Getting involved in Libya

The military forces in Europe are also not bankrupting the countries. European countries know what war is because they have seen their cities destroyed by war! The US spends more then the rest of the world combined on it's military. The 50,000 plus names on the Vietnam memorial are men and women of my age who never got to live a full life because of a stupid war. I was drafted in 1965 and spent my army time in Europe. My brother was drafted a month latter and spent his time in Vietnam on helicopter gun ships. He made it back. My parents did not know what to do with both sons in the army in a time of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freein05

The military forces in Europe are also not bankrupting the countries. ... The US spends more then the rest of the world combined on it's military

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military... I would probably agree with many of those comments.

---

Perhaps there is a middle ground between overspending and impotency.

[QUOTE=Iris lily;16391]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

I saw this today regarding thoughts on Libya. It reminded me of the Simple Living forums over the years.

---

OMG yes. I am bent over with laughter! That's SLN logic at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

Oh puh-lease. For 15 years we've had Europeans voicing their criticism of US global policy and military actions, often in harsh and quite impolite terms. That fine, it's an open forum and everyone has an opinion. But to get your panties in a bunch over a comment that EU attempts to project military force are "inept" is pretty lame and a complete over reaction that seems to have more foundation in a cultural insecurity than offensive language. "Inept" is not a character assessment, so save the stories of the Blitz 70 years ago. The sun has long since set on the British Empire and in referring to the EU's ability to impose a no fly zone in Libya I used the word inept, which means

Inept

1: lacking in fitness or aptitude
3: not suitable to the time, place, or occasion

I stand by my point- the EU military forces are not nearly as effective as US forces in true conflicts. Yes, the French flew some sorties. But the hard missions and over 90% of the initial strikes were handled by US forces. So drop the misplaced indignation and face the facts. You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military. You can criticize the US for intervening where you think we should not. I would probably agree with many of those comments. But in the case of Libya, it's a fair criticism that the EU lacks an effective capacity to intervene where it politically thinks it should. And as a result the US gets pulled in to a deeper role than perhaps it otherwise would if the EU militaries weren't, well, so inept at such things.

---

Here's a first. We actually agree on something.

The morality of war as developed by royalty and “legalized” by the UN. (UN sanctioning killing these foot soldiers but not Gaddafi)

Economic sanctions are generally no better because they result in the death and suffering of thousands of those with the least in the countries being sanctioned.

It’s time to focus extreme prejudice on those that deserve it the most, and not their underlings, nor their captive citizens. The 21st century seems to give the term "Executive Privilege" a whole new meaning.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41...home/Libya.gif

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

Perhaps there is a middle ground between overspending and impotency.

---

Perhaps someone can explain to me whose military they think is going to come attack the US. It's been 70 years since anyone did that.

Canada spends a small fraction of what we do for their military, yet when I go there I don't see people quaking in their boots worried that China or Libya or whoever is about to start bombing raids on Toronto or Ottawa.

Zig I like that and it is probably true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Perhaps someone can explain to me whose military they think is going to come attack the US. It's been 70 years since anyone did that.

Canada spends a small fraction of what we do for their military, yet when I go there I don't see people quaking in their boots worried that China or Libya or whoever is about to start bombing raids on Toronto or Ottawa.

---

Perhaps because of their next door neighbor.

I was a skinny kid in school, but my older brother was a giant. I never feared the bullies when he was around.

I found the statement about not killing Gaddafi curious. Why not? If we're willing to kill his followers, why not take out the source of the problem? I really don't understand this.
(I don't think we should be there at all, but just curious about that statement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyA

I found the statement about not killing Gaddafi curious. Why not? If we're willing to kill his followers, why not take out the source of the problem? I really don't understand this.
(I don't think we should be there at all, but just curious about that statement).

---

Do you really think it is wise to advertise it is fine to go about killing world leaders? I'm sure areas where he may be holed up are being targeted as "command and control centers" and if we happen to take him out in the process...

We banned the assassination of heads of state a long long time ago. I think that was a wise move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

Perhaps because of their next door neighbor.

I was a skinny kid in school, but my older brother was a giant. I never feared the bullies when he was around.

---

There are an awful lot of European and South American nations with similarly small militaries compared to the US, yet none of them seem to be living in perpetual fear of being invaded either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

There are an awful lot of European and South American nations with similarly small militaries compared to the US, yet none of them seem to be living in perpetual fear of being invaded either.

---

1. I don't know any Americans who live in perpetual fear of being invaded. And I live in good ol' redneck Oklahoma.

2. Same thing applies to the Europeans as to Canada. They know we got their backs. I don't know enough about South America to know their thinking, but I do know we wouldn't cotton to invasions in our own hemisphere.

"I don't know enough about South America to know their thinking, but I do know we wouldn't cotton to invasions in our own hemisphere." (The Storyteller)
---------------------------------------------------------
sorry........that one really made me laugh.....I guess you're right, if you don't count the many times WE'VE been the invader in South or Central America, or had our CIA in there meddling and helping folks get assassinated, etc. Heck, my sweetie was in Bolivia hanging out with the U.S. Special Forces and CIA guys who were leading the Bolivian military around pointing them to exactly where to kill Che Guevara.

we have such a long and sordid history of invasion ourselves in those areas that it's absolutely correct that we consider it our own particular fiefdom, and wouldn't tolerate somebody else coming in to invade those countries. (see the Monroe Doctrine). they are OURS to invade has been our attitude over these many, many years.........

So, Storyteller, I guess what you're saying is the only reason every country around the whole world isn't being invaded by, ummm, someone, not sure who, but someone, is because the US has military an order of magnitude larger than we need. Ok, got it.

I guess I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what country has a military that could likely launch a successful attack on US soil given that unless it was Mexico or Canada they'd need to be able to do so from an awful long way away.

WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.

Every DAY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IshbelRobertson

WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.

Every DAY.

---

My family (me and my lovely wife) give thanks every day for the Brits also. ;) If not for the British invasion in the 60's (music) and the British sitcoms, and the British actors, and the language, and the culture, and the example they set for the entire world - we would be a much lesser place. I also think the same of most of the rest of the EU.

I personally think we could learn much from the EU experience if we could just get over some of our "top dog" mentality.

I hope we get over our juvenile world dominance stuff before it comes back to haunt us.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IshbelRobertson

WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.

Every DAY.

---

Some of my uncles never made it back from helping you sort things out over there during WWII. One of my grandfathers never went more than 30 miles from his house once he returned, he had such a fun time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

I guess I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what country has a military that could likely launch a successful attack on US soil

---

Wrong question to start with. Let's start with this- do you care about what happens to anyone but yourself? Even if you say no, is it possible that things that happen to other people can ultimately affect you in a way you care about?

Similarly, should the US care about anything that happens off US soil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

So, Storyteller, I guess what you're saying is the only reason every country around the whole world isn't being invaded by, ummm, someone, not sure who, but someone, is because the US has military an order of magnitude larger than we need. Ok, got it.

---

You got nothin'.

The reason they only feel the need for mediocre military is because of our military power. THAT is what I am saying. I said nothing about them being invaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

"I don't know enough about South America to know their thinking, but I do know we wouldn't cotton to invasions in our own hemisphere." (The Storyteller)
---------------------------------------------------------
sorry........that one really made me laugh.....I guess you're right, if you don't count the many times WE'VE been the invader in South or Central America,

---

Exactly. That's OUR job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

My family (me and my lovely wife) give thanks every day for the Brits also. ;) If not for the British invasion in the 60's (music) and the British sitcoms, and the British actors, and the language, and the culture, and the example they set for the entire world - we would be a much lesser place.

---

Yes, at least there's James Bond (or so my wife would say) and Monty Python to thank them for.

I'm only ragging on the Brits because some of them on these boards take such a superior attitude. They can snark about us, but first time someone mentions their second rate military prowess they pitch a hissy fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

I'm only ragging on the Brits because some of them on these boards take such a superior attitude. They can snark about us, but first time someone mentions their second rate military prowess they pitch a hissy fit.

---

I have had the pleasure of interacting with some British troops at training classes. They were first rate.

I have a friend who was on South Georgia Island with the Royal Marines when the Argentinians invaded. They were vastly outnumbered, and still managed to hold out admirably until their capture. They put an Argentinian naval vessel out of commission with smallarms...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I have had the pleasure of interacting with some British troops at training classes. They were first rate.

---

I'm sure they were. There just aren't enough of them nor are they sufficiently armed to be a true power.

So funny how these discussions evolve. So many straw men to be knocked down. Might help if folks commented on or took issue with what others actually say rather than what they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

So funny how these discussions evolve. So many straw men to be knocked down. Might help if folks commented on or took issue with what others actually say rather than what they didn't.

---

Good Observation, Storyteller!! In my case, I usually am saying something I want to share and try to tie it to the topic - I've never been that great of a listener. I have been trying to get better at that but old habits are hard to break. Do you know "Buster"? He is an Okie and you remind me of him.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

Do you know "Buster"? He is an Okie and you remind me of him.

Peace

---

Never met him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

Yes, at least there's James Bond (or so my wife would say) and Monty Python to thank them for.

I'm only ragging on the Brits because some of them on these boards take such a superior attitude. They can snark about us, but first time someone mentions their second rate military prowess they pitch a hissy fit.

---

Come on then name names. I'm following your advice and taking issue with what you said not what you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IshbelRobertson

WOW - we in Britain just give thanks daily that we have haven't been invaded because of our friends, the USA.

Every DAY.

---

Pity they weren't around when we needed them in 1066!

In a sense we have been invaded BY the US. The link below is the list of US Air Force Bases in the UK.

http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-...-are-the-bases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eggs and Shrubs

The link below is the list of US Air Force Bases in the UK.

http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-...-are-the-bases

---

You make my point beautifully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eggs and Shrubs

Pity they weren't around when we needed them in 1066!

In a sense we have been invaded BY the US. The link below is the list of US Air Force Bases in the UK.

http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-...-are-the-bases

---

If that could be considered an invasion, at least it was an invasion by invitation.

When the Europeans realized that the Treaty of Brussels, signed in 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, did not provide the military power needed to protect them from the Soviet Union, they began an active recruitment effort to bring the United States into their fold. This resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed the following year.

France eventually objected to being dependant on the US and withdrew from the alliance. I vividly remember Charles DeGaulle asking the United States military to leave France in 1966. We may be the only "invaders" in history that when asked to leave, simply did!

That was a win/win for him, he got to show his resolve and independence to his countrymen while knowing that France would remain under the protective umbrella that we extended over his neighbors. A brilliant move actually.

The rest of the European alliance has continued to depend upon NATO for their primary defense, seemingly gladly accepting the invited US presence in their countries. I wonder what would happen if the US backed out of their NATO commitment, which would then require the remaining European countries to fill the void?

Personally, I think it may be time to find out, especially if our purpose there has been forgotten by the locals and we're seen in the light of an invader rather than as an invited presence. It would certainly help our national debt as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Personally, I think it may be time to find out

---

My guess is that is inevitable. And the end of Pax Americana is in IMHO much more likely to lead to a nasty and brutish state of world affairs as rising powers compete for dwindling resources and regional hegemony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dharma Bum

My guess is that is inevitable. And the end of Pax Americana is in IMHO much more likely to lead to a nasty and brutish state of world affairs as rising powers compete for dwindling resources and regional hegemony.

---

A teachable moment for Europe, certainly. In a future likely to feature revanchist Russians, multiple strains of militant Islam and economic convulsions on the periphery, there may be hard lessons in store about the price of unpreparedness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

You got nothin'.

The reason they only feel the need for mediocre military is because of our military power. THAT is what I am saying. I said nothing about them being invaded.

---

Exactly. You said nothing about being invaded because it's pretty unlikely that most countries face the likelihood of being invaded by anyone, whether or not the US squanders hundreds of billions of dollars every year on our military.

And even if there was a risk to all these countries getting invaded by this unidentified invader, but they're only keeping a small military because we have a big one, then maybe if we shrunk our military and used our money on more worthwhile things all these other countries at risk of being invaded would then spend their own money on their militaries. Sort of the "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

And even if there was a risk to all these countries getting invaded by this unidentified invader, but they're only keeping a small military because we have a big one, then maybe if we shrunk our military and used our money on more worthwhile things all these other countries at risk of being invaded would then spend their own money on their militaries. Sort of the "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" concept.

---

You make my argument for me.

I'm actually in favor of overspending on our military. It is a massive jobs program and the only one the right seems to be able to get behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

A teachable moment for Europe, certainly. In a future likely to feature revanchist Russians,

---

Yes, I find Putin's recent saber rattling alarming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

You make my argument for me.

I'm actually in favor of overspending on our military. It is a massive jobs program and the only one the right seems to be able to get behind.

---

If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive, such as a massive wind and solar energy program to help reduce our reliance on middle east oil. If we didn't need their oil it would solve several problems. 1) We wouldn't need to meddle in their business so they wouldn't hate us so much. 2) They wouldn't get hundreds of billions in oil revenue from us to use buying more and more weapons to attack us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive, such as a massive wind and solar energy program to help reduce our reliance on middle east oil.

---

Or building roads, bridges, railways, ports, schools, hospitals, universities, daycare centers, dams, subways, giant particle accelerators, battered spouse shelters, ...

OK - if I could just say that Doc Martin has been my favorite recent invader...Is there going to be a season 5? Hows that for birdwalkin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

If the government must be involved in "jobs programs", which is a questionable idea all on its own, surely we could come up with something productive rather than destructive,

---

Oh, absolutely. That would be my preference. But you will never convince the right of that. I figure if the government is going to waste money on this anyway, at least put some people to work. Not only does it create jobs in the technology sector, but gives kids in poor areas a job and a way out of poverty.

And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now. And whether a particular war is truly destructive or constructive in the long term is often a matter of debate.

In any case, our friends across the pond need fear little as long as we continue our wasteful jobs program. They can continue to maintain their piddly, inadequate militaries, and we can continue to put people to work with ours. Win win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now.

---

No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.

Guns or butter...