[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
How this for you Pat- “Fuck YEAH! Merica! WAHOO! Screw that brainy shit. We think with out fists!”
More gooder for ya?
[/quote]
That may be the smartest thing you’ve ever said.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
How this for you Pat- “Fuck YEAH! Merica! WAHOO! Screw that brainy shit. We think with out fists!”
More gooder for ya?
[/quote]
That may be the smartest thing you’ve ever said.[/quote]
Thats nothin’. Give me ten minutes with any woman and I’ll accidentally say something about her weight, clothing or hair that would make any man with half of a frontal lobe shiver.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?
[/quote]
Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]
It would be nice if all these countries with the lavish expenditures on social programs didn’t rely on the U.S. military to protect their collective asses.
If everyone of our so called ‘allies’ truly invested in their own military’s rather than rely on the U.S. to get them out of every jam they get themselves into, they wouldn’t have the capitol to truly protect themselves and maintain their social experiments. But the fault is on both sides. Few countries will invest in their own militaries because military protection is a phone call away, to the U.S. But we also let it happen. We don’t demand our allies step up to the plate and develop a real military that can actually protect their own country should the drums of war arrive at their door step.
So sadly, where ever there is a problem in the world calling for a just solution, American lives are always at stake. Until nations can stand on their own with their own militaries, America is the one they call when force is needed. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Only a small handful of nations have a military that can actually win an engagement. And most of that handful are our enemies.
It sucks that we are the only truly strong ‘good guy’ military force in the world. All our ‘friends’ have token militaries, more or less. So when ever there is a problem in the world, America gets the call. Who else can do it? Canada? Pulease! England can stand it’s own ground, but that’s about it for our allies in terms of military power. I don’t see anybody calling France when they need military assistance.
It sucks, but it’s reality. When force is required to attain a just end to a situation, America is the one who get’s the call.
Of course in between conflicts, they are more than happy to bitch about our military that they rely on to protect their freedom.
America is the military force for the free world, nobody else has the balls to arm themselves like they need to to truly protect themselves. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.
[/quote]
This post is underpinned by the erroneous assumption that the United States is a “reluctant sheriff”, using force only when international bandits give it little choice.[/quote]
We’re no sheriff. That’s not the point. The point is that to many countries rely on the U.S. military to bail themselves, or their interests out of jams. We don’t barge in in many cases, we are asked, begged to ‘do something about it’.
Of course, we do it to ourselves as well. How many times have we asked Israel to show restraint? Since their restraint has shown little progress in making peace in the region, perhaps we should let them deal with their enemies how they see fit.[/quote]
It isn’t out of the kindness of our hearts. Our interests are often our allies interests. Having forward deployed forces in Europe is strategically vital. While Europeans freeride on the American security apparatus to one degree or another, it is in America’s interest for the EU to be economically strong. Every Euro not going toward defense goes to a more economically productive sector. For someone who has had interventionist sentiments in Syria and Nigeria, you seem somewhat unsupportive of the responsibilities that come with the US status as the world’s lone hegemon.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Do you honestly believe that a private military corporation could independently perform the intelligence, logistical, and counter-terrorism operations to carry out such an operation?
[/quote]
Do you honestly believe that every single tragedy in the whole wide world should warrant the expenditure of American lives, limbs and lucre by a government that extracts said resources at the point of the sword?
[/quote]
It would be nice if all these countries with the lavish expenditures on social programs didn’t rely on the U.S. military to protect their collective asses.
If everyone of our so called ‘allies’ truly invested in their own military’s rather than rely on the U.S. to get them out of every jam they get themselves into, they wouldn’t have the capitol to truly protect themselves and maintain their social experiments. But the fault is on both sides. Few countries will invest in their own militaries because military protection is a phone call away, to the U.S. But we also let it happen. We don’t demand our allies step up to the plate and develop a real military that can actually protect their own country should the drums of war arrive at their door step.
So sadly, where ever there is a problem in the world calling for a just solution, American lives are always at stake. Until nations can stand on their own with their own militaries, America is the one they call when force is needed. It sucks, but that’s the reality. Only a small handful of nations have a military that can actually win an engagement. And most of that handful are our enemies.
It sucks that we are the only truly strong ‘good guy’ military force in the world. All our ‘friends’ have token militaries, more or less. So when ever there is a problem in the world, America gets the call. Who else can do it? Canada? Pulease! England can stand it’s own ground, but that’s about it for our allies in terms of military power. I don’t see anybody calling France when they need military assistance.
It sucks, but it’s reality. When force is required to attain a just end to a situation, America is the one who get’s the call.
Of course in between conflicts, they are more than happy to bitch about our military that they rely on to protect their freedom.
America is the military force for the free world, nobody else has the balls to arm themselves like they need to to truly protect themselves. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.
[/quote]
This post is underpinned by the erroneous assumption that the United States is a “reluctant sheriff”, using force only when international bandits give it little choice.[/quote]
We’re no sheriff. That’s not the point. The point is that to many countries rely on the U.S. military to bail themselves, or their interests out of jams. We don’t barge in in many cases, we are asked, begged to ‘do something about it’.
Of course, we do it to ourselves as well. How many times have we asked Israel to show restraint? Since their restraint has shown little progress in making peace in the region, perhaps we should let them deal with their enemies how they see fit.[/quote]
It isn’t out of the kindness of our hearts. Our interests are often our allies interests. Having forward deployed forces in Europe is strategically vital. While Europeans freeride on the American security apparatus to one degree or another, it is in America’s interest for the EU to be economically strong. Every Euro not going toward defense goes to a more economically productive sector. For someone who has had interventionist sentiments in Syria and Nigeria, you seem somewhat unsupportive of the responsibilities that come with the US status as the world’s lone hegemon.[/quote]
I completely agree it isn’t out of the kindness of our hearts and we do have a vested interest where ever we engage, be that small or large. It’s why we have engaged in the ME and not Africa, though what we may be fighting in the ME are lesser crimes than that of Africa. But Africa, as far as natural resources are concerned, a boon for us. Oil, diamonds and gold are pretty good economic simulators.
Africa’s potential is untapped, financially speaking. Setting up camp in a place like Nigeria could prove economically useful for both sides.
China beat us to it:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
China beat us to it:
Well, they were smart and we were dumb…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
China beat us to it:
Well, they were smart and we were dumb…[/quote]
It’s not as good a deal as it sounds. Nigeria is an unstable state with rampant corruption. Oil money only fuels the problem. The US would be better off focusing on domestic production and the keystone pipeline. Of course it also needs oil security which is achieved through multiple supply sources.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
China beat us to it:
China’s Nicaraguan canal is more worrisome to me.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140329-nicaragua-canal-hknd-panama-wang-jin-world/
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
China beat us to it:
China’s Nicaraguan canal is more worrisome to me.
The US never should have ceded control of the Panama Canal. Obviously the lessons of the Suez Crisis were not learned.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
China beat us to it:
Well, they were smart and we were dumb…[/quote]
It’s not as good a deal as it sounds. Nigeria is an unstable state with rampant corruption. Oil money only fuels the problem. The US would be better off focusing on domestic production and the keystone pipeline. Of course it also needs oil security which is achieved through multiple supply sources.[/quote]
Well of course. If Nigeria were stable it would be an economic powerhouse based on it’s natural resources alone. But an influx of money and heavy political pressure would serve to help stabilize it. If we could get a good democratic government to take hold and grow roots, clean out the terrorists, then an alliance with Nigeria could be very mutually beneficial.
China has the cash, but not the political capitol. We have both. We could make it work is we wanted to.
If we can work with Saudi Arabia, Nigeria is cake.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
China beat us to it:
China’s Nicaraguan canal is more worrisome to me.
The US never should have ceded control of the Panama Canal. Obviously the lessons of the Suez Crisis were not learned.[/quote]
You mean Jimmy Carter did something stupid? Do tell!