The U.S. Military is Impotent

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Do I really have to repeat myself? I said the UN, and part of their forces are our soldiers, and the rest are from other countries. Also, f*** the deficit. Even if we do owe that money, who's going to make us pay it? And, if we had someone who was qualified to handle the situation in the Middle East (i.e not kissing the Arab govenment's collective ass and doing whatever it takes to get oil), we'd probably have this situation handled in half the time.

 

Also, not everyone's military is "stretched to the breaking point", for the most part, the UN is just f***ing around because of antiquated laws, substituting politics for basic common sense.

[TK-8252]

Even if we do owe that money, who's going to make us pay it?

 

Communist China?

[Kurgan]

Was that in response to me, jmac7142? If so I must confess a few posts were made as I was posting, so maybe not... apologies for missing anything.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Communist China?

Ha. The consumer-based economy here being lost would sink the rest of the world into even more debt. We also don't owe China a hell of a lot, it's mostly to private corporations that manufacture our military hardware. And the fact that they're communist is irrelevant, "China?" would have done just fine.

 

You also don't seem aware of the fact that China could have collasped out economy at any time in the past 10-20 years, but hasn't.

 

 

***Edit***

@Kurgan-

It was directed at TK-8252, you just posted before I could submit my post.

[swphreak]

Well if it's the UN handling the situation, that's fine. Your previous post made it sound like we should be going out and handling these situations on our own.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

No, like I said before, our major export is ass kicking and we aren't too good at handling the aftermath of it.

[Mike Windu]

The U.S. is an isolationist country. Allow me to give you a background.

 

*history lesson*

 

"Help Britain Protect America - Speed Production" WWII slogan

 

 

The truth is, we're concerned with saving our own asses.

 

Someone mentioned FDR and the Holocaust a few posts back. U.S. government actually refused to divert military units to the concentration camps because it would weaken the forward movement and stall the conflict.

 

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. did not fly into WWI and WWII ready to fight for justice and peace and equality. We fought because it was necessary to save ourselves. The Neutrality Acts of 1935, 36, and 37 stipulated that until the President proclaimed war, no American could sail on a belligerent ship, or sell munitions, or make loans. Sure, we wanted to support the democracies, but we didn't want to be sucked into a war. The American people treated WWI as a huge mistake; one they didn't want to make again.

 

Only after France fell did the U.S. awaken and prepare for the worst case - war. Sept 6, 1940 - The first peacetime draft. The U.S. saw that Britain was the last democracy standing between Hitler, Mussolini and the U.S.

 

Thus came the Destroyer Deal - an "all aid short of war" type of assistance that allowed Britain 50 destroyers from WWI in exchange for eight defensive bases in the Western Hemisphere.

 

When more aid was required, Congress passed the Lend Lease Act, allowing Britain to borrow tanks, guns, etc and return them when the war was over.

 

Then Japan came. and Pearl Harbor happened.

 

Isolationist Senator Wheeler "The only thing left to do is lick the hell out of them."

 

Thus ends our history lesson. Point? U.S. protects its own interests.

 

 

 

Now, is it right? That's what we have to decide. I'm all for intervention and negotiation, but the U.S. should not be taking the brunt of the work. That's what the UN is for. I definitely feel that we should be contributing to speeding the end of the African problems, though.

 

I agree that the military is not a policing force, nor should it be. But I also believe that policing differs from aid.

 

Who to aid in a civil war, though... is a choice with deep political ramifications. Chances are you're going to do a bit more damage than needed. And what happens to the side you help win? They resent you. And as we all know... that ends well..

 

I love my apee history book.

[TK-8252]

Thanks for the history lesson, Mike, I see your high school education really pays off.

 

But the U.S. certainly isn't isolationist anymore. The neo-con doctrine of imperialism (or "preemption" as they refer to it) has long destroyed the past policy of isolationism.

[rccar328]

Thanks for the history lesson, Mike, I see your high school education really pays off.

 

But the U.S. certainly isn't isolationist anymore. The neo-con doctrine of imperialism (or "preemption" as they refer to it) has long destroyed the past policy of isolationism.

I have a question, just for clarification...

 

Where, exactly, is this alleged US empire? I get really tired of hearing about US imperialism...yet as far as I know, the US 'empire' is limited to the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, plus several naval bases around the globe...but the US doesn't exert control over nations. We're not 19th Century England. The US hasn't had any real imperialist policies since 1916, when they granted the Phillipines self-rule. Political pressure & foreign involvement does not constitute imperialism.

[TK-8252]

Here's an interesting wiki article on the subject...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire

[Mike Windu]

Thanks for the history lesson, Mike, I see your high school education really pays off.

 

But the U.S. certainly isn't isolationist anymore. The neo-con doctrine of imperialism (or "preemption" as they refer to it) has long destroyed the past policy of isolationism.

 

*college* AP History = college level course. :D

 

True that the U.S. government isn't isolationist. I will say that. (Go Iraq... yaaay)

 

Well, history aside, I stand behind my beliefs that U.S. should be helping, at the very least, through the UN.

 

I generally don't think that we should go into the midst of a civil war, that the civil war should sort itself out, but I don't like the prospect of millions of people being homeless, etc. I don't like the accusations of genocide being thrown around either...

 

If it's proven true that all this stuff really is happening, by all means the U.S. should send aid. If it's just a civil war... stay away from it I say.

[rccar328]

Well, history aside, I stand behind my beliefs that U.S. should be helping, at the very least, through the UN.

I disagree with that, if only because the UN has proven itself to be an extremely incompetent organization. As I heard John Bolton say in an interview last week, about all they're good at is "writing nasty letters," and not much else. Nasty letters can be ignored, as was evidenced by year after year of ignored resolutions by Saddam.

 

As far as civil wars go, I agree that they should be ignored - if a third party comes in and resolves the situation, it doesn't really solve the problem that led to the war in the first place. I couldn't imagine it being very productive if France or Spain or England had intervened in the US civil war, because the underlying issues would still be there...but genocide is another matter entirely, and should be stopped. The fact that it's still going on, however, is more of an indictment of the UN's impotence than the US's, particularly the US military. The US military can accomplish pretty near any task put before it, but it's a military, not a police or peacekeeping force. Police and peacekeeping functions are not the mandate of the US military, and they shouldn't be. Those functions are more the purview of the UN (hence the UN Peacekeepers).

[toms]

But the UN isn't really a government or nation, and doesn't have an army of its own or the power to intervene directly. The US, among other nations, has made sure that the UN has never been able to develop any real teeth.

 

By all means argue that everyone should "stay out of it", but don't try and put the blame/responsibility on the UN.

 

In the same way that some claim that the US (and other) governments only represent their own people, the Un only represents the views of it's "people". Those people being the governments of the US, Russia, China etc... non of whom want the UN to have any power or teeth or it's own army.

 

IMHO it would have been cheaper, quicker, simpler and more beneficial to the world (and the US within it?) to have stopped a few genocides in africa than it has been to deal with the messes in iraq, afganistan etc..

[Mike Windu]

I'm not saying to place blame on the UN; I'm just saying that it's a world matter, thus, the world should deal.

 

And I know the U.S. pretty much put a lockdown on the UN and/or disregarded it (yay war in Iraq)

 

Agreed, U.S. should have intervened in more than a few genocides in Africa..

 

Only thing to do is not let this become genocide. And if it is, then we must stop it.

 

It'd be one of the times I'd agree with overriding the U.N. in world policing. (If the U.N. decided against aid, at least.)

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

^^^^

Agreed. Sometimes people need to just forget about international laws or whatever bureaucratic nonsense they come up with as an excuse to not do anything.

[TK-8252]

Only thing to do is not let this become genocide. And if it is, then we must stop it.

 

How could we POSSIBLY do that? We can't even stop guys in Iraq from shooting up the other guy's mosque. How the HELL are we going to stop African genocide??

 

The U.S. can't even fix its own problems at home, so what gives you the idea that it can fix a problem like the genocide going on in Africa? If you think Iraq is a mess, just wait until we **** with Africa.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

^^^^

Iraq is the fault of the current administration. They've ignored all the advice of the generals who've advised them and it's shown. The problems here are almost all the fault of the current administration as well.

[toms]

Whether I like it or not the US is pretty much the sole superpower in the world right now... and with that power it can do pretty much anything it likes.

 

It would be nice if it used that power to push for reform and improvement of the UN into something more potent... but all who have power, are reluctant to give it away.

 

Alternatively it could undermine and ignore the UN, but then in 25 or so years time once it is no longer the sole superpower it may regret that it didn't fix and strengthen the UN when it had the chance.

 

Imho the UN will never be perfect, but its our last, best chance for peace

[Darth Alec]

Go US!!!!

The UN has, and will continiue to, fail......

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Go US!!!!

The UN has, and will continiue to, fail......

Sarcasm?

 

I don't like most of the things the UN has done, however they do sometimes resolve situations without violence. And I hope your "Go US!!!!" implies some limits on what we can and cannot do and not that we have free-roam of the world...

[toms]

I'm constantly confused by the way the US/US citizens keep gloating about any UN failures.... does it somehow make people feel better about the US?

[Lathain Valtiel]

There is a (not entirely unsubstantiated) belief that the concept of the United Nations infringes on sovereignity with its only real excuse for doing so being some form of international consensous... Which is arguably a fairly weak excuse, if straight up consensous was always in force the Enlightenment would be dead.

[Point Man]

To those who think we should just mind our own business let me say this: we were doing that, and what happened? The fight was brought to us. Leaving the rest of the world to kill themselves may seem like a simple solution, but it does not work. We must help the world to stabilize where we can, or the instability will affect us. The world is more interdependent than ever. What affects our neighbors affects us.

 

On the original topic of the impotence of the US military: our military is the strongest, best trained force in the history of the world. What is lacking is national resolve to use the military properly and to properly support it.

[TK-8252]

The fight was brought to us.

 

Indeed, which is why we should be hunting down Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda, not getting bogged down in entirely unrelated business in Iraq and say, Africa.

 

On the original topic of the impotence of the US military: our military is the strongest, best trained force in the history of the world. What is lacking is national resolve to use the military properly and to properly support it.

 

Agreed. Bush has not used the military properly nor has he supported it properly, what with having the military bogged down in Iraq when the military should be focused on hunting down bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

[lord ignarn]

Look to Vietnam. There the vietcong had the help of the people, whon saw the US as an invader, not a freedom giver. That is what now happens in Irak. Lot of people say thay lived better with Saddam Husein, so they will help to attack those who fighted against their dictator. Having against the people, any army will be impotent against the insurgency or the terrorists.

 

What I mean is that if you don´t have the help of the people, you can´t fight against insurgents. Because those insurgents need the help of the civilians.

 

Win the hearts of the citizens of Irak and you will finish with the insurgents. Make those citizens live with good material conditions and you will finish with the insurgents. Help them really and you will finish with the insurgents.