News that makes you say WTF! (73 Viewers)

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
“We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians – they’re in this fight with us,” Harf said. “But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs, whether…”

“I think this just underscores this isn’t just a fight in Iraq and Syria and that isn’t just a fight about dropping bombs on terrorists. It is about how we stop the causes that lead to extremism,” Harf said. “In a place like Libya, the fact there’s no governance and no opportunities for young people it lets groups like ISIL grow there, flourish there, which is what you saw with this awful situation with these Egyptians.”


Now besides the article intentionally putting the quote ou of context to make it seem as she was just talking about jobs (while there was most probably more to come), what exactly is the problem with these statements?
Well, first off, your supposed "liberal" governments took Ghadaffi out of power in the first place, claiming he was a terrorist himself. Now these countries are in turmoil because of your "liberal love". Secondly, please address the article for what it is, giving jobs and funding to ISIS combat vets. I think deep down, you agree with that notion because you're Keynesian. Once again, I've asked this twenty times now, where do you get the funding for that?
 

Fr3sh

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2011
36,953
Of course not, but they present themselves as "Liberals" who love everyone, then destroy countries through internal conflicts and collectivism. The individual will always trump their nonsense.
The way they came in and left Libya says it all. They want it divided, confused and disorganized so they can pillage it, Ghadaffi was no saint, but Ghadaffi didn't comply. :boh:
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
Well, first off, your supposed "liberal" governments took Ghadaffi out of power in the first place, claiming he was a terrorist himself. Now these countries are in turmoil because of your "liberal love". Secondly, please address the article for what it is, giving jobs and funding to ISIS combat vets. I think deep down, you agree with that notion because you're Keynesian. Once again, I've asked this twenty times now, where do you get the funding for that?
First of all, ISIS developed primarily in Iraq and Syria and is now expanding to Lybia, the military actions against Ghadaffi and his death had relatively little to do with it compared to other issues in the neighbouring countries, in the short term. Especially as Libya was basically in a civil war by the time the air strikes took place, and even if Ghadaffi would probably have solidified his position in the long run his regime wouldn't have had the resources to additionally fight ISIS.

Secondly, there's a lot to critisize about the military involvement in Libya, and I honestly don't know enough to say whether it was the right decision, but most judgements nowadays rely heavily on the benifit of hindsight. Without the interventions, chances are that it would've panned out similar to Syria as well, not much of an improvement over the present situation. And there def Of course there's also the question of the real reasons behind the intervention (oil, commercial interests, etc.).

Thirdly, I don't see where this article talks about "giving jobs and funding to ISIS combat vets". It just says that as long as the overall economy is fucked and people, especially young people don't have any opportunities there will be a large number of people seeking refuge in militant religious philophophies and groups such as ISIS. Therefore, if the US are interested in combating ISIS in the long run, there need to be better prospects for the population there.

Also, there's no mention anywhere of Keynesian methods or the creation of jobs and improving the economic situation trough large scale government intervention. It just says "We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.” I mean if you want to say that government intervention is the only way to create jobs and build an economy, that's fine, but I don't think that's what you mean :p But in theory building an economy can just as easily mean by other economic doctrines, be it neo-liberalism, monterianism, socialism, whatever.
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
We talked about it in the WAYDRN thread a couple of days ago.

I think the conclusion was that it was actually rather likely that some parts of the story, such as the method of execution, was not all that true and perhaps just South Korean exaggeration.
 

lgorTudor

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2015
32,949
I think the conclusion was that it was actually rather likely that some parts of the story, such as the method of execution, was not all that true and perhaps just South Korean exaggeration.
Obviously. Remember the rumours that said his uncle was fed to the dogs as execution method?

However
I want to believe
I want to believe that somewhere in the world an old lady was tied to a post and shot at with a 20mm HE round

I hope the last sentence didn't describe the upcoming CL final
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 67)