What should the U.S.’s role be?

We do not....but if folks want us to be, I have no problem taxing them with an oil field or three.

The world can not have it both ways. ''Save our citizens but expect no payment.''

That is why we have heated arguments in this forum , convoluted thought patterns. Originally Posted by WTF

Holy cow!!! almost a libertarian ideal. I personally believe if foreign powers want US protection, they should pay for it. Just like Iraqi oil was "supposed" to pay for the war in Iraq.

We do not....but if folks want us to be, I have no problem taxing them with an oil field or three.

The world can not have it both ways. ''Save our citizens but expect no payment.''

That is why we have heated arguments in this forum , convoluted thought patterns.



Originally Posted by WTF

In the name of all alledged to be holy, that's twice in one day we agree!

A better place for our military is at our own border. It's ironic that back in '07 when my son was getting shot at every day in Baghdad, I was calling on customers in border towns that were statistically, more dangerous.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-year-juarez-a

We should stay the hell out of Libya.

Fight your own damn war. Originally Posted by MyKindaParty

Must the messenger always be slain? LOL It’s not my idea.

Goodness. I’ve never seen the board so united, but I believe the pundits were suggesting a “surgical strike” and no commitment of troops beyond maybe the pilots it might take to accomplish such a mission. My own belief is, like others here have already posted, it matters naught what we do, because it’ll be construed and propagandized to be quite the opposite from our true intent; therefore, I’m against such a strike. Besides, we still other problems to worry about:

North Korea Threatens to Attack South, US
Feb 27, 2011 – 6:28 AM
Hyung-Jin Kim

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/27/no...outh-korea-us/

How would Americans react if during your civil war Britain came in and tried to "liberate" one of the sides? Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Point of order. British Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston, personally sympathetic to the South, was a wise man keeping Britain neutral throughout the American Civil War. Until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863, there was a very real possibility that Britain or France might aid the South against the North. The South sought British intervention using “King Cotton” to entice Britain into declaring for the South. Palmerston urged calm even though British mills went idle and unemployed; plus, Great Britain did provide weapons to the South including it’s most prized raider, the CSS Alabama. I own one of the British rifles sold to the South for use during the Civil War.

Furthermore, the North, on it’s own, violated British suzerainty at sea with an incident, the Trent Affair, 1861, that almost by itself provoked a war between the North and Great Britain.

One of the great “what if’s” in history turns on the American Civil War ending differently than it did. Would a divided U.S. have intervened and helped prevail against Hitler during WWII? If not, what then Great Britain? Palmerston wisely held to a policy of neutrality, and things turned out for the best.

The only role that is appropriate is maybe that of peacekeeper. Keep protesters from being slaughtered but play no other part - however just being there will raise hostility. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I hope not. I can still recall our “peacekeeping” role in Beirut and Somalia.

Now we can all join hands with John and Yoko and sing a chorus round of Give Peace a Chance, or chant "make love not war." j/p LOL

"One of the great “what if’s” in history turns on the American Civil War ending differently than it did. Would a divided U.S. have intervened and helped prevail against Hitler during WWII? If not, what then Great Britain? Palmerston wisely held to a policy of neutrality, and things turned out for the best."

I've often contemplated the same thing (almost). Had the US stayed out of WW1 would Hitler have even come to power? Had the south won, I think it's possible the Anglophile south and more Germanic north could have entered WW1 on opposite sides, making north America the true sight of the "western front".

I've often contemplated the same thing (almost). Had the US stayed out of WW1 would Hitler have even come to power? Had the south won, I think it's possible the Anglophile south and more Germanic north could have entered WW1 on opposite sides, making north America the true sight of the "western front". Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I expected someone might point out my omission. Admittedly, there were thousands of southerners serving as officers and in the ranks during WWI, but had the North alone entered WWI on the side of the Allies, it alone could have made the same contribution to that war as the U.S. in fact did.

I have never considered the possibility of the North and the South entering the war on opposite sides. Plus, there is the West to consider. If the South had successfully broken away, wouldn't that have been an example for California to emulate; thus, creating yet a third republic, west of El Paso, out of the whole we know today? Shoot, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana could have set themselves up as an American OPEC. What role would it have played—fighting alone against Mexico as per the implications of the Zimmerman Telegram? But then, would the Zimmerman Telegram have provoked the disassociated North into war as it did the United States in 1917? All dominos that depend on other dominos.

Why does the US have the right to their oil fields or any others, but those on their own soil? Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

We built them?

We built them? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Doesn't mean we own them.

Doesn't mean we own them. Originally Posted by discreetgent

We also expended beaucoup Texas oil (and American lives) protecting those Libyan—and other Middle Eastern—oil fields from Fascist German and Italian exploitation. I hope and imagine our oversight has been less harsh. I further believe that had the Axis Powers prevailed, their jackboot fascism would still be murderously oppressing that region. Just saying.

We also expended beaucoup Texas oil (and American lives) protecting those Libyan—and other Middle Eastern—oil fields from Fascist German and Italian exploitation. I hope and imagine our oversight has been less harsh. I further believe that had the Axis Powers prevailed, their jackboot fascism would still be murderously oppressing that region. Just saying. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It does not matter a bit who controls the fields. Oil is a true world commodity. Libya shipped most of their oil to Europe but the price goes up across the board because supply has been diminished.

The market does not care if God himself were selling oil or the Devil. Price would be the same.


It matter most the currency that oil is traded in.

It does not matter a bit who controls the fields. Oil is a true world commodity. Libya shipped most of their oil to Europe but the price goes up across the board because supply has been diminished.

The market does not care if God himself were selling oil or the Devil. Price would be the same.


It matter most the currency that oil is traded in. Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, the price is universal because oil is traded in dollars, not any other currency. And one of the primary reasons gas prices are increasing notwithstanding Libya, is that we are devaluing our money by printing it night and day to handle the trillions in deficit spending our gvmt is cramming down our throats.

Yes, the price is universal because oil is traded in dollars, not any other currency. And one of the primary reasons gas prices are increasing notwithstanding Libya, is that we are devaluing our money by printing it night and day to handle the trillions in deficit spending our gvmt is cramming down our throats. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Apparently the impact from Libya is greater than the 2% share of oil they have. The oil they pump is a lighter crude that refiniries in Europe and Asia are particularly designed for. US refiniries can handle heavier crude.

US refiniries can handle heavier crude. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Except ours are pretty full because we haven't built a new one in about 30 years. Lots of our crude has to be refined overseas.

Except ours are pretty full because we haven't built a new one in about 30 years. Lots of our crude has to be refined overseas. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yeah, I get that; my point really is that the effect of less oil from Libya is not at all distributed evenly and thus creates the potential for more of a price spike.

Will U.S. attack Qaddafi?

February 24, 2011 4:46 PM
As the U.S. State Department contemplates possible sanctions against Muammar Quaddafi and his government, David Martin reports that an American military strike may be the only way to remove a dictator who has vowed to fight to the death.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7357662n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GbV4X5R8xk

What should the U.S.’s role be? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

We need to keep our nose out of it. No more friggin war.. jeesh