abneo3sierra Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 @Diesel..ahh, ok, I get where you are coming from now. I agree with you there,mostly. However, in Iraq, there WAS an uprising by the people,that we encouraged, then left them out to dry for several years before we finally moved in. There was a GREAT case to go help the Iraqis in the mid '90s, but was not seen in our "national interest" until nearly 10 yrs later. The Kurds in the north had been in a state of uprising, by the time of our invasion, for years, and this had been viciously put down for the same years. The only reason they probably survived, was our no-fly zone, which in the end, became one of the "triggers" for the invasion, as one of the items used to convince the UN Security Council to "turn up the heat" was the repeated engaging of coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone by Iraqi air defense units, which in itself then, constituted a breaking of the ceasefire conditions of the first Gulf War. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Anyone know why England and France can't do a unilateral (bilateral?) no-fly zone in Libya? They, along with the Arab League members, are the ones who are clamoring for the no-fly zone most, and they each have formidable air forces relative to anything Qadhafi has. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Qadhafi does not have an air force to challenge them, but he does have air defenses that are a threat to anything they have(they do not have stealth a/c, for one)...both nations would likely be ready to turn and run were they to lose any aircraft...not to mention that no-fly zones alone will not win the war, and soon they would be either forced to land troops, or to turn and leave, with a loss of face, once Qadhafi wins, anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I am so against any US/Western involvement in Lybia. Its none of our business. This part of the world needs to sort out its own messes. Besides, we arent doing such a good job in Iraq or Afghanistan, why do you guys think we will do any better in Lybia? Then what if Syrian people want a regime change? Do we go there too, and the next and the next? I was watching a news channel at a coffee shop and some Senator came on and said how we need to step in. I wondered if he had ever been sent anywhere to be shot at. Anyone who makes policy for our military should have been a part of it in my opinion. And I think its so much easier for these guys to go have people get killed while they stay home and get on a soapbox. The differences we are making in Afghanistan are in inches, not the miles we need. Lybia will be the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I was watching a news channel at a coffee shop and some Senator came on and said how we need to step in. I wondered if he had ever been sent anywhere to be shot at. Anyone who makes policy for our military should have been a part of it in my opinion. Want to know more? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Want to know more? Yours seems like a line from that movie "Starship Troopers" lol, was it intentional? Same idea, politicians trying to get people to volunteer to go get shot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It was intentional. It was a comment on the opinion that only those with military service should be allowed to be politicians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It was intentional. It was a comment on the opinion that only those with military service should be allowed to be politicians. Well, as I would assume, someone not in favor generally, of military action, you have to admit that if it was up to people who actually knew what the effects were, then war really would be a "last option" as it should be. edit... I do however think that actual conduct of warfighting operations should be left to those who have trained for it...too much micromanagement by politicians who have no idea really how it "all works" in the field, leads to bad things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's a slippery slope. In both of our countries, the military (which is voluntary) exists to serve and protect the people, carrying out action as deemed fit by their elected representatives. If only military people were allowed to formulate policy for the military you have quite a different kettle of fish. Firstly you get the issue of whether the military policy makers would oppose orders given by the people's representatives. ("Nope, we won't do that because we think it's a bad idea and too dangerous.") Then you get the even greater can of worms of only current or ex military people are allowed to serve in government or even vote (Starship Troopers). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's a slippery slope. In both of our countries, the military (which is voluntary) exists to serve and protect the people, carrying out action as deemed fit by their elected representatives. If only military people were allowed to formulate policy for the military you have quite a different kettle of fish. Firstly you get the issue of whether the military policy makers would oppose orders given by the people's representatives. ("Nope, we won't do that because we think it's a bad idea and too dangerous.") Then you get the even greater can of worms of only current or ex military people are allowed to serve in government or even vote (Starship Troopers). Good point...I had not thought of it from that angle... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 By the way Af...sorry for being pretty much an A-hole to you further back in this topic, I guess I am pretty narrow minded myself alot of the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak_43 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well, as I would assume, someone not in favor generally, of military action, you have to admit that if it was up to people who actually knew what the effects were, then war really would be a "last option" as it should be. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, Mr Hitler's experiences would not necessarily back that up... I do however think that actual conduct of warfighting operations should be left to those who have trained for it...too much micromanagement by politicians who have no idea really how it "all works" in the field, leads to bad things. Can't disagree with this at all however... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Un security Council has just dictated that a no fly zone be put to place on Lybia French say strikes on Lybian army could begin in a few hours. take it away... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Associated Press: UN approves Libya no-fly zone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 US President during WWI: Woodrow Wilson - Academic - kept US out of war as long as practical US Presidents during WWII: FDR - career politician - kept US out of war for as long as practical Truman - artillery officer - authorised nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima US President during Korea: Truman - artillery officer - expanded war (note: MacArthur wanted war to go nuclear) US Presidents during Vietnam: Kennedy - Navy, PT-108 - authorised initial deployments to Vietnam (and green-lighted Bay of Pigs) Johnson - Navy - expanded US involvemnt in Vietnam Nixon - Navy - expanded Vietnam war over borders L Ron Hubbard's 'service means citizenship' might be a wet dream of the crowd you run with, but claiming that militarymen-turned-politicians are opposed to war, while those know-nothing civilians are inveterate sabre rattlers, is especially clueless, even by your standards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 US President during WWI: Woodrow Wilson - Academic - kept US out of war as long as practical US Presidents during WWII: FDR - career politician - kept US out of war for as long as practical Truman - artillery officer - authorised nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima US President during Korea: Truman - artillery officer - expanded war (note: MacArthur wanted war to go nuclear) US Presidents during Vietnam: Kennedy - Navy, PT-108 - authorised initial deployments to Vietnam (and green-lighted Bay of Pigs) Johnson - Navy - expanded US involvemnt in Vietnam Nixon - Navy - expanded Vietnam war over borders L Ron Hubbard's 'service means citizenship' might be a wet dream of the crowd you run with, but claiming that militarymen-turned-politicians are opposed to war, while those know-nothing civilians are inveterate sabre rattlers, is especially clueless, even by your standards. There are plenty of examples in the other direction, also..and, I did not say that military men would not bring war, I said, it would be a last resort. Also a side note, if MacArthur (who played a large part in helping your country out in WW2 I may add) had gotten his way, probably (not certainly) the Korean situation would be resolved now instead of a perennial tinderbox. You have a continual habit of trying to insert YOUR idea of MY beliefs..here"service means citizenship may be a wet dream of the crowd you run with"..in every case you have been incorrect as to my beliefs, and I grow weary of the continued personal attacks. I can only assume that because you apparently are a NZ artilleryman, and there is no logical reason for NZ to even have artillery, as Australia and the USA are required to assist you, then you must be bored. You seem to regularly hate anything to do with the United States...as for myself, I wish that your country and the rest of the British Empire had the same attitude 70 yrs ago, but I must assume it is only when it is in ANOTHER country's interest, that this attitude arrives. I cannot blame you for that, but it does seem to be the most logical explanation for your continued attacks on this board, even as I have tried to be polite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Once again, you can't think your way out of a wet paper bag. I don't 'hate anything to do with the United States'. I hate sloppy thinking. Your misfortune is to be an accomplished master of that particular artform. Your equating that with an attack on the US is yet another example of it (as if we needed more than the 684 examples already provided). I note you finally recognise losing our wager. When will you man-up and pay your debt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I note with some satisfaction that on several other threads here, you and I agree. The satisfaction comes from realizing that must mean that you, also, are wrong in those(as my 684 examples you mentioned include those) As to my wager, I need to check sources to be certain that a NZ artilleryman actually does not count as a civilian...what DO you use artillery for there?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Oh. Oh. Ohohohohohohoh. OMFGWTFBBQ!!!1! teh broken clock recognised I was right!@!! My owrld view is coll... wait. You agreed with me. Of course you'd agree with me. You'd have to be insane not to. That doesn't mean my worldview is broken. It means yours is finally getting the tune up it so desperately needs. Pay up, loser boy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Oh. Oh. Ohohohohohohoh. OMFGWTFBBQ!!!1! teh broken clock recognised I was right!@!! My owrld view is coll... wait. You agreed with me. Of course you'd agree with me. You'd have to be insane not to. That doesn't mean my worldview is broken. It means yours is finally getting the tune up it so desperately needs. Pay up, loser boy. You do have a sense of humor, this did make me laugh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 L Ron Hubbard's 'service means citizenship' Just to pick a nit, it was Robert A. Heinlein. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Perhaps Smedley Butler's views should be considerd In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering. The work is divided into five chapters:War is a racketWho makes the profits?Who pays the bills?How to smash this racket!To hell with war!It contains this key summary: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." In another often cited quote from the book Butler says: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese. "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles." Butler explains that the excuse for the buildup of the US fleet and the war games is fear that "the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people." In his 1987 biography of Butler, Maverick Marine,[3] Hans Schmidt gave a brief review: "Butler's particular contribution was his recantation, denouncing war on moral grounds after having been a warrior hero and spending most of his life as a military insider. The theme remained vigorously patriotic and nationalistic, decrying imperialism as a disgrace rooted in the greed of a privileged few." Whole speech. In it there are some interesting wrinkles such as everyones pay is made the same as the men out fighting for their country. Butler thinks this will make war very unpopular with rich folk like Senators, CEO's, etc. Secondly those with a direct interest should not be allowed to vote on war measures .... not as clever an idea. And I add Ron Paul as he seems to be Butlers heir. I suspect that within military people and civilians there is a spectrum of personalities. There is also for both classes a group think mentality which is a danger. However it is far worse for in politicians as thye actually believe people voting for them like and respect them. In most cases its the least eveil one chooses. Now and then there are genuinely popular leaders like Mandela but they are a rarity. Serving your country I think is a good thing and my preferred method would be each year, before university or work people go into a two year programme where they are like conscripts in terms of bunking and hard work with short leave. It can be a mix of construction work, orderly in hospitals, reclamation works etc. After that being completed successfully then you get a vote, and a place in university if that is where you were going. Actually a passport also might be a good idea. : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Now and then there are genuinely popular leaders like Mandela but they are terrorists. Fixed that for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 : ) Too kind. When you think might what have happened to South Africa I think it dodged a bullet. However the latest govt is a remarkably corrupt shower. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 @Diesel, regarding "War is a Racket"..I agree with alot of what the man has to say. In 1939-1941 the US did many things to help Britain that were against the rules of neutrality, from escorting convoys, attacking German submarines at sea, taking over the defense of Greenland(essentially,seizing a province of Denmark, which by rights after the Danish surrender, was German soil),massively arming Britain first, then the Soviet Union, etc. I find it interesting still that most people in Britain apparently never had a problem with these acts, I suppose because they were helping the British Empire. Is it that times have just changed now, to make "the game" offensive to many people in the former Empire (if any nation in recent history was imperialistic, it was the British Empire for nearly 3 centuries) or is it really a fundamental change in human belief? I would expect the former, since when "imperial" interests are threatened, as even in the Falklands, most of British public opinion seems quite ready to forgo their high principles. I am not meaning this as a blame for them, or for anyone, but am curious when the attitude on the Isle became one of "pacifism", and what the limits of that attitude truly are, with regards to British self interests? It is widely assumed that America will fight for their self interests...I contend that all nations still do this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.