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

Coriolanus · 15-04-2011 05:33PM #1

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 · 15-04-2011 05:35PM

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

Who made them kings of the world.

DrumSteve · 15-04-2011 05:37PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:38PM

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

RichieC · 15-04-2011 05:42PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:45PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:51PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:51PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:54PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:54PM

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 · 15-04-2011 05:59PM

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

.

Pics or GTFO

Amerika · 15-04-2011 06:01PM

Oh bother!

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

jimthemental · 15-04-2011 06:17PM

Amerika wrote: »

Oh bother!

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

I disagree, pack your bags!

Captain Darling · 15-04-2011 06:20PM

Amerika wrote: »

Oh bother!

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

Fcuk yeah!

Eric Cartman · 15-04-2011 06:21PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:21PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:28PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:38PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:43PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:44PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:46PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:47PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:48PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:50PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:51PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:51PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:53PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:56PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:57PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:57PM

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 · 15-04-2011 06:57PM

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

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

Should the US just pack their bags and let the world burn? 76 votes

Comments