Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

If a Labonese civil war breaks out, do we go in?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jimmyboy, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    If a Labonese civil war breaks out, do we go in?

    Well, the Syrians may be leaving Lebanon. But yesterday 500,000 pro-Syrians were picketing. And the day prior, 500,000 anti-Syrians were also picketing. We know that both sides are armed to the teeth.

    Since we (the U.S.) was the catalyst in getting Syria to leave, if a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, are we obligated to send in our troops? Did we just openned a can of worms?
     
  2. blu3l1ghtn1ng

    blu3l1ghtn1ng Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Just for that, you shouldn't :p
     
  3. Peregrine

    Peregrine Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Go in with what? We're already massively over-committed, and I doubt we have enough numbers left to get involved in a third foriegn country. This is of course the reason the Iraq war was such a stupid idea. Not because it was immoral, but because it destroyed our strategic options. I just hope we don't regret it too much and watch helplessly as something like this turns into a disaster.
     
  4. Necrolestes

    Necrolestes Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    There's nothing civil about a civil war.

    As it's an internal affair of a foreign nation, we are not obligated to send troops. This is between Lebanon and Syria. This does not mean that we are not obligated to provide humanitarian aid to either side (preferably the Lebanese, as they don't have a long standing tradition of trying to kill us). We should send food, water, and medical supplies but not weapons, logistical support, or troops.

    There's nothing civil about a civil war.
     
  5. DrunkCajun

    DrunkCajun Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    5,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ohh, come on, you mean your blood isn't stirring at the thought of another war? Let's go! Giddee-up! Let's forcibly recruit Canucks and send them!
     
  6. maccool

    maccool Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Last time we tried that it didn't turn out so well.
     
  7. llad12

    llad12 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Where is the country of Labon anyway? :p
     
  8. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If a civil war breaks out, that gives us all the incentive we need to send a quick strike force into Syria. Seeing as how we have a rather large force in Iraq currently not involved in combat operations, we seem to have a forward deployed combat force... We're not as overdeployed as Peregrine says we are.

    Syria knows this very well. They know how many combat troops are over there. They know how many are not currently in a combat role. They also know how fast and how hard we can strike.

    I don't believe the Syrian thugs are dumb enough to give us a reason to attack them. They saw what Libya did. Gadaffi cried "uncle" and is still running his country. Saddam said $&%& YOU! and is in prison. Syria cooperates and it's government gets to live a little longer. Pretty simple choice isnt' it?
     
  9. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Amen, Smegeroo!
     
  10. Matt

    Matt Diabloii.Net Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,163
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    467
    If I recall correctly, Iraq was suppoused to be a really quick war, over in what, weeks? months? Certianly not years. Yet look where we are now, entrenched in Iraq, thanks to a "fast war", you know, desert storm round 2, over before we know it.

    Yeah, they may know that we can strike them, and theres not a whole lot they can do about THAT, but if theres resistance like there is/was in Iraq, and all hell breaks loose we simply dont have the troops for another Iraq. So yeah, we can sure do a quick strike, but we both know if we did, it wouldnt end there, they wouldnt say "ok, ok, you struck us, we're done, nice fighting with you", they would take up arms (if not the government, rebels in the country), and we would end up having to withdraw anyways, because like I said, we simply cant fight 2 Iraqi-level wars.

    -Matt
     
  11. CyberHawk

    CyberHawk Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255

    nuff said. :thumbsup:
     
  12. DrunkCajun

    DrunkCajun Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    5,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAW!

    *dons cowboy hat and M-16*

    Where to, boys? I hear that them there Chinese were talkin smack today, let's git em!



    Er, wait. No, I kinda agree with Matt. Sort of. We probably have the capability of getting involved in Syria, and moreover probably could do a better job there than we're doing in Iraq. That said, it would be almost as messy as Iraq, and if we decided to throw that onto the fire too, I'd go ahead and pack up and leave the country. It would only be a matter of time at that point before some country with smarter leadership than ours woke up and realized, "hey, one of these days the US is going to stretch its limits and we're going to be able to get away with murder without them so much as blinking an eye at us!"

    Whether that means Canada finally invading, some nation supporting terrorists to attack the US, or just another one of those incosequential African countries deciding that half of its population needs to meet the sharp side of a machete after being beaten or gang-****** (depending on their sex/age, of course), I'm not sure how excited I'm going to be to sit here and realize that we brought it on ourselves (or the citizens of whatever country turns on itself) by scattering our deterrance so widely in the wind.
     
  13. blu3l1ghtn1ng

    blu3l1ghtn1ng Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    You guys dun luv yer yung'uns do ya?
     
  14. piff

    piff Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    With all of that talking, you never once related anything to the topic at hand. If a civil war in Lebanon breaks out, does the US get involved? You only said why there would be no civil war.

    While we have many troops in Iraq "doing nothing," they are there to prevent, not to be deployed as soon as we get the chance to attack somewhere else. They are not in the Middle East for the ultimate goal of Syria. Also, going to war with ANOTHER Middle Eastern nation, or any nation for that matter, would be politcal suicide for Bush. Approval of the amount of troops in Iraq is not high, and causing more deaths is not going to solve that. If a civil war does break out, the US will not get involved beyond sending humanitarian aid. The US will send more of that than all other countries combined.

    But, even though I called Freemason out, I agree with him that there will be no civil war. Look at what happened in Ukraine not long ago. Not only were there large factions within the country, but outside forces (Russia, Poland) were planning to get involved if something happened (or one caused something to happen) and yet, nothing did happen. East Europe and the Middle East, while unstable, are not to the point of major civil wars.
     
  15. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When I was a kid playing the original Zelda I would never use the bow and arrow, as each shot cost a gold piece. I intended to save it for when I "really" needed it, yet there were plenty of times when it would have come in handy, yet I refused to use it--thinking that I might need it more later on.

    I think there are a few people in this thread who can relate to that.
     
  16. maccool

    maccool Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Here's a pretty good timeline of what's been happening in Lebanon in case anybody might be interested in the events leading up to the current situation.

    So let me get this straight, Smeg. According to you, if Country A has a civil war and the troops in Country A sent there by a Country B can't keep the peace, Country C is obligated to invade Country B to take care of things? Classic.
     
  17. llad12

    llad12 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Smeg's logic is inescapable ... to him.
     
  18. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Well we can't attack Syria just because civil war breaks out in Lebanon. After all, the Syrians were in Lebanon to keep the peace. Civil war will occur because the Syrians listened to us and left. This left the Lebanese to themselves. But then this is Lebanon. It's like saying we're leaving the Pakis and the Indians to themselves.

    I wish it was like the Ukraine. But the difference is that the Ukranians weren't killing each other over religion like the Lebanese were in 82'.

    Anyways, if a civil war do break out, we... are sort of responsible since we got the Syrians to leave and left he warring Lebanese to themselves. But if we do deploy to Lebanon for peacekeeping. Oh crap, we're stuck in the middle east indefinitely.
     
  19. DurfBarian

    DurfBarian Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,710
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Invade country D, too. They're a bunch of evildoers. Took a bunch of embassy workers hostage, if you'll recall.
     
  20. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I don't think the US can afford to get involved in another country. And I don't think the US population in general has the capacity to learn where another country is on the map.
     

Share This Page