Taking Islamic Countries

Originally Posted by Zing

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?

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.

[Gary L]

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

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

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

So what was the gain for the US in Vietnam?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So what was the gain for the US in Vietnam?

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

[watzizname]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

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

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

Originally Posted by BenMcr

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

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.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by watzizname

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

That's what I meant

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

Originally Posted by Zing

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

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.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Zing

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

Oh yes, be afraid. Be very afraid.

[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.

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?