Page 35 of 41 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 401

Thread: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

  1. #341
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    I thought the neocons said Iraq is a part of the War on Terror? If that is the case then it is hardly "won."
    Im not a neocon.

  2. #342
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    I love how people are always so willing to put other people's lives on the line.
    That's what I pay for.

  3. #343
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,901

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Im not a neocon.
    I didn't say you were. Do you not think the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror? Do you not think the Bush Administration took advantage of a vulnerable citizenry by using scare tactics to get them to support the war?
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  4. #344
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,901

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    That's what I pay for.
    That's not what I pay for, at least willingly. What's so libertarian about the State taking my money by force and using it to drop bombs on neighborhoods in other countries?
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  5. #345
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    To prevent having to go back again later.
    Then they should do what they they did in Europe. But instead they stayed to long and left too soon.

  6. #346
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    I didn't say you were. Do you not think the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror? Do you not think the Bush Administration took advantage of a vulnerable citizenry by using scare tactics to get them to support the war?
    No, and yes. I do think Iraq war was part of the War on Terror, and I don't think Bush took advantage of us.

  7. #347
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    That's not what I pay for, at least willingly. What's so libertarian about the State taking my money by force and using it to drop bombs on neighborhoods in other countries?
    Its constitutional, and necessary to defend my life. I don't agree with the entire scope of military involvement in the world, but Islamic fundamentalism is a clear threat, and it makes more sense to kill them before they kill us. Killing enemies does not reduce my liberty, thus its consistent with libertarianism.
    Last edited by jonny5; 06-23-13 at 10:17 AM.

  8. #348
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Then they should do what they they did in Europe. But instead they stayed to long and left too soon.
    Sure, I agree with that. Ideally we would focus only on our direct enemies, and let the UN handle nation building. In WW2 though, we were mainly fighting for others, who had a vested interest in winning. No one ever significantly helps the US in defending itself. Ideally the French, Russians, Chinese, etc who we have fought for time and time again, would be in Iraq helping us out. But instead they want to fight us on everything we do. That means the US is always fighting uphill.

  9. #349
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Ideally the French, Russians, Chinese, etc who we have fought for time and time again, would be in Iraq helping us out.
    This was never feasible. U.S. policy makers should have known this from the onset. France and Germany repeatedly and in fairly great detail (post-invasion risks, gap between what is required to declare war and what evidence existed, etc., many of which proved prescient afterward when insurgency developed and no new WMD were found) outlined why they opposed a war. They were famously dismissed as "old Europe." China's and Russia's interests were not aligned with actual or perceived U.S. interests in Iraq, meaning that there was no chance that they would aid the war effort in any meaningful fashion. Russia correctly saw regime change in Iraq as posing a threat of regional instability and the overall balance of power that maintained reasonable stability, both with possible risks for its "near abroad." China favored non-intervention, as its focus is on sustaining its economic growth and evolution to great power. Intervention, it felt, would risk inviting pressure, even creating de facto license for intervention, in its own terrorities in which disputes exist or on behalf of movements aimed at fundamental political change. It also knows that its hunger for resources depends on having working relationships with a wide number of countries to minimize disruptions, even if those countries have harsh regimes.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 06-23-13 at 10:53 AM.

  10. #350
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    This was never feasible. U.S. policy makers should have known this from the onset. France and Germany repeatedly and in fairly great detail (post-invasion risks, gap between what is required to declare war and what evidence existed, etc., many of which proved prescient afterward when insurgency developed and no new WMD were found) outlined why they opposed a war. They were famously dismissed as "old Europe." China's and Russia's interests were not aligned with actual or perceived U.S. interests in Iraq, meaning that there was no chance that they would aid the war effort in any meaningful fashion. Russia correctly saw regime change in Iraq as posing a threat of regional instability and the overall balance of power that maintained reasonable stability, both with possible risks for its "near abroad." China favored non-intervention, as its focus is on sustaining its economic growth and evolution to great power. Intervention, it felt, would risk inviting pressure, even creating de facto license for intervention, in its own terrorities in which disputes exist or on behalf of movements aimed at fundamental political change. It also knows that its hunger for resources depends on having working relationships with a wide number of countries to minimize disruptions, even if those countries have harsh regimes.
    We don't do whats feasible. We decide what needs to be done, and do it the best way we can. Again, what I said was it would be IDEAL if our allies who we have fought and died for would 100% back us up when we asked them to, but they are not as loyal as we are. The same goes for Syria, which is a threat to the US and the world. The Russians and Chinese want to play games instead dealing with a problem.

Page 35 of 41 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •