BF2S Forums Only Force Works

RoosterCantrell wrote:

jord wrote:

When I say except I don't mean people serving in the middle east. I mean people in Middle eastern "armies". Ya know, the ones that behead people and shit.

Chechens and stuff, for an example of a non ME army that I don't respect.

I agree. I have complete respect for anyone man who is in the military and conducts himself honorably.  Even if the politicains aren't handling it right, how is that the fault of the troops?

I may questions the actions taken by the superiors and the politicians, but anyone who pulls that "fuck the troops" and "murderers" hippy Berkeley shit needs to wake the fuck up.  No nation survives without the protection of the people who have the courage to sign up to potentially risk thier lives and die to defend someone or something  beyond themselves.  People like that are dillusional cowards and worthless ungrateful idiots

Couldn't agree more.

JahManRed wrote:

I agree, its a fucking disgrace that the US and UK are in Iraqi securing resources while people are freely massacred in Africa.

and many many many other countries.

usmarine wrote:

RoosterCantrell wrote:

I don't have one.  I am just saying that your solution, probably is not the right one.

well my solution would get starving people food, water, and medicine a lot faster and safer then what they have right now.  I am not talking about long term solutions.  These people do not have time to wait for long term solutions.

Yes.  Very good point.  But, as cruel as it sounds,  is it worth our involvement, it's lomg term consequences, cost, and lives lost of our own troops?

That is a very real question that is a big part of choices made by national governments.  Sadly, there is no way to deny that in global politcs, human life has a price, and a low one at that, and every nation, logically, should care for itself first before others, and that is where it's a big issue.

Force would work, definitely.  But for short term success.  Since most nations have a desire to stay for hundreds of years, it's only realistic to think longterm in a situation like that.

It's a tough call, and that's my point.  Military action is big call, and must not be a default answer.


EDIT: I use waay too many commas.


@Jord-  I agree with alot of people in DAST threads, hell even Lowing sometimes. If someone already said something I agree with, no point in resaying it really .  I sometimes quote and say that "I agree",  but if a DAST thread already has the points I would say I just sit by and watch until I can contribute something new  .

Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-03-10 15:20:14)

FEOS wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

I agree, its a fucking disgrace that the US and UK are in Iraqi securing resources while people are freely massacred in Africa.

Yes. It's a fucking shame that the UN and AU can't keep Africans from massacring each other...so let's run to the US and UK to solve the problem.

How about the countries that aren't doing shit right now pull their load in Africa?

No, they don't want to get involved... in anything. I'm surprised that the UN are not doing anything especially since they are so liberal.

usmarine wrote:

I know some of you live in the land of teddy bears and rainbows where wars do not need to be fought and everyone can just stay in their own countries and live long and happy.  Thank god they are some of us who live in the real world.  I understand it may not be your faults since most of you have yet to leave your sheltered little suburban life.  But there is only one solution to this, and many other problems like this.  Force.  Plain and simple.  Not songs and celebrities, but men with guns whose mission is to help people, not steal their food.

Or we can just sit around and do some more diplomacy since that seems to be working just fine eh?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080310/ts … stdarfurun
"The agency said it was transporting about half as much food into western Sudan's war-torn Darfur as normal, and that the turnaround time for deliveries had slowed because truckers were unwilling to risk dangerous roads."

Diplomacy > The threat of force > Force.

Sometimes force is the final option, but by no means should it always be the only option.

There can be positive forces (not the boom-boom rat-a-tat-tat kind you seem to be promoting) that greatly influence change and understanding.  Look at Gandhi and his preaching and practice of satyagraha, MLK Jr and his preaching of civil disobedience not only to enact social change, but also economic class-change.  World history is rife with influential and successful instances of non-violent force.

Then there is diplomacy.  Are we even engaging in diplomacy?  Diplomacy can entail many different aspects, but is definitely not simply discussions.  Diplomacy in world affairs is effective when pursued from many angles, including increased/decreased economic relationships, foreign aid/agreements, and international political pressure.  Are we even doing remotely enough to enact positive change in regards to the tragic Darfur situation?  I don't think so, especially from a national government perspective.  Throwing money and humanitarian aid is not the solution. 

The world is not bound in absolutes.  Only and never are powerful words to throw around when there are over 6 billion people influencing daily life.

usmarine wrote:

I understand ken.  But there is no way you can tell me that if you were in their shoes right now, that you would want words and UN mandates.

I would want tangible action.  Where are the international leaders to bring this (and other equally horrific tragedies) to center stage?  People in government are talking about it, but almost as an afterthought - "Aww, that is so sad.  Let's throw in few hundred million dollars to Sudan in the next Appropriations Bill and hope it goes away."  There is little to no actual dialogue, no realistic options discussed, almost nothing - from anyone on the international stage.  The fact that the Sudanese government implicitly and explicitly contributes to the conflict should be evidence enough that we (international community) need to intervene in some way - I just think military force should be a last option after all other avenues are exhausted.

usmarine wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

usm,
you know, the more you and your stupid ass talks all this shit about how you're the ONLY qualified person on earth who knows ANYTHING because you've been in combat, the more you sound like you were the guy who got your ass kicked and chewed out the most because you were a substandard marine.  so seriously, why the act?  the sheer machismo of pretty much everything you say (until you get your ass owned by logic and reality) psychologically wreaks of you needing to recoup lost manhood and self worth.  were they really that tough on you? 


On topic...
So you want to deploy to Darfur?  Sweet, when do you go?  Bring lots of bullets and du so you can show them who's boss!  usmarine > janjaweed.

Yeah, talking doesn't do anything.

ya um......kennedy started the god damn thing in the first place.

and the blockade with several military ship etc also contributed, not saying that diplomacy does not help. but in this case it didn't do a fucking thing. the thing that happened was that you have a russian sitting in the UN all happy and yelling and laughing at the other countries because his side has the upper hand in the conflict and eventually he chickens out.

they didn't even come to any diplomatic solution in the UN, they just decided to pull out when the military pressure became to powerful.

no offense to you ironchef i'm just stating my opinion, but in this case i seriously do not believe that diplomacy had any impact.

The_Mac wrote:

Those who try to deny force as the only real diplomatic force to apply to the barbarians currently inhabiting the middle east, I recommend studying up on the World War II and realize that just maybe the horrors of everything of that war could have, no, should have been prevented, but people were too afraid of war because of the stigmas of the past and a fear of upset. They traded temporary peace for 6 years of utter destruction and the final days of European ascendancy.

The United States and Britain, the last real bastions of freedom in the face of a spineless Europe, should not make the same mistake twice.

Sudan is in Africa, not the Middle East.

Go go gadget Godwin.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Those who try to deny force as the only real diplomatic force to apply to the barbarians currently inhabiting the middle east, I recommend studying up on the World War II and realize that just maybe the horrors of everything of that war could have, no, should have been prevented, but people were too afraid of war because of the stigmas of the past and a fear of upset. They traded temporary peace for 6 years of utter destruction and the final days of European ascendancy.

The United States and Britain, the last real bastions of freedom in the face of a spineless Europe, should not make the same mistake twice.

Sudan is in Africa, not the Middle East.

Go go gadget Godwin.

Where in the world is Carmen SanDiego?

S3v3N wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Those who try to deny force as the only real diplomatic force to apply to the barbarians currently inhabiting the middle east, I recommend studying up on the World War II and realize that just maybe the horrors of everything of that war could have, no, should have been prevented, but people were too afraid of war because of the stigmas of the past and a fear of upset. They traded temporary peace for 6 years of utter destruction and the final days of European ascendancy.

The United States and Britain, the last real bastions of freedom in the face of a spineless Europe, should not make the same mistake twice.

Sudan is in Africa, not the Middle East.

Go go gadget Godwin.

Where in the world is Carmen SanDiego?

Dead.

usmarine wrote:

Moo? Si! wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

http://www.lbtpic.com/ebay/central_show_dcp_06.jpg

carrying this

http://tiki.oneworld.net/food/food_title.jpg

escorted by this

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_ … ver-02.jpg

and this

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land … ley-ds.jpg

carrying this

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1926122. … 277B4DC33E

will bring this

http://tiki.oneworld.net/food/food_title.jpg

to

http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/images/sto … ur-map.gif

QFMFT

pretty much.  spelled out for the kiddies.  maybe we need a coloring book also?  Nice one 7

But men will die so its not worth it.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

But men will die so its not worth it.

Oh so its ok as long as women and children die eh?

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:

I understand ken.  But there is no way you can tell me that if you were in their shoes right now, that you would want words and UN mandates.

huh ? Did I miss something ?

Well yes you did miss something.  Too little too late.  Read the article.