Should the US just pack their bags and let the world burn?

Coriolanus

Just wondering what AH thinks. Would the lefties in particular really want the US to pull all military forces back home and pretty much go back to a non-interventionist policy?
I'm wondering what kind of consequences we might see. Would the world be a measurably better place?
I personally don't think so. The US may be a tarnished white knight but the devil you know etc. Though that could well be merely because Europe hasn't been on the sharp end of the US' stick for quite some time and it colours my vision.

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man

Who are the US to decide they have the right to invade and bomb.

Who made them kings of the world.

DrumSteve

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man wrote: »

Who are the US to decide they have the right to invade and bomb.

Who made them kings of the world.

Leonardo diCaprio I believe.

Daegerty

I think the world is going to burn whether the US bother packing their bags or not

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

It wouldn't take much to convince the rabid half of the US that Europe needs to be dealt with. they have a smoldering resentment of pretty much every country in the world that dares have any sphere of influence.

Their dealings in the middle east have been a spectacular failure which is causing all sorts of trouble for us these days and no end in sight.

they f*cked over south America and there are places that may never recover.

If they got their leadership sorted and properly marginalised the radicals in their country they could do a lot of good. but thats never going to happen.

whiteonion

No, it wouldn't be better.

What's right wing about government funded public sector programs like military interventions? This is just an America version of "jobs for the boys".

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

whiteonion wrote: »

What's right wing about government funded public sector programs like military interventions? This is just an America version of "jobs for the boys".

Because you can fist pump and say **** yea! and ooohrahh!

It's all very manly and only a sissy would oppose it.

strobe

I think all that 'the lefties' want is for them to operate legally and withing the jurisdiction of the UN of which they are a signed member.

helimachoptor

Honestly I think they should. All these crazies go on about America interfering etc but only because America is pretty much the only country with the ability to stage a successful military intervention. The Uk, France etc aren't anywhere near the level of the USA and never will be and it will take years before china has the same ability. I'd be happy for them to pull back just to shut people up.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

America first invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in response to the September 11th attacks. They haven't captured the man responsible, have created humanitarian disasters in the countries invaded and have in no way diminished the threat of terrorism. So no I don't feel that American intervention has been for the best.

Scarydoll

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man wrote: »

.

Pics or GTFO

Amerika

Oh bother!

How typical... Hate America until you need their help.

jimthemental

Amerika wrote: »

Oh bother!

How typical... Hate America until you need their help.

I disagree, pack your bags!

Captain Darling

Amerika wrote: »

Oh bother!

How typical... Hate America until you need their help.

Fcuk yeah!

Eric Cartman

No, it wouldn't be better.

Im a right wing capitalist, despise the looney left but even I say pull out of everywhere, there was no need for the US in afghanastan, iraq, vietnam and potentially world war 2. they should just sit there and defend themselves and not invade any country for any other made up reason which is a fancy way of saying 'we want oil'. they should also gtfo of ireland at shannon, radar installations etc... , remove all their military bases and radar towers etc from around the world and just keep to themselves, they are not so important or necessary that they need military intelligence gathering in other countries

twinytwo

Nevore wrote: »

Just wondering what AH thinks. Would the lefties in particular really want the US to pull all military forces back home and pretty much go back to a non-interventionist policy?
I'm wondering what kind of consequences we might see. Would the world be a measurably better place?
I personally don't think so. The US may be a tarnished white knight but the devil you know etc. Though that could well be merely because Europe hasn't been on the sharp end of the US' stick for quite some time and it colours my vision.

well considering that a lot of the **** going on around the word has directly or indirectly been caused by america....

If they actually helped a country for the sake of helping them rather than doing so to look after themselves, people might not be so hostile to them/

dan719

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im a right wing capitalist, despise the looney left but even I say pull out of everywhere, there was no need for the US in afghanastan, iraq, vietnam and potentially world war 2. they should just sit there and defend themselves and not invade any country for any other made up reason which is a fancy way of saying 'we want oil'. they should also gtfo of ireland at shannon, radar installations etc... , remove all their military bases and radar towers etc from around the world and just keep to themselves, they are not so important or necessary that they need military intelligence gathering in other countries

Are the US the only country that have intelligence gathering capabilities on foriegn soil? Would the removal of all troops and military hardware mean that NATO would cease to function? What about US battleships stationed off Somalia to combat piracy? Send them back to New England?

Does every country have to obey these conditions or just the US?

That you think American intervention in WWII was perhaps unnecessary and then say that they should 'just sit there and defend themselves' suggests you didn't think that post through. Should the US leave all alliances with countries such as Britain wrt defence and so on?

Manic Moran

the lefties in particular really want the US to pull all military forces back home and pretty much go back to a non-interventionist policy?

The righties in the US wouldn't mind that either.

There's more than a few people asking what the US interest is in being 'neutral, but sorta kindof not' by being active in Libya.

The rebels are asking Britain/France to do more precision airstrikes. Britain France are asking other NATO powers to provide more oomph. The US, the nation best suited to provide that oomph, is wondering why the MidEast/Arab nations don't get involved. The MidEast/Arab nations are wondering why they should get involved.

Is there an issue with this picture?

NTM

PeakOutput

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

have in no way diminished the threat of terrorism.

oh really? has there been a terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11? I was pretty sure there hadn't been. thats ten years. in the ten years before 9/11 there were at least two major attacks on the us by muslim fundamentalists that I can think of

The Waltzing Consumer

It's very easy and handy to pick on the USA for these things. Why? Cause you can, you can do it here, you can do it in the US. They are so horrible that you can dissent all you want and protest all you want and they will protect with all those pesky human rights and bill of rights.

Why do people not create these threads about Russian and Chinese interference and their foreign policy? Well, simple, they don't allow dissent. They kill journalists, they kill civilians, they crack down on protesting, they will throw you in jail etc. Two much more brutal regimes who will persecute their own citizens and foreign citizens yet silence on that. Why? because it is much easier to moan about the USA because you CAN.

And this is why we see millions of people trying to escape the USA and head to China and Russia for a new life every year...oops, no, no they don't.

dan719

Manic Moran wrote: »

The righties in the US wouldn't mind that either.

There's more than a few people asking what the US interest is in being 'neutral, but sorta kindof not' by being active in Libya.

The rebels are asking Britain/France to do more precision airstrikes. Britain France are asking other NATO powers to provide more oomph. The US, the nation best suited to provide that oomph, is wondering why the MidEast/Arab nations don't get involved. The MidEast/Arab nations are wondering why they should get involved.

Is there an issue with this picture?

NTM

But Libya has been Sarkozy's (and to a lesser extent Cameron's) baby since the word go. Whether the motives for that are an upcoming Presidential election in the fifth republic or oil isn't really relevant.

Personally I don't agree with intervention in Libya at all. The rebels are disjointed, militarily impotent and politically naieve. Not the kind of people you want to be providing air support to (let alone arming) in a region traditionally hostile towards the west.

Terry

No, it wouldn't be better.

Modern day empire, and all empires fall.

I've been saying for years that there is no need to invade countries under dictatorships. If the people of these countries want it badly enough, they will fight for it themselves.
Yes, civil war is inevitible in situations like this, but it's better than being bombed to crap by a foreign army with drones being operated from a base in Utah or somesuch place.

Egypt and Tunisia did it. Libyans are trying (with NATO aid) and The Ivory Coast (flag stealing bastards that they are) are trying (without NATO aid, but they have no oil, so they're ****ed).

Oh yeah, Yemen too. Quite a lot of oppressed people around the world are now rising up, but it's not because of the Yanks. It's because of the internets. They can see how good we have it in the West (and we do have it good, you whiny little Celtic Tiger cubs).

The Waltzing Consumer

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

and have in no way diminished the threat of terrorism

As much as it pains me to say it, you are completely wrong. Post 9/11 saw a dramatic reduction in the amount of wars occuring around the world, it saw groups like ETA and the IRA finally giving up the gun because of the zero tolerance approach Washington took. Far less groups are engaged in terrorism because of the threats of the Americans to any country that support them financially or otherwise. You are completely wrong and I hate that

PeakOutput

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

As much as it pains me to say it, you are completely wrong. Post 9/11 saw a dramatic reduction in the amount of wars occuring around the world, it saw groups like ETA and the IRA finally giving up the gun because of the zero tolerance approach Washington took. Far less groups are engaged in terrorism because of the threats of the Americans to any country that support them financially or otherwise. You are completely wrong and I hate that

it pains you and you hate the fact that terrorism has been reduced because it was the americans that did it? Now THAT really is ridicolous

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

It's very easy and handy to pick on the USA for these things. Why? Cause you can, you can do it here, you can do it in the US. They are so horrible that you can dissent all you want and protest all you want and they will protect with all those pesky human rights and bill of rights.

Why do people not create these threads about Russian and Chinese interference and their foreign policy? Well, simple, they don't allow dissent. They kill journalists, they kill civilians, they crack down on protesting, they will throw you in jail etc. Two much more brutal regimes who will persecute their own citizens and foreign citizens yet silence on that. Why? because it is much easier to moan about the USA because you CAN.

And this is why we see millions of people trying to escape the USA and head to China and Russia for a new life every year...oops, no, no they don't.

What.. in fairness has the fact that you can demonstrate against the US got to do with the atrocities they carry out?

The Waltzing Consumer

PeakOutput wrote: »

it pains you and you hate the fact that terrorism has been reduced because it was the americans that did it? Now THAT really is ridicolous

No it pains me because the president with the lowest IQ in their history did it.

The Waltzing Consumer

RichieC wrote: »

What.. in fairness has the fact that you can demonstrate against the US got to do with the atrocities they carry out?

Well not much. But atrocities happen in any war no matter how noble and righteous the cause. So what has that got to with anything?

IveSeenFire

The most impressive thing about american foreign policy is that after periods of appalling fiascos/failures, it has the ability to cleanse itself with outward thinking leaders like Obama. Lets not forget Bush was the most disasterous and damaging leader anyone could ever have even imagined, but he was especially bad. And then there's the Jews, with which the Americans have an overriding obligation to support unconditionally due to their massive influence. Of course they should withdraw from the Middle East- And if they do so theyll leave a less western sympathising arab world then the one they entered, but an isolationist approach? No. They did that pre WW2 and everyone wanted them back.

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well not much. But atrocities happen in any war no matter how noble and righteous the cause. So what has that got to with anything?

Just wondering what you were thinking there.. seems like a strange argument to me.

Besides, the US has a long history of oppressing it's people.. look back to the civil rights era, cointelpro... were was their freedom of speech? you actually think it's changed?

Terry

No, it wouldn't be better.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The righties in the US wouldn't mind that either.

There's more than a few people asking what the US interest is in being 'neutral, but sorta kindof not' by being active in Libya.

The rebels are asking Britain/France to do more precision airstrikes. Britain France are asking other NATO powers to provide more oomph. The US, the nation best suited to provide that oomph, is wondering why the MidEast/Arab nations don't get involved. The MidEast/Arab nations are wondering why they should get involved.

Is there an issue with this picture?

NTM

They're wondering why they should because they (the ones with the power to act) have lots of oil.
They don't have to give a crap at the moment.
If they really cared about their neighbours, they'd have taken Iran out by now.

The Middle East and North Africa may be predominantly Muslim, but this has little to do with Islam. The only people who believe it does are the zealots in each particular country. The rest of the people want what we have in the West, without puppet governments being forced upon them by the West.

Saila

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man wrote: »

Who are the US to decide they have the right to invade and bomb.

Who made them kings of the world.

naivety is strong in this one

Mr. Presentable

No, it wouldn't be better.

Short term no, but long term, people will sort their shtuff out. The USA will turn out to be among the shortest lived empires in history, IMO.

The Waltzing Consumer

RichieC wrote: »

Just wondering what you were thinking there.. seems like a strange argument to me.

Besides, the US has a long history of oppressing it's people.. look back to the civil rights era, cointelpro... were was their freedom of speech? you actually think it's changed?

Eh yeah, it has. It would have been more progressive in its civil rights era then China and Russia are today. I am not saying it's perfect but the world has a choice to who is the unofficial world police, it will be America, China or Russia, that's just the way it is. Hope it changes but that has not happened. Who would you pick?

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Eh yeah, it has. It would have been more progressive in its civil rights era then China and Russia are today. I am not saying it's perfect but the world has a choice to who is the unofficial world police, it will be America, China or Russia, that's just the way it is. Hope it changes but that has not happened. Who would you pick?

Europe.

Phill Ewinn

In before the Israeli debating starts

noxqs

No, it wouldn't be better.

We have the UN for a reason.

The US is directly responsible for a lot of the dictatorships that is and were in the last 80 years. They trained the Al Qaeda, they support the Saudi Arabian ruthless control of their population (look up Saudi religious police). They support anything which gives them more oil, only using 'human rights' and 'freedom' when its convenient.

They're hypocrites and can not be trusted on their own as history has shown, if they want to intervene, let it be through the UN.

The Waltzing Consumer

RichieC wrote: »

Europe.

Ha, you are avoiding answering the question. Europe is not in the equation as a superpower. I am guessing by you not actually answering the question, I have proven my point to you. Thanks

mikemac

Not the worlds policeman.
This might sound selfish or even short sighted but if I were in Detroit or any depressed city in the early 90's and struggling with unemployment I would be wondering why send troops to Somalia and get troops killed, not our problem to solve issues in other continents. Spend the money on US citizens, healthcare and welfare needs funding.

What is so wrong with being isolationist?
The US leaderships first responsibility is to their own citizens.

noxqs

No, it wouldn't be better.

Europe is a super power, it is the worlds largest economy. But it is a divided power, but I trust Europe so much more. We have had so much bloodshed on our soil. We know the true price of war.

Even Ireland has had their share of conflict.

The US is glorifying war as some kind of action movie with ultimate Good and Bad. Black and White. It is disgusting.

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Ha, you are avoiding answering the question. Europe is not in the equation as a superpower. I am guessing by you not actually answering the question, I have proven my point to you. Thanks

We have the UN, we just need to abolish the veto.

sellerbarry

I, for one am happy that we have the USA to sort out the looneys on this planet.Just say for example that north korea lost the plot and attacked us. What would we do? Throw bottles of bulmers at them?

Saila

feelingstressed wrote: »

Not the worlds policeman.
This might sound selfish or even short sighted but if I were in Detroit or any depressed city in the early 90's and struggling with unemployment I would be wondering why send troops to Somalia and get troops killed, not our problem to solve issues in other continents. Spend the money on US citizens, healthcare and welfare needs funding.

What is so wrong with being isolationist?
The US leaderships first responsibility is to their own citizens.

there is only so much oil in the us

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

sellerbarry wrote: »

I, for one am happy that we have the USA to sort out the looneys on this planet.Just say for example that north korea lost the plot and attacked us. What would we do? Throw bottles of bulmers at them?

France and England would probably stone age the motherfu*kers with their nuclear arsenal..

noxqs

No, it wouldn't be better.

sellerbarry wrote: »

I, for one am happy that we have the USA to sort out the looneys on this planet.Just say for example that north korea lost the plot and attacked us. What would we do? Throw bottles of bulmers at them?

Do you honestly think the world would sit idle ? You don't need the US to help you with that. The UN would be bombing Kim Il Jong back to the stone ages before you could even shout 'jaysus'. Japan, South Korea for one would be all over them.

You do know that we have treaties etc in Europe/The World to deal with these kind of things right. Maybe neutral countries never signed on to them but nevertheless they are probably grandfathered in since most of Europe is in NATO and other treaties, plus, various other agreements.

Pfft. The world would not sit idle without the US. The only reason they have that perception is because they're involved in Every. Single. Armed conflict.

Terry

No, it wouldn't be better.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

In before the Israeli debating starts

In before someone points out that you should really read the thread before trying to be funny.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71720323&postcount=28

Terry

No, it wouldn't be better.

RichieC wrote: »

We have the UN, we just need to abolish the veto.

French delegate: We move to condemn the actions of Israel with regard to their continued land grabbing in Palestine.

U.S. delegate: Veto.

Two days later;

Spanish Delegate: We move to wag a finger at Israel over their bombing of a school in Gaza. 37 children and two teachers were kil......

U.S. delegate: Veto.

Later that day. U.S. delegate checks bank account. Thank you AIPAC.

Bannasidhe

Nevore wrote: »

Just wondering what AH thinks. Would the lefties in particular really want the US to pull all military forces back home and pretty much go back to a non-interventionist policy?
I'm wondering what kind of consequences we might see. Would the world be a measurably better place?
I personally don't think so. The US may be a tarnished white knight but the devil you know etc. Though that could well be merely because Europe hasn't been on the sharp end of the US' stick for quite some time and it colours my vision.

When exactly did the US actually have this supposed non-interventionist policy? Was it when their political philosophy of Manifest Destiny gave them the 'right' to push westward to the Pacific regardless of the people who lived in that territory? Or was it when they invaded Mexico (remember the Alamo!)? Or perhaps it was when the Monroe Doctrine justified meddling in South America?

US advocacy of Non-Interventionism was nothing more than a bit of early 20th century political rhetoric.

RichieC

No, it wouldn't be better.

Terry wrote: »

French delegate: We move to condemn the actions of Israel with regard to their continued land grabbing in Palestine.

U.S. delegate: Veto.

Two days later;

Spanish Delegate: We move to wag a finger at Israel over their bombing of a school in Gaza. 37 children and two teachers were kil......

U.S. delegate: Veto.

Later that day. U.S. delegate checks bank account. Thank you AIPAC.

Pretty much spot on.

Manic Moran

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When exactly did the US actually have this supposed non-interventionist policy? Was it when their political philosophy of Manifest Destiny gave them the 'right' to push westward to the Pacific regardless of the people who lived in that territory? Or was it when they invaded Mexico (remember the Alamo!)? Or perhaps it was when the Monroe Doctrine justified meddling in South America?

US advocacy of Non-Interventionism was nothing more than a bit of early 20th century political rhetoric.

The immediate pre-WWII period saw an extremely strong isolationist movement. There's a reason that the US was a bit of a late arrival to the festivities.

We have had so much bloodshed on our soil. We know the true price of war.

What sort of daft comment is that? If one wants to argue that the US is being a little over-liberal with its military, surely the result of that is that the US has more recent experience of war than most others? What is the Irish Army's equivalent of Korea, the German army's equivalent of Vietnam, the Italian Army's equivalent to Somalia or the Belgian Army's equivalent to the Beiruit bombing?

I've not looked up the figures, but would you care to bet against more US soldiers having come home in body bags since WWII than every country in the EU combined?

NTM

Killer Wench

Americans shall remember this thread when Ireland gets invaded by Nigeria or Spain.

You just wait.

CommuterIE

The United States has helped Europe a lot... and to all the idiots out there who suggest, or even have the dam right ineptness and stupidity to suggest that Americas involvement in WW2 was not needed, it was fundamental to success!!!!