WTF is wrong with this country?

[ck_taft325is]

Are you running for a political office? That sounds like what a politician would say.

Basically all you gave us was, "some countries should figure it out on there own, and others we should step in."

I want to know what the tipping point is between action and inaction, since on a purely philosophical level, you are OK intervening based on X in case Y, but not in case Z.

Are you running for are a major in Philosophy? I'm not going to go Plato's: The Republic on this or any other thread. There's no point in useless speculation. I'm saying when a Tyrant, as in turns his general populace into corpses to rest his feet up on, there's a problem. Saddam for instance. He should have been taken out long before he finally fell from grace. Don't get me wrong, sometimes a populace has to figure this out on their own. But, when Just, shouldn't just men stand behind them?

Not sure what you're missing here or the point your driving at. You want a defined, A-B-C ='s ???

[z31maniac]

He should have been taken out long before he finally fell from grace. Don't get me wrong, sometimes a populace has to figure this out on their own. But, when Just, shouldn't just men stand behind them?

Not sure what you're missing here or the point your driving at. You want a defined, A-B-C ='s ???

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, "We didn't get rid of Saddam fast enough, but other countries should be left to their own devices."

Even when going on a "case-by-case" basis, there still has to be some standard/limit of what causes a country to go from "they can figure it out themselves" to "we need to go in and end this."

What I was saying was the X = humanitarian concerns, but in one case you want to do somehthing about it, in other cases you want to let the countries deal with it.

So what I'm asking, how do you determine which dictators must be taken down (Iraq/Libya) and which countries do you let figure it out on their own (Burma, N. Korea, Zimbabwe)?

[mar1t1me]

You clearly cannot see the forest for the trees, so I'll try to dumb it down for you. The US helps take out foreign leaders whom they see as a potential threat (such as cutting off a resource) or have difficulty working with. They set up a new government in the country with leaders they can control and influence. This ensures continued access to resources and diplomatic relations. It's a long term investment.

Examples where this is working in a stable fashion and has shown a tangible benefit to the average American? Links and data please! We spent billions trying to take Saddam out the first time, then billions more the second try. Many more billions spent in a fruitless search for Osama Bin Laden. Please tell me there is an easier way!

Do the other countries reap the benefits as well? Sure, but the other countries are ALSO indebted to the US to some degree. Look at Canada and Britain: America went to war in Afghanistan and they were obligated to follow.

I didn't realize we invaded those countries and set up governments in them....

Don't be so naive as to think the US government does everything willy-nilly out of compassion and generosity with no strings attached.

Oh, don't be ridiculous! Nobody thinks they do because they're just nice people. They do it because they can use taxpayer money for their own ends. And it makes their buddies like Halliburton very happy always.

[Wiglaf]

Tomahawk missiles cost 500k to produce, but if you consider r&d, they are 1.4 mil. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

...

The point I am trying to make is that we have a fiscal problem in this country. Fox News, the Republican Party and mainstream "conservatives" are quick to criticize 3 million in federal spending for NPR, but won't say a damn thing about the trillion dollars a year we spend on the defense budget
....

I can't help but think of the companies I deal with, "as long as we don't replace those, that's reduced inventory!!"

[j0oftheworld]

It's all your fault CANADA!!
If that damn Justin Bieber wasn't so darn cute none of these countries would have all this youthful social uprising!!




Next problem Iran? lol

[LBJefferies]

You clearly cannot see the forest for the trees, so I'll try to dumb it down for you. The US helps take out foreign leaders whom they see as a potential threat (such as cutting off a resource) or have difficulty working with. They set up a new government in the country with leaders they can control and influence. This ensures continued access to resources and diplomatic relations. It's a long term investment.

Do the other countries reap the benefits as well? Sure, but the other countries are ALSO indebted to the US to some degree. Look at Canada and Britain: America went to war in Afghanistan and they were obligated to follow.

Don't be so naive as to think the US government does everything willy-nilly out of compassion and generosity with no strings attached.

Running up the defecit is not a very good investment strategy.

[chadthestampede]

Running up the deficit is not a very good investment strategy.

You're missing the point here. Likely on purpose.

[billybobjoseph]

Our national deficit expands at the rate of $28 billion a week. According to Reuters ( quoting Gates ) we've spent $750 million on Libya.

[mrsleeve]

^

Think its way more than that I think its closer to that for half a week. The 32b they were quibbling over in budget a few weeks ago was only 3 days of spending

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Farbin Kaiber]

Many more billions spent in a fruitful search for Osama Bin Laden. Please tell me there is an easier way!

Fixed.

[billybobjoseph]

+1 MrSleeve, "quibbling" is a great word

[Wiglaf]

yep. an absurd amount of noise over a pathetically small % of things.

[Sailor37]

I thought this was helpfull-->

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html