Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I recall, the population stared at him and the military didn't do anything. Then Mubarak ran away and the military took power.

[webber]

...

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror
Yes, that`s what the word means. Maybe I should say "terrorists". And I do not mean ones who are trying to fight their government, I`m talking about ones fighting other governments. 9/11, Lockerbie, etc. Just think, these guys usually aren`t some crazy maniacs from movies, but at some point in their war they decided that lives of other people are sacrificable. Just like you.

the figures people outside America cite as to our evilness
Why do you separate your people from the mankind? Or from the forum community?

unsuitability as the world police
refinement of weapons to minimize loss of life to the most absolute possible
Nobody ever asked you to be the world police. Minimal life loss is zero, and you are unsuitable until you develop your weapons and tactics to a level that allows you to disarm armies without a shot.
Even now you theoretically can act as "world vigilante" - your technological level is already high enough to perform complicated ground operations with really minimal collateral damage. But it looks like your government likes that "Kill them all, surely the Lord discerns which are his" credo very much and all I see and hear about NATO and American operations in my life is: "...Bombing... cluster bombing... bomb into stone age... tomahawks... bombing..." and your rating in my eyes rapidly decreases to "one of the world criminals".

[palsch]

Nobody ever asked you to be the world police.

Just to be clear, this isn't always true.

In the case of Libya, NATO formed a coordination and command body for a coalition of 19 different nations, including four non-NATO countries (the UAE, Jordan, Qatar and Sweden). These nations were engaged in enforcing a UN mandate.

Explicitly that mandate was to establish a no-fly zone (which requires removing any capability of the target nation for air combat by destroying airfields/runways and any anti-air weapons) and take measures to defend civilians. That latter part was taken by these forces as a mandate to engage ground forces that threatened civilian populations.

This mandate was passed after appeals from a wide range of senior Libyan diplomats, including ambassadors in several major embassies and their own UN delegation. The first call for a no-fly zone (and so explicitly bombing of Libyan targets) came from their deputy permanent representative to the UN.

The only reason it passed the UN Security Council without a veto from Russia or China was the backing of the Arab League and the public calls from Libyans for intervention.

This was people, mostly Libyans asking NATO to intervene.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Yes, that`s what the word means. Maybe I should say "terrorists". And I do not mean ones who are trying to fight their government, I`m talking about ones fighting other governments. 9/11, Lockerbie, etc. Just think, these guys usually aren`t some crazy maniacs from movies, but at some point in their war they decided that lives of other people are sacrificable. Just like you.

Lockerbie was an example of a government using nonstandard warfare against another government. This is typical in worlds that have unstable environments. The relative rarity of it should speak well for the current stabilizing influence. But I don't see how this statement proves that I am advocating terrorism by saying that civilians aren't innocent when their nation is at war. This is a thing terrorists recognize and take advantage of, in fact. No amount of distaste for it will make it untrue. Sorry. Know who else decides lives of other people are sacrificable? Everyone. How many US soldiers should die to avoid a single civilian casualty in a conflict between these terrorists you think I support and them in a US city? 0? 10? 100? How about in a French City? 0? 10? 100? How about in an Iran city? 0? 10? 100? Any answer at all is deciding the lives of others who need to be sacrificed. Generals do it. Presidents do it. You do it when you pick those innocents over the lives the targets would have taken out in the collateral damage. Even doctors do it when they do triage in a disaster area.

Why do you separate your people from the mankind? Or from the forum community?

Why do you separate the forum community from mankind? or from the citizens of France?

Minimal life loss is zero, and you are unsuitable until you develop your weapons and tactics to a level that allows you to disarm armies without a shot.

Okay, let's go with that. We are now unsuitable in reducing the efforts of the drug cartels to increase their profits. So we have to put away our guns while they continue to kidnap, rape, and murder individuals in an effort to get more money.
Bad example?
Okay, we are now unsuitable in telling governments they are not allowed to wholesale slaughter their citizens. So now we have to put away our guns while they continue to execute, rape, and slaughter vast amounts of their own citizens who are different from the ruling party.
Wait, that doesn't happen! Besides, it happens anyway and you all are current police! Some random other crap!

The question now becomes, is crime prevention possible? It works on a national scale as well as on a local scale, and a Global scale. Does hiring more police officers and having them patrol actually work to PREVENT crime? (as opposed to stop it, which is all they can physically do)
The answer, yes. It does. So do we hold our fire until we have magic bullets that stop everyone without a single person dying? If we do, a lot of places and a lot of people we value die. Right now our might is so great that we can prevent the execution of people in a dictatorship who are very publicly speaking out against their own government in scenarios were we wre even politically unlikely to act. That's some pretty significant power, and that requires the ability to shoot those bullets to take gains like that without firing a shot.

Even now you theoretically can act as "world vigilante" - your technological level is already high enough to perform complicated ground operations with really minimal collateral damage. But it looks like your government likes that "Kill them all, surely the Lord discerns which are his" credo very much and all I see and hear about NATO and American operations in my life is: "...Bombing... cluster bombing... bomb into stone age... tomahawks... bombing..." and your rating in my eyes rapidly decreases to "one of the world criminals".

Good, I'm glad you compare the US's minor collateral damage to Jean Bosco Ntaganda's many illegal acts. It states that you are in an environment where the Ntagandas of the world are relatively rare, since you can't tell the difference.

I can't help but note that you haven't expressed what country has your support.  As for "Nobody ever asked you to be the world police", you might want to review your history a bit. Americans were dragged kicking and screaming into this role from World War 2. I still would much rather see some other country ridiculed for having a crime rate less than a percent on their bases in lands experiencing double digit crime rates.
HOWEVER, No other country could do it, and it needs to be done, so no matter how much I dislike little idiots out there screaming how badly they hate us, and (Edit: Making very specific and clear personal threats) because my nation is good at it's job, I don't think it's a burden that can be dropped.

[Il Palazzo]

As for "Nobody ever asked you to be the world police", you might want to review your history a bit. Americans were dragged kicking and screaming into this role from World War 2.

Your post is bound to cause a torrent of empassioned responses for sure, what with the "killing my children" rethoric and all that jazz. As for myself, I'd just like to know your version of history that you're referencing in the above quotation.

[Aqizzar]

In this particular case at least, yes, America was asked, repeatedly, and by a lot of people.  Palsch got it all down above; you had the Arab League, the UN, NATO, and the freaking ambassador of Libya, the guy Qaddafi's government made ambassador, all asking for foreign intervention, beginning with the No Fly Zone, then defending people on the ground from other people on the ground.  America having the most capacity to do so, did most of the aerial work, and yet not all of it by any means.  And the Libyan people, any of them you can find anyway, don't seem very perturbed about that.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Your post is bound to cause a torrent of empassioned responses for sure, what with the "killing my children" rethoric and all that jazz. As for myself, I'd just like to know your version of history that you're referencing in the above quotation.

To be fair, I've yet to have anyone actually try to kill my children. I've had them threatened, even though I had no children at the time, but nobody has yet tried to kill my children. That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who are out to blow up American things because Americans are hypocritical world police and all that rot. You are probably right that the statement will generate all kinds of hate towards me, because I am ultimately American and therefore clearly wrong.

As for what version of history, this one. To start your search, your key words are "America" and "Isolationist".
It was America's policy entering the war to finish it and go home, leaving Europe to the Europeans.

[webber]

...
This was people, mostly Libyans asking NATO to intervene.

They were asking UN. NATO just formed a coordination and command body for a coalition of 19 countries which had some interests in Libya.
By the way, IIRC Gadaffi even wrote the letter to Obama saying something like "Son, let`s fight terrorism together!" and generally was ready for the negotiations. Some more agressive diplomacy would have been enough to topple the regime without a drop of blood hitting the ground, but instead of this NATO chose the violent way again. If I use logic of my opponents, I can say NATO is responsible for every death in this war, not only for collateral civilian losses.
Russia didn`t give veto because Russian president is a childish idiot. Russian ambassador in Libya called him "traitor" when the resolution hadn`t been vetoed.

...

You do it when you pick those innocents over the lives the targets would have taken out in the collateral damage
There are some international standarts for this. You should (re)read UN regulations about combatants and non-combatants. There is a difference between "our bomb will with 90% probability hit the target, continue" and "our bomb will with 10% probability kill a civilian, let`s cancel this operation and try diplomacy" approaches.

How many US soldiers should die to avoid a single civilian casualty
1:1, everywhere. This means that you should choose the lesser losses. In case of equal possible losses situation (lose one soldier or one civilian) the soldier is sacrificed, because it`s his job to die for other people.

We are now unsuitable in reducing the efforts of the drug cartels to increase their profits
Drug cartels are mostly your internal problem, and your people delegate the state the right to stop them.
Nobody delegated you the right to solve the world`s problems.
Fun fact: since US entered Afghanistan, production of opiates in this country is only increasing. Police? Cartels? Absolutely laughable, you say?

Okay, we are now unsuitable in telling governments they are not allowed to wholesale slaughter their citizens
You are perfectly suitable for telling. But usually you just appear and bomb said government with half of the country and citizens.

So do we hold our fire until we have magic bullets that stop everyone without a single person dying?
Yes. If you spend less money on constant wars, this "magic bullets" will not sound like a fairytale very soon. As I said, you do have technological potential.

As for other "world police" stuff - how can you explain that all EVIL DICTATORSHIPS you are fighting are sitting on oil deposits? And other  dictatorships who support America exist for decades, executeing, raping, and slaughtering vast amounts of their own citizens like any other dictatorship?

I can't help but note that you haven't expressed what country has your support.
Every country that does not start wars.

Americans were dragged kicking and screaming into this role from World War 2
I`d better not mention WW2, because during it you have set a record in your "minor collateral damage".
And like Il Palazzo mentioned, I`d like to hear your version of history.

No other country could do it
A lot can, when acting together. This is what UN exists for.

no matter how much I dislike little idiots out there screaming how badly they hate us, and trying to kill my children because my nation is good at it's job
You are distinguishing your people from other peoples again, also showing some signs of xenophobia. Not an attack, just stating the fact.

Edit: kind of missed the last two posts.

It was America's policy entering the war to finish it and go home, leaving Europe to the Europeans.
Actually you just started to supply Soviet Union after they stopped German war machine near Moscow. And showed up in Europe when it was clear that the Reich was done, to grab some of its legacy - technologies, specialists etc.

It`s pretty much clear that you sincerelly believe what your education and mass-media tell you. I cannot help.

[Il Palazzo]

Your post is bound to cause a torrent of empassioned responses for sure, what with the "killing my children" rethoric and all that jazz. As for myself, I'd just like to know your version of history that you're referencing in the above quotation.

To be fair, I've yet to have anyone actually try to kill my children. I've had them threatened, even though I had no children at the time, but nobody has yet tried to kill my children. That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who are out to blow up American things because Americans are hypocritical world police and all that rot. You are probably right that the statement will generate all kinds of hate towards me, because I am ultimately American and therefore clearly wrong.

As for what version of history, this one. To start your search, your key words are "America" and "Isolationist".
It was America's policy entering the war to finish it and go home, leaving Europe to the Europeans.

Right, so you're equating your country's involvement in political and military(by proxy) struggle with another superpower with getting an universally endorsed mandate for being the "world police"?

And no, you're unlikely to cause heated responses for who you are, but quite so for what rhetoric you use. I'd say it's rather unfair to dismiss all the arguments against just because you feel they're prejudice-motivated.

[Aqizzar]

Okay, we are now unsuitable in telling governments they are not allowed to wholesale slaughter their citizens
You are perfectly suitable for telling. But usually you just appear and bomb said government with half of the country and citizens.

I've been studiously avoiding responding to any of your posts, since you're a blind ideologue with this huge chip on shoulder.  This constant barrage of you you you like you think every American on the Internet is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and outright saying everyone who doesn't try to topple their government shares total blame for its every action.  Let alone that you've yet to inform us of what utterly peaceful corner of the world you hail from.

But this is where you prove you just don't care what happens in the real world, as long as you can trumpet how great you are for taking on big bad America.  You know when the shooting starts?  After, usually long after, everyone has figured out the talking won't work in a particular case.  Yes, we're all very sorry about Iraq.  This was quite bit different.

[Tellemurius]

Webber: To state the American involvement, beginning of the European theatre congress was reluctant to even aid you guys during the Blitzkreig. We only got in because we got pissed for Japan rolling over Pearl Harbor. Don't even bring in nuclear arms into this fight, we bitched about for fucking 50 years with the Soviets and haven't gone AWOL with them during the cold war so shut up about it.

This is getting ridiculous. You really think America jumps on all of the world problems the moment it hits. How about the current chaos in Africa? We value countries over to what they can do with us but thats how its been done since history. Since you complain about us being world police, why don't you fix the African countries you bailed out of? Leaving them to figure what the fuck to do in trying to recreate their cultural borders to be with their people and fighting over each other for resources. These countries that are bleeding were once controlled by you damn europeans at some point. Can't leave out america since we had problems with Cuba and philippines and how we got our hands on Hawaii but in the end we resolved them and stuck out until it was stable (well not for Cuba).

[scriver]

People here has probably noticed that I have a rather strong dislike for American international politics and powergames. I honestly think that throughout the 20th century, the USA has caused a lot more problems than it has solved with it's "world policing". Keep this in mind when I say that I think that, for once, USA and NATO something right by interfering in Libya. The people wanted us there, the military action was handled well, and the future is looking good so far (Though I'd personally won't feel safe about that until 10-20 years have passed).

The USA&NATO deserves criticism for a lot of their actions, but it's ridiculous to claim this meddling was bad. It doesn't matter that the main reason probably was to restore/ensure the oil supply to Europe. This was probably as good an intervening as we'll get.

Also, webber, please use quote tags. It makes posts so much easier to read.

[palsch]

They were asking UN. NATO just formed a coordination and command body for a coalition of 19 countries which had some interests in Libya.

That's how the UN works.

The UN has zero standing forces. They have two paths to military intervention;

1) Calling for peacekeepers under a UN flag.
2) Authorising a third party to intervene.

Calling for peacekeepers is an incredibly complicated procedure. The level of peacekeepers (size and strength of the force) must be agreed on by the host nation. In this case they would have needed Gadaffi to sign off on how many troops were deployed and how much kit they brought. Once that was agreed on a call would go out for troops to be committed by different nations to form part of the force. Until and unless the precise size of the force agreed on can be reached not one body can be deployed.

Such peacekeeper forces are the only explicitly UN forces available.

Authorising action is far more likely and usually has more direct effect. In this case the UN authorised the plans put forwards by, among others, France, the UK and US, in response to the calls from the Libyan rebels and diplomats.

By the way, IIRC Gadaffi even wrote the letter to Obama saying something like "Son, let`s fight terrorism together!" and generally was ready for the negotiations. Some more agressive diplomacy would have been enough to topple the regime without a drop of blood hitting the ground, but instead of this NATO chose the violent way again.

Lets be serious here. Gadaffi has serious history when it comes to bullshitting. He has said pretty much everything imaginable at some point. But more importantly he has had a history of sponsoring terrorism. He had zero credibility when it came to negotiation, especially while still attacking civilians.

Hell, Gadaffi declared a ceasefire after the resolution was passed. At that time no missiles had been fired by NATO or any other outside forces. However, he continued artillery attacks against opposition groups. It was when tanks rolled into Benghazi that France (at that time not under the NATO flag) started the attacks.

France took that action because the UN's resolution required any steps short of an invading foreign ground force in order to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas. Basically they were under UN orders to stop civilians being killed by any means.

Drawing a line here between the UN and NATO/the coalition is false. You can argue against the intervention on other terms, but saying NATO=EVIL doesn't really get anywhere.

[Kogan Loloklam]

And no, you're unlikely to cause heated responses for who you are, but quite so for what rhetoric you use. I'd say it's rather unfair to dismiss all the arguments against just because you feel they're prejudice-motivated.

Your post is bound to cause a torrent of empassioned responses for sure, what with the "killing my children" rethoric and all that jazz.

*cough*
Oh, and Churchill wasn't an American.


Webber, I am probably much more familiar with UN Resolutions and the laws of warfare than you. I am aware of the difference between a 10% chance of missing and a 10% chance of killing a civilian. I love that you call Drug Cartels an internal problem. They aren't. Not even close. Your statement convinces me you aren't from North or South America. As for Oil fields, Vietnam is producing 343,200 bbl/day. North Korea has 118 bbl/day. Japan has 131,800 bbl/day. Seems like Oil is found in all kinds of places. There wasn't any oil in Grenada though. I find it humorous that you are complaining about US actions to replace dictators all of the sudden that are in oil rich countries. It is so deliciously common anti-American slogan. You ignore the UN mandated resolutions that were constantly flaunted by those same countries. Like the multiple attempts by Iraq to shoot down US airplanes enforcing UN Mandated No Fly zones in Iraq. Not NATO mandated, UN mandated. We were the bad guys in those UN sponsored peacekeeping missions.  "That's what the UN is for." We usually make up the majority of any UN peacekeeping force. Maybe if your unnamed country would provide more support to the UN, America wouldn't be the world police. I don't see any US operation where we went in and started bombing out of the blue. Please clarify on the region of the world at least, since the US are ALWAYS acting against someone, as well as paying out enormous sums of money to the countries these someones are in, with the only return being the fragile stability the globe currently has.
Proof the USA is clueless about how to fight a war about resources

I find it telling you don't mention your own country. I suspect it is because for every one of America's fumbles when it comes to our horrible world police policies, I can find one from your country surpassing the incident.

America is sort of like a teenage mother. We screw up all the time, but we do the best we can given our experience and the situation in the world, but if we were to just walk off from our responsibility things could go very bad, but people can always provide proof things would have been better without us in hindsight.

I really shouldn't simplify things. Leaving out the 17 additional pages that I made explaining things in great detail will come back to haunt me as people claim I didn't know about xxx, or didn't take into account yyy, or how zzz is proof that we didn't in fact get dragged in but were in it for ulterior motives. But I like the analogies, and they fit with my twisted humor, and this is all Horribly offtopic and feeding the trolls anyway. It's easier to hate Americans than actually find solutions to the problems we are failing to solve.

[ChairmanPoo]

That sounds like the standard dictator strategy, and we saw how well that worked out for Mubarak.

Pretty well, actually. Twenty years in power. Might have been longer if whoever is leading the junta hadn't decided he wanted a promotion