SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I can't believe that anyone thinks this is a good idea, or that there is any chance that this will happen. I think its a great idea that has no chance of implementation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't want money, I'd rather get a few oil fields. This........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 VS somebody living in a underwater house with maxed out credit cards driving a repo ready car....and delinquent student loans:evilg:looks can be decieving Touche! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 I think its a great idea that has no chance of implementation Yeah, would be great, but I really don't see it realistically happening either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 They just interviewed these people. They all agree that it makes perfect sense that they should send their tiny bit of money to the USA rather than use it to rebuild their bombed out country. They also agreed that this would not lead to increased anger against America, greater radicalization of the Middle East, or new impulses toward terrorism. They also asked if we could please open a new Abu Gihrab detention center in their town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 They just interviewed these people. They all agree that it makes perfect sense that they should send their tiny bit of money to the USA rather than use it to rebuild their bombed out country. They also agreed that this would not lead to increased anger against America, greater radicalization of the Middle East, or new impulses toward terrorism. They also asked if we could please open a new Abu Gihrab detention center in their town. Maybe those things should have been considered before we stuck our noses in and spent our treasure on "saving" them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Maybe those things should have been considered before we stuck our noses in and spent our treasure on "saving" them? by us or by them? I don't think expenses were part of any bargain. Kind of unfair to charge people money without actually telling them about it before hand. Even if you feel it is fair. I think getting rid of Gaddafi was worth $1billion anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 by us or by them? I don't think expenses were part of any bargain. Kind of unfair to charge people money without actually telling them about it before hand. Even if you feel it is fair. I think getting rid of Gaddafi was worth $1billion anyway I said WE should have considered the ramifications. As stated earlier, We simply could take the Billion from the frozen assets, it doesnt have to come from the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I said WE should have considered the ramifications. As stated earlier, We simply could take the Billion from the frozen assets, it doesnt have to come from the people. frozen assets belong to Libya, thus the people interesting to see Free Marketeers ignore basic principles of bargaining. You can't just go around doing services for people and act like it's a good will gesture (and we did) and then charge them afterwards while never mentioning cost. That's BS. It seems like you're arguing we should have mentioned this going in, and come up w/ a deal w/ the Rebels. Maybe. But all that is besides the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Maybe those things should have been considered before we stuck our noses in and spent our treasure on "saving" them? Maybe they should have. We didn't have to go in, you know. And that is not really what this discussion is about, is it? What this discussion is about is some people seeming to think that the US can pretty much impose any after the fact "deal" on a weaker country, and pretending that there will be no diplomatic consequences from doing so (or just not caring). This is a really stupid idea with great populist emotional appeal. Did the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street people come up with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 frozen assets belong to Libya, thus the people semantics, thjose folks in Predicto's pic never saw nor will see that money, those assets were from the nations power players, not the common man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 But I thought it was simply humanitarian? I'm talking profits they already would have had, and might have increased if they sided with Gaddafi or did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I said WE should have considered the ramifications. As stated earlier, We simply could take the Billion from the frozen assets, it doesnt have to come from the people. That is from the people. Seriously, can you imagine how bad this would look? Sorry people of Misrata, you can't have a water sanitation plant. The USA took the money to pay for the bomb that blew up your uncle's house. Drink mud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Maybe they should have. We didn't have to go in, you know.And that is not really what this discussion is about, is it? What this discussion is about is some people seeming to think that the US can pretty much impose any after the fact "deal" on a weaker country, and pretending that there will be no diplomatic consequences from doing so (or just not caring). This is a really stupid idea with great populist emotional appeal. Did the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street people come up with it? I'd be Ok if it was treated like I mentioned for Iraq, if the people actually "needed" our help (and Im not convinced they did in this instance) I'd be more comfortable with them not paying for the invasion, but they should certainly pay for our continued presence in their country as security if they ask for it. I dont feel any differently about any other nation either. Germany, Japan, SA, etc. Pay up if we have to spend our tax dollars to protect you when you could easily do it yourself our of your own darned taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 semantics, thjose folks in Predicto's pic never saw nor will see that money, those assets were from the nations power players, not the common man. And the US has even less legitimate interest in that money, except for the fact that SnyderShrugged wants us to swipe it, and we are strong enough to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 semantics, thjose folks in Predicto's pic never saw nor will see that money, those assets were from the nations power players, not the common man. Whatever, you're the one playing semantics and acting like Libya's frozen assets are not Libya's because they are frozen. This is nonsense and only makes sense if the Libyan State never spent a dime on public services/goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The definition of being nice is doing something out the kindness of your heart without expecting anything in return. We said we jumped in because we felt it was the right thing to do. Even if the main reason was helping to stabilize gas prices ($3 a gallon came back after this revolution started), we can't start telling countries that we'll help you overthrow your dictator if you promise to pay us back. If we loaned them money, that's one thing. Like was stated earlier we basically just spent $1 billion to help bring democracy to one of strongest suppliers of foreign oil. Seems like a worthwhile investment to me. What we should be talking about is helping them invest that $33 billion so they don't remain a 3rd world country constantly looking for someone to help them. They have money and oil, they need the infrastructure so that they can help themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you help a person catch a mugger who took their wallet, do you first take money out of the wallet before giving it back to them? I swear, some people in this thread sound like the mafia demanding protection money. And it would be nice if gave the Libyans at least a few hours to celebrate, before discussing how to best take away their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 Again, as I stated earlier, I was asking this question based off CNN's Wolf Blitzer asking Sen.McCain the same question based off the light rumors that were going around on Capitol hill about reimbursement for war costs since we had their frozen funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you help a person catch a mugger who took their wallet, do you first take money out of the wallet before giving it back to them?I swear, some people in this thread sound like the mafia demanding protection money. What if that person then wants you to move in with them, spend your families money on their food/shelter/amenities etc, and ask you to make sure they never get mugged again? All while having 5 brothers who could do the protection themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 What if that person then wants you to move in with them, spend your families money on their food/shelter/amenities etc, and ask you to make sure they never get mugged again?All while having 5 brothers who could do the protection themselves? So what if the situation was entirely different than the one we are talking about? Who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 World Police vs Protection Racket you say tomatoe,I say tomato....somebody has to pay the taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 So what if the situation was entirely different than the one we are talking about? Who cares. I'm saying, I would concede on repayment but if we have troops stay, then they should pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Like a good neighbor ,State Farm is there.....unless someone doesn't pay the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm saying, I would concede on repayment but if we have troops stay, then they should pay. I could certainly see situations where countries could agree to pay us for the protection of our troops. We can't impose those deals unilaterally, and after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.