01 Apr 11
America is on a very wrong path in the Middle East. There is far too much American military involvment in that area, and it needs to end very soon. America does not have the resources to engage in one "police action" after another, nor is it advisable. Most people in the Middle East have a rather low opinion of America in general, and further military action will only aggervate an already difficult situation. I had hoped President Obama would have learned from the mistakes of George W Bush on this subject, but his action in Lybia shows that he has not.
It seems every time there is trouble in the world America seems hell bent on military action in nearly every case. This is not only unnecessary, but is fast becoming something the American taxpayer can no longer afford. It makes even less sense considering the record deficits the American government now has to pay.
America needs to be an equal partner with other nations to solve the problems of piracy and terrorism, rather than being the nation bearing most of the cost and manpower of military intervention, while America's "so called " allies play minor roles, and applaud from the sidelines.
America is digging a deeper hole for itself in the Middle East and around the world with far too much military intervention, the cost in dollars equipment, and lives is becoming too great and cannot be sustained. America needs to withdraw it's troops from the Middle East, South Korea, and other places around the world, and insist other countries play a larger roll in solving there own problems.
I am confident there will be cries from our beloved right wing calling me "soft on terror, "soft on communism", "soft on piracy", soft on ......I would point out to these misguided people if they are indeed gung ho on policing the world, they get off there collective butts, join the Army, and do something about it. I did, from 74-78. No wars at that time of course, but I did my part. I wonder how many "armchair generals" in the Republican ranks that are so keen to send in the troops, have served themselves? I'd guess the percentage is rather low!
😏
01 Apr 11
Originally posted by bill718Congratulations on finding a window in which America had no significant wars for you to get trampled in.
America is on a very wrong path in the Middle East. There is far too much American military involvment in that area, and it needs to end very soon. America does not have the resources to engage in one "police action" after another, nor is it advisable. Most people in the Middle East have a rather low opinion of America in general, and further military action ...[text shortened]... the troops, have served themselves? I'd guess the percentage is rather low!
😏
Never mind the lessons of George W - have the US learned the lessons of George III yet? (No, obviously).
01 Apr 11
Originally posted by finneganUmmm...yes...beat up the people across the water = USA WINS
Congratulations on finding a window in which America had no significant wars for you to get trampled in.
Never mind the lessons of George W - have the US learned the lessons of George III yet? (No, obviously).
(even if it's just the Rio Grande)
Originally posted by bill718That's entirely because your population is so much bigger than anyone else in NATO. Let's look at casualties in the War in Afganistan:
America needs to be an equal partner with other nations to solve the problems of piracy and terrorism, rather than being the nation bearing most of the cost and manpower of military intervention, while America's "so called " allies play minor roles, and applaud from the sidelines.
The United Kingdom has about 1/5th of the population of the United States. During the War so far in Afganistan the U.S. has lost 1,431 people. The U.K. has lost 362, which is just under 1/4 of the U.S. total (22.36% ). Scaling that up to the size of the population the U.K. has actually lost more troops than the U.S.. Given the relative sizes of the economies and populations, then at least in terms of deaths Britain has done more and not less than the U.S.
Canadian casualties are 153, their population is one half of Britain's so they've contributed about the same, as least as far as casualties per capita are concerned. Denmark has had 40 troops killed, for a country of 5,500,000 that corresponds to more soldiers killed per head of population than either the U.K. or the U.S..
It looks to me as if, in terms of the cost that really counts it's being spread around pretty evenly. Your population is much higher than any of the world's major players except BRIC countries, and Japan and Germany whose defence policies are still strongly influenced by the aftermath of the second World War. Really apart from India, China and Russia no one else has that bigger armed forces. China's Army is huge, but they can't really project force far outside their borders, and the Russians were never going to be that exited about reentering Afganistan.
I find it offensive to hear words like '"so called" allies' when your 'so-called allies' are taking higher casualty rates than the U.S. is. As far as international policing is concerned, the U.K. and U.S. should expect this - we are permanent members of the Security Council - countries like Canada and Denmark aren't but despite that contribute forces and lives, without the benefits of permanent membership. Apart from that paragraph your points were quite good.
Figure's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan I took data from the column "Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country" I included deaths outside Afganistan related to the War effort there.
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWith hindsight I should have spent at least one paragraph talking about the huge numbers of casualties inflicted on the various populations that have had wars waged in their countries. I focused on Afghanistan because the figures were to hand. The Afghani security forces have taken the highest casualties of anyone in the coalition (7,500). I didn't mention them because the discussion was about contributions of Western powers to military operations in the Middle East, rather than the contributions of less powerful nations.
Comment on my own post immediately above
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI did not wish to suggest America's allies have not played an imporntant roll here. I was trying to point out America has too fast to resort to military action when it is not always advisable.
That's entirely because your population is so much bigger than anyone else in NATO. Let's look at casualties in the War in Afganistan:
The United Kingdom has about 1/5th of the population of the United States. During the War so far in Afganistan the U.S. has lost 1,431 people. The U.K. has lost 362, which is just under 1/4 of the U.S. total (22.36% ...[text shortened]... country" I included deaths outside Afganistan related to the War effort there.
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by bill718It was just that sentence I disagreed with. The U.K. has a long history of intervening where it probably shouldn't have, ditto France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, ....
I did not wish to suggest America's allies have not played an imporntant roll here. I was trying to point out America has too fast to resort to military action when it is not always advisable.
02 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseObama isn't a douche, that's an accusation which doesn't quite capture the nature of his shortcomings since being handed the keys of america's foreign policy vehicle. Obama is merely a weak leader, who easily succumbs to the popular opinion at home, which needless to say is largely manufactured by the vitriolic right-wing media.
Obama is a douche.
I'm starting to miss Bush's stand towards the Middle East.
The Obama administration should have made a clear and bold announcement of its desire to stay out of international disputes, and avoid the military entanglements its predecessors foolishly pursued. As we all know the administration's response to the turmoil in the middle-east was nowhere near as rational and prudent as this, but it could have been if only Obama had the will and determination to strike another match and start anew instead of following the long-established precedent of slipshod military adventurism with dubious purposes, oh well, these are pleasant expectations which should perhaps be reserved for the next President whoever he or she turns out to be.
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by generalissimoI personally think that Obama is getting some massive hookups from hawkish politicians behind the scenes for this.
Obama isn't a douche, that's an accusation which doesn't quite capture the nature of his shortcomings since being handed the keys of america's foreign policy vehicle. Obama is merely a weak leader, who easily succumbs to the popular opinion at home, which needless to say is largely manufactured by the vitriolic right-wing media.
The Obama administr ...[text shortened]... which should perhaps be reserved for the next President whoever he or she turns out to be.
04 Apr 11
Originally posted by bill718"America does not have the resources to engage in one "police action" after another, nor is it advisable"
America is on a very wrong path in the Middle East. There is far too much American military involvment in that area, and it needs to end very soon. America does not have the resources to engage in one "police action" after another, nor is it advisable. I had hoped President Obama would have learned from the mistakes of George W Bush on this subject, but his ...[text shortened]... the troops, have served themselves? I'd guess the percentage is rather low!
😏
Most likely true, especially when the actions are under the command of NATO or the UN.
"Most people in the Middle East have a rather low opinion of America in general, and further military action will only aggervate an already difficult situation."
Nonsense.
"is fast becoming something the American taxpayer can no longer afford. It makes even less sense considering the record deficits the American government now has to pay."
That might be true, if being inactive would help trim the military budget.
"America needs to be an equal partner with other nations to solve the problems of piracy and terrorism, rather than being the nation bearing most of the cost and manpower of military intervention"
There are no nations that could be "equal partners". Our Constitution doesn't even advise consultation with others. Congress bears the responsibility for declaring war and funding it.
" I had hoped President Obama would have learned from the mistakes of George W Bush"
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama seems to have learned little, and is doubling down on most of the worst Bush policies.