| Forum Index > Closed |
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:01 Pro gamer registerin wrote: Ofcourse! I studied Fox News college . what the hell is "Singapore" anyway? Obvious troll is obvious. User was warned for this post | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On September 09 2012 00:56 Pro gamer registerin wrote: are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch. I pray that he's being sarcastic/ironic. If not, that's the final straw, and I'm leaving this fucking place. | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On September 08 2012 23:09 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Well just to take out a piece of your sentence, Iraq was invaded under false pretense (watch the family guy episode earlier in the thread, that is exactly how it went down) and even though the director of the FBI and many other intelligence communities agreed Iraq had nothing to do with it, Iraq had one thing going for it... It was raising the price on oil by a dictator America put in place to keep those prices down. Vietnam was at first a realistic objective that simply wasn't planned well enough nor prepared for thoroughly enough and when the States had the ability to evacuate all military forces before it escalated any farther coincidentally JFK was assassinated during the time he was pulling troops out. Then the invasion went up a few notches and shit really hit the fan so no this wasn't "unjust" similar to iraq and arguably it was the right call at first but the continuation of conflict, mainly done not for the people but for the ever growing power struggle of the Cold War, was a bad call and they lost because of it. Afghanistan is another really hard to explain attack path (especially since it was invaded years after raping Iraq) but to boil it down the States were in the Middle East to stay and they did stay, if any nation should have been invaded it was Saudi Arabia or Pakistan but neither are viable targets economically or any other form so they picked the next best thing This leads to Rwanda, similar to all conflicts America fights for "freedom" they tend to leave out that they only police the world when they have something (usually major, oil/position) to gain. Rwanda was the prime example of the American government going "nothing here but poor black people, move along" where as Libya or Syria all have either strategic applicability or resources worth the "revolutions". Hope that clears some things up The Iraqi Baath party was modeled after Stalin's school of communism, and the regime was put to power and supported by the Soviets. Most vietnamese americans seems to have the opinion that they were abandoned when USA withdrew, and they are all speaking from personal experience or based on what their parents or grandparents went through. When USA withdrew, masses of vietnamese ppl ran towards the airports and harbors, to try and escape the country. They were terrified of the so called "independence movement of Vietnam". Your opinion, that they weren't fighting for the Vietnamese ppl during the end of the war is dead wrong. What makes Vietnam complicated is the fact that the french were there long before, and this meant that they generally looked upon white ppl with suspicion. But the Soviets always operated under the radar, by scouting for ppl like Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung and Mao Zedong, and then funding them into power, on the condition that they became Stalin's bitch. Because of this, the US struggled much more in Vietnam than they did in Korea. A significant majority of the vietnamese didn't trust USA because they were white, but they supported the side supported by the Soviets because they didn't know that they were involved. Stalin was a megalomaniac, and one of the greatest military and power strategizers in history. That was a lethal combination that lead to the death and suffering of over half the globe. Saudi Arabia is pretty much allies with USA. They have a lot of stuff they need to improve, but they are not an aggressive power. Because USA already has influence there, and because they are rather peaceful, there's no reason to invade them. With Pakistan it's similar, although the relationship have soured lately, mostly because Pakistan went behind their backs, for instance by trading with North Korea. I agree that USA have been biased in helping nations that actually matters for the global economy, but I think it's unfair to blame them for that. They can't save the world and they need to find ways to prioritize. Also, if you compare Iraq with Rwanda, Iraq was much more stable and organized, and the iraqi ppl was much more educated. What this means is that it's easier to build up a stable and fair regime in Iraq, and that's another reason why they were a better target. It's because of these reasons that they are struggling so much with Afghanistan. The more civilized (educated) the ppl of a country is, the easier it is to build a stable regime. | ||
|
Jkerz
19 Posts
On September 08 2012 13:33 Voltaire wrote: Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country. Ya... This is just wrong. Al Qaeda was formed to resist the Soviet occupation of Afganistan, not because of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. supplied Al Qaeda with weapons and supplies specifically to fight the Soviets because of our stupid ass Cold War. After the Soviets left we thought that Bin Laden would be cool with us coming in, but guess what, he blew us up with our own weapons. As for U.S. military occupation, I think you're scale is really polarized. Slightly to drastically? You don't allow any middle ground. Of course U.S. occupation has to be reduced, but pulling all of our troops out of everywhere would be both impratical and a giant shitshow. Keeping quick reaction teams stationed in hot spots is just smart. As a sidenote, I would love for the military to send some of their budget NASA's way... | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51431 Posts
| ||
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
And the army is not entirely useless: it creates jobs, makes for a great arms industry and sometimes even contributes to other industries and science. Also gives political leverage, makes it easier to claim resources, and can be used to fight a variety of threats, such as a hostile regime, a rebellion, an alien invasion ... I'd be all for reduction, but have no idea how I'd go about that and how I would redirect the money and resources to something productive. Maybe with lots of infestors and neural parasite. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On September 08 2012 14:25 Silidons wrote: The problem is that the corporations that make military equipment have huge pulls in Congress because they "donate" money to people who will vote for things that would make them even more money...and if you ever said you want to reduce military spending, then you're labled "anti-patriotic" which is just stupid. Sadly this about sums up the issue. Corporations are the ones really controlling the US government. Doesn't matter if a Dem or Rep is President because Congress is merely a puppet being controlled by big business and certain special interest groups, while the cries of their constituents largely go unanswered. Man I hate politics in the USA. So yes the US government should drastically drop its presence worldwide. It's not our job to police the world, and I am sure many countries and millions, possibly billions, of people would be happier if we weren't toting our big guns everywhere. However, good luck getting that accomplished for the aforementioned reasons. | ||
|
Pro gamer registerin
15 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:14 Tanukki wrote: Certainly all that spending on the army seems like a waste, then again there hasn't even been a proper war in my lifetime, so what do I know. And the army is not entirely useless: it creates jobs, makes for a great arms industry and sometimes even contributes to other industries and science. Also gives political leverage, makes it easier to claim resources, and can be used to fight a variety of threats, such as a hostile regime, a rebellion, an alien invasion ... I'd be all for reduction, but have no idea how I'd go about that and how I would redirect the money and resources to something productive. Maybe with lots of infestors and neural parasite. Do you have any idea how much of supply depots(zero. i mean overlords) you would need for 350 milions infestors? | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
Don't mind him  I bet he doesn't even had the slightest idea what capitalism means not to speak about communism.On topic. While current US military presence outside its boundaries doesn't have a good justification from an economical point of view (budget) it's still the main way US can project its agenda around the globe (lets not forget about the nuclear submarines and carriers also) As long as military presence outside its borders serves a major goal (whatever it may be), those troops will still be there. And since currently there are no "defined" imba enemies, their presence can be mostly seen as a deterrence, for now, a sort of a "scarecrow". | ||
|
BaltA
Norway849 Posts
| ||
|
Ren91
United Kingdom190 Posts
| ||
|
Mo0Rauder
Canada182 Posts
The Iraqi Baath party was modeled after Stalin's school of communism, and the regime was put to power and supported by the Soviets. I'm just your average Canadian, but wasn't the Baath party funded and armed by the CIA? The soviets attacked the middle east, and they were driven out by American-funded Arab forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, no? I'm pretty sure that's how it went down. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:19 BaltA wrote: Why so many in Germany??? Why don't you read the thread and find out??? | ||
|
cekkmt
United States352 Posts
| ||
|
Dice17
United States520 Posts
On September 08 2012 13:23 Dfgj wrote: Most of these are remnants from prior conflicts. They do provide some amount of stabilizing force for some areas that are quite important politically/economically to the U.S., and that's probably why they're still there. I dont think previous wars has anything to do with it. Both of those countries or not like they use to be when we were at war with them. Also the soldiers in Korea and Japan could be linked to the tension between North Korea and South Korea. As for the troops in Germany I really dont understand that | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:45 cekkmt wrote: From a US economic standpoint, if all these troops were to come home, what would they do? It may be screwed up, but them returning home means the soldiers are out of a job. The US market isn't exactly overflowing with jobs right now. I think you are mistaking pulling troops back with sending to retirement There's plenty of stuff where previously deployed troops can contribute (major hell yeah for the engineering core) like building roads/bridges/etc effectively doing something good for da nation. I'm not an US citizen btw | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:06 Jkerz wrote: Ya... This is just wrong. Al Qaeda was formed to resist the Soviet occupation of Afganistan, not because of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. supplied Al Qaeda with weapons and supplies specifically to fight the Soviets because of our stupid ass Cold War. After the Soviets left we thought that Bin Laden would be cool with us coming in, but guess what, he blew us up with our own weapons. As for U.S. military occupation, I think you're scale is really polarized. Slightly to drastically? You don't allow any middle ground. Of course U.S. occupation has to be reduced, but pulling all of our troops out of everywhere would be both impratical and a giant shitshow. Keeping quick reaction teams stationed in hot spots is just smart. As a sidenote, I would love for the military to send some of their budget NASA's way... You're getting Al Qaeda confused with the mujaheddin. The mujaheddin was created to resist the Soviet occupation. Al Qaeda is a completely different group. Another thing, people keep mentioning that North Korea would completely destroy South Korea if we pulled out. That's a complete lack of respect for the South Korean military. They would be able to defend themselves for long enough for the US to send reinforcement troops from the US mainland. We don't need troops RIGHT there just in case something happens. North Korea's army is very poorly trained and equipped; the South Koreans would easily be able to defend themselves until NATO reinforcements arrived. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:49 Dice17 wrote: I dont think previous wars has anything to do with it. Both of those countries or not like they use to be when we were at war with them. Also the soldiers in Korea and Japan could be linked to the tension between North Korea and South Korea. As for the troops in Germany I really dont understand that The tension between the Koreas is a remnant of a prior conflict. As is the infrastructure in Germany - and Japan and Germany have limits on their military sizes, so the U.S. may see value in bolstering their numbers. On top of that, it takes a fair amount of people to maintain naval/air bases (essential for actually projecting force) so that the U.S. can be able to deploy abroad. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
| ||
|
cekkmt
United States352 Posts
On September 09 2012 01:55 HomeWorld wrote: I think you are mistaking pulling troops back with sending to retirement There's plenty of stuff where previously deployed troops can contribute (major hell yeah for the engineering core) like building roads/bridges/etc effectively doing something good for da nation. I'm not an US citizen btw Normally yes, but although the US economy is slightly recovering, those jobs aren't readily available. Post war recessions occured after WW1 and WW2 due to the influx of new laborors to the markets that were returning home from deployment. Another 100k+ people returning from abroad would not help reduce local unemployment. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
HomeStory Cup
HomeStory Cup
SOOP
Oliveira vs Trap
HomeStory Cup
StarCraft2.fi
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
BSL: GosuLeague
Sparkling Tuna Cup
StarCraft2.fi
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
