Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Stop driving big cars then.

Everyone else in the developed world managed that back in the 1970s.

No. I like being able to breeze over curbs and take speed bumps at 50mph.

halonachos wrote:

Perkustin wrote:
You americans can do what you want just don't drag us in again.

I don't think European nations have the right to say that we drag them into wars.

Have you met my good friend, Al CaPwn?

Frazzled wrote:

BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.

America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.

America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....

I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!

I am liking this guy.

Are you making it back home for Carnival boyo?

I sort of told an untruth....

I am Brasilian, but I was brought to the U.S. when I was 6 months old. I speak Portuguese a bit. Besides that, the only thing Brasilian about me is my hairy back and hobbit feet.

feth the world, let it burn?

Not a good decision.

Amaya wrote:feth the world, let it burn?

Not a good decision.

"Nuke em, Rico." seems to be the dominant vibe in these discussions.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:feth the world, let it burn?

Not a good decision.

"Nuke em, Rico." seems to be the dominant vibe in these discussions.

Unfortunately, most do. i wish we could discuss things a little longer before everything goes nuclear!
and i'm not saying that about all discussions.

Bromsy wrote:Letting the people of Libya try to come up with someone better to run their country is the part of this we ought to leave up to them.

Because it worked so well in Iran...

He looks more than a little like Sean Connery.

Frazzled wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.

Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed.

This is damn near sig worthy.

People keep talking about isolationism as if it was used to mean the US keeping to itself. It didn't, it meant keeping out of European affairs. All those countries across South America were ripe for interference because they were only run by brown people.

No country has ever achieved a notable level of wealth without international trade, and international trade means becoming dependant on resource flows and overseas markets. And that means that at some point you have to send tanks and bombers overseas to make sure you keep access to those things.

Pretending that a country with as much international trade as the US should just keep to itself is non-sensical.



On the actual issue of Libya... I don't know what we should do. Does anyone know the make up of these rebel groups, are anyone of them a better option for Libya than the Colonel? Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because it worked so well in Iran...

Except that they had their own democracy, and they were doing okay. Unfortunately they were a little left leaning for us, so we put the Shah back in power. It was our stuffing around in their politics that led to theocracy.

sebster wrote:

On the actual issue of Libya... I don't know what we should do. Does anyone know the make up of these rebel groups, are anyone of them a better option for Libya than the Colonel? Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed?

Not knowing what we should do is the wise answer given just how complicated of a problem Libya is.

Are the rebel groups better than Colonel Crazy and his sons? Well that bar is set about as low as it can go, so I'm pretty sure that they can jump that low bar.

Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed? It could reduce the level of bloodshed, or it could multiply the level of bloodshed. As soon as we get involved much of the Arab world will no longer see it as a Libyan civil war to over throw a crazy dictator and they will start to see it as a war of western imperialism. Any aid we give to the rebels is toxic to their own revolution. It looks like the rebels are going to win at this point so I don't think it's a good idea to sabotage their revolution by getting involved and making this a US war.

As a general rule of thumb I don't believe it's a good idea to send troops into an African nation's civil war, because doing so makes about as much sense as sticking your dick into a hornets nest.

Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed

I aim to please. Besides from under my tinfoil hat I learn all sorts of stuff from the dailyfail.. er mail...

BuFFo wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.

America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.

America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....

I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!

I am liking this guy.

Are you making it back home for Carnival boyo?

I sort of told an untruth....

I am Brasilian, but I was brought to the U.S. when I was 6 months old. I speak Portuguese a bit. Besides that, the only thing Brasilian about me is my hairy back and hobbit feet.

Well thats a bit of your culture you should explore. Take me with you! Quick before the wife sees!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:People keep talking about isolationism as if it was used to mean the US keeping to itself. It didn't, it meant keeping out of European affairs. All those countries across South America were ripe for interference because they were only run by brown people.

No country has ever achieved a notable level of wealth without international trade, and international trade means becoming dependant on resource flows and overseas markets. And that means that at some point you have to send tanks and bombers overseas to make sure you keep access to those things.

Pretending that a country with as much international trade as the US should just keep to itself is non-sensical.



On the actual issue of Libya... I don't know what we should do. Does anyone know the make up of these rebel groups, are anyone of them a better option for Libya than the Colonel? Could our involvement actually reduce the level of bloodshed?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because it worked so well in Iran...

Except that they had their own democracy, and they were doing okay. Unfortunately they were a little left leaning for us, so we put the Shah back in power. It was our stuffing around in their politics that led to theocracy.

bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?

Reverse the situation. If the USA was revolting against the president and civil war could be a possibility, would you as an American want some outsider to come in, blow up some airbases and capture congress and then tell you how to choose a new leader?

Or would you rather determine for yourselves who to lead you and how to go about it and how to run your own country?

I wouldn't mind if they decided to prevent the repugs (which I'd probably be rebelling against given the nature of their social stances, which also makes more sense given the nature of their military stances too) from bombing my city... preferably without putting troops in it mind you, just shoot down the bombers or prevent them from taking off... then let us do our thing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?

off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?

Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.

halonachos wrote:
Please elaborate.

You don't suffer in any meaningful sense when you do something to someone else.

Either way, stating that you believe economic suffering to be inferior to suffering due to theology doesn't really mean much, because I can just as easily disagree, and cite the many people around the world that seemingly beieve the opposite; or make no distinction at all.

3 Dutch marines have been kidnapped by the government over there while evacuating civies.

sexiest_hero wrote:3 Dutch marines have been kidnapped by the government over there while evacuating civies.

I believe that "captured" is the appropriate term for one country taking members of another country's military prisoner whilst operating inside their borders.

Assuming that is indeed what happened.

Do you have a link to your source?

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?

off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?

Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.

I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

Frazzled wrote:
off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?

Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.

All of the early Banana Wars, and the quasi-war.

But anyway, name one war in US history which hasn't been predicated on the supposed interests of US citizens. Even World War II and Gulf War 1 had a significant economic impact on the US population.

And then we stopped that in the last one hundred years.

frgsinwntr wrote:
I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

Isolationists don't sign treaties of naval protection with foreign powers, and then take military action when those treaties expire.

@Silver-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12633415

Melissia wrote:And then we stopped that in the last one hundred years.

Nah, our sphere of interest and influence just got bigger, meaning what might be regarded as necessary regarding the use of the military has expanded over time.

Albatross wrote:@Silver-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12633415

Cheers, I will read it when I am free of this acursed work filter

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?

off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?

Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.

I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn't about WMD or justice. It was about securing enough resources to take on korea or china when that kicks off.

Wow you've managed to neatly incorporate a wingnut theory with a total lack of strategic knowledge. I am impressed.

This is damn near sig worthy.

to be fair it pretty accurately decribes most of the regulars in these political/armchair general threads...

Albatross wrote:
The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.

Colonies that we fought wars in order to maintain control over.