Not just governments today. Governments have ALWAYS been...ugh.
War in Libya
- Thread starter Morkie
- Start date
Not just governments today. Governments have ALWAYS been...ugh.
Bombing / firing missiles is an act of war and it will obviously appear that way to the locals. There's not many ways Gaddafi could rally Libyans behind him, but this is one of them. Worked to grow Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Even though an actual invasion is worse, there could still be blowback.
How is the recession over?
Iraq wasn't already in a state of civil war when we invaded. Are you ignorant of the situation in Libya over the past month?
As for NATO firing missiles at military targets, how exactly is that going to rally the locals against the UN? They aren't even invading, nor do they have any intention to. On top of that, the section of Gadaffi's forces that are being targeted are ones that are poised to continue massacring his own citizens. How exactly, again, is this going to appear unfavorable?
Vex L'Cour
Weebalicious Furry.
More ...ugh than usual then
You better take Macro-Economics in college. A "recession" is defined as at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP. The recession is over as soon as GDP shows positive quarterly growth. The USA has experienced positive GDP growth for several quarters now.
Whoa man. Don't challenge Jeremy. ****'s dangerous.
I think he knows that, he's probably just saying that many people are still feeling the affects of the downed economy.
Ah using the actual definition! Well done sir I am amused.
Vex L'Cour
Weebalicious Furry.
Every time I've heard about this on the news, I've thought of this.
Andy. You made my day actually enjoyable with that
How is that even an argument? "Saddam was committing genocide and it wasn't actually a civil war, so it's totally different." That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. When outsiders try to intervene with the affairs of Iraq, Al-Qaeda and other groups say "look at these occupiers."
So when America is bombing Libya, you don't think Libyans are going to use that against America? You'd think that they'd say that Saddam is committing genocide and that they wouldn't dare question the US's intervention against his regime, right?
http://non-intervention.com/862/libya-and-bahrain-neutering-the-constitution-heading-for-disaster/
I guess if you want to simplify it to "GDP growth," which includes the government sector. How does an economy improve when a government borrows money to dig and rebury holes?
Vex L'Cour
Weebalicious Furry.
U bros just got smushed.
That wasn't my argument at all. At what point did I even mention Saddam's genocide? An act that occurred in the 80s? We invaded Iraq on the pretext of disarming his weapons of mass destruction, not stopping a genocide that happened 15 years prior. That aside, my argument is still perfectly valid. Iraq was in a state of relative stability at the time of the US invasion. Libya has a large section of its population in open rebellion against its government, and said government has responded with military force, first against protesters and now on cities held by the rebels.
As for your second point, you seem to have completely ignored the nature of the allies' targets. The Libyan people aren't being bombed, Gadaffi's military and mercenaries, which is attacking his own people, is being bombed. On top of all that, as I've already said, we aren't invading the country with any foot soldiers, nor is there any intention mentioned in the UN resolution for such an action.
As for your link, thanks but no thanks. I'm not really interested in what some libertarian blog has to say on this matter, and just posting a link to it with no explanation makes your reasoning seem pretty flimsy. I'll just mention something called the War Powers Act, an act of Congress, which gives the president the basis for his actions.
I totally agree with you on the economy, though.
Thanks for that insightful comment.
Uh-oh, you DEFINITELY need to take Macro-Economics in college. (Your comment reveals you are "in over your head.")
1) I am not simplifying anything. I gave you the ONLY definition of economic "recession." The ONLY thing that determines a recession is quarterly GDP growth.
2) GDP (and, thus, "GDP growth") includes far more than the government sector. It also includes consumer spending, business investment, and net imports. So, GDP includes ALL sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, services, mining, and transportation.
3) According to Keynes, government fiscal policy is a perfectly valid tool available to the goverment to maintain and stimulate the economy. Government spending, bostered by the "multiplier" (learn about this in your Macro-Economics class), often obtained by government borrowing, does not "dig holes." Government spending helps/stimulates the economy. (Of course, the "trick" to government fiscal policy is: governments should run deficits (i.e., spend) when the economy contracts but should revert to running surpluses when the economy expands. Between Reagan (who tripled the national debt) and Bush/Cheney (who quadrupled the national debt), only Clinton ran surpluses (sadly, only for two years).)
First off, I think Michael Scheuer might be a pretty reliable source on the subject considering he worked for the CIA and led their efforts against Bin Laden. He's pretty knowledgeable about foreign policy and affairs in this region of the world.
Also, as Bruce Fein (and common sense) says, Congress can't just give up their power to start war. They'd have to amend the Constitution. There's no question that only Congress can declare war. Compare Article I Section 8 to Article II Section 2. Obama before he was president:
Obama said:
Now what exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by bombing Gaddafi's supporters/military? How large do you think the actual rebellion is? Because they were losing pretty bad against Gaddafi's people. And when attempting to stop the killing, we kill people? This is obviously going to make people mad. Gaddafi may sound like the next Hitler to you from reading Reddit, but he has legitimate support. And now even more people are pissed off. And Gaddafi is still going to kill people.
Besides, what I mentioned before is already true. Europe and the US attack Gaddafi, so Gaddafi uses it to grow his support.
Gaddafi said:
OK... but let's stop talking about the definition of a word and start talking about the actual subject. Because you can add your faulty numbers to get a definition, but it doesn't make a difference about reality. Is the economy in good shape? Unemployment is nearly 10% and that is only the official number, which doesn't count everyone. Over 20% of Americans are unemployed.
(the difference) said:
I think it would be useful to this discussion if you could point out which sectors of the economy are growing.
You and Keynes think government stimulus helps the economy. There are no market forces that drive government production. There is no supply and demand. Government takes resources from the productive part of the economy and spends it on useless things that no one wants. So you take something valuable and turn it into something less valuable because the market doesn't demand it. That obviously weakens the economy. Otherwise, please tell me how you can create demand.
And I'm not really sure why you must resort to name-calling. You're saying "oh you need to take a class about this" as if you are trying to demean the person you're arguing with. Saying things like this, insulting, etc. really make you look bad when you are trying to participate in a discussion. You then go on talking about different presidents as if this is some battle of political parties... some sort of political game. I don't care about these presidents. I don't declare my loyalty to an R or a D. That's why I don't say war under D is better than war under R, or vice versa. That's why I don't say one president who is a D helped the economy simply because team D is my preference, or vice versa. And I say this because "team D" is sooooo eager to get into war recently. How convenient for president D!
Vex L'Cour
Weebalicious Furry.
B|
Am I the only person thinking "TL;DR"?
Am I the only person thinking "TL;DR"?
Quiet now kiddo, let the grown ups talk.
Alright, Michael Scheuer definitely has credentials, but the article you linked is short on evidence and filled with hasty predictions. I understand his stance, and from the position of a hardline non-interventionist it certainly makes sense, but his rhetoric irks me. I suppose that's just what it's like to read a blog, though. But the article does nothing to refute the difference between Iraq and Libya. It just explains the UN intervention as another "neo-colonial" effort by a gaggle of comically overblown stereotypes from the Ivy League to "has-been European imperialists". It also does not even mention the War Powers Act, which forms the basis for Obama's actions and compliance with the UN. If you want to debate the legality of that Act, however, that's another discussion.
To answer your questions:
Stop the massacre of people? I know it was large enough to at one point control the majority of Libya's population centers, do you know how large it actually is? At one point it looked as if they were poised to overtake Tripoli, before Gadaffi mobilized the portions of the military still under his control and contracted mercenaries. And yes, we do kill people to stop more killing. I'm not a pacifist. It'll make someone mad, but the question is who? Is it the supporters of a corrupt totalitarian regime or the members of a non-religious, pro-democracy uprising? I have never drawn parallels between Hitler and Gadaffi, and I would never do something so trite. I don't read Reddit for its (what are essentially overblown and one-sided) opinion pieces on current events, I go there for funny cat pictures. With the allied forces protecting Benghazi, how is it that Gadaffi is going to kill people?
How is it that Gadaffi is going to gain support among people who have already declared his rule illegitimate? This intervention will only help him consolidate power among the people that are already on his side and possibly those outside Libya. Only time will tell, though. Perhaps you will turn out to be right.
Last edited:
