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.

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.