Unbelievable

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[chefarzt]

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-18
Asshole declares cease fire and keeps on slaughtering the population. Un and Nato are still talking this out.
WTF IS WRONG!!!!!!
http://feb17.info/

[panzerman]

too much politics and hippies. they will talk for years the country will get worse we will finally go and help and say where here to save you but by that time half the population will be dead :S

[Spartan_Marine88]

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-18
Asshole declares cease fire and keeps on slaughtering the population. Un and Nato are still talking this out.
WTF IS WRONG!!!!!!
http://feb17.info/

I believe that its called a tyrant teaching a 'lesson'

too much politics and hippies. they will talk for years the country will get worse we will finally go and help and say where here to save you but by that time half the population will be dead :S

It has more to do with Saudi Arabia exerting thier considerable influence to keep us out.

[chefarzt]

Its just fuckin insane. I know theres more places in the world that need help. But thats just the perfect example of corruption in the world leadership. The more i think of it the angrier i get. These fuckers are just afraid they dont their money back what they lent ghadaffi. Line em all up on a wall, every fucking leader of our western (civilized) countries and i swear ill execute them personally. Thats no damn civilisation, its a fuckin asylum. People
playing with human lifes dont deserve to live.

[3rdCondor]

Anyone in the military knows just how much that leader is about to be fucked. IF FRANCE IS WILLING TO BOMB YOU....

you're fucked

[ErwinNH]

France is going through some pretty serious challenges right now. Sarkozy is in danger of not being re-elected, and the far-right nationalist front party is gaining immense support numbers in comparison to where they were in past years. Likely voter polls recently showed that Marine Le Pen, the party's leader, would beat out Sarkozy and the other guy. Not that that means it will really happen, but the idea of it even being possible is a new thing for France. Europe is beginning to feel the pinch of multiculturalism without assimilation. There will be some authoritarian backlash. We may see France becoming a lot less 1941ish and a lot more 1801ish.

The whole thing about knocking France is good for jokes, but its mostly just false. France hasn't been a weak country for centuries. They lost in 41 due to some uber good luck and skill on the part of their neighbors, and not even all of France was taken. They held off in 1914-18 and they nearly conquered Europe in 1801-1812. I wouldn't call them weak, for some reason it become the fashion in the states to do so.

As for Qaddafi, I don't pretend to understand all the elements at play in the intervention decision making process. But I do see a history of involvement with 3rd world countries around the globe by great powers that turned out very badly: it's about time we tread more carefully around the world. That being said I have a special affinity for revolutionaries, especially ones that proclaim self-government. I think its foolish to try to decipher whats really at stake in the region based on news media reports. I remember being very annoyed at coverage in Iraq that was so completely false and offbase per the real situation on the ground.

Who are these revolutionaries anyway? What kind of democracy do they really want? I don't see a lot of reporting on that, and none of it substantial. There was another popular revolution that overthrew a monarchy in a country not terribly far from there, and they, "democratically," hate our guts. Bay of Pigs, Iraq, Afghanistan, the overthrow of the Shah I just mentioned, Vietnam, even Korea.. are all involvements in the last 50 years that didn't go as planned and have become a pretty heavy burden for us. We should rightly be skeptical of more military action for any reason. 

[Spartan_Marine88]

Bay of Pigs, Iraq, Afghanistan, the overthrow of the Shah I just mentioned, Vietnam, even Korea.. are all involvements in the last 50 years that didn't go as planned and have become a pretty heavy burden for us. We should rightly be skeptical of more military action for any reason. 

All those you mentioned were examples of american strong arming (Korea was not even in the same league as what you mentioned it was a civil war where both sides called for thier allies). This intervention is supported by the entire world practically. Speaking of Great Powers intervening badly in 3rd world affairs, how about France in 1778?

Qaddafi's rule is criminal, this is more like if we went in and stopped the Rwanadan Genocide instead of watching the O.J. Trials.

[chefarzt]

Guys make up ur minds. Its bout time fuckers like ghadaffi get hanged. No politics, no smart talk, no compromises.
If i had the options atm id go there and die happily if i just could slit some throats from assholes supporting this motherfucker. And that just the tip of the iceberg.

[acker]

even Korea.

No. Not Korea. Koreans are very happy that the United States "intervened" in the Korean War. Most even wish that America had intervened more.

Koreans do dislike America for fostering a puppet dictatorship in the South and helping it crush democratic movements up to the late eighties. But they do think America's a net good concerning Korean stuff. Admittedly, considering the Kim family's track record...

[Spartan_Marine88]

No. Not Korea. Koreans are very happy that the United States "intervened" in the Korean War. Most even wish that America had intervened more.

Koreans do dislike America for fostering a puppet dictatorship in the South and helping it crush democratic movements up to the late eighties. But they do think America's a net good concerning Korean stuff. Admittedly, considering the Kim family's track record...

But, we wouldn't have Hamburgers if it wasn't for Kim Jong-il!

[Tymathee]

we wont stop north korea, libya or even freakin mexico but we'll invade iraq...

[ErwinNH]

I don't know what to say to some of those arguments. Chefarzt I can't help you man, if you're hell bent on using your democratic government's military forces against every dictator out there, you'll be busy for the next (infinity) years. The sole fact that he's evil is not reason enough to invade, strike, or even effect diplomatic relations. Not to say that all those things shouldn't happen but your criteria is baseless and emotion driven.

Korea was a disaster. Task Force Smith was very nearly annihilated, and the remainder of the 24th infantry was defeated in detail as it came into the country. We juuust barely held a small chunk of land around the major port at Pusan and we were fortunate that the North Korean advance began to lose steam here. We beefed up our forces and pushed them back, only to get China directly involved when we started going north of the 38th parallel. Now 60 years later we're still sitting there. I'd say that didn't go "well." Sure the South Koreans are happy, but how is that criteria for justifying involvement? I'm just trying to encourage people to take another look at the issue, and perhaps explore a view other than the bottled and canned one. I can't say I would have done any differently had I been Prez, but the involvement didn't turn out well, and that's why I mentioned it.

 

[Demon767]

Whoever believes South Koreans are 'happy' because they have Democracy is ignorant.

[ErwinNH]

Whoever believes South Koreans are 'happy' because they have Democracy is ignorant.

Have you seen the alternative? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQXfMMHV8FM

Netflix has the full Nat Geo special. It's pretty good. I recommend it.

[chefarzt]

I don't know what to say to some of those arguments. Chefarzt I can't help you man, if you're hell bent on using your democratic government's military forces against every dictator out there, you'll be busy for the next (infinity) years. The sole fact that he's evil is not reason enough to invade, strike, or even effect diplomatic relations. Not to say that all those things shouldn't happen but your criteria is baseless and emotion driven.

Korea was a disaster. Task Force Smith was very nearly annihilated, and the remainder of the 24th infantry was defeated in detail as it came into the country. We juuust barely held a small chunk of land around the major port at Pusan and we were fortunate that the North Korean advance began to lose steam here. We beefed up our forces and pushed them back, only to get China directly involved when we started going north of the 38th parallel. Now 60 years later we're still sitting there. I'd say that didn't go "well." Sure the South Koreans are happy, but how is that criteria for justifying involvement? I'm just trying to encourage people to take another look at the issue, and perhaps explore a view other than the bottled and canned one. I can't say I would have done any differently had I been Prez, but the involvement didn't turn out well, and that's why I mentioned it.

 

LEts get busy! Its about time. I know its complicated coz every fuckin government has its own interests. But thats another problem. Think about in what world u wanna live in and think about other living beings. Zero Tolerance from my side for dictators in Korea, Africa, and whereever on the world. Also no tolerance for shit talking politicians watching this while they have the power to change things. Also no tolerance for the weapons lobby makin this possible and even firing it up. Im RAGING HARD.

Btw
Appeasement lead to World War 2
Always keep that in mind

[Fallen87]

it is quite simple when america will intervene,when they have 'higer' interests...

[AmPM]

Or people can take it into their own hands and help themselves.

Chefarzt, I'm all for military actions when required. But if you want to spew about it and say that we should send people everywhere and anywhere due a countries own internal problems then maybe you should enlist and volunteer for a deployment with your nations military.

Yes, the UN is useless, and no Europe will not move without 10 years of debating. On the other hand, expecting the US to successfully police the world, basically by itself is stupid. If you have a problem with your government and the way it handles things, get out there and attempt to change something instead of raging on the internet doing nothing.

Fallen: Just to make it clear, our intervening when it suits out interests in not a bad thing. It's the only reason to invest our lives.

[acker]

Sure the South Koreans are happy, but how is that criteria for justifying involvement? I'm just trying to encourage people to take another look at the issue, and perhaps explore a view other than the bottled and canned one. I can't say I would have done any differently had I been Prez, but the involvement didn't turn out well, and that's why I mentioned it.

I really don't know how to respond to this. Preventing the spread of Communism* would, for pretty much every reasonable person in the 1950s, be a very appropriate reason to go to war. Keeping allied ports open on mainland Asia close to Japan would also be extremely important. And don't exaggerate, North Korea and China never had the logistical capability to hold a sustained, rapid offensive capable of pushing NATO out of Korea.**

Plus the United States forced Russia, China, and North Korea into a spending war for the next sixty+ years on the DMZ...the type of war the United States is best at. South Korea will pay most of it back eventually, be it through technology or exports. But China, for the foreseeable future, will have that millstone called North Korea on its neck. Which is, IMO, no bad thing.

Or people can take it into their own hands and help themselves.

Fallen: Just to make it clear, our intervening when it suits out interests in not a bad thing. It's the only reason to invest our lives.

We'd be adding "u"s in silly places if we'd been left alone to "take it into our own hands and help ourselves". Just FYI.

Your second line demonstrates why cutting military spending is so critically important for this country. People will stop asking us to help them when we stop pretending to be World Police. Which would not be a bad thing...would probably force Europe to spend more on military stuff, allow us to [partially] pay back our deficit***. Until then, though, it's perfectly reasonable for people to ask us to play the part that we've been pretending to act.


*Well, not Communism the ideal/philosophy, the "Communism" that was practiced. Admittedly, I'm willing to bet that most people back then didn't think there was much of a difference. An argument from hindsight would probably involve the Kim family's instabilities.

**They could have killed a lot more people with a few more errors, though.

***Not going to lie: most of our deficit in the future is going to come from health care. Reducing military spending isn't going to do too much in the long run, though it certainly won't hurt.

[BigDick]

Btw
Appeasement lead to World War 2
Always keep that in mind

wrong; sweating and internal intervention lead to ww2

[deadbolt]

gadaffi ftw lol