Tunisia (1 Viewer)

[AnthonyGerrard]

Should the world be helping them build their security at their borders rather than let it lose its 6.1 million tourist industry worth 15% of its GDP.

We risk losing another country as a no go area to ISIS.

Surely we should be trying to prevent this.

The bravery of the ordinary Tunisia's two weeks ago deserves our - the worlds help if they want it?

 

[Bladerunner]

Should the world be helping them build their security at their borders rather than let it lose its 6.1 million tourist industry worth 15% of its GDP.

We risk losing another country as a no go area to ISIS.

Surely we should be trying to prevent this.

The bravery of the ordinary Tunisia's two weeks ago deserves our - the worlds help if they want it?

Sorry Anthony,,,,,it is a liberal thingy,,,,,you saw it just before WWI and WWII.... Now that WWIII is approaching,,,,guess what,,, Liberalism (Isolationism) is here to stay, at least for a while.

The answer is NO they will not help any more that our moronic president wants to stop Iran from getting a nuke.

 

[Vassago]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

If you mean Liberalism, well it means anything Blade wants it to, a Liberal is somebody that Blade disagrees with.

Brian

 

[ColinEssex]

I wouldn't think many Americans on this forum have any idea where Tunisia is. A survey a few years ago showed that around 40% had no idea where New York is. (The results are online)

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Sorry Anthony,,,,,it is a liberal thingy,,,,,you saw it just before WWI and WWII.... Now that WWIII is approaching,,,,guess what,,, Liberalism (Isolationism) is here to stay, at least for a while.

The answer is NO they will not help any more that our moronic president wants to stop Iran from getting a nuke.

Your posts are difficult for non Americans to understand as you mention "liberal" in almost every one.

Anyway, are you saying that Iran should have the nuclear devices? Are nuclear weapons good then?

Col

 

[Vassago]

Your posts are difficult for non Americans to understand as you mention "liberal" in almost every one.

Anyway, are you saying that Iran should have the nuclear devices? Are nuclear weapons good then?

Col

I think he's saying that our President doesn't want to stop Iran from obtaining a nuke. I'm as confused as you. Surely Iran has as many nukes as Iraq did when we invaded. Our president definitely convinced so many it was so.

"Liberal" is what certain people in the US seem to call anyone who disagrees with them, as Brian said. I don't really understand it, but it seems to be their way of admitting defeat as that word usually gets thrown out as an insult without any actual debating presented.

 

[Rx_]

The term Liberal is an old US artifact that has little meaning today.
At one time, they were a group very anti-paper money. At other times they were other things.
In universities it use to mean a study of general philosophy, language, art and such. Today, it means that one should mirror the exact thought of the professor's dogma.

I would say that American's are good at butchering the language, but in our shrink wrapped life-style most citizens have never actually encountered an actual butcher so even that term is useless.

I would never assume to know what our President (past, present, or future) wants.
That is because I don't personally know the wealthy interest who pull the strings and it is difficult to honestly give them credit for anything as that resembles reason.
Wasn't it Orwel who said "War is the health of the State"? So, depending on the point of view, even atomic bombs might be good for the health.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Your posts are difficult for non Americans to understand as you mention "liberal" in almost every one.

Anyway, are you saying that Iran should have the nuclear devices? Are nuclear weapons good then?

Col

Trust me when I say that his posts are difficult for Americans to understand, too.

Also, when I work my way through them, I imagine them being said by William Shatner, complete with awkward pauses and bizarre inflection. Makes the reading more entertaining that way.

 

[Bladerunner]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, I know what it means, "anything goes" , but I don't really care anymore. I have argued all I am going to. Have a good year!

 

[Rx_]

Well, I am going to take your advice and treat this day as if it was my last.
Doh! its 11:57 PM!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There is an old phrase which I will paraphrase: All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

The problem with ISIS/ISIL in Tunisia is that they are in a repressive society where not everyone has guns - but ISIS does. They can take over an area more easily in many of those countries because nobody can shoot back. (A side effect of a dictatorial government that enacts gun control.) But that lesson will probably fall deafly on the ears of modern USA Liberal thinkers.

To those who wonder what "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean in posts from the USA, as noted earlier in this thread...

Liberal tends to be "big government" types where they liberally spend other people's money because they think that the common man doesn't know how to spend his own money. They tend to be types who want to bring the "huddled masses" of people to their side due to the benefits they hand out. That is, they bribe the poor folks with the money they steal... excuse me, TAX from the rich man. Though not necessarily true for all Liberal types, their general mind-set is that people need the government to tell them how to think and WHAT to think. Liberals also tend to want to slap people on the wrist when they do wrong. They don't do more because they know that society is to blame for its own ills.

Conservative tends to be "small-to-moderate government" types where they spend other people's money to benefit businesses because [IRONY] as everyone knows, [/IRONY] it is business that drives the economy. The conservatives want to help the "business barons" by spending the money they steal... excuse me, TAX from the middle class. Not that all Conservatives are like this, but many of them tend to be strongly religious. They think that the churches should tell everyone how to think because obviously the sadly down-trodden masses can't think for themselves. Conservatives won't slap someone on the wrist for wrong-doing; they reserve that punishment for corporations. Individuals get tossed in jail because modern law won't allow application of the old "an eye for an eye" principle any more. It is the law-and-order types among the Conservatives who support the death penalty most strongly.

There is a vanishingly small group called Libertarian which tends to be the "small government" type where they try hard to not spend any more money than minimally needed, on the theory that the person who makes the money should be the one to make decisions about how to spend it. However, the Liberals and Conservatives tend to think that Libertarians are whack-jobs for having such radical ideas as the people being able to think for themselves. The Libertarians believe that the punishment should fit the crime and also think that the USA government wasn't founded on Christian ideals.

There, that should help our friends from across the sea to understand the modern labels used by USA political parties.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Be careful, Doc, your political inclinations are showing.

Believe me, I could lay the smackdown on the Libertarian beliefs just as harshly as you did with Conservative and Liberal, as you glossed over some of the more ridiculous beliefs of Libertarians while at the same time presenting caricatures of Liberal and Conservative stances.

If you're going to try to explain to non-Americans about American political ideology, it would be better to not give slanted descriptions of all three of the groups you discussed.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

There is an old phrase which I will paraphrase: All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

The problem with ISIS/ISIL in Tunisia is that they are in a repressive society where not everyone has guns - but ISIS does. They can take over an area more easily in many of those countries because nobody can shoot back. (A side effect of a dictatorial government that enacts gun control.) But that lesson will probably fall deafly on the ears of modern USA Liberal thinkers.

To those who wonder what "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean in posts from the USA, as noted earlier in this thread...

Liberal tends to be "big government" types where they liberally spend other people's money because they think that the common man doesn't know how to spend his own money. They tend to be types who want to bring the "huddled masses" of people to their side due to the benefits they hand out. That is, they bribe the poor folks with the money they steal... excuse me, TAX from the rich man. Though not necessarily true for all Liberal types, their general mind-set is that people need the government to tell them how to think and WHAT to think. Liberals also tend to want to slap people on the wrist when they do wrong. They don't do more because they know that society is to blame for its own ills.

Conservative tends to be "small-to-moderate government" types where they spend other people's money to benefit businesses because [IRONY] as everyone knows, [/IRONY] it is business that drives the economy. The conservatives want to help the "business barons" by spending the money they steal... excuse me, TAX from the middle class. Not that all Conservatives are like this, but many of them tend to be strongly religious. They think that the churches should tell everyone how to think because obviously the sadly down-trodden masses can't think for themselves. Conservatives won't slap someone on the wrist for wrong-doing; they reserve that punishment for corporations. Individuals get tossed in jail because modern law won't allow application of the old "an eye for an eye" principle any more. It is the law-and-order types among the Conservatives who support the death penalty most strongly.

There is a vanishingly small group called Libertarian which tends to be the "small government" type where they try hard to not spend any more money than minimally needed, on the theory that the person who makes the money should be the one to make decisions about how to spend it. However, the Liberals and Conservatives tend to think that Libertarians are whack-jobs for having such radical ideas as the people being able to think for themselves. The Libertarians believe that the punishment should fit the crime and also think that the USA government wasn't founded on Christian ideals.

There, that should help our friends from across the sea to understand the modern labels used by USA political parties.

You give me the impression you know just about nothing of Tunisia! The problems the gun laws - ffs. Moronic! Its not like ISIS is in control of the place - or any such think like it - but they are a real terrorist threat (like they are everywhere), in large part from across the borders.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothingslosh,

We must remember that there are actually many flavors of each political denomination. I tried to make it clear (and obviously didn't do so well at it) that I was glossing over and generalizing political positions. Then again, when I watch BBCUSA channel to see sessions of the UK Parliament, I see quite a few positions could map easily with at least parts of my definitions.

Truth be known, I envy the UK Parliament for having enough parties that it is NECESSARY to form coalitions in order to get things done. When the USA gets lopsided (as it did during Obama's first turn), that actually isn't good for the country. In the UK, they have Parliament - in the USA, we have pure lament.

I tend to be slanted against liberals and conservatives because each one wants to spend my money. A non-anarchy Libertarian is less likely to do that. I don't claim to align with the full-blown anarchic Libertarians.

Anthony, if I misunderstood the news pieces I saw on TV, I apologize - but at least I didn't see them on Faux News. That automatically made the articles more credible, so maybe I read too much into them. As to gun laws, I guarantee you that if ISIS tried to attack here in person and started a shooting campaign, the hunters and gun nuts around the USA would hold target practice and put an end to that foolishness immediately.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Basically, Doc, your description pretty much painted Liberals and Conservatives as raving lunatics with no saving graces, and your description of Libertarians as the only group with even remotely intelligent and/or sane ideas. The Only Sane Man, as it were. It wasn't as biased as Bladerunner's descriptions of liberals vs conservatives, but it wasn't THAT far off from it, either.

Take it from a middle-of-the-left Liberal who comes from an EXTREMELY conservative background who makes a point of reading Libertarian sites like Popehat and Reason: The truth is pretty much nowhere near any of the above. Liberals, overall, are not trying to bribe the poor, nor are they trying to steal from the rich. The vast majority of conservatives, overall, aren't actually trying to steal from the middle class and feed everything to the rich. And frankly, Libertarians buy too much into the magic of the market and the belief that everything will work out just fine if there were no pesky rules restricting the free market.

Now the 'leaders' in each group? That might be a different story.

A quick description, in my mind, would be that liberals are about progress and improving the human condition, conservatives are defined by their opposition to that (some because they fear change, others because they feel that certain changes are just wrong), and libertarians are primarily about individual rights superseding all other rights. I've seen valid arguments from all three groups, and I've seen complete lunatics from all three groups - remind me sometime to relay to you some of the arguments a libertarian anarcho-capitalist I know throws out there all the time.

As to the whole Parliament thing? I'm with you 100%. I *REALLY* wish we had something similar, just so that the different sides would start compromising again.

 

[Vassago]

We have other parties, but the rules on debates that were created by the two major political parties and the legalization of special interest groups that contribute to campaigns for the major political parties, most of which contribute to both and definitely not without reason, make it a lot harder for them to reach out to their audience. Ross Perot could because he had money and could afford the advertising space. Look at how much they SPEND! It's unreal that we allow politicians to spend BILLIONS getting elected. What GOOD could that money be used for? I just don't even understand.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Frothingslosh,



Anthony, if I misunderstood the news pieces I saw on TV, I apologize - but at least I didn't see them on Faux News. That automatically made the articles more credible, so maybe I read too much into them. As to gun laws, I guarantee you that if ISIS tried to attack here in person and started a shooting campaign, the hunters and gun nuts around the USA would hold target practice and put an end to that foolishness immediately.

Until a few months ago Tunisia had no particular threat that we don't all share. Then the museum attack - but still no advice for 6 million tourists not to visit. Then a few weeks ago the beach attack - and all of a sudden 15% of their GDP is pulled from under them.

Now they have deployed thousands of armed police/ troops to the tourist areas, (I don't think its the lack of guns on the side of the good that's the problem - rather the relative ease of guns from the bad side to fall into terrorist hands within Tunisia itself) , this isn't seen as good enough, they have decided to build a border wall in it most vunerable areas.

For what was a haven a few weeks ago - to be a no go area no - cant be acceptable for those opposing ISIS - yet we seem to have left Tunisia with a hole in its economy and no help fixing it.

It would be an awful lot more cost effective to help with their border security (and that may mean guns yes) , than to see it struggle and maybe slowly turn as a dangerous place as Libya next door and then require military intervention.

Making sure Tunisia is a successful Muslim country would seem to me to be a priority. The bravery and selflessness and goodness of the Tunisia's deserving help aside - it makes strategic sense selfishly for the rest of the world.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I'm afraid Tunisia would require larger oil reserves before our current Congress would ever even think about getting involved.

They may talk about ISIS, gun scares, and 'Christian rights' all the time, but they'd only ever act if it became profitable enough.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yup it's all about oil.

American Revolution
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Civil War (1861–1865)
Indian Wars (colonial era to 1890)
Spanish American War (1898)
World War I (1914–1918)
World War II (1939–1945)
Korean War (1950–1953)
Bay of Pigs (1961)
Vietnam War (1961–1973)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Lebanon (1982–1984)
Grenada (1983)
Panama (1989)
Gulf War (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Global War on Terror (2001– )
Afghanistan (2001–2014)
Iraq War (2003–2010
War Against the Islamic State (ISIS) (2014—)