This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Libya
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
The family in debt model doesn't really compare to a "nation in deficit" model. There are different consequences and actions they can take.
During the WW2 era, it was the great depression, I figure entering into a war would jumpstart the economy again and it did, but I don't think that going into Libya would jumpstart our economy like what WW2 did. I can safely say that it would create a bigger deficit if we did engage into Libya unless you can prove me wrong.
Not by all that much I'd imagine.
I guess as long as the united states works under the united nations with restrictions and limited liability, maybe we could engage. But if the U.N. expects us to do most of the dirty work and send more troops compared to other nations (france, england), I would simply pull out.
From what I remember, it is completely up to each country as to how many troops they are willing to send.
Post by
Skreeran
Anyway back to the reason that I have quoted the post above - If you think that Libya is currently the biggest wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, I shall try and direct your eyes towards the Ivory Coast, where the current civil has a death toll reaching, I beleive, into the 10's of thousands, whilst we in the West stand back wringing our hands and saying it is a problem for Africa to solve and it is not for us to intervene. I think that the whole story would be different if the Ivory Coast had oil.Well, Libya is upwards of ten thousand as well, according to some sources. (Wikipedia puts the civilian casualties of the Ivorian Civil War at "1,200+ civilians")
But if what you're saying is true, then I would agree that the Ivory Coast should be intervened in as well, at least to the best of our ability given our current circumstances (note that I haven't been saying "We should join the war against the Libyan government," just "We should do something to help stop the murder of civilians.")
Post by
Patty
But if the U.N. expects us to do most of the dirty work and send more troops compared to other nations (france, england), I would simply pull out.
NATO, you know - a coalition of 28 countries, is in command of the operations in Libya.
Post by
gnomerdon
Funden, you are still looking at this through the eyes of a economist / politician. Do you realize that we will be sending "live human beings (born on our american soil)" to protect another country? Blood weighs more than anything. Are you willing to sacrifice your own blood to help a civil war? The last thing I want on my plate is to be fighting someone else's war with the risk that our people will suffer a few casualties. 1-2 american casualties is just as bad as 1,000 american casualties. American families have suffered too much seeing their children return in body bags.
The least and the most that we could / and should do is to finance the rebels so that they have the technology and arms to protect and defend themselves. I think that would do more good than sending AMERICAN, ENGLISH, troops there.
Post by
Monday
Your last post contradicts the first.
You're saying that human life is king, yes? Well, if we don't intervene, more civilians are going to be
gunned down during protests
. And the rebels will be crushed, and very definitely slaughtered.
So you say finance the rebels... so they can kill more people! Which also costs money!
But you say that AMERICANS and ENLIGH people will be killed. Does that mean they are worth more than the Libyans?
Post by
Skreeran
Funden, you are still looking at this through the eyes of a economist / politician. Do you realize that we will be sending "live human beings (born on our american soil)" to protect another country? Blood weighs more than anything. Are you willing to sacrifice your own blood to help a civil war? The last thing I want on my plate is to be fighting someone else's war with the risk that our people will suffer a few casualties. 1-2 american casualties is just as bad as 1,000 american casualties. American families have suffered too much seeing their children return in body bags.I've enlisted as an Active Duty Combat Medic in the Army, and I'd risk my life if it meant saving others.
Edit: And besides, it's just a no fly zone at this point. The chances of us having
any
casualties are pretty low at this point.
Post by
Dragalthor
Having a quick Google of the current death tolls the Libyan death toll is currently around 1,000
source
though this is only the Italian Foreign MInisters current view and the estimates are anywhere between 600 and 1200
source
and the current Ivory Coast death toll is, according to the UN, at 462
source
.
However, and I apologise for grossly over exaggerating the Ivory Coast figures (these were the ones that were being banded about during a discussion earlier today), it still strikes me as rather suspicious that for two conflicts with what are currently, and approximately, causing similar mounts of death and destruction it is Libya, which had oil, that is grabbing the headlines.
Blood weighs more than anything. Blood may be thicker than water but I am fairly certain that there are a whole heap of things that are heavier than Blood.
This is a very flippant reply I know, but I am speaking as someone who has family and friends that have done more than one tour of duty in a wide range of conflicts ranging from Bosnia through to the current Afghan and Iraq wars, some of whom have never returned but who all knew what they had signed up to. They would all agree that no man's life is worth more than another's.
edited for grammer
Post by
Monday
Oh, I thought you were in the infantry. /ignorant
Post by
Skreeran
HAving a quick google of the current death tolls the Libyan death toll is currently around 1,000
source
though this is only the Italian Foreign MInisters current view and the estimates are anywhere between 600 and 1200
source
and the current Ivory Coast death toll is, according to the UN, at 462
source
.Look at the date on your Libya figure, though. That was Feb. 25, just eight days after the uprising started.
Wikipedia reports
that 2000 to 10,000 people have died, though because of the uncertainty of the sources, we just don't know how many have actually died. But we know it's a lot.
However, and I apologise for grossly over exaggerating the Ivory Coast figures (these were the ones that were being banded about during a discussion earlier today), it still strikes me as rather suspicious that for two conflicts with what are currently, and approximately, causing similar mounts of death and destruction it is Libya, which had oil, that is grabbing the headlines.Even if there's an ulterior motive for stopping the murder, that does not invalidate the necessity for stopping the murders, in my eyes.
Oh, I thought you were in the infantry. /ignorantI was going to, for a while, but since I want to be a Doctor, I thought going Medic would let me be a ground soldier while also getting medical experience.
Post by
Monday
I was going to, for a while, but since I want to be a Doctor, I thought going Medic would let me be a ground soldier while also getting medical experience.
Doctor just doesn't sound like something you'd do, for some reason.
Post by
Skreeran
I was going to, for a while, but since I want to be a Doctor, I thought going Medic would let me be a ground soldier while also getting medical experience.
Doctor just doesn't sound like something you'd do, for some reason.I do love the biology.
Think of Dr. House.
Post by
Dragalthor
Even if there's an ulterior motive for stopping the murder, that does not invalidate the necessity for stopping the murders, in my eyes.
I apologise if any of my posts have been misleading about this but I too don't think that ulterior motives would justify acting to stop slaughter on any level however I would appreciate my government being upfront to the reasons for their support of any intervention. As it currently stands the argument is that they are stopping Gaddafi from slaughtering 1,000's of innocents and that if it occurs they will do the same to the rebel army should it be required. At the moment though from what I have read, heard and seen all the current no-fly zone is doing is providing the rebel army top cover in order to counter attack.
Oh and I would be very sceptical on anything that is reported on Wikipedia.
Oh and I wish you all the best in becoming a combat medic. I have met quite a number of combat medic's and Padre's over the years and after chatting to them I now fully appreciate what courage under fire really is (as in the UK forces neither medic's or Padre's are armed whilst working in combat conditions).
Post by
Skreeran
Even if there's an ulterior motive for stopping the murder, that does not invalidate the necessity for stopping the murders, in my eyes.
I apologise if any of my posts have been misleading about this but I too don't think that ulterior motives would justify acting to stop slaughter on any level however I would appreciate my government being upfront to the reasons for their support of any intervention. As it currently stands the argument is that they are stopping Gaddafi from slaughtering 1,000's of innocents and that if it occurs they will do the same to the rebel army should it be required. At the moment though from what I have read, heard and seen all the current no-fly zone is doing is providing the rebel army top cover in order to counter attack.You really can't expect them to be upfront about it if they don't have to.
But
if
(big if) oil is involved, I think it would be more of a "We could save people here, or we could save an equal number of people over there and also get some compensation." type situation.
Oh and I wish you all the best in becoming a combat medic. I have met quite a number of combat medic's and Padre's over the years and after chatting to them I now fully appreciate what courage under fire really is (as in the UK forces neither medic's or Padre's are armed whilst working in combat conditions).Thanks, although here in the US, Medics are armed and participate in combat until they have to actually do medical stuff, so I can't take all the credit for courage, at least compared to people who go out unarmed... ;)
Post by
Dragalthor
I'll concede point here as it is long past bedtime for me, I have a big Navigation exam in the morning, as it is almost 23.00 here.
I'd be a very happy badger if this all really was for Humanitarian purposes but I guess that I am now just a bit too cynical to believe that.
Post by
Squishalot
A. That's not quite comparable. Gitmo is at least supposed to be for terrorists, whereas in Libya it's normal citizens that are being tortured and raped by their government.
Just to be clear here. The 'civillians' have illegally taken control of major cities by force and are shooting at Gaddafi's troops when they move in to try to take back control.
As far as the Libyan authorities is concerned, those people *are* terrorists.
I was going to, for a while, but since I want to be a Doctor, I thought going Medic would let me be a ground soldier while also getting medical experience.
You don't have the temperament to be a doctor. You're too emotional about things, sorry to say.
Post by
Monday
Just to be clear here. The 'civillians' have illegally taken control of major cities by force and are shooting at Gaddafi's troops when they move in to try to take back control.
As far as the Libyan authorities is concerned, those people *are* terrorists.
The Libyan government opened fire into protesters before they turned violent and illegally took over cities, slaughtering several dozen, iirc.
Post by
Squishalot
Just to be clear here. The 'civillians' have illegally taken control of major cities by force and are shooting at Gaddafi's troops when they move in to try to take back control.
As far as the Libyan authorities is concerned, those people *are* terrorists.
The Libyan government opened fire into protesters before they turned violent and illegally took over cities, slaughtering several dozen, iirc.
If you're protesting, and an authority tells you to move on and you don't, they have the power (as in, authority) to forcibly remove you. If you object with force (i.e. pushing them around and beating up police who try to get you to leave), they'll respond with force. What do you expect?
The difference is that Western riot squads use rubber bullets and tear gas. Libyan riot squads use live ammunition. I don't think the actual process is significantly different.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
they have the power (as in, authority) to forcibly remove you.
From where? The Green Book?
If so, show me where, and show me by what legitimate means it came to be the source of authority.
Post by
Monday
The difference is that Western riot squads use rubber bullets and tear gas. Libyan riot squads use live ammunition. I don't think the actual process is significantly different.
The process doesn't matter. It's the fact that the government opened fire on protesters
with live #$%^ing ammunition
.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.