Taking Islamic Countries - Page 3

Osem · 21-03-2011, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee

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.

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

**Damien** · 21-03-2011, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee

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.

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

TheNorm · 21-03-2011, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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?

DocDutch · 21-03-2011, 15:36

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.

TheNorm · 21-03-2011, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocDutch

different scenario TheNorm..... ....

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?

adzii_nufc · 21-03-2011, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

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

**Damien** · 21-03-2011, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

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.

TheNorm · 21-03-2011, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

...Infact, this whole thread is full of conspiracies! ...

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

It's pretty clear that the force being used by the Libyan government is extreme and murderous. ....

So what about Zimbabwe and North Korea?

adzii_nufc · 21-03-2011, 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

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 ****

**Damien** · 21-03-2011, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

So what about Zimbabwe and North Korea?

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.

**Chris** · 21-03-2011, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

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.

21-03-2011, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

adzii_nufc · 21-03-2011, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zing

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

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.

21-03-2011, 16:44

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee

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.

that is a very very troubling post

**Chris** · 21-03-2011, 17:06

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.