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.

Russia doesn't have the mobilizable ground forces required to make even a half assed attempt to conquer Europe. Even with a draft they're well below minimum recruiting numbers and their retention is as is traditional, complete donkey, so what troops they have aren't exactly the volunteer armies of the West. If they move any troops off their Eastern borders to support a war in Europe their former satellites will start cutting off chunks, the Russian Navy is busy rusting it's way towards the bottom of the black sea and Pacific, their tech is, as always, lacking everywhere except their own sales brochures and the Russian economy is in the middle of collapsing which makes acquiring more parts to keep their maintenance intensive birds in the air.

Stalin's roar is that of a paper tiger. Albeit one with nukes.

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

The cost of oil. I don't like using that as an explanation, but in this case it is valid.

It is a shame the US engaged in an expensive, unnecessary ME adventure, but this is one it really needs to weigh in on.

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

The cost of oil. I don't like using that as an explanation, but in this case it is valid.

It is a shame the US engaged in so many unnecessary ME adventures, but this is one it really needs to weigh in on.

Da'Ish is going nutz and threatening all kinds of stuff and controlling territory, yet oil prices have dropped.

You would have a hard time showing Da'Ish is contributing to higher oil prices.... So, no, that one is not valid.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Russia doesn't have the mobilizable ground forces required to make even a half assed attempt to conquer Europe. Even with a draft they're well below minimum recruiting numbers and their retention is as is traditional, complete donkey, so what troops they have aren't exactly the volunteer armies of the West. If they move any troops off their Eastern borders to support a war in Europe their former satellites will start cutting off chunks, the Russian Navy is busy rusting it's way towards the bottom of the black sea and Pacific, their tech is, as always, lacking everywhere except their own sales brochures and the Russian economy is in the middle of collapsing which makes acquiring more parts to keep their maintenance intensive birds in the air.

Stalin's roar is that of a paper tiger. Albeit one with nukes.

Since when did this turn into a discussion about whether or not Russia is capable of conquering Europe? That is rather OT.
The answer of course, is simple. No. Russia is not capable of conquering Europe, has never been and likely will never be. Nobody has ever been capable of conquering Europe, not even close. If they get the first strike, Russian troops would have little trouble getting to Berlin or maybe even further West because Europe's militaries are notoriously slow and divided, but once they get their gak together the Russians would be hugely outmanned. Russia does not have a very large population, the myth of the endless waves of Russian soldiers attacking in huge numbers is a lie. (also, the Russian navy may now be small, but it is no longer rusty, perhaps you have been asleep for the last few years)
The only problem is nukes.
Also, I think Russia should do more about fighting IS and global terrorism in general. Right now they only care about Chechnya, Kazakhstan and other parts of their backyard.

 CptJake wrote:

Da'Ish is going nutz and threatening all kinds of stuff and controlling territory, yet oil prices have dropped.

You would have a hard time showing Da'Ish is contributing to higher oil prices.... So, no, that one is not valid.

Da'Ish doesn't control any significant oil production as of yet.

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Maybe we're just waiting to follow Ireland's lead. When will Ireland act? We'll be right behind you!

Kinda ballsy to volunteer my countrymens blood to assuage your conscience, isn't it?

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Two things.

First: What Ouze said.

Second: I'm currently attending Combat Skills Training prior to a deployment. 5 of my 6 roommates are deploying to Iraq. The majority of my class is deploying to Iraq. WE ARE FIGHTING ALREADY, so stfu.

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Right, I don't mean to be bunny hopping into this little... debate, but why the feth are Europeans expecting Americans to go balls out and fix this situation with bombs and bullets? OK, if Europe were mobilizing ground forces to strike at ISIL (or whatever the petiphilic (is that even a word), child murdering, goat-fething nutters are calling themselves, now) on any significant level and Americans were just sitting around with our thumbs up our respective asses and blank stares on our faces, I would understand a general feeling of indignation at our lack of action, but last time I checked, the most substantive thing Europeans were doing about the situation was waiving lighters about in the air and telling everyone who would listen that their names were Charlie. You want us to go in, fine, but I'll be fethed if we do it alone, or are the first once to do it. And, for the record, the last time we went in guns blazing, trying to be the good guys, we were officially labeled 'The Great Satan' by the world, so it didn't work out too well.

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.

Not all of us say things that dumb, thanks.

Also:

And, for the record, the last time we went in guns blazing, trying to be the good guys, we were officially labeled 'The Great Satan' by the world, so it didn't work out too well.

Which time was that?

 Frazzled wrote:

F that. We have oceans.

Roll Footage.

 Ouze wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Maybe we're just waiting to follow Ireland's lead. When will Ireland act? We'll be right behind you!

Kinda ballsy to volunteer my countrymens blood to assuage your conscience, isn't it?

YEAH!Ireland should use its massive army of like 20 scorpions to defeat ISIS.If we did have a decent army I would want it to be used to fight monster like isis.

but djones520:that is confusing.If you are putting boots on the ground then why is everybody saying the USA isnt putting boots on the ground?(wheres an orkmoticon with a question mark when you need it....)Depending on your answer I might become the first person in the history of dakka off topic to admit to being wrong!

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Da'Ish is going nutz and threatening all kinds of stuff and controlling territory, yet oil prices have dropped.

You would have a hard time showing Da'Ish is contributing to higher oil prices.... So, no, that one is not valid.

Da'Ish doesn't control any significant oil production as of yet.

And they are not anywhere near threatening to either. The oil they control they smuggle out through our good allies the Turks. They cannot control the Saudi oil fields for example, they don't have anywhere near the combat power and won't anytime soon.

Sorry, oil prices are not in danger of rising due to Da'Ish to the point that makes an even halfway good excuse.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Maybe we're just waiting to follow Ireland's lead. When will Ireland act? We'll be right behind you!

Kinda ballsy to volunteer my countrymens blood to assuage your conscience, isn't it?

YEAH!Ireland should use its massive army of like 20 scorpions to defeat ISIS.If we did have a decent army I would want it to be used to fight monster like isis.

but djones520:that is confusing.If you are putting boots on the ground then why is everybody saying the USA isnt putting boots on the ground?(wheres an orkmoticon with a question mark when you need it....)Depending on your answer I might become the first person in the history of dakka off topic to admit to being wrong!

How about these 4.5k troops?

As of now, the US have 4,500 troops in Iraq for training and advising Iraqi military

http://rt.com/usa/228107-iraq-american-troops-hagel/

Some of which have been mortared and come under sniper fire as they worked the front lines with their Iraqi counterparts (and rumor has it provided JTAC type services to guide in air strikes).

 CptJake wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.

my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist. CptJake:That still dosn't answer the question of why everyone says the US are NOT there if they are.

Well, as always people are free to give their opinion on all matters, even ones they know nothing about.

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.

my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist.

No one asked you for your skill level. If it is a fight YOU believe in, go support it. Most of the locals are crap soldiers too.

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Is there a reason you haven't gunned up and joined the good fight yet? The Kurds are taking volunteers, as are some anti-Da'Ish/Anti-Assad groups in Syria.

my military training,experiance with firearms and atheleticism would be a great help! Pity they don't exist.

The Army can help you with that. Don't be shy, go make an appointment with your local recruitment centre.

Otherwise, please stop with the Keyboard Warrior gak. Its embarrassing.

Just because the locals are crap dosnt mean what they need are more crap soldiers.By fight you mean die.Now why are these 4.5k soldiers you mentioned previously not considered boots on the ground?
Edit:looking back I am being a complete d*ck.yeah screw this keyboard warrior gak. If anyone can tell me why the USA has "not put boots on the ground" despite having done so, we can move on and pretend me posting well after the time when I start to act like an idiot never happened.

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

The cost of oil. I don't like using that as an explanation, but in this case it is valid.

It is a shame the US engaged in an expensive, unnecessary ME adventure, but this is one it really needs to weigh in on.

IDK if I would directly say oil.

Groups like ISIL threaten the global economy by creating problems in nations that are already having a rough time. As we live in a global economy now, conflict anywhere can drive prices up on anything from...Oil...to plastic widgets made in china.

Futhermore, sometimes there is evil on the earth that only a 5.56 or a 7.62 can cure. These guys have acheieved cartoon villian status, and lest we repeat some of our more darker moments of the 20th century, we should stomp them out now, before they become a bigger problem later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Also, what is the rationale for the US fighting ISIL in the first place? What is the US, national security reason?

Typical. Whenever a bunch of crazies take over a country and commit brutal atrocities and mass murders,instead of fighting America sits twiddling its thumbs looking at its army and scratching its head wondering what its for. Sounds KINDA like 1914 and 1939......they better realise that to be the good guys they need to act like it and stop doing this"wait until it sorts it self out" act. It hasn't worked so far has it?

Maybe we're just waiting to follow Ireland's lead. When will Ireland act? We'll be right behind you!

Kinda ballsy to volunteer my countrymens blood to assuage your conscience, isn't it?

Damn, hope you brought some aloe for that burn.

 Supertony51 wrote:

I'd also like us to help the Iraqi govt get its head out of its ass, and stop this secular bickering.

Much as I think we all agree that'd be nice... It aint gonna happen.

The main thing to keep in mind is that, in the West, we may draw a "foundation" for law from the Bible/Torah, etc. but our law is completely different from scriptural/religious laws. In most of the Islamic world, the Koran and Islamic Faith IS the law. And so when you have 2 groups of people who both *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right, and won't back down, AND think the other guys are complete morons who don't know anything, it isn't going to lead to much peace, nor peaceful resolutions.


Europe had the Thirty Years' War to "finally" settle the differences between Protestant and Catholicism (Ireland not withstanding). Perhaps this is the conflict that does the same for Islam??? That may be wishful thinking, but I kind of think it's where we're heading.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:

I'd also like us to help the Iraqi govt get its head out of its ass, and stop this secular bickering.

Much as I think we all agree that'd be nice... It aint gonna happen.

The main thing to keep in mind is that, in the West, we may draw a "foundation" for law from the Bible/Torah, etc. but our law is completely different from scriptural/religious laws. In most of the Islamic world, the Koran and Islamic Faith IS the law. And so when you have 2 groups of people who both *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right, and won't back down, AND think the other guys are complete morons who don't know anything, it isn't going to lead to much peace, nor peaceful resolutions.


Europe had the Thirty Years' War to "finally" settle the differences between Protestant and Catholicism (Ireland not withstanding). Perhaps this is the conflict that does the same for Islam??? That may be wishful thinking, but I kind of think it's where we're heading.

You might be right.

At this point we should offer blanket visas to all females from those countries from the ages of 12-25. Let them come over here, be liberated, and watch the pisspot known as the ME dwindle and die.

 Ouze wrote:

Kinda ballsy to volunteer my countrymens blood to assuage your conscience, isn't it?

Minor detail: the US (or at least, many citizens of it) salving it's conscience led to a whole lot of dead Irish on more than one occasion, having partially funded and supplied a defacto war there out a of a sense of 'justice', being a major source of funding and arms during the Troubles.

 Supertony51 wrote:


At this point we should offer blanket visas to all females from those countries from the ages of 12-25. Let them come over here, be liberated, and watch the pisspot known as the ME dwindle and die.

I think in order for that to work, we'd need a sort of Berlin Airlift type operation, obviously instead of leaving supplies, they'd be flying in empty, and leaving with people. And, as sad as it is to say, I don't think certain people in the US would be "OK" with that, which is a damn shame.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Kinda ballsy to volunteer my countrymens blood to assuage your conscience, isn't it?

Minor detail: the US (or at least, many citizens of it) salving it's conscience led to a whole lot of dead Irish on more than one occasion, having partially funded and supplied a defacto war there out a of a sense of 'justice', being a major source of funding and arms during the Troubles.

If they funded the IRA they didnt lead to a lot of dead Irish. They killed a lot of lost English people.I wish the USA would Keep on salving its conscience. Then we could give them a map(You are in:Ireland.England is over there) and a ferry home!

 Supertony51 wrote:


Futhermore, sometimes there is evil on the earth that only a 5.56 or a 7.62 can cure. These guys have acheieved cartoon villian status, and lest we repeat some of our more darker moments of the 20th century, we should stomp them out now, before they become a bigger problem later.

Okay, so now we're gonna say the call to war is 'cause they bad dudes. Yet we ignore other bad dudes that have done similar damage where they were (plenty of goings on in Africa for example).

If these guys are That Bad (and I won't argue they are not) we still need to define a national objective and then decide what resources to allocate towards achieving it. None of our politicians seem willing to do the first so the second can't really be done.

And if/when we do stomp (or aid in their stomping by locals) what do we want to see take their place (what is the desired end state)? No one wants to decide that either, let alone come up with executable LOEs and LOOs that have a chance of getting us to that end state.

Right now, were wasting a lot of resources to no real end, and we as a country are in a resource constrained environment at this point. Our leaders need to step up and make their case, and figure out how to resource whatever they want to do, and they had better resource it to a level that makes success (how ever they define success) possible.

Sadly, I don't see that happening. I think the best case is Jordan (who are already very strained by the refugee burden we insisted they take on) can gather regional allies willing to expend $$$ and bodies to take out the common threat. We could support a coalition like that with ISR and air, some training (though that is clearly a long term thing) and some 'special' troops. But there is enough money in that region that we shouldn't feel obligated to pay for it all, or even a large portion of it.

We also need to figure out national objectives for the region (to include Syria and Iran) and start using a lot more than the M in DIME to work on them.

But in the end, the issue is larger than the region and larger than Da'Ish. It really boils down to the support 1.6 billion muslims that somehow manages to trickle to that handful of bad actors that are running insurgencies and terror groups in 20+ countries (handful is a joke). I truly believe this is a multi-generational problem, and it will get worse before it gets better.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Just because the locals are crap dosnt mean what they need are more crap soldiers.By fight you mean die.Now why are these 4.5k soldiers you mentioned previously not considered boots on the ground?
Edit:looking back I am being a complete d*ck.yeah screw this keyboard warrior gak. If anyone can tell me why the USA has "not put boots on the ground" despite having done so, we can move on and pretend me posting well after the time when I start to act like an idiot never happened.

The reason for the distinction is that they are there as "advisers", or "trainers", or "observers". They have not been deployed in a direct combat role, but may defend themselves if necessary.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:


At this point we should offer blanket visas to all females from those countries from the ages of 12-25. Let them come over here, be liberated, and watch the pisspot known as the ME dwindle and die.

I think in order for that to work, we'd need a sort of Berlin Airlift type operation, obviously instead of leaving supplies, they'd be flying in empty, and leaving with people. And, as sad as it is to say, I don't think certain people in the US would be "OK" with that, which is a damn shame.

We can't even get out Terps vetted and then get them visas.

And those guys risked all to help us out in many cases.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Just because the locals are crap dosnt mean what they need are more crap soldiers.By fight you mean die.Now why are these 4.5k soldiers you mentioned previously not considered boots on the ground?
Edit:looking back I am being a complete d*ck.yeah screw this keyboard warrior gak. If anyone can tell me why the USA has "not put boots on the ground" despite having done so, we can move on and pretend me posting well after the time when I start to act like an idiot never happened.

The reason for the distinction is that they are there as "advisers", or "trainers", or "observers". They have not been deployed in a direct combat role, but may defend themselves if necessary.

Good enough for me.I take back most of what I said in this thread today.The stupid bits.Is jordan going to fight on the ground or just airstrikes?

 CptJake wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:


Futhermore, sometimes there is evil on the earth that only a 5.56 or a 7.62 can cure. These guys have acheieved cartoon villian status, and lest we repeat some of our more darker moments of the 20th century, we should stomp them out now, before they become a bigger problem later.

Okay, so now we're gonna say the call to war is 'cause they bad dudes. Yet we ignore other bad dudes that have done similar damage where they were (plenty of goings on in Africa for example).

If these guys are That Bad (and I won't argue they are not) we still need to define a national objective and then decide what resources to allocate towards achieving it. None of our politicians seem willing to do the first so the second can't really be done.

And if/when we do stomp (or aid in their stomping by locals) what do we want to see take their place (what is the desired end state)? No one wants to decide that either, let alone come up with executable LOEs and LOOs that have a chance of getting us to that end state.

Right now, were wasting a lot of resources to no real end, and we as a country are in a resource constrained environment at this point. Our leaders need to step up and make their case, and figure out how to resource whatever they want to do, and they had better resource it to a level that makes success (how ever they define success) possible.

Sadly, I don't see that happening. I think the best case is Jordan (who are already very strained by the refugee burden we insisted they take on) can gather regional allies willing to expend $$$ and bodies to take out the common threat. We could support a coalition like that with ISR and air, some training (though that is clearly a long term thing) and some 'special' troops. But there is enough money in that region that we shouldn't feel obligated to pay for it all, or even a large portion of it.

We also need to figure out national objectives for the region (to include Syria and Iran) and start using a lot more than the M in DIME to work on them.

But in the end, the issue is larger than the region and larger than Da'Ish. It really boils down to the support 1.6 billion muslims that somehow manages to trickle to that handful of bad actors that are running insurgencies and terror groups in 20+ countries (handful is a joke). I truly believe this is a multi-generational problem, and it will get worse before it gets better.

I'm not disagreeing that there are plenty of evil folks around, I guess it comes down to, is the costs of doing war. Sure we could declare war with say...NK ove rits human rights abuses, but how many people will die in the process? IDK what the answer is, but doing nothing seems not to work either.

Also, like i mentioned, a large part of me feels like we should just leave it alone. This area of the world has been gaking on itself for a very long time. IDK if we should chomp at the bit to do much wither....I guess i have some conflicting opinions about it, especially since I've spend a good portion of my adulthood deployed to the area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:


At this point we should offer blanket visas to all females from those countries from the ages of 12-25. Let them come over here, be liberated, and watch the pisspot known as the ME dwindle and die.

I think in order for that to work, we'd need a sort of Berlin Airlift type operation, obviously instead of leaving supplies, they'd be flying in empty, and leaving with people. And, as sad as it is to say, I don't think certain people in the US would be "OK" with that, which is a damn shame.

Damn shame really, especially since alot of females from that region are actually pretty hot, once you get them cleaned up.