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.
I wish we had the sense to stick to this level of involvement.
I wish we had the sense to stick to this level of involvement
The only reason we can is because you're not. And Of course, we might be lending other assistance, but I can't find any information on it right now.
This is the only thing i disagree with you about. I don't think there's any connection between what responsibility the U.S. has undertaken and what your country is doing. Your country seems to be pursuing what I consider just the right amount of involvement.
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.
You've been watching too many movies and playing too many games. The only reason you can say this is because you have no real understanding of the cost.
Bringing up Rawand brings up the old point: If we invade one country for purely humanitarian reasons, where do we stop? What's the difference between Rawanda and Libya? Egypt? South Africa? Darfur? Cambodia? The list goes on and on. If your policy is to pursue military intervention in every country where bad things are happening, the entire U.S. population will have to be drafted.
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.
That's because you don't know how many dollars are being spent, and it doesn't feel like it's coming out of your personal pocket right now. Also, I'll bet if you ask most servicemen and women, they don't give a damn about anyone in Libya or wherever you want to ask them about. Mostly, they just want to do their time, get their benefits and student loans, and then get out and go home.
Say, since you're so self-righteous about this, why don't you put on a uniform and go over there?
This is the only thing i disagree with you about. I don't think there's any connection between what responsibility the U.S. has undertaken and what your country is doing. Your country seems to be pursuing what I consider just the right amount of involvement.
That's a good point, Let me put it another way for clarity - If you were not doing what you are, we would be doing, to use the technical term from within the trade, Fuck all. We can afford to send in purely non-combat assistance, because our bigger, more cashed up and militarily able mate is hooking in and doing the hard yards where we cannot.
Admittedly, the cynical part of me also points out that another part of the reason is that wars in the middle east are unpopular, and if J-gilly's popularity drops below 45-50% again, she'll be going bye-bye from the leader's role at the next election, if she doesn't go the way of her predecessor, the milky bar kid, first. Which, for those unfamiliar, is pretty much being ousted from the PM's spot thanks to plummeting approval ratings.
Say, since you're so self-righteous about this, why don't you put on a uniform and go over there?
Hey if you care so much about policy why are you not running for office? Both of you are arm chair quarterbacking. So you can't really stand on your high chair Joe and criticize Rym for doing it.
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.
Would you? How about a limb? The more I think about it, the more fitting it seems that you join up. If you're too late for Libya, maybe you can go give up your life or a limb or two saving the lives of the people in some other oil-rich country.
It's pretty easy to self-righteously say what sacrifices others should be willing to make while you sit safe at home watching cartoons.
Say, since you're so self-righteous about this, why don't you put on a uniform and go over there?
Hey if you care so much about policy why are you not running for office? Both of you are arm chair quarterbacking. So you can't really stand on your high chair Joe and criticize Rym for doing it.
How do you know I haven't? I spent a lot of money trying to get into the state legislature many years ago and lost. That's enough for me.
Also, I don't understand how complaining about how tax money is spent is standing on a high chair. I pay just as much in tax as anyone else here. In fact, I probably pay more in taxes than most people here. It's our money. We have a right to talk about how it's being spent. That's not being self-righteous.
It's pretty easy to self-righteously say what sacrifices others should be willing to make while you sit safe at home watching cartoons.
He didn't say "should", he said "would".
As for "Rym should sign up", I can give an easy answer - Rym's current job earns the government more money in taxes than it would cost to hire an additional serviceman. Hence he can do more good by staying in his current job.
I probably pay more in taxes than most people here.
I probably pay more taxes than just about everyone in this forum. Happily, this does not give me more votes than any of sthem, nor does my opinion hold more intrinsic weight because of it.
I probably pay more in taxes than most people here.
I probably pay more taxes than just about everyone in this forum. Happily, this does not give me more votes than any of said people, nor does my opinion hold more intrinsic weight.
You definitely pay more tax to the U.S. government than I do ^_~
Hey if you care so much about policy why are you not running for office? Both of you are arm chair quarterbacking. So you can't really stand on your high chair Joe and criticize Rym for doing it.
To be Fair, it's a lot harder to imagine PFC Brandon DeCoster (Not Rym, unless he legally changes his name) than it is to imagine Senator HungryJoe. Senator DeCoster, that's easier to imagine than PFC, and slightly less unlikely.
EDIT - Not an insult. Rym just doesn't have that certain thing that would make the Military a viable path for him, just as many other people don't.
Are we back to the old "service guarantees citizenship" argument? United States citizens have a vested interest in national and foreign policy no matter whether they serve in the military or in public office, or whether you pay $5 a year or $50,000 a year in taxes. To imply otherwise is a null argument.
Are we back to the old "service guarantees citizenship" argument? United States citizens have a vested interest in national and foreign policy no matter whether they serve in the military or in public office, or whether you pay $5 a year or $50,000 a year in taxes. To imply otherwise is a null argument.
Yea that's why I hate that line of reasoning. The only time that line of reasoning has ever been effective is when you do something like dodge the mandatory draft and THEN argue that we should get into more conflicts.. Then your a douche.
Hey if you care so much about policy why are you not running for office? Both of you are arm chair quarterbacking. So you can't really stand on your high chair Joe and criticize Rym for doing it.
To be Fair, it's a lot harder to imagine PFC Brandon DeCoster (Not Rym, unless he legally changes his name) than it is to imagine Senator HungryJoe.
If more voters thought that, my life would be very different.
Are we back to the old "service guarantees citizenship" argument? United States citizens have a vested interest in national and foreign policy no matter whether they serve in the military or in public office, or whether you pay $5 a year or $50,000 a year in taxes. To imply otherwise is a null argument.
No one ever said it did, except those who very much misunderstood what I wrote. A tax-paying citizen saying that we shouldn't be spending on something is not self-righteous. A tax-paying citizen saying that other people would or should be willing to die while he stays at home watching cartoons and talking about his many awesome qualities is self-righteous.
I probably pay more in taxes than most people here.
I probably pay more taxes than just about everyone in this forum. Happily, this does not give me more votes than any of sthem, nor does my opinion hold more intrinsic weight because of it.
You're the one who claimed you pay a lot more taxes than everyone.
I pay just as much in tax as anyone else here. In fact, I probably pay more in taxes than most people here. It's our money. We have a right to talk about how it's being spent.
If the amount we each pay into taxes isn't relevant, then why did you bring it up? I pay more in taxes than many people make. I also feel that my tax burden is unfairly low. None of this is relevant to your point, so why did you bring it up?
If more voters thought that, my life would be very different.
I can say with absolute confidence that I'd have voted for you. Something that's pretty hard to deny, you're more sane, rational, and have the best interests of the people in mind more than easily 3/4 of the Senators currently sitting. I'd vote for Rym, for the same reasons. Essentially, you both could be trusted, as a senator, to do your job. Which is unfortunately, again, something you can't really say so much about many of the currently sitting senators.
Had I joined the military, it would have been through West Point or the intelligence community.
I have my own opinions on Officers and the Intel community, but that's not relevant. That is the most viable path for you were you to take it, yes, but I still am not entirely sure you have that thing that one needs that would make it a viable career path for you. It's honestly no offense, and my opinion might change in time, but I'm just saying as it stands.
You're the one who claimed you pay a lot more taxes than everyone.
I pay just as much in tax as anyone else here. In fact, I probably pay more in taxes than most people here. It's our money. We have a right to talk about how it's being spent.
If the amount we each pay into taxes isn't relevant, then why did you bring it up? I pay more in taxes than many people make. I also feel that my tax burden is unfairly low. None of this is relevant to your point, so why did you bring it up?
My only point is that I pay taxes and that makes me sensitive to how they're spent. If I went too far in saying that I pay a lot, then I went too far. Point taken.
BTW, I pay more taxes than some people make as well. I'll bet Thaed pays even more. You're not that special.
Joe - I wasn't referring to people here losing their shit. I was referring to the media and the Seante. I apologize for not being specific.
Also, just because we CAN veto anything that doesn't directly benefit us doesn't mean we should or will. Part of being a part of the international community is recognizing that not everything is about you, even if you have the power and influence to insist that everything should be.
Also, the US was instrumental in getting the human rights part of the U.N. charter written, so it would look pretty shitty for us to refuse to be involved. Maybe this isn't directly in our interest, but it is important for us politically and economically to support this resolution.
My only point is that I pay taxes and that makes me sensitive to how they're spent.
So do 300 million registered voters. That puts you on the same playing field as everyone else. Congratulations.
Now tell me why it's actually a bad idea. Yes, we've spent money on Libya. You know what, I like it when my government spends money on things that I think are good ideas. I like schools, and roads, and government regulatory agencies.
I also like it when we help stop a crazed dictator from massacring his own people. It's way better than selling weapons to that dictator to use against his own people. Money well spent, I say.
My only point is that I pay taxes and that makes me sensitive to how they're spent.
So do 300 million registered voters. That puts you on the same playing field as everyone else. Congratulations.
I think his point was why he is more concerned about the US being involved than about any other country, not why his opinion should matter more than other citizens of the US.
I think his point was why he is more concerned about the US being involved than about any other country, not why his opinion should matter more than other citizens of the US.
The point applies to Rym too. I should've clarified that.
But the whole "I pay taxes blah blah blah" is a shitty point to make in any discussion of government affairs. Of course you pay taxes, and that's part of what the argument is about. That's not really under contention and really isn't a valid leverage point.
If your policy is to pursue military intervention in every country where bad things are happening, the entire U.S. population will have to be drafted.
I'm not sure who said "every" country, but tell me this: if we can intervene in a particular situation, and it would make a positive difference, and we have the support of the majority of the international community, why shouldn't we?
Your argument is akin to saying that I shouldn't donate to Child's Play, because I can't donate to every charity. How about making a difference where it's reasonable to do so?
Actually, my point was that anyone who pays taxes has a right to complain about how they're spent, in response to Cremlian saying that such complaints were as supercilious and high-handed as Run saying that U.S. soldiers are likely to be willing to die for Libya.
I don't have a problem with charity when it's reasonable. What if a person was unemployed, about to lose his house, getting sued by credit card companies, and couldn't feed his family. Would it be reasonable for him to contribute to Child's Play? That's a little like the situation the U.S. is in. If we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan and we didn't have money problems already, I might have a different opinion.
You should NOT donate to Child's Play if you owe your friend $50,000. We're in a similar situation. We want to keep paying out the ass to play nanny to the world while we can't even keep solvent.
Lisa is a fifth grade teacher. She's buying pens, pencils, and tape for her classroom because we're dropping a few billion here and there on foreign intervention, but at the same time we're condemning the next generation of Americans to -- at best -- educational mediocrity.
We've also bought clothing for her most needy students because the Republican mantra of "the poor should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" has prioritized military spending over social relief spending.
What if a person was unemployed, about to lose his house, getting sued by credit card companies, and couldn't feed his family. Would it be reasonable for him to contribute to Child's Play?
People in that situation often find a little extra to give. It does happen. But I suppose it's a valid, though exaggerated, point.
However, we used things that we already had in order to do this. We have the planes, the missiles, and the soldiers. We've already spent the money. So why not use those resources that we already have in order to do something good?
Like it or not, we're part of an international community, and that means that we sometimes have to spend money on people that aren't us. In the case of Libya, we're talking about creating a situation in which an unstable regime could be changed into one which is more stable.
The Middle East is changing rapidly this year. Very rapidly. Perhaps more rapidly than it has ever changed before. Instead of standing aside and watching world events transpire, why not take a role in shaping what is to come?
I think the US has probably decided it is in its best interest to support this initiative. They probably have numerous advisers who have said bad things will happen for the US if we don't. It's not the same as Child's Play; if you don't donate to Child's Play, it has no negative effect on you at all. That is not the case here.
HOWEVER, we are financially fucked and people need to stop relying on us for military support all the time. We need to fund our education and stop overextending ourselves. There need to be cuts in many areas, including essential programs provided by the government. We have to balance our sociopolitical needs with our financial needs. Someone is going to have to say "no" to important things. There are more things that need to be funded than there is funding available.
However, we used things that we already had in order to do this. We have the planes, the missiles, and the soldiers. We've already spent the money. So why not use those resources that we already have in order to do something good?
This is not how finance works.
Material assets, when lost, are financial debits. There are costs for using missiles. There are costs for replacing missiles. Moreover, the cost of waging war, whatever the size of the conflict, is greater than the simple maintenance cost of a standing army.
Also, actively stepping up aggressions provides an increase in benchmark military spending costs in the next Congressional budget.
HOWEVER, we are financially fucked and people need to stop relying on us for military support all the time.
I do agree with this. I think the biggest problem in this situation is that we got mired in Iraq for so long. This is what an extended military campaign does to a country; it kills our flexibility to deal with foreign affairs in which we should be involved.
You should NOT donate to Child's Play if you owe your friend $50,000. We're in a similar situation. We want to keep paying out the ass to play nanny to the world while we can't even keep solvent.
Lisa is a fifth grade teacher. She's buying pens, pencils, and tape for her classroom because we're dropping a few billion here and there on foreign intervention, but at the same time we're condemning the next generation of Americans to -- at best -- educational mediocrity.
We've also bought clothing for her most needy students because the Republican mantra of "the poor should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" has prioritized military spending over social relief spending.
This. Who's more important, people halfway around the world or people right here at home?
Who's more important, people halfway around the world or people right here at home?
Both?
And in any event, intervening in Libya could help us in the long run anyhow. Investing in foreign affairs can pay off, and it's really stupid to think otherwise.
Comments
Bringing up Rawand brings up the old point: If we invade one country for purely humanitarian reasons, where do we stop? What's the difference between Rawanda and Libya? Egypt? South Africa? Darfur? Cambodia? The list goes on and on. If your policy is to pursue military intervention in every country where bad things are happening, the entire U.S. population will have to be drafted. That's because you don't know how many dollars are being spent, and it doesn't feel like it's coming out of your personal pocket right now. Also, I'll bet if you ask most servicemen and women, they don't give a damn about anyone in Libya or wherever you want to ask them about. Mostly, they just want to do their time, get their benefits and student loans, and then get out and go home.
Say, since you're so self-righteous about this, why don't you put on a uniform and go over there?
Admittedly, the cynical part of me also points out that another part of the reason is that wars in the middle east are unpopular, and if J-gilly's popularity drops below 45-50% again, she'll be going bye-bye from the leader's role at the next election, if she doesn't go the way of her predecessor, the milky bar kid, first. Which, for those unfamiliar, is pretty much being ousted from the PM's spot thanks to plummeting approval ratings.
It's pretty easy to self-righteously say what sacrifices others should be willing to make while you sit safe at home watching cartoons. How do you know I haven't? I spent a lot of money trying to get into the state legislature many years ago and lost. That's enough for me.
Also, I don't understand how complaining about how tax money is spent is standing on a high chair. I pay just as much in tax as anyone else here. In fact, I probably pay more in taxes than most people here. It's our money. We have a right to talk about how it's being spent. That's not being self-righteous.
As for "Rym should sign up", I can give an easy answer - Rym's current job earns the government more money in taxes than it would cost to hire an additional serviceman. Hence he can do more good by staying in his current job.
EDIT - Not an insult. Rym just doesn't have that certain thing that would make the Military a viable path for him, just as many other people don't.
Oh, so you just act like it does.
BTW, I pay more taxes than some people make as well. I'll bet Thaed pays even more. You're not that special.
Also, just because we CAN veto anything that doesn't directly benefit us doesn't mean we should or will. Part of being a part of the international community is recognizing that not everything is about you, even if you have the power and influence to insist that everything should be.
Also, the US was instrumental in getting the human rights part of the U.N. charter written, so it would look pretty shitty for us to refuse to be involved. Maybe this isn't directly in our interest, but it is important for us politically and economically to support this resolution.
Now tell me why it's actually a bad idea. Yes, we've spent money on Libya. You know what, I like it when my government spends money on things that I think are good ideas. I like schools, and roads, and government regulatory agencies.
I also like it when we help stop a crazed dictator from massacring his own people. It's way better than selling weapons to that dictator to use against his own people. Money well spent, I say.
But the whole "I pay taxes blah blah blah" is a shitty point to make in any discussion of government affairs. Of course you pay taxes, and that's part of what the argument is about. That's not really under contention and really isn't a valid leverage point.
I'm not sure who said "every" country, but tell me this: if we can intervene in a particular situation, and it would make a positive difference, and we have the support of the majority of the international community, why shouldn't we?
Your argument is akin to saying that I shouldn't donate to Child's Play, because I can't donate to every charity. How about making a difference where it's reasonable to do so?
I don't have a problem with charity when it's reasonable. What if a person was unemployed, about to lose his house, getting sued by credit card companies, and couldn't feed his family. Would it be reasonable for him to contribute to Child's Play? That's a little like the situation the U.S. is in. If we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan and we didn't have money problems already, I might have a different opinion.
Lisa is a fifth grade teacher. She's buying pens, pencils, and tape for her classroom because we're dropping a few billion here and there on foreign intervention, but at the same time we're condemning the next generation of Americans to -- at best -- educational mediocrity.
We've also bought clothing for her most needy students because the Republican mantra of "the poor should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" has prioritized military spending over social relief spending.
However, we used things that we already had in order to do this. We have the planes, the missiles, and the soldiers. We've already spent the money. So why not use those resources that we already have in order to do something good?
Like it or not, we're part of an international community, and that means that we sometimes have to spend money on people that aren't us. In the case of Libya, we're talking about creating a situation in which an unstable regime could be changed into one which is more stable.
The Middle East is changing rapidly this year. Very rapidly. Perhaps more rapidly than it has ever changed before. Instead of standing aside and watching world events transpire, why not take a role in shaping what is to come?
HOWEVER, we are financially fucked and people need to stop relying on us for military support all the time. We need to fund our education and stop overextending ourselves. There need to be cuts in many areas, including essential programs provided by the government. We have to balance our sociopolitical needs with our financial needs. Someone is going to have to say "no" to important things. There are more things that need to be funded than there is funding available.
Material assets, when lost, are financial debits. There are costs for using missiles. There are costs for replacing missiles. Moreover, the cost of waging war, whatever the size of the conflict, is greater than the simple maintenance cost of a standing army.
Also, actively stepping up aggressions provides an increase in benchmark military spending costs in the next Congressional budget.
And in any event, intervening in Libya could help us in the long run anyhow. Investing in foreign affairs can pay off, and it's really stupid to think otherwise.
See this list.