Let's play, "Cite the attack"

[flacaltenn]

Personally FoxFyre -- I'd rather be on that tropical beach that IndoFred went to..

I know what points he's trying to make and indeed he has a case that we incite blowback with our genuinely crappy foreign involvements. He's just handed off the bomb to us and exited stage left.

Rather not get into it without the Original Agitator..

 

[Indofred]

Cambodia provided staging facilities for the VC and NVA. Of course that's foreign aggression.

And how did that endanger the US mainland or perhaps you could list attacks on the United states by those groups.

Libya was the target because they were engaged in slaughtering their own citizens. Our actions were to stop that and protect human rights. You're in favor of human rights, right?

The Libyan leader was clearly an idiot but the US started the whole thing because they wanted cheaper oil.
Had that not been the case, there would never have been any attacks on US citizens.
I'm not saying he was right, he clearly wasn't, but the cause was still US interference.
The 1981 incident hardly helped matter either.
The US is a long way from Libya but Ron Raygun decided it was his job to put Libya in it's place.

Moving teh goalposts? Cambodia's actions put the lives of US soldiers at risk. Are you OK with US soldiers getting killed?
The US did not "start the whole thing because it wanted cheaper oil." That's just plain childish.

The US soldiers were at risk because they were intervening in a foreign war.
If they hadn't been there, they wouldn't be at risk.
Am I okay with US soldiers getting killed - no, not really but you have to accept it's going to happen if your government starts wars.

As for the Libyan thing, perhaps you could explain why the US government was so pissed off with them.
They'd tossed the US oil companies out, mostly because Gaffers was a daft prat but mostly over money. The US responded with it's usual, "I'm bigger than you" attitude.
Gaddafi was clearly an idiot but the US made it'self a target by flexing it's muscles in some bugger else's back yard.
Why did the US need to conduct freedom of navigation runs in that area? It not as if Libya is next door to Florida.

 

[Indofred]

Rather not get into it without the Original Agitator..

That should read, "Rather not get into it without the Original educator".

Hope that helps.

 

[The Rabbi]

And how did that endanger the US mainland or perhaps you could list attacks on the United states by those groups.



The Libyan leader was clearly an idiot but the US started the whole thing because they wanted cheaper oil.
Had that not been the case, there would never have been any attacks on US citizens.
I'm not saying he was right, he clearly wasn't, but the cause was still US interference.
The 1981 incident hardly helped matter either.
The US is a long way from Libya but Ron Raygun decided it was his job to put Libya in it's place.

Moving teh goalposts? Cambodia's actions put the lives of US soldiers at risk. Are you OK with US soldiers getting killed?
The US did not "start the whole thing because it wanted cheaper oil." That's just plain childish.

The US soldiers were at risk because they were intervening in a foreign war.
If they hadn't been there, they wouldn't be at risk.
Am I okay with US soldiers getting killed - no, not really but you have to accept it's going to happen if your government starts wars.

As for the Libyan thing, perhaps you could explain why the US government was so pissed off with them.
They'd tossed the US oil companies out, mostly because Gaffers was a daft prat but mostly over money. The US responded with it's usual, "I'm bigger than you" attitude.
Gaddafi was clearly an idiot but the US made it'self a target by flexing it's muscles in some bugger else's back yard.
Why did the US need to conduct freedom of navigation runs in that area? It not as if Libya is next door to Florida.

If Cambodia had maintained neutrality there would have been no need for US forces to invade them.
As for Libya, Gaddafi was brutally suppressing a rebellion. The US had no other dog in the fight, as Gaddafy had already given up his nuclear program.

 

[mudwhistle]

this is the America Sucks thread.

 

[Indofred]

Moving teh goalposts? Cambodia's actions put the lives of US soldiers at risk. Are you OK with US soldiers getting killed?
The US did not "start the whole thing because it wanted cheaper oil." That's just plain childish.

The US soldiers were at risk because they were intervening in a foreign war.
If they hadn't been there, they wouldn't be at risk.
Am I okay with US soldiers getting killed - no, not really but you have to accept it's going to happen if your government starts wars.

As for the Libyan thing, perhaps you could explain why the US government was so pissed off with them.
They'd tossed the US oil companies out, mostly because Gaffers was a daft prat but mostly over money. The US responded with it's usual, "I'm bigger than you" attitude.
Gaddafi was clearly an idiot but the US made it'self a target by flexing it's muscles in some bugger else's back yard.
Why did the US need to conduct freedom of navigation runs in that area? It not as if Libya is next door to Florida.

If Cambodia had maintained neutrality there would have been no need for US forces to invade them.
As for Libya, Gaddafi was brutally suppressing a rebellion. The US had no other dog in the fight, as Gaddafy had already given up his nuclear program.

That's crap. If the US forces weren't there, no problem. The US was doing it's anti communist crap in a country that couldn't possibly attack the US and was no threat at all to anyone outside the region.

So Gaddafi was a bastard. Big deal. Why isn't the US invading Zimbabwe?

 

[Indofred]

this is the America Sucks thread.

Not really.
More 'an American foreign policy' sucks thread.