US attacks Libya

[NoWay]

GOP Pushing for Vote on Foreign Aid Funding - FoxNews.com

[Papparazzi]

and when Reagan sent F-111's in 25 years ago.....the French wouldn't allow them to fly over France on the way making the mission take longer.

should have asked them about WWII they didn't mind us flying over there then.

[magnolia gal]

GOP Pushing for Vote on Foreign Aid Funding - FoxNews.com

What I meant by documentation wasn't news reporters without specific sources throwing numbers out. I don't care if its Fox, MSNBC or AP - I'm wondering about specific documentation and cited sources.

I can find gov sites with releases and documentation for humanitarian aid to the groups fighting ghadaffi, (Obama Announces More Humanitarian Aid for Libya) and private investment in Libya has been pretty much banned since 1986 by US govt. Libya-Foreign Aid and Investment.

Another bit of info I've found - the appropriations request for foreign aid (humanitarian) is for $875,000. Not millions. Pajamas Media » What’s Foreign Aid? Why Does the U.S. Provide It?

Interesting read on who and why we give foreign aid - the aid isn't necessarily to the governments but seems to be for NGOs who work in concert with American businesses. Not unlike the city of Orlando helping with funding the Arena - for a team privately owned by billionaires to make money by millionaires playing games ...

[Ric]

LONDON (AP) --
The U.S. military says an Air Force F-15 Strike Eagle has crashed in Libya but it was not shot down.

Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the Africa Command, says both crew members ejected and sustained minor injuries.

Both crew members have been safely recovered.

Crawley said Tuesday the plane was not shot down and may have suffered a mechanical problem.

[Catdaddy]

wow, so what if they hit one of our planes, we are so addicted to lying is not even funny.

[Donkey Elephant]

You're right. The patented stick your head in the sand approach seems like a good idea.

logical fallacy. you are trying to disagree with me by framing my premise wrongly.

You cannot apply a blanket attitude towards a topic and expect it to hold true in all cases.

if you didn't it wouldn't be a principle.

i'm not telling you you can't donate your personal wealth to foreign militaries that might fight on the sides of wars you like.

but the you shouldn't make other people do so, and especially when they are under the threat of attack for doing so.

If your'e calling me a mindless idiot so be it. .

no, he's calling you something worst: an isolationist.

which is exactly what you and i are not.

trade is a great way to spread democratic republican ideals. war is not.

[NFSLancerRA]

Donkey, how do you propose to trade with countries when the largest companies in the world have created an impenetrable barrier to market inclusion? African countries do not have the resources to join the global economy. Hell, the world is BEGGING American/Western Pharmaceutical companies to produce medications to treat diseases in remote parts of the world. We already sustain these countries. Yet, you have somehow equated our participation in their peacekeeping as playing god?

Be more realistic. It is a given that we are present in many aspects of these countries' functioning, already. We send medical aid. We fund schools. We promote local economies. We are in fact in it for the good of other people. Yet, you see only what crap you hear on CNN and claim that we are policing the world. Get real. Do some reading. Realize that the US is not just some mindless military force policing the world and move on.

[NFSLancerRA]

There are many many factors here that you guys simply aren't taking into account. I called NoWay a Pacifist. That is what blindly protesting war is called. It is impossible to be an isolationist. We are too globally connected.

[Donkey Elephant]

Donkey, how do you propose to trade with countries when the largest companies in the world have created an impenetrable barrier to market inclusion?

trade with Libya is impossible?

African countries do not have the resources to join the global economy.

yeah, that's why China is monopolizing on their non-existent resources.

Yet, you have somehow equated our participation in their peacekeeping as playing god?

once again, you are framing my arguments in an illogical way.

that "god" statement you pulled out your of thin air.

Be more realistic.

i am. as long as we continue to intervene the in happenings of other countries, whether for reasons good or bad, we will continue to sow the seeds of weeds that will kill our lawn in later generations.

the last century of European and American foreign interventionism are an example.

It is a given that we are present in many aspects of these countries' functioning, already.

so? we always weren't and we don't always have to be.

saying we should stick with a policy because we already have it implemented is not a valid arguement.

We send medical aid. We fund schools. We promote local economies.

so does Coca Cola. but they don't do it with forcefully acquired wealth.

We are in fact in it for the good of other people.

on some occasions they are, but our foreign interventionism is not good for US. whether if its because we can't afford it, or it continues to inflame ant-western ideologies such as Wahhabism (this ESPECIALLY concerns the middle east, which is a whole other unique reason why we shouldn't have foreign interventionism. this is aside from the fact that our NATO alliances are with countries that would probably peacefully work out their differences if they werent allied with the big boy on the block)

Yet, you see only what crap you hear on CNN and claim that we are policing the world.

i don't watch the news. so please, stop injecting irrelevant and incorrect claims.

and intervening in the Libyan conflict is not foreign interventionism?

Do some reading.

yeah, because i don't read historical or geopolitical books about the middle east, or american history, and i only watch the news, and that's why i am so knowledgeable on wahhabism, or the century leading up to creation of Israel and Saudi Arabia, or the blowback of CIA operations or from allied and enemy actions in WWI and WWII.

no, CNN has covered all that in the last year!

granted, i am not saying i am a scholarly expert. but the opinions i have do not get their credence in the news; they can be found in books and podcasts. and they are there to be learned for anyone who wants to learn their history, and avoid their/other's mistakes in the past.

Realize that the US is not just some mindless military force policing the world and move on.

so, our foreign interventionism isn't foreign interventionism?

let me guess, our soldiers are just handing out ice cream in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are driving ambulances and taxis in our bases around the world.

[Josh]

So here is a question,

What would our government do if armed militants rose up against it? You don't think that they would be called terrorists and shot "while attempting to apprehend them"?

[Donkey Elephant]

and while i believe our enforcement of a no-fly zone is desired by the rebelling portions of the native libyans (and probably most of north africa), it is because of undesired interventionism that is both putting US citizens in danger from terrorist attacks, and putting our soldiers in Iraq in danger by putting them against native Iraqis who are willing to shoot at/kill us to drive us out of the country that did not initiate war against us.

the sooner we learn some restraint in using our military/cia/wealth in manipulating the rest of the world, the sooner wahhabist islam will leave us alone.

oh, and i already admitted to believing that in this particular instance, our foreign interventionism is desired by (by the Libyans/North Africans, NOT by ME)

just in case you decide to ignore or warp my opinions, i'm making this one clear.

[Catdaddy]

excellent point.

[Catdaddy]

I got ninja'd

[Donkey Elephant]

So here is a question,

What would our government do if armed militants rose up against it? You don't think that they would be called terrorists and shot "while attempting to apprehend them"?

not sure what you are talking about.

do you mean in America? or Libya?

if you mean in America, that has nothing to do with foreign interventionism. if you mean Libya, iirc, there is not NATO ground elements in Libya.

[NFSLancerRA]

So, let me just sum up that rebuttal:

1). You would like for me to understand that you do in fact read, are educated, and would like to be respectfully debated with. Fair enough.

2). We should discontinue helping other countries, because it is bad for us. By intervening in foreign affairs, we create anti-American sentiment, and this is, in and of itself, enough reason to withhold US military support. Again, I don't share this point of view, but you are entitled to your opinion.

3). We intervene, in many circumstances, or otherwise conduct foreign operations, to gain unnecessary wealth by force in one way or another. I assume that you are referring to operations regarding oil-producing countries, because I am not entirely clear on what you were getting at with that comment about "forceful wealth". I am aware of instances in which the US has sold arms and ammunition to regimes which we end up fighting later. This can be seen as a corrupt practice. We also produce a large number of military aircraft and armed ground units that are sold around the world (see: F-35). In addition, we hire mercenary-like contractors to do our dirty work overseas using practices that are often beyond the bounds of normal military allowances (both morally and politically). And, I would also like to say that the US military has a shocking number of reported incidents in which acts are committed that are extremely morally reprehensible. However, this conflict will employ none of those resources. We aren't even the only one's aiding the international community.

4). We should pull out of this conflict, because when we intervene, we provide a crutch to NATO. And, this would likely be sorted out diplomatically if left alone. I think that you may be right about this. However, there is no way that this can be known. Especially in light of the blatant defiance of the ruler.

5). We could never trade with Libya. That isn't the economic model currently being implemented in developing countries. They are being encouraged to promote local economies and participate in the global economy as a nation. The hope is that disease and security matters in Africa will eventually be such that foreign companies will invest. The sad truth is that many industries are so far advanced that countries like Libya will be unable to compete.

Take that for what you will, but I don't just pull these things out of thin air. I just attended a conference over the weekend (3rd one this semester) on Bioethics and Providing Medical and Financial support to 3rd World Countries. Believe me, this situation really has to be experienced in the context of an immersion or otherwise intensive learning environment to truly be understood. It isn't just about Oil. It is about the security of the entire region. Africa is a fairly unique environment. I don't think that people truly have a good sense of why Africa is having such problems. I could give two shits what some idealistic and disrespectful old Muslim has to say about any of this. I don't think that our actions should be governed by other peoples' feelings. If that were the case, we would end up doing nothing, and that would end up killing a lot of people (even in this country).

[NFSLancerRA]

If any of that wasn't interpreted correctly, I do apologize. I am trying to get a paper done in addition to this, so my attention is divided. But, I am listening, or trying at the very least.

[Donkey Elephant]

2). We should discontinue helping other countries B , because it is bad for us. By intervening in foreign affairs, we create anti-American sentiment, and this is, in and of itself A, enough reason to withhold US military support. Again, I don't share this point of view, but you are entitled to your opinion.

A. this idea holds true more so for the Levintine/Arabian Peninsula area more than anywhere else.

and the problems between us, Wahhabists/bin Laden, and Israel, are more or less an outgrowth of the problems between Great Britian and Wahhabists and Israel.

ever since Lawrence of Arabia betrayed the Hashimites in order to secure a British victory in their southern/arabian front in WWI, and then more or less gave a green light for Eastern European Jewish settlement of Israel (or so it appeared to the Wahhabists), there have been problems of distrust between muslim arabs in the region and white anglo christians.

and its a clear fact that bin Laden specifically targets America for because of our presence in the middle east.

we have the circumstantial evidence the most islamic terrorism in the white anglo world only targets those countries with a presence in the middle east, and the factual evidence of him having admitted it in many of his videos.

B.

this was not the ONLY reason i gave. there is really a buffet of reasons you can choose from
1. we can't afford it

2. it cheapens the democracy of the foreign countries we help (where it concerns financial aid) because it can keep corrupt, undemocratic governments affloat, and unresponsive to their own people (every north african country comes to mind, LOL).

3. it can have unintended consequences

4. being in military alliances encourages weaker countries to pick fights with stronger ones because we know we are their allies (the Georgian Russian war comes to mind)

5. "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", i.e., no matter how much money or wealth we can pour into a country, it takes time for for certain ideologies to be modernized (Sharia comes to mind).

6. we are still discussing the use of wealth taken by force from tax payers. an old book comes to mind, i read it half a decade ago. it dealt with the coexistence of humans with bacteria and viruses. the medical journalist, and Ron Paul, remark about how private entities are more effective, with voluntarily used private wealth, at helping the poor and sick in Africa than the US government is

these are just 6 reasons i can think of off the top of my head. as i admitted before, i am not a scholar with a degree in international studies/foreign affairs.

3). A. A We intervene, in many circumstances, or otherwise conduct foreign operations, to gain unnecessary wealth by force in one way or another. I assume that you are referring to operations regarding oil-producing countries, because I am not entirely clear on what you were getting at with that comment about "forceful wealth" B.. I am aware of instances in which the US has sold arms and ammunition to regimes which we end up fighting later. This can be seen as a corrupt practice. We also produce a large number of military aircraft and armed ground units that are sold around the world (see: F-35). In addition, we hire mercenary-like contractors to do our dirty work overseas using practices that are often beyond the bounds of normal military allowances (both morally and politically). And, I would also like to say that the US military has a shocking number of reported incidents in which acts are committed that are extremely morally reprehensible. However, this conflict will employ none of those resources. We aren't even the only one's aiding the international community.

A. i dont believe i have ever made that claim on this forum, let alone in this thread. i acknowledge that i believe we intervene in other countries for reasons other than defense, but it is not a simplistic explanation as "oil".

1. as far as i can tell, the neoconservative right believes we are at war with some/all of islam. that is a significant reason why we intervene in other countries.

2. another reason is probably because most americans just think we should.

B. no, you misunderstood. by i was referring to our military/state department budgets and the federal aid we hand out as being the cumulative result of the federal government redistributing wealth forcefully obtained from the US TAX PAYERS.

that is why i say, if you are in favor of intervening in a conflict, feel free to volunteer your own wealth to the countries fighting in the wars (donations to Israel are tax write off, so we should go ahead and make donations to all NATO countries as tax write offs), instead of having a third party (the federal government) take other peoples wealth by force (if you dont pay your income taxes, you are arrested and put in prison).

this is basic non-aggression philosophy. don't commit violence on others unless if they have tried to commit it on to you.

4). We should pull out of this conflict, because when we intervene, we provide a crutch to NATO. And, this would likely be sorted out diplomatically if left alone. I think that you may be right about this. However, there is no way that this can be known. Especially in light of the blatant defiance of the ruler.

well, like i said before. i believe that most north africans want us to intervene on the side that's more morally just (libyans) than their dictators (libyan government).

personnally, i don't disagree with what the libyan people are doing. i hope can overthrow their government and make a less corrupt, more democratic, new one.

but taking these beliefs, there are some things to consider if we are going to discuss federal policy:
1. just because we believe at this time that our interventionism is desired, does not mean necessarily that our views are intune with the locals. we as humans, can not know all the variables about the situation, and can't be sure that the situation won't have negative unintended consequences.

therefore, since military interventionism is a serious matter, it should only be used when its our rights/freedom/liberty that hang in the balance, i.e., only the most important reasons.

2. even if we liberate the libyan people from qaddafi, we are still being hypocrites by supporting other, undemocratic governments that are being protested against in the region. and unequal application of a simple philosophy (foreign interventionism in order to protect a protesting population from dictators and despots) would make me think our federal government's/our motives are suspect, therefore making the decision to intervene in libya suspect.

5). We could never trade with Libya. That isn't the economic model currently being implemented in developing countries. They are being encouraged to promote local economies and participate in the global economy as a nation. The hope is that disease and security matters in Africa will eventually be such that foreign companies will invest. The sad truth is that many industries are so far advanced that countries like Libya will be unable to compete.

ok, but someone IS trading with libya, correct?

trade is a beautiful thing. its the nonviolent exchange of ideas, goods and services, and wealth, and you can't really have trade without some kind of basic belief in property rights, and to a lesser extend, human rights.

imo, the longer someone trades, the more inevitable it becomes that they will slowly become more democratic and human rights friendly.

Take that for what you will, 1. but I don't just pull these things out of thin air. I just attended a conference over the weekend (3rd one this semester) on Bioethics and Providing Medical and Financial support to 3rd World Countries. Believe me, this situation really has to be experienced in the context of an immersion or otherwise intensive learning environment to truly be understood. It isn't just about Oil. It is about the security of the entire region. Africa is a fairly unique environment. I don't think that people truly have a good sense of why Africa is having such problems. I could give two shits what some idealistic and disrespectful old Muslim has to say about any of this. I don't think that our actions should be governed by other peoples' feelings. If that were the case, we would end up doing nothing, and that would end up killing a lot of people (even in this country).

1. well obviously, you pulled the "donkey elephant is saying foreign interventionism is like trying to act like God" out of your ass. lol.

[NFSLancerRA]

I think in the absence of a clear outcome with or without intervention, Obama made the decision to attack Libya with sound intentions. I also do not think that the turmoil created in Iraq is the fault of the US government. We may not have understood the social climate there, but so be it.

I am still adamantly against making decisions taking into account the opinions of third party observers. Once again, they can quite frankly go to hell. I have feeling that the sentiments regarding America are due in large part to a sheer imbalance of numbers. There are many more Muslims in the Middle East AND in Europe than people in this country. I think that many of them are inclined to side with the views of religious leaders under the pretense that they are somehow divinely right. I also believe that this will continue to be true, regardless of military action. We aren't willing to kow-tow to Muslim culture or traditions. Europe isn't either. I think that a certain amount of resentment comes solely from the fact that we are experiencing a rather intense culture clash around the world.

[NFSLancerRA]

I think that we are indeed scared in the face of something that we do not understand and cannot control with lead. However, this issue is entirely separate.

[Donkey Elephant]

I think in the absence of a clear outcome with or without intervention, Obama made the decision to attack Libya with sound intentions.

albeit a hypocritical one. choosing to support the people of libya, but not behrain.

if one's as equally justifieable as the other, then we should commit to both. since we're not, we obviously have no principles we are applying, since principles are applied evenly.

we make arbitrary distinctions based on what fits the goal of the time. that should not be how we use our military.

I also do not think that the turmoil created in Iraq is the fault of the US government. We may not have understood the social climate there, but so be it.

it is certainly our fault for continuing to stay there.

I am still adamantly against making decisions taking into account the opinions of third party observers. Once again, they can quite frankly go to hell.

1. this makes no sense what so ever.

its like this: you are putting your fingers into the purple coolade of a big black guy.

you get hit by the big black guy when you piss him off, and start a fight with him and some random other black guy that has nothing to do with the fight.

then you say, well, i don't care about his opinion of me, even if his opinion of my actions is what lead to him striking me.

whether or not his opinions are morally or logically valid, does not matter. any person who WANTS TO WIN A FIGHT, CARES about the opinions of their enemy. any person who wants to avoid war, cares about the opinions of their enemy. in fact, any person that cares about meaningful, accurate communication, cares about the opinions of the people they interact with.

what matters is the consequences of his opinion. Wahhabist opinion is that we should not have a military presence in the middle east. the Wahhabist terrorist act on those opinions. the result is terrorist attacks against america.

while terrorists are morally at fault for attacking americans, you are ignorant in believing we don't have a choice in stopping it by simply leaving the middle east (i.e., stop messing with the black man's coolade, even if its to ad sugar and lemon).

1. b. like i said before, this really doesnt include libya, north africa, as much as it does the Levintine/Arabian peninsula.

2. bin Laden is NOT a third party. he is the enemy of america that started the war on terror, and its kind of important to know what his opinions, views, and beliefs are.

I have feeling that the sentiments regarding America are due in large part to a sheer imbalance of numbers. There are many more Muslims in the Middle East AND in Europe than people in this country. I think that many of them are inclined to side with the views of religious leaders under the pretense that they are somehow divinely right. I also believe that this will continue to be true, regardless of military action. We aren't willing to kow-tow to Muslim culture or traditions. Europe isn't either. I think that a certain amount of resentment comes solely from the fact that we are experiencing a rather intense culture clash around the world.

idk, muslims have been trading for thousands of years with Christians, but we start to get acts of muslim terrorism only when there's anglo-christian interventionism in the middle east?

bin Laden's stated goals are to have the US retreat from the Middle East.

Levintine and Penisula arabs all cooperated with Great Britain during WWI before they were betrayed by Britain/Palestine was colonized by Eastern European Jews.

i've talked with other arabs besides my dad, and most of the time, they all say they just don't want US involvement in the middle east/want to be left alone (this does change however. if you ask Christian Arabs, i think most of them are in favor of SOME interventionism because there are frequent bouts of anti-Christian violence in the Arab world).

see a pattern here?