French Murder Innocent Civilians to Protect Oil

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

P.S War is NEVER 'Civil'

It's not considered a civil war because it's adequate in courtesy and politeness but because it's of or relating to citizens.

Oh

I'll be damned! I didn't know that, did you?

I noticed.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Do you think the French should have stayed out of the American War of Independence?

You got it.

Not a good historical analogy. The French government still in power at that time was the monarchy and the monarchists. Ideologically, they probably sympathized far more with the English monarchical government than with the American colonists. That French government couldn't have given 2 shits about the rights of, or oppressions against, the Americans colonists. France aided the Americans mainly as a strategic counter-move against its arch-enemy, England, and secondarily to try to corner the purchasing market on American cotton.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think the French should have stayed out of the American War of Independence?

You got it.

Not a good historical analogy. The French government still in power at that time was the monarchy and the monarchists. Ideologically, they probably sympathized far more with the English monarchical government than with the American colonists. That French government couldn't have given 2 shits about the rights of, or oppressions against, the Americans colonists. France aided the Americans mainly as a strategic counter-move against its arch-enemy, England, and secondarily to try to corner the purchasing market on American cotton.

I think it's a good analogy for those that think America is intervening in Libya because of oil. After all France intervened because they wanted American resources but England was restricting America's trade.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I think it's a good analogy for those that think America is intervening in Libya because of oil.

So what? Anti-social conspiracy theorists aren't the audience I'm addressing.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Maybe your post should read "We fucked up Iraq, we fucked up Afghanistan, we fucked up Somalia when are we ever going to learn?"

The west if notorious for taking the moral high ground and stepping in to oust people they don't like, and then leaving a vacuum. The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Unless anyone can provide me with an example of a country where removing a dictator has improved things, I would venture to say that political systems settle to their lowest energy state. If a dictatorship is "working" the people don't uprise. Generally dictators are greedy selfish bastards and when they realise they have pushed things to far they will back off. Interfering only disrupts the momentum.

In three years time people will be posting about how Libya is a failed state full of terrorism etc etc. Empowering a bunch of warlords is never a good idea. So I agree with you it will accomplish nothing.

I agree... we should just stand by and let all these stupid f*@king middle east countries go to war with (& within) each other until that part of the world is a leveled cesspool run by various rebel factions who will surely eventually all get along, or if not, nuke themselves into a extension of the Mediterranean Sea.

And if it happens to spread North... let the rest of Europe deal with it.


ETA: As long as there's no US involvement, who gives a shit.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Got it. No one should intervene in the business of any else ... regardless if they're being robbed, enslaved, killed, etc. Got it.

So, your only retort is to put words in my mouth....nice.

Nope, you don't "got it".
Your propensity for interpolation and/or extrapolation has exposed you.
*shaking head*

Quote

If you can't (or won't) acknowledge the differences than there is no point in further discussion.

See...there you go again.

I'll spell it out for you:
The "differences" you claim are not what it's about.
It's about the bottom line. All your justifications do not change the bottom line and you can ignore that all you want. It only makes the point that you have no concern for the end result. So be it. If that's your point, good. You've made it. No further "justifications" required.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...middle east countries go to war with (& within) each other until that part of the world is a leveled cesspool run by various rebel factions

And there are some who believe that US involvement will change that scenario to one of the affected country being run by factions wanting to be part of the U.S. good ol' boy network.

Dream on, guys....how many times does history have to repeat itself before we learn......oh, nevermind.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

...middle east countries go to war with (& within) each other until that part of the world is a leveled cesspool run by various rebel factions

And there are some who believe that US involvement will change that scenario to one of the affected country being run by factions wanting to be part of the U.S. good ol' boy network.

Dream on, guys....how many times does history have to repeat itself before we learn......oh, nevermind.

I couldn't agree more. This little incursion is going to cost $billions and will only result in another corrupt leader coming into power who will need to rule with an iron fist. Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that many M.E. countries are not ready for a democracy. Dictators are the order of the day as many of the people are seemingly incapable of appreciating the benefits of freedom. They need to be enslaved to better serve Allah.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think the French should have stayed out of the American War of Independence?

You got it.

Not a good historical analogy.

Meh...since it didn't relate to the topic at hand I didn't take it as an analogy. I took it as a direct question.

Funny, though, how people use analogies, good and bad, to shore up their stance on a topic. Analogies have their place in life but it comes all too often that making analogies takes the place of being able to rationally explain your stance as related to the topic at hand.

Kinda like talking to lawyers...it's like you have to be careful what you say.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I couldn't agree more. This little incursion is going to cost $billions and will only result in another corrupt leader coming into power who will need to rule with an iron fist. Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that many M.E. countries are not ready for a democracy. Dictators are the order of the day as many of the people are seemingly incapable of appreciating the benefits of freedom. They need to be enslaved to better serve Allah.

Praise be to Allah!
Somebody really, really "gets it"!!!!!!!
I'm facing a conundrum because I don't know what sentence to highlight as more important than the others!

I'm not sure about the "need to be enslaved" part but I certainly do see what you mean and why you said that.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DougH 270]

Our involvment in these uprisings and conflicts over the past months is frightening.

We are going to busy busy busy if our new litmus test for foreign military intervention is a government killing some of its citizens.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it's a good analogy for those that think America is intervening in Libya because of oil.

So what? Anti-social conspiracy theorists aren't the audience I'm addressing.

Did you look at the thread title?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

I'll spell it out for you:
The "differences" you claim are not what it's about.
It's about the bottom line.

That's not spelling out anything ... what is the bottom line?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think the French should have stayed out of the American War of Independence?

You got it.

Not a good historical analogy.

Meh...since it didn't relate to the topic at hand I didn't take it as an analogy. I took it as a direct question.

Funny, though, how people use analogies, good and bad, to shore up their stance on a topic. Analogies have their place in life but it comes all too often that making analogies takes the place of being able to rationally explain your stance as related to the topic at hand.

Funny how people take different stances in different threads, don't explain anything in detail in any thread, and can't understand analogies ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it's a good analogy for those that think America is intervening in Libya because of oil.

So what? Anti-social conspiracy theorists aren't the audience I'm addressing.

Did you look at the thread title?

Of course. Did you read my post #52, as well as the preceding discussion to which it responded? That preceding discussion was the audience I was addressing.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it's a good analogy for those that think America is intervening in Libya because of oil.

So what? Anti-social conspiracy theorists aren't the audience I'm addressing.

Did you look at the thread title?

Of course. Did you read my post #52, as well as the preceding discussion to which it responded? That preceding discussion was the audience I was addressing.

Yes. Like I mentioned, in both situations the intervening countries did so because the amount of resources needed to intervene was less than the amount they stood to lose if the outcome was not in their favor or gain if the outcome was in their favor ... it's the way the world has worked, is working, and will continue to work because resources are limited.

PS: It's also why both (neocon) Republicans and (liberal interventionist) Democrats say different things but do the same things.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I couldn't agree more. This little incursion is going to cost $billions and will only result in another corrupt leader coming into power who will need to rule with an iron fist. Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that many M.E. countries are not ready for a democracy. Dictators are the order of the day as many of the people are seemingly incapable of appreciating the benefits of freedom. They need to be enslaved to better serve Allah.

Praise be to Allah!
Somebody really, really "gets it"!!!!!!!
I'm facing a conundrum because I don't know what sentence to highlight as more important than the others!

I'm not sure about the "need to be enslaved" part but I certainly do see what you mean and why you said that.

+1

But I think the 16 guys who think that intervening in Libya is a good thing in the POLL in the other thread.. need to be headed over to the RECRUITERS immediately to put THEIR ASSES on the line and not someone elses kid to do the very very dirty work.