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.

gorgon wrote:The U.S. is in a catch-22. If we don't intervene, other countries say "why aren't you doing something!"

Isn't that the truth. I've heard people say that Iraq was a terrible idea, that America has no right to be the world's police, that we can't just sweep in and depose leaders we don't like, and that we can't be so careless and unthinking.

Then those same people complain that we haven't invaded Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. Because, you know, that's not an unstable region that has lots of internal conflicts that are being overlooked. Not like Iraq. And it's not like Saddam was behind horrific genocide, either.

I'm really pretty tired of it. The Cold War is over, I think it's time for us to let the world sort itself out.
Unless we'll be getting real forces to ally with - forces that won't back out, and we can rely on - I see no reason to try and start anything else.
Callous maybe, but we aren't Rome, no one wants us to be an empire.

Agreed. If its good enough for Japan, Switzerland, Latin America, Europe, and heck China its good enough for me. We can be constructive members of the community without giving money to every tin pot dictator or country, sending troops every which way, etc. etc.

Frazzled wrote:
I have no desire to send my children or anyone else's children to fight in a foreign war unless we are threatened. I freely admit I've learned my lesson from Iraq.

The trouble is determining what actually entails a threat. Militarily Iraq was not a threat. Not to us, and not to anyone else in the region. But that nation's lean on an uncertain right of succession, combined with its large oil reserves, meant that it was certainly an economic threat to us. Simply put, Iraq was going to require some form of military action eventually. Were Saddam to pass away naturally it would be almost inevitable that the nation would collapse into chaos. Chaos which would sharply constrict the oil supply. In Chicago gas prices peaked at a little over 4 dollars a gallon virtually through the force of speculation alone. Imagine what would happen in the event of a legitimate supply contraction.

That said, there would have been better ways to handle the matter. Namely increasing the strategic oil reserve in anticipation of Saddam's demise, while simultaneously dumping all that cash which was spent in Iraq into alternative energy programs. The idea being to free ourselves from oil before the inevitable Iraqi collapse, at least to a degree which would mitigate the effects of such an event. Once that collapse actually took place it would have been a relatively easy matter to gather international support for some kind of regime change. Thereby dramatically lessening the burden on our military, and economy.

dogma wrote:

That said, there would have been better ways to handle the matter. Namely increasing the strategic oil reserve in anticipation of Saddam's demise, while simultaneously dumping all that cash which was spent in Iraq into alternative energy programs. The idea being to free ourselves from oil before the inevitable Iraqi collapse, at least to a degree which would mitigate the effects of such an event. Once that collapse actually took place it would have been a relatively easy matter to gather international support for some kind of regime change. Thereby dramatically lessening the burden on our military, and economy.

I agree on the first but disagree on the latter. The Frazzled Doctrine would now be European style engagement (aka do nothing). Fortunately Obama is in office and can put this to the test. Who knows I may yet become an Obama suporter. If he still sends in guys to take out the bad guys when we find them then I'm ok. But nuclear shields, troops in countries etc. -which means he has to immediately backtrack on a nuclear shield for Israel.

Lets trade, make money, get fat and raise our kids. The world will go to in a handbasket whether or not we are involved. We can be a positive agent, without draining our treasury and spilling our blood-just like everyone else.

Frazzled wrote:
I agree on the first but disagree on the latter. The Frazzled Doctrine would now be European style engagement (aka do nothing).

That's fine, but expect to pay 6-7 dollars a gallon for gas when a legitimate supply contraction occurs. And its considerably deeper than just our immediate costs. Even under the assumption that our spending on alternative energy would have born fruit there is a significant sense in which we have a vested interest in the prosperity of those nations who would still be likely to depend on oil (China, and India especially). As such, doing nothing isn't really a viable option. Not if we want to continue the flow of goods which has enabled our success.

Frazzled wrote:
Fortunately Obama is in office and can put this to the test. Who knows I may yet become an Obama suporter. If he still sends in guys to take out the bad guys when we find them then I'm ok. But nuclear shields, troops in countries etc. -which means he has to immediately backtrack on a nuclear shield for Israel.

So you see a kind of Nixon-esque foreign policy? There's some merit to that. But keep in mind that putting troops on the ground is often necessary within the larger context of the national goals. Especially with respect to the maintenance of the global order. Like it or not we are an Imperial power in all but name, and our prosperity depends on similar Imperial reasoning.

As an aside, you are correct, the nuclear shield is a bad idea. It only serves to undermine the authority of those states whose monopoly on nuclear power we should be seeking to maintain.

Frazzled wrote:
Lets trade, make money, get fat and raise our kids. The world will go to in a handbasket whether or not we are involved. We can be a positive agent, without draining our treasury and spilling our blood-just like everyone else.

It's kind of disingenuous to presume that the rest of the world undertakes trade without the spilling of blood. Sure, they do a lot less of the latter, but it is a part of their foreign policy. And, while we can learn from their example of limited engagement, we must also see their shortcomings with respect to domestic realities. Remember, less direct control abroad means more direct control at home. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to consider.

(argh you're too hard to resist Dogma)

Respectfully,

I proffer that:

1) Gas will rise to $2 by FYE 2009 and potentially $3 - $3.5 by FYE 2010. That’s assume there’s no clash between Israel and Iran. I’d venture if instigated by the Israelis it will occur before Obama become el Presidente or not at all. It could be instigated by the Iranians any time Ahman whatever feels to much internal pressure and needs to do some scapegoating. That will occur regardless of what we do.

Having said that I agree completely we need to put great store in energy independence within 10 years, even if that requires Manhatten Project like efforts. I figure if the target is 10 then we would be independent with in 20 in real terms. Once free life gets a lot easier for the US.

2) We are not an Empire. Even if we were those days are at an end. Time to be like Japan or most other industrialized worlds. We can use diplomacy, we can use charity, and we can use envoys. But our troops? No longer. Get them out. We have overreached and are now bankrupt. Time for the next empire. Nothing wrong with being like Western Europe and Japan-well off and not bringing home body bags.

Frazzled wrote:(argh you're too hard to resist Dogma)

Respectfully,

I proffer that:

1) Gas will rise to $2 by FYE 2009 and potentially $3 - $3.5 by FYE 2010. That’s assume there’s no clash between Israel and Iran. I’d venture if instigated by the Israelis it will occur before Obama become el Presidente or not at all. It could be instigated by the Iranians any time Ahman whatever feels to much internal pressure and needs to do some scapegoating. That will occur regardless of what we do.

With equal respect:

The price of oil is going to remain somewhat stable at this point, you are correct, at least in the sense that we shouldn't see a major contraction of supply (unless, of course, the Iraqi state fails). My comments were meant to be taken in light of the necessity of utilizing the tools at our disposal to ensure stability in oil producing regions. Whether those tools are diplomatic (with respect to the use of coalition forces), or military (unilateral action per our current reality) is secondary.

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that I agree completely we need to put great store in energy independence within 10 years, even if that requires Manhatten Project like efforts. I figure if the target is 10 then we would be independent with in 20 in real terms. Once free life gets a lot easier for the US.

It does indeed. Though we will still be bound to economic realities like those of Western Europe. Namely, as the economic desire for export trade increases (and if energy becomes significantly cheaper it will), the need to encourage global stability does so as well. That isn't to say we need to go putting boots on the ground left-and-right, but that it is likely to be the best available solution during at least one period in the next 20 years.

Frazzled wrote:
2) We are not an Empire. Even if we were those days are at an end. Time to be like Japan or most other industrialized worlds. We can use diplomacy, we can use charity, and we can use envoys. But our troops? No longer. Get them out. We have overreached and are now bankrupt. Time for the next empire. Nothing wrong with being like Western Europe and Japan-well off and not bringing home body bags.

The Imperial character is often considered as one which is synonymous with military force, which is somewhat misleading. Effective empires have always leaned more heavily on diplomacy than conquest. The British, for example, maintained their holding with a minimal expenditure of actual British blood. Most of their infantry divisions were made up of levies taken from the domains of local tributaries over which the Imperial Offices presided. The idea is to use as little intrinsically American force as required, which is to say that we should prevent major deployments like Iraq where we can.

Frazzled wrote:Ah, sorry thats not what I meant. I wish no harm to Seb. If Sebster wants to go fight the world's wars then he can volunteer. I have no desire to send my children or anyone else's children to fight in a foreign war unless we are threatened. I freely admit I've learned my lesson from Iraq.

I don't know if you're reading this, but I never assumed you actually meant for me to go there and then nuke the place. I read 'why don't you go there' and 'just nuke the place' as not being very literal, but rather the kind of things people say in discussion when they don't have anything constructive to say.

I’m more puzzled by the idea of mod ignore listing someone. How do you moderate a board if you’re going ‘LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU’ to one of its posters?

This is why he threw his shoes; the footage they didn't want you to see.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Isn't that the truth. I've heard people say that Iraq was a terrible idea, that America has no right to be the world's police, that we can't just sweep in and depose leaders we don't like, and that we can't be so careless and unthinking.

Then those same people complain that we haven't invaded Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. Because, you know, that's not an unstable region that has lots of internal conflicts that are being overlooked. Not like Iraq. And it's not like Saddam was behind horrific genocide, either.

To be fair, it isn’t always the same people. There are critics that say the US shouldn’t get involved in any overseas operation, and there are critics that say the US should get involved more.

But in general it’s an unfortunate reality that people will complain regardless of what gets done, but that’s why you shouldn’t worry about what people complain about, you should just worry about doing what you believe to be right.

I'm really pretty tired of it. The Cold War is over, I think it's time for us to let the world sort itself out.
Unless we'll be getting real forces to ally with - forces that won't back out, and we can rely on - I see no reason to try and start anything else.
Callous maybe, but we aren't Rome, no one wants us to be an empire.

It may or may not be callous, but it isn’t that accurate. The US doesn’t contribute heavily to peacekeeping operations (the majority contributors tend to be former colonists and developing countries). Most US engagement has been in its own operations, undertaken for its own reasons.

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:

This is why he threw his shoes; the footage they didn't want you to see.

Oh my god! He's innocent!

I hate flies so much... They're the ones responsible for the widows and orphans!

sebster wrote:To be fair, it isn’t always the same people. There are critics that say the US shouldn’t get involved in any overseas operation, and there are critics that say the US should get involved more.

But in general it’s an unfortunate reality that people will complain regardless of what gets done, but that’s why you shouldn’t worry about what people complain about, you should just worry about doing what you believe to be right.

I know it isn't always the same people, I'd say it's usually not, but it get pretty annoying when it is. Especially since those people tend get self-righteous at the same time...

It may or may not be callous, but it isn’t that accurate. The US doesn’t contribute heavily to peacekeeping operations (the majority contributors tend to be former colonists and developing countries). Most US engagement has been in its own operations, undertaken for its own reasons.

Which are often given as peace-keeping. Or avenging wrongs, or something along those lines.
Then again, there's a fair bit of retconning going on their too. I remember a lot of talk about going into Iraq for weapons of mass-destruction, and not a lot of this "kill Saddam for great justice!" tripe that's being touted as the reason for the invasion.

Also, don't forget that America does contribute quite a bit to the UN financially, even if they don't supply as many soldiers.

Orkeosaurus wrote: I know it isn't always the same people, I'd say it's usually not, but it get pretty annoying when it is. Especially since those people tend get self-righteous at the same time...

Oh, you won’t catch me defending the self-righteous leftists of the world, they’re more annoying than just about anyone out there (and clove cigarettes smell horrible. It certainly gets annoying when people take the default position of ‘whatever the US is doing is wrong’. Not that the other two types, those who believe you should be everywhere saving everyone and those who believe no intervention is ever justified, are much better. I mean, ultimately it’s a really complicated issue and every proposed operation has its own justifications (humanitarian reasons, protecting investments and key resources, ensuring it doesn’t expand into a greater conflict).

You can’t just take a hardline on the issue.

Which are often given as peace-keeping. Or avenging wrongs, or something along those lines.
Then again, there's a fair bit of retconning going on their too. I remember a lot of talk about going into Iraq for weapons of mass-destruction, and not a lot of this "kill Saddam for great justice!" tripe that's being touted as the reason for the invasion.

Yeah, the US has certainly been willing to commit overseas, but as its own operation (though typically with UN blessing, they haven’t had to wear those blue helmets). My issue was with the idea in this thread of being sick of the UN and sending troops overseas. When it comes to sending troops overseas as part of the UN, the US… well it hardly ever does.

Also, don't forget that America does contribute quite a bit to the UN financially, even if they don't supply as many soldiers.

Contributions to the UN are pegged at a percentage of national GDP. The US, being the biggest economy in the world by far, is the biggest contributor to the UN. However, there’s a clause that limits any one country’s contribution to 22% of total contributions. So while the US contribution is the largest, as a percentage of GDP it is lower than anyone.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote: I know it isn't always the same people, I'd say it's usually not, but it get pretty annoying when it is. Especially since those people tend get self-righteous at the same time...

Oh, you won’t catch me defending the self-righteous leftists of the world, they’re more annoying than just about anyone out there (and clove cigarettes smell horrible. It certainly gets annoying when people take the default position of ‘whatever the US is doing is wrong’. Not that the other two types, those who believe you should be everywhere saving everyone and those who believe no intervention is ever justified, are much better. I mean, ultimately it’s a really complicated issue and every proposed operation has its own justifications (humanitarian reasons, protecting investments and key resources, ensuring it doesn’t expand into a greater conflict).

You can’t just take a hardline on the issue.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I was against any military intervention on my country's part; there have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when it's required. I just find it annoying when people strongly criticise an action that isn't far off from one that they advocate taking themselves.

It's definitely not a matter of America wanting to be left alone; we've started a lot of these quagmires ourselves.

Which are often given as peace-keeping. Or avenging wrongs, or something along those lines.
Then again, there's a fair bit of retconning going on their too. I remember a lot of talk about going into Iraq for weapons of mass-destruction, and not a lot of this "kill Saddam for great justice!" tripe that's being touted as the reason for the invasion.

Yeah, the US has certainly been willing to commit overseas, but as its own operation (though typically with UN blessing, they haven’t had to wear those blue helmets). My issue was with the idea in this thread of being sick of the UN and sending troops overseas. When it comes to sending troops overseas as part of the UN, the US… well it hardly ever does.

No, no, I see what you're saying. It's not a matter of the UN begging us to go in and fight, it's more of a matter of "activists" (Americans, usually) begging for the US to do something without knowing enough about what they advocate we undertake. Or individual countries wanting assistance, although that's not all that common (especially with our recent track record, I'm guessing ).

Then again I'm sort of ranting here, it's not like activists are overrunning everything, trying to pull us into another war. (Not that they'd ever call it that...)

Also, don't forget that America does contribute quite a bit to the UN financially, even if they don't supply as many soldiers.

Contributions to the UN are pegged at a percentage of national GDP. The US, being the biggest economy in the world by far, is the biggest contributor to the UN. However, there’s a clause that limits any one country’s contribution to 22% of total contributions. So while the US contribution is the largest, as a percentage of GDP it is lower than anyone.

The amount may not be as much of our GDP, but it's still the most.
Then again, America has more to lose from global instability than most other countries, so I'm sure that ties into it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I didn't mean to make it sound like I was against any military intervention on my country's part; there have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when it's required. I just find it annoying when people strongly criticise an action that isn't far off from one that they advocate taking themselves.

It's definitely not a matter of America wanting to be left alone; we've started a lot of these quagmires ourselves.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were arguing to be left alone. I was talking in general.

And yeah, you've started a few yourselves, and in other instances you're economically or historically tied to situations and have to get involved. If Panama went crazy tomorrow, you can't ignore it... economically and politically you'd have to send in troops.

No, no, I see what you're saying. It's not a matter of the UN begging us to go in and fight, it's more of a matter of "activists" (Americans, usually) begging for the US to do something without knowing enough about what they advocate we undertake. Or individual countries wanting assistance, although that's not all that common (especially with our recent track record, I'm guessing ).

Then again I'm sort of ranting here, it's not like activists are overrunning everything, trying to pull us into another war. (Not that they'd ever call it that...)

Sort of. Funnily enough there isn't that much of a shortage of troops willing to go into nations, the rate of UN peacekeeping pay is way above the pay of soldiers in developing countries, so you always get Pakistan and Nigeria volunteering to send in troops. It's larger operations with greater logisitics demands that need greater contributions from the US and other first world militaries.

Not that that's necessarily a stumbling block anyway, normally UN involvement gets stuck around issues of national sovereignty vs human rights, more than a shortage of troop commitments.

The amount may not be as much of our GDP, but it's still the most.
Then again, America has more to lose from global instability than most other countries, so I'm sure that ties into it.

Sure, I don't mean to discredit US contribution. Just put it it's actual place in the world, not in the place assumed by so many.

sebster wrote:

No, no, I see what you're saying. It's not a matter of the UN begging us to go in and fight, it's more of a matter of "activists" (Americans, usually) begging for the US to do something without knowing enough about what they advocate we undertake. Or individual countries wanting assistance, although that's not all that common (especially with our recent track record, I'm guessing ).

Then again I'm sort of ranting here, it's not like activists are overrunning everything, trying to pull us into another war. (Not that they'd ever call it that...)

Sort of. Funnily enough there isn't that much of a shortage of troops willing to go into nations, the rate of UN peacekeeping pay is way above the pay of soldiers in developing countries, so you always get Pakistan and Nigeria volunteering to send in troops. It's larger operations with greater logisitics demands that need greater contributions from the US and other first world militaries.

Not that that's necessarily a stumbling block anyway, normally UN involvement gets stuck around issues of national sovereignty vs human rights, more than a shortage of troop commitments.

Yeah, the UN tends to go about things slowly.
On the other hand, I can see the need to limit the power of a single body like that.
Not that the UN really has power without it's members...
Hm. This is all very complex...
.
.
.
.
Oh man! He threw shoes at the President!
Shoes!

improved