Social programs give money to people and if people have money they aren't motivated to be competitive. Also, social programs require taxes which would take money from subsidies and if people don't get subsidies they won't be motivated to be competitive.
Fact. But, he asked what had been spent on Libya. That was money spent on our arsenal until we keyed in coordinates to spend it all over Libyan airbases.
Fact. But, he asked what had been spent on Libya. That was money spent on our arsenal until we keyed in coordinates to spend it all over Libyan airbases.
Semantics. The real "cost" of the war is fuel for ships and aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone through patrols and sorties.
EDIT: And the cost of any replacement munitions, should they be approved.
We're attempting to protect popular opinion of the US, so we are perceived as a country that supports freedom and human rights.
So actually stopping a military from killing it's own civilians is just for the "perception" that we protect human rights?
We're attempting to protect popular opinion of the US, so we are perceived as a country that supports freedom and human rights.
So actually stopping a military from killing it's own civilians is just for the "perception" that we protect human rights?I was attempting to answer with the same degree of cynicism Joe was showing. And while the US government says that they support human rights, interventions like this are what prove to the world that we actually do.
So actually stopping a military from killing it's own civilians is just for the "perception" that we protect human rights?
No, the "perception" of protecting human rights is a nice fringe benefit but it's not a motivating factor for stopping a military from killing its own civilians. Libya is an important part of "American Interests" and "Security" in the Middle East and now that Ghadaffi probably isn't the guy to deal with anymore the faster things are stabilized the better.
Military forces will be withdrawn once "American Interests" and "Security" in Libya are assured by a "legitimate" government (though some forces might be required to stay on as "advisers").
No, the "perception" of protecting human rights is a nice fringe benefit but it's not a motivating factor for stopping a military from killing its own civilians. Libya is an important part of "American Interests" and "Security" in the Middle East and now that Ghadaffi probably isn't the guy to deal with anymore the faster things are stabilized the better.
Military forces will be withdrawn once "American Interests" and "Security" in Libya are assured by a "legitimate" government (though some forces might be required to stay on as "advisers").
"Honestly" "we" "are" "there" "because" "Libya" "is" "a" "major" "source" "of" "oil" "in" "Europe". "The" "U.S." "already" "wants" "to" "take" "a" "backseat" "in hostilities."
110 Tomahawk missiles at $1 million each? It was $110 million for the first barrage alone.
That is money already spent.
Can we be sure? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I tend to think that the cost of those missiles belongs in the loss column. Even if they were paid off, which they may not have been, we'll have to replace them. If you want to say it's semantics to count their loss as a cost, surely they should at least simply be called losses.
We're attempting to protect popular opinion of the US, so we are perceived as a country that supports freedom and human rights.
So actually stopping a military from killing it's own civilians is just for the "perception" that we protect human rights?
I was attempting to answer with the same degree of cynicism Joe was showing. And while the US government says that they support human rights, interventions like this are what prove to the world that we actually do.
So, why didn't we do something like this in Egypt? Darfur? Cambodia?
"Honestly" "we" "are" "there" "because" "Libya" "is" "a" "major" "source" "of" "oil" "in" "Europe". "The" "U.S." "already" "wants" "to" "take" "a" "backseat" "in hostilities."
This is the correct answer. The U.S. is really not in the business of protecting humanitarian interests. Hell, we're one of the few nations in the world that engages in state-sponsored torture. Does that sound like a nation interested in human rights? The oil must flow. That's our interest there.
Military forces will be withdrawn once "American Interests" and "Security" in Libya are assured by a "legitimate" government.
Can we be sure? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I tend to think that the cost of those missiles belongs in the loss column. Even if they were paid off, which they may not have been, we'll have to replace them. If you want to say it's semantics to count their loss as a cost, surely they should at least simply be called losses.
EDIT: And the cost of any replacement munitions, should they be approved.
Can we be sure? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I tend to think that the cost of those missiles belongs in the loss column. Even if they were paid off, which they may not have been, we'll have to replace them. If you want to say it's semantics to count their loss as a cost, surely they should at least simply be called losses.
EDIT: And the cost of any replacement munitions, should they be approved.
Is there really a chance that things like replacements for missiles and airplanes won't be approved? There's always a nagging doubt that NPR won't get funding from one year to the next, but I'll believe the sun will rise in the north tomorrow morning before I'll believe that we won't be buying new, probably even more expensive toys just as soon as we can now that our old ones have busted.
Is there really a chance that things like replacements for missiles and airplanes won't be approved?
Unfortunately you are more than likely correct. Congress is saying they are pissed that Obama by-passed them in the decision making process. But in reality, he's well within his role as Commander in Chief to commit forces in this manner. The real problem is that they are so corrupt or scared for their position that they will refuse to pull the purse strings as Congress is meant to do. So instead they will write the check and politic as usual.
Jesus people, we didn't decide to go invade Libya. The U.N. Security Council decided the Libyan situation was a threat to international security or human rights (or both) and decided to get involved. The US is not the only member of that council, despite what many Americans seem to think. Sure, the US may be a large part of the U.N. forces, but that doesn't mean that the U.N. is the same thing as the US. This is nowhere near the same thing as a unilateral US invasion. There doesn't have to be a direct vital US interest being protected because we signed on to support the U.N. And YES, the U.N. IS in the business of protecting humanitarian interests. It's right there in the charter. Maybe if people in this country were actually informed about goddamn international law and politics, they wouldn't constantly lose their shit over perfectly logical actions.
This is the distinction between the US declaring war and the US supporting a UN resolution. It's why Congress has nothing on Obama because we aren't declaring war on anybody.
ETA: Source - U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)
Jesus people, we didn't decide to go invade Libya. The U.N. Security Council decided the Libyan situation was a threat to international security or human rights (or both) and decided to get involved. The US is not the only member of that council, despite what many Americans seem to think. Sure, the US may be a large part of the U.N. forces, but that doesn't mean that the U.N. is the same thing as the US. This is nowhere near the same thing as a unilateral US invasion. There doesn't have to be a direct vital US interest being protected because we signed on to support the U.N. And YES, the U.N. IS in the business of protecting humanitarian interests. It's right there in the charter. Maybe if people in this country were actually informed about goddamn international law and politics, they wouldn't constantly lose their shit over perfectly logical actions.
This is the distinction between the US declaring war and the US supporting a UN resolution. It's why Congress has nothing on Obama because we aren't declaring war on anybody.
ETA: Source - U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)
Please forward this post to Dennis Kucinich. Stupid fucker is talking impeachment.
Thanks, Nuri. Since this forum is mostly U.S. citizens it's no surprise that discussions tend to revolve around the U.S. - and that's mostly fair enough, since the U.S. tends to be the biggest player. However, you do have to keep in mind that often the U.S. is not the only country that matters.
I realize I'm treading into dangerous logic here, but if the Republicans who worship the altar of Ronald Regan are criticizing Obama's military action on Libya, then aren't they also criticizing Regan's bombing of Libya?
Sure, the US may be a large part of the U.N. forces, but that doesn't mean that the U.N. is the same thing as the US.
I'd say that, for practical purposes, considering U.S. influence on th U.N., the U.N. is pretty much the same as the U.S. Has the U.N. ever initiated action against any country without U.S. approval or the U.S. making the first request for action?
This is nowhere near the same thing as a unilateral US invasion.
Add up all the U.S. forces and material spent so far in Libya. Then add up all the forces and material spent by every other U.N. member in Libya. Which number is greater? Also, are you admitting this is an invasion? I thought it was just air strikes so far and that no one was actually going to physically invade Libya.
There doesn't have to be a direct vital US interest being protected because we signed on to support the U.N. And YES, the U.N. IS in the business of protecting humanitarian interests.
We're also a member of the Security Council and we can vote "no" on actions we don't think are in our interests. With our influence, do you think anyone else would have voted "yes" if we voted "no"?
Also, didn't Obama go to the U.N. to ask for the air strikes? If the U.S. was the one asking for the action, I don't think we can say that we were just going along with a U.N. resolution and we had no choice in the matter for ourselves.
Maybe if people in this country were actually informed about goddamn international law and politics, they wouldn't constantly lose their shit over perfectly logical actions.
No one here is losing their shit. The only thing that anyone here has said in opposition to this is, "You know, this is going to cost lots and lots of money that we don't have, it could easily escalate into a third major theater of war in a region were we're already prosecuting two hot wars, and we really have to question whether this is worth all the money spent so far and the much greater sum of money that would be spent if things escalate. Maybe we could have used that money for something more constructive here at home." That doesn't sound like losing shit to me.
This is more like the wife in a family that's just barely making ends meet and drowning in credit card and mortgage debt, coming home to find that her out-of-work husband has spent thousands of dollars on a home theater system and saying, "This was probably not a good idea."
I realize I'm treading into dangerous logic here, but if the Republicans who worship the altar of Ronald Regan are criticizing Obama's military action on Libya, then aren't they also criticizing Regan's bombing of Libya?
Maybe, if you can show that the reasons behind it and the results were similar.
Thanks, Nuri. Since this forum is mostly U.S. citizens it's no surprise that discussions tend to revolve around the U.S. - and that's mostly fair enough, since the U.S. tends to be the biggest player. However, you do have to keep in mind that often the U.S. is not the only country that matters.
Aren't you from Australia? How much has Australia contributed so far?
Aren't you from Australia? How much has Australia contributed so far?
Probably nothing. What has that got to do with anything?
You said:
However, you do have to keep in mind that often the U.S. is not the only country that matters.
It seems to me, that if the U.S. is the country upholding the major burden in this case, then the U.S. is the only country that matters in this case. Your country is doing nothing. You don't really have cause to complain. It's kind of like the lazy guy on the construction crew saying, "That guy who actually does all the work thinks he's the only one who matters. What about us guys who lay around and do nothing? Don't we matter too?"
It seems to me, that if the U.S. is the country upholding the major burden in this case, then the U.S. is the only country that matters in this case. Your country is doing nothing. You don't really have cause to complain. It's kind of like the lazy guy on the construction crew saying, "Everyone always says that the guy who does all the work is the only one who matters. What about us guys who lay around and do nothing? Don't we matter too?"
Did I say I was talking about Australia? Not everyone on this forum only thinks about their own country.
France and the UK have clearly played a nontrivial role in Libya.
It seems to me, that if the U.S. is the country upholding the major burden in this case, then the U.S. is the only country that matters in this case. Your country is doing nothing. You don't really have cause to complain. It's kind of like the lazy guy on the construction crew saying, "Everyone always says that the guy who does all the work is the only one who matters. What about us guys who lay around and do nothing? Don't we matter too?"
Did I say I was talking about Australia? Not everyone on this forum only thinks about their own country.
France and the UK have clearly played a nontrivial role in Libya.
As I said, add up all France and the UK have done and spent in Libya. Then add up all the U.S. has done and spent on Libya. Which figure is greater? By how many orders of magnitude is it greater? Could France and the UK sustain this operation on their own? How soon will France decide to stop operations? If history is any indication, it should be right about . . . now. How soon after that will the UK stop operations?
Also, I don't care about France and the UK in this instance. If they are in financial trouble, it doesn't bother me so much because I don't have a voting stake in what they do with their money. I don't pay taxes there. It's their money, not mine. If they have money to burn, then they should do what they think is right. However, we as a nation don't have money to burn, so it makes me mad that my money is being spent on something destructive when there are lots of constructive things we need to do here.
As I said, add up all France and the UK have done and spent in Libya. Then add up all the U.S. has done and spent on Libya. Which figure is greater? By how many orders of magnitude is it greater?
Information on the relative involvement of these countries seems to be lacking, but I think the difference is much less than one order of magnitude.
However, we as a nation don't have money to burn, so it makes me mad that my money is being spent on something destructive when there are lots of constructive things we need to do here.
Protecting Libyan citizens is clearly a constructive effort.
For a constructive effort, it's clearly destructive with regards to my nation's material, money, and possibly lifves at some point, so it looks pretty destructive on the whole to me.
Aren't you from Australia? How much has Australia contributed so far?
To the Lybian mess? At the moment, no current combat involvement, excluding expats in other nation's armies. We Froze Gaddafi and associates assets within Australia, and we've loaned over some millitary Cargo planes to move in supplies and move out people(if nessassary), as well as some helos for the same, but we are not combat involved.
For a constructive effort, it's clearly destructive with regards to my nation's material, money, and possibly lifves at some point, so it looks pretty destructive on the whole to me.
Because my nation is clearly the only one that matters.
Was it cool that we sat and watched the Rawandan genocide happen? Didn't hurt us in the least, and would have cost a whole heck of a lot of money and lives to intervene. I'm willing to sacrifice dollars to save lives, and I'll bet if you ask most of the soldiers in our fine military, they'll be willing to risk their lives for the same.
Comments
Also, will someone please tell me what vital U.S. interest is being protected? Is that interest worth the money being spent?
EDIT: And the cost of any replacement munitions, should they be approved. So actually stopping a military from killing it's own civilians is just for the "perception" that we protect human rights?
Military forces will be withdrawn once "American Interests" and "Security" in Libya are assured by a "legitimate" government (though some forces might be required to stay on as "advisers").
"EDIT:" "Oh", "yeah" "that" "whole" "human" "rights" "thing."
In international politics the only sin is weakness. Rolling out tanks means you've lost control.
This is the distinction between the US declaring war and the US supporting a UN resolution. It's why Congress has nothing on Obama because we aren't declaring war on anybody.
ETA: Source - U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)
Also, didn't Obama go to the U.N. to ask for the air strikes? If the U.S. was the one asking for the action, I don't think we can say that we were just going along with a U.N. resolution and we had no choice in the matter for ourselves. No one here is losing their shit. The only thing that anyone here has said in opposition to this is, "You know, this is going to cost lots and lots of money that we don't have, it could easily escalate into a third major theater of war in a region were we're already prosecuting two hot wars, and we really have to question whether this is worth all the money spent so far and the much greater sum of money that would be spent if things escalate. Maybe we could have used that money for something more constructive here at home." That doesn't sound like losing shit to me.
This is more like the wife in a family that's just barely making ends meet and drowning in credit card and mortgage debt, coming home to find that her out-of-work husband has spent thousands of dollars on a home theater system and saying, "This was probably not a good idea." Maybe, if you can show that the reasons behind it and the results were similar. Aren't you from Australia? How much has Australia contributed so far?
France and the UK have clearly played a nontrivial role in Libya.
Also, I don't care about France and the UK in this instance. If they are in financial trouble, it doesn't bother me so much because I don't have a voting stake in what they do with their money. I don't pay taxes there. It's their money, not mine. If they have money to burn, then they should do what they think is right. However, we as a nation don't have money to burn, so it makes me mad that my money is being spent on something destructive when there are lots of constructive things we need to do here.
Was it cool that we sat and watched the Rawandan genocide happen? Didn't hurt us in the least, and would have cost a whole heck of a lot of money and lives to intervene. I'm willing to sacrifice dollars to save lives, and I'll bet if you ask most of the soldiers in our fine military, they'll be willing to risk their lives for the same.