Libya

Originally posted by dadudemon
The justification for "world policing" is: it provides better prosperity in the long run for the American people.

The other justification, that's becoming less popular in the US, is that letting people die is a bad thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He does but I do not see that as a contradication: he supports the constitutionality "binding" treaties but wants to end some of the treaties...most likely to get out of those obligations, lol. In the case of the Iraq invasion, we violated our constitution by defying the wishes of a super important treaty we made in being part of the UN: we did not have their approval to go to war making our war unconstitutional. However, we voted on it and I believe that that vote would over-ride the unconstitutionality of our agreement with the UN. What is the UN going to do? They did nothing. We didn't even get "sanctioned" by other nations...France whined or something like that.

So essentially he'd only accept a UN approved and Congress approved war. Yeah, I can buy that. Personally I'd say that what matters is approval from Congress, though they should be informing themselves that they're going against the UN in certain circumstances.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yeah, he doesn't like war because he sees it as a waste of money almost every single time.

Very pragmatic reasoning.

Originally posted by Bicnarok

You can´t, there´s a lot of froggies in Canada and the French would help them out, soo watch your step USA🙂

Besides, every time France tries to do anything in the Western Hemisphere (or anywhere really, except Libya where they seem to be doing alright so far) they get their asses kicked.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The other justification, that's becoming less popular in the US, is that letting people die is a bad thing.

Yeah and I used to argue that point until someone pointed out that absurd logistics of objectively enforcing that "moral." Odd combination: objectively enforcing morals. In other words, we prioritize based on the greatest amount of death preventing (does that make sense?).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So essentially he'd only accept a UN approved and Congress approved war. Yeah, I can buy that. Personally I'd say that what matters is approval from Congress, though they should be informing themselves that they're going against the UN in certain circumstances.

Yeah, that's my understanding. I agree with the idea that you should first get UN-approval (cause, like, that's the whole (original) point of the UN: to prevent world wars) and then vote on it in congress. If you get a green-light from both, then it is okay to proceed.

But, yeah, I agree: the most important measure is congressional approval.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very pragmatic reasoning.

I like it.

I think we should prioritize our money on saving American lives, not policing the world. We should war only when it becomes necessary to defend our nation, which is what he's stated.

Defending our nation is the "moral" invoked for both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, though...so go figure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah and I used to argue that point until someone pointed out that absurd logistics of objectively enforcing that "moral." Odd combination: objectively enforcing morals. In other words, we prioritize based on the greatest amount of death preventing (does that make sense?).

Yes that makes sense and I really should have been more specific since I tend to criticize other people from broad statements with obvious flaws in them.

Clearly we can never police the whole world or stop everyone from getting killed without destroying freedom and bankrupting the country. However, as a wealthy, powerful nation the US would be acting immorally to not put some of its resource toward stopping genocide. I can't personally put any numbers on it but I do believe (pretty much axiomatically) that choosing to let people die is not a morally neutral decision.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's my understanding. I agree with the idea that you should first get UN-approval (cause, like, that's the whole (original) point of the UN: to prevent world wars) and then vote on it in congress. If you get a green-light from both, then it is okay to proceed.

But, yeah, I agree: the most important measure is congressional approval.

Hrm, looking at xkcd (since no one here is making the argument and I think it's interesting) the claim based the note about treaties is that by approving membership with the UN that Congress has "preapproved" decision of the security council. I don't really buy that and I can't say I would agree with it if I did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we should prioritize our money on saving American lives, not policing the world. We should war only when it becomes necessary to defend our nation, which is what he's stated.

Defending our nation is the "moral" invoked for both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, though...so go figure.

As for weighting in favor of American lives, yeah, it's the government of America it has protecting Americans as its primary responsibility.

However Ron Paul seems to advocate for isolationism. To me that is, at best, naieve. The best defense is a good offense. I don't mean we should invade everyone that looks threatening (again obviously) just that proactiveness is important. Not simply militarily but also economically and, yes, morally.

Tempering that proactiveness is important, and I'm sure it's part of the reason that the Constitution requires Congressional approval for war. Looking at America's military history, however, that might not be enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
However, as a wealthy, powerful nation the US would be acting immorally to not put some of its resource toward stopping genocide. I can't personally put any numbers on it but I do believe (pretty much axiomatically) that choosing to let people die is not a morally neutral decision.

Saddam is gassing the Kurds, we must prevent this ethnic violence

=

as a direct result of our intervention, Iraq split along religious lines and there was an unheardof increase in ethnic violence

Libya isn't Rwanda. Its not like there is a UN peacekeeping mission there already that is being told not to continue its mandate

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Bah. If the US attacked Canada the Quebecois would use that opportunity to split from Canada and declare neutrality.

Besides, every time France tries to do anything in the Western Hemisphere (or anywhere really, except Libya where they seem to be doing alright so far) they get their asses kicked.

That´s why they built a tunnel to dover, so the next time the Germans bring it on they can make a quick escape🙂

Question: after we stop Ghaddafi, how do we prevent violence against his former supporters? how do we ensure the human rights of the people who fought for him? [I know, sic, and all that, why would we care about their rights after we bomb them]

because, you know, we apply these things equally, right? thats what universal human right mean? yes? I could be wrong, I heard something about US allies being a precondition....

You're right, we should pull everything out now and let them go on slaughtering each other. After all, violence is perfectly fine as long as you don't bother trying to stop any of it.

Originally posted by jaden101
So once again is it the same old argument that if you can't act against violence everywhere then you shouldn't do it anywhere?

we can argue the more abstract side of your point if you want, but frankly, no, the international community should play no military role in the internal conflict of nations, especially before a peacekeeping mission is set up.

The allusion to Saudi Arabia isn't to say, "hey, lets get them too", but to show how morally bankrupt this no fly zone really is. It has absolutly nothing to do with protecting innocent people, and everyhting to do with the West's narrative against Ghadaffi, the fact he isn't a Western stooge and his oil supplies.

ffs, America wont even say a bad word about the saudis, yet we have a moral obligation to protect the libyans. [vulgar wanking gesture]

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You're right, we should pull everything out now and let them go on slaughtering each other. After all, violence is perfectly fine as long as you don't bother trying to stop any of it.

violence is prefectly fine, then, if we are the ones perpetrating it under a UN binding resolution?

Sure, in the same manner that I'm legally justified in shooting someone on sight, without giving them any kind of warning, if I see them in the process of performing rape or a kidnapping.

Lets face it, the western politicians arn´t interested in the slightest about human rights and who gets slaughtered otherwise they would have gone after mugabi years ago.

It´s about money and oil, its always about money and oil.!!!

Woahhh! I'm glad you brought that to our attention. No one in this thread realized that, nor was that brought up like, three pages ago. ermm

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sure, in the same manner that I'm legally justified in shooting someone on sight, without giving them any kind of warning, if I see them in the process of performing rape or a kidnapping.

you can hardly claim you are a humanitarian if you are also deliberately ignoring you buddy raping the same woman

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Woahhh! I'm glad you brought that to our attention. No one in this thread realized that, nor was that brought up like, three pages ago. ermm

Oop sorry for speaking out, I´ll just go and sit in a corner with a "dumbass" hat on then.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Oop sorry for speaking out, I´ll just go and sit in a corner with a "dumbass" hat on then.

Originally posted by inimalist
you can hardly claim you are a humanitarian if you are also deliberately ignoring you buddy raping the same woman

If I don't accept that the moral stances we make as a nation are only a cherade and need not be maintained if it serves our interest, I'm out of touch with reality?

No, you're out of touch with reality if that notion bothers you.

how far would you extend that, though. would you say it is ok to violate the voting rights or expression rights of a group of people, simply because we have to accept some degree of hypocrisy?

I don't see how that position doesn't just excuse any evil that is inconvienent. Its like ignoring evidence

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]how far would you extend that, though. would you say it is ok to violate the voting rights or expression rights of a group of people, simply because we have to accept some degree of hypocrisy?

As long as it doesn't affect me. -shrug-

I don't see how that position doesn't just excuse any evil that is inconvienent. Its like ignoring evidence

Well, that depends on what plane this is being discussed on, wouldn't it? Not to get all philosophical in this *****, but, what is "evil"?