You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Fuck Rwanda and fuck Iraq, Iran, Syria or whatever country that has no bearing on the United States. Why should I care if some people in a distant country are killing their own? I don't. And no where in my contract or anyone else's does it mention risking my life and deploying to remote parts of the world to defend foreigners from their own government.
Anytime the US or any other nation comes storming in to another country's affairs unasked and unwanted, it ends badly. Vietnam was a cluster fuck for the US (and France). Afghanistan was a cluster fuck for the Soviets (and arguably is for the US).
The only example of success you can mention is Iraq, and how many billions of dollars and lives did we have to sacrifice and take to maybe get a stable situation. And even if you call it stable, the Iraqis don't really like us. Some may tolerate us to a certain extent, but they're not reacting like the French were when we liberated them in WW2.
Now if Iran and Syria shake hands and start crossing borders and threatening other allied nations in Europe, then maybe we can talk about US involvement. But outside of that, who gives a damn. Even if you want to make an argument about economics and supporting the American way of life (something I could in theory get behind) these countries aren't the ones that mean dick to us. We don't get our oil from any of these nations (nor do we need to). They have no real impact on our domestic affairs and are so weak they pose virtually no threat to us short of sending some civilians on hijacked 747s or into the NYC tranist system. They don't fucking matter. We virtually have nothing in common with them culturally and without our technology (or technology stolen or copied by other nations from the US) they'd still be in the stone age. This part of the world hasn't done dick in over 2k years, so who the hell cares.
If you want to join the peace corps or go there as a civilian protester (I knew a lady who went to Iraq that way before the war) more power to you. Just don't ask hundreds of thousands of american to suit up and kill people you really don't care about either, while forcing us to go deeper in debt.
IMHO, America needs to shut the fuck up and sit down. Worry about fixing itself and restablishing itself as the premier economic super power. Let all these hangeron nations send their children to fight the moral causes. Bottom line is this, if America isn't involved, no other country will do shit. Libya drives that point right home. Let some of these other countries that consider themselves America's equal start leading and making something more than token contributions for a while.
Apart from a few obvious differences, you are basically portraying the US foreign policy just after WW1. There's nothing wrong with that, I can totally see why you feel that way. They kept that policy all the way up to Pearl Harbour, being officially not at all keen on another war. And who can blame you for that after WW1.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Right, and when a country invades or attacks America, we should do something about it. America may not have created a large military prior to the end of 41, but they were offering some support to Britain. But again, WW2 was created by conditions that Britain and France created. America had no dog in that fight.
You can't compare my sentiments of America prior to 41 to them in a modern scenario. After 9/11, I fully supported America bombing the shit out of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and sending a small, elite group to take out the stragglers. And that is what America did. But it continued to grow and the mission changed.
If nations like Germany and S. Korea want to keep US Bases there, I can support that. It serves as a strategic reserve for other parts of the world. But this shit where we spread out across the globe and continually increase spending while not addressing security concerns internally, such as the US' southern border, I'm going to disagree.
No other nation on this planet exerts itself like the US does. None. They've been all too happy to let America blissfully walk into conflict after conflict while maintaining plausible deniability and America has been all to eager to fulfill this role. After the USSR collapsed, America could have turned its economic power inward and invested internally. We didn't, and look where we're at. Suffering the same economic problems as 2nd and 3rd world nations because of it.
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Errr...strongly disagree with how you think Britain and France created WW2. Not sure how you manage to come to that conclusion. Are you putting it on the humiliation the German felt after WW1, because if you do, the US had a large part in how they dealt with them. If not I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Is it because they didn't interfere in time, because that contradicts your previous arguments.
No other nation exerts itself RIGHT NOW like you do, because you're basically the only one who can. Britain used to do it, and did it well.
So basically, if I get you right, you put the economic downturn of your country down to the spending abroad? That may be so, but I am not sure how that adds up to the massive spending in the cold war, of ever keeping up with a race to arms, even a race to the moon in the process.
And if I may say so, Greece and Ireland, the natiosn right now suffering the worst economically, are neither imperalistic, a strong military force or 3rd world countries. But yet they are cluster fucked. There are many paths to suffering economically.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Errr...strongly disagree with how you think Britain and France created WW2. Not sure how you manage to come to that conclusion. Are you putting it on the humiliation the German felt after WW1, because if you do, the US had a large part in how they dealt with them. If not I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Is it because they didn't interfere in time, because that contradicts your previous arguments.
No other nation exerts itself RIGHT NOW like you do, because you're basically the only one who can. Britain used to do it, and did it well.
So basically, if I get you right, you put the economic downturn of your country down to the spending abroad? That may be so, but I am not sure how that adds up to the massive spending in the cold war, of ever keeping up with a race to arms, even a race to the moon in the process.
And if I may say so, Greece and Ireland, the natiosn right now suffering the worst economically, are neither imperalistic, a strong military force or 3rd world countries. But yet they are cluster fucked. There are many paths to suffering economically.
I put the WW2 responsibility on England and France because they received the reperations from Germany, and they're the ones who allowed Hitler to violate the agreement in their own backyard. If Canada decided to go crazy and magically increased their population 10x overnight and created a huge army to invade America, once the war was over the responsibility to keep Canada in check would fall on the US more than any other nation. For the obvious reasons of proximity and greatest self threat. This applied to mainland Europe pos WW1, specifically France, and England as well. They failed to do anything. Ergo, I say they allowed/created the atmosphere for WW2.
Britain used to act like an empire, and look what happened to it. It's not even the most powerful nation in Europe anymore, let alone the world. I don't want America following the same path as England or Rome before it. Empires don't last forever.
With regard to our cold war spending, once the war was over, we had a budget we no longer needed to maintain. Instead of decreasing our spending, we just found other things to spend it on. Enitlements and an ever growing size and scope of government. Threaten to close down one department or safety net that wasn't there 20 years ago, and the media find 20 old people or single mothers with 8 kids who claim they'll now die in the street without said program.
Greence and Iceland are 2nd world countries, maybe Iceland can be counted first, but it has a next to nothing population comparitively. Greece outspent itself with entitlements and other junk spending without increasing revenue. Most of the world is headed this way now, but it used to be a European problem of excess government spending and social nets. America was smart enough to avoid this fiasco and still lead the world in technology and standard of living. As we encourage people to make bad choices and allow them to remain poor (which would be considered quite wealthy and successful in nations with real poverty) we'll continue to slide. But I agree with your comment about these nations lacking a large military and in turn a lard sum spent on defense. I'm a firm believer a nation can't be secure and a welfare state at the same time. Not short of a totalitarian regime at least.
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Flagg is correct that Britain, France,etc. have only themselves to blame for the rise of Hitler and what occurred during the opening phase of WWII.
Flagg, I have a question for you as the 'military guy' of Evo...
Are there any circumstances where you feel an African intervention would be a worthy cause? For the sake of discussion, let's say Sudan pulls a Hitler and starts occupying several African countries with the goal of taking the entire continent(not likely but just for this discussion). Would such a scenario in your opinion warrant a US response?
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
NATO Strongly Condemns Use Of Scud Missile By Qadhafi Forces
(RTTNews) - NATO has strongly condemned the use of scud missile by forces loyal to embattled Libyan leader Col. Moammar Qadhafi.
On Sunday, Qadhafi´s forces launched for the first time an unguided short range ballistic missile to attack the Brega area.
"This kind of indiscriminate weapon potentially could have killed many civilians," NATO Deputy Spokesperson Carmen Romero said in a weekly update on the coalition's military operation in Libya.
It shows that Qadhafi and his regime are desperate. And they continue to represent a serious threat to innocent people in Libya, she told reporters.
She vowed that NATO will "continue putting military pressure on pro-Qadhafi forces for as long as it takes" to protect civilians as mandated by the United Nations Security Council.
Carmen claimed that Operation "Unified Protector''is helping set the conditions for a political solution and transition to democracy in Libya, which she hoped to achieve as soon as possible.
The U.S. military reportedly detected the scud missile, launched by pro-Qadhafi forces from the coastal city of Sirte on Sunday, landing harmlessly in a desert some 50 miles outside the strategic port city of Brega.
The Libyan government, which is believed to have at least 200 scud missiles in its arsenal, is yet to confirm the launching of the missile. NATO air strikes have been targeting Libyan scud missile facilities and air defense sites to prevent Qadhafi forces from using the missiles and other heavy artillery in the civil war.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Flagg, I have a question for you as the 'military guy' of Evo...
Are there any circumstances where you feel an African intervention would be a worthy cause? For the sake of discussion, let's say Sudan pulls a Hitler and starts occupying several African countries with the goal of taking the entire continent(not likely but just for this discussion). Would such a scenario in your opinion warrant a US response?
I'm not the military guy of anything. I happen to wear a uniform 5 days a week and collect a paycheck. Maybe that's not the Capatain America answer you wanted to hear, and it's probably an oversimplification of my own feelings on it, but that's what it's become to me as of late.
I can only talk about that scenario from my own perspective. Would the scenario you mentioned make me want to go to some shitty country for 12 months, sleep in a tent and shower maybe twice a month, eat pre-packaged food and oh yea, possibly dodge bullets? No, not at all. And I wouldn't limit it to Africa. If that shit happened in South America or Asia I would't care. The key motive is does this nation pose a risk to the US? If the answer is yes, then I will voluntarily go and do what I can. If the answer is no, then my democratic vote is we don't get involved.
Now I follow orders, so if I am told to go somewhere I'll go. I've said many times that the only order I will absolutely refuse to follow is when they tell me to wear a blue, UN beret. Outside of that I'll do what I'm told.
Now the more savy posters may ask why I didn't mention Europe or Austrailia. And the short answer is that any real fight in those areas would inevitably pose a threat to the US. Anyone will balls enough to try to conquer Europe or takeover Austrailia would just be waiting to eventually hit the US. I guess you could chalk it up to some notion of familiarity and previous alliances as well.
But to answer your question, no. I do not think that some tragedy in Africa warrants direct US involvement in a military capacity. Maybe and only maybe, after Europe has sent hundreds of thousands of their own to duck first, then I might be obliged to offer aide. But this mickey mouse shit where Europe sends 1 guys for every 20 America sends and asks America to foot the bill and run the operation is horseshit. If Libya showed us anything, it's how much of a spine old Europe lacks. Outside of England, I don't think the rest of them are worth a damn. Not that they lack potential, I personally think Germany could be a force to be recokned with if they chose to, but they've been silent the past 70 years mostly, and I think the US could learn a thing or two from them.
Edit: After further thought, if some country was trying to take over all of Africa, and in a Hitleresque fashion, meaning they were massacring millions for no reason, then I guess I would feel obligated to do something. But only in that extreme scenario. Not Sudan gets cranky and attacks 5 neighboring nations. I'm talking a full Nazi war machine (something no country in Africa is capable of). And to be brutally honest, my greatest concern would be to prevent this maurading Army of destroying the unique and endangered wildlife and anceint structures found in Egypt. I think one of the greatest tragedies of war was the burning of the great library at Alexandria. Preventing that, in my opinion, is worth a little risk.
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
I'm not the military guy of anything. I happen to wear a uniform 5 days a week and collect a paycheck. Maybe that's not the Capatain America answer you wanted to hear, and it's probably an oversimplification of my own feelings on it, but that's what it's become to me as of late.
You know what I meant. Wasn't meant as a dig or anything. You're in the military and offer a very unique perspective that others here cannot and while I cant speak for everyone, I'm pretty sure everyone who reads these war/political threads look forward to your posts.
I can only talk about that scenario from my own perspective. Would the scenario you mentioned make me want to go to some shitty country for 12 months, sleep in a tent and shower maybe twice a month, eat pre-packaged food and oh yea, possibly dodge bullets? No, not at all. And I wouldn't limit it to Africa. If that shit happened in South America or Asia I would't care. The key motive is does this nation pose a risk to the US? If the answer is yes, then I will voluntarily go and do what I can. If the answer is no, then my democratic vote is we don't get involved.
An understandable position to take, and I have a feeling you would have LOVED a Powell presidency. Obviously you know who he is and have probably heard his stance on many issues, but if you haven't read his autobiography, I recommend it. It's right up your alley.
IMO, comparing South America to the others is apples and oranges. I do think we would intervene there as a long term US goal is to unite NA, CA, and SA. Maybe not as a military alliance, but certainly a possibility in the distant future.
Point taken though.
Now I follow orders, so if I am told to go somewhere I'll go. I've said many times that the only order I will absolutely refuse to follow is when they tell me to wear a blue, UN beret.
In the event of such an absurdity, I hope all our military would refuse such an order.
Wouldn't such an action(US troops under UN command) be unconstitutional? Not sure about that but I do know Reagan said it would never happen on his watch.
Now the more savy posters may ask why I didn't mention Europe or Austrailia. And the short answer is that any real fight in those areas would inevitably pose a threat to the US. Anyone will balls enough to try to conquer Europe or takeover Austrailia would just be waiting to eventually hit the US. I guess you could chalk it up to some notion of familiarity and previous alliances as well.
Do you think that even if a withdrawal from NATO occurred that we could still offer protection to certain Euro countries. Agreed about Australia as well.
But this mickey mouse shit where Europe sends 1 guys for every 20 America sends and asks America to foot the bill and run the operation is horseshit. If Libya showed us anything, it's how much of a spine old Europe lacks. Outside of England, I don't think the rest of them are worth a damn. Not that they lack potential, I personally think Germany could be a force to be recokned with if they chose to, but they've been silent the past 70 years mostly, and I think the US could learn a thing or two from them.
Agreed. The Libyan conflict is borderline embarrassing.
Re: Allied Forces act over Libya
Now I follow orders, so if I am told to go somewhere I'll go. I've said many times that the only order I will absolutely refuse to follow is when they tell me to wear a blue, UN beret. Outside of that I'll do what I'm told.
My man... lmao 
