Is anyone else a bit puzzled by the results?
:help:
Printable View
Is anyone else a bit puzzled by the results?
:help:
Well, I use to believe in intervention but after long review and soul searching I've discovered that it pointless. Close the borders, continue international trade and let countries take care of their own problems because you can't change 3rd world mindsets or barbaric societies (Middle East comes to mind with their 6th century bloodlust masked as religion). The simple fact is that most people in the world needs the government to either wipe their asses and take care of them from birth to death because they are too worthless or lazy to try to develope their societies. Most need a brutal dictator to crack their skulls to keep them in line anyway. To hell with them. The US needs to stop being the police to a bunch of ungracious little insignificant meat bags. Evolution baby, time to let the cream rise to the top, which it has, and not let it spoil and turn into a smelly fermented mess that the majority of the world is. Don't let the rest of the world drag us to their level. Harsh? Yes. UNChristian? Definitely. Do I care? Not anymore, teabags for everyone.:furious3:
I am especially puzzled by The_Doctor voting for all options :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I don't see my option there, so...What I think is that USA does a lot of good work helping other people around the world, why stop doing that, as any other country they live in a partially integrated world, and they rely and depend on the stability of such world. As far as I'm concerned economy is indiferent to me, humanitarian aid should carry on, but military aid is absurd to me so I would prefer if the USA doesn't launch any more attacks on any part of the world, and the same goes to any other country.
Well like Don said, there are differently levels of Interventionism and Isolationism. It could be about military matters, economic, humanitarian, etc. So it is possible to pick all three. I know, let the UN handle everything, they know how to get the job done.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Yes, and it's possible to be American and European at the same time too :dizzy2: Kaiser also did a nice job picking "Interventionism and I'm American" AND "Isolationism and I'm European"... :gah:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Furthermore, I thought Gahism and Pindarism were mutually exlusive! Yet for some reason we have three voters guilty of supporting both:
Dâriûsh, Sjakihata, The_Doctor
Duel citizenship is possible. (but I don’t think Kaiser is:inquisitive:)Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
At the very least, Pindarism and Gahism are incompatible.
This is a good example of what I think the President's democracy push is lacking. We're trying to impose a democratic republic on cultures that aren't rooted in the western traditions (Social contract, rule of law, liberty, etc) which can easily lead to populist dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Nothing is perfect but I think our intervention needs to be more comprehensive. Or at least more so than we are being lead to believe.
Just in order to put some oil on the fire (huile sur le feu, in French in the text), I propose to yours reactions this text founded on the web when I was looking for something else. It is about isolationism, but more about intervention. “Soldiers, aim to the Heart”, Marshal Ney to his firing Squad.:sweatdrop:
“U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments---guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system---have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.
The U.S. national security state also has participated in destabilizing covert actions, proxy mercenary wars, or direct military attacks against revolutionary or nationalist governments in Afghanistan (in the 1980s), Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, East Timor, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Fiji Islands, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Iran, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Syria, South Yemen, Venezuela (under Hugo Chavez), Western Sahara, and Iraq (under the CIA-sponsored autocratic Saddam Hussein, after he emerged as an economic nationalist and tried to cut a better deal on oil prices).
The propaganda method used to discredit many of these governments is not particularly original, indeed by now it is quite transparently predictable. Their leaders are denounced as bombastic, hostile, and psychologically flawed. They are labelled power hungry demagogues, mercurial strongmen, and the worst sort of dictators likened to Hitler himself. The countries in question are designated as "terrorist" or "rogue" states, guilty of being "anti-American" and "anti-West." Some choice few are even condemned as members of an "evil axis." When targeting a country and demonizing its leadership, U.S. leaders are assisted by ideologically attuned publicists, pundits, academics, and former government officials. Together they create a climate of opinion that enables Washington to do whatever is necessary to inflict serious damage upon the designated nation's infrastructure and population, all in the name of human rights, anti-terrorism, and national security.”
You seem to forget the USSR. It was our goal to stop all USSR actions as covertly as possible. Half those "revolutionary or nationalist governments" were covertly funded and installed by the USSR, the other half were quite blatantly funded by them. You even say we tryed to destabilize afghanistan and yet you forget the USSR was invading it at the time. The last half of the century was spent battling the USSR in the cold war, or cleaning up the mess European colonies left when they hastily pulled out. Sadam Husien was only supported because the previous king that was quickly installed when the colony was abandoned was overthrown. Sadam Husien was the better of the men that tryed to take control. Considering Iran had just gone Theocratic and was beginning to fund and create terrorist groups of corse if he was anti Iranian we would support him. It would have been wonderful if the original king had maintianed power, he was quite benevolent compared to his replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The last half of the 20th century was a time of massive revolution and war. It is quite amazing that the USA managed to anchor it so it didn't completely slip off and go back into the dark ages. Proxy war's were fought by many European countries. France itself spent it squashing almost every rebellion that occurred in their colonies with the foreign legion (french can't fight). That quote is completely ignorant as to the history of the period it is describing, yes the USA had many proxy mercenary wars in many little known countries, but it was to prevent the greater evil of the USSR.
“You seem to forget the USSR. It was our goal to stop all USSR actions as covertly as possible. Half those "revolutionary or nationalist governments" were covertly funded and installed by the USSR, the other half were quite blatantly funded by them. You even say we tryed to destabilize afghanistan and yet you forget the USSR was invading it at the time. The last half of the century was spent battling the USSR in the cold war, or cleaning up the mess European colonies left when they hastily pulled out. Sadam Husien was only supported because the previous king that was quickly installed when the colony was abandoned was overthrown. Sadam Husien was the better of the men that tryed to take control. Considering Iran had just gone Theocratic and was beginning to fund and create terrorist groups of corse if he was anti Iranian we would support him. It would have been wonderful if the original king had maintianed power, he was quite benevolent compared to his replacement.
The last half of the 20th century was a time of massive revolution and war. It is quite amazing that the USA managed to anchor it so it didn't completely slip off and go back into the dark ages. Proxy war's were fought by many European countries. France itself spent it squashing almost every rebellion that occurred in their colonies with the foreign legion (french can't fight). That quote is completely ignorant as to the history of the period it is describing, yes the USA had many proxy mercenary wars in many little known countries, but it was to prevent the greater evil of the USSR.”
Hum, I didn’t, because as I said, it isn’t my writing.
However, I will answer to some points:
The Afghan Government asked the Red Army to intervene. “A number of theories have been advanced for the Soviet action. These interpretations of Soviet motives do not always agree--what is known for certain is that the decision was influenced by many factors--that in Brezhnev's words the decision to invade Afghanistan was truly "was no simple decision." Two factors were certain to have figured heavily in Soviet calculations. The Soviet Union, always interested in establishing a cordon sanitaire of subservient or neutral states on its frontiers, was increasingly alarmed at the unstable, unpredictable situation on its southern border. Perhaps as important, the Brezhnev doctrine declared that the Soviet Union had a "right" to come to the assistance of an endangered fellow socialist country. Presumably Afghanistan was a friendly regime that could not survive against growing pressure from the resistance without direct assistance from the Soviet Union.”
The Afghan Government was a legitimate one, well, recognised as such. So, technically, URSS didn’t invade Afghanistan, nor the US invaded South Vietnam.
The mess left by European was good enough, but the US didn’t clean it. They wanted just to take it over. Again see Vietnam.
Iran: When Mossadeq thought to nationalise Iranian Oil, well, a coup and hop, the Shah arise from ashes. “In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a British proposal for a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Mossadeq. Kermit Roosevelt of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) travelled secretly to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah and the Iranian military, which was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi. In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mossadeq. Mossadeq refused to step down and arrested the shah's emissary. This triggered the second stage of Operation Ajax, which called for a military coup. The plan initially seemed to have failed, the shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding. After four days of rioting, however, the tide turned. On August 19, pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces. The shah returned to the country. Mossadeq was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for trying to overthrow the monarchy, but he was subsequently allowed to remain under house arrest in his village outside Tehran until his death in 1967. His minister of foreign affairs, Hosain Fatemi, was sentenced to death and executed. Hundreds of National Front leaders, Tudeh Party officers, and political activists were arrested; several Tudeh army officers were also sentenced to death.”
So, it was looong before Khomeini… And the Shah was a bloody tyrant. Two bad don’t make one good, sorry.
Saddam Hussein didn’t take power over a king. He took power after his cousin Hassan Al-Bakr (who himself took power by a coup over President Arif.) in forcing him to resign.
About French Military History read more books. Especially the ones about Yorktown. If you want to go to insults just carry on and you will see the result. When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.
But, yes, the purpose of all these interventions was to stop Communism. So, now, we have Religious Fundamentalism. Better.
The Cold War paradigm your describing is on its way out. It has been said numerous times by this administration that...oh hell what's the quote...basically that we won't install and support dictators because they might be less of a threat to us than the alternative. The CIA is also not once what it was and doesn't have the will or ability to act as they did.
Just because the above quote deserves a smoting of its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You might want to be careful with comments such as this. A good number of Americans have fought and have been killed defending others so that they could live in freedom.
Combat deaths alone total just over 400,000 for the Conflicts of the 20th Centrury.
Edit: Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2.
That is quite a funny remark, I wonder, does the spirit too travel northwest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I am from the US, Vermont to be exact, and I favor interventionism to a point. I don't think we should have our hand in everyone's business, but I think we should definately be involved in global issues and do more about atrocities such as the genocide in Darfur. We should be very careful about when and how we get involved in something though.
I believe in an intervention policy when we are either A. Stopping a genocide B. attacking someone who has invaded a close ally (like if Iran invade Israel) or too stop supporters of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Personally i don't agree with invading countries for the sole purpose of installing democracy because no matter which country it is, democracy will only stand when the citizens of the country are willing too defend it. Who are we to force the native people of dictatorial state to suffer a war then leave them to pick up the pieces just for a government that could easily be exploited, Would it not be better to wait for the dictator to die or use economic sanctions instead? Or wait for the people to rise up on there own. Plus there is a fact if we invaded every dictatorship in the world we would be constently at war and maybe fold under the econmic presure.
I thought it was pretty funny too.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Geist flies Singapore Air and Zeitgeist flies Lufthansa. Neither would be caught dead on an American airline as the flight attendants are too old and fat.
You offer nothing in between. Therefore Gah. Foreign policy always requires both intervention and measured isolation. We have to pick our battles wisely (next time).
edit: Good topic by the way. I look forward to reading everyone's replies when I have time.
“Edit: Its also interesting to note that more Americans died in combat during WW2 then did French soldiers. If one wants to weigh out the stastics of WW2.”:
Well, I don’t deny that, did I? What I am sick of is the insult to the French who died in combat. During the five weeks of the battle of France, during these 45 days of fight, 150.000 men were killed in total (92.000 French 58.000 Germans) plus 300.000 injured. The daily losses of the Wehmacht were higher than the Russian Front from 22nd of June to December 1941. Does one person think that the Russians were cowards? When in the Kasserine Pass, the US troops routed, leaving by the way the French and the English completely vulnerable, do I say that the US soldiers are cowards? No. To be defeated in battle happened and happens. It doesn’t mean that the men who lost were cowards.
My intention in this quote wasn’t to insult or deny the US involvement or fighting spirit. I just reacted to unprovoked insult.
As proved by YOUR own reaction when you thought I was offensive, you can imagine what I felt.
“Combat deaths alone total just over 400,000 for the Conflicts of the 20th Centrury.” 1.600.000 French soldiers killed are just for ONE conflict of the 20th Century. And again, I don’t want to compare or say that the French are better because they lost more people. It was just the “French can’t fight” which was too much of insult, considering this kind of figures. My Grand parents and father were partisans during the 2nd World War, then my father went in Vietnam (Indochina, at this time) then Algeria, plus unknown others operations, so I felt insulted by this kind of prejudices.:furious3:
And in being insulted about a comment you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Just thought I would reply with facts about Americans have fought and died so that others can be free, not just our own nation.
“you decided to attempt to smear the dead of all countries who fought and died so that others can be free.” Did I? I just inform a person that French Soldiers died in one war to defend their country, showing great spirit of sacrifice, courage, fighting spirit and with their blood and flesh, they stopped the aggressors. To say that isn’t to deny the lost of others countries like England, Portugal, Russia Serbia, Italy and others which fought alongside France. I never ever attempt to smear the dead of any country… You decided I did. But in none of my words I did it.
By the way, a lot of countries fought for others’ freedom, France included. That is why France declared war to Germany when Hitler attacked Poland. Do you deny the fact? The French (and English) government, unprepared as it was, remembering the blood bath of the WW1, unwilling to send their youth to a new massacre decided that enough was enough and Hitler should be stopped. I could easily pretend that YOU are denying this fact, which you didn’t.
So, let’s be clear. If I don’t appreciate the actual US policy (more how they doing it) I know what US did in the past. And others.
Sure you did - your words belie what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.
400,000 Americans have died in combat to defend others and to regain freedom for other nations. You might want to check your words a little more carefully.
So you did attempt a smear wether you want to recongize it at all. Then again both of my grandfathers fought in the World War, to be exact I should also count the great uncle who also fought in France as an Armor Platoon Leader. Oh and their are others in the family that served during the war some fighting in the Pacific some fighting in Europe. However both Grandfathers took battlewounds that took a while to recover from. Two of my Greatgrandfathers fought in WW1, helping France and England to defeat the Germans. Then there are the Uncles and Cousins that fought in Korea and Vietnam. Then there is the fact that my brother and I both fought in Desert Storm. So maybe you might want to consider your words a little more carefully. There is only one way to take your above statement, and that is a besmerch of all Americans who fought, took battle wounds, and died for others. Wether that was your intent or not - that is what the words state.
And neither did I deny the contributions of others as you accurately noted, nor have I ever denied that other nations bleed far worse during the World Wars then the United States. I was responding soley to your attempt to besmerch the war dead of the United States.Quote:
By the way, a lot of countries fought for others’ freedom, France included. That is why France declared war to Germany when Hitler attacked Poland. Do you deny the fact? The French (and English) government, unprepared as it was, remembering the blood bath of the WW1, unwilling to send their youth to a new massacre decided that enough was enough and Hitler should be stopped. I could easily pretend that YOU are denying this fact, which you didn’t.
Then maybe you should chose your words a little more carefully then.Quote:
So, let’s be clear. If I don’t appreciate the actual US policy (more how they doing it) I know what US did in the past. And others.
I was refering to the period of 1950-2000, the last half of the 20th century. There were no world wars during that period. The french after the debacle in vietnam started using the French Foriegn Legion more and more. To avoid killing frenchman when smashing any revolt in their colonies.Quote:
Originally posted by Brenus
About French Military History read more books. Especially the ones about Yorktown. If you want to go to insults just carry on and you will see the result. When 1.600.000 US young men will be killed in defending their lands and freedom, come back to speak.
You seem to be forgeting that the overwelming majority of the populace did not support the government there, so no it was not legitimate. The USSR came in to squash all resistance to their puppet government they help install and support.Quote:
The Afghan Government was a legitimate one, well, recognised as such. So, technically, URSS didn’t invade Afghanistan, nor the US invaded South Vietnam.
Get your time periods correct, I wasnt arguing that frenchmen didn't die in WWII briefly defending their country.
Enough is enough.
USA didn’t fight to defend or free others.
Fact: USA was attacked by Japan (Remember Pearl Harbour?). Hitler declared war to US.
Fact: in 1939 UK and France were the only countries which declared war to Hitler’s Germany after Poland’s invasion, risking their freedom and their soldiers for something they could have ignored, like they did previously. France paid the price for that.
French troop fought in Korea as well so did the British, Turks, and other nations. It was a UN mission.
I went personally in 3 wars and was injured in one; my brother went as blue helmet and went for other operations, the kind you can’t speak about. To give you the list of my ancestors and relatives who fought of France will be too long. Don’t patronize me. I was also a professional soldier.
You might want to check your words a little more carefully.
“400,000 Americans have died in combat to defend others” they defend themselves first. “They help to liberate others” was the consequence of the first goal. History is history.
“your attempt to besmerch the war dead of the United States” I don’t. I am tired to hear and to read mostly US people to besmirch the French dead. So perhaps my answer was too harsh but it wasn’t in my intention to be ungrateful. However, I won’t accept the “we free you all” because that wasn’t true.
“The french after the debacle in vietnam started using the French Foriegn Legion more and more. To avoid killing frenchman when smashing any revolt in their colonies.” You should read a little more about the Foreign Legion. 60% of the legionnaires ARE French.
After Indochina, the last colonial war was in Algeria. The French sent the conscripts. The Legion was hardly the majority.
The Legion is part of was before the Colonial Troops, as well the Tabors, Goum, Infanterie de Marine etc. That is why you find in proportion, more Legionnaire involved in over sea operations and conflict. It is also the only unit which could be deployed without a vote in the French Parliament. That could explain why you got this impression.
“I wasnt arguing that frenchmen didn't die in WWII briefly defending their country” That was my impression. And you seem to forget, or you ignored, that the French FFL fought all the war alongside the Allies, from Bir Hakeim to the Carrigliano, until the landing in Provence and finished in Germany. You can add to this the FFI, FPTF and other movement of resistance which paid a heavy price when doing it.
“Get your time periods correct,” Get the facts correct.:laugh4:
Well at least the remaining 40% know how to fight. Zing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Stop getting worked up about a little sarcasm back in #41 and get back on topic. France, thru circumstance has made itself eligible for the stereotypical, cant fight zing. Stop hijacking the thread with a history of French military accomplishments.
“Well at least the remaining 40% know how to fight.” After a French Training under the command of French officer... Zing!
All right, I won’t answer to any provocations…:2thumbsup:
When considered as absolutisms, neither is a viable base for a foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Ever since the days of George Washington they have been two competing currents of thought in American foreign policy. It is remarkable how it is still applicable to present day American politics. Interesting is also how favoring either of the two historically transcends left/right boundaries.
Also, it is quite unique to America. One huge nation, unchallenged on it's own continent, semi-autarchical, it has the option of choosing between isolationism or interventionism.
It does lump in an awful lot together: free trade vs. protectionism; unilateralism vs. alliances, international cooperation, the UN; American military involvement vs. a wish not to become entangled in foreign affairs to name a few.
Judging from what I know about you, from the above you'd pick: free trade, unilateralism, and military interventionalism to protect American interests. With two out of three, that should make you an interventionalist.
Last I checked it was illegal for French citizens to join the French Foriegn Legion. To join they would have to lie and deny being French (usually canadian). French citizens must join the french army. Feel free to correct that if I'm wrong Louis VI.Quote:
Originally posted by Brenus
You should read a little more about the Foreign Legion. 60% of the legionnaires ARE French.
Most of the training for the French Foriegn legion is done by veterans of the French Foriegn legion, so it would be foriegners training them. There's a good documentary the discovery channel did following a group of recruits through the French Foriegn Legion, and the lead instructor was about as southern as you could get.Quote:
After a French Training under the command of French officer... Zing!