MLB 51 Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only real difference in my estimation is the level of douchebaggery on each side... I disagree. Giving weapons directly to al-Queda is quite different from performing airstrikes on Gadafi's regime. I'd imagine that the Muslim Brotherhood won't be able to use those airstrikes against us . . . I agree with Carl. The last thing we should be doing is arming al-Queda. The bold part says it all. We shouldn't be arming anybody in that part of the planet, is what I'm talking about... Agree. Never seems to work out well for us. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only real difference in my estimation is the level of douchebaggery on each side... I disagree. Giving weapons directly to al-Queda is quite different from performing airstrikes on Gadafi's regime. I'd imagine that the Muslim Brotherhood won't be able to use those airstrikes against us . . . I agree with Carl. The last thing we should be doing is arming al-Queda. The bold part says it all. We shouldn't be arming anybody in that part of the planet, is what I'm talking about... Agree. Never seems to work out well for us. Yeah the problem is we never seem to finish the job. We help train and arm, and then leave without seeing to that they have the competence (if there is any in that part of the world) to use it to stop the invasion or whatever else is going on and not for "power". Which sadly will never happen because of costs. And as far as not doing anything and letting them blow the hell out of each other, well it would be great if we could do this, but it seems everyone in the world looks to see what we are doing first including the UN before anyone else wants to react. I guess if we don't do anything we would see it escalate to far out of control and would have to many countries or groups involved and devastation would be much much worse. I guess this is the way I see it, but not that I don't think it would be nice to save some money for our own citizens instead of blowing it all up or giving it away. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Yeah the problem is we never seem to finish the job. We help train and arm, and then leave without seeing to that they have the competence (if there is any in that part of the world) to use it to stop the invasion or whatever else is going on and not for "power". Which sadly will never happen because of costs. And as far as not doing anything and letting them blow the hell out of each other, well it would be great if we could do this, but it seems everyone in the world looks to see what we are doing first including the UN before anyone else wants to react. I guess if we don't do anything we would see it escalate to far out of control and would have to many countries or groups involved and devastation would be much much worse. I guess this is the way I see it, but not that I don't think it would be nice to save some money for our own citizens instead of blowing it all up or giving it away. Said it once, and i'll say it again... This is a job for the "Blue Helmets". American troops should only be used if you want to go in there, and f*ck everything up, not for this peacekeeping bullsh*t... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 3, 2013 Author Share Posted June 3, 2013 Correct, we didn't directly hand over guns to the Muslim Brotherhood. However, we did do it indirectly. With them gaining a lot of power in Libya, they then have some access to the military supplies that the government has. LINK In the end, there isn't much difference. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Correct, we didn't directly hand over guns to the Muslim Brotherhood. However, we did do it indirectly. With them gaining a lot of power in Libya, they then have some access to the military supplies that the government has. LINK In the end, there isn't much difference. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yeah the problem is we never seem to finish the job. We help train and arm, and then leave without seeing to that they have the competence (if there is any in that part of the world) to use it to stop the invasion or whatever else is going on and not for "power". Which sadly will never happen because of costs. And as far as not doing anything and letting them blow the hell out of each other, well it would be great if we could do this, but it seems everyone in the world looks to see what we are doing first including the UN before anyone else wants to react. I guess if we don't do anything we would see it escalate to far out of control and would have to many countries or groups involved and devastation would be much much worse. I guess this is the way I see it, but not that I don't think it would be nice to save some money for our own citizens instead of blowing it all up or giving it away. Said it once, and i'll say it again... This is a job for the "Blue Helmets". American troops should only be used if you want to go in there, and f*ck everything up, not for this peacekeeping bullsh*t... I agree, but I have a feeling besides the political games BS it may have a lot to do with; If you can't do it right then we will have to do it ourselves Mentality. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yeah the problem is we never seem to finish the job. We help train and arm, and then leave without seeing to that they have the competence (if there is any in that part of the world) to use it to stop the invasion or whatever else is going on and not for "power". Which sadly will never happen because of costs. And as far as not doing anything and letting them blow the hell out of each other, well it would be great if we could do this, but it seems everyone in the world looks to see what we are doing first including the UN before anyone else wants to react. I guess if we don't do anything we would see it escalate to far out of control and would have to many countries or groups involved and devastation would be much much worse. I guess this is the way I see it, but not that I don't think it would be nice to save some money for our own citizens instead of blowing it all up or giving it away. Said it once, and i'll say it again... This is a job for the "Blue Helmets". American troops should only be used if you want to go in there, and f*ck everything up, not for this peacekeeping bullsh*t... I agree, but I have a feeling besides the political games BS it may have a lot to do with; If you can't do it right then we will have to do it ourselves Mentality. Thing is, we don't need to do it at all... Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of why we should have nothing to do with that part of the world unless we're destroying everything. Trying to make these a'holes "play nice" with each other is exercise in futility. If Israel feels froggy, I say go for it, because you know they're just itching to unload on everybody in that region that isn't them... Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yeah the problem is we never seem to finish the job. We help train and arm, and then leave without seeing to that they have the competence (if there is any in that part of the world) to use it to stop the invasion or whatever else is going on and not for "power". Which sadly will never happen because of costs. And as far as not doing anything and letting them blow the hell out of each other, well it would be great if we could do this, but it seems everyone in the world looks to see what we are doing first including the UN before anyone else wants to react. I guess if we don't do anything we would see it escalate to far out of control and would have to many countries or groups involved and devastation would be much much worse. I guess this is the way I see it, but not that I don't think it would be nice to save some money for our own citizens instead of blowing it all up or giving it away. Said it once, and i'll say it again... This is a job for the "Blue Helmets". American troops should only be used if you want to go in there, and f*ck everything up, not for this peacekeeping bullsh*t... I agree, but I have a feeling besides the political games BS it may have a lot to do with; If you can't do it right then we will have to do it ourselves Mentality. Thing is, we don't need to do it at all... Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of why we should have nothing to do with that part of the world unless we're destroying everything. Trying to make these a'holes "play nice" with each other is exercise in futility. If Israel feels froggy, I say go for it, because you know they're just itching to unload on everybody in that region that isn't them... I believe that much like when Japan drug the U.S. into WWII, The Terrorist groups Al-Qaida mainly drug us into the war on terrorism. I know not exactly the same besides being attacked on U.S. soil. But, I agree if we are going to do something about it or get involved into any other messes we need to clean house and get it over with. I also know this won't happen because of all the bleeding hearts, but it is what it is. I also agree that making them play "NICE" isn't going to happen either. It is truly a no win situation. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I believe that much like when Japan drug the U.S. into WWII, The Terrorist groups Al-Qaida mainly drug us into the war on terrorism. I know not exactly the same besides being attacked on U.S. soil. But, I agree if we are going to do something about it or get involved into any other messes we need to clean house and get it over with. I also know this won't happen because of all the bleeding hearts, but it is what it is. I also agree that making them play "NICE" isn't going to happen either. It is truly a no win situation. To a point you're right. We stepped in it, when we took Israel's side, thats why the majority of the middle east has a beef with us... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 I believe that much like when Japan drug the U.S. into WWII, The Terrorist groups Al-Qaida mainly drug us into the war on terrorism. I know not exactly the same besides being attacked on U.S. soil. But, I agree if we are going to do something about it or get involved into any other messes we need to clean house and get it over with. I also know this won't happen because of all the bleeding hearts, but it is what it is. I also agree that making them play "NICE" isn't going to happen either. It is truly a no win situation. To a point you're right. We stepped in it, when we took Israel's side, thats why the majority of the middle east has a beef with us... The sh*t was stepped in in the 1940s when the leaders of the world thought they could just declare that Israel existed again and allowed them to "take back" land right in the middle of millions of people who hate them. THAT is when the real mistake was made. Everything else from then on has been a result of that one really stupid decision. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I believe that much like when Japan drug the U.S. into WWII, The Terrorist groups Al-Qaida mainly drug us into the war on terrorism. I know not exactly the same besides being attacked on U.S. soil. But, I agree if we are going to do something about it or get involved into any other messes we need to clean house and get it over with. I also know this won't happen because of all the bleeding hearts, but it is what it is. I also agree that making them play "NICE" isn't going to happen either. It is truly a no win situation. To a point you're right. We stepped in it, when we took Israel's side, thats why the majority of the middle east has a beef with us... The sh*t was stepped in in the 1940s when the leaders of the world thought they could just declare that Israel existed again and allowed them to "take back" land right in the middle of millions of people who hate them. THAT is when the real mistake was made. Everything else from then on has been a result of that one really stupid decision. You're money on that, but when the U.S. stood up for Israel, is when they shifted anger to America. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 You're money on that, but when the U.S. stood up for Israel, is when they shifted anger to America. Sometimes I cynically wonder if our support of Israel isn't just an attempt to give the middle east a next door neighbor to hate/attack instead of directing all that hate at us. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 You're money on that, but when the U.S. stood up for Israel, is when they shifted anger to America. Sometimes I cynically wonder if our support of Israel isn't just an attempt to give the middle east a next door neighbor to hate/attack instead of directing all that hate at us. Thats completely plausible... I no longer have a case of "I thought I was the only one"... Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 So much for the U.N helping. "Fierce gunbattles forced peacekeepers to seek shelter in a nearby base, and the Philippine military said one of its men serving in the force was wounded in the leg when a mortar or artillery shell struck the area. U.N. diplomats said an Indian peacekeeper also was injured. In Vienna, Austrian leaders said the fighting made it necessary to withdraw their troops. Defense Minister Gerhard Klug said he expected the withdrawal to be done within two to four weeks, but it is possible to complete it "within a few hours" if new violence threatened the soldiers' security. "For the first time, it was not possible for the Syrian government to guarantee proper support of the U.N.," he said." Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 If this persists, it's gonna get ugly fast... http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebel-offensive-golan-jolts-israel-201402781.html Link to comment
Recommended Posts