http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206805/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

i didn't have too much of a problem when the obama/clinton said they wouldn't put US troops in harm's way but now they're apparently not being used in just a support role (AWACs and air-to-air refueling). a US aircraft went down (albeit due to mechanical difficulties and not enemy fire) OVER libya... although i didn't vote for him, i certainly do remember a certain campaign stance that his goal was to pull out our troops from wars in muslim countries and not to send them to more. i support our troops and the justification for war in afghanistan (not so much in iraq but i'll leave that for another thread); we certainly don't need another front to fight on.

IIRC, it was Iraq he wanted out of specifically. Over here we get the impression that he's not that keen on the whole Libya thing and is trying to give control to ourselves and the French.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"

Barack Obama, 2007

I think his campaign IIRC was to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan.

Monster Rain wrote:“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"

Barack Obama, 2007

unilaterally... pfft! hillary ok'ed it too so that makes two and that largely invisible biden guy probably rubber stamped it too. i guess its ok to criticize republicans for joining/starting military actions yet still ok to do it yourself. i'm sure the US media will cover this about-face in the fair and just fashion that they did during the election (i.e. worshipping at the altar of the obama-ssiah).

To be fair he does have a UN resolution for it this time and it's quite obvious he really doesn't want to be involved.

Well, as you guys all know, things change on a day to day basis. New threats pop up that need quelling, but that's all I'm going to say about that, because I haven't really been paying attention to the fighting going on right now.

Two things you need to know about Obama, though:

1) He's a politician.

2) He's a liar.

Though that's really only one thing......

Can I say this is typical, though? Remember with the health care bill, he stressed, over and over "Covering all these people will NOT increase the cost of coverage!". Bill passes, and he states "Well yeah the cost is going to increase, we are adding alot of people to be covered, how can the cost NOT increase!?"

First off, we're conducting an air campaign, not putting troops on the ground. (Yet)

In terms of Obama: He's a politician! And, he had little to no experience! And, he's from Chicago! That means that at best, he was naive, and at worst, outright bribed his way into office.

But, that's what you get from our election process. Incredibly complex issues (like health care, or defense policy) needs to get boiled down to a single sound bite. No one is capable of accurately describing what they'd do in office. You'd need to go into an enormous amount of detail to get the mouth-breathers to understand that issues aren't all black and white. And, while you're doing that, your opponent will just be mocking you all the way to the victory.

Yes, elections are very much popularity contests, or in our case the person who we hate the least.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

Actually, if you parse his language, he's actually correct. The power to authorize military attacks unilaterally comes from legislation and precedent, not the constitution.

there is a big difference between "not having the power under the Constitution" and "being forbidden by the Constitution."

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

He campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan, not withdrawing.

There has been escalation in Afghanistan.

(Off topic; I don't think we British are terribly keen on it, but we hate it less than we hated Iraq.)

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

there's a difference between adapting foreign policy and doing a complete about-face regarding the issue that was arguably tied for his biggest campaign platform idea (the other being the economy). i support the deployment (with the obvious risking of US lives) of US troops when combating something that is an immiment threat to the US (which was the case in afghanistan but not iraq); there is ZERO threat from libya in that regard. i'm all for supporting the rebels financially and politically in a grand, worldwide effort to promote democracy but not in risking US lives there. he did support a surge in afghanistan but its a hard politcal sell to NOT support the fight against the same organization that actually attacked us.

either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual new world conflict; you'd think all that experience as a community organizer and 2 years as a freshman senator would have prepared him better for the role as the single most powerful person on the planet. [/sarcasm] either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

warboss wrote:either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual world conflict; you'd think all that experience as a community organizer and 2 years as a freshman senator would have prepared him better for the role as the single most powerful person on the planet. [/sarcasm] either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

I think you've snarkily hit the nail on the head: he didn't know everything when he said what he said. Everybody has ideas about a job before they take it, and rarely are they 100% correct.

I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

The other difference is that the Obama is a politician by trade, but he holds the office of the Soveriegn. There are simply demands on the US that have to met, regardless of his personal thoughts.

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw.

When a man has principles, he doesn't need to change his mind! He know's what's right from the start!

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw.

When a man has principles, he doesn't need to change his mind! He know's what's right from the start!

Even principles change when responsibilities change. I know men who wouldn't hurt a fly normally but would commit untold violence to protect their children.

Being personally responsible for a nation will change the way you view principles.

This isn't to say that Obama is somehow not a shifty politician that lucked his way into the White House.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw.

When a man has principles, he doesn't need to change his mind! He know's what's right from the start!

Hitler had principles and stuck to them right to the end.

To err is human.

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

It would seem it is only a character flaw in people you thought were flawed to begin with. It's confirmation bias, and it is nifty. Part of being President (or human really) is having to do things you originally might have been against but realize that the reality of a situation requires it. Raising taxes cost Bush Sr. re-election but he was right to do it even though he had promised not to becuase the reality of the situation called for a tax raise. The alternative was much more problematic and he recognized. Campaign in poetry, but govern in prose, as it were.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

I'm interested in how you feel that Romney's switch (right before the primaries) wasn't for gain, while Obama's was. I'm genuinely interested.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

As stated a number of times above, getting involved does Obama no favours whatsoever. The only political reason would be to stabilise one of the world's oil producers but obviously he can't say that's what he's doing, so no benefit there either.

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

Of course not. This action is angering and pleasing people on both sides of the aisle; truly a bi-partisan action.

This is a surprise?

Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, but after being elected, it changed within a few weeks of him taking office to "thinking about removing some troops within 23 months".

Remember, the president is not the man in power. There are far more people working the shadows that dictate things, mainly both political parties (which at the highest level are just a single political party anyway) and the World Bank.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you elect. It is all one political party with agendas not known to the public.

I'm just saying don't blame obama for being a liar, that just comes with the political territory of being a puppet.

So no, it is not your imagination. Just about everything Obama campaigned for turned out to be a lie, but as I said, what president hasn't? What elected official in high seat positions haven't?

It's politics. It's another day.

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

Yes. Next question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BuFFo wrote:This is a surprise?

Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, but after being elected, it changed within a few weeks of him taking office to "thinking about removing some troops within 23 months".

Remember, the president is not the man in power. There are far more people working the shadows that dictate things, mainly both political parties (which at the highest level are just a single political party anyway) and the World Bank.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you elect. It is all one political party with agendas not known to the public.

I'm just saying don't blame obama for being a liar, that just comes with the political territory of being a puppet.

So no, it is not your imagination. Just about everything Obama campaigned for turned out to be a lie, but as I said, what president hasn't? What elected official in high seat positions haven't?

It's politics. It's another day.

Oh is it time for this thread again?

CT GAMER wrote:Oh is it time for this thread again?

Lol, you can't have a war going on (especially a new one) and not have the whys and wherefores debated on Dakka (or indeed the internet at large).

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

Depends on what you mean by conservatives. Traditional conservatives will like it on the theory of interventionism in the defense of democracy, neocons will like it because neocons just flat out like war. On the other hand much of the right these days has been more caught up in The Con than usual, and will oppose this simply because its a Democrat president doing it.

Seems you are the only conservative who's glad, because to be anything else might indicate that some thin veil of common ground with that terrible undercover muslim in the Whitehouse might have been achieved and that would immediately mark you as a filthy nazicommunistsocialistislamicblackpresidentlover.

Far better to do nothing whilst civilians are being bombed back into the stone age than actually agree with the Great Satan masquerading as President...

And lets forget that all those crowing over Obama sending in aircraft and missiles against Colonel 'remember Lockerbie' Gaddafi were spanking themselves into a frenzy of joy when GeeDubYa rolled into Iraq for those WMDs...

So lets gloss over the opportunity presented to oust one of the major bad guys of the world because he's using his military to liquidate his own civilian population and instead concentrate on making sure that whatever Obama does, whenever he does it, that you take an opposing stance, because you didn't vote for him and Rush Limbaugh told you he was a bad man trying to steal money from those nice pharmaceutical corporations...

Also, minor footnote but the plane ditched due to mechanical failure.

Anyway, the way I understand it (as stated earlier), all main operations will be handed over to the French and British within the week.

Leave this one to us, chaps

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

No, certainly not. Obama seems pleased that we've gotten involved.

In fact, now that we are involved, everyone who is conservative is pleased. If they weren't, they'd be advocating change, which is a liberal position.

Grakmar wrote:

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

No, certainly not. Obama seems pleased that we've gotten involved.

In fact, now that we are involved, everyone who is conservative is pleased. If they weren't, they'd be advocating change, which is a liberal position.

Are there two Obamas?! From our perspective he couldn't seem less pleased about the whole affair.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Seems you are the only conservative who's glad, because to be anything else might indicate that some thin veil of common ground with that terrible undercover muslim in the Whitehouse might have been achieved and that would immediately mark you as a filthy nazicommunistsocialistislamicblackpresidentlover.

Far better to do nothing whilst civilians are being bombed back into the stone age than actually agree with the Great Satan masquerading as President...

And lets forget that all those crowing over Obama sending in aircraft and missiles against Colonel 'remember Lockerbie' Gaddafi were spanking themselves into a frenzy of joy when GeeDubYa rolled into Iraq for those WMDs...

So lets gloss over the opportunity presented to oust one of the major bad guys of the world because he's using his military to liquidate his own civilian population and instead concentrate on making sure that whatever Obama does, whenever he does it, that you take an opposing stance, because you didn't vote for him and Rush Limbaugh told you he was a bad man trying to steal money from those nice pharmaceutical corporations...

Also, minor footnote but the plane ditched due to mechanical failure.

historically conservatives have not been for starting wars, just ending them. That changed with Hussein in the Gulf War, but could be viewed as a direct threat to world supplies at the time (reserves were more concentrated in that region then). You'll find all your wars prior to that in the 20th century were started by tree hugging democrats.
WWI - Wilson (that bunny hugger!)
WWII - Roosevelt (hippy!)
Korea - Truman ( surrender monkey!)
Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson (communal nature boys!)

Gulf War I - Bush (repub)
Kosova - Clinton (peacenik!)
Afghistan/Iraq - Bush II (repub)
Libya - Obama (flower power my ass!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flashman wrote:Anyway, the way I understand it (as stated earlier), all main operations will be handed over to the French and British within the week.

Leave this one to us, chaps

Yea...the French...sure.

(so Khadaffy will be marching in Paris within 6 weeks?)

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Seems you are the only conservative who's glad, because to be anything else might indicate that some thin veil of common ground with that terrible undercover muslim in the Whitehouse might have been achieved and that would immediately mark you as a filthy nazicommunistsocialistislamicblackpresidentlover.

Far better to do nothing whilst civilians are being bombed back into the stone age than actually agree with the Great Satan masquerading as President...

And lets forget that all those crowing over Obama sending in aircraft and missiles against Colonel 'remember Lockerbie' Gaddafi were spanking themselves into a frenzy of joy when GeeDubYa rolled into Iraq for those WMDs...

So lets gloss over the opportunity presented to oust one of the major bad guys of the world because he's using his military to liquidate his own civilian population and instead concentrate on making sure that whatever Obama does, whenever he does it, that you take an opposing stance, because you didn't vote for him and Rush Limbaugh told you he was a bad man trying to steal money from those nice pharmaceutical corporations...

Also, minor footnote but the plane ditched due to mechanical failure.

Well done sir. That's just fantastic work.

While hyperbolic, I think that you've really laid out a big part of the problem.

Most Americans understand two things:
1) War is bad and our boys shouldn't fight and die over affairs that aren't our problem, and
2) the US has a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman

there are some people that are consistent, and some people that truly judge each case on it's won merits, but a lot of us (and I'm no exception) tend to trust the decisions of leaders we trust, and vice versa.

Yea...the French...sure.

(so Khadaffy will be marching in Paris within 6 weeks?)

I see what you did there sir!

I thought Obama's strategy was right on. Sit back and let other people handle this one. I guess it was too much to ask for that to do on forever.

The US shouldn't be in the position to hand anything off as the French and English were the ones rattling sabers on this one. Somehow the US role as support has taken over much of the operation. At least when the US goes into these things with little to no thought or strategy we are kind enough to lead the way and do the heavy lifting.

This reminds me more of when James Joyce used to get Hemingway into fights. (Yes this did happen, frequently)

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yea...the French...sure.

(so Khadaffy will be marching in Paris within 6 weeks?)

I see what you did there sir!

warboss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

there's a difference between adapting foreign policy and doing a complete about-face regarding the issue that was arguably tied for his biggest campaign platform idea (the other being the economy). i support the deployment (with the obvious risking of US lives) of US troops when combating something that is an immiment threat to the US (which was the case in afghanistan but not iraq); there is ZERO threat from libya in that regard. i'm all for supporting the rebels financially and politically in a grand, worldwide effort to promote democracy but not in risking US lives there. he did support a surge in afghanistan but its a hard politcal sell to NOT support the fight against the same organization that actually attacked us.

either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual new world conflict; you'd think all that experience as a community organizer and 2 years as a freshman senator would have prepared him better for the role as the single most powerful person on the planet. [/sarcasm] either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

Being doctrinaire is the flaw that got a number of US presidents into regrettable entanglements. Obama's not my president, but I would not like to think he lacked the capability to change his mind when the facts changed

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

I'm interested in how you feel that Romney's switch (right before the primaries) wasn't for gain, while Obama's was. I'm genuinely interested.

I was merely pointing out the inherent bias in your post.

Whether Romney's change was for political gain or not is a matter of political persuasion.

As with all political debate in the USA, as far as I can tell.

biccat wrote:I was merely pointing out the inherent bias in your post.

The irony bomb that just went off is going to shake the windows as far away as Jueno, AK.

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

Thankfully there was not a giant intervention force during the American Civil war or we might be looking at a very different world then.

The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy. Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

Thankfully there was not a giant intervention force during the American Civil war or we might be looking at a very different world then.

Yes, one where the US owns it.

I know right Who'da helped us, the French? That's as crazy as saying George Washington lost a battle against the French.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

I'm interested in how you feel that Romney's switch (right before the primaries) wasn't for gain, while Obama's was. I'm genuinely interested.

I was merely pointing out the inherent bias in your post.

Whether Romney's change was for political gain or not is a matter of political persuasion.

I feel bad for using opposite parties in my example, but I'm sorry man: Romney's switch is one of the more notorious ones, given the circumstances. If nothing else, it certainly looked very suspicious. Compare that to GHW Bush's switch on taxes, which was made at huge political cost (at the hands of the dems), but based on need.

I don't think you need to be a Democrat to think it strange that a full grown adult, raised in the LDS church, would suddendly decide that abortion laws were actually bad, especially after being elected to one job that more or less required being pro-choice, and before trying to get a different job that required being pro-life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion

I don't' know why he changed his mind, but it seemed to be to his benefit.

Compare that to the current example, in which it's hard to argue any real benefit for Obama.

Bush Sr. should have beaten Regan. Too bad his son wan't half the man he is.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

Thankfully there was not a giant intervention force during the American Civil war or we might be looking at a very different world then.

The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy. Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

I know right Who'da helped us, the French? That's as crazy as saying George Washington lost a battle against the French.

Since i can't tell what part of the US you are from, not sure if by us you mean north or south. I know there is a reason why people still keep those flags!

Frazzled-don't you mean a world where Texas owns it.

sexiest_hero wrote:Bush Sr. should have beaten Regan. Too bad his son wan't half the man he is.

It's hard to tell if we judged Bush Sr. too harshly when he was in office, or if we're now romanticizing him overly. Either way, I think he'll go down as a more effective president than his son.

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

You don't really thing that if England had the power at the time it they would not have supported the south. The south was planning on massive intervention from both England and France. Had they the power at the time, it could be a really different world.

France now wants a committee to run the war. I see my earlier estimate of six weeks before Libya takes Paris was optimistic. It may only be five.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html

Frazzled wrote:France now wants a committee to run the war. I see my earlier estimate of six weeks before Libya takes Paris was optimistic. It may only be five.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html

As disturbing and unreliable as that committee is. I welcome it. Let France lead it and the rest of the Arabs provide ground forces (that's how I read it). I wish them all the luck in the world. I'd like to see the Arab league become a real regional power and patrol themselves.

The reality of the situation is pretty bleak! France and the arab league. I can't even fathom who pulls out first.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:France now wants a committee to run the war. I see my earlier estimate of six weeks before Libya takes Paris was optimistic. It may only be five.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html

As disturbing and unreliable as that committee is. I welcome it. Let France lead it and the rest of the Arabs provide ground forces (that's how I read it). I wish them all the luck in the world. I'd like to see the Arab league become a real regional power and patrol themselves.

The reality of the situation is pretty bleak! France and the arab league. I can't even fathom who pulls out first.

Just because they are on the committee doesn't mean they are going to do the work. So far the Arab League's commitment has been two mirage jets which just now are flying to bases in Italy/Sicily. Big ing deal.

I hope the French completely kick the snot into Libya just so we can put to bed all the durr hurr frenches are suck at wahr jokes on Dakka.

The French posters here take it with great humour, would love to see certain US posters take this much stick about America in the same light.

Just because they are on the committee doesn't mean they are going to do the work. So far the Arab League's commitment has been two mirage jets which just now are flying to bases in Italy/Sicily. Big ing deal.

These military alliances always go swimmingly don't they. Ask the last arab pilot that was flying for a free Lybia.



yes i know he was Libyan....still and Arab right?

Andrew1975 wrote:

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

You don't really thing that if England had the power at the time it they would not have supported the south. The south was planning on massive intervention from both England and France. Had they the power at the time, it could be a really different world.

The UK certainly had the power to shut down shipping into and out of the USA but it was not exercised. The Royal Navy was unchallenged for size and expertise throughout the world.

It is unlikely that the UK would have supported a slave nation when it was the major power against slavery in the mid 19th century. There may have been "reasons of state" for wanting the US to be divided, however the concept did not have popular backing.

The South were hopeless romantics in this case. Their hopes of intervention from the UK were unrealistic. Look how quickly the Trent Affair was resolved.

I don't know what France might have wanted to do.

Andrew1975 wrote:

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

You don't really thing that if England had the power at the time it they would not have supported the south. The south was planning on massive intervention from both England and France. Had they the power at the time, it could be a really different world.

This is one of my favorite areas of history, alas I haven't done a ton of research. But here's what I do know:

England hated slavery. They essentially banned the slave trade, and public support in England was more anti-slavery than not.

England had a powerful navy, and could potentially blockade the US... for a while. Northern shipbuilding capacity was high, and with shorter supply lines we'd be able to get back into it in a few years.

Canada is right on our border, and if England went to war we would invade, not just to take the land, but also to seize the shipyards at halifax.

Oh, and the Russians (who hated England at the time), were supporting us.

So, England puts fleets on our coast, supplies the south with supplies (they'd have a hard time putting too many boots on the ground. Look at Crimea, where they only landed 250,000 men.) For what gain? England made a killing off of egyptian cotton after a year or two of war. Also, the US was a main supplier of grain to England.

Oh, and it's documented that Lincoln had the state department hint that intervention in the south could someday lead to the US intervening in Ireland.

Back in 2000 George W Bush campaigned for a smaller, non interventionist, humble foreign policy, and campaigned against the very concept of nation building.

One of Bush's exact quotes was.

If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that.

The sad part is the only thing I liked about Bush over Gore was Bush's pre 9/11 foreign policy which I really agreed with, the problem is Bush didn't listen to his own advice. The same thing can be said about 1994 Dick Cheney.

I don't want to jack the tread but the British did build confederate ships and operate the blockade runners.

The specifics of what was available at the time and what could have happened are very interesting, but meaningless to the debate. I was just saying I'm glad the world didn't send and intervention force. Sure what evil G is doing is vastly different from what transpired in the US Civil war.

In most Civil wars people get killed. The peasants kill the ruling body of or the other way around.

Gaffy for the most part has been quite for some time and has kept the oil flowing. A guarantee we are surely not to get if the wrong people come into power. Is G still a grade A douche with blood on his hand. You bet. I don't see this operation really doing anything to address the real issues though. So I think Obama's first instincts were correct, if only he had followed them.

What would really impress me is if he stood up came out with a plan and addressed the issues now, even if he said he was unhappy and pulled out it would be something. But to sit in this course where we have no goals (publicly stated anyway, maybe they are hushed for a reason, i'm fine with that) is pretty weak.

Bush JR said a lot of crazy things.

Andrew1975 wrote:I don't want to jack the tread but the British did build confederate ships and operate the blockade runners. .

Ships were built and supplied legitimately under the existing laws of war.

The UK also supplied a significant amount of materiél to the northern states. The UK was one of the world's major industrial powers at the time.

Blockade runners were not operated by the British government. It would have been illegal.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:I don't want to jack the tread but the British did build confederate ships and operate the blockade runners. .

Ships were built and supplied legitimately under the existing laws of war.

The UK also supplied a significant amount of materiél to the northern states. The UK was one of the world's major industrial powers at the time.

Blockade runners were not operated by the British government. It would have been illegal.

Short version

A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861; it was resolved in a few months. More of a problem was the British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) building two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama, over vehement protests from the United States. The controversy continued after the Civil War in the form of the Alabama Claims, in which the United States finally was given $15.5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by British-built warships. The British built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal and not the cause of serious tension. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U.S. into declaring war against Britain

Long version

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

Again though, kind of off topic

BuFFo wrote:This is a surprise?

Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, but after being elected, it changed within a few weeks of him taking office to "thinking about removing some troops within 23 months".

Remember, the president is not the man in power. There are far more people working the shadows that dictate things, mainly both political parties (which at the highest level are just a single political party anyway) and the World Bank.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you elect. It is all one political party with agendas not known to the public.

I'm just saying don't blame obama for being a liar, that just comes with the political territory of being a puppet.

So no, it is not your imagination. Just about everything Obama campaigned for turned out to be a lie, but as I said, what president hasn't? What elected official in high seat positions haven't?

It's politics. It's another day.

+1

This is a nugget of truth. I encourage Dakkaites to put their doritos down for a moment and think about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Warboss wrote: either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

warboss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Warboss wrote: either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

Of course he can be serious becuase the question you raised was about American military presence in foreign countries in general. You made no distinction about whether they were in warzones or not. You are changing the goal posts after the fact.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy.

It doesn't need one. The goal can be as simple as "prevent Gaddafi from using air power against the rebels" or "force Gaddafi to negotiate with the rebels". Its not as though there are significant contingents of ground troops in Libya.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

So a "cluster feth" is now any situation in which you have to think about what you're going to do after something else happens? I never knew that responding to stimuli was such a burden.

In any case, as you've argued before, the US doesn't necessarily need to do anything terrible drastic. It can simply pull out after a transition, or even before one. The beauty of air power is that all the infrastructure that makes ground withdrawals so time consuming is already located out of country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:
you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

Nor can you compare what has been primarily an air engagement with the full-scale invasion of another country, as your are doing with your comparison to Iraq, without at least mentioning the obvious difference. Moreover, there is a massive difference between "taking down" an oppressive regime, which is what happened in Iraq, and flying air cover for rebel ground forces.

The operation in Libya has far more in common with Kosovo than it does with Iraq, and even then there are major differences vis a vis geography and ground involvement.

Ahtman wrote:Of course he can be serious becuase the question you raised was about American military presence in foreign countries in general. You made no distinction about whether they were in warzones or not. You are changing the goal posts after the fact.

read my whole posts and you'll see how wrong (and that's the nice way of putting it) you are.

warboss wrote:i support the deployment (with the obvious risking of US lives) of US troops when combating something that is an immiment threat to the US (which was the case in afghanistan but not iraq); there is ZERO threat from libya in that regard. ***** he did support a surge in afghanistan but its a hard politcal sell to NOT support the fight against the same organization that actually attacked us. ****** either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual new world conflict; ***** i didn't have too much of a problem when the obama/clinton said they wouldn't put US troops in harm's way **** i certainly do remember a certain campaign stance that his goal was to pull out our troops from wars in muslim countries and not to send them to more

obviously by specifically talking about active warzones and mentioning their names while talking about placing our soldiers directly in harm's way in conflicts, i wasn't talking about the peacetime stationing of troops in allied countries. that's not changing goal posts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Nor can you compare what has been primarily an air engagement with the full-scale invasion of another country, as your are doing with your comparison to Iraq, without at least mentioning the obvious difference. Moreover, there is a massive difference between "taking down" an oppressive regime, which is what happened in Iraq, and flying air cover for rebel ground forces.

The operation in Libya has far more in common with Kosovo than it does with Iraq, and even then there are major differences vis a vis geography and ground involvement.

i agree that it has more in common with kosovo in that sense (air war SO FAR) but you don't really think there aren't going to be peace keepers or ground troops needed in the end? knocking over kosovo with air power was easy since the entire "country" was the size of a large city and its suburbs; that won't work in libya. joining a war isn't a hobby that we should engage in willy nilly.

warboss wrote:
i agree that it has more in common with kosovo in that sense (air war SO FAR) but you don't really think there aren't going to be peace keepers or ground troops needed in the end?

Well, needs are contingent on wants. If the Libyans want them there, and the UN or some nation wants to put them there, then they'll probably be used. That said, foreign ground troops tend to be pretty unpopular amongst any given domestic population (and often amongst its ruling elites, who are the people that really matter), and the United States has been pretty strong in its opposition to the use of ground forces. In fact, I haven't seen anyone openly consider their use (anyone important), and I've seen quite a few people openly oppose (again, important people), so that certainly speaks to the desires of people outside the UN.

warboss wrote:
knocking over kosovo with air power was easy since the entire "country" was the size of a large city and its suburbs; that won't work in libya. joining a war isn't a hobby that we should engage in willy nilly.

Well, strictly speaking, it wasn't air power alone that ended the Kosovo conflict, not in the normal sense anyway. What happened was that the bombing campaign created a chain reaction that force Milosevic to the negotiating table due to economic losses amongst his supporters. The same thing could be accomplished in Libya without too much trouble ,as the majority of the countries economic centers are concentrated within a relatively small area, and many key figures derive their wealth from a small set of economic interests.

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Of course he can be serious becuase the question you raised was about American military presence in foreign countries in general. You made no distinction about whether they were in warzones or not. You are changing the goal posts after the fact.

read my whole posts and you'll see how wrong (and that's the nice way of putting it) you are.

Even looking at the other posts it seems that you are criticizing a specific incident (Libya) but also talking about US force projection, which includes both immediately hostile zones as well as non-hostile zones. To criticize one requires at least a recognition of the other. You can't pretend they aren't linked subjects as much of the force in hostile zones are going to be coming from these non-hostile ares, which is generally the point of having military bases on foreign soil. Just becuase your argument is muddled is no reason to be a jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy.

It doesn't need one. The goal can be as simple as "prevent Gaddafi from using air power against the rebels" or "force Gaddafi to negotiate with the rebels". Its not as though there are significant contingents of ground troops in Libya.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

So a "cluster feth" is now any situation in which you have to think about what you're going to do after something else happens? I never knew that responding to stimuli was such a burden.

In any case, as you've argued before, the US doesn't necessarily need to do anything terrible drastic. It can simply pull out after a transition, or even before one. The beauty of air power is that all the infrastructure that makes ground withdrawals so time consuming is already located out of country.

It's usually good policy to have plans BEFORE you start bombing places.

Oh yeah those are real solutions to the issues. My two favorite kinds of intervention costly and ineffective.

1 Were we enforce a no fly zone forever.

or

2 We pull away leaving both sides in a worse position so there is a real blood bath when they finally duke it out, all you have done is ensure that whoever wins will not be friendly.

Good answers. This is why I'm against these meddlesome affairs.

I'd make a joke about how I'm happy you don't make policy, but it looks like your plans are incompetent enough to qualify for the job.

jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

Ah Ahtman being civil as usual!

is it my imagination or did Obama campaign to WITHDRAW troops from muslim countries?

Yes.

He also promised to close Gitmo.



All talk. He did however promise 'change' not tell you clearly what the change would be but has feth up pretty much everything he touched as president. I suppose thats one major election promise kept.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh yeah those are real solutions to the issues. My two favorite kinds of intervention costly and ineffective.

You can't argue both that the United States shouldn't have to do all the heavy lifting, and that they should do all the heavy lifting; the positions are directly contradictory.

The issue is that there is a conflict in Libya that we, apparently, want the rebels to win. As such, we gave support to the rebels. You can support one side of a conflict without actually going so far as take over its direction from them; which is exactly what a no-fly zone does.

Andrew1975 wrote:
1 Were we enforce a no fly zone forever.

No, that's nonsense. It relies on the idea that the rebels cannot produce a positive outcome without direct US intervention of the ground, which isn't an idea supported by what's actually been happening.

Andrew1975 wrote:
2 We pull away leaving both sides in a worse position so there is a real blood bath when they finally duke it out, all you have done is ensure that whoever wins will not be friendly.

That was already the most likely outcome prior to intervention. Had the rebels won, they would have been, at best, neutral due to the absence of foreign support. Had the rebels lost, Gaddafi's regime would have distanced itself from the West due to the absence of support for his regime; particularly given that there is no real way that any Western government could have avoided taking a stance on the conflict.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Good answers. This is why I'm against these meddlesome affairs.

Because the answers are more complicated than you're willing to take the time to understand?

Andrew1975 wrote:Ah Ahtman being civil as usual!

Andrew1975, cherry picking who he chooses to see as snide as usual. I'm civil until given a reason to not be, and coming from you, this is quite a pot calling the kettle black moment.

warboss wrote:although i didn't vote for him, i certainly do remember a certain campaign stance that his goal was to pull out our troops from wars in muslim countries and not to send them to more.

I would love to read any statement from Obama on 'pulling troops out of muslim countries and not sending them to any more'. The odds of Obama saying anything as awkwardly phrased, politically vague and just plain weird is extremely unlikely.

He certainly campaigned to pull troops out of Iraq much faster. He certainly campaigned to close down Gitmo much faster. He's not lived up to his campaign promises in areas like that.

But the thing you're claiming, I don't think that thing is true. And I don't think you've thought about whether you really believe, because you'd rather complain about the guy you didn't vote for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

Hahahahahahaha!

Yeah, the guy committing troops to an overseas operation out of humantarian necessity, when that commitment is poorly understood and quite unpopular at home, is doing so for political gain... but the guy who changed his stance on abortion to bring it into line with overwhelming majority of his political party, that couldn't be for political gain.

You're my favourite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Bush Sr. should have beaten Regan. Too bad his son wan't half the man he is.

Bush Sr appears to me to have had a pretty fine mind for running the nation, but a fairly poor mind for playing games of political pandering. Hence his decision to raise taxes, and his inability to play up to the growing evangelical voting bloc.

Bush Sr improved incredibly on his Dad's political ability, showing a keen mind and commitment to key issues among his voting groups. Hence his commitment to lowering taxes, and his ability to win absolute support from conservative evangelicals.

I think this is why Bush Sr was only able to win one term, but at the end of that term left the nation poised for a decade of economic strength. While his son was able to win to terms, but left the nation in a shambolic state.

Well, also the fact that Bush Sr went up against Clinton, who was a very skilled politician, while Bush Jr went up against Kerry, who was not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's hard to tell if we judged Bush Sr. too harshly when he was in office, or if we're now romanticizing him overly. Either way, I think he'll go down as a more effective president than his son.

Fair point. I've got a soft spot for him, which may well have been nostalgia. Either way he'll likely be remembered in the context of his son's presidency, which helps somewhat (he can't help but look better in the comparison) but also hurts, because anything he accomplished will always be overshadowed by his son's failures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:The specifics of what was available at the time and what could have happened are very interesting, but meaningless to the debate. I was just saying I'm glad the world didn't send and intervention force. Sure what evil G is doing is vastly different from what transpired in the US Civil war.

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

Ahtman wrote:Just becuase your argument is muddled is no reason to be a jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

interesting... i could have sworn the off-topic forum rules required people to not act like this. when you put your thoughts as eloquently as this, you can't help but be right on the internet!

Orlanth wrote:

is it my imagination or did Obama campaign to WITHDRAW troops from muslim countries?

Yes.

He also promised to close Gitmo.

When did Obama ever promise to withdraw troops from Muslim countries in general?

I recall pretty specifically that he promised to withdraw troops from Iraq, and promised to commit more to Afghanistan. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was 2/3 of his foreign policy position during the campaign, the other 1/3 being "talk to our enemies/Iran".

Orlanth wrote:
He did however promise 'change' not tell you clearly what the change would be but has feth up pretty much everything he touched as president. I suppose thats one major election promise kept.

He also promised healthcare reform which, regardless of whether or not it was a positive change, also happened.

Honestly, I'm always pretty amused by the "Politician X promised X, and lied!" line. Not only do politicians rarely ever promise things (they tend to promise to work on things, or something similar), but when specific promises are fulfilled, people simply forget that they were ever promised in the first place, or fabricate an alternate promise that action X didn't fulfill; like withdrawing from Muslim countries in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Hahahahahahaha!

Yeah, the guy committing troops to an overseas operation out of humantarian necessity, when that commitment is poorly understood and quite unpopular at home, is doing so for political gain... but the guy who changed his stance on abortion to bring it into line with overwhelming majority of his political party, that couldn't be for political gain.

You're my favourite.

I'm also unclear why doing such a thing for political reasons is a character flaw when politicians in representative systems are supposed to strike a balance between acting according to their own judgment, and the desires of their constituents.

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Just becuase your argument is muddled is no reason to be a jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

interesting... i could have sworn the off-topic forum rules required people to not act like this. when you put your thoughts as eloquently as this, you can't help but be right on the internet!

You mean like making off hand remarks like "(and that's the nice way of putting it)" that are trying to be insulting and sly at the same time. This isn't exactly an academic round table and you're not above the criticism you are currently making. Unlike you hiding behind pretense I'm just stating what I feel, and continue to feel, is true: you are being an ass. Will I get modded ofr it? Probably. Does that mean I'm wrong, or even being nearly as blunt and uneducated as you are trying to pretend? Not even close. I'm just not pretending to not be insulting to to someone who is putting on a farce by pretending they are aren't. Even this response here is in poor taste and obliviously meant to be degrading, but it is in a shallow and feckless manner. You are not nearly as clever as you think (a common ailment among gamers). If you were nearly as detached and above it all, as you give the pretense of being, you would have responded differently the first time instead of the way you did. You would have stated something more along the lines of "Perhaps you misunderstood my point. KK isolated a bit out of context and if you go back and read the whole piece you'll see that isn't what I was trying to get at". Instead we get: (and that's the nice way of putting it).

The difference between us is that I'm being up front and you're trying to hide, thinking this somehow gives you the moral high ground. It also helps that I'm right, but that isn't really pertinent to your cowardly insults.

"In another sign of dissension in the ranks, the French and German ambassadors Monday walked out of a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance's decision-making body, after Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen criticized the French for hampering NATO involvement and Germany for not actively participating."

It looks like we are not the only ones arguing here.

OK i guess i need to clarify. I never thought we (US) should be there. Our NATO allies can do what they want. Now that we (US and Allies) are there lets not make it a complete waste and or make the situation worse than it was before we got there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Ah Ahtman being civil as usual!

Andrew1975, cherry picking who he chooses to see as snide as usual. I'm civil until given a reason to not be, and coming from you, this is quite a pot calling the kettle black moment.

This coming from one of the well known Snark kings. Please.

The issue they're arguing over is involving NATO, which would obligate member states to commit forces to the action. France wants to maintain the action as one of loose coalition so they can reserve the right to exist the operation, while Germany doesn't want NATO involved at all so that they are not obligated to commit forces. All of which is part of a larger debate on the legitimate role of NATO.

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

dogma wrote:The issue they're arguing over is involving NATO, which would obligate member states to commit forces to the action. France wants to maintain the action as one of loose coalition so they can reserve the right to exist the operation, while Germany doesn't want NATO involved at all so that they are not obligated to commit forces. All of which is part of a larger debate on the legitimate role of NATO.

Oh I know, I posted the thing. I'm just saying let's everyone play nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

My point exactly

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!


"As of Tuesday, the U.S. military has flown 212 sorties over Libya, while 124 were flown by other coalition forces. A total of 108 strikes have been carried out and 162 Tomahawk missiles have been fired, the U.S. military reported."

Guess there goes the idea of the US not doing the heavy lifting. Thanks for rattling the sabers France! "Hemingway, deal with them!" (yes i know James Joyce was Irish)

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

My point exactly

If you wanted a hug all you had to do was ask.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes.

Their role was so limited that we didn't name a ton of places after a French General that volunteered to lead as well as garner materiel and financial support that helped in the war. We then didn't give him a hero's welcome 50 years later. Yup, people hardly noticed becuase they did so little it was barely worth noting.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

My point exactly

If you wanted a hug all you had to do was ask.

Don't you know hugs are threats?

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes.

Their role was so limited that we didn't name a ton of places after a French General that volunteered to lead as well as garner materiel and financial support that helped in the war. We then didn't give him a hero's welcome 50 years later. Yup, people hardly noticed becuase they did so little it was barely worth noting.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!

So your claim is that the French did very little (as you appear to claiming that it was less than the US flying bombing raids over Libya), but it spent enough on this aid as to lead to the bankruptcy of the state, and then into revolution. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument, because you can't argue that aid was simultaneously very small, but enough to bankrupt France.

Andrew, it's funny that you've tried to give Ahtman a lecture on politeness in this thread. Politeness isn't limited to not saying mean things. It includes honesty, and that means you need to really think about what you're claiming, and that you don't just drift from one non-sensical claim to the next. Please do us all the courtesy of thinking about what you're posting.

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!

So your claim is that the French did very little (as you appear to claiming that it was less than the US flying bombing raids over Libya), but it spent enough on this aid as to lead to the bankruptcy of the state, and then into revolution. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument, because you can't argue that aid was simultaneously very small, but enough to bankrupt France.

Andrew, it's funny that you've tried to give Ahtman a lecture on politeness in this thread. Politeness isn't limited to not saying mean things. It includes honesty, and that means you need to really think about what you're claiming, and that you don't just drift from one non-sensical claim to the next. Please do us all the courtesy of thinking about what you're posting.

I said it was less than the level US military intervention (usually) takes. Also I never said the aid was so expensive either and that caused the fall of France. All I said is "That worked out really well for the French". Any assumptions you made from that are yours and yours alone.

This is really typical of your arguing. Now I can be rude and go on a tirade and denigrate your thought process, but that is really your specialty!

But here are some tips.

1. Learn to read.

2. Don't make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

3. Practice what you preach. For someone who is preaching deep thought, your arguments show a severe lack of it!

Honestly you bore me. Hows that for honesty!

This is what I mean by usually you should have a plan BEFORE you attempt to drop bombs.

When you want to have discussions without using denigrating and insulting language feel free to play.

Note: Didn't even have to refer to someone as a jackass.

Andrew1975 wrote:It's still not the same level, it was relatively minor as I've stated before. They never landed large forces in the continent. I'm not saying no one appreciated the help! But on a scale of military assistance its hardly counts as D day.

It isn't really a fair comparison though. You have to remember we are talking about a pre-Industrial Revolution time where troops, ships and supplies were much more difficult to move around. They didn't really have much in the way of troops becuase they didn't need to, but they supplied ships, which considering the time it took to get from Europe to the new world as well as the cost of building, equipping, and manning one of them, was not insignificant. It also had a big impact on morale to get someone on their side. It was a different time and context of the conflict was very different. I don't think it is useful to say they weren't as helpful when they made a difference. I'm not going to diminish someone who helped us out when really the best motivation was to just piss off the British. They didn't have to help at all whereas WWII we had a much bigger interest in the outcome beyond just ticking off Germany.

Andrew1975 wrote:

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!

So your claim is that the French did very little (as you appear to claiming that it was less than the US flying bombing raids over Libya), but it spent enough on this aid as to lead to the bankruptcy of the state, and then into revolution. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument, because you can't argue that aid was simultaneously very small, but enough to bankrupt France.

Andrew, it's funny that you've tried to give Ahtman a lecture on politeness in this thread. Politeness isn't limited to not saying mean things. It includes honesty, and that means you need to really think about what you're claiming, and that you don't just drift from one non-sensical claim to the next. Please do us all the courtesy of thinking about what you're posting.

I said it was less than the level US military intervention (usually) takes. Also I never said the aid was so expensive either and that caused the fall of France. All I said is "That worked out really well for the French". Any assumptions you made from that are yours and yours alone.

This is really typical of your arguing. Now I can be rude and go on a tirade and denigrate your thought process, but that is really your specialty!

But here are some tips.

1. Learn to read.

2. Don't make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

3. Practice what you preach. For someone who is preaching deep thought, your arguments show a severe lack of it!

Honestly you bore me. Hows that for honesty!

This is what I mean by usually you should have a plan BEFORE you attempt to drop bombs.

When you want to have discussions without using denigrating and insulting language feel free to play.

Note: Didn't even have to refer to someone as a jackass.

you said that the french had a small impact on the war and gave a comparatively small amount of aid to the US. Sebster pointed out that that makes very little sense because the aid that the French provided was the major contributor to the subsequent bankruptcy and revolution. The US has never provided so much aid that we bankrupted ourselves

Andrew1975 wrote:I said it was less than the level US military intervention (usually) takes.

Yet here you are complaining about the operations in Libya...

Also I never said the aid was so expensive either and that caused the fall of France. All I said is "That worked out really well for the French". Any assumptions you made from that are yours and yours alone.

So what did you mean when you posted "That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution!"? Because the implication I read is the obvious one, and the one any plain reading of your statement would make.

So we're left with two options;
1) You meant something else very clever, that escaped me, and that you'll be along to explain very shortly and put me in my place.
2) You meant to imply that it led to the fall of France, but are now backtracking shamelessly, while trying to throw out as many stupid little digs as possible to protect your ego.

Please do explain your clever, clever meaning...

[qiuote]1. Learn to read.

2. Don't make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

you said that the french had a small impact on the war and gave a comparatively small amount of aid to the US. Sebster pointed out that that makes very little sense because the aid that the French provided was the major contributor to the subsequent bankruptcy and revolution. The US has never provided so much aid that we bankrupted ourselves

Well, I said it has to be one or the other, either the aid was substantial and played a role in bankrupting France, or it was insubstantial and didn't.

For the record Andrew is now pretending he claimed neither, which is just plain odd.

It could technically be both inconsequential and play a role in the bankruptcy of France in that the war may have been won without the aid of the french. Though I have only ever seen a few people argue that the French aid was insubstantial

warboss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Warboss wrote: either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

I don't understand what you want.

The USA spends vast amounts of money maintaining forces in bases in many regions of the world in order to be in a good position to intervene in conflicts which strategically threaten the country.

What is the point of having these forces if they are never used?

Iraq was a stable dictatorial regime with a record of bad human rights, and the US invaded it.

Libya is an unstable, oil-producing dictatorial regime with a record of bad human rights, and the US has not invaded it.

Anything which threatens world oil production threatens the USA. Stabilising Libya is a much more sensible objective than destabilising Iraq was.

There is a rebel ground force in action. There is a UN mandate. Several NATO countries are supporting and have bases nearby.

It seems to me that because invading Iraq was a mistake, you think invading Libya will be a mistake too, although we aren't invading.

It isn't really a fair comparison though. You have to remember we are talking about a pre-Industrial Revolution time where troops, ships and supplies were much more difficult to move around. They didn't really have much in the way of troops becuase they didn't need to, but they supplied ships, which considering the time it took to get from Europe to the new world as well as the cost of building, equipping, and manning one of them, was not insignificant. It also had a big impact on morale to get someone on their side. It was a different time and context of the conflict was very different. I don't think it is useful to say they weren't as helpful when they made a difference. I'm not going to diminish someone who helped us out when really the best motivation was to just piss off the British. They didn't have to help at all whereas WWII we had a much bigger interest in the outcome beyond just ticking off Germany.

I said it was helpful and very much appreciated. I even said "Thanks France" something I rarely say and mean it. These are all valid points. Most experts would agree that the Colonies would have won without it though. But it would have lasted much longer and been rougher.

you said that the french had a small impact on the war and gave a comparatively small amount of aid to the US. Sebster pointed out that that makes very little sense because the aid that the French provided was the major contributor to the subsequent bankruptcy and revolution. The US has never provided so much aid that we bankrupted ourselves

That's what he said. I said "It worked out really well for them" See the difference. Anything else is inference.

Sure french support was expensive as Ahtman pointed out, Military intervention across the Atlantic was incredibly expensive at the time. France did not have an inexhaustible warchest and it cost them. It really cost them in many other facets besides monetary. But just because it cost them tons of cash to send material to America because travel was inefficient and aid was difficult to send doesn't mean that that aid they sent was comparable to the standard of aid that the US usually sends when it participated in an operation. It helped, I appreciate that. But they did not win the war for us. They did not land significant troops.

As for why there was a revolution well now that is a giant topic. But here is the basics. Louis XVI, his ministers, and the widespread French nobility had become immensely unpopular. This was a consequence of the fact that peasants and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie, were burdened with ruinously-high taxes levied to support wealthy aristocrats and their sumptuous, often gluttonous, lifestyles. This mixed with the fact that they were spending on foreign escapades didn't sit well with the people. Sound familiar? Just exchange nobility with the disgustingly rich in the US.

I did read your post. I did miss your bit about "usual" level of US involvement, in part because there's no such thing, and in part because if there was such a thing then it'd be way more than the involvement in Libya that you're complaining about anyway.

Usual for US intervention would be doing the Heavy lifting, the most expensive parts.

I would also proffer that the bombing runs, no fly zones and tomahawk strikes that take down the Libyan air forces ability to destroy the rebels with impunity is more than what the french navy did for the Colonies. Yes. Not to mention that the bombing runs that are destroying anything the Lyban army attempts to move. We have effectively removed Lybias ability to wage war on the rebels, something the French were never able to accomplish. And we haven't even put a boot on the ground yet (unless you count downed pilots and rescue teams, gotta watch the literal police). Let's hope we don't have to.

Libyan rebels most likely would have lost without this, they may still. But the US and it's allies have been the game changer here. Without it there is little doubt what the outcome would be. The French helped that's it. They didn't do the heavy lifting.

That all being said, I'd rather provide aid like the French did. Not in the same costly inefficient way mind you. But I'd rather let people do it for themselves than do it for them. If I'm (U.S.) is going to do anything that is, as you know I'm not an interventionist.

then maybe we could have salvaged something from that thread and you might have learned something.

Maybe if you could learn something too. If you were willing to think about the points I make, instead of jumping feet first and finding contradictions.

And honestly, as I've said before I find your posts here on Dakka to poorly informed, and your manner of debate petty and disingenuous. Yet I hold hope that you could do better, if only you'd try. Perhaps if I endeavoured to be little more interesting, and you endeavoured to read and consider the issue more before you posted, and tried to be more open minded and more honest in your debates?

Didn't we just agree you didn't read? Maybe its because you are on this!

It could technically be both inconsequential and play a role in the bankruptcy of France in that the war may have been won without the aid of the french. Though I have only ever seen a few people argue that the French aid was insubstantial

Done and done. Of I never said it was inconsequential or insubstantial. It wasn't the heavy lifting though.

Although France in 1789 faced economic difficulties, mostly concerning the equitability of taxation, it was one of the richest and most powerful nations of Europe it just also had a lot of debt. a number of factors led to the outbreak of the French Revolution. Deep structural causes combined with factors peculiar to the period. Revolution was not due to a single event but a series of events that, together, irreversibly changed the organization of political power, the nature of society, and the exercise of individual freedoms.

Again sounds familiar.

Oh and again, no denigrating speeches or rants, no "your thoughts are this and that". I just state my side. It's all I have to do.

Hmmm, Iraq: Oil reserves to cash in on as well infrastructure contracts for Haliburton and their subdivisions

Afghanistan: Massive mineral deposits to get at, including a HUGE lithium(Bateries) reserve to go for.

Libya: Light and sweet crude, as well as possible contracts again for Haliburton.

Corporates are pulling the strings of the politicos that they funded.

Andrew1975 wrote:Usual for US intervention would be doing the Heavy lifting, the most expensive parts.

I would also proffer that the bombing runs, no fly zones and tomahawk strikes that take down the Libyan air forces ability to destroy the rebels with impunity is more than what the french navy did for the Colonies. Yes. Not to mention that the bombing runs that are destroying anything the Lyban army attempts to move. We have effectively removed Lybias ability to wage war on the rebels, something the French were never able to accomplish. And we haven't even put a boot on the ground yet (unless you count downed pilots and rescue teams, gotta watch the literal police). Let's hope we don't have to.

This is what I mean when I said there's no such thing as 'usual'. How do you compare sending ships of the line across the Atlantic to defeat the British navy and lend support to the American forces with jet aircraft flying sorties over Libya?

I mean, would North Korea have been dealth with a ground invasion if the US had the capability to ensure complete air superiority and drop precision munitions on NK ground forces?

Surely each is a product of the technology of the time, and a response to the wildly differing political goals of each operation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:That's what he said. I said "It worked out really well for them" See the difference. Anything else is inference.

Actually, the full version of what you said was; "That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution!"

So don't try to be clever, it won't end well for you. Instead just try being honest.

And start by admitting you were claiming that it led to the French Revolution.

As for why there was a revolution well now that is a giant topic. But here is the basics. Louis XVI, his ministers, and the widespread French nobility had become immensely unpopular. This was a consequence of the fact that peasants and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie, were burdened with ruinously-high taxes levied to support wealthy aristocrats and their sumptuous, often gluttonous, lifestyles. This mixed with the fact that they were spending on foreign escapades didn't sit well with the people. Sound familiar? Just exchange nobility with the disgustingly rich in the US.

Also add in enlightenment ideals and the famine and you've got the basics for a passing grade in year 10 history.

Maybe if you could learn something too. If you were willing to think about the points I make, instead of jumping feet first and finding contradictions.

That's the thing, I'm reading your posts but I'm not finding any new information, just poorly formed nonsense and contradictions.

Which, as I've said before, isn't because that's all you're capable of, it's because of the way you're approaching discussion. You come into a thread assuming you're right then post whatever first pops into your head to justify your opinion, whether it's sensible or not. At no point do you actually read or properly consider the other person's point of view, as demonstrated by your constant misunderstandings of what other people have written.

Didn't we just agree you didn't read? Maybe its because you are on this!

No, I said I missed a word out of one of your sentences. I'm honest enough to admit when I've made a mistake, even one as trivial as that. Making a mistake like that is fine, if you admit and then move on it doesn't hurt the debate at all.

But you couldn't do that, which turned otherwise trivial points into yet more quote and re-quote exercises. Meanwhile I've tried to explain simple economics errors to you, only to have you defend your mistakes over and over again, when a simple 'oh, thanks' could have moved the conversation onto something much more substantial.

This is what I mean when I said there's no such thing as 'usual'. How do you compare sending ships of the line across the Atlantic to defeat the British navy and lend support to the American forces with jet aircraft flying sorties over Libya?

I mean, would North Korea have been dealth with a ground invasion if the US had the capability to ensure complete air superiority and drop precision munitions on NK ground forces?

Surely each is a product of the technology of the time, and a response to the wildly differing political goals of each operation?

Look I said heavy lifting! Heavy lifting is heavy lifting. Technology doesn't matter, money doesn't matter. Putting in the most effort is what matters. I never even qualified it by saying it had to be successful effort. Just effort, just the heavy lifting. US and its allies in Lybia qualifies, France during the American revolution doesn't, not only was it not heavy lifting, but for the most part it was terribly inefficient.

Thanks none the less old France!

Actually, the full version of what you said was; "That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution!"

So don't try to be clever, it won't end well for you. Instead just try being honest.

And start by admitting you were claiming that it led to the French Revolution.

I have to admit no such thing, because that is your assumption, something that I have warned you about. I've explained the French revolution, is the French aid the only contributing factor no, not by a long shot, but it contributed. But it didn't bankrupt a county and cause a revolution. The mistreatment of the general public along with irresponsible spending in general (including the revolution) along with other issues caused the revolution.

Also add in enlightenment ideals and the famine and you've got the basics for a passing grade in year 10 history.

That's the thing, I'm reading your posts but I'm not finding any new information, just poorly formed nonsense and contradictions.

Which, as I've said before, isn't because that's all you're capable of, it's because of the way you're approaching discussion. You come into a thread assuming you're right then post whatever first pops into your head to justify your opinion, whether it's sensible or not. At no point do you actually read or properly consider the other person's point of view, as demonstrated by your constant misunderstandings of what other people have written.

Blah blah balh

This is the type of gak I'm talking about, it's unhelpful and boring. Just because you don't like an explanation does not make it invalid.

shasolenzabi wrote:Afghanistan: Massive mineral deposits to get at, including a HUGE lithium(Bateries) reserve to go for.

I don't think they new about the lithium or any major mineral deposits when they invaded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Look I said heavy lifting! Heavy lifting is heavy lifting. Technology doesn't matter, money doesn't matter. Putting in the most effort is what matters. I never even qualified it by saying it had to be successful effort. Just effort, just the heavy lifting. US and its allies in Lybia qualifies, France during the American revolution doesn't, not only was it not heavy lifting, but for the most part it was terribly inefficient.

Thanks none the less old France!

So, 'heavy lifting' is based on who commits the most troops, and ignores the scale of the conflict. So America's commitment to WWII wouldn't fit the criteria, but the intervention in Panama would? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Meanwhile, I responded to your edit above.

So, 'heavy lifting' is based on who commits the most troops, and ignores the scale of the conflict. So America's commitment to WWII wouldn't fit the criteria, but the intervention in Panama would? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm the first to admit that the American story of WWII "World is over, here comes America, saves all of Europe" is BS. We helped, we helped a lot. Russia did the heavy lifting though. And it is by far more than France did for the Colonies.

I wonder how you could even see US intervention in WWII as usual using most any criteria?

Or are you trying to compare it to the role that France played in the American Revolution. That would be silly

Either way. I don't see your point.

Really just stop!

Don't you know hugs are threats?

Perhaps, but not really on this board, even if they come from Mr. Dogma's manly arms.

With an air of weary resignation I'll throw in the obligatory reminder about being polite to other users, this does indeed mean we prefer users not to call each other jackasses or make "subtle" comments and digs about the wit and wisdom of another posters comments too.

Astonishing, I know.


I'm not very convinced that this thread is even worth keeping open, it seems that rather than discussing anything directly relevant to the immediate topic,we appear to simply be rehashing old/previous arguments between posters which, whilst obviously deeply fascinating for the terminally dull amongst us, is not something we've any desire to happen.

Again.

Please do better people.

Andrew1975 wrote: Most experts would agree that the Colonies would have won without it though. But it would have lasted much longer and been rougher.

I don't know whose work you've been reading, but that's a heavily debated issue. One side claims that the colonies would have won anyway, and the other claims that colonies didn't win in the traditional sense, but simply made the effort required for control too expensive for the British in the context of their conflicts elsewhere.

Sorry, did I offend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't know whose work you've been reading, but that's a heavily debated issue. One side claims that the colonies would have won anyway, and the other claims that colonies didn't win in the traditional sense, but simply made the effort required for control too expensive for the British in the context of their conflicts elsewhere.

Now you want to debate that the Colonies won, or rather how the British lost? No matter how you win, a win is a win, no? I don't want to sit and debate asymmetric war here. Can't we just call it a win for the arguments sake.

Oh wait it's dogma. I'm sure I would be better off not even responding to this, but. We control it, we own it, we won.

No, but now that they know the minerals are there, why would they ever pull out as long as someone can attempt to dig them up?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Now you want to debate that the Colonies won, or rather how the British lost? No matter how you win, a win is a win, no? I don't want to sit and debate asymmetric war here. Can't we just call it a win for the arguments sake.

Oh wait it's dogma. I don't bother debating with you. We control it, we own it, we won.

I'm not even debating whether or not it was a win, I don't really care. I'm pointing out that saying something like "Most experts agree..." is not a good idea when they clearly don't, and, in parallel, that appealing to authority doesn't actually help make an argument. In fact, it devalues it.

"He knows, he has a PhD!" is just as meaningless as "I know, I have a PhD!"

Edit: clarity

Andrew1975 wrote:Sorry, did I offend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't know whose work you've been reading, but that's a heavily debated issue. One side claims that the colonies would have won anyway, and the other claims that colonies didn't win in the traditional sense, but simply made the effort required for control too expensive for the British in the context of their conflicts elsewhere.

Now you want to debate that the Colonies won, or rather how the British lost? No matter how you win, a win is a win, no? I don't want to sit and debate asymmetric war here. Can't we just call it a win for the arguments sake.

Oh wait it's dogma. I'm sure I would be better off not even responding to this, but. We control it, we own it, we won.

If you only look at the result, you learn nothing of the factors involved, thus there is no analysis relevant to other historical situations.

Da Boss wrote:I hope the French completely kick the snot into Libya just so we can put to bed all the durr hurr frenches are suck at wahr jokes on Dakka.

The French posters here take it with great humour, would love to see certain US posters take this much stick about America in the same light.

As soon as France wins a war on its own will let it eat at the Big Boy's table. Given the number of sorties the US has flown vs. total, it aint the French hauling the freight, just getting us into (yet) another war.

Frazzled wrote:
As soon as France wins a war on its own will let it eat at the Big Boy's table. .

Surely some mistake?

Napoleon?

filbert wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As soon as France wins a war on its own will let it eat at the Big Boy's table. .

Surely some mistake?

Napoleon?

1. He was Corsican
2. Le Empire was full of NonFrench troops. Look at the lists for Waterloo, a large portion of the allies' troops and officers were formerly from the Empire.
3. 200 years ago? Who the cares?

When you look at the French intervention, it's easy to look at the ~10,000 soldiers they deployed to the colonies, and write it off as a faily minor effort. However, if you look at the naval theater, the French navy did nearly all of the work (as we had no ships of the line). There were also actions in Gibralter, the Carribean, India, and even the Netherlands. If you look at the overall conflict (colonies, France, Spain, and the Dutch v. Britain), the colonies were only the major factor in a single theater, and only on the ground.

As for the overall effect of French intervention, it seems that at least some independence, de facto if not de jure, would have resulted. New England would not submit to the crown, and the King knew that. What the French got us was a much, much better deal: recognized independence, all 13 colonies, the Northwest territory, normalized trade and shipping, etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Now you want to debate that the Colonies won, or rather how the British lost? No matter how you win, a win is a win, no? I don't want to sit and debate asymmetric war here. Can't we just call it a win for the arguments sake.

Oh wait it's dogma. I'm sure I would be better off not even responding to this, but. We control it, we own it, we won.

It matters, as I discuss above, because it changes the nature of the parties after the conflict. With French aid, the largest British field army had to surrender in a fairly humiliating fashion. That showed the crown that not only were the colonists capable of assymetric warfare, but that the franco-american alliance could win pitched battles. It meant that the British hold on New York was now tenous. It meant that the British couldn't hope to splinter the colonies. It also meant that the colonies emerged from the war far more united than they went in.

What exactly is your definition of "heavy lifting?" I've seen some implications, but at some points it seems to imply most troops committed, other times most overall resources, other times it's the deciding factor.

Perhaps if you could articulate the standard you'd like to use, we could discuss this more.

IMO, it's important to seperate standard warfare (alliances between states) from interventions (where a state allies with a faction within a state). In terms of total war, it's relatively easy to come up with a definition: whoever committed the most valuable resource. I mean the US spent more on WW2 than the soviets, but the manpower and resources spent by the soviets were critical.

when you look at an intervention, things are more complex. Do you look at the increase in success for the rebels? Do you look at the effect the intervention had on the intervening state? money? Lives?

We're spending a small fortune in Libya, but we're nto really risking lives, and as a percentage of even our defense spending, it's pretty small. So it's more or less incidental for us. However it seems to dramatically increase the chances of success for the rebels. Is that heavy lifting? And if so, why? Compare this intervention with the Frano-American alliance, in which the French committed a huge amount of their resources, dramaitically increased, if not the chances, than the qualify of our success.

sebster wrote:And honestly, as I've said before I find your posts here on Dakka to poorly informed, and your manner of debate petty and disingenuous. Yet I hold hope that you could do better, if only you'd try.

Perhaps if I endeavoured to be little more interesting, and you endeavoured to read and consider the issue more before you posted, and tried to be more open minded and more honest in your debates?

I think Ahtman's irony meter must have blown out "Jueno" (wherever the hell that is.)

You're so cute when you project.

it's good to see that the "I'm rubber, you are glue" crowd has come out.

I love debates where one side seems to know their weakness, and immediatly accused the other side of that weakness. Thus, when they are themselves accused of it, it just looks like a knee jerk reflex.

Look, i"m sorry for the right wing camp on this board that there really isn't a well informed, articulate guy to debate Seb and Dogma. But trying to paint them as ill informed or overly rude is a pretty tough sell.

This thread is closed. Too much flaming.