Taking Islamic Countries
 

What is this new trend with the Americans trying to take over Muslim countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. Whos next? Pakistan, Iran?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Libya is on the basis of a UN resolution with specific wording that excludes ANY ground forces.

It's for a no-fly zone only

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The Americans may be involved in this one but they're not leading it.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

sure about that ? haven't seen the many leaders on the telly much ,seen plenty of cameron after he's had permission to speak from obama of course

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

MArty I think the French are going to lead this 1. The yanks are going to stay out of it and provide a bit of firepower for the 1st couple of days after that it'll be Nato with the french leading it.

oh and Zee yeah it does look that way but this time they have a UN Mandate.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The french eh ? oh well thats it then ,no more lybian oil ;)


thats ok then we can all sleep easy tonight

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

They really are in a no win situation aren't they? The ignore the pleas of the Libyans and they would be accused of neglecting them and being complicit in their murder. They intervene at the behest of the countries people and the African league of nations and they are warmongers.

Win-Win for anti-Americanism.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

This is a good question. How do you feel about it?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

I think you need to spend a little less time listening to paranoid Imams and hotheads. You might also ask yourself why it is that the countries you listed are so prone to being led by dictatorships, military or otherwise, with a greater or lesser tendency to brutalise and oppress their populations.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

:clap:

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

One might ask why Zimbabwe or North Korea don't merit the same treatment.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

we all know its to do with who controls the oil

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

True. And one might also get quite tired of hearing trite, simplistic questions being asked as if the answer were some self-evident, self-righteous lament about oil, or the lack of it. ;)

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

its not a lament though is it and it is about the oil. It certainly isnt about whats best for humanity there is no gain in that is there?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

I don't think the OP is referring to oil as the common link. ;)

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Zing, you're setting up a false dilemma. The answer doesn't have to be either of the choices you have outlined.

In fact it's vastly more complex, but complex geopolitical essays don't fit on placards, so we're destined to get no more than the usual objections from the usual crusty subjects.

However, let's continue this particular aspect of the discussion in an alternative thread, as I think Zee had hoped to explore allegations of anti-islamism rather than whether these wars are anything to do with oil.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Can't trust the french to lead. they'll just go on strike and leave us to take over and get the blame.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

all of a sudden though it is simple enough to get a UN mandate(in what is possibly the fastest ever time the UN has done something) to enforce a no fly zone to protect the rebels

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

From my point of view any military intervention that I have seen in my lifestyle has had a payout or some sort of gain for those doing the invading places with no gain are left alone. Sometimes nasty dangerous fundamentalists have even been aided

Pol Pot in Cambodia was guilty of genacide and left at it .He also was indirectly kept strong by the west while Cambodia was occupied by Vietnam

Idi Amin in Uganda
Robert Mugabe in Uganda
all as guilty for crimes against humanity as Saddam Hussein and the ilk

Then look at who the US have helped. We all know the US helped arm Iraq in their war against Iran. Why do you think they did that? did they think Saddam was the better humanitarian? What about the US arming the Mujahideen. Did they do that cuz they thought Mulah Omar was a great leader or was it because they just didnt want Russia to have the land?

There are plenty of places where intervention could save hundreds of thousands and Diplomacy would improves lives but the US ( and the rest of the UN(also Pol Pot had a seat on the UN)) but there is no gain in it for them so they do nothing

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

So what was the gain for the US in Vietnam?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The USA had a political relationship with South Vietnam. North Vietnam which was under communist control started having a pop at South Vietnam and you know how American feelings were towards Communists between the 50's and 60's don't you :)

In fact it appears the US never actually invaded North Vietnam but were attempting to defend the South

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The BBC were saying last night that the resolution only specifically excluded the landing of any occupational ground forces?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Not correct ... The resolution doesn't allow for an occupation force, but it is not limited to preventing Libyan jets from flying. It authorises any necessary action, with the exception of an occupation, to protect civilians. That allows the Allies to attack any Libyan target that they judge to be threatening civilians, whether that target is on land, sea or in the air.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

That's what I meant

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Yep, couldn't agree more. Thats twice we've agreed during the last week or so, should I be worried ? :erm:

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Yes but they got nothing in the form of resources which is the common complaint against the US for every intervention that they have taken part in in recent years.Indeed it's one you levelled yourself in post 12.;)

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Exellent points not forgetting Pinochet too.

As long as you give west hush money or goods like oil you can go your murderous spree we will ignore humanitarian thing.

But if things change in this case the unsettling of middle east and the oil prices going through the roof as we speak.

Then we will smite your ass for the pretence we dont like what your doing.

So while it serves as a usefullnes the yanks/brits/un will ignore your descresions.

Thats hyprocracy off this whole ******** humanitarian thing.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Oh yes, be afraid. Be very afraid. :p:

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Soon as a country has some sort of protection for itself then they wish to take over, or if they have good supply of oil or gas, or in Afghanistans situation, being the heart of Asia making it easy to invade other Islamic countries if needed.

How about Israel, why don't they get invaded? maybe because America promiced billions of $ to them over the next 50 years to fund their terrorist state. America and Israel need invading if you ask me, possibly the world could be a more peaceful place.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Sorry ... what? Afghanistan is not a platform for further American invasion of anywhere. You seriously need to get out a bit and read around the subject rather than listening to whoever it is who is filling your head with this utter nonsense.

Please, if you would, whose views are you parroting here? An Imam or other senior Muslim of your acquaintance, or something you're reading online? Or someone else entirely?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Yes it'd be very peaceful - just an eerie breeze sweeping a desolate and lifeless landscape.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

So you think Libya should be left to fight amongst themselves and we should ignore them?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Yes and no. We should leave a sovereign state to their own internal affairs and not fire tomahawk missiles at them; but we should not "ignore" them. Surely there is a middle ground?

Put the shoe on the other foot - how would you feel if, say, the travellers in Cambridgeshire contacted the Chinese and asked them to intervene against the oppressive British government?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

different scenario TheNorm..... we havent used deadly force to remove them where as with Libya it is being used in high numbers.

as there is a UN mandate for a no fly zone and the cruise missiles have taken out Gaddafi's surface to air weapons and command and control facilities that operate the armed forces those are legit targets.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The scenario is imposition of force on a sovereign government.

If an exocet landed in Kettering because of a UN resolution, would you be happy?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

There is a huge difference between a bunch of Pikey's and A man butchering his own people, As far as I'm aware Britain has not started Firing at the traveller's so thats nothing like the other foot. If our forces had opened fire on the student protesters.. then you'd have two feet!

But lets do what everyone seems to suggest, Ignore it and watch another Saddam Hussien in the making.

The whole Oil thing is stupidly old now too, Its a conspiracy and it has got boring really fast.

Infact, this whole thread is full of conspiracies! Americans taking over every Islam country, Americans Plundering oil and Dick Cheney is a Lizard


The thread title suggest's something similar that occured when Hitler was about.

As far as all this goes, Are you suggesting the war on terror is a sham? 9/11 7/7 As long as Bin Laden's head is attached to his neck it will never be over

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

It's pretty clear that the force being used by the Libyan government is extreme and murderous. That it is the result of the people in question wanting a change of government, there is nothing comparable to the UK.

That said if our government had taken to removing elections and brutalising/killing those who opposed them I would want the UN to intervene.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Look, the OP asked a reasonable question, and from what I can see no-one has offered a reasonable explanation.

Do you have anything to offer other than a reptilian Dick?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

So what about Zimbabwe and North Korea?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Like I have already offered the title completely suggests that the OP thinks America is conspiring to take over Isalamic based Countries.

All this taking over Islamic countries and Oil talk has no fact to it, Just conspiracy

''United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and Human rights.'' Both relate completely to the Libyan's, Noting that all countries currently involved have the right to take Immediate action, not to mention the guy was warned on multiple occasions, feined steeping down and took the complete ****

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

They present different challenges to that of Libya. Zimbabwe doesn't have fighter jets bombing their own people. They would require a land invasion which would require a much greater commitment from any intervening force. They would also need to becoming an occupying force for quite some time as what is happening their is a lot more divided than what is happening in Libya where few outside Tripoli are loyal to the present government. Zimbabwe has been the recipient of many a UN sanction though. While North Korea has Nukes.

That said just because we can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything anywhere.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Err, no, the scenario you are offering is imposition of force on a democratic government that has not used military force on its own population. An entirely different scenario than that which exists in Libya and therefore not at all relevant to the current discussion.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The much greater commitment would be doing something for nothing. Its not a matter of can't intervene its a matter of won't

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The problem with that is, North Korea has nukes as already stated, The Americans wont be silly and assualt via ground they would just Exterminate the North with warheads and technology Korea can only dream of. Which in turn would be greeted with a global backlash.

So as stated.. its not so simple to intervene when it could cause another World War.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

I was not actually meaning Korea but more the African countries that just get ignored.

As you say Korea has nukes and used to have the backing of China but China likes the wests cash now so things could be done if really needed.

---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

that is a very very troubling post

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Indeed ... and that's what underpins this thread, the paranoid notion that there is some sort of Zionist plot unfolding, resulting in the Arab world being persecuted by nasty Americans and Jews. Very worrying.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Yeah and hopefully they aimed it at the Council offices :)

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

It isn't paranoia - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya really are under attack!

Perhaps you can answer the OP question:

I certainly can't.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Perhaps we should just use harsh language and see if that curtails thier ways?

Besides, what are these invasions that you all speak of anyway?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

That would be because the premise of his question is incorrect. America are not trying to take over Muslim countries. Each case he gave have different stories but let's start with Libya: America are not invading Libya. They are part of a UN mission to enforce a no fly zone, even then they seem to be a minor force with the French and British leading the way. It's simply false on two levels the assertion that America are taking over Libya.

Iraq and Afganistan were different, those were invasion forces led by America. However 'taking over' is a tad strong. I think they stayed much longer than they would have liked, ideally they wanted to leave the countries with stable governments. Governments friendly to the West granted, but free elections mean they would have little control over who got elected.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

well i'll have a bash then ,they aren't ,none of the countries mentioned are being run by the americans none of the countries have been "taken over" by the americans

Iraq, rightly or wrongly ,was invaded the second time to remove a dictator who apparently had WMD's at his disposal by a coalition force

Afghanistan,was occupied by a coalition force to subdue Al Qaeda post 9/11

Lybia hasn't been invaded or "taken over"

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

The norm agreed dont come up with good example but better one is for sure our ocupation of NORTHERN IRELAND.

If we had the atitudes when we was shooting at irish catholics then could we have seen similar actions by un coalision to stop our ocupation of northern ireland.

What happens when this raises up again they demand help from UN.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

You're priceless ...

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

We don't make a point of brutalising the Catholics of Northern Ireland. What's more it's hardly a far comparison as the issue of the future of the territory is contested amongst it's inhabitants. There is not a full scale demand for breaking away from the Union and joining Ireland otherwise it would have been done already. Nope, significant numbers of it's population wish to remain residents of the United Kingdom and we work to find a way to accommodate both camps as best we can.

Your comparison is moronic.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

So, I've just skimmed the thread.

Two points:


1) We're not "occupying" Northern Ireland, and I very much doubt that the Government would ever decide to carpet bomb Smithy Fen. But, regardless, the UK would never be the subject of a UN-approved action, given that our position as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council means that we could simply veto any "Traveller Protection" UNSC Resolution proposed by China.

2) Zionists? Meh. Everybody knows it's really the Reptoids pulling all the strings! :p:

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Still wrong, The conspiracy is true! Hitler did survive World War II and Hide the Titanic in his pond.

Lets be serious again. Why is it just the USA supposedly taking over every Islamic based country?

Did you forget our own country is also engaging in Military action with these countries?

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Now even my avatar would have trouble with that one!

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

LOL.

I think you need a new tin foil hat, the old one isnt working anymore.

Re: Taking Islamic Countries
 

Not anymore at any rate

Due to the ferocity of the Tans' behaviour in Ireland and the atrocities committed, feelings continue to run high regarding their actions. "Black and Tan" or "Tan" remains a pejorative term for British in Ireland, and they are still despised by many in Ireland. One of the most famous Irish Republican songs is Dominic Behan's "Come out Ye Black and Tans". The Irish War of Independence is sometimes referred to as the "Tan War" or "Black-and-Tan War." This term was preferred by those who fought on the Anti-Treaty side in the Irish Civil War. The "Cogadh na Saoirse" medal, which was awarded to IRA Volunteers after 1941, bears a ribbon with two vertical stripes in black and tan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans

and some say we continued such brutalising right up until Bloody Sunday and beyond...

Re: Taking Islamic Countries