Seriously? (Page 2)

OCD_OCD: Maybe it would help if the rest of the world would stop demanding that we intercede. Ya think?

Comandante FiLTH: No one is 'demanding'. I read more calls along the lines of 'mind your own business' than anything else. Perhaps it is time to switch from Fox news.

OCD_OCD: From CAIR: “We welcome our own government’s condemnation of the violent suppression of democratic rights, and we urge President Obama to move beyond condemnations to take concrete steps to help restore democracy and the rule of law in Egypt through dialogue. The first steps in creating an atmosphere conducive to dialogue would include the release of all political prisoners and respecting the right to peaceful protest."

"India has rejected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s request for US intervention in resolving the Kashmir issue, the Press Trust of India reported on Sunday."

"This time, the (Arab) League called for the United Nations and “the international community” at large to exercise their responsibilities under international law “to take the necessary measures” against the Syrian government. But aside from calling for trials of the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks, the resolution — adopted at a meeting in Cairo late Sunday night — did not specify what kind of international measures might be needed or justified."

"The Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait was unanimously condemned by all major world powers. Even countries traditionally considered to be close Iraqi allies, such as France and India, called for immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Several countries, including the USSR and China, placed arms embargo on Iraq. NATO members were particularly critical of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and by late 1990, the United States had issued an ultimatum to Iraq to withdraw its forces from Kuwait by 15 January 1991 or face war.
On 3 August 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanding that Iraq unconditionally withdraw all forces deployed in Kuwait. After a series of failed negotiations between major world powers and Iraq, the United States-led coalition forces launched a massive military assault on Iraq and Iraqi forces stationed in Kuwait in mid January 1991"

Intervention in Libya... "From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector."

Kosovo..... The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO's military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil, while in Yugoslavia the operation was named "Merciful Angel" (Serbian Cyrillic: Милосрдни анђео). The more common name for the events in Serbia, still used in historical records, is "NATO aggression" (агресија НАТО-а).[40]
The NATO bombing marked the second major combat operation in its history, following the 1995 NATO bombing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 1999 bombings led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, the establishment of UNMIK, a U.N. mission in Kosovo and put an end to the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s."

East Timor...."A coalition of nations sent troops to support the peace keeping mission. The forces were led by Australia, which provided the largest contingent and the out of theatre base for operations, supported by New Zealand, who sent the second largest contingent, and took responsibility for the more volatile southern half of the main border, France, whose special forces joined the ANZACs on the first day, as well as contingents from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Fiji, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. While the United States supported the transition authority, it did so mainly by underwriting contracts to replace destroyed infrastructure and thus avoided a direct military involvement, allowing the ANZAC led force to take the lead. The United States did, however, deploy a contingent of American police officers to serve with the International Police."

And when there is no US intervention, such as in Rwanda..." According to Barnett, UN inaction stemmed from its desire not to get involved in a potentially PR-risky operation which could damage the prospects for future peacebuilding operations, given that 18 UN troops had recently been killed in Somalia, even though UN troops had the capacity to save thousands of lives. "For many at the UN", Barnett writes, the moral compass pointed "towards New York", and not at Rwanda."

What would help is if other countries and primarily the UN, would quit asking the US to commit our military and our taxpayer dollars to fund "humanitarian intervention". That means the US pays in blood and funds and gets to shoulder the hate because of it.

Personally, I'd just as soon the US didn't send our military anywhere unless it was to aid our allies.

duncan124:
Don't mention the Sudan!

Comandante FiLTH:
You do realize that none of the quotes support your post "the rest of the world would stop demanding that we intercede".

duncan124:
Bush n Bills allies were Serbias allies

duncan124:
"The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO's military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. " says it all.

OCD_OCD: ... President Obama to move beyond condemnations to take concrete steps to help restore democracy and the rule of law in Egypt through dialogue.... "concrete steps". Why should the US have to take "concrete steps" to restore democracy and the rule of law in Egypt?

....Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s request for US intervention in resolving the Kashmir issue...
Did you miss the request for US intervention?

The Arab League called for intervention in Syria by the UN and the "international community". Who do you think that is?

The UN, France, India, the USSR and China demanded the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. Who had to end up sending the majority of the military? The US. You think any of them get shit for kicking Iraq out of Kuwait?

It was NATO that got us involved in Kosovo. You think NATO gets shit for that? No. The US does.

Timor? Who else was involved and are they ever mentioned? No.

Who does everyone expect to take care of the atrocities in the Sudan, Darfur?

Did you not get the part that we get crap from various factions when we don't intercede as was the case with Rwanda? We got crap for not doing anything in Syria. We got crap for Libya.

"A negotiated settlement in Libya was deliberately avoided for months while NATO, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973, illegally pursued regime change. NATO chose sides, intervened in a civil war and morphed into the air force for the rebels, who could not have succeeded but for NATO's attacks.

Once into the war, the (Obama) Administration promptly passed off nominal responsibility for the war to NATO, after beginning the war without congressional authorization. NATO became the beneficiary of U.S. funds, U.S. war planes, U.S. drones, U.S. bombs, and U.S. intelligence assets."

duncan124:
The US stopped being a part of NATO, as planned, just before the war in Yugoslavia.

duncan124:
Don't mention the US war in Sudan!

OCD_OCD: What planet are you living on, Duncan?

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm

duncan124:
I have been living here for sometime.

A wacky website is just that.

Just before the war in Yugo the media was reporting that after the end of the cold war and the change in NATO ( from being a US dominated to a European agency) G Bush was free to follow his own policies.

NATO was designed to close after the member nations in Europe were shown to be able to organize their own defenses.

Thats what you are wanting and thats what happened.

US military equipment is not suitable for other nations.

duncan124:
There was a European Defense Force which included France.

As you know France was not a member of NATO and could not join if it wanted to.

You might remember Cameron claims to have agreed with France to share a new aircraft carrier!!

But as the US was against Europe the Internet is now pro-Serbian!!!

OCD_OCD: Uhm....Duncan....That is NATO's international website, hence the nato.int.

OCD_OCD: France is also a member of NATO. Do you just make this stuff up or what?

Comandante FiLTH:
For clarification:
1) Intervene: take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.
2) Intercede: intervene on behalf of another.

Matter #1: "....Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s request for US intervention in resolving the Kashmir issue...
Did you miss the request for US intervention?"

-Did you also miss that India rejected the request? -Note. No 'demanding' and there was a 'rejecting' by India who is involved in the Kashmir issue.

Matter #2: "The Arab League called for intervention in Syria by the UN and the "international community". Who do you think that is?"
- I see it as the Arab League requesting the UN, to intervene in the Syria matter.
[1]. What I do not see is a demand towards the US by Syria. What I also do not see is 'the rest of the world' demanding the US intercede.
The call from the Arab League was not along the same lines as what the US wanted. What they asked for, encase you missed it was "the UN and the international community at large to exercise their responsibilities under international law to take the necessary measures against the Syrian government. But aside from calling for trials of the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks, the resolution did not specify what kind of international measures might be needed or justified". "But before Sunday, none had come close to publicly calling for Western military intervention, in part because the notion is so deeply unpopular among citizens across the Arab world."

-This call from the Arab Union has long passed (keep in mind that they do not represent Syria nor the citizens of the Arab world in their calls) and the current situation has matured since then.

Matter #3: "The UN, France, India, the USSR and China demanded the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. Who had to end up sending the majority of the military? The US. You think any of them get shit for kicking Iraq out of Kuwait?"

- Again no demand towards the US to intercede. The UN passed the resolution condemning the invasion of Kuwait. It also passed the resolution that authorized any means to enforce the previous resolution be done. The UN itself is made up of countries that act together, these countries include the US. It is a body of countries not a specific country. This false font that is being projected, that the US was casually laying back and someone yelled 'Save us', is silly.
-Not even going to mention the so called 'war on terror' with 'weapons of mass destruction'. Who demanded that one?

Matter #4: It was NATO that got us involved in Kosovo. You think NATO gets shit for that? No. The US does.

-The US is part of NATO. [2]
No one sent the US there kicking and screaming. Clinton (your government's representative at the time) called for force. He said that strategically the US needed 'a stable, democratic and undivided Europe'. Again, there was no demanding to the US to intercede, they acted along with NATO.

Matter #5: "Timor? Who else was involved and are they ever mentioned? No."
-Expand on what point you are trying to make. I'm not going to decipher your random sentences.

Matter #6: "Who does everyone expect to take care of the atrocities in the Sudan, Darfur? "
-Expand on your point. Who are you relating as 'everyone' and what sources support you in this matter.

Matter #7: "Did you not get the part that we get crap from various factions when we don't intercede as was the case with Rwanda? We got crap for not doing anything in Syria. We got crap for Libya."
-Again. Expand on your point and your sources. I do not want an emotional discussion.

Matter #8: State the sources you are quoting from. Also note that the US is a part of NATO, quit referring to them as if they're not related to one another.



[1] -http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-syria-military-action.html?_r=0

[2] -http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

Comandante FiLTH:
Again. Nothing you stated supported your aforementioned post. "

OCD_OCD: So, you apparently believe that if the UN or NATO calls for action and requests the US use their military, that means that the US always acts on its own? LOL

If the US is part of NATO then what are the other countries who are members of NATO? The US is not the only member of NATO, you know.

You may call yourself Comandante all you wish if that pleases you, but my response to your demand is "No", I will not quit referring to the US and NATO as if they are not related to one another. You seem to believe that the US is NATO. Yeesh.

OCD_OCD: As of now, Jack Ethan, I'm pretty much done with you, OK? If you wish to find out the entities that demanded action by the US in Darfur and Rwanda and Sudan, it's right out there on the internet for you to look up for yourself. Do your own research.

Comandante FiLTH:
1) "So, you apparently believe that if the UN or NATO calls for action and requests the US use their military, that means that the US always acts on its own? LOL"

-Your 'So...' is incorrect. OCD, it is a very simple thing to grasp. The US (like other countries) is a part of UN and NATO, they (and other countries) make up the UN and NATO. There is no 'us' and 'them'.

You can refer to a cat as a dog for all I care, but I wanted to clarify how it is.

You made claims and now run away when confronted to proved backing for your claims. I didn't expect anything more. Take care.

OCD_OCD: There is a US and there is NATO and the two are not the same, despite whatever propaganda you are espousing today. And yes, Jack, I'm done. :big grin: I will link my sources to someone who wants to have a discussion and not someone who wants to bash the US because they have communist principles.

As for your expectations of me...I'm trying to work up a care, but I'm not having any luck. Have a nice day.

Comandante FiLTH:
Concerning your statement: "There is a US and there is NATO and the two are not the same, despite whatever propaganda you are espousing today."

-The phrases 'is a part of' and 'make up' do not denote 'are the same'. It means simply that NATO and the UN are organisations that are made up of several countries. Without these countries the entity that is NATO/UN wouldn't exists. The US is one of the several countries that are within NATO and the UN, they help make up the organisations, the are a part of these two organisations.

This isn't propaganda. You should take the time later today to read the UN & NATO sites to see the countries that are a part of it and you'll see the US right there.

And your other statement: "I will link my sources to someone who wants to have a discussion and not someone who wants to bash the US because they have communist principles."

-I have reasons to believe you have no 'sources', that your statements were laced with emotion.
-I especially like your last remark there, seeing that I've not stated any communist principles. I wonder why you will form that closing line, either you have difficulty comprehending my words or you are creating this 'ey look a commie bashin' the US' facade as a way to not address the matters I've placed forward. Matters that pertained directly to your own statements and nothing else.

OCD_OCD: Jack..... I am done.

duncan124:
France had an independent nuclear deterrent and so could not join NATO.

"... whatever propaganda you are espousing today." sums it up.

You also claim to live in Texas but you don't think anyone else might care to know what is going on.