PDA

View Full Version : Estimated 50,000 dead (so far) in Libyan War


Wonderment
08-30-2011, 11:02 PM
Good thing we intervened to protect (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/uk-libya-casualties-idUKTRE77T3L520110830) the population.

Did supporting "the good" armed men against the wicked dictator actually lead to more carnage and civilian death than we would have had without a bombing campaign, a CIA on-the-ground presence, and a weapons supply program for rebels?

Could we have spent our money more wisely, compassionately and productively in Africa (or at home)?

apple
08-30-2011, 11:06 PM
Good thing we intervened to protect (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/uk-libya-casualties-idUKTRE77T3L520110830) the population.

Did supporting "the good" armed men against the wicked dictator actually lead to more carnage and civilian death than we would have had without a bombing campaign, a CIA on-the-ground presence, and a weapons supply program for rebels?

Could we have spent our money more wisely, compassionately and productively in Africa (or at home)?

Is fighting Civil War and World War II OK by this standard? After all, the Civil War did lead to more carnage and death than we would have had by just accepting the Confederacy. And World War II, well, why fight Hitler? It will only lead to more carnage and death.

Wonderment
08-31-2011, 02:23 AM
And World War II, well, why fight Hitler?

Kaddafi is not Hitler.

But I'm sure you're unperturbed by the war, since it involves Muslim killing Muslims, which, judging by your endless Islamophobic rants, is something you'd likely welcome.

Actually, your dehumanizing Muslims reminds me of Kadaffi, who refers to his enemies as "rats."

JonIrenicus
08-31-2011, 05:18 AM
Is fighting Civil War and World War II OK by this standard? After all, the Civil War did lead to more carnage and death than we would have had by just accepting the Confederacy. And World War II, well, why fight Hitler? It will only lead to more carnage and death.

I've tried the civil war angle before and it is usually ignored entirely. The logical conclusion and policy prescription of "lets not start wars" would have lead to them essentially give the OK to let the south secede and keep blacks in chains for decades longer, anything so that their precious little puritan hands wouldn't get dirtied by violence and war.

Not everyone is that extreme, but even so, the example seems to unsettle the sensibilities of people who are skittish over using force for some sort of foreign aid to help others. After all, arguments over "local jurisdiction makes a right/wrong intervention" come across as incredibly impotent after a thousand liberals lecture others on the virtues of expanding the circle..

Yeah, about that whole "human rights" thing... we need to talk..

Oh and by the way, many of the wars could still be incredibly bad wars and policy, the point of this critique is to attack the rationale asserting that we have no right or responsibility to go to war/intervene for certain humanitarian + interests.

apple
08-31-2011, 01:47 PM
And World War II, well, why fight Hitler?

Kaddafi is not Hitler.

Believe it or not, I already knew that. But your reasoning can also be applied to World War II. Why fight Hitler if it's only going to lead to more bloodshed and death. Why resist any injustice?

But I'm sure you're unperturbed by the war, since it involves Muslim killing Muslims, which, judging by your endless Islamophobic rants, is something you'd likely welcome.

Muslims do not kill Muslims, or anyone else, for that matter. Islam is a religion of peace.

Actually, your dehumanizing Muslims reminds me of Kadaffi, who refers to his enemies as "rats."

How and where did I dehumanize Muslims?