Humanitarian Crisis?

[greg334]

I was listening to the BBC last night and they were interviewing one of the "rebels" who have been fighting the Libyan army. He made a comment about how the civilians were not being gunned down in the streets by the army but by the rebels. He was asked what he meant and he said because there is no one in charge, many rebels have went out to seek revenge and to settle old scores. He continued on to say that the army wasn't killing civilians but armed rebels and then said this "if this happened in the United State, the army would do the same thing to protect the government, kill rebels"

As I'm against this use of our military under the auspices of a humanitarian crisis, mainly because it is an armed up rising and not a wanton killing of civilians as many make it out as, we must examine our real purpose in this and other countries' military actions and a real lack of equality when real humanitarian crisis' happens in the world - like Dafur.

Shouldn't we apply the same logic to say North Korea where they kill a lot more people every year? Or maybe we should consider invading Mexico to prevent deaths there, over 35,000 have died there and a few thousand have within our borders or should we as our politicians justify the killing and kidnappings say it is among those people?

The biggest issue we as citizens should be concern with is the use of our military. It is not there to be a UN humanitarian force or a peace keeping force but it has specific purpose that is written in our constitution - to defend the country. North Korea never attacked us, and the soviet union is no longer in existence, so maybe we need to seriously think about ending our participation in Nato and having South Korea pay for our presences. BUT most of all, if the UN wants us to participate, they pay us.

 

[skyraider]

I was listening to the BBC last night and they were interviewing one of the "rebels" who have been fighting the Libyan army. He made a comment about how the civilians were not being gunned down in the streets by the army but by the rebels. He was asked what he meant and he said because there is no one in charge, many rebels have went out to seek revenge and to settle old scores. He continued on to say that the army wasn't killing civilians but armed rebels and then said this "if this happened in the United State, the army would do the same thing to protect the government, kill rebels"

As I'm against this use of our military under the auspices of a humanitarian crisis, mainly because it is an armed up rising and not a wanton killing of civilians as many make it out as, we must examine our real purpose in this and other countries' military actions and a real lack of equality when real humanitarian crisis' happens in the world - like Dafur.

Shouldn't we apply the same logic to say North Korea where they kill a lot more people every year? Or maybe we should consider invading Mexico to prevent deaths there, over 35,000 have died there and a few thousand have within our borders or should we as our politicians justify the killing and kidnappings say it is among those people?

The biggest issue we as citizens should be concern with is the use of our military. It is not there to be a UN humanitarian force or a peace keeping force but it has specific purpose that is written in our constitution - to defend the country. North Korea never attacked us, and the soviet union is no longer in existence, so maybe we need to seriously think about ending our participation in Nato and having South Korea pay for our presences. BUT most of all, if the UN wants us to participate, they pay us.

we will end it when they think our guys have had enough practice in the field as the Stealth drivers need experience and our equipment needs the real deal to adjust to make it better and our ships are loaded with newbies who need this to become better sailors and to monitor our capabilities to perform in future wars and such, well, how else do u get better, training is great, but the real deal is always a different ball game,,,been there and done that,,there ain't nothing like combat to clear the air.

IMHO < im just saying. pass me a cruise missile please

 

[layoutshooter]

Hey, how do you like King Putz the 1st not even consulting with congress. NO threat to the U.S. AT ALL. He DID, however, get permission from the Useless Nuts. Who's president is he anyway? Can anyone say "impeachment"? He sent in U.S. forces, for no apparent reason, WITHOUT the permission of Congress!!

That is a TOTAL trashing of the Constitution, not that it matters to him.