BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Lost in my birthday festivities yesterday was this excellent editorial by Josh Marshall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) Lost in my birthday festivities yesterday was this excellent editorial by Josh Marshall. You call that an excellent editorial? Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) You call that an excellent editorial? Meh. Yes because he agrees with me. And I am excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) Yes because he agrees with me. And I am excellent. You still aren't the best, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) You still aren't the best, though. I'm striving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) By the way, I know we're not allowed to talk about it because blowing people up is free we'll pay any price for freedom (under a long list of circumstances), but between launching a couple hundred tomahawk missiles, flying and operating B-2's from Missouri, extra jet fuel/combat pay for the planes involved, and simply moving the resources into the area, this operation has cost at least half a billion dollars so far. There's always money in the banana stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) There's always money in the banana stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 09:27 AM) Fun Fact of the Day: Your Tax Dollars At Work For another comparison, that $81 million spent solely on Tomahawk missiles is larger than the current amount pledged to the Red Cross Japan relief fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 11:17 AM) For another comparison, that $81 million spent solely on Tomahawk missiles is larger than the current amount pledged to the Red Cross Japan relief fund. Priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well it's beginning to look like another US vs Middle Eastern country scenario. The United Arab Emirates said on Monday that its involvement in Libya is limited to humanitarian assistance, after reports that it would send warplanes to patrol a UN-backed no-fly zone. ... NATO is ready to support the international coalition intervening in Libya within "a few days," Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister, said on Monday. ... Sharp divisions prevented NATO from adopting a plan on Monday for military airstrikes against Libya, as Turkish opposition blocked the alliance from approving a strategy. This should do wonders for tamping down the hatred from jihadists and those that they're actively recruiting. quoted text via Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Im surprised, usually when you are counting how much money the US spends you include all of the logistics. Yet when using the Japan figure, you limit to only the money donated to the Red Cross, which does not include any of the money the US spent in helping Japan. Must be hard to always frame arguments in your favor. Not to mention they are completely different situations, its not like the tomahawks could have been used for the Japan relief. Im just glad we are on the right side for once, its been a long time, and it feels good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 And of course most Arab countries are going to be flighty about their support in this. Most of them are no better than Gaddafi, they now realize that they are next on the list and maybe they should have supported Gaddafi killing his citizens instead of siding with the west and giving the people freedom. To late now, Middle Eastern Arabs are getting to taste freedom and many of them will realize that they have the power to free themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) And of course most Arab countries are going to be flighty about their support in this. Most of them are no better than Gaddafi, they now realize that they are next on the list and maybe they should have supported Gaddafi killing his citizens instead of siding with the west and giving the people freedom. To late now, Middle Eastern Arabs are getting to taste freedom and many of them will realize that they have the power to free themselves. So going forward we should intervene in all civil wars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) No of course not, we do not live in absolutes. But if there are some good people out there and they ask the international community to even the playing field because a dictator is going to massacre them, Im inclined to even the battle field. A long time ago there were some brave fellows we call revolutionaries, they stood up to the British. But the British had a lot more firepower and manpower, those brave revolutionaries were caught in quite a pickle and asked for some help from some friends. Lets not forget that we too were once where the Libyan revolutionaries were, and that we too needed some help. Edited March 21, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Those friends though intervened not because of any humanitarian situation, they intervened because it was in their own strategic self-interest to weaken the British. And furthermore...the debt that they rang up in fighting that war was a key contributor to the collapse of their own government a few years later. Although there may be a small self-interest here (insuring continued access to Libyan oil), I don't count that as much of a paralle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You guys should totally just take down one another's cell phone numbers and hash this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Youre 100% correct, the French were self-serving, which is why this campaign for the people of Libya is far more virtuous. As for bankrupting France, spending money on the US revolution didnt help, but their real fiscal problems occurred during the 7 years war (1756-1763) and previous periods. Not to mention the amount of money they were spending on their own colonies, which eventually became to costly to keep (Louisiana Purchase). So if the US is to go bankrupt, its not going to be over the money we spent in Libya, its going to be over the numerous other things that we spent money on years ago. And there is nothing to hash out, Im never going to be a proponent of sitting on the sidelines in the face of a civilian massacre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) So going forward we should intervene in all civil wars? Yes. Welcome to the USA, AKA the World Police Department. It's been like this for a long time now...did you think your pal Obama was gonna play the game differently or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:13 PM) No of course not, we do not live in absolutes. But if there are some good people out there and they ask the international community to even the playing field because a dictator is going to massacre them, Im inclined to even the battle field. A long time ago there were some brave fellows we call revolutionaries, they stood up to the British. But the British had a lot more firepower and manpower, those brave revolutionaries were caught in quite a pickle and asked for some help from some friends. Lets not forget that we too were once where the Libyan revolutionaries were, and that we too needed some help. Billboard in Benghazi the week before the US air strikes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) Yes. Welcome to the USA, AKA the World Police Department. It's been like this for a long time now...did you think your pal Obama was gonna play the game differently or something? NSFW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You know the council of Benghazi are the ones who applied to the UN for a No Fly Zone, and specifically asked that there be no ground troops. Who cares what one poster says, when the actual group who is allegedly representing the revolutionaries asked for a No Fly Zone. If I put a poster outside of my balcony that says: "China please take over the US" Does that have more sway than Obama or officials who actually represent the country? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/1...tes-no-fly-zone They include Essam Gheriani, a spokesman for the council. "They read out our names on television. It was a message who to kill," he said. Gheriani applauded the UN no-fly resolution but was considerably more sceptical about the self-declared ceasefire. "This resolution has avoided a great deal of bloodshed, because the revenge Gaddafi would take in Benghazi would have been worse than anything we've seen before even in a city where he had mass hangings in public," he said. "It has been a great morale booster. This was an international community that for once gave priority to human lives over economic interests." Not sure where you are getting your facts, but the Benghazi council was begging the UN to intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) Im surprised, usually when you are counting how much money the US spends you include all of the logistics. Yet when using the Japan figure, you limit to only the money donated to the Red Cross, which does not include any of the money the US spent in helping Japan. Must be hard to always frame arguments in your favor. Not to mention they are completely different situations, its not like the tomahawks could have been used for the Japan relief. Im just glad we are on the right side for once, its been a long time, and it feels good. I'm actually impressed at how much you missed here. First...yes, I didn't count how much the U.S. was spending on military resources in Japan. I also was equally selective in how much the U.S. is spending on Libya...highlighting only the Tomahawks. Yet you call me out for being selective on one side, then take advantage of it on the other. Reason I didn't include military aid in Japan is...it's hard to have a clue how much is being spent there, just like it's hard to quantify the amount of money spent on the rest of the Libyan campaign, although it's certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And this statement..."its not like the tomahawks could have been used for the Japan relief. " presumes that we won't spend money to replace the ordinance just fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) And of course most Arab countries are going to be flighty about their support in this. Most of them are no better than Gaddafi, they now realize that they are next on the list and maybe they should have supported Gaddafi killing his citizens instead of siding with the west and giving the people freedom. To late now, Middle Eastern Arabs are getting to taste freedom and many of them will realize that they have the power to free themselves. What makes anyone believe that they will have freedom, or that the next regime will allow citizens to be free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) Yes. Welcome to the USA, AKA the World Police Department. It's been like this for a long time now...did you think your pal Obama was gonna play the game differently or something? Will we always pick the rebels or can we sometimes pick the current governments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 01:45 PM) What makes anyone believe that they will have freedom, or that the next regime will allow citizens to be free? We can just bomb them until they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts