Would you support US military involvement in any of the following?

[Mojotronica]

Would you support US military involvement in any of these nations/political hot-spots? Against whom? And why?

 

[Thadlerian]

None.

 

[Flak]

Suddenly fighting against Isreal on the side of the Palestinians? Four words: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

I wonder if we could really do some good in Rwanda though.

 

[napoleon526]

It depends on the situation. I don't support invading any of these countries, unless they have CLEAR links to terrorism.

 

[Mojotronica]

I meant against the Palestinians on the side of the Israelis. Also I meant to include a "No" option. Lame! Sorry.

AoA or Lefty -- could you add a "No" option to my poll?

Thanks!

 

[andvruss]

Doubtful the U.S. would attack any of these soon, unless provoked...

 

[cgannon64]

Well, no to all of them, but possibly Libya, because they have the biggest link to terrorism out of all of them, IIRC. But even then I'd want Special Forces sneaking around, not a full scale invasion.

 

[Hitro]

Probably none of those, it would always mean an "intervention" that at least could be related to self-interest alone (at least as long as you don't mean supporting the FARC in Columbia ).

In Somalia and Rwanda you would have to tell me what they would intervene against and how.

 

[Azale]

Let Russia handle Chechnya.

I don't think we should invade North Korea, just assassinate their demented leader somehow.

 

[Pongui]

Hitro gets to the heart of the matter.

I can't support a military action when the promoters lie about it every step of the way and seek the most cynical personal gains through the action.

If an action were transparent and disinterested, and broadly supported by an informed American public, then provided the neighbouring states were not opposed I would hope to see it authorized at the UN and supported by all Member States.

I guess that means, "No" I would not support any military intervention done primarily by the US, or any other country. Only the UN has the authority to initiate military action.

 

[Azale]

Only the UN has the authority to initiate military action.

I disagree. Since when did the U.N become the ruler of other countries actions?

 

[nixon]

I would support Libya, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. Especially the last two are potential threats to our national security and the security of our allies. Keep an eye on Iran. All have fatheaded leaders, and all oppress democratic values, neglect basic rights, etc.

 

[Zcylen]

clear links to terrorist groups? well, that's the best excuse

 

[CurtSibling]

I think this current war may cause America to revise any future 'conquests' this year.

The Iraqis were meant to be a cakewalk.

I hate to think what the Koreans would be like!

 

[Peri]

So is this the 21st century equivalent of the 'domino theory'?

So I wonder who is the new Sen Joe McC?

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Peri
So is this the 21st century equivalent of the 'domino theory'?

So I wonder who is the new Sen Joe McC?

There are so many candidates!

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


There are so many candidates!

Aren't there just.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Azale


I disagree. Since when did the U.N become the ruler of other countries actions?

The UN has no jurisdiction over non-members.

Every country sacrifices some freedoms by joining the UN. Member States must abide by and uphold the UN charter. If you don't like the rules, then you work to change them, or you quit the organization.

 

[Azale]

Still, it has no real control over any nation

 

[anarchywrksbest]

None! Give peace a chance!!

On a lighter note....

Long Live North Korea, hot chicks etc.