Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
ace, is it more humanitarian to do nothing while people are slaughtered?
|
It depends.
If doing "something" is worse than doing nothing, doing nothing is preferable isn't it?
If doing "something" makes no difference, it is not more humanitarian, is it?
If doing "something" is done for purely selfish reasons, it may actually save lives, but I would argue that it was not for humanitarian reasons , don't you agree this argument could be reasonable?.
Quote:
|
You aren't talking about whether something is humanitarian or not; you are talking in degrees.
|
I disagree. I would answer my questions in a clear, yes or no manner. I would know what my intent was. what I have been stating from the very beginning of this is that I don't know what our intent in Libya is, it has never been made clear to me. I can not definitively support or not support our actions until I get more clarification. I would not handle this the way Obama is handling it, that is certain.
Quote:
|
But I imagine you are a proponent of total war and unconditional defeat over more balanced measures. You'd rather have seen boots on the ground. You'd rather have seen another Afghanistan.
|
I believe we have the capacity (including NATO), and enough world support to go in and end this conflict. We have chosen a route that appears to be very indirect and I am not sure it is the best or most efficient way. Again, I have questions, perhaps Obama is 100% correct and has a very thorough plan, I don't know. he has made a choice not to answer questions and to be vague. I do understand that there are reasons that a leader may take this course of action.
Quote:
|
I don't think that's a one-size-fits-all solution. Correct me if any of this is off the mark.
|
It is not.