World's Policeman

CO5060.20 said:
In my opinion, I think that it is awful selfless dedicating out money and our lives for those that would not do the same for us. We should not return evil for evil, but evil for good. Whether they would do the same for us means nothing, nor should it. When someone is wrong, they are wrong, and I will stick with what I said in another forum, some swords are single edged. People do stupid things and it takes brave men and women to fix their ignorance. Once again, this is only my opinion, one that is probably subconciously bias due to the fact that I AM an American, but I truly believe in what we are doing, and I think that the day we stop is the day that evil and human greed prevail...
Click to expand...


So yes or no. I couldn't get a clear and definitive ansewer out of ^^^^ that. Sounds like a UN resolution too me :shock:
 
If that sounds like a UN resolution, then the UN finally did something right. That is a resounding YES, I would no doubt support future operations of "policery" in the future. Now I want you to realize that I am not yet in the Corps, and well, I say all of this from the confort of my nice cosy chair, few cares in the world so my opnion may very well be skewed, as it is not yet my life I condemn. However, I will stick with yes for the time being.
 
Okay. You support Police Type Actions by US forces. Can you express why you yourself would be willing to go to some fourth world country and risk your life to intervene in an ancient war that will continue, as soon as you leave.
 
I can sure do my best. So the scenario you have given me is that I am a Marine being sent to some fourth world country to fight some antient war, that once we left, would indeed continue. Well the answer to your question is that those that send us to war, usually have pretty dang good reasons. They have people who go to school for years and years, GEnerals who have been in the :cen: for some time, analyze the pros and cons. They usually have a goal in mind, and even if THEIR goal is not MY goal, I would rather of said that I went and tried to stop the war, then sat back and observed, or watched it. Plus, no body can foreshadow a war continuing after foreign military inervention.

I do not want you to get the wrong idea, I am not trying to undermine you at all, as you have been their, serving and fighting, and experiencing things that most people couldn't hack. I also want you to keep in mind that I have not gone yet, and I am not saying that you are wrong, as I have no doub tthat you know more about this subject then I do. But like you say, thats my two cents.
 
Good you've finally quit beating around the bush. Thats all I was after.

Keep in mind that on operations like those it's not about what Generals want. It's about what politicians want. ;)
 
Absolutely, I agree with you 100% on that one. It is a crooked world if you ask me, when the ones who sit in a desk, thousands of miles away from danger make the desicions for those 1 mile away from it. Then again, do not get me wrong, their jobs as politicians is just as important as that of the soldier, Marine, Airman, or Sailor.
 
America has almost grown too comfortable with war. I don't like this too much but we are a strong country and I think its our duty to help out weaker ones. Besides, if we dont do it who will?
 
You go where your told and do what your told in the military. However my personal opinion is that. I do not and will never agree with any operation even remotely similar to Restore Hope.
 
Funny how even the most noble of interventions, like Restore Hope were called big mistakes, the wrong wars and talked about how America should have never been involved in some tribal warfare thing that had been going on for centuries.
I understand where CO5060.20 is coming from but I think for a while, people should learn what happens when Police Action doesn't happen. You can tell the self-righteous, peace loving, tolerant EU that they can finally put their ideas to the test. Since the American way "didn't work," they can have a shot at it this time around.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Funny how even the most noble of interventions, like Restore Hope were called big mistakes, the wrong wars and talked about how America should have never been involved in some tribal warfare thing that had been going on for centuries.
I understand where CO5060.20 is coming from but I think for a while, people should learn what happens when Police Action doesn't happen. You can tell the self-righteous, peace loving, tolerant EU that they can finally put their ideas to the test. Since the American way "didn't work," they can have a shot at it this time around.
Click to expand...

strangly enough i agree with that! america cops alot of flak because of their actions....some good, some bad. i think that as the old colonial powers they may have more understanding of the tensions behind the conflict (the french actions in ginea not withstanding!)
 
I think the French actions reflect how well the French understand the territory: Very well.
The only thing that's going to work down there is busting some caps.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I think the French actions reflect how well the French understand the territory: Very well.
The only thing that's going to work down there is busting some caps.
Click to expand...

i saw one thing on the news that probably killed all french tourism to the region forever...on local yelling "i want to eat a frenchman!" over and over into the camera. hmmmm

but love the fact the french took out the entire airforce as a reprisal!
 
Well people weren't going to the Yugoslavia area right after the peacekeeping missions, especially Serbia.
Americans didn't visit Vietnam after South Vietnam fell .. at least for a long time.
Who cares if the tourism there has fallen? Is that what it's come down to? Avoid military intervention because it'll kill off tourism?? It's hillarious though how the French do exactly what they criticise the Americans of doing... and they do it in a harsher, more brutal manner but at a smaller scale. :lol: Except this time around, it wasn't going in to try to stop terrorism or to keep the world's oil supply from falling into the hands of a hostile dictator... it was CHOCOLATE!!!!!! hahahaha. j/k I'm sure there were other reasons but... shouldn't we be outside the French embassy with signs saying "No War For Chocolate" by now? ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: @ the wine comment.
I heard some African dictator did something like that. He says it tastes good with red wine.
 
"shouldn't we be outside the French embassy with signs saying "No War For Chocolate" by now? "

LMAO! :lol:

No bon-bons for peace! Don't go to all the truffle! War is cocoa! :twisted:
 
Every time I eat chocolate, I will think of those brave French guys who risked their butts so that I could satisfy my sweet tooth every now and then. :lol:
 
I think the French do what a great deal of other nations should; they aggressively protect their foreign nationals in regions they used to control. Case in point is the Ivory Coast; the French didn't deploy there as peace keepers/makers, they deployed there to defend there own above all else. They also know how to make a point in these countries, ie: they destroyed the air force that bombed them in the Ivory Coast. Frankly I wish I could rely on Canada to that extend with regards to protecting my family and myself if I was ever overseas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top