What should the U.S.’s role be?

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?

Stay the hell out of it. It doesn't matter who's side the US comes in on, within a week the world media will convince every tenth century throw back that we are there to make war on islam. The last thing we need is another "nation building mission".

We need to stop sending our boys abroad to be killed. Let Libya work out its own problems.

Stay the hell out of it. It doesn't matter who's side the US comes in on, within a week the world media will convince every tenth century throw back that we are there to make war on islam. The last thing we need is another "nation building mission". Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Heaintliein!

Heaintliein! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

rotflmao.........not many times we all agree but I'm with ya'll on this one.

We need to stop sending our boys abroad to be killed. Let Libya work out its own problems. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

These two lines said it all. Just stop getting involved with the affairs of others, UNLESS it will TRULY benefit the U.S. We have enough debt of our own to worry about. The borrower always becomes the lender's slave, so we simply need to stop looking to other countries for money when we get in a bind....get out of debt the old fashioned way I guess. Cut spending, and offer fair wages to our own.

Stay the hell out of it. It doesn't matter who's side the US comes in on, within a week the world media will convince every tenth century throw back that we are there to make war on islam. The last thing we need is another "nation building mission". Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Word!

I agree, they should work out their own problems. We aren't dependent on foreign oil to begin with. Working to get an allie in power would be as far as I care to see it go. Hell, I will be surprised if Iraq is still free in five years. Bring the troops home and line the borders with them. Fight your own damn war.

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

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

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.

It's their country, their families, their future, their fight. They may want to fight it alone.

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 respectfully disagree. The only appropriate role would be to secure the oil fields and let the locals kill each other till their hearts' content. But, we've proven again and again that we are incapable of using military force for advancing the strategic goals of the US, we insist on wasting blood and treasure trying to make mortal enemies play nice with each other.

As my son prepares to go to war once again, I'm more and more disgusted that his efforts are on behalf of tribal savages who don't want them and westerners who don't appreciate or understand them.

Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh. I'll likely not see him again for a year.

Stay the hell out of Libya. Let them sort it all out.

I respectfully disagree. The only appropriate role would be to secure the oil fields and let the locals kill each other till their hearts' content. But, we've proven again and again that we are incapable of using military force for advancing the strategic goals of the US, we insist on wasting blood and treasure trying to make mortal enemies play nice with each other.

As my son prepares to go to war once again, I'm more and more disgusted that his efforts are on behalf of tribal savages who don't want them and westerners who don't appreciate or understand them.

Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh. I'll likely not see him again for a year. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

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

Is that not imperialism?

Sending a child to war, and one we cannot win, is agony. I cannot imagine how you feel, my heart goes out to you.

It isn't a matter of "rights" dear. It's the cruel truth that military force is used appropriately only for obtaining or keeping something of value, any "ideological" or politically correct use of force is pure, criminal folly. Note that I did not say we should take the oil fields, I said the only appropriate role would be for us to secure them. Fairness is a completely imaginary concept.

Why does the US have the responsibility to be "peace keepers"?

It isn't a matter of "rights" dear. It's the cruel truth that military force is used appropriately only for obtaining or keeping something of value, any "ideological" or politically correct use of force is pure, criminal folly. Note that I did not say we should take the oil fields, I said the only appropriate role would be for us to secure them. Fairness is a completely imaginary concept.

Why does the US have the responsibility to be "peace keepers"? Originally Posted by Iaintliein

No fair isn't an issue, nor is justice.

And the truth is they try to prevent their valuable resources from falling to foreign control - like any nation would. They have as much desire to keep us out ad we do to get in...

They have every right to try, even if it is horrible for us, fairness doesn't matter.

Why does the US have the responsibility to be "peace keepers"? Originally Posted by Iaintliein

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.

Stay the hell out of Libya. Let them sort it all out. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler