NATO 2011 military intervention in Libya

IronsightSniper wrote:Only the money they bring in. Besides, I prefer bicycles.

Tibet was a sovereign state, and no disrespect, but Native Americans were barbarians.

So you're basis for American culture is based off of Hollywood movies? >.> Bad examples all around.

I don't understand how you're inferring that Oil in general is a good thing.

I'm simply stating that the Libyan liberalization of their markets will
draw U.S. Investors, primarily in Energy, to them, which would reak
profits to us.

Being the linchpin of the World Economy, a rich U.S. is a good U.S.

Remember, we had a plan to build a Solar base on the Moon, had it not been for that Obama guy.

Countryman, You actually trust the oil companies?

Only the money they bring in. Besides, I prefer bicycles.

Rubbish... having the US at the centre of the world economy just makes the world economy victim to US foreign policy. A multipolar economic world is a much better solution and that requires a US owed by China...

I am not. I am suggesting that Americas oil dependence is keeping you from developing new technologies that are cleaner and renewable. As long as fuel is cheap in the US... who needs an electric car that costs three times more than a petrol or diesel driven car?
(note here in NZ we don't call petrol gas, because we call natural gas or LPG gas... because at room temperatures it is a gas... unlike petrol which is a liquid when at room temp... though it does evaporate.)

As I said the Chinese are spending a lot of money on alternative power sources and you just might find that your energy companies are still really oil companies and are just paying lip service to the other technologies they can't monopolise.

Actually Hollywood movies are a great indication of what Americans think and is a window into your culture. If you didn't agree with all these happy endings why would you keep going to movies?
If you didn't root for the underdog why do all Disney cartoons depict the underdog always winning?
In the real world a tweety bird has very little real chance against a cat. Rabbits are tricky but hunters rarely actually get blown up when a rabbit hops up and sticks his finger in the barrel of the hunters gun.
Every comedy pairing in Disney cartoons is a lie... coyotes are actually faster runners than road runners in the real world... and that is without buying products from Acme.

Yeah... I live in New Zealand mate... I know all the excuses for displacing people from land in western terms they would rightfully own if they thought in western terms. We own it because we have developed it and made it better... they had it for thousands of years and very little changed there.

By western standards we f**ked the people and now we have f**ked the land they lived on, and now we demand they thank us for it and say how they are so much better off separated from their land and had their culture stripped away from them... with most of their people depressed and with drug or alcohol problems.

Don't try that holier than thou sh!t with me cause I am not that stupid.

Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop
developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such
technologies.

To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and
base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from
movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a
tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.

Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a
conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation
of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an
extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

GarryB wrote:

Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

Yes, the King of the country will often suggest that a stable safe free country cannot exist without the xyz that is provided by having a king.

How about we not take your word and give it a go?

The US is all about democracy and choice so lets let the 6.5 billion Earthlings that aren't Americans get a choice?

I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop
developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such
technologies.

How much investment will such technologies get when the entire country is happy with its depencancy on oil because hey... it is cheap again! A technology that is only of interest to a minority of consumers is not worth investing a lot of money in. There would be much greater returns on developing new oil drilling machines that can work deep under water or in extremely cold climates if you know what I mean?

To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and
base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from
movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a
tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.

Hollywood is an industry in a consumer society. It has to match its product to what the majority of customers want and expect. They might not all appeal to all Americans but they are designed for the American market first and foremost. They help form stereotypes, but they also come from US stereotypes too.

Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

So. Being a recognised state means nothing in the 21st C. Thanks to NATO states can be created (Kosovo) on a whim. They can be invaded, or sanctioned into poverty.

You can't have a state without a social structure, and what you are saying is the only valid social structure that can be recognised as owning land is a state.

You are not better than the colonials that went around local chiefs and got them to sign bits of paper. The chiefs had no idea they were signing away ownership of the land their people have lived on for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years. But when the colonials moved in and started using force to remove these people to land no one else wanted it was all legal... they signed the blank sheet of paper that was filled in later. All nice and legal.

The reality was that it was the military power of the colonial forces that allowed them to do what they did.

In this case it is Chinas military power that allows it to do what it is doing. To claim stealing land from Native Americans is not the same as China imposing its will on Tibet is amusing.

Whinging about what China is doing and ignoring what America has done and is doing right now is why I don't respect the US or hold it in the same high regard that you clearly do.

Sad thing is that most of the things have been done in the name of the American people and if they actually sat down and had a good look at what was done in their name they might want to change it... but that isn't going to happen. US history will continue to be written by the Government and Hollywood.

Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

So pinching their land and killing half them is OK?

There was a hilarious TV series made in the US a long while back called the Beverly Hillbillies, and it was basically about some simple farming folk who found oil on their land and it made them extremely wealthy so they moved to Beverly Hills with the other rich folk. They soon find they don't really fit in and have a lot to learn and much of what they learn doesn't really sit well with them. For instance the high society people have a social structure based on how early they arrived to North America. The father of the simple farming folk called Jed worked out that that must mean the Indians are at the top of the social structure... which is perfect common sense, but was immediately dismissed. It isn't said out loud but the social structure is for whites only. It is set in the 60s I think and so there would only be white people amongst the rich society anyway.

In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a
conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

But those other brutal regimes and murderers aren't claiming the moral high ground and demanding to be the worlds financial hub. It is only the Western countries that give verbal moral lessons on the international stage.

The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation
of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an
extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

And the US invading countries in that period is OK?

Iraq 2003
Afghanistan 2001
Haiti 1994
Kuwaite/Southern Iraq 1991
Panama 1989
Grenada 1983
Cambodia 1970
Dominican Republic 1965
South Vietnam 1962
Cuba 1961
Korea 1950


Of course the US benefits even more from writing off invasions before 1945 as not "counting".

I guess they must have had their fingers crossed or something to make 1945 such a special date.

You'll have to grow out of the caves, so to say, first

Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for
restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad
guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat
the bad guys in the end.

It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop
shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing
evil to happen all over again.

We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.

Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for
restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

Exactly. You are not a good leader. You are happy as long as you are on top... you think we are in caves and don't care if we actually are or not. You are a me! me! me! country that talks about high morals and responsibility but really only does anything when it suits their direct needs.

By your own morals and your own standards... you fail.

Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad
guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat
the bad guys in the end.

And do you think the majority of Americans who think the invasion of Iraq was because of 9/11 think the same as you do?

It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

Tell that to Grenada, or Haiti, or Panama...

I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

And I am not blaming the American people for choices made by their government on their behalf... but wars have continued along on a regular basis since 1945 and don't seem like stopping any time soon and America seems happy to use direct force when-ever and where-ever it pleases.

It is funny because people who try to redress the past injustices like affirmative action in the west and people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe who take the land from the rich white land owners and give it back to the poor black people the results are often controversial but I laugh when, in the case of Zimbabwe it is countries like the US and UK that criticise his actions the loudest... he is merely returning the land to the people who used to own it. Of course with normal human corruption the land will likely go to his cronies, but isn't that very white colonial of him?

And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop
shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing
evil to happen all over again.

So called evil is normal human behaviour. Governments often have to do things that appear on the surface evil for the good of their situation and the situation of their people. Lecturing other governments for not living up to your ideals... when you don't even try to live up to them yourself is hypocrisy and this lying to yourself that you are somehow better than everyone else... that we all live in caves... sets you apart and isolates you from the rest of humanity. It is why people don't like you. Everyone has morals. Everyone tries to keep their actions within the boundaries of their morals but in the real world (as opposed to screen or TV) it is not easy as the choices are never black and white but different shades of gray. Bitching at every meeting at our failure to live up to your expectations and your standards... well if you can't work it out for yourself there is no point in me telling you.
Human rights and the concept of basic universal human rights is a western dream and is being violated in Guantanimo as we speak. It is also being violated by the Echelon system that listens to all electronic communication around the world. I think Putin should start every discussion with the US talking about these for 5 minutes... do you think US officials will mind?

We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.

Total death tolls in those conflicts is in the millions... Vietnam alone cost 3-4 million Vietnamese citizens their lives. That doesn't even take into account the poverty and suffering you created in your economic sanctions and economic warfare.

IronsightSniper wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Better to have one asshole to yell at (us) than a bunch of a different assholes with different interests.

Yes, the King of the country will often suggest that a stable safe free country cannot exist without the xyz that is provided by having a king.

How about we not take your word and give it a go?

The US is all about democracy and choice so lets let the 6.5 billion Earthlings that aren't Americans get a choice?

You'll have to grow out of the caves, so to say, first :v

I'd promptly disagree. A dependency is one thing, but that does not stop
developments of new technologies. It only stops the procurement of such
technologies.

How much investment will such technologies get when the entire country is happy with its depencancy on oil because hey... it is cheap again! A technology that is only of interest to a minority of consumers is not worth investing a lot of money in. There would be much greater returns on developing new oil drilling machines that can work deep under water or in extremely cold climates if you know what I mean?

Investment won't come until we're shocked to the truth. That means Peak-oil has to be real, and thus, the price for said oil, has to be real. Until then, we won't gear ourselves to a "war time-esque" economy for restarting our infrastructure in a 0 emissions environment.

To which I'd again disagree. I and a lot of people here learn more and
base our thought patterns more from old rusty literature than we do from
movies. I watch movies when I either get bored or feel like jerking a
tear. Doesn't indicate anything about my thought patterns.

Hollywood is an industry in a consumer society. It has to match its product to what the majority of customers want and expect. They might not all appeal to all Americans but they are designed for the American market first and foremost. They help form stereotypes, but they also come from US stereotypes too.

Expectations and reality are separate realities. I can gear my mind to laugh and giggle at some 100 million dollar flick that's ever so generic and the plot ever so expected. Doesn't mean that I expect the "heroes" in real life to beat the bad guy at the end, only means that I expect the heroes in the movie to beat the bad guys in the end.

Tibet on one hand was actually a recognized state by the community of the world.

So. Being a recognised state means nothing in the 21st C. Thanks to NATO states can be created (Kosovo) on a whim. They can be invaded, or sanctioned into poverty.

You can't have a state without a social structure, and what you are saying is the only valid social structure that can be recognised as owning land is a state.

You are not better than the colonials that went around local chiefs and got them to sign bits of paper. The chiefs had no idea they were signing away ownership of the land their people have lived on for hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years. But when the colonials moved in and started using force to remove these people to land no one else wanted it was all legal... they signed the blank sheet of paper that was filled in later. All nice and legal.

The reality was that it was the military power of the colonial forces that allowed them to do what they did.

In this case it is Chinas military power that allows it to do what it is doing. To claim stealing land from Native Americans is not the same as China imposing its will on Tibet is amusing.

Whinging about what China is doing and ignoring what America has done and is doing right now is why I don't respect the US or hold it in the same high regard that you clearly do.

Sad thing is that most of the things have been done in the name of the American people and if they actually sat down and had a good look at what was done in their name they might want to change it... but that isn't going to happen. US history will continue to be written by the Government and Hollywood.

But I told you, grievances of the past should be forgiven because everyone did it, everyone conquers and everyone's been conquered. It's all wrong and it should of stopped after the 2nd great war, China's conquest of Tibet subverts that.

Native Americans on one hand were either a band of tribes or bands of tribes that were unbeknown to the world.

So pinching their land and killing half them is OK?

There was a hilarious TV series made in the US a long while back called the Beverly Hillbillies, and it was basically about some simple farming folk who found oil on their land and it made them extremely wealthy so they moved to Beverly Hills with the other rich folk. They soon find they don't really fit in and have a lot to learn and much of what they learn doesn't really sit well with them. For instance the high society people have a social structure based on how early they arrived to North America. The father of the simple farming folk called Jed worked out that that must mean the Indians are at the top of the social structure... which is perfect common sense, but was immediately dismissed. It isn't said out loud but the social structure is for whites only. It is set in the 60s I think and so there would only be white people amongst the rich society anyway.

I never said it was okay, as I said, it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Doesn't mean we're going to give our lands back to the Natives, doesn't mean New Zealand's gonna give back their land to the Natives, doesn't mean China's going to become a series of dynasties and doesn't mean that Russians are going back to the Steppes and Scandinavia. I'm just saying conquests should of stopped with the UN and China conquering Tibet subverts that.

In fact, to put this in context, every nation on Earth has land from a
conquered nation, and literally no nation is free from this stain.

But those other brutal regimes and murderers aren't claiming the moral high ground and demanding to be the worlds financial hub. It is only the Western countries that give verbal moral lessons on the international stage.

And that's wrong how? It's hypocritical I know but someone has to stop shit like that and calling us hypocrites means that you're just allowing evil to happen all over again.

The point I'm saying is that any conquest of lands after the formation
of the UN is considered wrong, all conquests prior is forgiven (to an
extent). So in that regards, China invading Tibet, is wrong.

And the US invading countries in that period is OK?

Iraq 2003
Afghanistan 2001
Haiti 1994
Kuwaite/Southern Iraq 1991
Panama 1989
Grenada 1983
Cambodia 1970
Dominican Republic 1965
South Vietnam 1962
Cuba 1961
Korea 1950


Of course the US benefits even more from writing off invasions before 1945 as not "counting".

I guess they must have had their fingers crossed or something to make 1945 such a special date.

We didn't subject their people to our laws and include their lands as apart of our country. China did.

How exactly did that relate to oil?

You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal?

While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring
money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing?

China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

GarryB wrote:

How exactly did that relate to oil?

But this thread is about a potential NATO no fly zone over Libya... why would we even consider discussing oil .

You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

I read polls. A large proportion of Americans probably think it was god testing them. A portion probably think it was the US government. A portion might even think it was aliens.

Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal?

Policemen are hired. The US takes this role on itself because it has the biggest gun. Policeman might be what you call it, but a better name would be vigilante. A better word would be the name of the person who stirs up a mob to lynch someone, knowing full well the person being lynched did nothing the person stirring up the mob hasn't done before... but I don't know of such a word. It certainly isn't policeman.

While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring
money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

Give us a break from the saving the world BS. You intervene where it suits you and no where else, and it suits you when either you get to punish someone you have a grudge against, or there is money to be made.
If you want to do a better job stop. Don't intervene. If you think we are being ungrateful then stop.

Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing?

The Native Americans would say no. Your fellow white Americans would say yes. Might makes right... ask the Serbians about Kosovo and the Georgians about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
They can't do anything about it, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they don't have the power... the force to implement their will. The benfactors in the Kosovo case turn out to be murderers who supply organ thieves that make the movie "Hostel" look tame. The loser in the Georgian case is a US educated tie eater who thought the South Ossetians would welcome his dictatorship if he shelled them for a few days... he was wrong.

China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

What human standard? The universal declaration of basic human rights is a western creation that China had little to no input in developing. Why should they feel bound by your rules and ideas? Would you like a 10 minute lecture from Arab officials about how distasteful western dress sense is, and how all our women are sluts for showing so much skin... they deserve to get raped and murdered for appearing in public for being such harlots. How about a lecture from European countries about the barbaric use of the death penalty in the US? Most of the people executed are poor. A significant number are black. Many have below average IQ. Some might not even be guilty... they just couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to prove it.

At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

Live a day in Haiti and you will beg to be sent to Tibet.

IronsightSniper wrote:

GarryB wrote:

How exactly did that relate to oil?

But this thread is about a potential NATO no fly zone over Libya... why would we even consider discussing oil .

I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen?

You must eat a lot of propaganda, most Americans know it wasn't for 9/11.

I read polls. A large proportion of Americans probably think it was god testing them. A portion probably think it was the US government. A portion might even think it was aliens.

Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

Oh, so you're complaining that the policemen of the world can't shoot at every criminal?

Policemen are hired. The US takes this role on itself because it has the biggest gun. Policeman might be what you call it, but a better name would be vigilante. A better word would be the name of the person who stirs up a mob to lynch someone, knowing full well the person being lynched did nothing the person stirring up the mob hasn't done before... but I don't know of such a word. It certainly isn't policeman.

In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

While we sit here pouring money into the military you sit there pouring
money into your economy. If you want us to do a better job, help us out.

Give us a break from the saving the world BS. You intervene where it suits you and no where else, and it suits you when either you get to punish someone you have a grudge against, or there is money to be made.
If you want to do a better job stop. Don't intervene. If you think we are being ungrateful then stop.

Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

Oh so conquering a people and then subsequently subjecting them to your will is a good thing?

The Native Americans would say no. Your fellow white Americans would say yes. Might makes right... ask the Serbians about Kosovo and the Georgians about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
They can't do anything about it, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant as they don't have the power... the force to implement their will. The benfactors in the Kosovo case turn out to be murderers who supply organ thieves that make the movie "Hostel" look tame. The loser in the Georgian case is a US educated tie eater who thought the South Ossetians would welcome his dictatorship if he shelled them for a few days... he was wrong.

Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this very well.

China isn't failing to live up to only our standards they're failing to live up to the human standard, thus human rights.

What human standard? The universal declaration of basic human rights is a western creation that China had little to no input in developing. Why should they feel bound by your rules and ideas? Would you like a 10 minute lecture from Arab officials about how distasteful western dress sense is, and how all our women are sluts for showing so much skin... they deserve to get raped and murdered for appearing in public for being such harlots. How about a lecture from European countries about the barbaric use of the death penalty in the US? Most of the people executed are poor. A significant number are black. Many have below average IQ. Some might not even be guilty... they just couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to prove it.

It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend that.

At least they are free. Unlike Tibet.

Live a day in Haiti and you will beg to be sent to Tibet.

Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay.

I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen?

Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we
intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern
Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is
conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this
very well.

It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man
for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they
think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend
that.

Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay.

G8 Refuses To Back No-Fly Zone As Libyan Forces Advance Against Rebels

I don't know, maybe because Libyan assets are frozen?

Aren't you even going to pretend it is about democracy and the Libyan people?

Which is all fair and done, but of course we know it wasn't for 9/11.

Awww come on... you know there are plenty of quacks that think Saddam did it... like George Bush jnr.

I remember a while back on a different forum there were plenty of GWB supporters who were convinced that Iraq had to be invaded because there was evidence of AQ in the country... the funny thing is that the evidence they came up with at the time clearly showed AQ ties with the Kurds against Saddam... ties they rapidly cut when the US offered its help. The evidence therefore proved that Saddam was a great ally in the war against terrorism... yet you still found a reason to invade... he was a threat to the whole world or something.

In a world about guns, the man with the biggest gun take charge. We happen to be it.

have no problem with that. I have the problem that when that man who chooses where and when to use that gun based on his own situation and wants and needs and then has the balls to claim he is a policeman working for the greater good... when in fact he is actually a vigilante acting in his own interests.

Oh great, well, I for one at least appreciate the fact that we
intervene, rather than sit on an island somewhere in the Southern
Pacific gloating about places that need intervention. :rollingeyes:

Correction you don't give a fk about the interventions as long as the price of gas stays below x number of dollars per gallon. I sit on a beautiful Southern Pacific Island nation watching the US bombing the crap out of foreign countries and killing a huge number of people so that oil stays cheap... I am not gloating... I don't even own a car. I don't want one.

Please, save me from your Native American crap. Everywhere around you is
conquered land. Not only were White men the conquerors, you know this
very well.

Yeah... they lost their land to us because we cheated them fair and square... it is just silly for them to expect better treatment from the people of today that are benefactors of that theft.

No wonder you expect the world to look up to you as an ideal of moral values... you clearly know how to treat your niggers.

It's called Ethics. It for one, is not ethical to kill another man
for reasons such as "practicing religion". What Arabs think is what they
think, those are their morals and values. Ethics however, transcend
that.

Hahahahaha... so you can't kill someone for believing in a supernatural superior being that can't be seen or touched or spoken to, but it is OK to kill commies for thinking that a different political system might suit them better? Hilarious!
Clearly Al Quada and the Taleban should become religious groups...

Live a day in America and you'll beg to stay.

I am fine here thanks... I feel no great urge to be fingerprinted and body scanned at your border.

Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

Then maybe you should become another policeman.

Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil

If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're
hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of
Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that
China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not.

That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of
the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which
case, I'm very :sad: for you.

If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss.

Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

What they want is to be rid of the current dictator... nothing more.

What the west wants to do is impose a puppet government that is western friendly that might let them take over Libyan oil and screw the Libyans out of its value.

And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

My point is that there is a significant percentage of any population that really doesn't care what happens outside the borders of their little world, yet to be a good policeman you need to have a very good understanding of all the major players and the history of certain conflicts.
The US is able to intervene because it keeps its own population in the dark... and the rest of the population don't care.
The US media makes infomercials that prove whatever the US has done was for the good of the world... when it is clear it only ever acts for its own purposes. These are clearly not lovable traits yet Americans wonder why they are not loved. Yeah... ignorance is bliss.
And two political parties that share many of the same policies is hardly democracy.

Then maybe you should become another policeman.

Why do you assume there should be a policeman? To prevent big countries from bullying little ones? Hahahahahahahahaha... so to prevent bigger countries bullying smaller countries a big country that is the worst bully... that imposes economic sanctions on a whim is the bully punisher? USA... King Bully and bully punisher... Physician heal thyself...

Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

Lets look at the record shall we? To stop Saddam in his reckless disregard for democracy and his invasion of Kuwaite... where men got the vote in 2005 and women are still not allowed to vote in elections... the US and its coalition of the oil starved... invaded Kuwaite and restored... a dictatorship.
Later after severe economic sanctions and bombings it eventually invades Iraq and Afghanistan... for very little actual reason... in both cases to get a guy. Success in one case and total failure in the other.
In Kosovo UN security council resolution 1244 states clearly that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, yet the US and UK and other hangars on, give those body snatchers the go ahead to declare independence and support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia... violating the above UNSC resolution.
This action leads directly to Russia normalising relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where before the borders were largely closed, the sudden flow of trade makes independence from Georgia economically possible and Georgia panics and does something really really stupid... which the US whole heartedly supports because oil pipelines are involved.
We all know this results in two new countries being created even if their creation is not recognised in the west... in practical terms they are not ruled or likely to be ruled in the near future by Tiblisi so they are independent.

Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil

There are people in the streets protesting about their dictatorships all over the place. The people doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan are ignored. The people in Algeria and Yemen are largely ignored. The place that is assessed as being the possessor of the worlds largest oil reserves called Libya is on the western news services nonstop and there is talk of no fly zones and direct intervention.
It has everything to do about oil... the west could care less about civil rights... the hypocrisy of talking about Gaddafis forces firing on innocent civilians while showing video footage of civilians armed to the teeth with RPGs and assault rifles and even rocket artillery (122mm Grad trucks) and anti aircraft light cannon!!! The Taleban should be so well armed!

If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

But that is the point... you couldn't give a flying fk about the Libyan people... it is the oil under their feet that interests you. Did it ever occur to you that this is a civil war and none of your business? They need to sort it out themselves and the west going in there and altering the results will just make things worse.

Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're
hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of
Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that
China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not.

But these Chinese cave people are so backward, surely they are 100 years behind the west and so it is only fair that they should be allowed an extra 100 years of imperialism?

You talk about right and fair. As an American please explain right and fair to a Serbian from Kosovo. Or perhaps an Iranian or Cuban whose economic future is limited because of the policies of YOUR government.

That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

So what you are saying is that all people in US prisons should be set free and sent to US schools to tell the youth of America all about right and wrong because they know... they have been there and done that and they can tell anyone else how to live their lives and what choices to make... and maybe one day... if they are good they will reach the high moral standards of US prison inmates.

BTW you can tell them anything you want... considering they have a civilisation that goes back more than 5,000 years... or to put it in your terms when white Europeans were hunter gatherers, they might just smile and pretend to be listening while thinking how weak it makes you sound to suggest the government should listen to its people.

Do you really think these little lectures would have swayed Hitler or Stalin? Do you think anyone with the smarts and ruthlessness to get into power in a third world country like Saddam will turn to his subjects and his rivals and suggest a free market democracy with US values and morals? They'd be killed overnight.

To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of
the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which
case, I'm very :sad: for you.

You remind me of the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is evil, yet priests molesting little boys is an issue they choose to hide and actually support by continually moving the perpetrators from area to area to get new prey.
My problem is that the high morals you hold everyone else to and judge everyone else by are never applied when you look in the mirror.

That is the problem I have with the US.

If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

Which brings up another point... your country is so judgemental. Why should you care what form of government another country decides to have for itself. The US is the greatest offender in this regard. Saddam was evil and had to be removed from power. If you were actually fair there would be no governments in most of the countries of the world based on that criteria. You put up with Stalin when fighting Hitler, and you put up with Saddam when he was fighting Iran. It is these inconsistencies that make you unpredictable.
Of course if you follow the oil you actually become very predictable.

Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss.

Isn't head in the sand politics the third major political party in the US?
Sometimes called the thinking mans party I believe.

Perhaps they like their independence and we don't want to Imperialize them?

But here's a question, what other country don't have their quacks who only care for their own country?

No policeman and we all kill each other, very simple.

Besides, U.N. Security council mandates us to protect countries from various atrocities.

Well, more reason to get another policeman on the block right?

There's a big difference between Protesters and Civil war.

Oh please, google for the status updates on various social media sites.
More people cared about Libyan protesters being shot at by Hinds than
they cared about Libya's status of Top Oil Reserves in North Africa.

Again, if you haven't noticed, we're preoccupied in 2 wars already.

You complain that we don't care about the Libyan people simply because
we're not intervening for them, yet you fail to realize we're already
intervening elsewhere.

I would love to see China and Russia have a comparable global intervention force, but they don't.

Live is not fair. We're here to make it fair. We're sorry for
Imperialism, but China isn't China without their 4000 year history of
conquest (Chinese wars have cost at least 80 million lives). Past is
behind us, no more Imperialism please.

Iranian and Cuban futures are what they are because of their Governments
also. I cannot explain the actions of my Government as I was not alive
back then and thus, did not have a vote nor a voice.

If death is what fears one from freedom, he does not deserve freedom.

So you say. In reality, you base your opinion off a minority group, taking extreme examples and projecting them as a reality.

What you fail to realize that for the majority of Americans, what we
want is what the majority of the world wants, food on table, walls
around table, etc.

It's like if a smoker told a non-smoker that smoking is bad, he right there, is holding his morals high above the non-smoker.

But is it within logical reasoning to deduce that because the smoker
tells the non-smoker not to smoke, that the smoker is thus a hypocrite,
and thus wrong about not smoking? No, because smoking inherently is bad,
and a bad man telling a man to do a good thing is not hypocritical, it
is the right thing to do.

Otherwise, why does everyone judge us about our Carbon emissions?

Each decision will affect us one way or another. If it affects us, we
care. If it affects you, you care. Therefore, it is within our
perceptive boundaries to pass judgment and receive judgment.

The Third major political party in the U.S. would be the Green party,
which are a collection of paranoid schizophrenics who only put blame on
whoever is the biggest and the baddest and the opposite of what they
care about. You should study about America more.

GarryB wrote:

Why pretend? If they want Democracy they get Democracy.

What they want is to be rid of the current dictator... nothing more.

What the west wants to do is impose a puppet government that is western friendly that might let them take over Libyan oil and screw the Libyans out of its value.

As I said, the British tried that already. They failed. Perhaps they like their independence and we don't want to Imperialize them?

And? There are plenty of quacks here who are gay, does that mean that you think all Americans are gay?

My point is that there is a significant percentage of any population that really doesn't care what happens outside the borders of their little world, yet to be a good policeman you need to have a very good understanding of all the major players and the history of certain conflicts.
The US is able to intervene because it keeps its own population in the dark... and the rest of the population don't care.
The US media makes infomercials that prove whatever the US has done was for the good of the world... when it is clear it only ever acts for its own purposes. These are clearly not lovable traits yet Americans wonder why they are not loved. Yeah... ignorance is bliss.
And two political parties that share many of the same policies is hardly democracy.

But here's a question, what other country don't have their quacks who only care for their own country?

Then maybe you should become another policeman.

Why do you assume there should be a policeman? To prevent big countries from bullying little ones? Hahahahahahahahaha... so to prevent bigger countries bullying smaller countries a big country that is the worst bully... that imposes economic sanctions on a whim is the bully punisher? USA... King Bully and bully punisher... Physician heal thyself...

No policeman and we all kill each other, very simple. Besides, U.N. Security council mandates us to protect countries from various atrocities.

Which means stop making the UN a U.S. led coalition. Which further means, stop crying that we can't be everywhere at once.

Lets look at the record shall we? To stop Saddam in his reckless disregard for democracy and his invasion of Kuwaite... where men got the vote in 2005 and women are still not allowed to vote in elections... the US and its coalition of the oil starved... invaded Kuwaite and restored... a dictatorship.
Later after severe economic sanctions and bombings it eventually invades Iraq and Afghanistan... for very little actual reason... in both cases to get a guy. Success in one case and total failure in the other.
In Kosovo UN security council resolution 1244 states clearly that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, yet the US and UK and other hangars on, give those body snatchers the go ahead to declare independence and support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia... violating the above UNSC resolution.
This action leads directly to Russia normalising relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where before the borders were largely closed, the sudden flow of trade makes independence from Georgia economically possible and Georgia panics and does something really really stupid... which the US whole heartedly supports because oil pipelines are involved.
We all know this results in two new countries being created even if their creation is not recognised in the west... in practical terms they are not ruled or likely to be ruled in the near future by Tiblisi so they are independent.

Well, more reason to get another policeman on the block right?

Oh, so this is all about oil eh? Seriously, I thought you knew about Peak Oil

There are people in the streets protesting about their dictatorships all over the place. The people doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan are ignored. The people in Algeria and Yemen are largely ignored. The place that is assessed as being the possessor of the worlds largest oil reserves called Libya is on the western news services nonstop and there is talk of no fly zones and direct intervention.
It has everything to do about oil... the west could care less about civil rights... the hypocrisy of talking about Gaddafis forces firing on innocent civilians while showing video footage of civilians armed to the teeth with RPGs and assault rifles and even rocket artillery (122mm Grad trucks) and anti aircraft light cannon!!! The Taleban should be so well armed!

There's a big difference between Protesters and Civil war.

If you want us to stop "intervening when it's places we care about" then step up and intervene yourselves.

But that is the point... you couldn't give a flying fk about the Libyan people... it is the oil under their feet that interests you. Did it ever occur to you that this is a civil war and none of your business? They need to sort it out themselves and the west going in there and altering the results will just make things worse.

Oh please, google for the status updates on various social media sites. More people cared about Libyan protesters being shot at by Hinds than they cared about Libya's status of Top Oil Reserves in North Africa. Again, if you haven't noticed, we're preoccupied in 2 wars already. We spend 2/3s of our Annual budget for Defense, while everyone spends about 10%. You complain that we don't care about the Libyan people simply because we're not intervening for them, yet you fail to realize we're already intervening elsewhere. Seriously, if you think you can do better, step up to the plate. I would love to see China and Russia have a comparable global intervention force, but they don't.

Oh come on Garry, stop deluding yourself. I already admitted we're
hypocrites for calling China out on Tibet when we have a past history of
Conquest and subduing of Native peoples. Does that make it right that
China gets to conquer and subject Tibet to their will? Absolutely not.

But these Chinese cave people are so backward, surely they are 100 years behind the west and so it is only fair that they should be allowed an extra 100 years of imperialism?

You talk about right and fair. As an American please explain right and fair to a Serbian from Kosovo. Or perhaps an Iranian or Cuban whose economic future is limited because of the policies of YOUR government.

Live is not fair. We're here to make it fair. We're sorry for Imperialism, but China isn't China without their 4000 year history of conquest (Chinese wars have cost at least 80 million lives). Past is behind us, no more Imperialism please.

Iranian and Cuban futures are what they are because of their Governments also. I cannot explain the actions of my Government as I was not alive back then and thus, did not have a vote nor a voice.

That's why it's our moral imperative, as someone who's been there and done that, to tell China to clean up their act.

So what you are saying is that all people in US prisons should be set free and sent to US schools to tell the youth of America all about right and wrong because they know... they have been there and done that and they can tell anyone else how to live their lives and what choices to make... and maybe one day... if they are good they will reach the high moral standards of US prison inmates.

BTW you can tell them anything you want... considering they have a civilisation that goes back more than 5,000 years... or to put it in your terms when white Europeans were hunter gatherers, they might just smile and pretend to be listening while thinking how weak it makes you sound to suggest the government should listen to its people.

Do you really think these little lectures would have swayed Hitler or Stalin? Do you think anyone with the smarts and ruthlessness to get into power in a third world country like Saddam will turn to his subjects and his rivals and suggest a free market democracy with US values and morals? They'd be killed overnight.

They don't get to be free. They get to be on Camera. It's all over TV f.y.i.

If death is what fears one from freedom, he does not deserve freedom.

To be honest, I don't see what your problem is. Unless your hatred of
the big bad Uncle Sam takes precedence over logical thought, in which
case, I'm very :sad: for you.

You remind me of the Catholic Church. Homosexuality is evil, yet priests molesting little boys is an issue they choose to hide and actually support by continually moving the perpetrators from area to area to get new prey.
My problem is that the high morals you hold everyone else to and judge everyone else by are never applied when you look in the mirror.

That is the problem I have with the US.

So you say. In reality, you base your opinion off a minority group, taking extreme examples and projecting them as a reality. What you fail to realize that for the majority of Americans, what we want is what the majority of the world wants, food on table, walls around table, etc. The high morals we hold over countries are not over looked. It's like if a smoker told a non-smoker that smoking is bad, he right there, is holding his morals high above the non-smoker. But is it within logical reasoning to deduce that because the smoker tells the non-smoker not to smoke, that the smoker is thus a hypocrite, and thus wrong about not smoking? No, because smoking inherently is bad, and a bad man telling a man to do a good thing is not hypocritical, it is the right thing to do.

If you want to believe that, you may. But those are your morals, not Ethics.

Which brings up another point... your country is so judgemental. Why should you care what form of government another country decides to have for itself. The US is the greatest offender in this regard. Saddam was evil and had to be removed from power. If you were actually fair there would be no governments in most of the countries of the world based on that criteria. You put up with Stalin when fighting Hitler, and you put up with Saddam when he was fighting Iran. It is these inconsistencies that make you unpredictable.
Of course if you follow the oil you actually become very predictable.

We're a logical people. Logic depends on assumptions, which comes from judgment. The world is one big place, and countries are just little places. What we do affects what you do and vise versa. Otherwise, why does everyone judge us about our Carbon emissions? They care because our Carbon emissions affect them. Same with Governments. A Fascist Government will do this, a Stalinist will do that. Each decision will affect us one way or another. If it affects us, we care. If it affects you, you care. Therefore, it is within our perceptive boundaries to pass judgment and receive judgment.

Oh maybe some day ignorance will be bliss.

Isn't head in the sand politics the third major political party in the US?
Sometimes called the thinking mans party I believe.

The Third major political party in the U.S. would be the Green party, which are a collection of paranoid schizophrenics who only put blame on whoever is the biggest and the baddest and the opposite of what they care about. You should study about America more.