Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,495 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    The Waltzing Consumer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,948 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    In before the Israeli debating starts


  • Options
    #36
    noxqs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 412 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    The Waltzing Consumer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,948 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #38
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,967 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    noxqs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 412 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    sellerbarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 776 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Saila
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,751 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #43
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭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..


  • Options
    #44
    noxqs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 412 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #46
    Terry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,073 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #50
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


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

    You just wait.


  • Options
    #51
    CommuterIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭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!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    aligator_am
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭aligator_am


    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.

    I'd say that within 20 years or so the Americans won't be running the show, China are the one to watch, and I reckon they'll be dictating to all of us.


  • Options
    #53
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    CommuterIE wrote: »
    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!!!!

    So was Russia's participation.


  • Options
    #54
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The immediate post-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.



    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 in our lifetime 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 other country in the EU combined?

    NTM

    The immediate post-WWII period is better known as the Cold War - when US policy was the complete opposite of isolationism.

    If you meant the Post WWI period or Interbellum- then what about the Washington Conference of 1921/2- a so-called disarmament conference to which the Soviet Union wasn't invited and whose real purpose was to strangle Japanese expansion in the Pacific? Or the Dawes Plan of 1924 which aimed to stabilise the Germany economy with direct US financial intervention? The Young Plan- designed to replace the Dawes- became a victim the Crash of '29. After that the US had enough problems with its own economy to bother too much about the rest of the world but the period of isolationism which followed was less then 15 years duration. A political policy followed for 15 years or so by a country (and then with many critics) could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered that country's dominant philosophy.


  • Options
    #55
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    yanks need to be lied into wars now... gulf of tonkin... babies getting thrown out of incubators in Iraq... weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    they are I'd say pretty broadly isolationist, but the propaganda they are exposed to is phenomenal.

    though there still is the WASP element... bitter people who just love to rain terror down on others.


  • Options
    #56
    CommuterIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭CommuterIE


    RichieC wrote: »
    So was Russia's participation.

    The Americans sacrificed hundreds of thousands in that war... nobody gives a **** about the Russians because of Stalin... and the vast majority of Russians who supprted him... without America, we'd be speaking German now... thats a fact!


  • Options
    #57
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    CommuterIE wrote: »
    The Americans sacrificed hundreds of thousands in that war... nobody gives a **** about the Russians because of Stalin... and the vast majority of Russians who supprted him... without America, we'd be speaking German now... thats a fact!

    :rolleyes:

    Good luck to your argument.

    8 and 10 million souls... but they're just commies... GTFO.


  • Options
    #58
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,967 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    ...remember this thread when Ireland gets invaded by Nigeria.

    Take a drive around Dublin 15


  • Options
    #59
    CommuterIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭CommuterIE


    RichieC wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Good luck to your argument.

    8 and 10 million souls... but their just commies... GTFO.

    No you GTFO... the russians supported this idiot, and they paid the price dearly.... so don't spout this ****e


  • Options
    #60
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    CommuterIE wrote: »
    No you GTFO... the russians supported this idiot, and the paid the price dearly.... so don't spout this ****e

    Yeah -nothing like a trip to a salt mine in Siberia to garner support and if that fails just make it impossible for the population to leave and make a few of them disappear as an example to the others...
    At which point did the Russian people get a choice?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    CommuterIE wrote: »
    No you GTFO... the russians supported this idiot, and they paid the price dearly.... so don't spout this ****e

    Your argument is a fail, Sir. Just because the yanks won the propaganda war does not take away from the sacrifice that the russian people made in WW2. which was orders of magnitude more than the Americans made.


Advertisement
Advertisement