Printable View
Remember when intervention in Syria was about the chemical weapons.
There was a serious outcry from the public and congress. No Troops On the Ground!
The military was not real happy about it either.
No one was really pleased with the prospect of sending arms either. Why arm potential enemies?
And there was no sure way of knowing who we might be giving them to.
But: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...#disqus_thread
I have to say that I'm disappointed. After Bush 43 left the office I thought "that's it, we've hit the rock-bottom". Clearly I was mistaken: Obama is a bigger idiot than Bush.
They should rather invade Ukraine.
They should invade China and Russia at the same time. That would at least be dynamic. Live betting on WW3...
"Americans are now pushing on the left side and, oooh, my God!!! What a move by Petraeus! Truly one of the all time greats... Americans have Russians on the defensive and this thing seems as good as over. But, what's this?!!! The Chinese are moving in. Amazing footwork by Fang Fenghui. Do we have a new star? This reporter certainly thinks so. We'll be back after these messages."
Wondermous! Yes, let's please get into this business again.Quote:
Among options is supplementing the Central Intelligence Agency's limited, covert arming and training program for moderate rebels by creating a parallel training mission led by U.S. Special Operations forces.
There's a civil war going on between a partly mad group of rebels and a power-mad dictator who has shown he will take any measure necessary to remain in power.
If the worlds military powers didn't have plans ready to step in when necessary, it would be negligence bordering on the insane.
Reminds me of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2gJamguN04
Either way, if ~50% of Americans (re-)elected Bush and the other ~50% of Americans (re-)elected Obama and both Bush and Obama are idiots, does that mean that ~100% of Americans want an idiot to (continue to) lead the country? Is that another one of these "let's make the government as inefficient as possible except when it comes to spying and killing"-ideas?
What is the criterion for this step? When exactly is it necessary for me and/or my children to risk life on the other side of the world? Furthermore, why is all on the worlds military powers, and why do they have the right/obligation to step in. Why don't Scandinavian countries become military powers and step in.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Argh, things get a little more serious when your children have to sign up for selective service. Makes me want to pick up my second amendment weapons and start changing governments.
Ooh, than it's gonna get interesting. Than the poor joke I made may very well become a reality...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
IMO, the criteria was met years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker Below
Tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It's more of an "idiot vs bigger idiot" kind of thing. I can't stand Obama, but I could not allow Romney anywhere near the Oval Office. We'll persevere through Obama; we've persevered through worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Plus - America always has a plan to kill everyone. Literally - they have a plan to invade the UK, and one to Nuke us.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Aren't we special?
Not too much. As I understand it, the Pentagon has contingency plans for invasions, interventions and strikes for most of Europe, The Americas, The Middle East, Large swaths of Asia and a few spots in Africa. Some of those contingency plans are probably a bit out-dated but I am sure there is a protocol to dust them up every so often and re-work them. This is what professional staff weenies do. REMFs ftw!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That's what military strategists are supposed to do. Having an "in case stuff" plan for any possible situation is the smart thing to do. The way they set up their colonial empire through military intervention, corporations and the monetary system allowing the dollar to become the economic frankenstein it is to day is much more frightening IMO. And let's not forget the spying and their overflowing prisons, and also the invention of bogus diseases like ADD (and forcing medication for their treatment on children)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Supposedly the UN has the global police function, but as we have seen in the past, when the USA breaks the rules no one dares DO anything. Because they can't. No one can win a war versus the USA, even the entire world combined. At best, they can be confined to their home continent or MAD can be achieved through WMDs. At worst, the vastly superior US navy would dominate international waters and trade, thus suffocating their major competitors.
So from a position of power, the USA knows that it's the biggest kid on the block, by far, and so it can bully whomever it wants.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, however much we throw our weight around over little disputes, we just aren't conquerors -- except on a cultural/economic level (with all respect to Civilization gamers, btw, the USA exported culture is anything but highbrow. We export culture like Coca-Cola, Budweiser, t-shirts as fashion, over-priced sneakers, and enough Hollywood action movies so that the entire world now knows the upthrust middle finger gesture). Might make us the worst of all things -- a busybody do-gooder who won't quite see things through to completion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Come to think of it, maybe it would be kinder if we used bombs and old-school imperialism.
Conquering is so 19th century. In the 20th, installing puppet regimes who quelled all opposition was all the rage. Nowadays, it's about persuading a country that by being a puppet they're getting more liberties and wealth, so they apply for the position themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If you get more liberties and wealth, then are you really a puppet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It was more of a joke, but, yes, it's possible.
Indentured servant enjoys more liberties than a slave.
And how does that apply to states?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
They're making our country better! Quick Mostafa, get the bomb belt!!
There are different levels of exploitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
A crude example, there's a patch of sand somewhere in the world. Tomorrow oil is found. A foreign country comes over there and starts drilling. Out of the oil taken the residents of the patch of sand get 20% and the foreign country 80%. The residents of the patch of sand are infinitely richer than they were, yet it's still exploitation by the foreign country.
I don't see what is so difficult to grasp about the concept.
That's a bad example. Oil is almost universally taxed at around 90%. Oil creates extreme wealth for all countries it is found in, and the vast majority of the wealth stays with the country it is found in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The reason why it so rarely benefits the general population is due to corruption by national officials. You can't blame BP for their scams.
It's not about specific examples, it's about principle. Use oranges and orange juice. Raw and dried vegetables.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Of course, and I wholeheartedly agree with the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Yes, speaking as a Civ 5 player - America is on the way for a Cultural victory and probably can get a Warmonger one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
However, let's not kid ourselves - you're not conquering en masse not because of the goodness of your hearts (not speaking for the general US population, we're talking the guys who run the show) but because unless it's very isolated local conflicts and there's a lot of propaganda set up beforehand ("Quickly! Kill Saddam because he has chemical weapons and he may soon have nucular weapons!") then you would be stepping on some toes you'd rather not be stepping on. That Russia and China can't invade your home continent due to their inability to power project past your awesome navy doesn't mean they can't reduce the United States to a nuclear wasteland.
As much as we moan about nuclear weapons, they are the sole reason we haven't seen any war bigger than Iraq 1 and 2, and the marauding bands in Africa shooting each other with AK-47s. So now basically anyone who wants to increase his geopolitical influence and get richer has to play by the rules. Sort of.
Some truth there. Remember, however, that many of our elected leaders do have a bit of a "Do-gooder" streak in them. It's a cultural value and elites are also enculturated -- they don't get to stand back from the cultural process and use it solely as a tool for the plebs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
I can take the rest, but that Budweiser..Its just too much to bear or was it beer? :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I've never tasted bear urine, but I would not be entirely surprised at the connection. Bud would qualify as a WMD if we were dropping it on the locals. I have heard that it is --gasp! -- actually purchased by those overseas. WALSTIBQuote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
People do strange things for certain..But rice in the beer. If it is hard combination for a Finn as myself who would probably drink that Bear piss if it had enough alcohol in it.Just wait for the "real beer" Europeans to even see the word Budd... unless it is followed by Budvar ..~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I am a Guiness fancier, myself. Belgium, England, and Germany have a few good ones. A few of the pilsner types from other places are good. And Tsing Tao goes great with anything that has dark soy sauce in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Beer? Bleh. I'd sooner chew glass than drink that vile concoction.
Hands down the worst beer in the USA is Bud Light. I can't claim i've drank them all, but all the major brands available in Massachusetts I have. Your beers are much more watery than what we have over here. And any lager is more watery than traditional ale.
The best lager i've had is probably in a pub that brews its own here in Bulgaria, located in a very, very small mountain town. The best ale I've had is called The Landlord, I've had it in the UK (East Midlands). Also Old Speckled Hen, but tap, not the bottled stuff from Tesco. Guiness is classic too, but I think I had a better dark ale in Warwick, can't remember the name. In the USA, the tastiest beer for me was corona + lime, though I considered it more like a Bacardi breezer type cocktail than actual beer.
Corona with lime (Mexican by the way, not USA) is a "beach" beer. I am okay with lagers, but prefer ales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
rvg, I cannot concur. I would suggest just ordering the ice tea -- ground glass will not do good things for your tummy.
Nice. Locally brewed is always better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I can't say I agree. Most of them taste real bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
You can't go too much wrong with most of Czech, German, Dutch and Belgian beers.
The worst beer is natural light. Hands down.
Budvar Dark is probably the best session beer I've ever tasted. Or would be, if it were common enough to qualify as session. Failing that, there are a number of commonly available (in English pubs at least) English ales that are flavourful enough to be interesting and weak enough not to floor you over a session (typically 4.5-5.5% ABV).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha