Let's see
![Image](http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b194/calidrmr/DBC_CC/poll-1.png)
Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?
qwert wrote:these is funny,again americans hurry to attack someone who dont attack america.
These is not nato or american war. What if some american soldier die? Who will be responsibile?
BigBallinStalin wrote:If so, just cut off supplies to the current Libyan government, using rhetoric side with the uprising which will most likely win, and see what happens. In the civilian controlled cities, the WSJ was reporting that the oil was still flowing through... so if that remains the case, then let it be.
Phatscotty wrote:Wondering if the changes in the Middle East are going to affect the US pullout of Iraq?
patches70 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Wondering if the changes in the Middle East are going to affect the US pullout of Iraq?
What makes you think we will ever leave Iraq? Hell, we still got troops in Japan and Germany and WWII was over going past 65 years now.....
Army of GOD wrote:patches70 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Wondering if the changes in the Middle East are going to affect the US pullout of Iraq?
What makes you think we will ever leave Iraq? Hell, we still got troops in Japan and Germany and WWII was over going past 65 years now.....
We have troops EVERYWHERE. Even in the countries we "don't".
Phatscotty wrote:Army of GOD wrote:patches70 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Wondering if the changes in the Middle East are going to affect the US pullout of Iraq?
What makes you think we will ever leave Iraq? Hell, we still got troops in Japan and Germany and WWII was over going past 65 years now.....
We have troops EVERYWHERE. Even in the countries we "don't".
politically speaking, I can totally see Obama telling us that nobody can come home from Iraq. I should have used the word "drawdown" instead of pullout. My bad
Phatscotty wrote:I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....
Let's see
Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?
well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.
Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.
Army of GOD wrote:I joined this game because it's so similar to Call of Duty.
qwert wrote:these is funny,again americans hurry to attack someone who dont attack america.
These is not nato or american war. What if some american soldier die? Who will be responsibile?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Ray Rider wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....
Let's see
I'm curious what you were expecting.Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?
well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.
Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.
On the one hand, the US is in no condition economically to support another war. Even if it were, what business does it have there? They've been burning American flags and saying the US is the "great satan" for years. There's no reason for a pre-emptive strike, since it's no threat to any other nation (except for the civil unrest spreading, which could be a good thing in any neighboring, repressive nations). When the populace of a nation rise up and overthrow their dictator on their own, then the responsibility of their actions rests solely with them. It forces those citizens to cooperate if it is going to succeed, which makes that cooperation and interdependence much more likely to continue when the time comes to set up the succeeding government. Also, what about every other nation which is experiencing civil unrest due to repressive leadership? If the US steps in here, why not in Egypt, Tunisia, or any other nation in the future? When do you stop? And why stop at a no-fly zone? May as well send in troops. I don't know, it's tough to avoid a slipperly slope on the issue.
jay_a2j wrote:Yes, lets get into another meaningless war so that the US will be too weak to stop the Chinese invasion!
How many time ,the history repeating. North Corea-Vietnam-Iraq-Afghanistan-Iran-Libya."bigbalinstalin-
This isn't just about attacking people for the hell of it.
Gaddafi is gearing up to kill as many of his own people as he can. He doesn't care anymore. He's lost $30bn in frozen assets, so he's got nothing to lose.
He has some portions of his military under his direct command, and he's moving into position to strike his rebelling cities. There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?
The US in this situation wants to stop him, but the top shots are limiting their actions for now. The US has moved the 6th fleet from Italy to nearby Libya and Tunisia, and they've denied Gaddafi control of his own air space. Why? So he can't bomb his own civilians and destroy his people's oil facilities."
qwert wrote:There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?
qwert did not ask that question, BigBallinStalin did. qwert quoted one of BigBallinStalin's posts that contained that line in his post but he got the format of the quote slightly off. You then made the mistake of attributing the contents of that quote to qwert.thegreekdog wrote:Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.qwert wrote:There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?
spiesr wrote:qwert did not ask that question, BigBallinStalin did. qwert quoted one of BigBallinStalin's posts that contained that line in his post but he got the format of the quote slightly off. You then made the mistake of attributing the contents of that quote to qwert.thegreekdog wrote:Would you, qwert? I'm not sure you answered your own question.qwert wrote:There's going to be immense civilian casualties, and if you were in a position to stop such senseless killing, would you?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users