The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:07 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Aizle wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
Most of the rebels were soldiers who committed treason among other crimes. It's not exactly a humanitarian crisis.


Frankly I don't care about the rebels. They put themselves in harms way and there's a risk/cost to that. My concern is for the many many protesters and other civilians who spoke out against Qaddafi who would be hunted down and beaten/raped/murdered.


How would they hunt them down? Qaddafi's men aren't exactly F.B.I. They don't have facial recognition software. You're just buying into Western media propaganda.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Uncle Fester wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
I love how shooting down aircraft and bombing people is a humanitarian mission.

What a world.


Actually according to the administration it is a "Kinetic military exercise" proper jargon please :)


Oh, so we're not bombing them, we're just dropping heavy objects?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:01 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Yup, just heavy objects that go BOOOM! shacka-lacka

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Aizle wrote:
I actually very much like that this is a UN action, not a US action as I want the US to get out of the role of the world's police force, but as DE pointed out, we were the only ones with the manpower and equipment to pull off the initial stages. I have some concerns about the exit strategy here as well, but I view that as a UN problem to deal with, not a US problem to be honest.

I'm not really up on policy in these situations -- but if we're the "only one with the manpower and equipment to pull off" UN directives and initiatives, do we send them a bill?


What and then pay it when it's forwarded to us?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Vindicarre wrote:
Yup, just heavy objects that go BOOOM! shacka-lacka


LMFAO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Aizle wrote:
I actually very much like that this is a UN action, not a US action as I want the US to get out of the role of the world's police force, but as DE pointed out, we were the only ones with the manpower and equipment to pull off the initial stages. I have some concerns about the exit strategy here as well, but I view that as a UN problem to deal with, not a US problem to be honest.

I'm not really up on policy in these situations -- but if we're the "only one with the manpower and equipment to pull off" UN directives and initiatives, do we send them a bill?


What and then pay it when it's forwarded to us?

Indeed. Kind of the same direction I was going.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:59 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Aizle wrote:
As for Libya, I'm certainly not crazy about the position that we're in there either. I do feel that it's different than Iraq especially, since there was an immediate humanitarian crisis in the making, as Qaddafi would have executed hundreds of people if he would have overrun the rebels. I actually very much like that this is a UN action, not a US action as I want the US to get out of the role of the world's police force, but as DE pointed out, we were the only ones with the manpower and equipment to pull off the initial stages. I have some concerns about the exit strategy here as well, but I view that as a UN problem to deal with, not a US problem to be honest.

You keep dodging the fact that Obama initiated an act of war without Congressional approval (as required by the Constitution) because we're playing nice with the world community. Saving the lives of non-US citizens doesn't come anywhere close to being sufficient grounds, if there is such a thing.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Screeling wrote:
Aizle wrote:
As for Libya, I'm certainly not crazy about the position that we're in there either. I do feel that it's different than Iraq especially, since there was an immediate humanitarian crisis in the making, as Qaddafi would have executed hundreds of people if he would have overrun the rebels. I actually very much like that this is a UN action, not a US action as I want the US to get out of the role of the world's police force, but as DE pointed out, we were the only ones with the manpower and equipment to pull off the initial stages. I have some concerns about the exit strategy here as well, but I view that as a UN problem to deal with, not a US problem to be honest.

You keep dodging the fact that Obama initiated an act of war without Congressional approval (as required by the Constitution) because we're playing nice with the world community. Saving the lives of non-US citizens doesn't come anywhere close to being sufficient grounds, if there is such a thing.


I'm fairly certain that the Executive can engage in military matters anywhere provided he answers to Congress within 20 days. I believe that Congress must approve it at that time.

This is a good rule. It enables him to move quickly if needed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Aizle wrote:
As for Libya, I'm certainly not crazy about the position that we're in there either. I do feel that it's different than Iraq especially, since there was an immediate humanitarian crisis in the making, as Qaddafi would have executed hundreds of people if he would have overrun the rebels


I'll let Joe say it for me:

Joe wrote:
How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.

With the help of his equally despicable sons, Uday and Qusay, Saddam devastated Iraq, terrorized his people and destroyed that country’s environment. By the time American troops deposed him in 2003, Saddam had killed at least 300,000 of his own people — and human rights groups say that tally does not even include the million-plus casualties his invasion of Iran caused.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.
...
In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.


The whole thing:
Spoiler:
The hypocrisy of the American left
By JOE SCARBOROUGH | 3/29/11 4:44 AM EDT

Self-righteousness is a dangerous vice. It breeds arrogance and moral blind spots for those who come to believe they are superior to those who share different worldviews.

Televangelists have fallen prey to this feeling of superiority, until the time they are caught crawling on the ground outside a hooker’s hotel room. Politicians have also wallowed in the grandiosity of their moralistic worldview, until they too fall prey to the hypocrisy that eventually snags all self-righteous moralizers.

For a decade now, we have been told of George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s moral failings. They have been regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and every other tyrant of the past century. Bush has been damned by the ministers of the far left as a war criminal, a fascist and a Nazi when labeling his policies as overly ideological and deeply flawed would have sufficed.

But that was never enough for the carnival barkers on cable news or the blogosphere. For the American left, Bush had to be condemned as an immoral beast who killed women and children to get his bloody hands on Iraqi oil.

That extremism required that the Bush years be filled with images of CODEPINK protesting on Capitol Hill, anti-war activists clogging the streets of New York City and left-wing commentators beating their chests with the self-righteous indignation of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

But in the morally murky afterglow of the Obama years, the certainty of these secular saints has melted away.

President Barack Obama bowed to his generals’ demands by tripling troops in an unending war. CODEPINK did nothing.

Obama backed down on Guantanamo Bay. Anti-war protesters stayed at home.

America invaded its third Muslim country in a decade. The American left meekly went along. Without the slightest hint of irony, liberals defended the president’s indefensible position by returning again to a pose of moral certainty.

Democrats streamed to the floors of the House and Senate to praise the president for invading Libya. It was, after all, a moral mission that would stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. Whether protesting for peace or calling for war, these liberals once again convinced themselves of the moral superiority of their positions.

While one can make the moral argument that countries can be attacked strictly on humanitarian grounds, that argument is laughable when it comes to Libya.

How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.

With the help of his equally despicable sons, Uday and Qusay, Saddam devastated Iraq, terrorized his people and destroyed that country’s environment. By the time American troops deposed him in 2003, Saddam had killed at least 300,000 of his own people — and human rights groups say that tally does not even include the million-plus casualties his invasion of Iran caused.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

In Yemen, the situation is no better. Government snipers shoot unarmed women and children from the rooftops of Sanaa. Should we follow Obama’s example in Libya and invade that country in the name of humanitarian relief? Or should we step into the breach in the Ivory Coast, where a terrifying civil war has led to a million refugees fleeing that country. And why do we not enter Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have been slaughtered over the past decade in a civil war of horrifying proportions?

Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.

In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.

A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe” on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:20 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
I'm fairly certain that the Executive can engage in military matters anywhere provided he answers to Congress within 20 days. I believe that Congress must approve it at that time.

This is a good rule. It enables him to move quickly if needed.


I think you're referring to the War Powers Resolution of 1973; it's 60 days, but it must be due to an attack on the US.

He's either got to get Congressional approval prior to sending the troops, or it must be a case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Incidentally, I find it ironic that Congress over-rode Nixon's veto in order to pass it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:57 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Some of the Republican complaints are so ironic that DC is in danger of becoming a super dense irony black hole. If the Democrats start calling them unpatriotic and unsupported of the troops my head will explode. Republicans issues with the whole thing are beyond silly anyway, and I know they'd approve if their guy was in the WH. They are all **** retarded.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
It's sad that there are still people who think there's a large difference between the two parties.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:05 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
There is a huge difference between them. One party is full of red-skinned individuals, while the other has blue skin.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Skin cancer is a serious problem for Republicans.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:21 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
That's because more of us are pale-skinned white people and thus more susceptible to it.

As to the Libya situation, I'm not opposed to intervention or what's going on there because its intervention; I'm opposed at this point because I see no national interest being measurably bettered there, especially in light of the current financial situation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
I never thought I'd see a situation where Aizle would want to go to war but not Diamondeye.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:31 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
^ This (DE's national interest/financial situation part specifically)

edit: Got ninja'd.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Last edited by Vindicarre on Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:32 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
You shouldn't be that amazed. I've made it clear repeatedly that I view war as simply a method of realpolitik, but people seem to think that means I want to jump feet first into any available conflict.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
You've also made it clear that you value a very large military, and it's just one logical step that this very large military should be put to use.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:38 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
He values a military that can do what is asked of it, no more and no less, as far as I can tell.

We're a large country with wide ranging national interests; that begets having a military large enough to accomplish its goal of protecting the national interest.

I can't say I agree with him about the necessities all the time, but his approach is logical and his reasoning is linear.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:06 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Vindicarre wrote:
He values a military that can do what is asked of it, no more and no less, as far as I can tell.

We're a large country with wide ranging national interests; that begets having a military large enough to accomplish its goal of protecting the national interest.

I can't say I agree with him about the necessities all the time, but his approach is logical and his reasoning is linear.


I can't say I agree 100% with this assessment. His argument is logically consistent for the most part, but I find that some of his base premises are flawed. It's really not that hard for forming a compelling necessity based argument for the bombing of Libya from the conservative military-statist perspective. Maybe not from DE's particular perspective, but it certainly deviates from what I expected from him in this case.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:15 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Lex Luthor wrote:
You've also made it clear that you value a very large military, and it's just one logical step that this very large military should be put to use.


I don't value a "very large" military; I value a military proportional to the country's phyiscal size, population, and general economic and technological capabilities which is capable of cfedibly deterring conventional, asymetric, and nuclear/strategic threats from any potential opponent. It should do so in the context of a political strategy which minimizes the necessity of actually engaging in combat, but which does not sacrifice national interests in the name of ideological avoidance of conflict. This necessitates a large military relative to most nations, but not an outsize one when the size and capabilities of the U.S. are considered relative to other nations.

In fact, it does not follow at all that because one has a large military, or even because one should have a large military that one should put it to use. That is not a logical step at all; it's a leap in logic. A short one, perhaps, but a leap nonetheless. I would also point out that "putting it to use" does not necessarily mean active combat. Deterrence, patrol, and other non-combat operations are means of putting it to use. I would point out that our military was actively used a great deal in the Cold War in many situations where no actual combat took place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
I could be mistaken but in the past you voiced that our military should be larger than what it currently is.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. It all sounds reasonable.

Apparently many liberals think the army should be put to use in protecting civilians in foreign and unprovoked engagements, without any regard for the cost and without any level of certainty that the action is even needed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:33 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Rynar wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
He values a military that can do what is asked of it, no more and no less, as far as I can tell.

We're a large country with wide ranging national interests; that begets having a military large enough to accomplish its goal of protecting the national interest.

I can't say I agree with him about the necessities all the time, but his approach is logical and his reasoning is linear.


I can't say I agree 100% with this assessment. His argument is logically consistent for the most part, but I find that some of his base premises are flawed. It's really not that hard for forming a compelling necessity based argument for the bombing of Libya from the conservative military-statist perspective. Maybe not from DE's particular perspective, but it certainly deviates from what I expected from him in this case.


The reason for that is that you think I have some sort of military-statist perspective. I suppose from your perspective it might appear that way, but that speaks more to a stereotype you seem to put me in than anything else. I admit that it may occasionally seem that I think that way, but I've also explained myself in some detail on more than one occasion. I value a strong national government, but I also value clear limits on that government. I just disagree as to where those limits are and where they ought to be with your perspective in some cases. In other cases, I think you would find we agree, or nearly so.

So yes, you are correct it is easy to justify an attack on Libya if one's "military-statist perspective" is simply putting a military to use for its own sake, or as a distraction from domestic issues, which is the best I can do to guess at what you mean by "military-statist perspective" as I suspect this is simply a conglomeration of positions you have labelled as "authoritarian". In fact, I wouldn't put the latter out of the realm of possibility for why it's being conducted as a secondary reason of some sort. However, I don't hold such a perspective, and don't see either of those reasons as being in the national interest.

As to my premises being flawed, they are no more or less so than anyone else's. They are only flawed in terms of your premises, which are equally flawed in terms of mine.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:37 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Lex Luthor wrote:
I could be mistaken but in the past you voiced that our military should be larger than what it currently is.


It should, and could be, but not dramatically so. It should also cost less than it currently does. Also, not all components would grow in size; for example the Army would shrink slightly under my vision, but a larger proportion of it would be reserves and NG, meaning the active Army would shrink more so.

Quote:
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. It all sounds reasonable.

Apparently many liberals think the army should be put to use in protecting civilians in foreign and unprovoked engagements, without any regard for the cost and without any level of certainty that the action is even needed.


Ironically, most liberals would probably say the same thing about Republicans or Conservatives.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group