Libya Superthread

Money has been relevant in EVERY thread I have posted in (haven't posted in too many). I won't apologize for my beliefs. If you don't like people arguing their political stance, get off of political forums. Otherwise, feel free to rebut when you have a real argument.

If you want to look at the issue from a purely economic standpoint, it makes sense to support the operation because oil price shocks in Europe will also impact us negatively. I suppose we'd see a bit of a jump in exports, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the trade deficit.

That said I'm not a big fan of the rebels or Gadaffi. My imperialistic desires wish it to be a pro-US regime, but common sense says to avoid the issue entirely. I think we'd have been much better off leaving France and Britain fight it out than dragging the entirety of NATO (of course that would severely limit the credibility of the anti-Gadaffi forces) into the fight.

Also, "entangling alliances" have saved our ass many a time. It's just sad to think isolationism is superior.

The operation will last much longer than the meager benefit. I think our other middle-eastern fiascos have shown that to be the case. If we want lower gas prices we need to stabilize our currency, which is our biggest problem.

For the record, Al Qaeda was supposed to be "pro-US" when we trained them. That worked out well... Imperialism is just another form of big government, my friend. As MC Frontalot says, "Democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun is terror elsewhere in the world I'm from."

If we trade openly and only assist trade partners militarily when they are under real physical (and not just economic) threat, we don't have to be part of any entangling alliance. Most of the times we needed our ass saved it was because we were acting as a force for coercion where we shouldn't have been to begin with.

We didn't train Al Qaeda. We supplied the Mujahadeen, which was an entirely different group. And they kicked ass, as it turned out. We just pulled the plug on the whole thing because we saw victory too early. There's nothing wrong with a large government, so long as it's supported by the people.

And yet all of this has enabled us to live with much higher standards of living than we otherwise would have.

I'm pretty sure US weapons that Al Qaeda is in possession of would have degraded by now, rendering them useless. I've never supported intervention in Libya, and I literally facepalmed when I heard that the UN had approved the operation. It really is none of our business, and we really should have stayed neutral.

Its about doing whats right.

However this is not right, America has stolen the rebels revolution.

Are you forgetting the operations in Libya are being mainly carried out by the UK and France the U.S. is playing a minor role.

And he's the anti-Keynes. I expect we'll be arguing quite a bit.

Sure we did. Just not under the name "Al Qaeda." The Mujahadeen and the Afghan Arabs were initially supposed to be working for us... and then they formed Al Qaeda with an anti-American agenda.

Further, large government is wrong because the majority who votes for it votes themselves more resources from those who did not. STRICT limits must be placed on the role of government or its parasitic tendencies will only endlessly escalate. There are certain rights which are simply not subject to a majority vote, and large government is a threat to those rights.

And yet all of this has enabled us to live with much higher standards of living than we otherwise would have.[/quote:volj2vvg] Our higher standards of living are in spite of, not because of, imperialistic tendencies. Our greatest growth came before we asserted hegemony and most growth since is a side effect of that early growth. All of our wars have only cost the private sector money and stunted growth. Imagine how much further along we would be had we not squandered precious resources on destruction.

Mies=Mises? Typo? If so, Mises is great, if not, I must find this man Mies. In either case, thank you for understanding!

I look forward to clashing over Keynes!

It's not the size of the Government, it's the quality. People need to stop thinking that shrinking the government will make things better. Small government = ineffective government. I want a good government, not a small one.

Even if you make an efficient, large government you wont be around forever to make sure it doesn't become beurocratic and ineffective.

By keeping the government small you don't have to worry about it being ineffective you just have to worry about it growing. Small Governemtn IS Good Government just indirectly.

I agree with che long live Communism, and all labor parties.

I disagree with you both. Small and large governments both have pros and cons and specifically entering into a single field means destruction. Balance is needed.

As a progressive I firmly bielive that government should fix all the ills of society. Poverty, inequality, ect. I can't stand those who arbatrality say (not naming names don't get defensive) to shrink the goverment because we are the goverment- you and I. I guess what I really want is a run safety net, maybe not quite socialism definitely not communism but if my ideals make me one of those in your eyes so be it I recognize your scorn and accept it.

I didn't argue for a large government. I want a good government. I'm arguing against shrinking the government as a means to somehow make it better.

Large goverment is Important the larger the goverment more influece it has on a world stage more it can protect you, and portect your equality.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#J ... fghanistan
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07272007/alqaeda.html
http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizati ... a/p9126#p3

^^^Some different sites discussing the roots of Al Qaeda^^^

No problem. Totally understandable.

It's all about the size of the government. The more power is centralized, the more vulnerable it is to corruption. You cannot establish a large central power and then trust it to exercise self restraint. You cannot trust the state to limit the power of the state. The more distant the top leadership is from the citizens, the slower and less specific the response. Large government, not small government, is ineffective.

Because that magical market is god right?