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.

The year is almost over and we have used military force in 5 different foreign countries this year so far: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the DRC. The best part is the year isn't even over yet. Yes I'm talking to you Paraguay; you know what you did. Military involvement in 5 foreign countries just seems a bit excessive even for the USA. Maybe our new year's resolution should be to aim for a lower number than 5 for the year 2012.

One does give a policeman a bit more leeway for getting into fights than your average guy on the street.

I agree that we shouldn't be in so many foreign conflicts, and our conduct of some of those conflicts has been terrible at times. But I think your post is drawing a false equivalency between them.

Most of those conflicts have been engaged in with the cooperation and consent of the UN, and involve us using our military might in what is intended to be a constructive and humanitarian cause.

feth em. If the powers that be decide that invading people is good for the nation as a whole, then bomb away!

I mean, I cant see what good going to Iraq was, and I went twice. But hey, if the guys above my pay grade think its a good idea, then I'm more than happy to grind them beneath my iron shod boots.

Er.. I mean.. bring "peace" to their countries.

With bombs and that.

Mannahnin wrote:One does give a policeman a bit more leeway for getting into fights than your average guy on the street.

I agree that we shouldn't be in so many foreign conflicts, and our conduct of some of those conflicts has been terrible at times. But I think your post is drawing a false equivalency between them.

Most of those conflicts have been engaged in with the cooperation and consent of the UN, and involve us using our military might in what is intended to be a constructive and humanitarian cause.

One can make a good case of that for Libya and the DRC, though in the case of the DRC the thing people need to remember is a few advisers is how we got started in Vietnam.

No boots on the ground would be my goal... if we can use our military to support local efforts to gain liberty, then I feel we should. But I don't want the cost and danger to our soldiers of putting in troops anywhere... especially after we finally got them out.

I thought Libya went really well... let's keep ourselves out of things as much as we can, but help where we are needed and where we should. But going in ourselves and doing it with our troops needs to Not happen, as far as I'm concerned... and that's how I'll be voting as well.

RiTides wrote:I thought Libya went really well... let's keep ourselves out of things as much as we can, but help where we are needed and where we should. But going in ourselves and doing it with our troops needs to Not happen, as far as I'm concerned... and that's how I'll be voting as well.

It's no shock that when we go into a military conflict only with the agreement of our allies, and without trumping up and manufacturing evidence to create a false case for war, that we get the moral high ground and a better outcome.

Five countries? What about country number 6 the UK? Last May there was an explosion from shells left behind by the US army during WW2 That was the official story, but I'm not buying it. I wouldn't put it past American to have time travelling explosives Thankfully, it was only minor injuries, but as far as I'm concerned, it was a reminder from Washington to the UK about who is boss!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Five countries? What about country number 6 the UK? Last May there was an explosion from shells left behind by the US army during WW2 That was the official story, but I'm not buying it. I wouldn't put it past American to have time travelling explosives Thankfully, it was only minor injuries, but as far as I'm concerned, it was a reminder from Washington to the UK about who is boss!

Shows what you know, the British Empire is alive and well and is secretly pulling the strings across the world.

This bloke said so!

mattyrm wrote: feth em. If the powers that be decide that invading people is good for the nation as a whole, then bomb away!

I mean, I cant see what good going to Iraq was, and I went twice. But hey, if the guys above my pay grade think its a good idea, then I'm more than happy to grind them beneath my iron shod boots.

Er.. I mean.. bring "peace" to their countries.

With bombs and that.

So are you like a soldier or something?

I wasn't sure from your posts...

Im a biscuit designer.

schadenfreude wrote:The year is almost over and we have used military force in 5 different foreign countries this year so far: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the DRC. The best part is the year isn't even over yet. Yes I'm talking to you Paraguay; you know what you did. Military involvement in 5 foreign countries just seems a bit excessive even for the USA. Maybe our new year's resolution should be to aim for a lower number than 5 for the year 2012.

Oh contraire, mere training missions. In 2012 the motto should be "Obama Send Forth The Legions!" Obama can save his presidency by unleashing the combined arms of the US military north and south. Think about the campaign he could run on."vote for Obama. I conquered Central America in six weeks, and Canada in two." Also, "Vote for Obama for a 2nd Term. This time, its South America!"

Frazzled wrote:Also, "Vote for Obama for a 2nd Term. This time, its South America!"

Let's not be greedy, all we really want is Brazil, and normal relations with Cuba.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Also, "Vote for Obama for a 2nd Term. This time, its South America!"

Let's not be greedy, all we really want is Brazil, and normal relations with Cuba.

Argentina would be nice as well. Argentinian beef is quite nice.

Frazzled wrote:
Argentina would be nice as well. Argentinian beef is quite nice.

They also have mastered the empanada as an appetizer.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Argentina would be nice as well. Argentinian beef is quite nice.

They also have mastered the empanada as an appetizer.

Now you understand.

Still, not much beats a Churrascaria.

Edit: If you can't tell, I love Brazil almost as much as I love France (which I love quite a bit).

We need to stick to the troubles in Pakistan, we funded them to help us in the Middle East and they turned around and gave money to Taliban forces in and around Afghanistan. In all honesty, we could probably pacify any resistance from Pakistan from the air with Predators, Reapers and general carpet-bombing and airstrikes.

dogma wrote:Still, not much beats a Churrascaria.

Edit: If you can't tell, I love Brazil almost as much as I love France (which I love quite a bit).

Well, Brazil has a lot going for it.

Pakistan is an enormous and complicated country, where SOME of the people genuinely hate us and/or are working with Islamist militias or terrorists. It's also got a lot of good, decent people.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:Still, not much beats a Churrascaria.

Edit: If you can't tell, I love Brazil almost as much as I love France (which I love quite a bit).

Well, Brazil has a lot going for it.

I'd wage war on that any day.

Mannahnin wrote:Pakistan is an enormous and complicated country, where SOME of the people genuinely hate us and/or are working with Islamist militias or terrorists. It's also got a lot of good, decent people.

Yea, but their beach models can't hack it. Again Brazil/Argentina for the win. With the combined er "assets" of Latin America under our wing, the Miss Universe pageant is ours for the taking for generations. Once again, America Hurr!

Frazzled wrote:
Well, Brazil has a lot going for it.

If we're talking women, then I'm all England...



...and Australia...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Yea, but their beach models can't hack it.

I don't know about that...

Once again, Westernization shows its benefits.

Mannahnin wrote:Pakistan is an enormous and complicated country, where SOME of the people genuinely hate us and/or are working with Islamist militias or terrorists. It's also got a lot of good, decent people.

No matter where you wage war, there will be a good deal of people who sympathize with us, they're not the enemy, they just happen to be indistinguishable under most circumstances. War is Hell, good men die. Those are the risks.

There are a lot of other risks. And costs. We've just wishdrawn from one country we didn't have to go into after eight years of wasted lives, blood, money, toil, and international goodwill.

Mannahnin wrote:Pakistan is an enormous and complicated country, where SOME of the people genuinely hate us and/or are working with Islamist militias or terrorists. It's also got a lot of good, decent people.

I call bs. Thats a cop-out excuse.

Not to mention Pakistan's urge to get their hands on nuclear ordinance and their hostilities toward our Indian allies in the Kashmir region. Also, Pakistan is only about as large as Afghanistan, and we had no problem going in there, gung-ho.

Mannahnin wrote:There are a lot of other risks. And costs. We've just wishdrawn from one country we didn't have to go into after eight years of wasted lives, blood, money, toil, and international goodwill.

After flushing thousands of lives and 2 trillion $ down the crapper for no good reason I guess you can call the end of the flushing a silver lining. I'll never be able to see it as anything better than a glass half empty, but that is better than a glass that's almost completely empty.

Libya is also going well, or at least as good as it gets for the time being. The problem is you could say the same thing about the Iraq war back when W was standing in front of that giant mission accomplished sign.

I don't see peace coming to the DRC anytime soon. A few advisers may help 1 side gain an upper hand, but the entire situation is a quagmire.

I don't see any end in sight for our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While 2 of the wars are effectively over for us far too many American politicians are very willing to get into a full blown war with Pakistan or Iran, and if either of those situations happen it would be a larger US involvement than all 5 conflicts of 2011 combined.

Squidmanlolz wrote:Not to mention Pakistan's urge to get their hands on nuclear ordinance and their hostilities toward our Indian allies in the Kashmir region. Also, Pakistan is only about as large as Afghanistan, and we had no problem going in there, gung-ho.

2 big problems with the idea of just waltzing into Pakistan.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's population is 177.1 million compared to Afghanistan's population of 29.8 million, or Iraq's population of 30.4. The US military's counterinsurgency manual recommends 50 troops per 1,000 civilians to secure an occupied nation against an insurgency. Do the math.

I'd recommend invading France. Won't take too much time or manpower and you might catch some culture while you are there... worked for England

Hate to break the news to you guys, but the indigenous women in Iraq and Afghanistan don't dress like that.