southsider2k5 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) Freedom bombs aren't as exciting as they once were. Exciting is one of describing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 It doesnt matter if its a complete mess, the argument about involvement wasnt whether or not it would be a complete mess. It was whether or not the US was going to get involved to prevent what people believed was going to be an imminent genocide. It would be like arguing that getting involved in World War II was a complete mess and then saying your right because World War II took thousands of soldiers lives and cost the US millions of dollars. The real question would be, how much was gained for how much was sacrificed, and Im not sure how you can really tell which is the right answer in Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) The real question would be, how much was gained for how much was sacrificed, and Im not sure how you can really tell which is the right answer in Libya. Because the people who are killed as collateral damage in the bombings and the 4 month Civil War will never be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Of course they are counted, which is why its impossible to tell. Would more people have died if we did nothing? Were more people killed because we did something? How do you know? How can anyone ever honestly say that one action is better than the other, unless they can go to a parallel universe where the opposite action was taken. Which is exactly why I said "you cant really tell" because I do not have the luxury of seeing what would happen if we never got involved. Now sure there are scenarios where it could be considered a complete loss: in the end Gaddafi takes over and kills all of his people, but thats why betting on clusterf*** is the easier side. You almost never have a situation where you can say "Yep that was 100% better than doing nothing" because you can never prove what would have happened if you did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 If the default option when you don't know is getting involved in a many month long war with seemingly no sign of letting down, progress whatsoever, or plan for how to accomplish your goals...then you've got your policies wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Which is easy to see in 20/20 hindsight, but what if the US doesnt get involved and Gaddafi massacres 100,000 people, would that be okay? Because to me its not, so Id rather err on the side of protecting civilians and see what happens. But every person is entitled to their opinion. As of now the US has really not lost much besides for money, and i think people's lives are worth more than money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Which is easy to see in 20/20 hindsight, but what if the US doesnt get involved and Gaddafi massacres 100,000 people, would that be okay? Because to me its not, so Id rather err on the side of protecting civilians and see what happens. But every person is entitled to their opinion. As of now the US has really not lost much besides for money, and i think people's lives are worth more than money. And as I've pointed out...those expensive bombs kill people too. Dragging out a civil war an extra 4 months kills a ton of people too. You're not protecting civilians. You could try to make that stick when you could still suggest this was going to be over quick. The civilian population is going to take a lot of casualties either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You're not protecting civilians. You could try to make that stick when you could still suggest this was going to be over quick. The civilian population is going to take a lot of casualties either way. And its my opinion that there are going to be less casualties this way. Im not sure how you can prove this either way. Its not so clear cut as to believe there is an absolutely right answer. People die in war, Im not sure if I ever suggested otherwise. Its a question of how many people would die, and once again, there is really no way to know if more would have died getting involved or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:57 PM) If the default option when you don't know is getting involved in a many month long war with seemingly no sign of letting down, progress whatsoever, or plan for how to accomplish your goals...then you've got your policies wrong. And yet this is our plan for spending trillions in social programing every year in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) And its my opinion that there are going to be less casualties this way. Im not sure how you can prove this either way. Its not so clear cut as to believe there is an absolutely right answer. People die in war, Im not sure if I ever suggested otherwise. Its a question of how many people would die, and once again, there is really no way to know if more would have died getting involved or not. I'm with you. I err on trying to save people, instead of letting them die without trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) And yet this is our plan for spending trillions in social programing every year in this country. But that's "saving" us dumbass Amurrikkkans from ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 08:14 PM) But that's "saving" us dumbass Amurrikkkans from ourselves. People don't deserve saving! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describes Libya as a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describes Libya as a We sure got some big balls now, don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:42 PM) We sure got some big balls now, don't we? Wtf? Are you Bon Scott level drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:26 PM) Wtf? Are you Bon Scott level drunk? OK, that literally made me laugh out loud. We can't even defeat Libya. So, we got some big ass balls. BIG BALLS. FIRE! (Oh, that was big guns, or something, wasn't it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:36 PM) OK, that literally made me laugh out loud. We can't even defeat Libya. So, we got some big ass balls. BIG BALLS. FIRE! (Oh, that was big guns, or something, wasn't it?) maybe it would help if we had the military watch video of Ben Affleck's street gang getting ready to beat someone up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I take it those who were all for intervening in Libya will be vocal about now engaging in Syria: "The recent developments in Syria have deepened our already existing concerns. The footage from yesterday's events has horrified us. The use of heavy weapons in Hama against civilians has given me a deep shock. We cannot remain silent and accept a bloody atmosphere at the start of Ramadan, which is absolutely contrary to the spirit of Ramadan, a period when people expect peace to be secured and reforms to be carried out. It's impossible to remain silent in the face of events visible to everyone. I urge the Syrian administration to stop violence against people and to carry out reforms to build the country's future on the base of peace and stability," - Turkish president, Abdullah Gül, today. Turkey is Syria's biggest trade partner. via Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I take it those who were all for intervening in Libya will be vocal about now engaging in Syria: via As sad as all of that may be, we seriously need to get out of other peoples business and stop being the worlds police force. It costs us a lot of money, and rarely -- if ever -- has any positive long term results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:22 AM) As sad as all of that may be, we seriously need to get out of other peoples business and stop being the worlds police force. It costs us a lot of money, and rarely -- if ever -- has any positive long term results. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I take it those who were all for intervening in Libya will be vocal about now engaging in Syria: via This has been going on for months. The gov't just starts shooting at any group of people demonstrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) This has been going on for months. The gov't just starts shooting at any group of people demonstrating. I know. Was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Libyan situation and its cheer leaders. Edited August 1, 2011 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I take it those who were all for intervening in Libya will be vocal about now engaging in Syria: via We should be helping. There is nothing good about the government of Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) We should be helping. There is nothing good about the government of Syria. I'm under the mindset that we shouldn't be helping anyone else until we start fixing our own problems and/or have no problems of our own. Who are we to tell others how to do things? As evil as some of this crap might be, we just don't have the money or resources to fix the worlds problems when we have plenty of our own we can't even seen to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) We should be helping. There is nothing good about the government of Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts