on snark" as well. Perhaps next time.
Whatever. It's been a long day and I'm looking for something lighter right now.
If you enjoy better political discussions, you might enjoy FrumForum.com. It's run by an old neocon who says he is trying to bring sanity back to the Republican party, though I'm not sure about that - or if that's even possible. The best part of it however is not the pieces which usually are right-leaning, but the comments sections (open to everyone) with a full array of mostly reasonable, bright participants including many 'fallen away' Republicans as well as left-leaners. It's the best political discussion site I've found. Not well organized, and slower on the weekends, but worth the hassle.
Much better than most one-sided deeply partisan sites like HuffPoo or the Brietbart Big sites with endless steams of one-liner trolls and partisan hacks, though there are a few there too. Depending on the day, there are many good discussions, and some great humor.
loosechickens
3-20-11, 2:33am
The Wall Street Journal has a good piece on President Obama's thinking and the shaping of his policy on the Libya issue, that speaks to some of the questions regarding his decisions here. A fairly clear description of how and why he's taken the position he has, and the ramifications of it. I found it interesting, and many of you might as well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704021504576211311438332144.html
Eggs and Shrubs
3-20-11, 4:58am
Whilst I am ambivalent about my country's role in assisting the Libyan 'no-fly' zone - I am bemused by the American stance over riots and disorder in Yemen and Bahrain.. both countries with major human rights issues, but both great allies of the USA... hmmmmmmmmm
Exactly.
And what about Saudi Arabia?
Incidentally, the description of the French as "frogs" in a post 25 is offensive.
iris lily
3-20-11, 10:29am
Exactly.
And what about Saudi Arabia?
Incidentally, the description of the French as "frogs" in a post 25 is offensive.
oh all right, I will edit it. For you.
Eggs and Shrubs
3-20-11, 2:29pm
oh all right, I will edit it. For you.
Thanks.
I never thought I would spring to the defence of the French but we live in strange times!
Hello, I'm new here and thankful for the opportunity to join the discussion.
I am wondering however, within the context of this thread, what the US's "priority" of "life and liberty" means? I know them to be two different words that can imply many different things, they are also two of the inalienable rights (inherent to all humans upon birth, where ever they live) referred to in the US Constitution, but when used together within political dialog they seem to represent an ideal, which I'm hoping could be elaborated/substantiated for the benefit of this thread.
Thanks!
I am wondering however, within the context of this thread, what the US's "priority" of "life and liberty" means? I know them to be two different words that can imply many different things, they are also two of the inalienable rights (inherent to all humans upon birth, where ever they live) referred to in the US Constitution,
You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is not law. The word "inalienable" does not occur in the US Constitution. "Life and liberty" is mentioned in the Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendments, in the context "nor be deprived of...without due process of law".
what the US's "priority" of "life and liberty" means?
Well it seems we insist on being consulted about almost every other nation's economic policies, political systems, human rights records, military forces, international objectives, and more. In fact, there is virtually no country on earth where American forces are not located.
Luckily, most people in most of those nations are not trying to kill Americans. In fact, many foreigners enjoy being protected at U. S. expense.But our desire to garrison most of the earth's surface helps explain why we are effectively bankrupt. As Bae said - at what cost and I don't mean that in money alone.
It is almost impossible to comprehend our many overseas military installations. By one Pentagon count there are 865 foreign facilities. But that doesn't count bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, which probably pushes the total past 1000.
I think it is important to "pick our battles" understanding that there are consequences to our actions and nothing is ever as simple as we might think. Our political heroes seem willing to commit America with virtual ease as long as we can get someone else (another country) to agree with us.
Maybe, just maybe, the American people should begin to understand that "Supporting our Troops" should be about defense - not democracy, oil, or empire.
Washington politicians traded in the American republic for a global empire decades ago. It's time for the American people to trade back. - Ron Paul
Peace
Apologies and thanks for the clarification, I did mean to say Declaration of Independence. And for further clarification, my question on what "life and liberty" means was in reference to posts #13, #35 and #37.
Thanks!
Eggs and Shrubs
3-21-11, 4:22am
I wonder if the mood in the US will change when it becomes clear the US taxpayer is paying to protect the rather large assets of BP? If I understand correctly BP is not that popular in your country.
Furthermore, there are echoes of Suez here. Isn't it likely that the ruling family in Bahrain will intensify their suppression knowing the West's resources will be limited? Rather like Suez gave the Soviet Union a green light to invade Hungary.
*QUICK MOD COMMENT*
Thank you to everyone who "self-moderated" over the weekend. It is, and should be, hard to comprehend further US military action on the global stage. Most of the members of this community have difficulty with the thought of sending our troops to another battle on the far side of the world. We are all aware of and thoughtful of the extremely high costs of such actions which is exactly why we should take the time to consider all sides of the discussion. It is difficult to determine what is the "right" course of action in our debates. Even with only small differences in ideology there will probably not be a consensus. Let's all just take a deep breath and remember to show respect for posters who's viewpoints may differ from your own.
I guess for me the concerns about getting involved in Libya are two-fold.
First, I tend to believe the libertarian viewpoint that our military should only be used for defense of our homeland. There's simply nothing in the US constitution about helping other country's citizens become free of tyrant rulers or, even moreso, aggressively attacking countries because they "might" harm us at some point in the future as we did with Iraq. And other than defending the steady supply of oil I don't think one could, even stretching in the most desperate way, make a credible argument that US safety is any way dependent on what happens in Libya.
Secondly, I'm VERY concerned that our involvement in Libya will become yet another open ended, long running conflict. Our stated goal at this point seems to be to depose Gaddafi. But then what? Will we leave as soon as that's accomplished? I doubt it. Are we going to stay and "keep the peace" while the differing groups within that country set up a democracy? We've already been doing that in Iraq and I question whether we've really made too much progress after all these years. Are we really prepared to stay as long as it takes to do it in yet another country? And if we are then are we going to do so in every middle eastern country where the population has decided to overthrow their government in a yearning to be free? Or will we pick and choose? And if so, how will we choose? What if Saudi Arabia is the next country to undergo revolution? The House of Saud has been a staunch ally for many years. Would we really stand with the people on that one? Or would we decide that somehow Saudi Arabia is "different"?
Count me as another one who's concerned we're becoming entangled in War No. 3. I heard an author on TV discuss this very question, and his answer made a lot of practical sense: Don't become engaged in these unless a) you can be succesful and out in 3 yrs or less; and b) there is a stable effective leadership ready to replace the old bad regime.
Of course we failed both those tests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there as in Libya, while there's no question of our being successful "militarily," the question of being out quickly and seeing the right leaders step into position is very much open.
Dharma Bum
3-23-11, 9:37pm
Well it seems we insist on being consulted about almost every other nation's economic policies, political systems, human rights records, military forces, international objectives, and more.
In fairness, the Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard with a population smaller than Honduras (or metropolitan Dallas for that matter) without US forces. We get pulled into these things as well.
Zigzagman
3-23-11, 10:03pm
Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard
I guess my question would be inept at what? Handle a country?
I would much prefer that we help poor people regardless of their national affiliation. I will never believe that armed conflict is ever a good thing in regard to "helping anyone". We are simply taking sides and the loss is never those that run a nation or those in power.
As much as we like to think we have all of the answers, I think we only need to look inward to see that is not the case. If we really care about "human rights" we have a lot of work to do locally.
"I'm already against the next war"
Peace.
Dharma Bum
3-23-11, 10:20pm
I will never believe that armed conflict is ever a good thing in regard to "helping anyone".
.
Best, you know better. Avoiding Godwin's law I will use Rwanda as an example. Would you use force to protect an innocent child from criminal harm? Should cops use force to stop criminals? Can the world use force to stop genocide?
Seeking nonviolent solutions does not mean sacrificing the innocent for principle.
I can agree with avoiding conflict. I can see the argument to stay out of Libya. But what I can't condone is an inability to stand up for what's right. So if you do decide that intervention in Libya is "right" as many countries have, it's a poor excuse for pursuing good if you can't do anything about it.
Take bae. Not a guy that goes looking for a fight but one that seems ready if one comes to him. Nations should be subject to the same moral requirements as individuals. So fair argument if you want to say we should stay out, but I don't agree that once it is the right thing to do it's acceptable to be impotent.
Zigzagman
3-23-11, 10:46pm
Best, you know better. Avoiding Godwin's law I will use Rwanda as an example. Would you use force to protect an innocent child from criminal harm? Should cops use force to stop criminals? Can the world use force to stop genocide?
Seeking nonviolent solutions does not mean sacrificing the innocent for principle.
I can agree with avoiding conflict. I can see the argument to stay out of Libya. But what I can't condone is an inability to stand up for what's right. So if you do decide that intervention in Libya is "right" as many countries have, it's a poor excuse for pursuing good if you can't do anything about it.
Take bae. Not a guy that goes looking for a fight but one that seems ready if one comes to him. Nations should be subject to the same moral requirements as individuals. So fair argument if you want to say we should stay out, but I don't agree that once it is the right thing to do it's acceptable to be impotent.
I choose to not live vicariously through the eyes of Bae and his island world:0!
Nationalistic conflict is what I was referring to - not local conflict. It seems we are quite quick to decide where and which fights are important. The criteria is ever changing but mostly based upon politics not moral resolve.
I guess to make it simple or on my terms - I think war should only be a last resort understanding that those killed and displaced are never those in-charge for the most part - just simple humans much like ourselves. We can easily claim the moral highground but that is just rhetoric.
Peace
So my old buddy Beststash is Zigzagman. It only took me months to figure that out. Glad he is back.
There is also a constitutional matter here.
Bombing the heck out of Libyan air defenses and military installations would traditionally be considered an act of war. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war on his own initiative. In fact, Obama said in 2007, when asked when the President could use military force without Congressional approval: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Pesky rules.
IshbelRobertson
3-24-11, 6:14am
In fairness, the Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard with a population smaller than Honduras (or metropolitan Dallas for that matter) without US forces. We get pulled into these things as well.
Excuse me?
As someone who comes from one of those 'inept' countries, I really resent your comments.
Dharma Bum
3-24-11, 7:21am
I guess to make it simple or on my terms - I think war should only be a last resort understanding that those killed and displaced are never those in-charge for the most part - just simple humans much like ourselves. We can easily claim the moral highground but that is just rhetoric.
I might agree with you in many cases, but I think your statements are still overbroad. The Bosnians were getting killed before we got there. My guess is fewer were killed because we (and others) helped. Saying we shouldn't take actions that will harm people is righteous, bro. But saying there is no way we will help people who are suffering if it means we may have to get a little rough with the bad guys is just a recipe for greater suffering among those you claim you care about.
But saying there is no way we will help people who are suffering if it means we may have to get a little rough with the bad guys is just a recipe for greater suffering among those you claim you care about.
In places like Libya the people are basically having a civil war - Libyan against Libyan. Why are we taking sides? Probably OIL, not because we "care about" anyone. I worry that our "reputation" and credibility as a "good" nation is damaged.
What if the world community got together and focused on tackling stuff like sustainable energy instead of sustaining the status quo? I think our existence probably depends on it at some point. Why not now?
Diplomacy not war, solar panels not guns!!
Peace
Dharma Bum
3-24-11, 10:26am
Artificial legal boundaries do not relieve you of your moral responsibilities. Would you help a child that was being beaten and raped on your property? On the street in front of your house? If it was your neighbor on the property next door?
There are many factors that affect when and where you should risk the things you value to assist others. I'm not saying every situation warrants intervention. But I am saying that I find your blanket prohibition against helping others against aggression merely because they don't claim the same nationality as you to be morally unacceptable.
There is also a constitutional matter here.
Bombing the heck out of Libyan air defenses and military installations would traditionally be considered an act of war. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war on his own initiative. In fact, Obama said in 2007, when asked when the President could use military force without Congressional approval: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Pesky rules.
There has only been 5 declared wars following the constitution. They are The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Even the Civil War was not a declared war.
ApatheticNoMore
3-24-11, 2:11pm
I think the practical arguments are enough. Yes hypothetically *if* this war could be won in a few weeks of bombing it might be worth it. But I don't believe it when they say that. What we're really in for is being involved in yet a 3rd war. And yes like in all wars, an immense amount of suffering will occur/be inflicted/whatever. And yes our troops will be put in harms way for it. And yes we can't afford it financially.
But you want to make it purely about moral duty to save lives. Fine, riddle me this: how many lives would be saved by spending the same money we spend on this war on say medicine in Africa or something? I don't think you can make the case the war is cost effective here. Simply ROI (return on investment), right? Other investments offer more.
Then when I'm off debating philosophy 101 points about moral duty, I'm supposed to ignore actual real world reality. The first instance of ignoring reality is to make the assumption that the U.S. government (and yes even, it's coalitions) and yes especially when acting military, is a moral being that just wishes to do good in the world (and then it merely becomes a question of "what is good?" :~)). This has to ignore a massive amount of history.
The second reality I have to ignore is that of strategic interests (OIL), never mind the strategic interests they are irrelevant to the moral question. Hmm, but if strategic interest are the actual motive, is actual motive really that irrelevant, or does it maybe have some bearing on the results you get? Not to deny that good results can come from bad motive but they often don't.
But I am saying that I find your blanket prohibition against helping others against aggression merely because they don't claim the same nationality as you to be morally unacceptable.
I'm what?? :laff: You made me pull my dusty ethics text.
As a utilitarian, we should be weighing the costs/benefits of action vs inaction, and opting for the best strategy based on available evidence. Regardless of the ‘moral’ responsibility of acting or not acting, most nations, I would argue act in the ways that fits the image they wish to project to the international community. The moral implications are secondary because if we were to adopt a "moral responsibility" outlook, nations would intervene in every major conflict. That’s why we create rules (for ourselves and for each other), and in this case this seems to be more about "image" than obligation.
There are several conflicts going on these days that seem to have a more "moral" obligation but are not in the headlines.
Peace
Most people and nations do not seem to operate from morals, but from expediency and rationalization.
I would add politicians take action for reelection purposes and our men and women in uniform die for their reelection.
Dharma Bum
3-24-11, 4:46pm
As a utilitarian, we should be weighing the costs/benefits of action vs inaction, and opting for the best strategy based on available evidence.
Fair enough. Maybe most times that leads to minding your own business, maybe not. But I think it would be difficult to presuppose that it always dictates a failure to use force.
Cheers.:)
Fair enough. Maybe most times that leads to minding your own business, maybe not. But I think it would be difficult to presuppose that it always dictates a failure to use force.
Cheers.:)
Cheers to you, my brother :)
Admittedly I am cynical of most US foreign policy initiatives but do agree that sometimes it is necessary. In those cases I would much prefer congressional approval versus executive authority.
My experience in Vietnam taught me not to trust many politicians, regardless of the flavor.
Peace
ZigZag, curious, were you drafted? My DBIL had one of the first numbers drawn in the lottery here. He didn't have to go, at his physical, they discovered his Hodgkins disease, being drafted actually saved his life. Go figure. Sorry to birdwalk, but have wondered about that ...
loosechickens
3-25-11, 12:17am
" Sorry to birdwalk, but have wondered about that ... " (catwoman)
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, dana, but even Google didn't help me......what does "birdwalk" mean in this context? I'm wracking my brain, and spent fifteen minutes on Google, but couldn't come up with it.
It seems to me that we were well aware that the average Libyan person was being oppressed by Gaddafi long before the "rebels" started fighting back a few weeks ago. At that time no one was suggesting that we needed to help the libyan people then. Why only now that they're starting to get slaughtered. It's easy enough to say "but they weren't being slaughtered before," but isn't it maybe that they've finally gotten hungry and desperate enough that they're willing to risk being slaughtered. Their situation hasn't really changed.
And it shouldn't be a surprise that Gaddafi has reacted the way he has to the rebels. Governments and their leaders want to keep power and amass more power. Virtually everything they do has those as their main aims. We may consider the US government to be more benign than Gadaffi, (and in many many ways it is) and we may talk about the horror of him shooting down libyan citizans, but it would be naive to think that the US government would react even slightly differently if US "rebels" took arms with the intention of deposing our government. And in fact when US citizens took arms not even to depose but simply to seceed 150 years ago, the US government reacted exactly as Gaddafi has and instigated the bloodiest war the US has ever known.
It's horrible that Libyan people are being gunned down by Gaddafi's people but it's not our fight to fight.
ZigZag, curious, were you drafted? My DBIL had one of the first numbers drawn in the lottery here. He didn't have to go, at his physical, they discovered his Hodgkins disease, being drafted actually saved his life. Go figure. Sorry to birdwalk, but have wondered about that ...
I was drafted into the United States Army in 1968, I almost joined earlier that year, but backed out to take my chances with the draft. I will never forget stepping off that plane at Bien Hoa airbase around midnight. I can honestly say that I received more from my military service than I gave including a college degree and lifelong friends.
Peace
Loosechickens, "birdwalk" means veer off track, probably just idiomatic to my region :)
Eggs and Shrubs
3-25-11, 6:55am
In fairness, the Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard with a population smaller than Honduras (or metropolitan Dallas for that matter) without US forces. We get pulled into these things as well.
In fairness(sic), this post is idiotic, offensive and downright wrong. My parent's generation were so "inept" that they stood alone in 1940 handling a rather large country in their own backyard.
I would be grateful if you withdrew this crass remark.
IshbelRobertson
3-25-11, 1:19pm
You're wasting your fingers typing the above E&S.... I have already posted my resentment regarding that remark!
Dharma Bum, perhaps you could clarify what you meant. As written your post is not specifically in violation of forum guidelines, but I can see how it could ruffle the feathers of our European members. There are many examples of European peoples enduring great hardship while fighting oppression and a fair number of folks here that think many European countries do a better job of managing their affairs than the US does so I am also not quite sure what you meant by your comment.
Eggs and Shrubs
3-25-11, 2:11pm
Dharma Bum, perhaps you could clarify what you meant. As written your post is not specifically in violation of forum guidelines, but I can see how it could ruffle the feathers of our European members. There are many examples of European peoples enduring great hardship while fighting oppression and a fair number of folks here that think many European countries do a better job of managing their affairs than the US does so I am also not quite sure what you meant by your comment.
Thanks Gregg.
This site and it's predecessor are, thankfully, free of the jingoism shown in Dharma Bum's post. In this case, to use British parlance, he or she is talking out of their bum!
Dharma Bum
3-25-11, 2:45pm
Oh puh-lease. For 15 years we've had Europeans voicing their criticism of US global policy and military actions, often in harsh and quite impolite terms. That fine, it's an open forum and everyone has an opinion. But to get your panties in a bunch over a comment that EU attempts to project military force are "inept" is pretty lame and a complete over reaction that seems to have more foundation in a cultural insecurity than offensive language. "Inept" is not a character assessment, so save the stories of the Blitz 70 years ago. The sun has long since set on the British Empire and in referring to the EU's ability to impose a no fly zone in Libya I used the word inept, which means
Inept
1: lacking in fitness or aptitude
3: not suitable to the time, place, or occasion
I stand by my point- the EU military forces are not nearly as effective as US forces in true conflicts. Yes, the French flew some sorties. But the hard missions and over 90% of the initial strikes were handled by US forces. So drop the misplaced indignation and face the facts. You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military. You can criticize the US for intervening where you think we should not. I would probably agree with many of those comments. But in the case of Libya, it's a fair criticism that the EU lacks an effective capacity to intervene where it politically thinks it should. And as a result the US gets pulled in to a deeper role than perhaps it otherwise would if the EU militaries weren't, well, so inept at such things.
I saw this today regarding thoughts on Libya. It reminded me of the Simple Living forums over the years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded
The military forces in Europe are also not bankrupting the countries. European countries know what war is because they have seen their cities destroyed by war! The US spends more then the rest of the world combined on it's military. The 50,000 plus names on the Vietnam memorial are men and women of my age who never got to live a full life because of a stupid war. I was drafted in 1965 and spent my army time in Europe. My brother was drafted a month latter and spent his time in Vietnam on helicopter gun ships. He made it back. My parents did not know what to do with both sons in the army in a time of war.
Dharma Bum
3-25-11, 5:02pm
The military forces in Europe are also not bankrupting the countries. ... The US spends more then the rest of the world combined on it's military
You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military... I would probably agree with many of those comments.
Perhaps there is a middle ground between overspending and impotency.
iris lily
3-25-11, 10:04pm
[QUOTE=alan;16348]I saw this today regarding thoughts on Libya. It reminded me of the Simple Living forums over the years.
OMG yes. I am bent over with laughter! That's SLN logic at its finest.
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 10:10am
Oh puh-lease. For 15 years we've had Europeans voicing their criticism of US global policy and military actions, often in harsh and quite impolite terms. That fine, it's an open forum and everyone has an opinion. But to get your panties in a bunch over a comment that EU attempts to project military force are "inept" is pretty lame and a complete over reaction that seems to have more foundation in a cultural insecurity than offensive language. "Inept" is not a character assessment, so save the stories of the Blitz 70 years ago. The sun has long since set on the British Empire and in referring to the EU's ability to impose a no fly zone in Libya I used the word inept, which means
Inept
1: lacking in fitness or aptitude
3: not suitable to the time, place, or occasion
I stand by my point- the EU military forces are not nearly as effective as US forces in true conflicts. Yes, the French flew some sorties. But the hard missions and over 90% of the initial strikes were handled by US forces. So drop the misplaced indignation and face the facts. You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military. You can criticize the US for intervening where you think we should not. I would probably agree with many of those comments. But in the case of Libya, it's a fair criticism that the EU lacks an effective capacity to intervene where it politically thinks it should. And as a result the US gets pulled in to a deeper role than perhaps it otherwise would if the EU militaries weren't, well, so inept at such things.
Here's a first. We actually agree on something.
Zigzagman
3-26-11, 10:39am
The morality of war as developed by royalty and “legalized” by the UN. (UN sanctioning killing these foot soldiers but not Gaddafi)
Economic sanctions are generally no better because they result in the death and suffering of thousands of those with the least in the countries being sanctioned.
It’s time to focus extreme prejudice on those that deserve it the most, and not their underlings, nor their captive citizens. The 21st century seems to give the term "Executive Privilege" a whole new meaning.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/Beststash/home/Libya.gif
Peace
Perhaps there is a middle ground between overspending and impotency.
Perhaps someone can explain to me whose military they think is going to come attack the US. It's been 70 years since anyone did that.
Canada spends a small fraction of what we do for their military, yet when I go there I don't see people quaking in their boots worried that China or Libya or whoever is about to start bombing raids on Toronto or Ottawa.
Zig I like that and it is probably true.
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 11:16am
Perhaps someone can explain to me whose military they think is going to come attack the US. It's been 70 years since anyone did that.
Canada spends a small fraction of what we do for their military, yet when I go there I don't see people quaking in their boots worried that China or Libya or whoever is about to start bombing raids on Toronto or Ottawa.
Perhaps because of their next door neighbor.
I was a skinny kid in school, but my older brother was a giant. I never feared the bullies when he was around.
I found the statement about not killing Gaddafi curious. Why not? If we're willing to kill his followers, why not take out the source of the problem? I really don't understand this.
(I don't think we should be there at all, but just curious about that statement).
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 11:41am
I found the statement about not killing Gaddafi curious. Why not? If we're willing to kill his followers, why not take out the source of the problem? I really don't understand this.
(I don't think we should be there at all, but just curious about that statement).
Do you really think it is wise to advertise it is fine to go about killing world leaders? I'm sure areas where he may be holed up are being targeted as "command and control centers" and if we happen to take him out in the process...
We banned the assassination of heads of state a long long time ago. I think that was a wise move.
Perhaps because of their next door neighbor.
I was a skinny kid in school, but my older brother was a giant. I never feared the bullies when he was around.
There are an awful lot of European and South American nations with similarly small militaries compared to the US, yet none of them seem to be living in perpetual fear of being invaded either.
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 12:54pm
There are an awful lot of European and South American nations with similarly small militaries compared to the US, yet none of them seem to be living in perpetual fear of being invaded either.
1. I don't know any Americans who live in perpetual fear of being invaded. And I live in good ol' redneck Oklahoma.
2. Same thing applies to the Europeans as to Canada. They know we got their backs. I don't know enough about South America to know their thinking, but I do know we wouldn't cotton to invasions in our own hemisphere.
loosechickens
3-26-11, 3:54pm
"I don't know enough about South America to know their thinking, but I do know we wouldn't cotton to invasions in our own hemisphere." (The Storyteller)
---------------------------------------------------------
sorry........that one really made me laugh.....I guess you're right, if you don't count the many times WE'VE been the invader in South or Central America, or had our CIA in there meddling and helping folks get assassinated, etc. Heck, my sweetie was in Bolivia hanging out with the U.S. Special Forces and CIA guys who were leading the Bolivian military around pointing them to exactly where to kill Che Guevara.
we have such a long and sordid history of invasion ourselves in those areas that it's absolutely correct that we consider it our own particular fiefdom, and wouldn't tolerate somebody else coming in to invade those countries. (see the Monroe Doctrine). they are OURS to invade has been our attitude over these many, many years.........
So, Storyteller, I guess what you're saying is the only reason every country around the whole world isn't being invaded by, ummm, someone, not sure who, but someone, is because the US has military an order of magnitude larger than we need. Ok, got it.
I guess I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what country has a military that could likely launch a successful attack on US soil given that unless it was Mexico or Canada they'd need to be able to do so from an awful long way away.
IshbelRobertson
3-26-11, 6:30pm
WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.
Every DAY.
WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.
Every DAY.
My family (me and my lovely wife) give thanks every day for the Brits also. ;) If not for the British invasion in the 60's (music) and the British sitcoms, and the British actors, and the language, and the culture, and the example they set for the entire world - we would be a much lesser place. I also think the same of most of the rest of the EU.
I personally think we could learn much from the EU experience if we could just get over some of our "top dog" mentality.
I hope we get over our juvenile world dominance stuff before it comes back to haunt us.
Peace
WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.
Every DAY.
Some of my uncles never made it back from helping you sort things out over there during WWII. One of my grandfathers never went more than 30 miles from his house once he returned, he had such a fun time.
Dharma Bum
3-26-11, 10:38pm
I guess I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what country has a military that could likely launch a successful attack on US soil
Wrong question to start with. Let's start with this- do you care about what happens to anyone but yourself? Even if you say no, is it possible that things that happen to other people can ultimately affect you in a way you care about?
Similarly, should the US care about anything that happens off US soil?
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 11:25pm
So, Storyteller, I guess what you're saying is the only reason every country around the whole world isn't being invaded by, ummm, someone, not sure who, but someone, is because the US has military an order of magnitude larger than we need. Ok, got it.
You got nothin'.
The reason they only feel the need for mediocre military is because of our military power. THAT is what I am saying. I said nothing about them being invaded.
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 11:28pm
"I don't know enough about South America to know their thinking, but I do know we wouldn't cotton to invasions in our own hemisphere." (The Storyteller)
---------------------------------------------------------
sorry........that one really made me laugh.....I guess you're right, if you don't count the many times WE'VE been the invader in South or Central America,
Exactly. That's OUR job.
The Storyteller
3-26-11, 11:34pm
My family (me and my lovely wife) give thanks every day for the Brits also. ;) If not for the British invasion in the 60's (music) and the British sitcoms, and the British actors, and the language, and the culture, and the example they set for the entire world - we would be a much lesser place.
Yes, at least there's James Bond (or so my wife would say) and Monty Python to thank them for.
I'm only ragging on the Brits because some of them on these boards take such a superior attitude. They can snark about us, but first time someone mentions their second rate military prowess they pitch a hissy fit.
I'm only ragging on the Brits because some of them on these boards take such a superior attitude. They can snark about us, but first time someone mentions their second rate military prowess they pitch a hissy fit.
I have had the pleasure of interacting with some British troops at training classes. They were first rate.
I have a friend who was on South Georgia Island with the Royal Marines when the Argentinians invaded. They were vastly outnumbered, and still managed to hold out admirably until their capture. They put an Argentinian naval vessel out of commission with smallarms...
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 12:08am
I have had the pleasure of interacting with some British troops at training classes. They were first rate.
I'm sure they were. There just aren't enough of them nor are they sufficiently armed to be a true power.
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 12:26am
So funny how these discussions evolve. So many straw men to be knocked down. Might help if folks commented on or took issue with what others actually say rather than what they didn't.
Zigzagman
3-27-11, 12:42am
So funny how these discussions evolve. So many straw men to be knocked down. Might help if folks commented on or took issue with what others actually say rather than what they didn't.
Good Observation, Storyteller!! In my case, I usually am saying something I want to share and try to tie it to the topic - I've never been that great of a listener. I have been trying to get better at that but old habits are hard to break. Do you know "Buster"? He is an Okie and you remind me of him.
Peace
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 12:59am
Do you know "Buster"? He is an Okie and you remind me of him.
Peace
Never met him.
Eggs and Shrubs
3-27-11, 3:53am
Yes, at least there's James Bond (or so my wife would say) and Monty Python to thank them for.
I'm only ragging on the Brits because some of them on these boards take such a superior attitude. They can snark about us, but first time someone mentions their second rate military prowess they pitch a hissy fit.
Come on then name names. I'm following your advice and taking issue with what you said not what you didn't.
Eggs and Shrubs
3-27-11, 4:02am
WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.
Every DAY.
Pity they weren't around when we needed them in 1066!
In a sense we have been invaded BY the US. The link below is the list of US Air Force Bases in the UK.
http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-bases/where-are-the-bases
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 9:23am
The link below is the list of US Air Force Bases in the UK.
http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-bases/where-are-the-bases
You make my point beautifully.
Pity they weren't around when we needed them in 1066!
In a sense we have been invaded BY the US. The link below is the list of US Air Force Bases in the UK.
http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-bases/where-are-the-bases
If that could be considered an invasion, at least it was an invasion by invitation.
When the Europeans realized that the Treaty of Brussels, signed in 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, did not provide the military power needed to protect them from the Soviet Union, they began an active recruitment effort to bring the United States into their fold. This resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed the following year.
France eventually objected to being dependant on the US and withdrew from the alliance. I vividly remember Charles DeGaulle asking the United States military to leave France in 1966. We may be the only "invaders" in history that when asked to leave, simply did!
That was a win/win for him, he got to show his resolve and independence to his countrymen while knowing that France would remain under the protective umbrella that we extended over his neighbors. A brilliant move actually.
The rest of the European alliance has continued to depend upon NATO for their primary defense, seemingly gladly accepting the invited US presence in their countries. I wonder what would happen if the US backed out of their NATO commitment, which would then require the remaining European countries to fill the void?
Personally, I think it may be time to find out, especially if our purpose there has been forgotten by the locals and we're seen in the light of an invader rather than as an invited presence. It would certainly help our national debt as well.
Dharma Bum
3-27-11, 10:33am
Personally, I think it may be time to find out
My guess is that is inevitable. And the end of Pax Americana is in IMHO much more likely to lead to a nasty and brutish state of world affairs as rising powers compete for dwindling resources and regional hegemony.
My guess is that is inevitable. And the end of Pax Americana is in IMHO much more likely to lead to a nasty and brutish state of world affairs as rising powers compete for dwindling resources and regional hegemony.
A teachable moment for Europe, certainly. In a future likely to feature revanchist Russians, multiple strains of militant Islam and economic convulsions on the periphery, there may be hard lessons in store about the price of unpreparedness.
You got nothin'.
The reason they only feel the need for mediocre military is because of our military power. THAT is what I am saying. I said nothing about them being invaded.
Exactly. You said nothing about being invaded because it's pretty unlikely that most countries face the likelihood of being invaded by anyone, whether or not the US squanders hundreds of billions of dollars every year on our military.
And even if there was a risk to all these countries getting invaded by this unidentified invader, but they're only keeping a small military because we have a big one, then maybe if we shrunk our military and used our money on more worthwhile things all these other countries at risk of being invaded would then spend their own money on their militaries. Sort of the "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" concept.
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 1:22pm
And even if there was a risk to all these countries getting invaded by this unidentified invader, but they're only keeping a small military because we have a big one, then maybe if we shrunk our military and used our money on more worthwhile things all these other countries at risk of being invaded would then spend their own money on their militaries. Sort of the "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" concept.
You make my argument for me.
I'm actually in favor of overspending on our military. It is a massive jobs program and the only one the right seems to be able to get behind.
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 1:26pm
A teachable moment for Europe, certainly. In a future likely to feature revanchist Russians,
Yes, I find Putin's recent saber rattling alarming.
You make my argument for me.
I'm actually in favor of overspending on our military. It is a massive jobs program and the only one the right seems to be able to get behind.
If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive, such as a massive wind and solar energy program to help reduce our reliance on middle east oil. If we didn't need their oil it would solve several problems. 1) We wouldn't need to meddle in their business so they wouldn't hate us so much. 2) They wouldn't get hundreds of billions in oil revenue from us to use buying more and more weapons to attack us.
If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive, such as a massive wind and solar energy program to help reduce our reliance on middle east oil.
Or building roads, bridges, railways, ports, schools, hospitals, universities, daycare centers, dams, subways, giant particle accelerators, battered spouse shelters, ...
OK - if I could just say that Doc Martin has been my favorite recent invader...Is there going to be a season 5? Hows that for birdwalkin?
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 7:48pm
If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive,
Oh, absolutely. That would be my preference. But you will never convince the right of that. I figure if the government is going to waste money on this anyway, at least put some people to work. Not only does it create jobs in the technology sector, but gives kids in poor areas a job and a way out of poverty.
And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now. And whether a particular war is truly destructive or constructive in the long term is often a matter of debate.
In any case, our friends across the pond need fear little as long as we continue our wasteful jobs program. They can continue to maintain their piddly, inadequate militaries, and we can continue to put people to work with ours. Win win.
And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now.
No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.
Guns or butter...
The Storyteller
3-27-11, 9:49pm
No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.
Money spent to build a tank goes back into a local economy somewhere, at least a good portion of it does. And tanks don't sit idle. Every tank needs a tank crew, and every tank crew trains extensively. Tanks also are imbeded in infantry units to protect the tanks, so you pay those troops too.
There is no question there are more useful things for the government to spend its money on, but until you can convince your fellow Republicans of that it will never happen. In the meantime, folks who otherwise wouldn't have a job, do.
No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sitIs idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.
Guns or butter...
I will drink to that statement.
In any case, our friends across the pond need fear little as long as we continue our wasteful jobs program. They can continue to maintain their piddly, inadequate militaries, and we can continue to put people to work with ours. Win win.
You keep mentioning how the Europeans can avoid spending money on a "real" military (read in my mind "a bloated, overly expensive military") because the US spends a lot of money on our military. Yet, you've never pointed out who it is that the Europeans need fear attacking them.
Maybe they don't spend such absurd amounts on military as we do because they JUST DON'T SEE THE NEED. Once and for all, WHO is going to be attacking all these countries??? Without attackers there's really no need for bloated wasteful military.
No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.
Guns or butter...
I agree, but do find it rather ironic that guns have become the new butter.
I guess I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what country has a military that could likely launch a successful attack on US soil given that unless it was Mexico or Canada they'd need to be able to do so from an awful long way away.
Depends on how you define success. While the size of the US military and the geographic isolation of the country certainly diminishes the chances anyone will mount a blitzkrieg against us, there are those who feel that little skirmish in Sept. of 2001 had elements of a successful invasion. The problem might be looking at it through the eyes of the invaded rather than the invaders. We seem to just assume that conquest is the goal when subversion may be more accurate. Attacks in NY, London, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. were generally carried out by foreigners (invaders?) and their actions have lead to at least incremental changes in the behavior of the invaded (success?).
Depends on how you define success. While the size of the US military and the geographic isolation of the country certainly diminishes the chances anyone will mount a blitzkrieg against us, there are those who feel that little skirmish in Sept. of 2001 had elements of a successful invasion. The problem might be looking at it through the eyes of the invaded rather than the invaders. We seem to just assume that conquest is the goal when subversion may be more accurate. Attacks in NY, London, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. were generally carried out by foreigners (invaders?) and their actions have lead to at least incremental changes in the behavior of the invaded (success?).
I agree that these qualify as invasions, at least on some level. And I would expect that future "invasions" of this type are the most likely. However, invasions of this type are not fended off well by a traditional military. Posting an aircraft carrier in NY Harbor or a battallion of soldiers in the plaza at the world trade center would not likely have been successful at preventing the attack.
ApatheticNoMore
3-28-11, 3:44pm
No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.
Guns or butter...
Yes wasteful of capital, but not just a waste of capital, a waste of natural capital. How many NON-RENEWABLE resources are used for the warfare state? Why? Toward what end? Shouldn't we spending this on solar arrays or wind farms something? Preparing for the future? Of course it does reduce the earth's population I suppose (by you know, killing people).
Oh, absolutely. That would be my preference. But you will never convince the right of that. I figure if the government is going to waste money on this anyway, at least put some people to work. Not only does it create jobs in the technology sector, but gives kids in poor areas a job and a way out of poverty.
Blah, is work an end it itself? If there's not enough productive (as opposed to building unused tanks) work to do, wouldn't most people be happier spreading the work around and having more leisure time? But the current economic system can't accommodate that, and noone even thinks to make it so it can.
Maybe even the person involved in manufacturing a tank would like to be doing socially worthwhile work. But instead they're building a tank, that if it is used at all, will be used to kill. They might not want to be doing this, may even sleep uneasy at night knowing this is what 40 hours of their life goes to every week: the war machine. But they need a fricken job and this was all that was available. Why? Because it's what the government chose to spend money on! Not just a waste of capital, A WASTE OF HUMAN BEINGS LIVES, building this stuff.
Meanwhile after all our money is spent on this nonsense (and banksters, of course banksters), there's always austerity to follow, because sorry no money left for anything else. Sure if you really believe deficits are no problem whatsoever then it's not a choice between guns and butter. But um, governments around the world are sure as heck not acting like they believe that!! Austerity as far as the eye can see. There's too many reasons not to believe that deficits are no problem, our national debt was funded partly by China, now it's increasingly funded by money creation, the whole thing is nuts.
And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now. And whether a particular war is truly destructive or constructive in the long term is often a matter of debate.
I think common sense dictates that we should have an anti-war bias given the tremendous cost of wars in lives and suffering. That once in a while a war might still be worth it, yes fine. But we should be very very skeptical. The problem is the people too easily have a pro-war bias. They're easily convinced wars are justified and righteous and this is why war continues indefinitely.
During the speech....
I put my right hand over my heart.....I saluted with my left hand
and I made a cross with my feet.....that is not easy to do!! >8)
Peace
I agree that these qualify as invasions, at least on some level. And I would expect that future "invasions" of this type are the most likely. However, invasions of this type are not fended off well by a traditional military. Posting an aircraft carrier in NY Harbor or a battallion of soldiers in the plaza at the world trade center would not likely have been successful at preventing the attack.
Exactly correct jp1. In my way of thinking these small to medium scale (in relation to an actual war) attacks were quite successful. They managed to completely circumvent forces that were far superior in every traditional way. Anyone who flies knows they managed to modify the behavior of entire nations. I think most of us realize there is no way to stop every attack if some group is determined to pull one off. The question really becomes when are the people who get invaded going to shift their strategy and look at the bigger picture. While certainly not every terrorist is Muslim I think we, as in the US, could significantly reduce the size of the target on our back by ending our occupation of Muslim lands. The less reason you give for someone to hate you the less likely they are to lash out. The Taliban, et.al, survive on hate. Take most of that away and they may disappear as well.
During the speech....
I put my right hand over my heart.....I saluted with my left hand
and I made a cross with my feet.....that is not easy to do!! >8)
Peace
Yea Zig, leave it up to you wacky libs to play twister during the speech! :moon:
For those who didn't see the speech last night, here's the Cliff Notes:
1) It’s the U.S.’s role to intervene anywhere that there are atrocities or persecution going on, unless there’s a vital national interest there and/or they have the ability to shoot back at us in any meaningful form whatsoever;
(2) Our goal is not to depose Qaddafi, whatever I may have said yesterday, last week, etc., except when it is our goal, which is whenever it isn’t not our goal to do so;
(3) This will not be like the Iraq kinetic military action, because that one wasn’t referred to by such a clever, lawyerly phrase, and because that “regime change…took 8 years” (I think he missed that by about 7 and a half years), except that regime change isn’t our goal (see #2 above);
(4) The U.S. will prevail in Libya, except that we won’t be the ones doing it - NATO will - and, to ensure that this is true, we’re going to refrain from consistently communicating any goals whatsoever for our mission there, even as we send pilots (and, not at all unlikely, specialized ground forces) into harm’s way in pursuit of some nebulous objective which, again, we’re not going to bother telling you about; and,
(5) To quote Jim Geraghty (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/263267/obama-libya-look-just-trust-me), “Look, I realize none of you understand my decision making, but at the end of the day, you can rest easy knowing I’m right.”
The Storyteller
3-29-11, 1:26pm
Blah, is work an end it itself?
It is if you have none. But I think food, shelter, warmth, etc are the ends. Work is a means to those ends.
He makes a beautiful speech. I voted for him but I am sure disappointed in his actions.
He makes a beautiful speech. I voted for him but I am sure disappointed in his actions.
Same here, Free. I am actually pretty disgusted in general. I personally do not think that this is what people that voted on Obama wanted in terms of "hope and change".
I am for workers, social justice, women's right to choose, gays are not a problem with me, I consider religion mostly hocus pocus, and against killing people in the name of foreign policy, and just cannot see myself voting for any conservative and their agenda.
I worry that Pres. Obama does not base his decisions on principle but rather is more like a Clinton and is willing to whatever it takes to get re-elected. What are people like myself to do?
I never in my wildest dreams would have thought that this would be what we would get after the decade of "W" ?
I guess I am really naive - may the lord of the sky bless our frigging souls - something does not smell right.
I felt this same way after returning to the states after Vietnam - and it has been pretty much down hill since.
I think we have "lost our way":sick:
Peace
I consider religion mostly hocus pocus, and against killing people in the name of foreign policy, and just cannot see myself voting for any conservative and their "white power" agenda.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is our "white power" agenda?
I don't want to distract the conversation from our commitment of military forces to Libya.
Peace
Well, you can't just coyly hint that all conservatives are white nationalist racists, then expect to smile and politely move on....
Sorry Alan, I was referring more to a "white nationalism" agenda - the "white power" term was more of a throw-back of my youth and the "Black Power" movement.
I don't want to distract the conversation from our commitment of military forces to Libya - maybe a good subject to discuss, if you dare?
Peace
I dare!
Start a thread, explain your premise and lets see where it goes.
Zigzagman
3-30-11, 10:42am
I dare!
Start a thread, explain your premise and lets see where it goes.
Alan/Bae - I deleted my reference to "white power" in my comment. It is nothing but a distraction with regard to the Libyan "war" effort. I always get caught up in these racists debates and they are never of any value.
Admittedly, I do consider the GOP and most conservatives a party of whites (no diversity) and I guess that could be considered racist but since I am white I don't view it as such. My bad!!
My bias is based on my local experience and maybe it is different in other parts of the country.
Peace
ApatheticNoMore
3-30-11, 1:04pm
For those who didn't see the speech last night, here's the Cliff Notes:
1) It’s the U.S.’s role to intervene anywhere that there are atrocities or persecution going on, unless there’s a vital national interest there and/or they have the ability to shoot back at us in any meaningful form whatsoever;
Of course in actual reality, as opposed to a web of verbal fictions, we usually tend to invade mostly where there is an interest (now whether it is truly a national interest or just the interest of certain elite, and whether it is vital, I don't know, but they have oil).
Obama gave bad signs before he was even elected, talked about escalating Afghanistan in the presidential debates etc. (there may have been a time early in the presidential contest where this was not true, but by the time it was too late to turn back, we had bomb bomb Iran and Obomba Afghanistan as major party candidates.). That he is worse than people expected, well yea ......
loosechickens
3-31-11, 1:06pm
Speaking of Libya....I think I'm going to get offline and go and find a wall to pound my head against.......what kind of an ignorant country do we live in anyway, when elected LEADERS are so willfully ignorant. How can we possibly chart any cogent path through the difficulties that face the world with people like this guy in it? AARRRGGGHHHHH I've got to take a vacation from current events...... (quote from Talking Points Memo, original story from the Scranton PA Times-Tribune) LC
"The old joke goes that most people can't find whatever country the United States is at war with on a map.
Same seems to be true for Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA), a freshman congressman who also sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He's quoted in the Times-Tribune questioning President Obama's Libya strategy, and lack of deference to Congress.
"The bottom line is I wish the president would have told us, talked to Congress about what is the plan. Is there a plan? Is the mission to take Gadhafi out?" Mr. Marino asked.... "Where does it stop?" he said. "Do we go into Africa next? I don't want to sound callous or cold, but this could go on indefinitely around the world."
Yes, Libya is in Africa.
Same here, Free. I am actually pretty disgusted in general. I personally do not think that this is what people that voted on Obama wanted in terms of "hope and change".
I am for workers, social justice, women's right to choose, gays are not a problem with me, I consider religion mostly hocus pocus, and against killing people in the name of foreign policy, and just cannot see myself voting for any conservative and their agenda.
I worry that Pres. Obama does not base his decisions on principle but rather is more like a Clinton and is willing to whatever it takes to get re-elected. What are people like myself to do?
I never in my wildest dreams would have thought that this would be what we would get after the decade of "W" ?
I guess I am really naive - may the lord of the sky bless our frigging souls - something does not smell right.
I felt this same way after returning to the states after Vietnam - and it has been pretty much down hill since.
I think we have "lost our way":sick:
Peace
I've been reading this whole discussion and find I truly agree with you. My heart is sore and my anger level is high due to the disappointment in the choices our President has made. Just what does the Pentagon do to these men to make them lose their way? Surely the Presidents do not go into office hoping to have a war. But, it happens every time. I thought Obama would be different. Sorry for us that he isn't. The expense appalls me, the way it affects us as a people sickens me. War is NOT the answer and I love your protesting against the next one.
As per usual I'll just beat the oil drum. Oil is the one resource that wars are currently being fought over. Water and food are coming, but for now its oil. The US still uses over 1/4 of the world's oil and we still only have less than 5%. Libya has the largest reserves in Africa. If A=B and B=C, then...
The scope is beyond simple politics. Mr. Obama probably found out that, by virtue of his position, he is necessarily in bed with the same interests that his predecessors were. I think he is a man of high ideals undergoing a pretty significant reality check.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.