southsider2k5 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 07:35 AM) He actually has principles and hasn't been bought out by special interests like 98% of the rest of Washington. I agree totally. He is one of the very, very few people whose message doesn't change based on who is in power. I don't know if I can think of more than one other person like that in the entire Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 07:35 AM) He actually has principles and hasn't been bought out by special interests like 98% of the rest of Washington. Or he sold them, he didn't rent them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Based on a statement by one of the Deputy National Security Advisors, we've already gone from handover of control of the Libyan operation in "a few days" to "a few weeks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I didnt see any definitive statement on time, so I dont see a broken promise, as there was never any promise made to be broken. But just to completely discredit the author and show that he is doing nothing more than yellow journalism, lets pick apart the quotes: 1) we expect, in a few days, Expectation is not a promise, in fact it is completely speculative. 2) we anticipate Damn once again anticipation is not a promise, its speculative. 3) this is not going to be a couple of weeks. This is actually the worst statement, but can only be used against the Rhodes if a few weeks pass and the change has not occurred. Furthermore the fact that they use "days" and "weeks" is really meaningless as they never actually pinpoint a definitive date in time, ie this will be accomplished in 7 days. Technically weeks are made up of days, so if I wanted to be completely biased like this article, I could legitimately argue that the administration has completely stuck to their time line. But unlike this journalist, Im fair and try to be unbiased. I have no doubt that the US had hoped that they would be able to transfer over leadership in as little time as possible. Unfortunately it turns out that the rest of the International Community has decided to completely change their position after the UN voted, and now they arent so sure about the things they pressed the UN to do. At this point the US has to keep control because they did not anticipate half of the countries going back on positions that they took so strongly last week. So the reason they are not giving a definitive time table, is because no one is sure how long its going to take for the rest of these countries to stop backtracking on positions that they took. Its unfortunate that the state of our media today is that you cant even trust anything thats printed, because most headlines seem to be flat out misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Once we start, we are in it for ever and ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 GG For the reasons I identified the other day, there are major differences between the military actions in Iraq and Libya. But what is true of both -- as is true for most wars -- is that each will spawn suffering for some people even if they alleviate it for others. Dropping lots of American bombs on a country tends to kill a lot of innocent people. For that reason, indifference to suffering is often what war proponents -- not war opponents -- are guilty of. But whatever else is true, the notion that opposing a war is evidence of indifference to tyranny and suffering is equally simple-minded, propagandistic, manipulative and intellectually bankrupt in both the Iraq and Libya contexts. And, in particular, those who opposed or still oppose intervention in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the Sudan, against Israel, in the Ivory Coast -- and/or any other similar places where there is widespread human-caused suffering -- have no business advancing that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Humanitarians R Us by Digby ... The other complaint I'm getting is that my gripe about using the "humanitarian" excuse is shallow. "Just because we can't intervene everywhere to save the people doesn't mean we can't intervene somewhere." To that I'll just say that when you use this rationale in a blatantly cynical way, you not only abuse and cheapen the whole notion of humanitarian intervention, you create even more cynicism about humanitarianism in general. Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn't humanitarianism, it's opportunism. Gloria Borger just articulated the alleged doctrine on CNN: This is a humanitarian operation. The president has said as have other heads of state that we can't stand by as a murderous thug kills his own people. It's quite obvious that isn't true and they look like assholes when they say it. After all, this situation is far more clear cut. The democratically elected leader is not being allowed to take office and the defeated one is killing vast numbers of his own people creating a massive refugee crisis: The rising violence in Ivory Coast means more people are trying to get out of the country. It’s estimated the number of displaced within Ivory Coast and refugees in neighboring countries is between 300,000 and 400,000 people. The International Office for Migration [iOM] is helping the displaced find safe haven. Spokesperson Jemini Pandya says, “There’s been very large-scale displacement within Abidjan since fighting really increased a few weeks ago. It’s extremely difficult to be able to go and assess the real scale of the displacement because the security conditions are too bad and also because of the targeting of humanitarian aid workers.” But she adds, “One thing that our staff on the ground in Abidjan are saying is that the city is rapidly emptying, [with people] finding any way they can to get out and escape the violence. They’re leaving on public buses, vans, cars, taxis – anything they can find basically to reach their home villages.” “IOM has now had to also evacuate its remaining staff… in the west, where there’s been significant internal displacement…because of the conflict,” says Pandya. It isn't just displacement: The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Ivory Coast says it is concerned that heavy weapons could be used against civilians as rival presidents struggle for power. In a statement Tuesday, the mission said forces loyal to incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo are repairing an attack helicopter and preparing multiple rocket launchers for use. The mission called the weapons "a grave threat to the civilian population" and warned Gbagbo forces that the U.N. would act if such weapons are used. Earlier, Ivory Coast's internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara, called on the United Nations to authorize "legitimate force" to protect civilians. What's the reason we can't we intervene here? If anything, this seems like a much more obvious humanitarian intervention than Libya where a spontaneous uprising to overthrow the government has not even come close to the bloodshed and displacement in Ivory Coast. It's not that I think we should intervene in every humanitarian crisis. But honestly, the truth is that we don't intervene in any humanitarian crises. We intervene in places in which we have large financial and strategic interests, period. It's merely a convenience to attach a humanitarian label on it and persuade everyone that we are doing God's work instead. Even the arguments for Iraq were all wrapped up in "rape rooms" and "he gassed his own people" rhetoric. The entire debacle eventually rested on the trope "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." I used to think in these terms --- using our military power for good and all that rot. But as I've grown older I've come to the conclusion that wars are almost always the wrong choice. If Hitler is sweeping across Europe, committing genocide and declaring his intention to take over the world, I'm reluctantly in. But short of that I'm always going to be extremely skeptical of motives and interest about any of these military adventures. It's rare that this extreme form of violence is used for the reasons stated and far more often than not it creates more mayhem and instability than it stops. The law of unintended consequences is never more consequential. The reasons being stated for this one are even more unconvincing than usual. Insulting, actually. Millions of people are suffering all over the world, even here in the US. And the money that's spent to protect oilfields and our "strategic interest" in keeping people drunk on scarce resources so that the already wealthy can get wealthier would go a long way toward alleviating it. Calling these oil field protection operations "humanitarian" is Orwellian and it prevents the American people from facing the real questions before them about their own futures and how to genuinely work toward a more peaceful, equitable and decent world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 06:06 AM) Did you by chance go to Marrakech? Yes. Was there for 4 or 5 days. It's all pink. And don't photograph the police officers. They get mad. The souk there is right off the main square in the center of town. Of course the main square is probably where a lot of the political gatherings are going to be, which is unfortunate. The charm there is unmistakeable - the snake charmers, the food, the souk sort of blends in the square. One of the more interesting memories of there is the early morning call to prayer - the streets are deserted and then they are just jam packed all at once right when the sun comes up. One thing I love about Morocco is the architecture. Marrakech, like I said, has all pink walls surrounding the old city. Back when I was there, the city was sort of just getting outside of the walled part, I'm sure it's grown well beyond it now. Have fun bartering with the merchants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Sorry I cant keep up with all of the nonsensical articles that people are posting, Id prefer if you guys just wrote your own instead of me having to responding to people that will never get the chance to argue with me, but oh well, I cant help myself. If Hitler is sweeping across Europe, committing genocide and declaring his intention to take over the world, I'm reluctantly in. Ridiculous. Based on this statement he would not have intervened if Hitler merely killed all of the Jews. Sorry Mr. Digby, but that is an unacceptable position in my view. Oh what is that you say, you didnt really mean that he had to do all three, you are just creating hyperbole to devalue the entire argument. The other complaint I'm getting is that my gripe about using the "humanitarian" excuse is shallow. "Just because we can't intervene everywhere to save the people doesn't mean we can't intervene somewhere." To that I'll just say that when you use this rationale in a blatantly cynical way, you not only abuse and cheapen the whole notion of humanitarian intervention, you create even more cynicism about humanitarianism in general. Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn't humanitarianism, it's opportunism. And saying that you cant help everyone isnt being an opportunist, its being a realist. Its like saying a Dr who only saved 2 out of 3 patients was an opportunist, because he couldnt save them all. Or that when you give $1,000 to the Red Cross, you are an opportunist just because you couldnt give $10,000 to the Red Cross, or $20,000 to Amnesty International. Its not people who are realists that cheapen humanitarian effort, its people like Digby, who attack people who are doing the best that they can to try and help, but are realists when it comes to the fact that you can not help anyone. He then goes on to use the same moral equivalence argument pointing to Ivory Coast? Dear Mr. Digby, Has the UN authorized humanitarian intervention in the Ivory Coast? Oh wait the UN is giving aid to the Ivory Coast, based on Digby's article who could have imagined that. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?s.../1962%282010%29 Decides that UNOCI will maintain its total authorized strength at 8,650 personnel, including a maximum of 7,200 troops and staff officers and 192 military observers, and a maximum of 1,250 police personnel and 8 seconded customs officers, as authorized by resolution 1933 (2010), until 30 June 2011; 5. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General, further to resolution 1942 (2010), to extend until 31 March 2011 the temporary deployment of up to 500 additional personnel; 6. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General, further to resolution 1951 (2010), to extend by up to four additional weeks the temporary redeployment from UNMIL to UNOCI of a maximum of three infantry companies and one aviation unit comprised of two military utility helicopters; 7. Affirms its intention to consider authorizing the Secretary-General to redeploy further troops, as may be needed, between UNMIL and UNOCI on a temporary basis, in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1609 (2005) and calls on troop-contributing countries to support the efforts of the Secretary-General in this regard Oh damn it turns out the UN is actually giving the Ivory Coast troops, which is far beyond what the UN has done in Libya. Its just sad when people have to resort to completely distorting the facts to try and persuade people to believe in their articles. I beg of people to think with their own mind, do their own research, dont rely on bloggers who are the real opportunists here. As for Greenwald he uses a lot of words so my response will be brief: Dropping lots of American bombs on a country tends to kill a lot of innocent people. For that reason, indifference to suffering is often what war proponents -- not war opponents -- are guilty of. Anyone who doesnt accept the reality of war is living in a fantasy world. Innocent people were going to die regardless of the action taken, but you have to weigh the costs. Lets go back to a more simpler time, World War II. In World War II there were significant civilian casualties, these are not thousands, these are millions. When the US invaded Germany, many Germany civilians were killed. But what should the US have done? Just left Hitler alone because we didnt want to risk killing innocent German civilians? His article is pretty bad because it misconstrues facts to try and prove his point: Why didn't this same moral calculus justify the attack on Iraq? Because the Iraq war was not pitched as saving the people of Iraq to begin, the Iraq war was sold as a war to protect America from Saddam's WMD. If this war was about stopping Gaddafi and WMD, I would be absolutely opposed to it, the same way as I was opposed to Iraq. Had the Iraq invasion been entirely for humanitarian purposes it would have been different. Had the people of Iraq revolted against Saddam and asked for our assistance, it would have been different. To the people of Libya and those American's who dream that one day govts will do the right thing because its the right thing, not for some end gain, we can only hope. But if we let people beat us down and tell us that things will never change, that no govt can be good, that no one can ever help some one else just to help, we will lose the good in humanity. We are not all this way, and that is why it is so important for the minority to stand up together, to make sure that we can do whatever we can. Just because we cant save everyone, doesnt mean we shouldnt try and save as many as we can. Just because our previous intervention may have been a mistake or ended poorly, does not mean we cant do better in the future. Edited March 22, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) Ridiculous. Based on this statement he would not have intervened if Hitler merely killed all of the Jews. Sorry Mr. Digby, but that is an unacceptable position in my view. *scratches head* The sentence you quoted states that he would intervene against Hitler. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) And saying that you cant help everyone isnt being an opportunist, its being a realist. Its like saying a Dr who only saved 2 out of 3 patients was an opportunist, because he couldnt save them all. Or that when you give $1,000 to the Red Cross, you are an opportunist just because you couldnt give $10,000 to the Red Cross, or $20,000 to Amnesty International. I agree with her that this is opportunism regardless if you used some irrelevant analogies to attempt to discount the assertion. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) Oh wait the UN is giving aid to the Ivory Coast, based on Digby's article who could have imagined that. Oh damn it turns out the UN is actually giving the Ivory Coast troops, which is far beyond what the UN has done in Libya. So a handful of troops standing around is the same as sending the most powerful armies in the world and blowing up targets? What exactly have these UN troops done so far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) His statement does say that he would have intervened against Hitler, but only if the following criteria were met, and even then it was only "reluctantly". If Hitler is sweeping across Europe, committing genocide and declaring his intention to take over the world, I'm reluctantly in. This is simple sentence construction, Digby uses "and" that means that all 3 criteria had to be met before he would have "RELUCTANTLY" be in support of removing Hitler. So if Hilter had only killed the Jews and swept across Europe, but did not declare his intention to to take over the world it would not have been enough to intervene. If Hitler only killed the Jews and only expressed his intention to take over the world, but did not sweep across Europe it would not have been enough to intervene. And certainly like I said, if Hitler merely killed all of the Jews, but did not sweep across Europe and did not declare his intention to to take over the world it would not have been enough to intervene. (If anyone thought this sounded familiar, I felt it would be appropriate to do it in the style of "Dayenu" as Passover is coming and the basic message of Passover is that we will never truly be free, until everyone in the world is free, even our enemies.) This is the only way to interpret the statement. Had Digby meant that just killing Jews alone was enough to intervene the word AND would have been OR. And even if we change it to OR, it is still a disgusting statement that it would only be RELUCTANTLY. Digby was RELUCTANT to interfere in a situation where millions of innocent people were exterminated because they had different religious beliefs. That is messed up, anyone who is reluctant about stopping a Holocaust is a sick individual that I want no part of. I agree with her that this is opportunism regardless if you used some irrelevant analogies to attempt to discount the assertion. You can agree all you want, but its a bad argument. How exactly am I opportunistic because I support Libya? Does Gaddafi falling give me any advantage? No. So how in the world is my support opportunistic? What opportunity am I gaining? What self interest do I have in this? What could I possibly gain from this? I cant be opportunistic if there is nothing to gain. So a handful of troops standing around is the same as sending the most powerful armies in the world and blowing up targets? What exactly have these UN troops done so far? So if the US put 7k troops in Libya instead of doing a No Fly Zone, you would say that is doing nothing and they are just standing around? They are both UN action, both involve the US. I dont know who that person Digby is, but what they said in that article is truly sickening and in many cases they completely distorted the truth to take advantage of people that do not do their own research and fact finding. Edited March 23, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) The US is being opportunistic. This has nothing to do with you or any other individual. Obama didn't ask you what your thoughts are so it doesn't matter if you think it's opportunistic or humanitarian. And you really think that the US decided to get involved simply because we're being humanitarians? LOL And this really makes no sense to me. What truth was distorted? FYI - Digby is a pretty well regarded progressive blogger. I dont know who that person Digby is, but what they said in that article is truly sickening and in many cases they completely distorted the truth to take advantage of people that do not do their own research and fact finding. Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 09:18 PM) This is simple sentence construction, Digby uses "and" that means that all 3 criteria had to be met before he would have "RELUCTANTLY" be in support of removing Hitler. So if Hilter had only killed the Jews and swept across Europe, but did not declare his intention to to take over the world it would not have been enough to intervene. If Hitler only killed the Jews and only expressed his intention to take over the world, but did not sweep across Europe it would not have been enough to intervene. And certainly like I said, if Hitler merely killed all of the Jews, but did not sweep across Europe and did not declare his intention to to take over the world it would not have been enough to intervene. (If anyone thought this sounded familiar, I felt it would be appropriate to do it in the style of "Dayenu" as Passover is coming and the basic message of Passover is that we will never truly be free, until everyone in the world is free, even our enemies.) This is the only way to interpret the statement. Had Digby meant that just killing Jews alone was enough to intervene the word AND would have been OR. And even if we change it to OR, it is still a disgusting statement that it would only be RELUCTANTLY. Digby was RELUCTANT to interfere in a situation where millions of innocent people were exterminated because they had different religious beliefs. That is messed up, anyone who is reluctant about stopping a Holocaust is a sick individual that I want no part of. Your entire argument on this is a crock of s*** and you know it. You're looking for something that isn't there. Take your lawyer cap off for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) The US is being opportunistic. This has nothing to do with you or any other individual. Obama didn't ask you what your thoughts are so it doesn't matter if you think it's opportunistic or humanitarian. Digby makes the following statements: The other complaint I'm getting is that my gripe about using the "humanitarian" excuse is shallow. "Just because we can't intervene everywhere to save the people doesn't mean we can't intervene somewhere." To that I'll just say that when you use this rationale in a blatantly cynical way, you not only abuse and cheapen the whole notion of humanitarian intervention, you create even more cynicism about humanitarianism in general. Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn't humanitarianism, it's opportunism. Once again this is simple construction. Digby does not mention the US in this argument. In fact Digby specifically points out "the complaint I'm getting" is getting complaints from the US or Obama? I wouldnt believe that they are dignifying a blogger who wouldnt intervene to save the lives of millions of Jews, so my guess is that the complaint is from people on the internet. So when Digby says "YOU" he is not referring to Obama or the US, he is referring to people like ME. So of course Im going to blast the ridiculous argument. If Digby meant the US or Obama, it wouldnt say "YOU". And this really makes no sense to me. What truth was distorted? FYI - Digby is a pretty well regarded progressive blogger. Distorts the truth about UN intervention in Ivory Coast. If you read that article, specifically the bolded part: What's the reason we can't we intervene here? If anything, this seems like a much more obvious humanitarian intervention than Libya where a spontaneous uprising to overthrow the government has not even come close to the mayhem and displacement in Ivory Coast. The questions implies that we (whoever we is as you should never use undefined terms) are not intervening in Ivory Coast, because if we were intervening in the Ivory Coast, you couldnt ask the question "Why arent we intervening?" the real question would be "Why arent we doing MORE in the Ivory Coast?" This is a very insidious journalistic technique, where you basically trick the reader into coming to a conclusion that is not the actual question. When asked: "Why cant we intervene?" The only answers are: We cant for X reason, or we can for Y reason. The question completely removes the actual answer "SHOULD WE INTERVENE MORE?" and makes the reader come to the incorrect conclusion "We are not intervening in Ivory Coast." Furthermore, Digby covers itself by linking an article that directly answers the actual question "Should we intervene more?" The mission called the weapons "a grave threat to the civilian population" and warned Gbagbo forces that the U.N. would act if such weapons are used. Well imagine that, exactly like Libya, if Gbago starts to use HEAVY WEAPONRY, the UN will take FURTHER ACTION. You mean that you cant use a No Fly Zone against small arms in densely populated areas? You mean that a No Fly Zone and aircraft work best against large weapons that can be targeted in non-populated areas? So you mean if Gbago starts using heavy weaponry the UN may ask for a No Fly Zone or UN involvement to destroy the weapons? How again does this prove Digby's distorted premises that we are not involved in the Ivory Coast? Digby is a pretty well regarded progressive blogger. I can name 5 personalities off the top of my head who are pretty well regarded and I wouldnt trust a word they said. I dont care if Digby was Locke combined with Mill, a bad argument is a bad argument. Edited March 23, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 It doesn't matter that more people are dying, the refugee situation is worse, and the population is starving, only whether heavy weaponry is used? That's a very odd standard for humanitarian intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 By the way, you know why Godwin's law exists in the first place? It's because pretty much everyone on a message board realized that the moment they brought in that war, it swamped every other argument. Even if it's a mostly appropriate metaphor, the fact that things went so completely haywire once means that you can pretty much use it to justify whatever policy you want, and once it is thrown in...anyone who opposes your policy is supporting the Nazis and the murder of 6 million jews. "Yeah war is bad, but you'd have supported the Holocaust!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 godwins law isnt there to prevent any legitimate dicussion of or comparison to nazi atrocities. especially when the topic at hand is military humanitarian intervention. on another note, i love all the hand-wringing (especially by conservatives who were gung-ho on iraq) over whether Obama's actions were constitutional. where was all this concern for expanded executive power and cngress's adjucation of their responsibilities for the last 6 decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 No, Godwin's law is there because even if the comparison has some legitimacy, making that comparison ruins any chance for legitimate discussion and immediately moves things to name-calling. Making that comparison immediately compares your political opponents to Nazi supporters. Which you have done several times now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) No, Godwin's law is there because even if the comparison has some legitimacy, making that comparison ruins any chance for legitimate discussion and immediately moves things to name-calling. Making that comparison immediately compares your political opponents to Nazi supporters. Which you have done several times now. acutally this is a great example of ruining legitimate discussion. i never called them nazi supporters, i dont think soxbadger did either. wwii isolationists at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Ivory Coast Leader Threatens Journalists 435 people have died since the crisis began and nearly 400,000 have fled the fighting. UN alarmed over heavy weapons use in Ivory Coast And finally... Why Can't Ivory Coast Get A No-Fly Zone Like Libya? That's what the country's internationally recognized president wants to know. Alassane Ouattara asked the United Nations to authorize the use of legitimate force to protect civilians in his West African country. The key words "use legitimate force" and not 7K troops spread over an entire country. You can't tell me air strikes like those in Libya aren't more effective than 7K troops in a country of millions. And why isn't the US all gung ho to help out like they did in Libya? Edited March 23, 2011 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) acutally this is a great example of ruining legitimate discussion. i never called them nazi supporters, i dont think soxbadger did either. wwii isolationists at worst. And you really don't think that "wwii isolationists" is exactly the same thing? H. Christ man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2011 -> 08:28 PM) You cant just authorize military action without ascertaining the facts. The US was wise in the long run to take their time and make sure that we got universal approval. The US is trying to learn lessons from Iraq, Kosovo, but at the same time not forget that we can hopefully help other people for the better. The US did not have the political capital to act to quickly, that is just the sad reality. Not only that, but there are still people who are going to be against our intervention. Germany, Brazil, India, Russia and China Those 5 countries didnt even vote. You can say Obama had no balls, but we once again are going to be the first ones in. We have to be realistic about our ability to intervene, we still are doing far more than anyone else. Except for the innocent civilians in the Ivory Coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Greenwald with another solid piece today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) Greenwald with another solid piece today. Um... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) Um... Oh. Didn't see that. And didn't realize it was his post from yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts