Mayor Snorkum
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 317
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I supported Afghanistan. I opposed Iraq, I support the actions today. Each is an entirely separate issue so how do you be consistent, unless you are opposed to war in general, or support heavy intervention? You are creating an entirely false dichotomy. You can have different views on different issues without being blindly partisan.
Afghanistan isn't relevant to the thread. Afghanistan attacked us first.
One is consistent by stating what US interest is served by the actions you support, and what US interests are served by the actions you wish were not done.
The US interest served in staying out of Iraq were thousands of not dead US servicemen, a trillion dollars saved. Which is exactly what Mayor Snorkum said in 2002.
The US interst served in staying out of Libya are that there's no interest served by going in. So we could save money and not put US servicemen at risk there when our troops are already overstretched in two other ongoing conflicts.
I support Libya because it's about deposing a dictator.
Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma?
Zaire?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
Cuba?
Venezuela?
Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma?
Zaire?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
Cuba?
Venezuela?
You are trying to create something that is not there.
Being consistent solely for the sake of consistency is stupid.
The US does have an interest in our actions in Libya, which is that it is improve our foreign relations with a number of our allies alone. If it helps to create regime change that is more friendly towards us, that would be awesome too.
I'm not supportive of invading them, but I would be supportive if an invasion happened, there's a subtle difference.
Would those be the same situation as Libya? Why do you insist on simplistic comparisons in a complex world?
I'm not supportive of invading them, but I would be supportive if an invasion happened, there's a subtle difference.
No.
The hypocrisy of the Left already exists and their double standard is flying high with their irrational support of this what-would-be-silly-if-it-weren't-for-the-dead-people intervention in Libya.
But being consistent by being able to articulate a coherent and non-contradictory world view from which such decisions are derived is a very good thing indeed.
Are you going to claim that people are being killed by Gadhaffy? Then you can't ignore that people were being killed by Hussein.
Are you going to claim that world oil supplies are at risk because of the revolt in Libya? Outside of the fact that Libya doesn't contribute that much anyway, there's the problem you people have with the fools that spent the last two decades chanting "no blood for oil", fools that are on your side.
Are you going to claim the French are stealing the mantle of "World Leader" from the US? Well, whatever, that's a damn silly thing if you are.
You need to articulate your reasons for your response on this poll and leave it up to others to decide if your making sense or not.
Simply declaring "situations are different" isn't sufficient. Everyone knows circumstances always change. You have to describe what the differences are and why you feel they're sufficiently divergent to support what are clearly contradictory positions that on their face have no motivation but blind partisan loyalty.
Maintaining the "proper" entangling alliances was the motivation behind the invasion of Iraq, too.
It's not subtle.
Stating what it is will earn the Mayor a warning, so it shall not be stated.
Mayor Snorkum didn't make the statement "I support Libya because it's about deposing a dictator". The person standing on your side of the Let's Do Something Stupid In Libya Line said that, yet you're claiming the Mayor is being simplistic?
BBL
Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?
Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?
Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?
Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served.
Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran.
Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian.
I supported Afghanistan. I opposed Iraq, I support the actions today. Each is an entirely separate issue so how do you be consistent, unless you are opposed to war in general, or support heavy intervention? You are creating an entirely false dichotomy. You can have different views on different issues without being blindly partisan.
Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma?
Zaire?
Saudi Arabia?Iran?
Cuba?
Venezuela?
It's about a specific region for a specific reason. Pretending that they are all oh so different because a line on a map tells you it is makes no sense. .
Same here. The three are all different, and shouldn't be seen as exact comparisons.
There is no double standard. You have shown no double standard. It is not just reasonable, but appropriate to have different views on different events. You know why? Because they are different. Why are you having such a hard time comprehending this simple fact?
Nowhere did I make any of those claims. That is the problem. You are so tied up into your own view that you cannot see how other people can arrive at different views. Let's look at one big difference: we have not made a large scale invasion of Libya, we did in Iraq. That is just one different, there are only dozens of others.
Not really, no. The justification for Iraq was WMD's and deposing a dictator who was seen as destabilizing a key region of the globe. Iraq hurt us in terms of overall foreign relations.
Saudi Arabia is a part of the problem. Libya - Egypt - Iraq - Afghanistan - Yemen - Jordan - "Palestine" - Syria - Iran - Pakstan - etc. - are all about the same regional problem. It's not just about dictators. It's about a specific region for a specific reason. Pretending that they are all oh so different because a line on a map tells you it is makes no sense. Neither does creating a confused stage for the sake of keeping it simple.
The influence of culture is one ignored by far too many people. Few understand that in strong patriarchal societies where so many people are married to family members and the attachment to clan forms the basis for social interactions, that the resulting political structures will be quite different than for cultures that operate differently.
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?