Barry Obama's Really Earning that Peace Prize

#2
#2
I hope you were complaining about military expenditures before with a previous president. Otherwise, you'd look like an ass.
 
#3
#3
I don't support the President but intervening to stop a madman from killing his own citizens is something I do support.
 
#4
#4
IPorange said:
I hope you were complaining about military expenditures before with a previous president. Otherwise, you'd look like an ass.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about me on that one. I prefer to keep our troops within our borders no matter which idiot we elect to be president.
 
#5
#5
Burhead said:
I don't support the President but intervening to stop a madman from killing his own citizens is something I do support.
Click to expand...

I respect that, but I bet most people like you would change their tune if we paid for war through direct taxation rather than through devaluation of currency. Say if $50 were to come out of your next paycheck and subsequent checks would you still be for intervention?
 
#6
#6
nbakerld said:
I respect that, but I bet most people like you would change their tune if we paid for war through direct taxation rather than through devaluation of currency. Say if $50 were to come out of your next paycheck and subsequent checks would you still be for intervention?
Click to expand...

In this case, I would. I wish we were doing more.
 
#7
#7
nbakerld said:
I respect that, but I bet most people like you would change their tune if we paid for war through direct taxation rather than through devaluation of currency. Say if $50 were to come out of your next paycheck and subsequent checks would you still be for intervention?
Click to expand...

We could easily stop the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, help Libya, and save billions of money in the process. It costs us something like $10B per month for Afghanistan alone. I'm not disagreeing with you, though. I sure as hell don't want to pay for any war. I'm not in direct support of US intervention, I think other countries should pay for once.
 
#8
#8
VOLatile said:
We could easily stop the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, help Libya, and save billions of money in the process. It costs us something like $10B per month for Afghanistan alone. I'm not disagreeing with you, though. I sure as hell don't want to pay for any war. I'm not in direct support of US intervention, I think other countries should pay for once.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm with you. If I could trade Afghanistan and Iraq for Libya, I'd take Libya. The problem is we're adding Libya on top of our multiple wars (one being the longest in US history).
 
#9
#9
Burhead said:
I don't support the President but intervening to stop a madman from killing his own citizens is something I do support.
Click to expand...

It is basically a civil war. If the Arab league wants a "no fly" interdiction, let the Saudies, Jordanians and Syrians send their jets and money to intervene. We are there because of their stinking petroleum. if good intentions were the rule, we would be in Darfur.
 
#10
#10
We're already too involved in Libya. It's none of our business and we sure as hell shouldn't be wasting our resources over there.
 
#11
#11
Vol_4_Life said:
We're already too involved in Libya. It's none of our business and we sure as hell shouldn't be wasting our resources over there.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel. The wannabe hero in me makes me want to intervene, but we aren't authorized to be the world police. If I were prez it wouldn't be proper just because I think it's "morally right" to help. If I want to step in and stop a bully on the playground I'm acting for myself and bearing the consequences, but when a president makes this same decision he's forcing the hand of 300 million + Americans in terms of lives and dollars lost.
 
#12
#12
I used to be pro-intervention but Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghan have dampened that.

What I object to here is our participation due to how it looks to the international community vs being the "right thing to do". I'm going off the WSJ piece I linked in the UNSC thread detailing how our involvement changed. I think this is an entirely political move rather than being about any sort of conviction.
 
#13
#13
volinbham said:
I used to be pro-intervention but Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghan have dampened that.

What I object to here is our participation due to how it looks to the international community vs being the "right thing to do". I'm going off the WSJ piece I linked in the UNSC thread detailing how our involvement changed. I think this is an entirely political move rather than being about any sort of conviction.
Click to expand...


I'm in the same boat as you. Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced me that our military should be used only to defend our country. Putting American lives at risk for some "moral obligation" reason is folly.
 
#14
#14
Vol_4_Life said:
I'm in the same boat as you. Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced me that our military should be used only to defend our country. Putting American lives at risk for some "moral obligation" reason is folly.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Also looking at this how it was mentioned by Russia, about the picking and choosing when to meddle in a sovereign nation's affairs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
I used to be pro-intervention but Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghan have dampened that.

What I object to here is our participation due to how it looks to the international community vs being the "right thing to do". I'm going off the WSJ piece I linked in the UNSC thread detailing how our involvement changed. I think this is an entirely political move rather than being about any sort of conviction.
Click to expand...

It might be easy to accept "liberal imperialism" if it were ever used to defend the rights of people. But it is never used for that (see Hitler, Armenia, Rwanda, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Philippines, Palestine, Indonesia, Miramar, Cambodia, El Salvador, Egypt!...)

It is always used when Capital is in danger. Or, in the case of Libya, when an inconsistent defender of Capital has the opportunity to be replaced with someone more consistent. This became, in fact, Saddam Hussein's big sin - inconsistent upholding the Washington Concensus. This is why we refused to back away from Mubarak - a consistent ally of the Washington Concensus at the expense of Egyptians.

It's really, really, really quite simple.
 
#18
#18
Vol_4_Life said:
I'm in the same boat as you. Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced me that our military should be used only to defend our country. Putting American lives at risk for some "moral obligation" reason is folly.
Click to expand...

Sounds good until a guy like Hitler comes along. We intervene in order to prevent things like that from ever happening again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
VOLFAN_MTSUALUM said:
Sounds good until a guy like Hitler comes along. We intervene in order to prevent things like that from ever happening again.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Hitler didn't come into power because Germany was ignored. The Germans were desperate because of all the sanctions that had been placed on them and the sanctions were crippling the German economy. In the wise words of Alfred, "In their desperation, they turned to a man that they didn't understand."

Sanctions are never a good idea. It's a great way to make an enemy. Guess what? We were sanctioning Japan in WWII. Our sanctions on Cuba have done nothing to make power change hands and they've been going for 50+ years. Ironically it's probably ensured that the aristocracy stays up and the common man stays down.

Bastiat wisely said, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."
 
#21
#21
I really am failing to see how this is different than iraq. At least afganistan attacked us first.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#22
#22
Vols520 said:
Because clearly that is the best option.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Clearly. You know why terrorists don't target Canada? Because they generally keep to themselves. To say intervention is in the interest of national security is madness. They target us because we **** around in their part of the world and strangely they don't like it.
 
#23
#23
droski said:
I really am failing to see how this is different than iraq. At least afganistan attacked us first.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Different in scale and who lead (Brits/French) but similar in principle.

Those in power in Yemen and Bahrain are killing protesters but we aren't doing squat.
 
#24
#24
nbakerld said:
Clearly. You know why terrorists don't target Canada? Because they generally keep to themselves. To say intervention is in the interest of national security is madness. They target us because we **** around in their part of the world and strangely they don't like it.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't necessarily advocate isolationism, but we stick our nose into other countries' business way too often. We can't afford to, nor should we want to, be the police force of the globe.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
Oddly enough because we intervene the Arab world basically demanded we intervene here. It is a crazy situation we've created since WWII. We are hated for intervening yet criticized when we don't.

Time to wind down involvement and change our role. This would have been a good place to start. Support the Brits and French but don't take the lead.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top