|
About bloody time! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shaya007
To be honest i did in the beginning. Now I'm not sure.It's in every thread I want to read! lol
I'm getting old and grumpy |
Make you a deal...
If you can get them to stop being douche cannons, I'll stop arguing with them...
Good luck though.. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
Make you a deal...
If you can get them to stop being douche cannons, I'll stop arguing with them...
Good luck though.. |
What a .:haha: |
|
|
| The Potter |
The overriding principle that should to take precedence in carrying out any military action is whether more lives are likely to be saved than lost. Based on this, the point about Israel is redundant, as the cost in terms of lives that would be lost is completely outweighed by the virtually non-existent benefit (nowhere near the same number of lives are in immediate danger, as in Libya). Now, don't get me wrong, all other proportionate means should be used to force Israel to obey the UN resolutions, such as to cease occupation of post-1967 land, including targeted sanctions and trade embargoes of produce from the illegal settlements. To those who mention China and may ask why the UN and international community chose not to attack them after Tiananmen Square, do you really think that the benfit in terms of lives saved would have exceeded the number of deaths, especially considering the high risk of a nuclear war?
Granted, I hate the fact that oil may have been a motivating factor; however, even when you discount the role that this may have played, there is still sufficient moral legitimacy leftover. In no sense could the same have been said of Iraq. |
|
|
| exraver |
 |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Potter
The overriding principle that should to take precedence in carrying out any military action is whether more lives are likely to be saved than lost. Based on this, the point about Israel is redundant, as the cost in terms of lives that would be lost is completely outweighed by the virtually non-existent benefit (nowhere near the same number of lives are in immediate danger, as in Libya). Now, don't get me wrong, all other proportionate means should be used to force Israel to obey the UN resolutions, such as to cease occupation of post-1967 land, including targeted sanctions and trade embargoes of produce from the illegal settlements. To those who mention China and may ask why the UN and international community chose not to attack them after Tiananmen Square, do you really think that the benfit in terms of lives saved would have exceeded the number of deaths, especially considering the high risk of a nuclear war?
Granted, I hate the fact that oil may have been a motivating factor; however, even when you discount the role that this may have played, there is still sufficient moral legitimacy leftover. In no sense could the same have been said of Iraq. |
I'd agree with the loss of life analysis used for justifying some stuff like this with the UN but using Israel is a brutal example. Gaza strip has one of the highest population densities in the world and gets explosives hurled at it year after year after year without anyone ever stepping in in it's defense. The loss of life analysis gets thrown out the window on this one, it's a matter of special rules and massive exemptions being applied.
Africa is another example, seems like anytime there's a genocide or civil war going the casualties have to be 5x greater before UN does all. That's one of the many reasons UN lacks credibility is that they are extremely poor at applying their "rules" evenly across the board. |
|
|
| Shaya007 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
welcome to my world |
it sucks |
|
|
| Shaya007 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
Make you a deal...
If you can get them to stop being douche cannons, I'll stop arguing with them...
Good luck though.. |
I can't man..not my place. |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shaya007
I can't man..not my place. |
And I found out today that he's from Iran...
I feel for you like you for me about Snookie... |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
What a .:haha: |
You are what you eat...
That's why you're a dick...
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Shaya007 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
And I found out today that he's from Iran...
I feel for you like you for me about Snookie... |
bahaahahahahahaha
****** |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
I'd agree with the loss of life analysis used for justifying some stuff like this with the UN but using Israel is a brutal example. Gaza strip has one of the highest population densities in the world and gets explosives hurled at it year after year after year without anyone ever stepping in in it's defense. The loss of life analysis gets thrown out the window on this one, it's a matter of special rules and massive exemptions being applied.
Africa is another example, seems like anytime there's a genocide or civil war going the casualties have to be 5x greater before UN does all. That's one of the many reasons UN lacks credibility is that they are extremely poor at applying their "rules" evenly across the board. |
I'm not saying that Israel's action are fair, but extra-judicial missile attacks targeted at those accused of plotting to fire missiles at Israel, does not compare with what's going on Libya, and with what was about to happen in Benghazi. More people would have died by the UN taking the disproportionate action of atacking Israel. Now, should the UN have introduced a no-fly zone in Gaza and destroyed Israeli tanks before they entered Gaza during the last conflict (which was comparable to the way Gadhafi was about to attack Benghazi)? On balance, based on the principle of more lives being saved than are lost, I believe that the answer is yes.
It is precisely because the UN's reputation is tainted by previous inaction in places like Africa, that taking action in these kind of situations should help to improve its credibility (even if it does not, the motive of good PR is secondary to the primary objective of saving lives that are being lost). Crucially, according to the BBC, this is also UN action that has the support of Muslims in Arab countries, which is a demographic whose trust the UN needs to regain, after the Iraq lies. In fact, Egyptians were annoyed that action had not been taken sooner - these Muslims started to suspect that the international community wanted Gadhafi to remain in power for his oil! It is illogical to say that just because it may have failed before, the UN should not try again. I bet, pre-Rwanda, there were also people trying to make the false argument that, because the international community and the UN's integrity had been sullied by inaction against Israel, and by allowing the genocide by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, that the UN should not intervene in Rwanda. Furthermore, I bet people also said that the Tutsis and Hutus were engaged in a civil war, just like in Cambodia, so we should not appear to be taking sides. Instead, we should mind our own business.
By the way, this is a taste of what would have gone down in Benghazi:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/before-the-un-hits-back-a-city-burns-2247224.html |
|
|
| jester |
| I hope we "Canada" stick to fly overs in Libya and not dropping bombs. |
|
|
|
|
