Fidel Castro says US plans NATO invasion of Libya - Polidicks

yea because the UN can't do shit right? They may be peacekeepers but put in a threatening situation and they will fight back

[QUOTE=Reginald14;28228141]yea because the UN can't do shit right? They may be peacekeepers but put in a threatening situation and they will fight back[/QUOTE] Except the peacekeepers are often so hamstrung by tight ROE they're useless. See the Balkans - Dutch UN troops watched as thousands were lead to their deaths because their ROE prevented intervention unless they PERSONALLY were threatened.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28228221]Except the peacekeepers are often so hamstrung by tight ROE they're useless. See the Balkans - Dutch UN troops watched as thousands were lead to their deaths because their ROE prevented intervention unless they PERSONALLY were threatened.[/QUOTE] And Rwanda. In addition to the ROE, our guy Dalliare's requests for US and other troops to be brought to the country were rejected since the Americans were still in shock that they lost 18 men from their adventure in Somalia.

[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;28213778]cuba is USELESS. [editline]22nd February 2011[/editline] name one person who even gives half a shit about cuba. [editline]22nd February 2011[/editline] other than Fidel Castro [editline]22nd February 2011[/editline] yeah, that's what I thought[/QUOTE] what an effective way of attempting to drive your point throught while making yourself look like a typical ignorant jackass [editline]23rd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28225646]Yeah, because extrajudicial executions, instant suppression of any dissent, forced labor, and imprisonment of any journalists who say anything against the government make Cuba a great country, right?[/QUOTE] Castro kept the country together and prevented it from falling into bloody civil war, besides, it isn't like America sponsored said dissent and rebels, making Castro make use of said oppressive methods, amirite?

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28229625] Castro kept the country together and prevented it from falling into bloody civil war, besides, it isn't like America sponsored said dissent and rebels, making Castro make use of said oppressive methods, amirite?[/QUOTE] Just like a number of other dictators managed to prevent civil war, through the same methods. Doesn't make it right. Also, two issues with what you said; 1. America doesn't share Castro's brutal treatment of his own citizens, nor of others. The failed Bay of Pigs revolution actually doesn't give Fidel Castro the right to oppress his citizens. 2. Secondly, even if it DID (which it doesn't), that doesn't justify Castro doing it.

Fidel is a troll? [quote][b]US[/b] plans [highlight]NATO[/highlight] invasion[/quote] That, just doesn't work, even in semantics.

Wow Castro stop framing us please not cool

Just die already Castro. Damnit, I want my fucking Cuban cigars without smuggling them from Canada. Seriously, I fucking love cigars, this guy needs to die. Oh, and suck my dick JFK. You're officially the worst president ever for starting the embargo. It's been 49 years, lift it!

[QUOTE=Superstormj;28251353]Just die already Castro. Damnit, I want my fucking Cuban cigars without smuggling them from Canada. Seriously, I fucking love cigars, this guy needs to die. Oh, and suck my dick JFK. You're officially the worst president ever for starting the embargo. It's been 49 years, lift it![/QUOTE] The kennedys were some of the best people this country had, it's not his fault if it hasn't been lifted.

[QUOTE=jjsullivan;28251404]The kennedys were some of the best people this country had, it's not his fault if it hasn't been lifted.[/QUOTE] True, but it really has been way too long. The embargo really isn't doing anything now.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;28228320]And Rwanda. In addition to the ROE, our guy Dalliare's requests for US and other troops to be brought to the country were rejected since the Americans were still in shock that they lost 18 men from their adventure in Somalia.[/QUOTE] That and, y'know, we were on opposite sides. Had the Americans sent troops, it would have been to aid the opposing forces. Seeing as the French and the UN were backing the genocidal government, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

[QUOTE=GunFox;28259022]That and, y'know, we were on opposite sides. Had the Americans sent troops, it would have been to aid the opposing forces. Seeing as the French and the UN were backing the genocidal government, you don't really have a leg to stand on.[/QUOTE] Why don't you read some of Romeo Dalliare's books, like [i]Shaking Hands with the Devil[/i]? I tell you this, he was not on the side of the French, the "wisdom" of the UN, or the genociders. Seeing you think otherwise you can't say he was on the "opposing side". (He was never)

I hope we tell them this time why we are invading. We sort of forgot that with Afghanistan.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;28260595]Why don't you read some of Romeo Dalliare's books, like [i]Shaking Hands with the Devil[/i]? I tell you this, he was not on the side of the French, the "wisdom" of the UN, or the genociders. Seeing you think otherwise you can't say he was on the "opposing side". (He was never)[/QUOTE] I'm not crushing on the guy himself, he was in such a shitty situation and nobody seemed to be willing to help the guy. I'm just pointing out that the US couldn't help without going in direct opposition to the decisions of the UN and France. Regardless of what the guy in charge on the ground may or may not have done. It was basically a no win scenario.

[QUOTE=GunFox;28260850]I'm not crushing on the guy himself, he was in such a shitty situation and nobody seemed to be willing to help the guy. I'm just pointing out that the US couldn't help without going in direct opposition to the decisions of the UN and France. Regardless of what the guy in charge on the ground may or may not have done. It was basically a no win scenario.[/QUOTE] Like I said the US was reluctant to committ troops to a backwater African land after Operation Gothic Serpent. The UN isn't really much of an obstacle for the US as the 2003 Iraqi invasion has shown. Also, as most of the West was neck-deep in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda was put in the permament backburner. In the view of the West, why help those tribal Africans when civilized white Yugoslavians are killing each other by the thousands?

[QUOTE=Tac Error;28261054]Like I said the US was reluctant to committ troops to a backwater African land after Operation Gothic Serpent. The UN isn't really much of an obstacle for the US as the 2003 Iraqi invasion has shown. Also, as most of the West was neck-deep in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda was put in the permament backburner. In the view of the West, why help those tribal Africans when civilized white Yugoslavians are killing each other by the thousands?[/QUOTE] We don't go anywhere near Africa after what happened on October 3rd, 1993 anyway. B.o.T.B.S. or Black Hawk Down for you movie guys. Africa is far too uncivilized to touch, probably for the next few decades.

This will not end until Gadaffi is dead so i say good luck god bless. [editline]25th February 2011[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aHQnDTd1y4[/media] I think this should be the themesong for the coming HELL that is going to land on Gaddafi's doorstep.