Bigmouth

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Also, American forces are operating under the strictest and most complex rules of engagement in their history which ties their hands and limits their ability to fight effectively.

You're kidding right? The USA never obeys any rules. It enforces "Laws" on other superpowers but behaves as the unquestionable Bigboss and makes it's own decisions. USA intervenes in foreign politics when it likes and attacks other nations when it sees fit. Its the most war-loving-country in the world!! Its business interest lies in war. Why do you think the US invests the lions share of it's tax money in warfare?

For the record, I think America should have kept an isolationist stance and never entered into any foreign wars, inlcluding WW2. Should have left Europe on its own. We have only ever gotten grief and criticism ever since.

That must be a joke too. If America didnt get involved in WW2, it would not be a superpower today. Scientists from all over the world and especially those fleeing from the Nazis collected in America. So this way, USA got the most valuable brains of the world. Also consider the German gold, where do you think it ended up? And then again, the two Atomic Bombs dropped by USA on quiet civilian Japanese cities, caused quite a sensation. It shocked the whole planet and scared the shit out of all other nations. It also triggered the nuclear arms race. So, America had everything to gain from World War II.

[Ogryn1313]

I'm too sick to argue my stance right now.

I know we made gains from involvement in WW2. It helped us go to the moon. A lot of good came of it.

None of which, in my opinion, was particularly worthwhile. Superpower status? Whoopty doo. Who needs to be a superpower? It just means you're the big dog on the porch. Nazi Gold? We did take some of the wealth. Spoils of war. That's how it goes. But a large chunk of it sits in Swiss bank accounts or is unaccounted for.

Nuclear arms race? Phooey. All that did was make some people rich, terrify millions for decades, and gave the world a weapon nobody wants to use.

If, being isolationist, meant America didn't achieve great things like going to the moon, being a superpower, so be it. I see no use in opening up to other nations because what we could gain we could likely gain ourselves through other means. I'm an American. I live in America. As such, my priorities lie with my nation and countrymen. All other nations and its people are secondary considerations.

That's my belief. Every nation should be more concerned with itself than others. Europe is constantly holding America up to its standards and the Euro-elite embrace a borderless world concept. But everyone is involving themselves in one another's issues and problems. Including America. And that in itself is the source of much of the world's troubles.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

the Euro-elite embrace a borderless world concept.

What concept is that?

[Ogryn1313]

Some of the higher ups in various European nations and institution favor the notion of a world without borders. It's evident in some of the aspects of the European Union and such. To them, the world is better off without borders. Removing borders means no more national identity. It's also about greed and free trade.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Some of the higher ups in various European nations and institution favor the notion of a world without borders. It's evident in some of the aspects of the European Union and such. To them, the world is better off without borders. Removing borders means no more national identity. It's also about greed and free trade.

Ummm, have you heard the expression 'Fortress Europe'?

[sesame]

Anna, how come you know so much about weapons?

[Ogryn1313]

If not mistaken that expression applied to Hitler's Europe as it was fortified and defended against possible invasion. Which, naturally didn't help him.

Don't split hairs now. It's useless. I didn't say combat is going on but it isn't a war unless you simply apply the broadest definition to it. Which, if so, is in error. I call it what it is. When it was a war we established clear objectives. These were met. Major combat operations ended. It's not a "war" in the usual sense anymore. I contend America did win the "war" in Iraq. All objectives were met. One simply doesn't launch a war, win, then walk away. No, they stay behind, help rebuild, re-educate, provide security, keep things from falling apart. Which is what we now do there. Yes, we're being shot at and taking shots. But it isn't war as most define it. There are different types of military actions.

You simply don't get it Anna.

I said it is akin to a peace keeping force. We are on the side of the Iraqis. We liberated them from Saddam. And want them to have their own stable government. To that end we are trying to help keep it going. Our original war enemy, the Hussein regime is defeated. We no longer have a clear enemy in Iraq beyond Al Qaeda. The true enemy there is the Iraqis themselves who wish to not get along and move their nation ahead but rather carve it up. In some ways we are caught in their crossfire. But if we left we'd be leaving it worse than we found it.


Anna, I think you are being too black and white on this, focusing on a small picture instead of the whole picture. I'm looking at everything when I discuss such matters. So forgive me for being argumentative and annoying.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

If not mistaken that expression applied to Hitler's Europe as it was fortified and defended against possible invasion. Which, naturally didn't help him.

Don't split hairs now. It's useless. I didn't say combat is going on but it isn't a war unless you simply apply the broadest definition to it. Which, if so, is in error. I call it what it is. When it was a war we established clear objectives. These were met. Major combat operations ended. It's not a "war" in the usual sense anymore. I contend America did win the "war" in Iraq. All objectives were met. One simply doesn't launch a war, win, then walk away. No, they stay behind, help rebuild, re-educate, provide security, keep things from falling apart. Which is what we now do there. Yes, we're being shot at and taking shots. But it isn't war as most define it. There are different types of military actions.

You simply don't get it Anna.

I said it is akin to a peace keeping force. We are on the side of the Iraqis. We liberated them from Saddam. And want them to have their own stable government. To that end we are trying to help keep it going. Our original war enemy, the Hussein regime is defeated. We no longer have a clear enemy in Iraq beyond Al Qaeda. The true enemy there is the Iraqis themselves who wish to not get along and move their nation ahead but rather carve it up. In some ways we are caught in their crossfire. But if we left we'd be leaving it worse than we found it.


Anna, I think you are being too black and white on this, focusing on a small picture instead of the whole picture. I'm looking at everything when I discuss such matters. So forgive me for being argumentative and annoying.

Umm, Iraqis primary desire is to get the Americans the fuck of thier soil. Even the puppet government the US installed has called on the US to get out.

Americas primary aim is strategic dominance of the middle east.

You are the one who doesn't get it, open your eyes, the USA didn't invade Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqis, they went to control the region, they now have Iran surrounded and have control of one of the world largest oil fields. They are constructing permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have Iraqi oil under control of US companies and they have forward bases to strike Iran or Syria.

Lets focus on the whole picture, the US invaded Iraq why? To find the WMDs? no. they always knew there were none. To get Al Quieda? no. There were no Al Quida cell in Iraq before the invasion. Because of 9/11? no. There were no links at all. To liberate the Iraqi people? Lol, that's a goo one. To overthrow a dictator? no, they are usually good friends with dictators. So why? Oil is one reason, strategic control of the middle east is another, Iraq was the weakest of the hostile countries there, so to take it over then use it as a forward base against the other countries seemed a good idea, a way to give government money to rich people is nice incidental factor, there's more I can't think of now.



Oh and the term Fortress Europe is currently used to refer to EU methods of stopping illegal immigrants from outside the union. There is free movement within the EU, but the outer borders of the EU are more impenetrable than ever. It's certainly no borderless world concept, any more than the USA is.