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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:
war is NOT help.

I would beg to differ, wars have solved more issues than peace and diplomacy.

I worked with the Yanks plenty in 4 tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, I loved the soldiers, and my missus is a Yank, and I lived there.

But sersiously, the more i hear Yank fething chickenhawks who never actually went to war anywhere, trying to live off the reputation of their betters, the less I struggle with the thought of losing the war.

Do i prefer Nazis or gobby American civilians with a Billy Big Balls complex?

Thats a tough one.

sexiest_hero wrote:who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?

We did, the free world exists because of the US and her Allies, I'm sure the Russians or Old Nazi Germany would have loved a different say.

FYI: Russia was our Ally in WWII. The reason the free world still exists is because the US and Russia didn't bomb each other after that war. WWII was a legitimate war. It was also a popular war, largely paid for by the sale of war bonds, as well as the sale of equipment to our allies. It woke up the US as a manufacturing superpower - something that's not true anymore.

Korea and Vietnam were unnecessary. Korea was a draw at best, as the US people (and Congress) didn't give MacArthur the option to actually win it. In the long-view, it has accomplished little - Korea is still two separate states, and North Korea is still run by a dictator.

Vietnam was an unpopular war that cost the American people both money, lives, and prestige. The US got their ass handed to them by a bunch of tent-dwellers.

Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11) and that, while militarily successful, has been a disaster in terms of grand strategy. The US has spent far more time and money in Iraq than Iraq was worth. This is the equivalent of (since we're on a 40k forum) sending your 800 point deathstar to kill 10 grots in the corner and having them miss the action in the rest of the game. Good Job.

Then there's Afghanistan, where we're as bogged down as the Russians were in the 80s, and where we've failed, for ten years now, to achieve our primary objective of getting Osama bin Laden.

Yeah, we've got a great track record going...

Showing up with guns blazing and kicking the crap out of local rabble isn't a big deal. Achieving something lasting is a big deal. We haven't done that since WWII. We've spent billions of dollars that could have been used to benefit our citizens, to raise the standard of living in our country, to create jobs in our country, and we've achieved nothing of any value in doing so, other than convincing a large portion of the world that the US is not a global force for good or freedom, but that we're the equivalent of a school-yard bully who only show up to take your lunch money (oil).

Maybe it's time we stepped out of international conflicts and took care of the people here. At the very least, we wouldn't go further into debt to pay for someone else's war. At best, we might actually make a difference at home.

The same that we gave for Saddam. "Well Dictators suck!" plus we know for a fact he has ordered killings, and has threatened more.

There are several arguments that end in a claim which is essentially "people that want to kill each other are going to do so eventually."

There's no guarantee that we can even resolve this situation in a meaningful sense.

Grakmar wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?

I'll tell you who: George Mother ing Washington.

USA! USA! USA!

I have to respect that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:who appointed the US as the arbiter of freedom and stuff?

I'll tell you who: George Mother ing Washington.

USA! USA! USA!

im sure he must be disappointed then

*looks at N. Korea*

I find your lack of faith in George Sex Machine Washington distrubing!

sexiest_hero wrote:If my support for a peoples' freedom "gives us a worse image" then times are really bad. Look sorry world I personally wish I could take back the Iraq war (that I was and still am against). It was based on a lie, and you all, being good honest folk, fell for it. I wish it never happened, that said. I don't think we can give up on the concept of what we've been doing for the past 40+ years. Oh and no personal attacks please .

You're weak, apologizing for a war...

I just don't know why they're shooting at us. All we want to do is bring them democracy and white bread. Transplant the American dream. Freedom. Achievement. Hyperacidity. Affluence. Flatulence. Technology. Tension. The inalienable right to an early coronary sitting at your desk while plotting to stab your boss in the back. ~Hawkeye, M*A*S*H, "O.R."

Bakerofish wrote:did i say let them die? im all for the UN getting a hand in this.

im all for getting medical and economic aid to get Libya back on its feet

but really... let the Libyans decide their country's fate.

if you want to help then do so.

war is NOT help.

Hey they have oil, sell it to them.

@frazzled

dont get me wrong. I respect ol' george

but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men

As a taxpayer in a nation that loves war almost as much as you guys, i lean with the "feth em" crowd.

Wars cost money, if its not going to directly benefit us, they I say we dont get involved. But then im a selfish prick, thats why i should be in charge.

Seriously. Kill a few thousand Libyans? So what. If my nation gets no benefit at all from sticking our noses in, then why spend our own money and our own lives?

As I have said before, this is a bizarre paradox in my eyes. Are republicans not traitionally isolationist? Why do they always want to get involved in wars? America is like a second home to me, and i am of the opinion that if a war will not directly benefit the USA, why spend US lives and US dollars?

I dont give a gak what happens to people outside the UK/US. And I think its the smart move. The paradox is this, why are people like me the ones who have to defend the war, even though I dont care about Afghans for example...

And hippy types, who profess to genuinelly care about the Afghan women and babies and little old men etc etc always want us to come home, when coming home would doom many of them?

Shouldnt crouchy old fethers like me WANT us to pull out, and hippies WANT us to stay?!

Im confused....

Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

dont get me wrong. I respect ol' george

but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men

Washington warned against "entangling alliances." He would have had way more issues about Korea than that. Outside of the US he would be considered an isolationist now.

Don't try to get Republicans and Democrats because they switch positions every so often. The Republicans started out as a radical little third party who then freed the slaves but now want to help the rich. The Democrats used to be conservative.

Gah, All the diplomats and video leaking out of the country crying for help , to turn around and just say "NO" seems wrong to me. I agree and know everything you say is right ReadBeard. But I do believe Besides Nam and WMD kill saddamn, Not for oil war, were just and valid. The Afghanistan war turned into a mess and is un-fixable at this moment.

Afghanistan needs a civil war, that's how America got itself straight. Seriously, just let them have a civil war and they'll decide which is better for themselves.

We just need to turn off the news for a bit and pray that our government doesn't give anybody any weapons.

sexiest_hero wrote:Gah, All the diplomats and video leaking out of the country crying for help , to turn around and just say "NO" seems wrong to me. I agree and know everything you say is right ReadBeard. But I do believe Besides Nam and WMD kill saddamn, Not for oil war, were just and valid. The Afghanistan war turned into a mess and is un-fixable at this moment.

You go. I'll hold your jacket.

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

dont get me wrong. I respect ol' george

but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men

Washington warned against "entangling alliances." He would have had way more issues about Korea than that. Outside of the US he would be considered an isolationist now.

so knowing that, lets say washington still had a say over what happened in Korea, do you think he wouldve gone balls-in for freedom or packed it up?

sincere question here.

while i understand that the founding fathers of america espoused freedom liberty and all that i really dont think they expected the whole world to follow suit. i think theyre more worried about applying it to their own country and the people who are in and those who want to be part of it.

the founding fathers recognized the right of other countries to govern themselves...heck thats what they fought for in the first place right?

ack sorry for the thread hijack.

You do realize that we backed Korea because North Korea invaded South Korea while we were already there?

It would be comparable to what would've happened if East Germany invaded West Germany.

halonachos wrote:Afghanistan needs a civil war, that's how America got itself straight. Seriously, just let them have a civil war and they'll decide which is better for themselves.

We just need to turn off the news for a bit and pray that our government doesn't give anybody any weapons.

The last time Afghanistan did that they "elected" the Taliban. It doesn't matter to me if their primary form of entertainment is shooting women in the back of the head in soccer stadiums, but they also let in AlQaeda. Keep Al Qaeda out and I don't give a about Afghanistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

dont get me wrong. I respect ol' george

but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men

Washington warned against "entangling alliances." He would have had way more issues about Korea than that. Outside of the US he would be considered an isolationist now.

so knowing that, lets say washington still had a say over what happened in Korea, do you think he wouldve gone balls-in for freedom or packed it up?

sincere question here.

while i understand that the founding fathers of america espoused freedom liberty and all that i really dont think they expected the whole world to follow suit. i think theyre more worried about applying it to their own country and the people who are in and those who want to be part of it.

the founding fathers recognized the right of other countries to govern themselves...heck thats what they fought for in the first place right?

ack sorry for the thread hijack.

If this is post WWII, and we still had troops there and those troops attacked he would have gone for taking the country. If troops were not there he would not have gotten involved.

Kilkrazy wrote:Stop driving big cars then.

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

Or like the brits we could stop buying toothpaste to save a few dollars...

Redbeard wrote:Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11)

You know that Dick Cheney and George Bush disagreed with this, right?

@frazzled

so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov

besides...how can you liberate a country who "loves" its great leader in the first place? - again im veering off topic here.

as for the al qaeda... the tragedy here is that the "freedom fighters" were as bad as the oppressors. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils..."hey at least we're backing up our own right?"...two bad the lesser evil got worse over time.

such is life

back to regular programming

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11)

You know that Dick Cheney and George Bush disagreed with this, right?

You know I disagreed with Dick and George, right?

If i were president i would withdraw all friendly troops from Afghanistan and Nuke the place. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Perkustin wrote:If i were president i would withdraw all friendly troops from Afghanistan and Nuke the place. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

awesome.

im glad youre not president then. and im sure the millions of afghanis who are too busy keeping themselves clothed and fed would agree with me

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!

CT GAMER wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Stop driving big cars then.

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

Or like the brits we could stop buying toothpaste to save a few dollars...

Or prehaps your own body weight in grilled orange cheese and processed meat like erm.......?

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Since then, we had Gulf War I, which was so successful, we had to go back and do it again in Gulf War II, and Gulf War II, which was based on a lie (Iraq was involved in 9/11)

You know that Dick Cheney and George Bush disagreed with this, right?

You know I disagreed with Dick and George, right?

I was remarking on the "Iraq was involved in 9/11" part.

biccat wrote:I was remarking on the "Iraq was involved in 9/11" part.

kinda moot isnt it? i mean its already happened.

"I would like to let you know that i disagree with this whole thing! Yes I, wait hold on please...Yes, when will those ICBMs be available?"

sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.

This paragraph has fifteen sentences in it and this thread is awful.

1. Why do you have to tell us your black? This means nothing.

2. You want US TO GO INTO LIBYA? You want US to intervene with this bs when we are in Iraq and Afganistan already?

3. Yeah, he is weak for not spending even more money to enlarge our fething 13+ trillion deficit.

4. Obama is trying to keep us out of it, that doesn't make him weak, it makes him intelligent, and not a dumbass (see most republican senators, Fox News, and George W. Bush)