Post: What Can And Should The U.S Gov't Do To Help In The Middle East?
03-28-2011, 06:54 AM #1
MURJACK
R.I.P Soap Mactavish
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Recently Obama sent over troops in Libya to aid the French which has created for an even greater civil war in Libya that has no end.(Gaddafi will not step down). This situation could have definetly been better handled- by Obama going to NATO and discussing a resolution that was bipartisin(not just solely based on his mal judgement as a president). Not only has there been uproar in Libya but throughout all parts of the middle east like Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to name a few. So what are your guys opinions on the protests in these countries? And what action do you feel the U.S should take if they should even make one at all?
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
03-28-2011, 07:04 AM #2
anddrew
League Champion
duke nukem
03-28-2011, 07:10 AM #3
MURJACK
R.I.P Soap Mactavish
can we hold off on all the uneducated and stupid ass troll remarks please.....
03-28-2011, 07:33 AM #4
Mr.Amitoz
Big Brother ONLINE GTFO
WHY THE **** DOES THE USA get in envolved with this shit we are slowly dieing helping TO MANNY countries at once but we still havent even fixed ours... Even our Stock market and Economy is DOwn why dont we fix our problem 1st...
03-28-2011, 07:45 AM #5
ⒿⒺⒷⓇⓄ
At least I can fight
They gave the military lead to NATO.
03-28-2011, 07:51 AM #6
the stuff
League Champion
I say nothing. Foreign involvement only makes other countries hate the U.S. even more. However, if another dictator were to start a genocide of his own people, and we don't get involved. The world will condemn the U.S. So no matter what we do, people won't like us. I say **** them.
03-28-2011, 07:52 AM #7
MURJACK
R.I.P Soap Mactavish
Originally posted by jebro View Post
They gave the military lead to NATO.


this was after the U.S had sent troops to Libya and rendezvoud with the rebels there
03-28-2011, 08:23 AM #8
Nothing. The same goes for the UK too. And everyone like us.

Getting in wars with nations that pose no threat to us is flat-out stupid, we're not helping and it's clearly being done for our(the word "our" being used very lightly) own political agenda.

And I agree with previous posts, both the US & UK should sort out our own problems first before we go swanning off across the world fighting wars that don't need to be fought.

What good could come of it? None. In-fact quite the contrary:
- Our soldiers die fighting the war.
- We spend money on the war.
- And the rest of the world sits back and looks at us in a much worse way than they did before.

F*cking pointless.
03-28-2011, 08:35 AM #9
Originally posted by Black View Post
Recently Obama sent over troops in Libya to aid the French which has created for an even greater civil war in Libya that has no end.(Gaddafi will not step down). This situation could have definetly been better handled- by Obama going to NATO and discussing a resolution that was bipartisin(not just solely based on his mal judgement as a president). Not only has there been uproar in Libya but throughout all parts of the middle east like Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to name a few. So what are your guys opinions on the protests in these countries? And what action do you feel the U.S should take if they should even make one at all?


U.S should not get involved by any means, Arabs are not welcomed to this idea ( I know US is helping) but they'll treat as a real invasion. In my view, I believe US/EU should help some Arabian countries to invade Libya and force Gaddafi to step down. However, the problem is that two of the biggest Arabian forces ( Egypt and Syria) cannot get involved due to severe problems in their internal politics. ( Egypt has no president at the moment and is controlled by the army while Syria is full of protests)

- Egyptian
03-28-2011, 10:44 AM #10
xinfectedsoulx
Daddy's home.
You think USA have it bad? The British Government are cutting everything, and I mean everything. They are cutting the NHS, the police, benefits, the military and a lot more. People are struggling to keep their house warm (old people mainly) and are at risk of dieing from it. The government cut their pension and the gas companies raise their bills.
The government sack 11 000 troops, by email might I add including people serving in Afghanistan, cut the RAF, decommission brand new fighter jets, decommission Navy boats and fail to provide adequate equipment to those serving on the front line.

So what does our bright Prime Minister do? Starts another war. It costs £900 000 for ONE Tomahawk Cruise Missile. It costs £40 000 and HOUR to keep a Tornado jet in the air. Considering they are doing round trips from England to Libya taking 8 hours and refuelling 3-4 times, that's £320 000 for that ONE bombing mission with that ONE plane.

The cost of this was is about £500 000 000+ as an estimate.

Then you have the warships in the ocean costing God knows how much as well as Warships patrolling in the Caribbean sea on drug patrol helping out America. The you have the sum of the Afghan War. How much is that costing us? We are using Jets, Bombs, ammo and whatever else over there. We have men dieing for our government to look good. I have an idea. Let's send out Tony Blairs, Gordon Browns and David Camerons kids to the front line. Let's see how they like it when it's there sons/daughters fighting and dieing and not somebody elses.

I have kudos for the the Princes being in the military. At least Harry wanted to go to Afghanistan to fight, until his life became at great risk due to the press leaking it.


Now that's ****ed up.

The following user thanked xinfectedsoulx for this useful post:

Drake

Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.

Gray NextGenUpdate Logo