|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Oct 17, 2011 15:31:39 GMT -5
Isolation doesn't work unfortunately. We learned that during the World Wars. We don't bother to help and then the shit ends up on our doorstep in a bad way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 17, 2011 15:48:21 GMT -5
Isolation doesn't work unfortunately. We learned that during the World Wars. We don't bother to help and then the shit ends up on our doorstep in a bad way. Dealing with enemies, especially those that have the ability to project power into your neighbourhood and generally ruin your day for the sake of protecting your economic and strategic interests is not the same as actively pursuing guerrilla forces that reside on a completely separate continent and have no means nor desire to have anything to do with you in terms of the occasional round of fisticuffs for the sake of morals. Do try not to confuse the two. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 17, 2011 16:04:00 GMT -5
Like fucking clockwork. (WARNING - Link contains picture of victim mutilated by the LRA, namely his/her nose was cut off) Rush Limbaugh takes the bait on the LRA being Christian and all: Of course Rush will NEVER admit to being wrong. Even when he does find out the atrocities the LRA has committed. Bullshit. He knew exactly who they were, or one of researchers did. He's been called on supporting a murderous terrorist group for tribal reasons, and he's making a non-apology apology. Bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Oct 17, 2011 18:48:44 GMT -5
The difference between US foreign policy and King Midas: everything we touch turns to shite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 17, 2011 19:05:53 GMT -5
The strange thing about the Lord's Resistance Army is that its political agenda is as random as its military tactics. It's regarded as a Christian militia, but it also has aspects of Acholi nationalism. Its leader, Joseph Kony, calls himself God's spokesman and claims that spirits from God communicate this message to him. (He's also thought to have over 60 wives and 42 children.) He just seems to be using whatever justification he can for fucking with Uganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 17, 2011 19:31:43 GMT -5
Isolation doesn't work unfortunately. We learned that during the World Wars. We don't bother to help and then the shit ends up on our doorstep in a bad way. Dealing with enemies, especially those that have the ability to project power into your neighbourhood and generally ruin your day for the sake of protecting your economic and strategic interests is not the same as actively pursuing guerrilla forces that reside on a completely separate continent and have no means nor desire to have anything to do with you in terms of the occasional round of fisticuffs for the sake of morals. Do try not to confuse the two. Now you're splitting hairs. Japan theoretically wasn't in our strategic interest if we stayed the fuck out of it, but that's not how it worked. Vietnam theoretically was, but that was a giant failure when we went in. Plus, what is "strategic interests"? If I help set up that state, or increase my image in the international POV, am I not protecting my strategic interests? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 17, 2011 19:45:14 GMT -5
Japan most certainly was in America's strategic interest to deal with because it was actively threatening both US naval supremacy and control over the Phillipines. Uganda on the other hand is neither a threat nor is it economically worth it to get involved militarily. The same goes for whatever "good guy" point America stands to gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by banjaxed on Oct 17, 2011 23:01:37 GMT -5
Japan most certainly was in America's strategic interest to deal with because it was actively threatening both US naval supremacy and control over the Phillipines. Uganda on the other hand is neither a threat nor is it economically worth it to get involved militarily. The same goes for whatever "good guy" point America stands to gain. Uganda does have a lot of natural resources such as copper, gold, cobalt, and oil to name a few. Also, considering there has been large Chinese investments in neighboring countries, there is a cynical point you could make about how the US is doing this to gain a good economic deal with Uganda. Although that runs the risk of making one look a little a nutty. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 18, 2011 7:43:34 GMT -5
Japan most certainly was in America's strategic interest to deal with because it was actively threatening both US naval supremacy and control over the Phillipines. Uganda on the other hand is neither a threat nor is it economically worth it to get involved militarily. The same goes for whatever "good guy" point America stands to gain. Uganda does have a lot of natural resources such as copper, gold, cobalt, and oil to name a few. Also, considering there has been large Chinese investments in neighboring countries, there is a cynical point you could make about how the US is doing this to gain a good economic deal with Uganda. Although that runs the risk of making one look a little a nutty. Good luck getting those resources from a country that's about as stable as a fat guy on stilts riding a unicycle. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 19, 2011 0:29:11 GMT -5
1. How do you judge what's "worth it"? Is it worth going to war just to maintain the biggest seadick?
2. Another interesting point you inadvertently bring up is that the people judging strategic interest might not be the best at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 19, 2011 10:09:13 GMT -5
@ those who have derailed the thread to debate the morality of military interventions against dictatorships:
You've brought up something very interesting. The conservatives and the war-hawks know that the Axis Powers of World War II could not have been stopped by anything but all-out war, and, more importantly, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that nowadays Germans are terrified of any Nazi symbolism and Japan has (rather hypocritically, IMHO) become quite anti-war. It is quite reasonable to assume that since military force turned extreme dictatorships into peaceful democratic societies then, that it would work in other circumstances. Thing is, this strategy never worked again, at least not in places that are large enough to really matter in global events.
It failed in Vietnam, it's failing in Iraq, and it would likely fail anywhere else we try it, and I would like to know why. I have never received an answer to this question that satisfies me. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 19, 2011 10:18:28 GMT -5
@ those who have derailed the thread to debate the morality of military interventions against dictatorships: You've brought up something very interesting. The conservatives and the war-hawks know that the Axis Powers of World War II could not have been stopped by anything but all-out war, and, more importantly, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that nowadays Germans are terrified of any Nazi symbolism and Japan has (rather hypocritically, IMHO) become quite anti-war. It is quite reasonable to assume that since military force turned extreme dictatorships into peaceful democratic societies then, that it would work in other circumstances. Thing is, this strategy never worked again, at least not in places that are large enough to really matter in global events. It failed in Vietnam, it's failing in Iraq, and it would likely fail anywhere else we try it, and I would like to know why. I have never received an answer to this question that satisfies me. Any thoughts? Hmm, in those cases. The "police action" cases. We weren't using our full conventional power. We obliterated Germany and Japan, we don't want to obliterate these small countries. It would look even worse for PR. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 19, 2011 10:20:54 GMT -5
Hmm, in those cases. The "police action" cases. We weren't using our full conventional power. We obliterated Germany and Japan, we don't want to obliterate these small countries. It would look even worse for PR. So it's damned if we do, damned if we don't, then? I've been suspecting that. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 19, 2011 10:27:49 GMT -5
Well, the way I understand it, it wasn’t a matter of the US necessarily using “full power” during the aftermath, so much as taking the opportunity during post-war reconstruction to instill a cultural guilt-complex.
But, yeah, the police-action thing thing does discourage even this. It makes things informal and reduces the legitimacy of sticking around long enough for this kind of thing to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 19, 2011 10:45:07 GMT -5
Well, if you see me on this board arguing that we aren't using enough force against the people we are at war with, now you know why. As various generals have said, "War is hell."
|
|
