Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: wmenorr67 on October 28, 2011, 01:57:42 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/27/injured-libyan-fighters-to-receive-us-medical-care/?test=latestnews
Really, WTF over. We have a hard enough time giving our wounded service members proper treatment and we are going to do this for who. And who in the hell is going to pay for this BS.
The U.S. Department of State said Thursday that 30 seriously wounded Libyan fighters will receive U.S. medical care since they cannot be successfully treated in their home country.
I know it says later in the article that the Libyan "government" is willing to reimburse the cost. Really, what if the "government" isn't the "government" in a couple of weeks.
-
Compared to the cost of the Tomahawk missiles that were launched this is likely a pittance.
-
Compared to the cost of the Tomahawk missiles that were launched this is likely a pittance.
Cost's don't matter. These rebels freedom fighters are not our problem.
-
Cost's don't matter. These rebels freedom fighters are not our problem.
This. Plus as I stated in the OP. How can a government say they are going to reimburse for the cost when that government might not be in power next week?
-
Cost's don't matter. These rebels freedom fighters are not our problem.
I don't see the issue. These people fought on the same side as Western powers did in a war. Helping them seems the decent thing to do.
Sort of how Israel gave SLA fighters asylum after we lost the First Lebanese War.
-
Wait, you guys fought the Lesbians?
-
Well from my experience, first we have U.S. Service Members; active, discharged and/or retired that have to fight tooth and nail to get the medical treatment they "earned" and were promised when they stepped forward and signed their name on the line. We need to take care of them first. Then if there is time and room take care of an ally.
Second I know of at the time 4-5 year old Iraqi child who was at risk to lose his eyesight from an accident and his father was an interpertor for us. Had been from day one and in the beginning was one of the first ones through a door, unarmed. The U.S. government said that they couldn't help the child since it wasn't from U.S. involvement. The father came real close to throwing away any chance of U.S. citizenship to save his son's eyesight. He put his faith in God and thankfully his son didn't lose all the sight. And he now is living in the U.S. with his family. There was a specialist in Iraq at the time who could've fixed the eye.
So yeah I am a little bitter and really don't believe it is our duty to fix these people. Especially by bringing them to the U.S. Hell it would be cheaper to send a medical team to them to fix them.
-
We don't even know if the new government will be a friend or foe.
-
We don't even know if the new government will be a friend or foe.
The new government =/= necessarily these people. By choosing to side with them in this fight America has already declared itself their friend. There were both Islamic (even AQ-friendly) and liberal factions among the rebels. I don't see why an individual who fought against Quaddhafi and may not necessarily be an AQ member should not be given medical aid. It's not like they're being given luxury homes and welfare payments.
-
Ok so we will send them to Israel and they can deal with it.
-
The new government =/= necessarily these people. By choosing to side with them in this fight America has already declared itself their friend. There were both Islamic (even AQ-friendly) and liberal factions among the rebels. I don't see why an individual who fought against Quaddhafi and may not necessarily be an AQ member should not be given medical aid. It's not like they're being given luxury homes and welfare payments.
Then you pay for it. You're closer anyway.
They asked for help (bombs) and got it because some NATO countries saw a chance for cheaper oil. Now they're asking for more help. What benifit for us does this hold? We did what they asked for in their little revolution. Let them pick up the pieces.
We don't even know if the new government will be a friend or foe.
Some of us have a pretty strong suspicion which they will end up being.
-
They are on record saying Sharia Law is going to rule.
-
They are on record saying Sharia Law is going to rule.
1. Libyans =/= National Council or whatever it's called this week. There are multiple groups of people and we don't know which one these specific injured rebels belong to.
This council is about as representative of individual Libyan as the opinion of Justice Ginsburg is of you.
2. Sharia law, as we explained multiple times on this forum, can mean a variety of things.
-
1. Libyans =/= National Council or whatever it's called this week. There are multiple groups of people and we don't know which one these specific injured rebels belong to.
I don't give a rat's ass which group they belong to. There are other people, U.S. Service Members first and foremost, that deserve and have earned to be treated first. When they can do that right then I would think about bring in others. But there is a long way to go before they get it right on treating U.S. Service Members.
-
For some time the prevailing policy has been Invade the World, Invite the World. Don't worry about the medical care, worry about the thousands who will sure as heck be invited here to become part of the American melting pot.
-
I can understand trying to help them out and making friends. I would expect we would treat and assist in Libya and maybe only a few really severe cases come to the US.
The severity of the injuries were unclear, but 24 wounded fighters will receive treatment at Spaulding Hospital in Boston, Mass., and six others will be treated in Germany. All of the injuries occurred during recent fighting.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/27/injured-libyan-fighters-to-receive-us-medical-care/?test=latestnews#ixzz1c6aFUAT2
Judging by the article, it looks like we are doing that and it really isn't all that big a deal. We are going to help 30 severe cases. Small effort might gain some good will at a chaotic time.
-
Wait, you guys fought the Lesbians?
Well, they were butch.
As for the OP, if we want to provide them medical care....aw hell, I can't even fake it. Why are we throwing $$$ at Libya again?
-
Wow - we just bombed their country, and have backed a council that has a proven track record of murder and Islamic radicalism, and now treating a few of the wounded is an outrage?
This is the least we can do to ameliorate the suffering our policies will help to create.
-
This is the least we can do to ameliorate the suffering our policies will help to create.
Well, that's the problem at the root, isn't it? Our "leaders" are addicted to a policy cycle of inflicting suffering, then "healing" it by making yet other people suffer. The cycle needs to be broken, but the people we now have in power are incapable of doing it.
-
Wow - we just bombed their country, and have backed a council that has a proven track record of murder and Islamic radicalism, and now treating a few of the wounded is an outrage?
This is the least we can do to ameliorate the suffering our policies will help to create.
And Colonel Gadhafi was a saint, who had nothing to do with the evil that befell all those Libyans for the past decades ...... [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]:facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Wow - we just bombed their country, and have backed a council that has a proven track record of murder and Islamic radicalism, and now treating a few of the wounded is an outrage?
This is the least we can do to ameliorate the suffering our policies will help to create.
And Colonel Gadhafi was a saint, who had nothing to do with the evil that befell all those Libyans for the past decades ...... [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]:facepalm: :facepalm:
Where is it written that we had to get involved in Libya in the first place? Hell Obama at first didn't want to get involved. But what I find really funny is that the same people who backed Obama in the bombing of Gadhafi and his troops, because he was an evil dictator, are the same ones who were all over Bush for the same to Sadam, who was more evil. Why haven't we supported any other groups wanting to overthrow governments in the Middle East, such as in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, etc... Oh, I know why, those leaders are our "friends." We were under no obligation to help out in Libya other than Obama got pressured into it from NATO and his own party. Man has no cajones.
-
Friendship in politics? Just one more sentimental delusion perpetrated by those who know better and who really run things.
What we know right now is that North Africa, with our help, is becoming subject to Shari'a law. Either that wasn't our plan and we were foolish or it was the plan and we really ought to be asking the right people a hard WHY.
-
Where is it written that we had to get involved in Libya in the first place? Hell Obama at first didn't want to get involved. But what I find really funny is that the same people who backed Obama in the bombing of Gadhafi and his troops, because he was an evil dictator, are the same ones who were all over Bush for the same to Sadam, who was more evil. Why haven't we supported any other groups wanting to overthrow governments in the Middle East, such as in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, etc... Oh, I know why, those leaders are our "friends." We were under no obligation to help out in Libya other than Obama got pressured into it from NATO and his own party. Man has no cajones.
Considering we spent the last 10 years trying to get as much help from our Allies in Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to figure this was a little payback.
-
Friendship in politics? Just one more sentimental delusion perpetrated by those who know better and who really run things.
So there's no actual problem with "betraying" thugs like Quaddhafi? Good to know!
-
Wait, you guys fought the Lesbians?
They were stealin' all the chicks!
-
Nearly two dozen former Libyan rebel fighters were carried in stretchers or limped and hobbled out of a U.S. Air Force medical evacuation jet in Massachusetts on Saturday at the end of a 13-hour flight for treatment of wounds sustained in the war that ousted slain longtime leader Muammar Qaddafi.
The envoy of Libya's National Transitional Council said the 22 fighters are the first of an estimated 200 combatants who will be flown to the United States for treatment. But Mark Ward, senior adviser on Arab transitions for the U.S. Department of State, later said several European nations have offered to treat some fighters, and the number of those who could come to this country has not been determined.
The fighters were brought to the country following a request to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her trip to the Libyan capital of Tripoli last week
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/29/more-than-20-libyan-war-wounded-flown-to-us/#ixzz1cFjHE2Ne
And are just who in the hell is paying for the use of military aircraft?
-
I don't see the issue. These people fought on the same side as Western powers did in a war.
Uh . . . are we actually going to check to see which side the wounded were fighting on?
-
So there's no actual problem with "betraying" thugs like Quaddhafi? Good to know!
The problem is that one day he's a "friend" the next day he's an "enemy." Betrayal is the mother's milk of politics. And you know this. Qaddafi was useful--until he wasn't. So was Saddam. So was...make your own list.