- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If it didn't apply before, why are you applying it now? Or do you only judge liberal presidents?
It's murder. I know, because it's all I've heard for the past 9 years.
Do you only judge Conservative presidents?
I don't, I've never thought Bush was a murderer, you're the one being hypocritical.
"We", the west, armed the mother****er, so we have the moral obligation to take care of our own trash. It's an act of war, so be it.
Is there a murderous dictator anywhere the US hasn't supported to get our oil fix???
You said, "we", armed Qadaffi.
I said, " no we didn't".
You used French aircraft sales to Libya to backup your comment.
My point is, we didn't arm Qadaffi.
I see the confusion. I said "we", the west, armed Libya. [/We, the US, were starting to export to him. My point is that the first world nations have a duty to prevent our arm sales to dictators, and there are plenty of other dictators we, the US, have actually armed, from being used against their own people, when whose people rise up for democracy. That's my first point.
On a different subject entirely, as I was not responding to the previous thread, I used French and US aircraft sales to the UEA and Qatar as examples of Arab involvement in the war of Libya.
It's murder. I know, because it's all I've heard for the past 9 years.
All we did was sell him some parts for his fleet of C-130's.
It's true, enough that we've armed more than a couple assholes over the years, but Qadaffi isn't one of them.
Qadaffi,
Armadenijad,
Mosadeg. I'm sure the lost goes on.
The moral calculation doesn't require that the dictator under question has been explicitly armed by the US.
Consider that we are playing more of a supporting role in the coalition to an action led by France and Britain, with France in the lead, with support from the Arab League. This is very, very good, for the future, that Europe is taking the lead in its backyard.
It'll be good, if they don't screw the pooch, like they usually do.
I'm not so sure I buy the cover story of this being done for "humanitarian" reasons.
The country has oil, supporting the new government, who will have control over the oil, is good for your economy.
In my opinion, that seems more likely to be the reason.
I'm not so sure I buy the cover story of this being done for "humanitarian" reasons.
The country has oil, supporting the new government, who will have control over the oil, is good for your economy.
In my opinion, that seems more likely to be the reason.
As usual, in these situations, like with Iraq, there is more than one good reason - political and economic.
As usual, in these situations, like with Iraq, there is more than one good reason - political and economic.
You make the usual mistake of assuming that actions can only have one motivation. The world is more complex than that.
Wars and military actions, in general are done for national interests, not because people like to be good guys.
Seconds...you beat my post by seconds...
Bastard!
It is in our national interests to see democracy spread through the Middle East and North Africa (and sub-Saharan Africa).
I do wish Deutschland would wake up from its 65 year slumber and start kicking some ass again. The Teutonic Knights were always ones to put a good "Oh, ****!" into their enemy.
Wars and military actions, in general are done for national interests, not because people like to be good guys.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?