|
|
Post by solomongrundy on Aug 24, 2011 15:58:10 GMT -5
From the millennialists over at RR...
Fundie 1 Goodbye, Gaddafi and hello, Muslim Brotherhood. What's the difference because I can't see one? IMO, it's trading evil leadership for evil leadership.
Fundie 2 I agree, trading out the lesser evil for a greater evil...
The Raptureites' ability to foretell the worst case scenario every time does make me wonder why they always claim the atheists are the nihilistic ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 24, 2011 17:08:50 GMT -5
Anyone else baffled as to why intervention in Libya, in comparison to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, was so unpopular upon its inception A democrat did it. For most people, that's enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Aug 24, 2011 18:34:11 GMT -5
What Fred said. Also, people who are non-partisan about it but supported Iraq/Afghanistan learned a lesson from those two wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 24, 2011 18:57:43 GMT -5
What Fred said. Also, people who are non-partisan about it but supported Iraq/Afghanistan learned a lesson from those two wars. I think, to a large extent, the people capable of thinking rationally and learning from history are on the left side of politics. Perhaps overwhelmingly so, particularly in the US. This means that the right will oppose any policy that the other party brings in, while the left will judge any policy on its merits (meaning that a lower percentage than 100% will support it). This gives a slant to all US political polling. The left is also far more diverse. One right-winger is very much like another. But, on the left side of politics, you have far-right nutcases like Uncle Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama, and also communists. You also have rational people, capable of learning and thinking logically. All of these people are called 'left'. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 24, 2011 19:31:00 GMT -5
From the millennialists over at RR... Fundie 1 Goodbye, Gaddafi and hello, Muslim Brotherhood. What's the difference because I can't see one? IMO, it's trading evil leadership for evil leadership.Fundie 2 I agree, trading out the lesser evil for a greater evil...The Raptureites' ability to foretell the worst case scenario every time does make me wonder why they always claim the atheists are the nihilistic ones. Though in this case, I find myself in agreement with them (more or less). |
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Aug 24, 2011 23:46:14 GMT -5
Anyone else baffled as to why intervention in Libya, in comparison to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, was so unpopular upon its inception despite: 1. It was made clear from the onset that there was not going to be any formal occupation accompanied by a micro-managed, pie in the sky nation building effort? 2. It was further made clear that the operation would consist of surgical actions to fill in the gaps that the rebels could not fill themselves? 3. The opportunity presented itself because there was an active, emboldened rebellion that was facing down the gun barrel of an very serious, imminent threat (massacre of Benghazi), and considering the above in terms of logistics and capital spent it took minimal effort to address this dilemma (minimal in comparison to most interventions)? If anything, this should serve as a blueprint, similar to the original Gulf War, as to how to conduct future intervention since it perfectly showcased where to draw the line as to how far one should intervention, but that may not resonate in the public's mind since the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan has soured the public's perception of intervention in general, and has done so without contemplation concerning the circumstances that made Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes to begin with. Well, for one, the rebels were commiting atrocities as well as quadaffi's people, so I wasn't a fan of the idea of us helping a group that has also commited massacres against civilians. I also didn't buy that we weren't going to eventually send in ground troops, after all Iraq also started as just a no-fly zone, and look where that got us. I am glad to see that from the looks of things that i was wrong on that last count, but i still think that the Lybian rebels may be this generation's mujahadeen. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Aug 25, 2011 0:10:27 GMT -5
I am glad to see that from the looks of things that i was wrong on that last count, but i still think that the Lybian rebels may be this generation's mujahadeen. And just look what happened with those guys. |
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Aug 25, 2011 1:32:12 GMT -5
...That's my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 25, 2011 12:41:31 GMT -5
I still say its all going to end in tears, and Western nations have no place taking sides in the internecine squabbling of various feudal-tribal societies, whether they have oil or not be buggered. Gaddafti-bad man. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. But at least Libya was stable, and Gaddafti was a known quantity. Who the fuck is this guy  , and why are we using our blood and treasure to make him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? I'm telling you guys, all gunna end in tears. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 25, 2011 12:43:18 GMT -5
Damn. Did not see this coming. And I'm happy - I was fearing a bloodbath. Gaddafi is finished, no question about it. Yeah.. because hey, killing Saddam and his sons just cleaned that whole Iraq thing right up, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 25, 2011 14:06:23 GMT -5
and why are we using our blood and treasure to make him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? "Blood?" I can't find any records of any NATO casualties in the whole war (there was a plane crash, but the pilot got extracted) It's the Libyans who are fighting and dying on the ground. You may talk about money and ammunitions, but please don't pretend that NATO are losing blood in Libya in any meaningful quantities. Edit: removed my use of the pronoun 'we', as I don't really feel belonging to NATO. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Aug 25, 2011 14:45:26 GMT -5
Damn. Did not see this coming. And I'm happy - I was fearing a bloodbath. Gaddafi is finished, no question about it. Yeah.. because hey, killing Saddam and his sons just cleaned that whole Iraq thing right up, huh? Of course. What made you think otherwise? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Aug 25, 2011 15:01:33 GMT -5
Anyone else baffled as to why intervention in Libya, in comparison to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, was so unpopular upon its inception despite: Because Obama did it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 26, 2011 0:28:32 GMT -5
and why are we using our blood and treasure to make him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? "Blood?" I can't find any records of any NATO casualties in the whole war (there was a plane crash, but the pilot got extracted) It's the Libyans who are fighting and dying on the ground. You may talk about money and ammunitions, but please don't pretend that NATO are losing blood in Libya in any meaningful quantities. Edit: removed my use of the pronoun 'we', as I don't really feel belonging to NATO. I think its sad that in this day and age people still only think physical casualties are the only casualties worth worrying about. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 26, 2011 0:35:52 GMT -5
"Blood?" I can't find any records of any NATO casualties in the whole war (there was a plane crash, but the pilot got extracted) It's the Libyans who are fighting and dying on the ground. You may talk about money and ammunitions, but please don't pretend that NATO are losing blood in Libya in any meaningful quantities. Edit: removed my use of the pronoun 'we', as I don't really feel belonging to NATO. I think its sad that in this day and age people still only think physical casualties are the only casualties worth worrying about. I think the point was that it's wrong to say NATO is spending "blood and treasure" in Libya when there's no NATO casualties. That doesn't mean the economic side of things isn't worth considering, just that implying NATO personnel are dying when they're not is stupid. |
|
