StarGateWars Forums

On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

so you advocate letting things run there course?

dude i'm scottish and have no love for the american goverment but atleast they have the balls to step in when no one else will.
the russians are near bankrupt
the EU are caught up inred tape
the UN are useless
and the chinese are to ethnicly diffrent to interfear in white mens problems

Jixxi wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Jixxi wrote:the basis might be for oil and the constant supply for it but it would still save lives and thats the most important thing

If we didn't involve ourselves at all that would save lives too.....
So you assert that long as we are profiting and saving lives in some fashion it is fine to enforce our will on other countries
To assert that killing saves lives is doublespeak.

no just no i dont believe in americas forgeign policy i'm just saying if we go ahead with this no fly zone it will save lives.
prove me wrong

Enforcing a No Fly would require a military action and deployment of troops, its also an act of war.... so yes again killing to save lives is doublespeak.

Jixxi wrote:USA/EU not getting involved would cost more lives.

that is speculation you can not prove that to be true nor can I disprove it. Although I would imagine we can speculate that if more people are invovled their is a higher risk of more lives being taken

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

Ra wrote:

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

While I don't disagree with your statement, talks here "left no options off the table" (and yes thats a dead on quote), that is even nuclear strike was a consideration. Honestly none of that matters, what matters is what is happening, and since US is taking part in attempting to police, I'd say that assestment is not far off.

Ra wrote:

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

*pokes Ra in the eye* Mere puppets. It is the West which fights this war, and the Arab nations/dictators know full well it is "Join or Die".

Lois Lane wrote:

Ra wrote:

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

*pokes Ra in the eye* Mere puppets. It is the West which fights this war, and the Arab nations/dictators know full well it is "Join or Die".

I'm curious about what's this manipulating "West" you talk about in your posts?

Iƒrit wrote:

Ra wrote:

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

While I don't disagree with your statement, talks here "left no options off the table" (and yes thats a dead on quote), that is even nuclear strike was a consideration. Honestly none of that matters, what matters is what is happening, and since US is taking part in attempting to police, I'd say that assestment is not far off.

No, but 'Mittenz is trying to paint the US as some evil empire with machinations of expansion. News flash.. they aren't the only country that likes their oil.

Lois Lane wrote:

Ra wrote:

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

*pokes Ra in the eye* Mere puppets. It is the West which fights this war, and the Arab nations/dictators know full well it is "Join or Die".

Well yea, its what usually happens when the best military in the world is involved. England and France like the idea of helping Libya, just don't have the firepower..

Ra wrote:

Lois Lane wrote:

Ra wrote:

Mittenz wrote:On the long run it would not. "Stabilizing" a foreign country with a culture that's radically different the your own is almost impossible. And the US wants to do it with rifle in hand. America isn't the universal policeman and its intentions are gradually showing with the selective invading of oil-able Middle East countries.

Again, it was England and France who led the way to intervene in Libya.

*pokes Ra in the eye* Mere puppets. It is the West which fights this war, and the Arab nations/dictators know full well it is "Join or Die".

Well yea, its what usually happens when the best military in the world is involved. England and France like the idea of helping Libya, just don't have the firepower..

Ah yes, fair point. *grin*
Although.. from what these 'military experts' say about the army/airforce/navy of Libya, I'd quote them in saying that even a minor NATO country (e.g. France, Belgium, Norway) could accomplish what the Coalition is accomplishing at the moment. What I'm saying is that it is not at all necessary for the USA to aid in this military operation; which would have been a tad easier to sell to the American people, and would send a different signal across the world.

Because 'firepower' is something the UK still has (when the budget cuts come into full effect, that might not be the case anymore), and with bases on Gibraltar, Malta and an airforce that can literally fly from England, bomb Libya, and return (which is unbelievable, but according to the British commander happened last night).. So why not let the UK take the lead on this one? Or even France? Sarkozy is *dieing* to get his hands on some prime North-African real estate.. Understandable, of course. Who wouldn't want an amazing country as Libya in their possession?


Anyway.. those Monarchist terrorists will not instate a democracy in Libya, at all. They'll just replace Qaddafi with one of their own.


Also; Mittenz, make your replies more clear; your quote - reply mechanic is vague.

Juliette wrote:Although.. from what these 'military experts' say about the army/airforce/navy of Libya, I'd quote them in saying that even a minor NATO country (e.g. France, Belgium, Norway) could accomplish what the Coalition is accomplishing at the moment.

I wouldn't really consider a permanent member of the security council who has the fourth largest military expenditure, and also fourth nuclear power in the world a minor country. Maybe minor in the sense of "NATO pride/involvement in NATO affairs", but that's about it...

Or even France? Sarkozy is *dieing* to get his hands on some prime North-African real estate.. Understandable, of course. Who wouldn't want an amazing country as Libya in their possession?

"Possessions" cause more troubles and costs more than they offer...so I would say no. (if Iraq was to be considered an US possession, for example to illustrate what I just said)

havent read all the comments but im disgusted in some of you, gadaffi is a monster and a no fly zone and bombing of his advanced weponry is the least the west can do for the poor opressed people of libiya,

Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:havent read all the comments but im disgusted in some of you, gadaffi is a monster and a no fly zone and bombing of his advanced weponry is the least the west can do for the poor opressed people of libiya,

Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:havent read all the comments but im disgusted in some of you, gadaffi is a monster and a no fly zone and bombing of his advanced weponry is the least the west can do for the poor opressed people of libiya,

so you assert its okay to run around telling the world how to run their own affairs while **Filtered** in your own back yard? Seems rather hypocrictal to say the least....

Iƒrit wrote:

Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:havent read all the comments but im disgusted in some of you, gadaffi is a monster and a no fly zone and bombing of his advanced weponry is the least the west can do for the poor opressed people of libiya,

so you assert its okay to run around telling the world how to run their own affairs while **Filtered** in your own back yard? Seems rather hypocrictal to say the least....

i dont belive its ok that just because gadafi has planes guns and tanksand forun mercenrys he should be aloud to blow up schools hospitals and homes because the peole of libiay held protests of which if you remember back to the start were peace ful

Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:havent read all the comments but im disgusted in some of you, gadaffi is a monster and a no fly zone and bombing of his advanced weponry is the least the west can do for the poor opressed people of libiya,

so you assert its okay to run around telling the world how to run their own affairs while **Filtered** in your own back yard? Seems rather hypocrictal to say the least....

i dont belive its ok that just because gadafi has planes guns and tanksand forun mercenrys he should be aloud to blow up schools hospitals and homes because the peole of libiay held protests of which if you remember back to the start were peace ful

so you would rather their leader/government spy on citizens, illegally seize property of citizens, waterboard them, and molest them at airports? doesn't sound as terrifing but still hypocrital...