America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.
Moderator note: Although we like sexiest_hero, and recognize that he does not actually hate Obama and is mostly just angry because he feels betrayed, we have edited the thread title to something less inflammatory. While it has been allowed to stand for a while, we have considered that in retrospect, if someone who DOES hate Obama had used this thread title as a trolling post, it would have been locked or edited long ago, and it is inappropriate and inconsistent to let the title stand just because we know sexiest_hero is not actually trying to troll. Thank you. -Mannahnin
Like its been said before, we're busy as hell with Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that these two wars have caused us to lose income instead of gain like WW2 and WW1.
Then we have people like Hugo Chavez saying that the whole Libyan situation is a front for the US to invade Libya.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perkustin wrote:
You americans can do what you want just don't drag us in again.
I don't think European nations have the right to say that we drag them into wars.
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.
umm.
who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff? if the US went to "help" every country that had internal turmoil under the name of "freedom", if the US went after every country that "threatened" them, MAD wouldve happened a LOOOONG time ago.
knowing this doesnt make you weak. protecting your country's interest and keeping your nose out of someone elses business isnt weak.
the age of gung ho macho man "we go to war!" shenanigans is over.
funny thing is if Obama actually did help Libya there would be folks complaining "this aint our war! why are our kids dying in other countries?"
This is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to start. Are you so completely out of touch with reality that you think the US needs to open another military conflict? We cannot even pay for the ones we're already engaged in, and you think we should go play policeman to the rest of the world? What about the problems at home, the unemployment and underemployment? Real wages for Americans (compared to inflation) have not increased in the last fifty years (Source). And you think we need to go tell some other country what to do?
Wars are expensive. Sending troops overseas is expensive. I think I read something yesterday that said that China actually owns more of our debt than previously thought, though I cannot find a link to it now. Our Government is operating on stop-gap funding (Source) and you want us to go invade Libya out of some misplaced sense of duty? Get a grip.
who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?
We did, the free world exists because of the US and her Allies, I'm sure the Russians or Old Nazi Germany would have loved a different say.
The war in Iraq is pretty much over, the troop pull out is going according to plan. The official war ended sometime in July or August. Obama didn't stand on a boat with a big banner so people missed it I guess.
Hugo Chavez, the dictator who has other dictators over for Lunch says something bad About the USA boo hoo.
"funny thing is if Obama actually did help Libya there would be folks complaining "this aint our war! why are our kids dying in other countries?"
Internal troubles and mass murder are two different things. One is a War crime.
"the age of gung ho macho man "we go to war!" shenanigans is over."
and the Age of the "Let them die" era begun?"
Most of Our wars have been fought over seas, People say these things every war. It's their right, Freedom and all.
I know my PoV is in the very tiny minority, and I'm not trying to troll but I am firm in my belief to help others, even if there is no profit for yourself. Sadly It leaves me a Tree hugging lefty advocating war.
sexiest_hero wrote:who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?
We did, the free world exists because of the US and her Allies, I'm sure the Russians or Old Nazi Germany would have loved a different say.
The war in Iraq is pretty much over, the troop pull out is going according to plan. The official war ended sometime in July or August. Obama didn't stand on a boat with a big banner so people missed it I guess.
Hugo Chavez, the dictator who has other dictators over for Lunch says something bad About the USA boo hoo.
"funny thing is if Obama actually did help Libya there would be folks complaining "this aint our war! why are our kids dying in other countries?"
Internal troubles and mass murder are two different things. One is a War crime.
"the age of gung ho macho man "we go to war!" shenanigans is over."
and the Age of the "Let them die" era begun?"
Most of Our wars have been fought over seas, People say these things every war. It's their right, Freedom and all.
I know my PoV is in the very tiny minority, and I'm not trying to troll but I am firm in my belief to help others, even if there is no profit for yourself. Sadly It leaves me a Tree hugging lefty advocating war.
Please stop giving Americans an even worse image in the international community. It's bad enough as it is.
Bakerofish wrote:who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?
I'll tell you who: George Mother ing Washington.
USA! USA! USA!
I would say that the Monroe Doctrine kick started everything. Then we started getting involved with the Barbary coast and pirates, then we sent Commodore Perry who blew up some things in Japan to get them away from isolationism. Then the was the Spanish-American war followed by Teddy Roosevelt(best president ever of all times), and then WW1. We did get tired after WW1 and became isolationist, but then Europe decided that they wanted us to come over and made a stink about it. Then Japan got mad at us and we entered WW2, after that we realized that Europe can't hold itself together much less the world so we became the world police. Then we got into a fight with Russia over who was going to be the world police and we lost so we had to be the world police. We also split Germany and Korea into two different countries during that whole situation. North Korea was mad and invaded South Korea so we decided to help them out.
Then France had issues with Vietnam and couldn't hold that together and we stepped in.
Then there was some more invasions in the middle east that we had to help deal with because we said we would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bakerofish wrote:
war is NOT help.
I would beg to differ, wars have solved more issues than peace and diplomacy.
If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it. I wish it never happened, that said. I don't think we can give up on the concept of what we've been doing for the past 40+ years. Oh and no personal attacks please .
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.
that .
If someone attacks the US or US citizens, radiate their country. If not leave them alone. The time has long passed for the US to be involved in everyone's fight. They'll still be fighting when the US and the empire that follows us is long dust.
sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it.
If we enter Libya, start killing the troops, take out Ghadaffi, and then find out that there never were any orders to attack civilians, what would be your response?
I worked with the Yanks plenty in 4 tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, I loved the soldiers, and my missus is a Yank, and I lived there.
But sersiously, the more i hear Yank fething chickenhawks who never actually went to war anywhere, trying to live off the reputation of their betters, the less I struggle with the thought of losing the war.
Do i prefer Nazis or gobby American civilians with a Billy Big Balls complex?
sexiest_hero wrote:who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?
We did, the free world exists because of the US and her Allies, I'm sure the Russians or Old Nazi Germany would have loved a different say.
FYI: Russia was our Ally in WWII. The reason the free world still exists is because the US and Russia didn't bomb each other after that war. WWII was a legitimate war. It was also a popular war, largely paid for by the sale of war bonds, as well as the sale of equipment to our allies. It woke up the US as a manufacturing superpower - something that's not true anymore.
Korea and Vietnam were unnecessary. Korea was a draw at best, as the US people (and Congress) didn't give MacArthur the option to actually win it. In the long-view, it has accomplished little - Korea is still two separate states, and North Korea is still run by a dictator.
Vietnam was an unpopular war that cost the American people both money, lives, and prestige. The US got their ass handed to them by a bunch of tent-dwellers.
Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11) and that, while militarily successful, has been a disaster in terms of grand strategy. The US has spent far more time and money in Iraq than Iraq was worth. This is the equivalent of (since we're on a 40k forum) sending your 800 point deathstar to kill 10 grots in the corner and having them miss the action in the rest of the game. Good Job.
Then there's Afghanistan, where we're as bogged down as the Russians were in the 80s, and where we've failed, for ten years now, to achieve our primary objective of getting Osama bin Laden.
Yeah, we've got a great track record going...
Showing up with guns blazing and kicking the crap out of local rabble isn't a big deal. Achieving something lasting is a big deal. We haven't done that since WWII. We've spent billions of dollars that could have been used to benefit our citizens, to raise the standard of living in our country, to create jobs in our country, and we've achieved nothing of any value in doing so, other than convincing a large portion of the world that the US is not a global force for good or freedom, but that we're the equivalent of a school-yard bully who only show up to take your lunch money (oil).
Maybe it's time we stepped out of international conflicts and took care of the people here. At the very least, we wouldn't go further into debt to pay for someone else's war. At best, we might actually make a difference at home.
sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it. I wish it never happened, that said. I don't think we can give up on the concept of what we've been doing for the past 40+ years. Oh and no personal attacks please .
You're weak, apologizing for a war...
I just don't know why they're shooting at us. All we want to do is bring them democracy and white bread. Transplant the American dream. Freedom. Achievement. Hyperacidity. Affluence. Flatulence. Technology. Tension. The inalienable right to an early coronary sitting at your desk while plotting to stab your boss in the back. ~Hawkeye, M*A*S*H, "O.R."
As a taxpayer in a nation that loves war almost as much as you guys, i lean with the "feth em" crowd.
Wars cost money, if its not going to directly benefit us, they I say we dont get involved. But then im a selfish prick, thats why i should be in charge.
Seriously. Kill a few thousand Libyans? So what. If my nation gets no benefit at all from sticking our noses in, then why spend our own money and our own lives?
As I have said before, this is a bizarre paradox in my eyes. Are republicans not traitionally isolationist? Why do they always want to get involved in wars? America is like a second home to me, and i am of the opinion that if a war will not directly benefit the USA, why spend US lives and US dollars?
I dont give a gak what happens to people outside the UK/US. And I think its the smart move. The paradox is this, why are people like me the ones who have to defend the war, even though I dont care about Afghans for example...
And hippy types, who profess to genuinelly care about the Afghan women and babies and little old men etc etc always want us to come home, when coming home would doom many of them?
Shouldnt crouchy old fethers like me WANT us to pull out, and hippies WANT us to stay?!
but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men
Washington warned against "entangling alliances." He would have had way more issues about Korea than that. Outside of the US he would be considered an isolationist now.
Don't try to get Republicans and Democrats because they switch positions every so often. The Republicans started out as a radical little third party who then freed the slaves but now want to help the rich. The Democrats used to be conservative.
Gah, All the diplomats and video leaking out of the country crying for help , to turn around and just say "NO" seems wrong to me. I agree and know everything you say is right ReadBeard. But I do believe Besides Nam and WMD kill saddamn, Not for oil war, were just and valid. The Afghanistan war turned into a mess and is un-fixable at this moment.
Afghanistan needs a civil war, that's how America got itself straight. Seriously, just let them have a civil war and they'll decide which is better for themselves.
We just need to turn off the news for a bit and pray that our government doesn't give anybody any weapons.
sexiest_hero wrote:Gah, All the diplomats and video leaking out of the country crying for help , to turn around and just say "NO" seems wrong to me. I agree and know everything you say is right ReadBeard. But I do believe Besides Nam and WMD kill saddamn, Not for oil war, were just and valid. The Afghanistan war turned into a mess and is un-fixable at this moment.
but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men
Washington warned against "entangling alliances." He would have had way more issues about Korea than that. Outside of the US he would be considered an isolationist now.
so knowing that, lets say washington still had a say over what happened in Korea, do you think he wouldve gone balls-in for freedom or packed it up?
sincere question here.
while i understand that the founding fathers of america espoused freedom liberty and all that i really dont think they expected the whole world to follow suit. i think theyre more worried about applying it to their own country and the people who are in and those who want to be part of it.
the founding fathers recognized the right of other countries to govern themselves...heck thats what they fought for in the first place right?
halonachos wrote:Afghanistan needs a civil war, that's how America got itself straight. Seriously, just let them have a civil war and they'll decide which is better for themselves.
We just need to turn off the news for a bit and pray that our government doesn't give anybody any weapons.
The last time Afghanistan did that they "elected" the Taliban. It doesn't matter to me if their primary form of entertainment is shooting women in the back of the head in soccer stadiums, but they also let in AlQaeda. Keep Al Qaeda out and I don't give a about Afghanistan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bakerofish wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled
dont get me wrong. I respect ol' george
but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men
Washington warned against "entangling alliances." He would have had way more issues about Korea than that. Outside of the US he would be considered an isolationist now.
so knowing that, lets say washington still had a say over what happened in Korea, do you think he wouldve gone balls-in for freedom or packed it up?
sincere question here.
while i understand that the founding fathers of america espoused freedom liberty and all that i really dont think they expected the whole world to follow suit. i think theyre more worried about applying it to their own country and the people who are in and those who want to be part of it.
the founding fathers recognized the right of other countries to govern themselves...heck thats what they fought for in the first place right?
ack sorry for the thread hijack.
If this is post WWII, and we still had troops there and those troops attacked he would have gone for taking the country. If troops were not there he would not have gotten involved.
Redbeard wrote:Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11)
You know that Dick Cheney and George Bush disagreed with this, right?
so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov
besides...how can you liberate a country who "loves" its great leader in the first place? - again im veering off topic here.
as for the al qaeda... the tragedy here is that the "freedom fighters" were as bad as the oppressors. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils..."hey at least we're backing up our own right?"...two bad the lesser evil got worse over time.
Redbeard wrote:Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11)
You know that Dick Cheney and George Bush disagreed with this, right?
America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....
I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!
Redbeard wrote:Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11)
You know that Dick Cheney and George Bush disagreed with this, right?
You know I disagreed with Dick and George, right?
I was remarking on the "Iraq was involved in 9/11" part.
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.
This paragraph has fifteen sentences in it and this thread is awful.
1. Why do you have to tell us your black? This means nothing.
2. You want US TO GO INTO LIBYA? You want US to intervene with this bs when we are in Iraq and Afganistan already?
3. Yeah, he is weak for not spending even more money to enlarge our fething 13+ trillion deficit.
4. Obama is trying to keep us out of it, that doesn't make him weak, it makes him intelligent, and not a dumbass (see most republican senators, Fox News, and George W. Bush)
so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov
besides...how can you liberate a country who "loves" its great leader in the first place? - again im veering off topic here.
as for the al qaeda... the tragedy here is that the "freedom fighters" were as bad as the oppressors. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils..."hey at least we're backing up our own right?"...two bad the lesser evil got worse over time.
such is life
back to regular programming
-No he would not have been in the fight unless there were US troops already there (which there was). Once stuck in though he would have finished it.
-I could give a about freedomg fighters. We were after AlQaeda. the rest of the entire lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....
I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!
America has to stay in Afghanistan because it was their meddling in the 80's that has turned Afghan into the primitive, unprogressive, dirthole it is today.
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.
This paragraph has fifteen sentences in it and this thread is awful.
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.
This paragraph has fifteen sentences in it and this thread is awful.
And this post raises the bar how?
It's not meant to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perkustin wrote:America has to stay in Afghanistan because it was their meddling in the 80's that has turned Afghan into the primitive, unprogressive, dirthole it is today.
Rather then what would have happened in the event of a soviet occupation then subsequent rapid withdrawal? No, afghanistan was going to look pretty similar (ethno sectarian strife with competing muslim hardline factions) regardless.
so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov
I think you're missing the point bro.
After WW2 Korea was split into North Korea and South Korea by the US and the USSR. The USSR got the North while we got the South, at some point in time the North decided to invade the South which our troops were already in. We didn't start the Korean War we only defended what we were supposed to defend due to previous agreements. We never attempted to 'liberate' North Korea we defended South Korea.
Frazzled is saying that if a country was having a civil war George Washington wouldn't of intervened, Korea wasn't having a civil war in this case because one nation was invading another nation.
As to George Washington being for aiding a country being invaded by another I don't think anyone alive can say anything about that. He wanted the French to support us in our Revolution and if he wouldn't do the same for another country that would make the man a hypocrite of the highest calibur.
Karon wrote:3. Yeah, he is weak for not spending even more money to enlarge our fething 13+ trillion deficit.
WHOAAAAAA Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. He is spending more money to enlarge oour 13+ trillion [dollar] deficit. He's just not spending it in Libya.
Mostly he's spending it on social programs that have little purpose but to bloat the federal workforce to create the perception that he's "doing something" about jobs.
isnt that what i said albeit paraphrased? GW would see it through the end if there were US troops. the reason i said this was you were replying to my comment that Washington wouldve been disappointed with N. Korea and the US half assing it. The US really didnt see that conflict out through to a proper conclusion. Yes China did intervene but i agree he wouldve seen that thing through to the bloody end even against China.
the world wouldve burned though if they did :|
as for the afghanistan thing im confused. im referring to the time when the US backed up the Mujahideen (and doing that, backing up Al Qaeda, heck we didnt even know who they were then) against the Soviets.
the Mujahideen were the freedom fighters at that time trying to fight soviet oppression. just sad that the freedom fighters arent any better than the oppressors.
so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov
Korea wasn't having a civil war in this case because one nation was invading another nation.
wait wait wait. it WAS a civil war. there was no north and south when the war began. The US booted Japan out of Korea and held the south, the soviets held the north. When they couldnt work out an electoral process thats when the division of the countries happend
In soviet russia, everyone was equal in rights of education regardless of sex(although class still remained in the form of rich and everyone else). The communists invading Afghanistan didn't stone women and kill men without beards.
Perkustin wrote:America has to stay in Afghanistan because it was their meddling in the 80's that has turned Afghan into the primitive, unprogressive, dirthole it is today.
When has it not been a dirthole? In 6000 years it's always been a useless dirthole.
halonachos wrote:Yes, but after WW2 it was two Koreas divided at the 38th parallel. The Korean War happened after WW2 you know.
yes prior to and during WWII there was one korea albeit held by different factions. the korean war is when the country was split
but the underlying "fight" there was basically a country dividing itself into two. when you have a portion of a country trying to get away from the larger portion I'd call that a civil war.
unless you have a better term for it?
heck if you look at it with the N. Korean POV at that time, the US were the INVADERS...theyre just trying to get their country back. Thats the reason N. Korea hates the US...they blame the US for splitting the country.
Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.
Funny, local repugs are opposing Obama saying that he shouldn't get inolved, when Obama is trying to edge towards involvement (a no-fly zone to prevent bombardment for example).
halonachos wrote:Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.
Incorrect. Communists equally kill...everyone. Thats better only in the land of coockoo birds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Funny, local repugs are opposing Obama saying that he shouldn't get inolved, when Obama is trying to edge towards involvement (a no-fly zone to prevent bombardment for example).
Democrats usually try to get us into wars when we have no interest. With the exception of the Bush Jr. and Sr., Republicans don't get us into wars. Now they are just as bad.
Frazzled wrote:Democrats usually try to get us into wars when we have no interest. With the exception of the Bush Jr. and Sr., Republicans don't get us into wars.
No, I think it has more to do with "the other guy wants it so it must be bad" in the case of most repugs that oppose preventing the bombing of civilian targets by a ruthless dictatorship.
Frazzled wrote:Democrats usually try to get us into wars when we have no interest. With the exception of the Bush Jr. and Sr., Republicans don't get us into wars.
No, I think it has more to do with "the other guy wants it so it must be bad" in the case of most repugs that oppose preventing the bombing of civilian targets by a ruthless dictatorship.
halonachos wrote:Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.
Incorrect. Communists equally kill...everyone. Thats better only in the land of coockoo birds.
Stalin killed everyone, not communism. Its far easier to change a political ideal than it is a theological ideal anyways. Stoning women has its base in radical Islamic faith while murdering in Communism is still a crime.
Two farmers make little money and only just get by, however one of them manages to buy a goat which helps improve his quality of life by a little bit. In capitalism the other farmer would steal the man's goat, in communism the farmer kills the goat so both are equally miserable. In radical islam the goat has more rights than a woman.
Melissia wrote:Why don't we start stoning men instead?
[/troll]
twas done already
theres a lot of archaeological proof that way back matriarchal societies were more commonplace and women held greater power than men. Im sure stoning happened then "He was premature! He is worthless!"
it was just during the time we started recording history that the POV changed and the power balance shifted. Matriarchal societies were demonized (Amazons), female leaders were evil (cleopatra) and propaganda for female subservience started showing up (Bible)
they say history is cyclical though so maybe the time of stoning men will be around the corner
BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
Foreigners didn't start this thread. In fact I don't really see any foreigners calling for the US to intervene at all. Must be nice in that magical land of yours.
halonachos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
halonachos wrote:Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.
Incorrect. Communists equally kill...everyone. Thats better only in the land of coockoo birds.
Stalin killed everyone, not communism. Its far easier to change a political ideal than it is a theological ideal anyways. Stoning women has its base in radical Islamic faith while murdering in Communism is still a crime.
Two farmers make little money and only just get by, however one of them manages to buy a goat which helps improve his quality of life by a little bit. In capitalism the other farmer would steal the man's goat, in communism the farmer kills the goat so both are equally miserable. In radical islam the goat has more rights than a woman.
Karon wrote:3. Yeah, he is weak for not spending even more money to enlarge our fething 13+ trillion deficit.
WHOAAAAAA Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. He is spending more money to enlarge oour 13+ trillion [dollar] deficit. He's just not spending it in Libya.
Mostly he's spending it on social programs that have little purpose but to bloat the federal workforce to create the perception that he's "doing something" about jobs.
They might have "little purpose" to you, but not to everyone.
youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.
congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
Foreigners didn't start this thread. In fact I don't really see any foreigners calling for the US to intervene at all. Must be nice in that magical land of yours.
to be fair...what he said does happen. *points at my flag* happened in my country
youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.
congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.
youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.
congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.
You think you'd only be poor and destitute under communists?
BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
Foreigners didn't start this thread. In fact I don't really see any foreigners calling for the US to intervene at all. Must be nice in that magical land of yours.
to be fair...what he said does happen. *points at my flag* happened in my country
Am I confusing your flag with the Philipines or is it something else?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
You think you'd only be poor and destitute under communists?
youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.
congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.
You think you'd only be poor and destitute under communists?
halonachos wrote:
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.
In the case of the stoning you don't suffer in any meaningful sense.
halonachos wrote:
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.
In the case of the stoning you don't suffer in any meaningful sense.
Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.
Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed.
I can't remember a time when foreigners looked favourably on Philipine intervention. And the corroboration of my own government shames me in this matter.
I can't remember a time when foreigners looked favourably on Philipine intervention. And the corroboration of my own government shames me in this matter.
huh?
Philippine intervention? I dont think the Philippines has the power to intervene on anything! lol
I was supporting what Buffo wrote about foreigners complaining about American Intervention, whether it happens or not. People do complain about what america does one way or another.
I can't remember a time when foreigners looked favourably on Philipine intervention. And the corroboration of my own government shames me in this matter.
huh?
Philippine intervention? I dont think the Philippines has the power to intervene on anything! lol
Gosh darn it, no wonder I failed my History Assignment on Indonesia and Australian relations with South East Asia.
I was supporting what Buffo wrote about foreigners complaining about American Intervention, whether it happens or not. People do complain about what america does one way or another.
I don't see anyone complaining about the US not intervening here. Apart from someone from the US.
i was talking about military intervention...was there a military action by the Philippines in east timor? i have no clue and id be suprised if we did.
and not seeing anyone complain in your country doesnt make what boffo said any less true. like i said its already happened here. political pundits in the news and media and all that. im sure if we dig up some political themed message boards from other countries youd find a few comments here and there.
again people like to talk and complain
edit:
oh you mean here in dakka? i guess we just dont have a lot of middle eastern folks around im sure if we had a north korean person here theyd start saying stuff. hehehe
Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.
Then why did we invade a barren desert country?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:@halonachos
youre the only person i know who would say that MORE people suffering is better than less people suffering.
congrats. you've earned a place in my memories.
I'm saying that suffering economically is better than suffering due to a theological belief. I would rather be poor and destitute than stone a woman due to some 'holy' man's concept of relgious justice.
The crowds aren't made to stone, they do it willingly. If your life was spent under such governance then you would likely speak differently about your preferences, just look at pakistan or Iran. Harsh islamic justice laws are popular in those countries while economic failure isn't.
i was talking about military intervention...was there a military action by the Philippines in east timor? i have no clue and id be suprised if we did.
No, no. I t was honestly my mistake. I somehow managed to get Indonesia and the Philippines mixed up when talking about military intervention (which in South East Asia is a bit complicated).
oh you mean here in dakka? i guess we just dont have a lot of middle eastern folks around im sure if we had a north korean person here theyd start saying stuff. hehehe
There are plenty of posters here that are of the opinion that the US should pretty much feth off in the nicest way possible. I don't see many posters apart from sexiest_hero actively calling for the US to intervene in Libya, and I don't think people from the Mid-east would support that.
Redbeard wrote:
This is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to start. Are you so completely out of touch with reality that you think the US needs to open another military conflict? We cannot even pay for the ones we're already engaged in, and you think we should go play policeman to the rest of the world? What about the problems at home, the unemployment and underemployment? Real wages for Americans (compared to inflation) have not increased in the last fifty years (Source). And you think we need to go tell some other country what to do?
Wars are expensive. Sending troops overseas is expensive. I think I read something yesterday that said that China actually owns more of our debt than previously thought, though I cannot find a link to it now. Our Government is operating on stop-gap funding (Source) and you want us to go invade Libya out of some misplaced sense of duty? Get a grip.
A colossal piece of common sense, reposted to reinforce.
The United States is trillions in debt, primarily to China, because in a sizeable part of it's simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. War on two fronts has done nothing but damage.
Using the lack of warmongering to lambaste a president is a fairly odd thing to do. The US needs to rebuild and enjoy some 'me time' and I think Obama's helped that rebuilding, given that the nation hasn't fallen into a depression and we are now, finally, seeing an upturn and regrowth of the economy.
I seriously don't understand the whole "We can't handle another Iraq/Afghan" argument. This isn't similar in the least - there is a popular revolt against some asshat the people don't like. They are doing okay, just dying to do it. We could take out a few airbases and/or shoot down any jets that are bombing civilians, provide a little help etc. We don't need to smash the country flat and spend a decade rebuilding, just help the poor bastards out against their own dickish government. Y'know, do something good? The sort of thing we ought to be doing, right? As for the UN, if we need corrupt useless politicians, we have plenty already, no need to bring any more into the equation.
Bromsy wrote:I seriously don't understand the whole "We can't handle another Iraq/Afghan" argument. This isn't similar in the least - there is a popular revolt against some asshat the people don't like. They are doing okay, just dying to do it. We could take out a few airbases and/or shoot down any jets that are bombing civilians, provide a little help etc. We don't need to smash the country flat and spend a decade rebuilding, just help the poor bastards out against their own dickish government. Y'know, do something good? The sort of thing we ought to be doing, right? As for the UN, if we need corrupt useless politicians, we have plenty already, no need to bring any more into the equation.
There's the issue, if you remove a dickish dictator you have yourself a nice power vacuum. Nature, political nature as well, abhors vacuums so its going to be filled. The question is who's going to fill it? Will Europe or another western nation intervene and try to implant a pro-western leader which the Libyans will hate, will the Libyans put in an anti-western leader on their own, or will another radical outside group move in and take control much like Afghanistan after the Russians left?
We did something good with Afghanistan and Iraq by removing their dickish dictators and look at the quagmire we're dealing with right now. The UN is fully capable of taking care of the Libyan air force, when my dad sailed through the area while he was in the NAVY they had to take a lot of precautions to avoid the Libyan's advanced air force, by precautions I mean they turned the lights off at night and the Libyans couldn't see them.
If anything we could support a carrier group to stay in the area because we usually do have a group over there.
sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it.
If we enter Libya, start killing the troops, take out Ghadaffi, and then find out that there never were any orders to attack civilians, what would be your response?
I dunno... whats your response to IRAQ? there were no WMDs
sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it.
If we enter Libya, start killing the troops, take out Ghadaffi, and then find out that there never were any orders to attack civilians, what would be your response?
I dunno... whats your response to IRAQ? there were no WMDs
Saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq is like saying that recessive genotypes never show in a phenotype.
Letting the people of Libya try to come up with someone better to run their country is the part of this we ought to leave up to them. If that person is worse, start another revolt. We could do limited interventions til the proverbial cows come home, as long as we don't let ourselves get bogged down, as we have done, in drawn out garrison and police actions. Give people a hand when they need it, but tone down the occupation and telling them how to set things up parts.
I really don't want to get into the UN aspect. Do they have the ability to help? Maybe. Do they have the will? No. Emphatically.
BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....
I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!
I am liking this guy.
Are you making it back home for Carnival boyo?
I sort of told an untruth....
I am Brasilian, but I was brought to the U.S. when I was 6 months old. I speak Portuguese a bit. Besides that, the only thing Brasilian about me is my hairy back and hobbit feet.
Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.
Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed.
People keep talking about isolationism as if it was used to mean the US keeping to itself. It didn't, it meant keeping out of European affairs. All those countries across South America were ripe for interference because they were only run by brown people.
No country has ever achieved a notable level of wealth without international trade, and international trade means becoming dependant on resource flows and overseas markets. And that means that at some point you have to send tanks and bombers overseas to make sure you keep access to those things.
Pretending that a country with as much international trade as the US should just keep to itself is non-sensical.
On the actual issue of Libya... I don't know what we should do. Does anyone know the make up of these rebel groups, are anyone of them a better option for Libya than the Colonel? Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because it worked so well in Iran...
Except that they had their own democracy, and they were doing okay. Unfortunately they were a little left leaning for us, so we put the Shah back in power. It was our stuffing around in their politics that led to theocracy.
On the actual issue of Libya... I don't know what we should do. Does anyone know the make up of these rebel groups, are anyone of them a better option for Libya than the Colonel? Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed?
Not knowing what we should do is the wise answer given just how complicated of a problem Libya is.
Are the rebel groups better than Colonel Crazy and his sons? Well that bar is set about as low as it can go, so I'm pretty sure that they can jump that low bar.
Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed? It could reduce the level of bloodshed, or it could multiply the level of bloodshed. As soon as we get involved much of the Arab world will no longer see it as a Libyan civil war to over throw a crazy dictator and they will start to see it as a war of western imperialism. Any aid we give to the rebels is toxic to their own revolution. It looks like the rebels are going to win at this point so I don't think it's a good idea to sabotage their revolution by getting involved and making this a US war.
As a general rule of thumb I don't believe it's a good idea to send troops into an African nation's civil war, because doing so makes about as much sense as sticking your dick into a hornets nest.
BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.
America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.
America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....
I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!
I am liking this guy.
Are you making it back home for Carnival boyo?
I sort of told an untruth....
I am Brasilian, but I was brought to the U.S. when I was 6 months old. I speak Portuguese a bit. Besides that, the only thing Brasilian about me is my hairy back and hobbit feet.
Well thats a bit of your culture you should explore. Take me with you! Quick before the wife sees!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:People keep talking about isolationism as if it was used to mean the US keeping to itself. It didn't, it meant keeping out of European affairs. All those countries across South America were ripe for interference because they were only run by brown people.
No country has ever achieved a notable level of wealth without international trade, and international trade means becoming dependant on resource flows and overseas markets. And that means that at some point you have to send tanks and bombers overseas to make sure you keep access to those things.
Pretending that a country with as much international trade as the US should just keep to itself is non-sensical.
On the actual issue of Libya... I don't know what we should do. Does anyone know the make up of these rebel groups, are anyone of them a better option for Libya than the Colonel? Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because it worked so well in Iran...
Except that they had their own democracy, and they were doing okay. Unfortunately they were a little left leaning for us, so we put the Shah back in power. It was our stuffing around in their politics that led to theocracy.
bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?
Reverse the situation. If the USA was revolting against the president and civil war could be a possibility, would you as an American want some outsider to come in, blow up some airbases and capture congress and then tell you how to choose a new leader?
Or would you rather determine for yourselves who to lead you and how to go about it and how to run your own country?
I wouldn't mind if they decided to prevent the repugs (which I'd probably be rebelling against given the nature of their social stances, which also makes more sense given the nature of their military stances too) from bombing my city... preferably without putting troops in it mind you, just shoot down the bombers or prevent them from taking off... then let us do our thing.
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?
Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.
You don't suffer in any meaningful sense when you do something to someone else.
Either way, stating that you believe economic suffering to be inferior to suffering due to theology doesn't really mean much, because I can just as easily disagree, and cite the many people around the world that seemingly beieve the opposite; or make no distinction at all.
sexiest_hero wrote:3 Dutch marines have been kidnapped by the government over there while evacuating civies.
I believe that "captured" is the appropriate term for one country taking members of another country's military prisoner whilst operating inside their borders.
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?
Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.
I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist
Frazzled wrote:
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?
Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.
All of the early Banana Wars, and the quasi-war.
But anyway, name one war in US history which hasn't been predicated on the supposed interests of US citizens. Even World War II and Gulf War 1 had a significant economic impact on the US population.
Melissia wrote:And then we stopped that in the last one hundred years.
Nah, our sphere of interest and influence just got bigger, meaning what might be regarded as necessary regarding the use of the military has expanded over time.
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?
Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.
I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist
The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.
Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.
Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed.
This is damn near sig worthy.
to be fair it pretty accurately decribes most of the regulars in these political/armchair general threads...
Albatross wrote:
The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.
Colonies that we fought wars in order to maintain control over.
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?
Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.
I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist
The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.
Sure we can. It started with a conflict on our doorstep.
Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.
Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).
Frazzled wrote:
Sure we can. It started with a conflict on our doorstep.
No, no we can't. You can't recognize that we took imperial territory on the other side of the planet in a post-conflict settlement and claim that our involvement in the war was confined to our interest in Cuba. More to the point, why is geographic location important at all? Cuba is an island, there was no danger of the conflict spilling over into the United States. There were economic issues in play, but if that's legitimate, then so is every other war that follows from the expansion of the US economy.
Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.
Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).
An interesting thought, and I would go so far as to support it.
CT GAMER wrote:Or the disease ridden blankets traded to them...
Granted we have a lot more history to teach over here in the UK so tend not to focus much (if at all) on America, but I thought that theory had largely been debased due to the fact that the disease (and others) were already so widespread amoungst the Native Americans that the effects of a few blankets would not even be noticed.
CT GAMER wrote:Or the disease ridden blankets traded to them...
Granted we have a lot more history to teach over here in the UK so tend not to focus much (if at all) on America, but I thought that theory had largely been debased due to the fact that the disease (and others) were already so widespread amoungst the Native Americans that the effects of a few blankets would not even be noticed.
Blankets, handshakes, whatever, they still got there the same way: riding on the coattails of colonialism/Imperialism.
Problem is dumping your tea and sending you guys back across the Atlantic didn't improve things for the indigenous. You guys were very good teachers...
I guess in the end it all worked out though, we have SUVs and you have Oasis...
CT GAMER wrote:Blankets, handshakes, whatever, they still got there the same way: riding on the coattails of colonialism/Imperialism.
Technically it came on the backs of people seeking new land and/or freedom and a lack of understanding of disease. Colonialism/Imperialism came a bit later (as I understand it).
Problem is dumping your tea and sending you guys back across the Atlantic didn't improve things for the indigenous. You guys were very good teachers...
Yes, shame that really. Though it did take you quite a while after everyone else to learn that slavery was a bad thing.
I guess in the end it all worked out though, we have SUVs and you have Oasis...
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?
Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.
I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist
The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.
Sure we can. It started with a conflict on our doorstep.
I'm pretty sure that the Phillipines are their own nation now, we have protectorates but we don't have any colonies. Puerto Rico for example is considered a US territory but they don't pay taxes to us, in fact we paid them to use some of their island as a target range until a kid got killed and Puerto Rico denied us access. They lost a lot of income from that.
So yeah, most of the territories we claimed we later gave back. Look at the Mexican American war, we pretty much mopped the floor with them and even took Mexico City. We kept a sizeable chunk of land but let them keep the rest. Then later we paid an incredibly large amount of money for a little strip of land known as the Gadsden Purchase.
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.
Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.
Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).
It absolutely was a revolution. It was a war of Northern aggression against the rights of southern states so that the north can continue to exploit them with high tariffs to raise revenue for transportation projects that primarily benefit northern states, or at least that's the cool aid that the southern slave owning aristocracy was feeding poor uneducated southern whites as they died in droves for the cause. Like most cool aid it tastes good if you avoid thinking about it.
Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.
Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).
It absolutely was a revolution. It was a war of Northern aggression against the rights of southern states so that the north can continue to exploit them with high tariffs to raise revenue for transportation projects that primarily benefit northern states, or at least that's the cool aid that the southern slave owning aristocracy was feeding poor uneducated southern whites as they died in droves for the cause. Like most cool aid it tastes good if you avoid thinking about it.
And C, the upper class Northern elites were feeding a similar line to poor, uneducated northern whites as they died in droves for the cause. Except the idea was that we had to "preserve the Union."
The North= Preserving the Union with massed numbers and superior manufacturing.
The South= Fighting for state's rights with less number and imported weaponry.
The north held all of the major firearms manufacturers in the country along with the majority of the railroad needed to get troops to the front lines. The influx of irish immigrants helped out with that as well.
The south was mainly agrarian and most of them did not own slaves while richer plantation owners owned many slaves. They had to import weapons from England who was more than willing to help due to the cheap cotton they received. (see union blockade for more information)
The South fired the first shot to announce its separation from the North and the North tried a quick attack that failed miserably for the North. Had the South pursued the Northern army after the First Battle for Bull Run instead of celebrating they would've taken DC with ease. Yet history has a funny way of working itself out. It took the burning of the South and its starvation to finally get the South to surrender.
So yeah, the South fired the first shots and then took the defensive which allowed the North to get into gear. Although the South did attempt some attacks into Union territory, Gettysburg being the example the war was mainly fought in Virginia and in the South.
halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.
Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...
Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.
Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.
halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.
Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...
Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.
Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.
You know they said that the sun never set on the english empire, they said that for awhile.
Japan is a protectorate, in return for their compliance with limited military production we promise to defend their nation. Although that is being released as Japan increases its military in size. West Germany was the same deal, we thought it best to keep Germany down militarily and in return we promised to protect it from aggressors. Same with Korea, these nations were weakened by the war and we wanted to make sure they weren't taken advantage of during that time.
In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.
halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.
Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...
Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.
Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.
You know they said that the sun never set on the english empire, they said that for awhile.
Japan is a protectorate, in return for their compliance with limited military production we promise to defend their nation. Although that is being released as Japan increases its military in size. West Germany was the same deal, we thought it best to keep Germany down militarily and in return we promised to protect it from aggressors. Same with Korea, these nations were weakened by the war and we wanted to make sure they weren't taken advantage of during that time.
In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.
halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.
Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...
Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.
Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.
You know they said that the sun never set on the english empire, they said that for awhile.
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
Japan is a protectorate, in return for their compliance with limited military production we promise to defend their nation.
Most countries in the British Empire were protectorates. In fact, we still have a few.
In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.
Well, we didn't exactly get a lot of 'fanmail' for it, either. In fact, you lot still slag us off for it, even though the British Empire was the foundation for much of the prosperity that the western world, including the USA, currently enjoys. At the end of the day, Empire exploits, but it also protects - that's why our empire lasted as long, and became as large as it did. To many people around the world, the American Empire looks selfish because it looks to benefit from the outside world, but baulks at policing it, for the most part.
I genuinely believe that when the USA oversaw the dismantling of the British Empire it should have taken over the job of running certain places, Africa in particular. There were and are, places in the world that aren't fit to govern themselves. That should be obvious to anyone with access to a TV or newspaper.
Albatross wrote: places in the world that aren't fit to govern themselves.
You should be seeing American paratroopers any moment now...
We'll get your riots over with in no time my friend, don't be worried. Then we'll deal with the Italian prime minister and save the day all over again. Of course you guys will be happy to give us some economic incentives right?
Besides, you guys aren't manly enough to handle hurricanes which is why we get them all.
Not to mention the World Wars you guys started and the 100 Years War you fellows brag about. Yeah it was only 70 something years and it accomplished nothing, we know all about your bragging.
Considering I have no problem with people peacefully protesting against the government, Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, I figure that's all I need.
I also have a problem with living in a monarchy. But this might be inherited since I had ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War. It's possible I could learn to live with it. Being part of the same Empire as Canada might pose a problem.
I also have a problem with living in a monarchy. But this might be inherited since I had ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War. It's possible I could learn to live with it. Being part of the same Empire as Canada might pose a problem.
Lol.
So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Thats an awesome reason!
Your great great great great great great great Grandad might have been a pro British fighter for all you know. He probably was. Maybe your a distant relative of the Queen of England!
I love to remind all the historically inept plaggy paddies I meet in bars across the states of this fact all the time!
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Thats an awesome reason!
Your great great great great great great great Grandad might have been a pro British fighter for all you know. He probably was. Maybe your a distant relative of the Queen of England!
I love to remind all the historically inept plaggy paddies I meet in bars across the states of this fact all the time!
Once you go back past about 8 generations you are probably related to just about everyone in Europe (assuming you are of European ancestry).
Yeah well exactly Silver, its why i think people with such ridiculous notions of loyalty going back 100s of years is so ridiculous. You get brainwashed sectarian gakkers fighting over nonsense, when clearly were all related anyway. Once you go back a few hundred years, its all a big mish mash.
gak, Ive probably even got some French in me somewhere!
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
I'm more against it because unlike the whole King Arthur king thing which seemed cool, Current Brit royalty looks a little stuffy and inbred.
Maybe if they started wearing chainmail again and carried swords or something...
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
I'm more against it because unlike the whole King Arthur king thing which seemed cool, Current Brit royalty looks like they bred with their sister.
Maybe if they started wearing chainmail again and carried swords or something...
Hey, im all for some transatlantic banter, but leave off the monarchy! I took a vow to protect them with my life and I cannot carry out hideous acts of violence against anybody via an internet forum.
I feel so helpless and yet filled with rage at the same time!?!
Arg! My poorly evolved primate brain is struggling to deal with these insults from afar!
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
That's not strictly true - in any case, it seems to have worked out pretty well for us these last 1500+ years...
In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
I'm more against it because unlike the whole King Arthur king thing which seemed cool, Current Brit royalty looks like they bred with their sister.
Maybe if they started wearing chainmail again and carried swords or something...
Hey, im all for some transatlantic banter, but leave off the monarchy! I took a vow to protect them with my life and I cannot carry out hideous acts of violence against anybody via an internet forum.
I feel so helpless and yet filled with rage at the same time!?!
Arg! My poorly evolved primate brain is struggling to deal with these insults from afar!
Ok relax, I have a Prince Henry poster on my bedroom wall too...
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
I'm more against it because unlike the whole King Arthur king thing which seemed cool, Current Brit royalty looks a little stuffy and inbred.
Maybe if they started wearing chainmail again and carried swords or something...
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
Albatross wrote:In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.
Well, the US isn't really imperialist, we're like imperialist-lite. We'll let you behave however you want, but once you start threatening to disrupt the capitalist worldwide trade network, we'll cut you off. If you keep acting like a beligerant arse, we'll either send you money and ask you nicely to hide in your palace, or send in the Air Force to drop high explosives on you.
Sometimes one will follow the other.
Really, we're the guardians of capitalism (the current president being a notable exception), freedom is a secondary objective.
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
I'm more against it because unlike the whole King Arthur king thing which seemed cool, Current Brit royalty looks a little stuffy and inbred.
Maybe if they started wearing chainmail again and carried swords or something...
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
Just knock it the feth off.
Wait he has a point. I'd be way more cool with royalty if they were epic cool Arthur like.
Albatross wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
In all seriousness, why are English people so emotionally invested in the monarchy? Feeling so emotionally attached to someone who achieved thier position just by being born seems strange to me. I seriously mean no offense, I just can't relate to it.
Albatross wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
In all seriousness, why are English people so emotionally invested in the monarchy? Feeling so emotionally attached to someone who achieved thier position just by being born seems strange to me. I seriously mean no offense, I just can't relate to it.
It's a cornerstone of our national consciousness, and a tradition that stretches back over a millenium. It's part of who we are.
A useful comparison might be the the reverence of the 'Founding Fathers' - to me they're just a bunch of normal human blokes, with a bunch of not entirely original ideas, which in any case weren't properly implemented in spirit. In fact, from the British point of view they are traitors. Yet they, and the documents they drafted, are accorded mythical status by you folks - and that's cool, they mean a lot to you. I wouldn't intentionally go out of my way to insult them, and I hope you don't take any of what I posted in that way. Of course they don't mean anything to me, they're not part of the bedrock of my national identity. I CAN still respect the fact that they are part of yours though, and I would expect the same in return.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:Who needs a suit of armour when Prince Harry commands a tank?
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
That's not strictly true - in any case, it seems to have worked out pretty well for us these last 1500+ years...
In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.
I thought this thread was about being belligerent.
Albatross wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
In all seriousness, why are English people so emotionally invested in the monarchy? Feeling so emotionally attached to someone who achieved thier position just by being born seems strange to me. I seriously mean no offense, I just can't relate to it.
They dont mate, its personal preference. Just like the repubs and the dems, so are the British. Some love em, some hate em and think we should have a "president" instead.
Yeah, cos politicians are way better people than selfless monarchs who happily go to war alongside the lads in Afghanistan.
So some hate, and some love, but when you love, you really love.
I met Harry in the Gan, ive got the utmost respect for the bloke. Tony Blair sent his gak bag son to a top US uni, while his wife cried at the airport. This made many service wives go "eh? I didnt cry when Dave went to Iraq"
I hate politicians, I love the monarchy, but YMMV.
Albatross wrote:A useful comparison might be the the reverence of the 'Founding Fathers' - to me they're just a bunch of normal human blokes, with a bunch of not entirely original ideas, which in any case weren't properly implemented in spirit. In fact, from the British point of view they are traitors. Yet they, and the documents they drafted, are accorded mythical status by you folks - and that's cool, they mean a lot to you. I wouldn't intentionally go out of my way to insult them, and I hope you don't take any of what I posted in that way. Of course they don't mean anything to me, they're not part of the bedrock of my national identity. I CAN still respect the fact that they are part of yours though, and I would expect the same in return.
I guess I can appreciate the tradition. And I wouldn't and would expect my fellow Americans not to trash the traditions of a people so close to us. Maybe every now in the in good fun .
It's just hard for us to appreciate royalty I think because the people we look up to, we look up to because they opposed the royalty. The values of the founding fathers in a lot aways are in opposition to a more traditional monarchy. My understanding is the monarchy in England is mostly just ceremonial at this point so as two democratic societies or values are a lot closer than in the past, but 250 years ago I think our mindsets were really incompatible (hence the rebellion). Just my two cents. Nice having a little friendly off shoot with you!
Albatross wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
In all seriousness, why are English people so emotionally invested in the monarchy? Feeling so emotionally attached to someone who achieved thier position just by being born seems strange to me. I seriously mean no offense, I just can't relate to it.
Because in the old days a Monarch was a true bad ass. You didn't become ruler and hold on to your kingdom if you were some inbred wimp. These guys and gals, upto probaly the 1500's were the real deal. Queen Bess, no messing. Her dad Henry VIII? Ignore the fat bloke image, in his youth he was a real bad ass and took the whole Knight thing really seriously. Henry V did the business. Was Henry II in Braveheart? He was a ruthless SoB. Don't forget Richard the Lion Heart, went stomping off to the middle east and killed everything. His great granddaddy set the ball rolling for the nation that was to become the United Kingdom, and with a name ending Bastich, you've got to be impressed. Oh, don't forget good old Harold who gave the Vikings a bloody good slap (got mixed feelings about that out come!) then marched down south to repel the invaders. If he'd not be killed it could of been 2 for 2.
All this probably explains why we are like we are, it's bred into us for hundreds of generations. You got the buggers when they's started to go off
Albatross wrote:A useful comparison might be the the reverence of the 'Founding Fathers' - to me they're just a bunch of normal human blokes, with a bunch of not entirely original ideas, which in any case weren't properly implemented in spirit. In fact, from the British point of view they are traitors. Yet they, and the documents they drafted, are accorded mythical status by you folks - and that's cool, they mean a lot to you. I wouldn't intentionally go out of my way to insult them, and I hope you don't take any of what I posted in that way. Of course they don't mean anything to me, they're not part of the bedrock of my national identity. I CAN still respect the fact that they are part of yours though, and I would expect the same in return.
I guess I can appreciate the tradition. And I wouldn't and would expect my fellow Americans not to trash the traditions of a people so close to us. Maybe every now in the in good fun .
It's just hard for us to appreciate royalty I think because the people we look up to, we look up to because they opposed the royalty. The values of the founding fathers in a lot aways are in opposition to a more traditional monarchy. My understanding is the monarchy in England is mostly just ceremonial at this point so as two democratic societies or values are a lot closer than in the past, but 250 years ago I think our mindsets were really incompatible (hence the rebellion).
Y'see, that's a great misconception - Britain in the 1700s wasn't a despotism, it was a parliamentary democracy similar to how it is today. The Monarchy still has (theoretical) power, but doesn't exercise it anywhere near as much as it used too.
Just my two cents. Nice having a little friendly off shoot with you!
Aye, you too.
ShumaGorath wrote:I thought this thread was about being belligerent.
When I skimmed over your post (as I am often wont to do ), I thought the last word was 'intelligent'. Then I went back to read the first page and realised that couldn't possibly be the case.
Albatross wrote:
Whilst I appreciate that a little bit of banter might have hurt your feelings, I think that insulting our monarchy is completely out of order. I take it as a grave personal insult.
In all seriousness, why are English people so emotionally invested in the monarchy? Feeling so emotionally attached to someone who achieved thier position just by being born seems strange to me. I seriously mean no offense, I just can't relate to it.
It's a cornerstone of our national consciousness, and a tradition that stretches back over a millenium. It's part of who we are.
A useful comparison might be the the reverence of the 'Founding Fathers' - to me they're just a bunch of normal human blokes, with a bunch of not entirely original ideas, which in any case weren't properly implemented in spirit. In fact, from the British point of view they are traitors. Yet they, and the documents they drafted, are accorded mythical status by you folks - and that's cool, they mean a lot to you. I wouldn't intentionally go out of my way to insult them, and I hope you don't take any of what I posted in that way. Of course they don't mean anything to me, they're not part of the bedrock of my national identity. I CAN still respect the fact that they are part of yours though, and I would expect the same in return.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:Who needs a suit of armour when Prince Harry commands a tank?
Story from the daily fail, so take it with a pinch of salt
Hal (Sir Coolguy) looks fairly badass there, like!
Everything said in this thread as far as banter is concerned was in jest, which i assumed everyone was up to speed with and since there was no shortage coming from the other direction either i figured all was in good fun.
Just out of interest would good old George really of been that interested in spreading the revolution word? Or was he just the right man at the right time, to help create the nation that became the USA? I mean he appears to of had a vision / dream for creating a new nation, but would he of really been interested in this way of thinking spreading across the world?
As Albatross has already mentioned. at that time in history if you removed the Monarchy we would of basically been the same. Elected officials representing the country and to be honest at that time in history they were probably worse than any King / Queen could of been. I mean how long did it take for everyone to have the vote on either side of the Atlantic, probably about the same time.
Albatross wrote:Y'see, that's a great misconception - Britain in the 1700s wasn't a despotism, it was a parliamentary democracy similar to how it is today. The Monarchy still has (theoretical) power, but doesn't exercise it anywhere near as much as it used too.
I know that the monarchy of the 1700's is not the same as the mornarchy of the 12 and 1300's. And I know that the Magna Carta (a great gift to western civilization by the way) limited the kings power since the early 1500's or something like that. But what we're taught over here is that the Empire at the time was still very much a command economy. According to a lot of English philosophers leading up to the revolution command economies are not fiscally ideal and they repress the freedoms of the population. So that line of thinking on top of a sentiment that the king was looking out for England and not English citizens living in the colonies, combined with a growing sense of indentify as a Virginian or Carolinian etc, and some other things all contributed to the revolution. I know that King George was not executing people at a whim or taking women by force or anything that the worst dictators due. But we are still taught that in a lot of ways he was fairly oppressive to the colonists. It's all about perspective, I don't think King George or the English citizens at the time were bad people, they had to sleep at night just like all us so from their perspective they were able to justify what was going on for the good of the empire or whatever reason. The colonists saw it differently which is was the whole thing was about. But it's all long in the past and I personally feel like Americans as a whole have more in common with the English than any other people (except maybe Canadians, but that's because they live so close, and you can't even tell them apart until they finish their sentence). But coming from common ancestry (for a lot of us at least) and common political traditions that only makes sense. Way off topic again, stopping now.
Albatross wrote:Y'see, that's a great misconception - Britain in the 1700s wasn't a despotism, it was a parliamentary democracy similar to how it is today. The Monarchy still has (theoretical) power, but doesn't exercise it anywhere near as much as it used too.
I know that the monarchy of the 1700's is not the same as the mornarchy of the 12 and 1300's. And I know that the Magna Carta (a great gift to western civilization by the way) limited the kings power since the early 1500's or something like that. But what we're taught over here is that the Empire at the time was still very much a command economy. According to a lot of English philosophers leading up to the revolution command economies are not fiscally ideal and they repress the freedoms of the population. So that line of thinking on top of a sentiment that the king was looking out for England and not English citizens living in the colonies, combined with a growing sense of indentify as a Virginian or Carolinian etc, and some other things all contributed to the revolution. I know that King George was not executing people at a whim or taking women by force or anything that the worst dictators due. But we are still taught that in a lot of ways he was fairly oppressive to the colonists. It's all about perspective...
Agreed, though I would point out that the decision to raise (fairly insignificant) taxes from the colonists was due to the fact that the British at home were already being bled dry by the costs of defending the colonies during the French Indian war. They were an attempt to get America to contribute to the costs of it's defence, which up to that point it hadn't been.
Albatross wrote:Agreed, though I would point out that the decision to raise (fairly insignificant) taxes from the colonists was due to the fact that the British at home were already being bled dry by the costs of defending the colonies during the French Indian war. They were an attempt to get America to contribute to the costs of it's defence, which up to that point it hadn't been.
But how can you tax citizens that have no representation in the body that is taxing them? Oh no, it's happening again!
If people really press me on it, I'd have to say that Monarchy is the best system of government. As long as it's not hereditary, and there are some absolute limits to power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and I disagree with labeling the Civil War as a revolution, in the standard definition of the term, politically speaking.
Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.
How do you know so little about the history of your own country?
In the 1850s the US put troops into Nicuragua, and did it again in the 1890s, to protect resources and US businesses in the country.
The US put troops into Panama to protect economic interests. They did this on four different times.
And yes, the fights with the Barbary pirates were US operations to protect their shipping routes... which are exactly the kind of conflict I'm talking about.
So, I'll say it again; "No country has ever achieved a notable level of wealth without international trade, and international trade means becoming dependant on resource flows and overseas markets. And that means that at some point you have to send tanks and bombers overseas to make sure you keep access to those things."
Please accept this as the completely and entirely true thing that it is. And then realise that your calls for isolationism made little real sense 200 years ago, and make even less now, given how much more international trade there is.
And you're claiming Japan have done just fine without sending their troops overseas... that's because they're reliant on you guys to go in for them. Before they were under the blanket of US protection they were very, very keen on expanding overseas to ensure their supply of resources. And before that they were an isolated nation of no economic import. Which is exactly the situation I described.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frgsinwntr wrote:I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist
It states that the US will respect existing European colonies, but will not tolerate any further colonisation in the Americas.
This was the US idea of isolation - isolation from Europe. Not isolation from anyone else, because they understood the importance of trade, and therefore the importance of protecting key resources overseas and protecting trade routes. And they were willing to ship troops overseas to protect these things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I'm pretty sure that the Phillipines are their own nation now, we have protectorates but we don't have any colonies.
Giving it back generations later doesn't mean it wasn't a colony. Was Britain never an imperial power because they've handed control over now?
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.
It means you aren't imperialist in the way that, say, Japan was. This is good, well done.
Pretending you don't have a long history of overseas military operations to protect economic interests is delusional, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.
But you can't simply disappear behind your own borders, and still maintain the international trade that makes you the richest country on Earth. That's the point, that's why Fraz is wrong, and that's why you're wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Well, the US isn't really imperialist, we're like imperialist-lite. We'll let you behave however you want, but once you start threatening to disrupt the capitalist worldwide trade network, we'll cut you off. If you keep acting like a beligerant arse, we'll either send you money and ask you nicely to hide in your palace, or send in the Air Force to drop high explosives on you.
Sometimes one will follow the other.
Really, we're the guardians of capitalism (the current president being a notable exception), freedom is a secondary objective.
Yes, definitely. This is what I tried to explain to Frazzled. He didn't agree, for reasons that are likely impossible to fathom.
US loses its appetite for job as the world’s policeman
By Richard McGregor in Washington
Published: March 3 2011 21:26 | Last updated: March 3 2011 21:26
As Washington and its allies began quietly talking about a forceful response to the Libyan crisis last Friday, the US defence secretary mounted the podium at the US Military Academy in West Point, New York, to make a surprising declaration.
Robert Gates said that any future defence secretary who advised the president to send a big US land army to Asia, the Middle East or Africa “ ‘should have his head examined’, as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Sectarian violence flares in Bahrain - Mar-04UK freezes Libyan wealth fund assets - Mar-04In depth: Middle East protests - Feb-27Rome sits at hub of former colony’s web - Mar-03Libya lurches towards civil war - Mar-03Davies quits LSE over Libyan donations - Mar-03It was a remarkable statement from one of the country’s most experienced national security bureaucrats, and someone who has overseen a surge in troop deployments to Iraq and, more recently, to Afghanistan.
These few lines – in a considered speech to cadets at the academy on how the US army should train modern-day officers – garnered few headlines, falling as they did late in the weekly news cycle.
But in combination with the strangely sober debate in Washington over how the US should respond to the epochal changes in the Middle East, it crystallised the arrival of a new era in US foreign policy.
Political debate in Washington these days is propelled by an incendiary combination of deep partisanship and the jet fuel of 24-hour cable news. But such rancour has largely been absent from discussion about President Barack Obama’s response to the unfolding drama in the Arab world.
The administration has struggled at times to keep up with the dizzying pace of events across Middle Eastern countries, and some critics say the White House did not emphatically back pro-democracy protesters early enough.
Senators such as John McCain have urged a more aggressive military posture with Libya to prise Muammer Gaddafi from power. The neo-cons, who combined democratic idealism with brute military force with devastating political effect in the wake of 9/11, have also resurfaced, but only mildly and at the margins of the debate.
The Republicans once owned the national security issue in Washington. But in the current environment, few are willing to second-guess Mr Obama’s handling of the crisis. Most debate recognises that the administration is largely a bit player on the Arab street, and that it is no easy job in any case to square traditional foreign policy interests with democracy promotion.
The reticence to politicise the crisis has deeper roots than merely concern about being caught backing the wrong side in distant civil conflicts.
The US is a different country today after 10 years of war, struggling with record deficits and suffering from “intervention fatigue”, in the words of Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank.
In such a context, Mr Gates’s statement about the madness of dispatching US ground troops overseas simply seems like common sense. “It is a very rare admission of something that is all too true but very rarely articulated by someone of that stature,” said Aaron David Miller, a former state department official.
Mr Gates was quick to dampen down what he called “loose talk” about the west enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Such a policy, he reminded Congress in testimony on Wednesday, would start with an attack on Libya’s air defences.
The drift from robust interventionism towards relative isolationism has homegrown roots as well. The Republicans’ political focus is squarely on the budget deficit and making sure that any fallout from the tough economy is hung on Mr Obama.
For Republicans, the protests over benefit cuts in Madison, Wisconsin, are more important than the rebels in Benghazi, Libya. While the Middle East protests may have gripped public attention in the US, Mr Haass says “they have not really galvanised public opinion”.
Following Mr Gates’s West Point speech, both he and his spokesman have been quick to clarify that the defence secretary’s real intent was to force the army to focus on how to fight new kinds of wars.
Whatever message he wanted to send, Mr Gates probably knows better than anyone that the US is not just less able to be the world’s policeman. The country and its people have, for the moment, lost all appetite for the job as well.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Print article Email article Clip this article Order reprints
The weird thing is, this time around there may have been a real shot at getting international consensus at what most people would have considered a just intervention. Sadly, it looks like our best chance of getting rid of Gadaffi may be slipping away.
Intervention doesn't mean we have troops on the ground. A simple no fly zone would work wonders I think.
Still a risk to the flyboys mind you, but it would let the rebels (And they ARE rebels by now) and civilians not be bombed to hell by their dictator, and give them a sense of accomplishment.
Albatross wrote:The weird thing is, this time around there may have been a real shot at getting international consensus at what most people would have considered a just intervention. Sadly, it looks like our best chance of getting rid of Gadaffi may be slipping away.
I think part of it is that none of the powers that be are really convinced that getting rid of Gaddafi is a good idea. After all, he was finally starting to play ball.
Melissia wrote:Intervention doesn't mean we have troops on the ground. A simple no fly zone would work wonders I think.
Still a risk to the flyboys mind you, but it would let the rebels (And they ARE rebels by now) and civilians not be bombed to hell by their dictator, and give them a sense of accomplishment.
Nonsense. No fly zone means we have to take out AAA, SAM, and radar installations.
We had a no fly zone in Iraq. Look how well that worked out.
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
That's not strictly true - in any case, it seems to have worked out pretty well for us these last 1500+ years...
In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.
I thought this thread was about being belligerent.
And I see your working wonders on improving the thread, Shumatroll.
Also Bakerofish, I would say that almost a decade long war is commitment enough, wouldn't you agree?
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!
Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.
That's not strictly true - in any case, it seems to have worked out pretty well for us these last 1500+ years...
In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.
I thought this thread was about being belligerent.
And I see your working wonders on improving the thread, Shumatroll.
Also Bakerofish, I would say that almost a decade long war is commitment enough, wouldn't you agree?
Sometimes you improve a wound by cutting off the limb.
Nonsense. No fly zone means we have to take out AAA, SAM, and radar installations.
We had a no fly zone in Iraq. Look how well that worked out.
Didn't the no fly zone work quite well for preventing flying?
Melissia wrote:Intervention doesn't mean we have troops on the ground. A simple no fly zone would work wonders I think.
Still a risk to the flyboys mind you, but it would let the rebels (And they ARE rebels by now) and civilians not be bombed to hell by their dictator, and give them a sense of accomplishment.
Nonsense. No fly zone means we have to take out AAA, SAM, and radar installations.
We had a no fly zone in Iraq. Look how well that worked out.
Quite well if memory serves. The only time aircraft were shot down in Iraq during the No Fly Zone days were friendly fire incidents, and one single craft being shot down by air to air-- a UAV.
As opposed to the bodies being shown now on tV where Libya is bombing its own citizens, as the citizens are actively ASKING for a no-fly zone to stop the bombings?
Frazzled wrote:Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.
I freely admit I have learned from the Iraq fiasco.
How many years are gong to keep this no fly zone in place?
What are you going to do when the bodies start being shown on TV? What about when children get accidently zapped?
What do those pilots do when they see government forces/rebel group A massacring rebel group B or other civilians?
I think we'd stop once Gadaffi fell and no ones ordering the planes to bomb protesters any more. We're not in it to win it like in Iraq, we have no real vested interest beyond short term stability in libya. You should probably stop comparing the two so heavily, the situations are really quite different.
Bakerofish wrote:keeping the skies clear still leaves gadaffi the old fashioned way of killing his people
and an air-based program simply doesnt work if you dont have a land or sea based initiative to support it.
again, all out or nothing at all
He's losing the old fashioned way given that large swathes of his army have defected. Heavy armor and air power are his only real advantages. Setting up a no fly zone would quickly (and frankly, easily) remove one of the two.
yeah he's losing but how long do you think itll take for him to lose? It took the US how long to get Saddam as he was losing? And thats with a land, sea and air based initiative.
@melissia
whats the third option? no fly? see above. half-assed
im not thinking in black and white here. Im thinking efficiency. im thinking effectiveness.
if you have a third option that will work im sure the folks in the UN and the pentagon would like to hear it
Yes, you can call it half-assed all day long, but then I don't particularly care if you think it's that. You're most assuredly wrong about that-- it's not half-assed, rather, it's just all that's necessary. Overdoing a response risks the lives of more soldiers than necessary while also potentially upsetting the situation.
On the ground, Gaffy is being pushed back into his own capital by his own military as it defects over to the rebels. The one card that he has that the rebels can't counter? Air superiority and bombers.
care to elaborate on statement? my simple mind may not be grasping the subtleties here.
@warboss
oh a lot thats for sure. tons.
but most of them soldiers. and hopefully most of it going to be on gadaffi's side.
my point: a decisive military action is the best way to STOP a conflict. not supress or stabilize. STOP.
Gadaffi is being pushed back but unless someone puts a bullet in him now I dont see this conflict ending soon. All im seeing here is that Gaddaffi is regrouping and things getting uglier in 3 months time. You think a no fly zone solves the problem? No. its a "reaction" not a solution.
my original point: either stay out or commit.
@melissia
defeat? theres something at stake here? Im still waiting for that third option as i really would love to hear it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
A no-fly zone is extremely efficient compared to an invasion.
Melissia wrote: it's just all that's necessary.
now barring the snide comments id really like to know what you guys are referring to.
A "no fly zone" is extremely efficient and is all thats necessary in doing WHAT exactly?
but most of them soldiers. and hopefully most of it going to be on gadaffi's side.
my point: a decisive military action is the best way to STOP a conflict. not supress or stabilize. STOP.
Gadaffi is being pushed back but unless someone puts a bullet in him now I dont see this conflict ending soon. All im seeing here is that Gaddaffi is regrouping and things getting uglier in 3 months time. You think a no fly zone solves the problem? No. its a "reaction" not a solution.
my original point: either stay out or commit.
A no fly zone isn't intended to solve the problem. It's intended to give the people of Libya breathing room to solve their own problems.
Do you think Gaddaffi's men will kill less civilians if there isn't a no fly zone? Because if that's the case, you're either trolling or so misinformed that you can be effectively ignored without missing anything.
And if it isn't, then your conclusion contradicts you premises. We should kick Gaddaffi's teeth in because he's killing civilians! But we shouldn't institute a noflyzone, despite the fact that that would effectively halve his ability to kill civilians!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bakerofish wrote:A "no fly zone" is extremely efficient and is all thats necessary in doing WHAT exactly?
it would be an extremely efficient and effective way of giving the Libyan people the support they need to take back their country for themselves, rather than taking it back for them and in doing so making any government put in place regarded as an American puppet.
Frazzled wrote:Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.
I freely admit I have learned from the Iraq fiasco.
How many years are gong to keep this no fly zone in place?
What are you going to do when the bodies start being shown on TV? What about when children get accidently zapped?
What do those pilots do when they see government forces/rebel group A massacring rebel group B or other civilians?
I think we'd stop once Gadaffi fell and no ones ordering the planes to bomb protesters any more. We're not in it to win it like in Iraq, we have no real vested interest beyond short term stability in libya. You should probably stop comparing the two so heavily, the situations are really quite different.
What if he doesn't fall? How long?
What if they shoot at our guys? what then?
What if our guys respond and kill 9 kids when the ordnance comes down? What then? When are you going to start the hate America bandwagon?
i never said dont institute a no fly zone. Im saying thats half the solution.
if all you care about is stopping the bombing, then yes i agree a no fly zone helps.
my entire premise in this debate is "all in or nothing" as an END to this conflict. period.
i just dont see the point of spending millions of dollars and thousands of lives over the course of years when there is a way to end the conflict within months and with less civilian lives lost.
i never said dont institute a no fly zone. Im saying thats half the solution.
if all you care about is stopping the bombing, then yes i agree a no fly zone helps.
my entire premise in this debate is "all in or nothing" as an END to this conflict. period.
i just dont see the point of spending millions of dollars and thousands of lives over the course of years when there is a way to end the conflict within months and with less civilian lives lost.
get my point?
If the US comes in and takes out Gaddafi, he becomes a martyr. It does not end the conflict. It may well last for years. Americans will be stationed in Libya, probably for years, even if Gaddafi falls in months, to help rebuild the country.
It is not a quick in and out. Stop acting like it is.
Melissia wrote:Yes, you can call it half-assed all day long, but then I don't particularly care if you think it's that. You're most assuredly wrong about that-- it's not half-assed, rather, it's just all that's necessary. Overdoing a response risks the lives of more soldiers than necessary while also potentially upsetting the situation.
And you're most assuredly wrong about putting our men and women in harm's for a country that has no appreciable benefit to us.
Melissia wrote:Yes, you can call it half-assed all day long, but then I don't particularly care if you think it's that. You're most assuredly wrong about that-- it's not half-assed, rather, it's just all that's necessary. Overdoing a response risks the lives of more soldiers than necessary while also potentially upsetting the situation.
And you're most assuredly wrong about putting our men and women in harm's for a country that has no appreciable benefit to us.
Reducing the oil price shock back to previous norms would do that from an economic standpoint, it's not like they could shoot down an F-22 anyway. We pay all that fething money for this military, it might as well do what its meant to do instead of what its not (shoot thing rather then patrol unfriendly cities).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:yes the people are winning. I wonder how many civilians have died in the process of this victory.
and i understand the US is winning its war on terror too
how long as that been going on again?
Equivocate: Backpedal: Equivocate: Backpedal
I think I see a pattern here.
Again big guy, I don't see you volunteering for anything. You go big freedom fighter. Go forth and strike a blow for freedom.
what you said applies better to the points you raised:
"a no fly zone is half the solution. It does not end the conflict. It may well last for years. Americans will be stationed in Libya, probably for years, even if Gaddafi falls in months"
my "all in or nothing" is not a quick in and out but it is a proactive stance at solving the problem and has a high chance of success.
The no fly zone may have a 100% success rate at keeping bombers off the sky, but it becomes moot when fighting and dying will still happen on land for years.
@shuma
"Reevaluate and change tactics" - wouldnt be necessary if you solved the problem the first time. "rerolls" cost a lot more in real life.
Frazzled wrote:
It was more than twice. Hell Clinton did it more than twice in six months right before the Bush presidency.
No, Clinton did it twice ('96 and '98), and was the only President to do so prior to Bush instigating an aggressive bombing campaign.
If you're counting individual sorties, then you'll get a different count, but in terms of macroscopic actions there were only 2 incidents. Moreover, if you're counting individual sorties, then you're failing to understand what a no-fly zone is.
Frazzled wrote:
A no fly zone isn't going to change the price of oil a drop.
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.
dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.
dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.
They are bombing civilian resistance fighters in addition to protests. You should probably read up on the situation before commenting on plans regarding how to fix it. The air power is a real and tangible asset that is actively keeping him in power.
dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.
They are bombing civilian resistance fighters in addition to protests. You should probably read up on the situation before commenting on plans regarding how to fix it. The air power is a real and tangible asset that is actively keeping him in power.
is it the ONLY asset keeping him in power?
no?
then what i said remains valid.
it would be better to remove all his assets no?
dont make it sound like the choppers bombing the civilians are the only things keeping the libyans at bay. the biggest danger is still the soldiers and mercs that gaddaffi employs.
dogma wrote: If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.
They are bombing civilian resistance fighters in addition to protests. You should probably read up on the situation before commenting on plans regarding how to fix it. The air power is a real and tangible asset that is actively keeping him in power.
is it the ONLY asset keeping him in power?
no?
then what i said remains valid.
it would be better to remove all his assets no?
Your point was that the bombing of civilians would cease, given that the majority of the opposition fighting forces are defected military you were wrong. As for removing all his assets, I guess we could bomb his bases too, thats likely part of the initiation of a no fly zone given that we would have to hit anti air facilities. The forces that be however are seemingly unwilling to go that far and given the likely chaotic response to a ground invasion by western forces thats probably not a poor view.
Bakerofish wrote:
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.
Yes, and one thing contributing to the turbulence is Gaddafi's air superiority.
Loony Toon gaddaffi has one major advantage over the "rebels" and that is airplanes and bombers.
The Rebels have been winning before looney toon started bombing them to bits.
So, we take the bombers out of the equation, all of a sudden the Rebels, which includes defected looney-toon military, are on a fast-track to giving Gaddaffi the full Mussolini.
That doesn't seem like what I said, but maybe I'm unknowingly suffering from schizophrenia..
Bakerofish wrote:
great.
this should be over in no time.
Do you think that if force A was able to go into battle without any threat of being bombed that it might be more successful? Do you think that the opposing force, force B, might be worse off without the ability to bomb the opposition?
Do you also think that force B might be less willing to fight if Coalition A made a concrete show of force, potentially implying that they will make more of them?
I can understand the argument that it isn't worth our time to impose a no-fly zone, I can't understand the argument that it wouldn't make a difference. Well, that's not true, I understand both, but only one of them is reasonable.
neutralizing air capability is one thing but when you still have civilians fighting a well armed military force...even without air support they can and more likely will reclaim the country.
neutralizing air capability is one thing but when you still have civilians fighting a well armed military force...even without air support they can and more likely will reclaim the country.
You know that a large chunk of the military turned on Gaddafi, right?
That's all on the front page of Google following a search for "Libya military revolt", and that's all before we even talk about whether or not the language of reporters accurately reflects the makeup of the opposition; ie. military men become generic opposition when military loyalty is split.
Bakerofish wrote:
im thinking if a "good chunk" or "majority" of the Libyan forces have defected shouldnt this officially be a coup d'etat by now?
No, for several reasons, but the two most important are:
1) The classification of a coup is as much about politics as it is about accuracy.
2) Its not just the military that is involved in the current revolt.
your links prove nothing. my searches came up with those and i ignored them because of that. they do not prove that a "majority" or "good chunk" of the army defected.
you have ONE general URGING the military to revolt. yes this may have resulted in some of them defecting but i dont see the "majority" defecting
unless you count 200 people or so defecting from a force of about 100,000 (last military approximate of available gaddafi forces) as majority.
and these "bases" can barely be even called that. they look like holes in the ground. Its easier to believe that the libyan army just let those go because theyre:
a: indefensible
b: insignificant
if a good "majority" of the army actually defected wouldnt the conflicts be bloodier?
its also very hard to believe that if a "majority" of the Libyan army has defected, that the Libyan airforce was largely exemot from this. yes you got TWO pilots defecting...we should be hearing more. and if there were more then there would be a lot less jets and helicopters bombing people.
if a "majority" of the armed forces have joined the revolt wouldnt it make sense that theyd form a coalition and start making more coordinated strikes?
this "majority" looks more like wishful thinkiing than anything.
now lets assume that your links completely shut me down (right) you still havent addressed the elephant in the room:
you cannot prove that neutralizing the air capabilities of gaddafi means that the rebels win.
they still have to deal with the significant ground forces that gaddafi holds.
if gaddafi doesnt have significant ground forces why dont the rebels lay seige to the capital?
surely if you have a "majority" of the army joining your cause laying seige to the capital would be possible right?
"because they have bombers!!" you say.
bombers are no use when the fighting is at your doorstep. when your bombs are about 4-10 METERS short of your taget (which is about as big as a building) and STILL be considered accurate i dont think youd be smart to use bombers when the fighting is at your doorstep.
okay i double checked my numbers and i got a more recent source
so 12,000 loyal troops plus mercs flown in from east africa.
so a lot smaller than i first mentioned...but then how are the rebel forces? 2,000 largest gathering?
key part from the link is here:
"We underestimate the degree of loyalty in the security forces," warns Shashank Joshi, Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. "The defections appear to be patchwork and possibly along tribal lines. The units that matter, such as Khamis's 32nd Brigade, are holding together.
I mean, how are some people not getting this? Seriously? How badly informed is it possible to be before jumping onto the internet to spout half-baked opinions?
One guy even said that the best way to stop the conflict was to start an even bigger conflict! Cute. Seriously, I want to put that guy in my pocket and carry him around for little while, occasionally getting him out to show to my friends.
It's this simple - pro-Gadaffi forces are bombing ammunition dumps in an effort to slow the rebellion, they're also allegedly bombing civilians. Air power is Gadaffi's one trump card - remove it, and the conflict boils down to a large group of poorly-armed and poorly-trained rebels vs. an ever dwindling group of slightly less poorly-armed and slightly less poorly-trained loyalists. The Libyan airforce is nowhere near a match for the British or French airforces on their own, nevermind in coalition with the might of the USAF. At the first sniff of that, there would be mass desertions amongst the Libyan airforce, as they would be aware that they were about to get eviscerated. This would probably spread to the wider Libyan military - they barely have the stomach for the fight as it is. Why else would Gadaffi be using mercenaries? Remove Libyan air capabilities and the conflict could then be played out with a win for the rebels without western boots ever hitting the sand.
This is a different situation to Iraq - there was no popular revolt culminating in western intervention, just an attempt to impose democracy on a country that wasn't ready for it. Libya is a real opportunity to intervene in the right way - the people want it, they hate the current regime, and it won't require western boots on the ground to achieve a change of that regime.
Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs, and actually has a proven track record of sponsoring terror.... Just saying.
Albatross wrote:One guy even said that the best way to stop the conflict was to start an even bigger conflict! Cute. Seriously, I want to put that guy in my pocket and carry him around for little while, occasionally getting him out to show to my friends.
i wouldnt want to be in your pocket as i dont know how often you change your pants. You want to stop the air conflict and just leave the ground fighting as is?
What happens when the rebels run out of supplies and ammunition? thats bound to happen sooner or later and im sure the Libyan forces can outlast them in that regard.
so you paradrop food and ammo here and there...kinda defeats the purpose of leaving them alone to sort it out isnt it?
dont you think a quick all out offensive is better than a drawn out war?
At the first sniff of that, there would be mass desertions amongst the Libyan airforce, as they would be aware that they were about to get eviscerated. This would probably spread to the wider Libyan military - they barely have the stomach for the fight as it is. Why else would Gadaffi be using mercenaries? Remove Libyan air capabilities and the conflict could then be played out with a win for the rebels without western boots ever hitting the sand.
This would be nice if this were true but history has proven you wrong several times. Somalian conflicts come to mind. If anything, when people are outgunned and cornered the fighting seems to get bloodier.
Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs, and actually has a proven track record of sponsoring terror.... Just saying.
so leaving the ground fighting to fester for a longer time would leave him enough time to consider using these is the better idea. okay. (wmd in this case being mustard gas)
Bakerofish wrote:
your links prove nothing. my searches came up with those and i ignored them because of that. they do not prove that a "majority" or "good chunk" of the army defected.
I didn't say majority, I said good chunk, which is an indefinite amount, but one that would generally be considered significant.
Bakerofish wrote:
you have ONE general URGING the military to revolt. yes this may have resulted in some of them defecting but i dont see the "majority" defecting
Again, that's not what I said. Please attempt to read what is written.
Bakerofish wrote:
and these "bases" can barely be even called that. they look like holes in the ground. Its easier to believe that the libyan army just let those go because theyre:
a: indefensible
b: insignificant
Yeah, those bases that control the oil producing region of Libya are totally insignificant.
Bakerofish wrote:
if a good "majority" of the army actually defected wouldnt the conflicts be bloodier?
No, not necessarily. Defection doesn't necessarily indicate active combat.
Bakerofish wrote:
this "majority" looks more like wishful thinkiing than anything.
I didn't say majority. Good God, read the posts that you're responding to.
Bakerofish wrote:
you cannot prove that neutralizing the air capabilities of gaddafi means that the rebels win.
I didn't say that either. Read the posts that you're responding to.
Albatross wrote:
Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs...
Maybe, he ostensibly got rid of them, and most Western states agree on that.
Albatross wrote:One guy even said that the best way to stop the conflict was to start an even bigger conflict! Cute. Seriously, I want to put that guy in my pocket and carry him around for little while, occasionally getting him out to show to my friends.
i wouldnt want to be in your pocket as i dont know how often you change your pants.
I'm not wearing any. Your move.
You want to stop the air conflict and just leave the ground fighting as is?
What I want doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. What I want, is for RoboThatcher to destroy the Libyan military with her lazer-eyes, but failing that, I'll just settle for whatever's realistic. The ground fighting will change with the intervention of foreign air power. Count on it. Confidence is important, especially in a conflict like this.
What happens when the rebels run out of supplies and ammunition? thats bound to happen sooner or later and im sure the Libyan forces can outlast them in that regard.
What are you basing that on?
dont you think a quick all out offensive is better than a drawn out war?
Not to be a dick about it or anything, but who are you advocating sending to fight in this crushing 'quick offensive'? The Czech military? Or will it be the Americans and Brits again?
At the first sniff of that, there would be mass desertions amongst the Libyan airforce, as they would be aware that they were about to get eviscerated. This would probably spread to the wider Libyan military - they barely have the stomach for the fight as it is. Why else would Gadaffi be using mercenaries? Remove Libyan air capabilities and the conflict could then be played out with a win for the rebels without western boots ever hitting the sand.
This would be nice if this were true but history has proven you wrong several times. Somalian conflicts come to mind. If anything, when people are outgunned and cornered the fighting seems to get bloodier.
When people are outgunned and cornered they usually die. And which specific Somalian conflicts are you referring to? If you could also outline what bearing they have on this discussion that would be a big help too...
Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs, and actually has a proven track record of sponsoring terror.... Just saying.
so leaving the ground fighting to fester for a longer time would leave him enough time to consider using these is the better idea. okay. (wmd in this case being mustard gas)
My point was that enforcing a no-fly zone would severely curtail his stay in power. So no, he wouldn't have more time to use them. Your alternative isn't an option which is being seriously considered by anyone in the international community, so the only other option is to 'wait and see'. Which is what we're doing now.
@Shuma - I've seen rebels driving tanks on the news, and they have anti-tank capabilities. It wouldn't be a cake walk, by any stretch, but it would be possible.
Bakerofish wrote:
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.
Yes, and one thing contributing to the turbulence is Gaddafi's air superiority.
I may have misunderstood this bit. were you countering or were you agreeing?
again, my point: an air initiative without a ground initiative to support it is a bad idea.
as for the "majority" and "good chunk" : Shuma specifically said "majority" and you said "good chunk"
Bakerofish wrote:
I may have misunderstood this bit. were you countering or were you agreeing?
again, my point: an air initiative without a ground initiative to support it is a bad idea.
I'm not making a qualitative comment at all, I'm simply saying that a no-fly zone would help anyone trying to depose Gaddafi.
Bakerofish wrote:
as for the "majority" and "good chunk" : Shuma specifically said "majority" and you said "good chunk"
what would be considered a "good chunk"?
does it still change what i said?
A "good chunk" is anything significant. It could be a matter of percentage or, as in this case, it could be a matter of situation. The General that defected, for example, oversaw lots of oil fields.
supplies: im basing this on the fact that the rebel holds are miles apart from each other, most of them crossing the desert. Im basing it on the fact that the rebels have no central structure that will handle logistics of supplies. Im basing it on the fact that the Libyan Military has the capital, the major outposts, the airfield, the harbors and major roads as well as the monetary means to gain supplies.
somalian conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
you might know this as blackhawk down. basically the somalians didnt have a significant air presence. the americans and the joint forces pretty much had them flat down beat there but that didnt mean the conflict ended because the somalians "lost the stomach for battle". quite the contrary. bloody war it was.
and to be clear im not advocating a crushing quick offensive. or thats half of what im saying. all im saying is that if people are going to help, it has to be all out or nothing.
as a side note: The Brits have sent out word that theyd be ready to deploy in 24hours notice if need be. so I guess someone else is advocating the 'decisive" offensive.
edit: okay so theyre saying its a humanitarian initiative. this will still involve ground troops and shooting people however.
Furthermore, I should note that the CNN video I linked to earlier, the CNN reporter was doing an interview with a former member of the military before Libya's government tried to bomb them (the missile landed less than fifty meters from the camera).
ShumaGorath wrote:As a quick note, the Libyan military is still in full control of their tank and armored forces. Air power isn't his only leg up.
okay so you saying this and the exchange we had earlier leaves me thinking you're either trolling or you just dont know what youre talking about.
im going with the simpler explanation.
I was posting that to Albatross, you sneaked a post in between ours. I wouldn't state that to you as you seem irrationally incapable of interfacing with situations that have nuances.
supplies: im basing this on the fact that the rebel holds are miles apart from each other, most of them crossing the desert. Im basing it on the fact that the rebels have no central structure that will handle logistics of supplies. Im basing it on the fact that the Libyan Military has the capital, the major outposts, the airfield, the harbors and major roads as well as the monetary means to gain supplies.
Really? Because their assets have been frozen for a week or so now.... I also think you're overstating the Libyan military's capabilities - again, they drafted in 50,000 Chadian mercenaries in to bolster their forces, and they STILL lost Benghazi. Tripoli is the only part of the country which Gadaffi still holds with any sort of firmness, and even that looks to be slipping slightly.
somalian conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
you might know this as blackhawk down. basically the somalians didnt have a significant air presence. the americans and the joint forces pretty much had them flat down beat there but that didnt mean the conflict ended because the somalians "lost the stomach for battle". quite the contrary. bloody war it was.
It was one battle involving tiny numbers of US troops.... I fail to see what that has to do with this.
edit: okay so theyre saying its a humanitarian initiative. this will still involve ground troops and shooting people however.
Will it? And here's me thinking it meant the opposite.
you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs? they got 50,000 mercs as you said, how do you suppose theyll be paying them off? Im no expert in mercenary compensation but i dont think 50,00 mercs would just go without having some sort of payment upfront first. were all those mercs in Benghazi btw? Frozen assets mean nothing if you got means of moving goods around. I dont think any sort of no fly zone will prevent ships or trucks from moving to friendly countries to trade.
and the somalian conflict had both UN and US troops and i wouldnt call it a tiny number considering the scale of the confrontation. I bring up the somalian conflict because you think that a show of air superiority is enough to stabilize an area. It didnt do so for somalia, it didnt do so for Iraq and afghanistan. The fighting just went on regardless of how many planes went on bombing runs.
as for the Brits humanitarian effort: if the brits dont open fire even once then ill be wrong
you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs?
Well, how do you think they would do it? Go round and pay them all individually? They are sourced. It's not the middle ages anymore - there are companies that do these sorts of things, some more scrupulous than others.
you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs?
Well, how do you think they would do it? Go round and pay them all individually? They are sourced. It's not the middle ages anymore - there are companies that do these sorts of things, some more scrupulous than others.
and if their assets are frozen...how would these companies be paid? and would they really put those 50k troops if they knew there was a chance they wont get paid?
i really dont think these folks were given I.O.U.s
point here is if they can get 50,000 mercs then they have the means to get food and supplies. at least a better means than the rebels currently have. Organization talks among the rebels are breaking down as it is.
Rome fell because of its reliance on mercenaries, Libya is no different. Unlike soldiers, mercenaries have no reason to support a country except for the money they receive from that country. Remove the money and then the mercenaries will either leave, turn on the Libyan government, or loot the area in anger.
We don't want our troops in the area if that so happens. A no fly zone would be easy to establish over Libya because their military is nowhere near as developed as ours and mercenaries will most likely not be able to do anything much less want to do anything against an established military.
Like I said before the US NAVY rendered their air power useless against their ships simply by turning off the lights on the ships at night.
We don't need to sponsor them by giving them weapons that would most likely end up being used against us later(see Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden). We don't need to invade Libya because the rebels are doing fine enough on their own, we just need to make sure their flyboys stay on the ground and nothing does that quite like the F-18.
you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs?
Well, how do you think they would do it? Go round and pay them all individually? They are sourced. It's not the middle ages anymore - there are companies that do these sorts of things, some more scrupulous than others.
and if their assets are frozen...how would these companies be paid? and would they really put those 50k troops if they knew there was a chance they wont get paid?
i really dont think these folks were given I.O.U.s
point here is if they can get 50,000 mercs then they have the means to get food and supplies. at least a better means than the rebels currently have. Organization talks among the rebels are breaking down as it is.
You make a lot of assumptions. You're assuming they haven't already been paid, but you're also assuming that were ever going to be paid. I love how you said 'would they really put 50k troops in if there was a chance they won't get paid?' This is why I think you're adorable. Think about it - does Gadaffi strike you as a particularly scrupulous individual?
Perhaps he's the sort of desperate guy who decides to commit a whole load of foreign mercenaries, and only worries about how he's going to pay them if he wins?
The point is, you don't know. Neither do I. What we DO know is that the Libyan airforce is bombing supply dumps, and that is slowing the rebellion. It's worth remembering that the rebels looked pretty unstoppable early in the conflict because they were confident. The army was rattled, and lost Libya's second city and major port - and this is with the massive advantages you seem to think they have. Now things seem to be grinding to stalemate, the rebels need an injection of confidence and the no fly zone would achieve this by removing a pretty serious obstacle to rebel progress.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are the F22 and F35 not deployed on carriers?
Nope, F-22 is only a land based aircraft, and the F-35 is still yet to be introduced. As I recall it's a bit of a problem over here in the UK cause the UK is retiring its Harriers, which gives the UK aircraft carriers that have no aircraft to launch.
As for the central debate, a no-fly zone, (or better yet, air support for the rebels) WOULD be a significant asset for the rebellion. The Libyan military has tanks, artillery and air power on its side, a no fly zone takes away one of those key components, and arguably the only component the rebels can't retaliate against. They can RPG tanks, and overrun artillery batteries, but they can't retaliate against Mirages flying thousands of feet above them.
We get rid of the Libyans airpower, and we've helped the rebels. We bomb Libyan artillery and tanks, and we help them out even more. We'd likely be able to pull this off with a minimum of casualties...will we lost some people? Probably. But that can't be helped.
As for Mogadishu...that really doesn't count. To be honest, the US Military was plain idiotic in its planning for that battle: they launched the operation in the broad daylight, they had ONE rescue helicopter for the whole operation...in short we were arrogant, and we paid the price.
you guys are overestimating the effect of air power in this conflict. The real danger bombings have is to civilians and fixed structures that have no capability to get out of the way. this is not a battle thats going to be won by air. If thats true Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia wouldve folded earlier.
the real fight will be on the ground...where libyans would be dying
@albatross
am i the only one making assumptions here? at least mine are reasonable ones. unless youre saying the assumption that 50,000 people (armed ones at that) are going to war with no guarantee of payment and just doing it based on a despot's word of honor is a reasonable assumption?
or that a GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY FORCE do not have means of securing food and supplies better than a ragtag bunch of rebels is a reasonable assumption?
please.
securing food and supplies is infinitely easier than getting 50,000 mercs. especially since you have to feed and supply those 50,00 mercs in the first place since the Libyan government was able to secure that then its a reasonable assumption that they would be sitting well on supplies better than the rebels. at least until a direct intervention leads to rebels being supplied.
yes i dont know this for sure. but im making an educated guess here. attack my points if you must and ill respect you but if you're just going to resort to ridicule when your counterpoints are flimsier than mine then lets just agree to disagree.
@warboss tzoo
seriously? thats what youre getting from my posts? when ive been talking about making the conflict as short as possible? dude. I bring up Somalia again. During the beginning the US was there assisting in a humanitarian capacity but after losing a unit (Black hawk down) the US government decided to leave Somalia on its own. The conflict is still as bloody as it began. Tell me if in hindsight the half measure presented here actually helped address the root problem.
yes i believe that they should help all out or not at all.
because if they go half assed then they're just wasting the lives of the folks who may die due to this humanitarian effort. theyre also just going to watch, secure in the fact that they "helped" when folks on the ground are dying in preventable numbers.
You can't underestimate air power, look at the Russians in Afghanistan. The Russians were winning their war because of the fact that the Hinds scared the living gak out of them. When we introduced Stinger missiles that could take these helicopters out the Russians began to lose.
If we remove the only tactical asset the government of Libya has(air power) then the rebels will be rejuvenated in their own efforts and the Libyan government won't have any distinct advantage.
Comparing this to 'Black Hawk Down' is also a foolish move. First of all the mission was failed in 'Black Hawk Down' and after seeing their fellow soliders mutilated and dragged through the streets the majority of out troops there wanted to go out and do some damage. Clinton didn't want to bomb the city for some reason and our troops moved out unable to avenge their fallen brothers. Two different scenarios overall as well.
Its like comparing the genocide in Darfur with the aid given to Haiti after the earthquake.
The government relies on its citizens for supplies, when the citizens say that they don't want to give the government supplies bad things can happen, bad things that can cause those citizens to join the rebels. Look at Brazil and any other third world nation to see the effects of rebels.
ing Washington.
.
