• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

What Best Describes Your Positions?


  • Total voters
    50

Mayor Snorkum

Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
1,631
Reaction score
317
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 
Last edited:
Libya's none of our business. Iraq was an outright blunder.
 
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.
 
I half supported Iraq, I like that a dictator was getting deposed, but I didn't like that it was obstentiously about WMD's. I support Afghanistan because the Taliban are evil ****s that need to die. I support Libya because it's about deposing a dictator.
 
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.
 
Supported both then and still do now.
 
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.

You are trying to create something that is not there. Afghanistan is as relevant to Libya as Iraq is, They are different situations all. Being consistent solely for the sake of consistency is stupid. It makes much more sense to look at each issue and judge it on it's own merits. The only consistency should be the values you use to judge with.

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.
 
Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma?
Zaire?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
Cuba?
Venezuela?

Would those be the same situation as Libya? Why do you insist on simplistic comparisons in a complex world?
 
You are trying to create something that is not there.

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.

Being consistent solely for the sake of consistency is stupid.

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.

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.

Maintaining the "proper" entangling alliances was the motivation behind the invasion of Iraq, too.
 
Would those be the same situation as Libya? Why do you insist on simplistic comparisons in a complex world?

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
 
I'm not supportive of invading them, but I would be supportive if an invasion happened, there's a subtle difference.

I think someone is a closest War Hawk. =)
 
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.

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?



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.

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.

Maintaining the "proper" entangling alliances was the motivation behind the invasion of Iraq, too.

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.
 
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

I refuse to talk to someone who refers to themselves in third person, its a matter of principle and a good way to keep the stupid off me.
 
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.

The fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq is that the Libyan population is in active revolt against the government and are agitating for a democracy. The citizens in Iraq were not and, I believe, were not ready to take that fundamental step towards self rule and the poor results (rampant corruption, continuing sectarian violence, continuing tribalism, etc) are the result of that premature liberation. Another major difference is that the people of Libya were asking for our help while there is no evidence I know of that the people in Iraq did the same.

With that consideration in mind, and the recognition that the two situations are not equivelent. I was and am against the affair in Iraq. I was for and am for the affair in afghanistan (since they were responsible for attacking us) and I am for the current actions in Libya.
 
Last edited:
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.

Same here. The three are all different, and shouldn't be seen as exact comparisons.
 
Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma?
Zaire?
Saudi Arabia?Iran?
Cuba?
Venezuela?

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.
 
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. .


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.
 
Same here. The three are all different, and shouldn't be seen as exact comparisons.

They aren't exact comparisons, but they are all more alike than you want to see. Washington does this, hence 9/11 and the idea that killing a few terrorist is the answer. Before killing a few terrorist we assumed that supporting dictators would keep the problem penned down. So what do we do now with the knowledge that these terrorists have always come from all over the region and that democracy is finally the people's cry? Still pretend that Europe's bad border creation parties of the past have carved this regional problem into nice neat packages for us to pretend? Roll the dice and hope that the consequences of living under European colonialism and then Cold War prescription foir three centuries will simply not exist? People are fond of pointing out that no terrorists came from Iraq. They will be equally fond of pointing out that they didn't come from Libya too. Of course they will always criticize America's Cold War dictator support even though these individuals monsters were quite effective in killing off religious freedom and zealousy. So, with Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. being Cold War relics that have lived past their expiration dates and with the oppresed masses getting more and more radical towards us to explain away their civilizational woes...what is the answer?

The answer is to look at these situations are more alike than makes us comfortable and deal with them accordingly. Or does the common cry, throughout the region for democracy of late, make them oh so different also?
 
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?

If it was a simple fact you would have already defined the distinction.

The fact that you have not done so defines the lack of a definitive distinction.

That's as simple as it gets.



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.

Two words.

"yet"

"Vietnam"

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.

Not many people really believed the WMD's existed, and the region WAS stable. Or have you failed to notice all the partying in the steets of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, and elsewhere in recent weeks?

Iraq wasn't hurting us at all.

The only plausible reason for invading Iraq was the only reason never stated...putting troops in the western edge of Iran to complement the forces on the southern edge in Afghanistan. Since that reason was never stated it cannot be applied by those defending the Bush Regimes rush to war.

What justifies the Obama regime's rush to war? A pretense that he cares about lives? Then those military assets would be better used in Japan, where we know we have friends.

Note that he waited until Gadhaffy's victory was assured before acting. That's indicative of Obama's desire to look presidential while playing golf and not tickin off his handlers.
 
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 Mayor's post was in response to some inane comment that the intrusion in Libya was about removing a dictator. The Mayor's contention is that if the US started wars with every country were there was a dictator we'd be fighting on a hundred fronts.
 
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.

People act as if lines on a map make it concrete in the real world. That lines are never re-drawn. "Yugoslavia" slaughtered its way to new more tribally friendly borders. Sudan slaughtered off, cleansed, and exported non-Sunni to make it more tribally friendly. The Sunni from the region rushed to slaughter the Shia in Iraq to keep Baghdad within the tribe. And with the entire region "Sunnified" under Islam, we pretend that they are simply different. As if we are comparing Japan to Saudi Arabia and linking them. And as if regional Muslims don't unite under very common causes. The entire West can be united under like causes in their minds. The face of Europe couldn't ever be without democracy because that's how "we think." But when it comes to the Middle East these same people want so badly for their to be a different individual mindset throughout. Take in the fact that none of the borders within the region reflect tribe and their ignorant notion of separatism is just plain stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom