who is IOZ?
This guy reminds me of many of the thoughts I had before recently getting more and more jaded to the idea of military action. He writes about "cruise-missile liberalism," into which I suppose I've been slipping recently, and insists that people should be nice to each other, among other things.
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/
That said, he doesn't give me a satisfactory answer to "What do you do when peaceful Libyan protesters, walking down the street with signs, get mowed down, day after day, by automatic weapons, under the orders of the 'leader' of the country, and then some other Libyans ask for help in dealing with this horrific criminal." :/
Edit: this article mentions a few likely reasons America keeps involving itself in wars. Excerpted:
"It is as if the president has big red button on his desk, and then his aides come in and say, "There's something really nasty happening to some unfortunate people, Mr. President, but if you push that button, you can stop it. It might cost a few hundred million dollars, maybe even a few billion by the time we are done, but we can always float a bit more debt. As long as you don't send in ground troops, the public will probably go along, at least for awhile and there's no danger that anybody will retaliate against us -- at least not anytime soon -- because the bad guys (who are really nasty, by the way) are also very weak. Our vital interests aren't at stake, sir, so you don't have to do anything. But if you don't push the button lots of innocent people will die. The choice is yours, Mr. President."
It would take a very tough and resolute president -- or one with a clear set of national priorities and a deep understanding of the uncertainties of warfare -- to resist that siren song."
Sounds plausible. Unfortunate, but plausible.
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/
That said, he doesn't give me a satisfactory answer to "What do you do when peaceful Libyan protesters, walking down the street with signs, get mowed down, day after day, by automatic weapons, under the orders of the 'leader' of the country, and then some other Libyans ask for help in dealing with this horrific criminal." :/
Edit: this article mentions a few likely reasons America keeps involving itself in wars. Excerpted:
"It is as if the president has big red button on his desk, and then his aides come in and say, "There's something really nasty happening to some unfortunate people, Mr. President, but if you push that button, you can stop it. It might cost a few hundred million dollars, maybe even a few billion by the time we are done, but we can always float a bit more debt. As long as you don't send in ground troops, the public will probably go along, at least for awhile and there's no danger that anybody will retaliate against us -- at least not anytime soon -- because the bad guys (who are really nasty, by the way) are also very weak. Our vital interests aren't at stake, sir, so you don't have to do anything. But if you don't push the button lots of innocent people will die. The choice is yours, Mr. President."
It would take a very tough and resolute president -- or one with a clear set of national priorities and a deep understanding of the uncertainties of warfare -- to resist that siren song."
Sounds plausible. Unfortunate, but plausible.
Comments