French, British and American military forces attack Libya
0
neko-chan wrote...
@del - The liberation of the Iraqi people was one of the benefits and highlights of the Iraqi invasion, but it was not the objective or reason for military action. Nobody thinks (unless they are being stubborn) that Iraq's new civil liberties and freedoms are a bad thing, but instead it is the pretense which the US invaded that people get upset about. That being, we said there were WMDs when in reality there were none. The Libya situation is different in that military action does not include an invasion force, and the objective is simply to protect civilians from being slaughtered by Gadhafi forces.
How about I throw around that great American Ignorance, The U.S indeed forcefully invaded, later the American people as a collective whole regretted going along with the government, mainly bush's decision to invade.. But you know what, you don't FUCK with the U.S. , yes were going through bad times ourselves and probably should focus on ourselves.. But the bottom line is at the time we(I mean Americans) all wanted to Hardfuck any asshole willing to talk shit.. so we rolled through a 1.5m standing army with 200,000 Troops.. why dont i get off this subject and onto the one at hand before I write a scary wall of text..
Currently we are spread thin... in terms of money of course.. were occupying 2 countries, were providing 3 air craft carriers for aid off the coast of japan, and we are the base of operations for our fellow UN allies for the enforcement of the No-fly-zone over libya, and we just sent 2 more battle groups too libyas waters.. in all honesty every person deserves too be free on this planet.. and if you dont like the U.S., well we'll give you a nice smile and stab you with our bayonets..
0
HentaiGuru wrote...
How about I throw around that great American Ignorance, The U.S indeed forcefully invaded, later the American people as a collective whole regretted going along with the government, mainly bush's decision to invade.. But you know what, you don't FUCK with the U.S. , yes were going through bad times ourselves and probably should focus on ourselves.. But the bottom line is at the time we(I mean Americans) all wanted to Hardfuck any asshole willing to talk shit.. so we rolled through a 1.5m standing army with 200,000 Troops.. why dont i get off this subject and onto the one at hand before I write a scary wall of text..
Oh please, the Iraqi army was hardly a challenge. Most of the 1.5 million were poorly trained, starving conscripts who cut and ran. Their equipment were cold war leftovers from the last Gulf War.
Get back to me when you invade a country with a modern professional army as opposed to a poorly equipped, and demoralised conscript army.
0
Tegumi wrote...
neko-chan wrote...
The US is the most powerful nation on earth thus it must maintain the most powerful nation on Earth until the blight of War no longer exist.Peace maintained by force is always a boiling kettle.
my stand on this? crude and simple, reinforce it, then weld the lid shut.
0
HentaiGuru wrote...
before I write a scary wall of text..[font=Verdana][color=green]The only reason it will be scary is due to the high amount of grammatical errors, lack of paragraphing and overall arseholeishness of your attitude. If you really want people to respect your views, please try and make them coherent and as impartial as you can.
and if you dont like the U.S., well we'll give you a nice smile and stab you with our bayonets..
[font=Verdana][color=green]And you wonder why many nations don't like the US? But yeah, Iraq was hardly a challenge for the American, and British, forces. Numbers don't mean a thing with the technological advantages both nations had.
@Trekki; that's hardly going to work; literally and figuratively. All that's going to happen is a shitstorm occurs when that thing finally does burst; which it will.
0
Spoiler:
Your argument centers around the belief of isolationism. However, it is naive to think we can be a country with an isolationist policy - our economy would become stagnant and starve. Look at our buddy Japan - their economy thrives on fair global trade, even countries like China are opening up to the idea (they aren't all the way there but they are getting close). We rely on other countries for resources and technology, information and ideas. It is that simple.
The last time the US stepped back into Isolationism, a couple of dictators rose to power, people got put into camps (within both other nations and our own), and we had an event that inspired countless video games and movies such as Call of Duty and Saving Private Ryan. Now, I'm not saying a non-isolationist nation would of prevented these events, but it put us in no position to stop them. And in the time before that when we were again in isolationism, we were barely a thought on the Global scene. The government's hands were tied, it had no relationships with allies it could depend on, and I believe we had our White House was burnt to the ground.
There is too much to gain, too much resources, ideas, and culture to share for us to be isolated from the global community. But a community must have leaders, and it must have people who will take action even if there is no immediate benefit for those who are doing so.
Being part of this international community means playing your part - and when you are the biggest boy on the block it means displaying leadership or at least assisting whoever is in the lead role.
0
neko-chan wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Spoiler:
Your argument centers around the belief of isolationism. However, it is naive to think we can be a country with an isolationist policy - our economy would become stagnant and starve. Look at our buddy Japan - their economy thrives on fair global trade, even countries like China are opening up to the idea (they aren't all the way there but they are getting close). We rely on other countries for resources and technology, information and ideas. It is that simple.
The last time the US stepped back into Isolationism, a couple of dictators rose to power, people got put into camps (within both other nations and our own), and we had an event that inspired countless video games and movies such as Call of Duty and Saving Private Ryan. Now, I'm not saying a non-isolationist nation would of prevented these events, but it put us in no position to stop them. And in the time before that when we were again in isolationism, we were barely a thought on the Global scene. The government's hands were tied, it had no relationships with allies it could depend on, and I believe we had our White House was burnt to the ground.
There is too much to gain, too much resources, ideas, and culture to share for us to be isolated from the global community. But a community must have leaders, and it must have people who will take action even if there is no immediate benefit for those who are doing so.
Being part of this international community means playing your part - and when you are the biggest boy on the block it means displaying leadership or at least assisting whoever is in the lead role.
[font=Verdana][color=green]Quoted to show Neko's argument.
0
I feel overwhelmed ya know. I mean, I think America is starting to get involved in to many things. Japan Aid in the east, War in the middle east, and now this? I just dunno anymore. That and the fact that we're still in a recession, I mean not to sound like an asshole, but how are we suppose to help others, if our own country is fucked up right now? Get things straight at home first, then extend a helping hand elsewhere. Although I'd say since WWII we've burned that bridge. Now that we've hyped ourselves to be "America the greatest country in the world", the rest of the world seems to have greater expectations of us. We just can't pull out of anything now, less we get ridiculed and have other countries talk shit about us.
0
b4k420 wrote...
Now that we've hyped ourselves to be "America the greatest country in the world", the rest of the world seems to have greater expectations of us. We just can't pull out of anything now, less we get ridiculed and have other countries talk shit about us. [font=Verdana][color=green]Oh no, we don't have high expectations of you. Our expectations are surprisingly low, actually.
0
Okay neko-chan, now you are putting words in FPOD's mouth. All he mentioned with isolationism in one of the core points: non-interventionism. Non-interventionism is simply the belief that a country should refrain from making alliances with other countries as to avoid being drawn into wars that are not directly related to territorial self-defense.
Basically saying that the United States shouldn't make alliances with other countries because the United States should only participate in wars that directly affect the United States.
We can't assume how the United States would look today if it wasn't for the catalyst of it all: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We can try to assume 'till we are blue in the face that the United States would be some weakened country, uneducated, and desperate for money, but in the end we have no idea what the fate of the United States would have been.
Besides, non-interventionism is more about wanting to protect a country's own interest rather than to shun the rest of the world. I won't argue that it is likely, but that doesn't mean that trade wouldn't exist among other countries. It would simply mean that no outstanding treaties or alliances would be made with other countries, therefor the United States would never be obligated to interfere in world politics.
Basically saying that the United States shouldn't make alliances with other countries because the United States should only participate in wars that directly affect the United States.
We can't assume how the United States would look today if it wasn't for the catalyst of it all: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We can try to assume 'till we are blue in the face that the United States would be some weakened country, uneducated, and desperate for money, but in the end we have no idea what the fate of the United States would have been.
Besides, non-interventionism is more about wanting to protect a country's own interest rather than to shun the rest of the world. I won't argue that it is likely, but that doesn't mean that trade wouldn't exist among other countries. It would simply mean that no outstanding treaties or alliances would be made with other countries, therefor the United States would never be obligated to interfere in world politics.
0
SamRavster wrote...
b4k420 wrote...
Now that we've hyped ourselves to be "America the greatest country in the world", the rest of the world seems to have greater expectations of us. We just can't pull out of anything now, less we get ridiculed and have other countries talk shit about us. [font=Verdana][color=green]Oh no, we don't have high expectations of you. Our expectations are surprisingly low, actually.
Well having Bush for 8 years, I can't blame you.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tsurayu wrote...
Okay neko-chan, now you are putting words in FPOD's mouth. All he mentioned with isolationism in one of the core points: non-interventionism. Non-interventionism is simply the belief that a country should refrain from making alliances with other countries as to avoid being drawn into wars that are not directly related to territorial self-defense. Basically saying that the United States shouldn't make alliances with other countries because the United States should only participate in wars that directly affect the United States.
We can't assume how the United States would look today if it wasn't for the catalyst of it all: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We can try to assume 'till we are blue in the face that the United States would be some weakened country, uneducated, and desperate for money, but in the end we have no idea what the fate of the United States would have been.
Besides, non-interventionism is more about wanting to protect a country's own interest rather than to shun the rest of the world. I won't argue that it is likely, but that doesn't mean that trade wouldn't exist among other countries. It would simply mean that no outstanding treaties or alliances would be made with other countries, therefor the United States would never be obligated to interfere in world politics.
Non-interventionism is essentially the same thing as being isolationist, just not as extreme.
It would have the same negative effects.
Believing that you could be a major power and be a non-interventionist in today's world is naive.
Technology has FORCED us to work with each other. Going "Not my problem" isn't going to work anymore because world events will AFFECT EVERYONE.
0
Tsurayu wrote...
We can't assume how the United States would look today if it wasn't for the catalyst of it all: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We can try to assume 'till we are blue in the face that the United States would be some weakened country, uneducated, and desperate for money, but in the end we have no idea what the fate of the United States would have been. Yes we do have an idea. This isn't some alternate reality, we've been isolationist before, we can see the history of other countries that have practiced policies of non-intervention, and we know the consequences for not helping out other countries in times of need.
In simplest terms it boils down to someone asking for your help, and maybe saying they can't pay you back now, but they are good for it down the line. That is how gain friendships and in turn security (And to be fair, countries like Britain, France, most of the NATO allies, HAVE been good allies to the US).
In Libya, we aren't taking sides (officially), so the aim isn't to get cozy with rebels. However, if there is anything to be gained we hope that it will be when people see America standing in along side the other countries, they'll know we CAN be a responsible member of the international community and give back up to our friends. That something you have to continuously have to show, especially when you have done other acts like Invade Iraq.
Besides, non-interventionism is more about wanting to protect a country's own interest rather than to shun the rest of the world. I won't argue that it is likely, but that doesn't mean that trade wouldn't exist among other countries. It would simply mean that no outstanding treaties or alliances would be made with other countries, therefor the United States would never be obligated to interfere in world politics.
Trade and cannot happen without the guarantee of security. Part of that is securing alliances and making treaties.
0
I'll will just say this " It's easy to get in but it's hard to get out" just like what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan..........
I'm pretty sure this intervene of Allies will be the same fate of what happens in iraq...
I'm pretty sure this intervene of Allies will be the same fate of what happens in iraq...
0
As above. Retracting support for other nations will only ever cause more problems, economically and in the loss of preventative actions. And even if you successfully and sustainably isolate the US, animosity will linger - if only, as time goes on, for the failure to cooperate in a globalised world.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
mazda1024 wrote...
I'll will just say this " It's easy to get in but it's hard to get out" just like what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.......... I'm pretty sure this intervene of Allies will be the same fate of what happens in iraq...
Except the rebels don't want our help in restoring their country and we want to avoid it as well.
Honestly, this is just to make the grounds even.
0
heres an average joe opion on this, the one in question being myself, the first thing i saw when i saw the news headline on my paper when i read it the other day was, my god, can we NOT stay out of others people busnuis? but after reading a bit more into it and reading this thread, and realistic were not taking on the role of gods policeman yet again and letting the French and Brits take lead its not so bad. were playing safety, not linemen or backers, sure most people dont see that because they only take one look at it but i suppose this isn't as bad as i initaily thought
0
neko-chan wrote...
Tsurayu wrote...
We can't assume how the United States would look today if it wasn't for the catalyst of it all: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We can try to assume 'till we are blue in the face that the United States would be some weakened country, uneducated, and desperate for money, but in the end we have no idea what the fate of the United States would have been. Yes we do have an idea. This isn't some alternate reality, we've been isolationist before, we can see the history of other countries that have practiced policies of non-intervention, and we know the consequences for not helping out other countries in times of need.
In simplest terms it boils down to someone asking for your help, and maybe saying they can't pay you back now, but they are good for it down the line. That is how gain friendships and in turn security (And to be fair, countries like Britain, France, most of the NATO allies, HAVE been good allies to the US).
In Libya, we aren't taking sides (officially), so the aim isn't to get cozy with rebels. However, if there is anything to be gained we hope that it will be when people see America standing in along side the other countries, they'll know we CAN be a responsible member of the international community and give back up to our friends. That something you have to continuously have to show, especially when you have done other acts like Invade Iraq.
Besides, non-interventionism is more about wanting to protect a country's own interest rather than to shun the rest of the world. I won't argue that it is likely, but that doesn't mean that trade wouldn't exist among other countries. It would simply mean that no outstanding treaties or alliances would be made with other countries, therefor the United States would never be obligated to interfere in world politics.
Trade and cannot happen without the guarantee of security. Part of that is securing alliances and making treaties.
Consequences? You make it sound like you know it always has a negative affect if a country stays neutral and holds no outstanding treaties or alliances with other countries.
Switzerland says hello, as the richest country in GDP per capita, all while maintaining a neutral military stance. Switzerland has avoided nearly every political, military and economic alliance with other countries since 1515. Hell, arguably the only reason they joined the United Nations in 2002 was because they were shoe-horned in by a referendum. Yet, Switzerland is one of the most respected countries and ironically houses a lot of international organizations because of the very fact that they remain neutral.
As for your last sentence though, um... no, no, and not necessarily, no. Alliances can just as easily be thought of as nothing more than a side-effect of trade. All it takes are two or more person(s) trading goods to another based on comparative advantage. Security (and as a result alliances and treaties) are not inclusive of trade. That may be the way they turn out in almost all forms we see now in the twenty-first century, but that does not make it the end-all-be-all.
0
Switzerland, aside from being a far smaller country which makes all of that money from banking, has been neutral for a very long time. You mention it yourself. Have you not thought of the effect that the US withdrawing from the world stage would have considering its current position? You would lose all political cachet and manoeuvrability on the world stage without a military threat to back it up. It would give a boost to all sorts of regimes and terrorist cells. They then increase attacks worldwide on pervading ideological grounds, other countries with far less manpower and far lower defence budgets are forced to step in, and China and Russia's stock rises substantially. Not an ideal climate for forging individual alliances and/or trade agreements.
0
doswillrule wrote...
Switzerland, aside from being a far smaller country which makes all of that money from banking, has been neutral for a very long time. You mention it yourself. Have you not thought of the effect that the US withdrawing from the world stage would have considering its current position? You would lose all political cachet and manoeuvrability on the world stage without a military threat to back it up. It would give a boost to all sorts of regimes and terrorist cells. They then increase attacks worldwide on pervading ideological grounds, other countries with far less manpower and far lower defence budgets are forced to step in, and China and Russia's stock rises substantially. Not an ideal climate for forging individual alliances and/or trade agreements.Why is that so scary for everyone? Is everyone so afraid of the United States taking a backseat to world politics, and every other country taking advantage of that to demonstrate world power by dominating and terrorizing everyone else just because the Big Bro United States isn't there to flex its muscles?
Why are we all so sure that would happen? I mean sure, there would undeniably be a lot of Arabic countries that would take advantage of the situation, but the United States isn't so innocent in their line of thought. The United States has done quite enough to antagonize itself in the eyes of the Muslim world without their own descent and this pathetic American view "Christians=Good; Muslims=Evil."
The United States could still demonstrate global responsibility without having to be active in every single little squabble that happens overseas and constantly ready to throw their troops at someone every three seconds.
Well, alright I'm done. I've said what I've wanted to say and this is likely going to turn to a tangent that I'm not going to be comfortable with and be able to stay civil.
0
SamRavster wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
[quote="neko-chan"]The US is the most powerful nation on earth thus it must maintain the most powerful nation on Earth until the blight of War no longer exist.Peace maintained by force is always a boiling kettle.
i do not believe that the U.S is the most powerful nation on the earth i'll agree with you if you'll say that the U.S is the most influential country on the earth. think about china. :D they have a nuclear too.
[quote="SamRavster"][font=Verdana][color=green]Neko-chan, your sentence doesn't make any real sense; it's an oxymoron. As long as a "most powerful" nation exists, there will continue to be war.
Now, speaking as a British national, I'm glad that we've finally decided to do something about the atrocities in Libya. We have waited too long, but I'm glad that we waited somewhat; we didn't charge in there blind which is a good thing.
However, I'm not too sure why America has decided to get involved. They have no connection to Libya whatsoever. Maybe this is the reason why they've decided to take a less-prominent role in th proceedings, and let France and Britain play a larger role.
@Sam
no. the U.S has to do something with this because gadaffi was accused of killing. i think 100+ american civilians that was in a flight going home to U.S or in Libya i think.