Topic: What would happen if...

[fingerroll]

The USA decided that we would not send troops in to aid anyone, anywhere, and would allow world events to play themselves out without our interference?  Since WW2 we have felt the need, as the 'leader ' of the free world to take responsiblity for influencing the outcome of certain events while disregarding others so the 'humanitarian, human rights, national security, etc' reasoning doesn't hold.  If the Libyans want to overthrow their government then do it like everyone else does, by yourself without any help from us.  AFghanistan?  Let them shoot the shiite out of each other in that mountainous wasteland all they want, likewise in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and all over the world.

How about we pull our troops out of Europe and let the Euro's defend themselves like they did for centuries upon centuries before we took up that yoke.  we scrap NATO as a foriegn entangling alliance that possibly forces our hand to get involved in foriegn conflicts that cost billions, piss people off, and go on infinitely longer than we would ever need.  The money that we wopuld save on troops and forces, materiel, logistics all over the globe could be used to defend our own borders, feed our own citizens, educate them, and prevent people from attacking us here inthe states.  Leave the terrorists to kill each other in their own countries. 

China and russia basicllay take this approach....why don't we?  Why do we have to be the ones who have to fix everything for everyone else?

[Sectionhand]

I have wonder the very same thing .

[IronDioPriest]

I gotta say, after 9/11, I was fully supportive of both Afghanistan and Iraq (for the reasons given at the time). But I am now almost completely disillusioned at how our military is being used as some kind of experiment in international bridge-building and police action.

In my opinion, the last full-scale war America engaged in that was truly vital to OUR national security AND that we were fully committed to WIN was WWII. Every war after that (...and I'm open to having my understanding of history corrected) it seems to me that either our national interest was unclear, we were not 100% committed to victory, or both.

[Predator Don]

There are many aspects to this that are appealing.

Probably shut down half the bases we have in the world with little or no effect, but we need to keep certain alliences strong for our own self preservation. Although we should produce more than we do, trade partners are needed.

I can support some humanitarian aid, but the total could be less if we would allow countries like Africa burn fires so they could feed themselves. I'd take a training approach.

[Pandora]

I gotta say, after 9/11, I was fully supportive of both Afghanistan and Iraq (for the reasons given at the time). But I am now almost completely disillusioned at how our military is being used as some kind of experiment in international bridge-building and police action.

In my opinion, the last full-scale war America engaged in that was truly vital to OUR national security AND that we were fully committed to WIN was WWII. Every war after that (...and I'm open to having my understanding of history corrected) it seems to me that either our national interest was unclear, we were not 100% committed to victory, or both.

IIRC, it was with the "Korean Conflict" that the theory of proportional response was initiated -- and things have gone downhill since then, see:  Vietnam.

I also was in support of kicking the crap out of A'stan and Iraq too, until "winning hearts and minds" became the strategery for dealing with the "religion of peace".

I say no more getting "invested" in other conflicts unless our strategic national interests were directly threatened or that of our genuine allies - and that, no offense Don, includes any "humanitarian aid" meant for "the people" getting stolen by their thieving "leaders".

[Glock32]

I gotta say, after 9/11, I was fully supportive of both Afghanistan and Iraq (for the reasons given at the time). But I am now almost completely disillusioned at how our military is being used as some kind of experiment in international bridge-building and police action.

In my opinion, the last full-scale war America engaged in that was truly vital to OUR national security AND that we were fully committed to WIN was WWII. Every war after that (...and I'm open to having my understanding of history corrected) it seems to me that either our national interest was unclear, we were not 100% committed to victory, or both.

Mark Steyn has been talking about this today while sitting in for Rush. It's true, since WWII every engagement we've gotten into (with the possible exceptions of Panama and Gulf 1) has had a very vaguely defined and open ended conclusion. Our forces have now been in Afghanistan longer than we were in WWI and WWII combined!

I think there's two major explanations for this. One, from 1945-1991 we were always afraid of escalating anything to the point that the Soviets got involved in a major way. This mentality persisted even after the end of the USSR. Two, the progressives have seen the military as a captive population for social engineering baked by the "unlimited" finances of the US government. They've taken to using it as an instrument for things it was never intended for, and is poorly equipped to do. The combat function of the military has been deprecated by its "humanitarian" mission. So instead of smacking the sh*t out of the Taliban so bad that they literally cannot take up arms against anyone, and then leaving, we have to stick around for years building drinking wells and schools that will be immediately Islamized once we finally do leave.

Just look at a typical recruiting commercial these days. You don't see much weaponry anymore. It's usually clips of people unloading medicine and food into some ungrateful Turd World shthole. I detest this "beating swords into plowshares" mentality.

[charlesoakwood]

I gotta say, after 9/11, I was fully supportive of both Afghanistan and Iraq (for the reasons given at the time). But I am now almost completely disillusioned at how our military is being used as some kind of experiment in international bridge-building and police action.

In my opinion, the last full-scale war America engaged in that was truly vital to OUR national security AND that we were fully committed to WIN was WWII. Every war after that (...and I'm open to having my understanding of history corrected) it seems to me that either our national interest was unclear, we were not 100% committed to victory, or both.

Colonization has been vilified for nearly a hundred years.
Most nation/states colonized by the English have become literate, stable nations.
Our error was to shy away from an not use the English model as lessons learned and
Americanize it in these and future areas.  We should be administering those states and teaching them at the same time.  They would be living in a stable society with a western
 rule of, in respect of their culture, and they would pay for such administration.  The world would be a better place, they would be on a path to the first world and we would not be going into debt.

[John Florida]

I'm going with,if were getting involved it's because they have something we want/need. If they have oil fine we get paid in oil contracts at 10% below market till the cost of the war is paid off. If it's lumber metal ore whatever they have that's the cost.

  We start building schools it has to be At their request and it gets added to the tab and so on.

[charlesoakwood]

Right, Russia, and many other oil contracts in Iraq today.  It should all be American and those that assisted pro rata.  We administer, they learn, everybody benefits.

[Predator Don]

I gotta say, after 9/11, I was fully supportive of both Afghanistan and Iraq (for the reasons given at the time). But I am now almost completely disillusioned at how our military is being used as some kind of experiment in international bridge-building and police action.

In my opinion, the last full-scale war America engaged in that was truly vital to OUR national security AND that we were fully committed to WIN was WWII. Every war after that (...and I'm open to having my understanding of history corrected) it seems to me that either our national interest was unclear, we were not 100% committed to victory, or both.

IIRC, it was with the "Korean Conflict" that the theory of proportional response was initiated -- and things have gone downhill since then, see:  Vietnam.

I also was in support of kicking the crap out of A'stan and Iraq too, until "winning hearts and minds" became the strategery for dealing with the "religion of peace".

I say no more getting "invested" in other conflicts unless our strategic national interests were directly threatened or that of our genuine allies - and that, no offense Don, includes any "humanitarian aid" meant for "the people" getting stolen by their thieving "leaders".

Clarification: When I state humanitarian aid, the majority of times in disaster situations only. Japan is supposedly an ally, there should be no need to request aid....Not this willy nilly, lets give money to any country.

If countries request aid, give it in the form of education to take care in house.

[BigAlSouth]

The USA decided that we would not send troops in to aid anyone, anywhere, and would allow world events to play themselves out without our interference?  Since WW2 we have felt the need, as the 'leader ' of the free world to take responsiblity for influencing the outcome of certain events while disregarding others so the 'humanitarian, human rights, national security, etc' reasoning doesn't hold.  If the Libyans want to overthrow their government then do it like everyone else does, by yourself without any help from us.  AFghanistan?  Let them shoot the shiite out of each other in that mountainous wasteland all they want, likewise in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and all over the world.
. . .

Exactly. Very good points. Since WWII, the United States has engaged in "proxy wars" with the Russians and Chinese with debatable results (Korea, Vietnam). Since Russia is no longer the threat to Western Europe, what exactly is the rationale for spending billions to prop up the local economies of countries that are socialist democracies? Let them pay for their own defense, or in the alternative, let them reimburse the US for every dollar spent.

Oh. That sounds mercenary? I'm good with that . . .

[charlesoakwood]

Japan, you are on the spot.  All these third world places (Haiti) that were pot holes in the first place and our money rains and the media rains tears.  Every time I see a new video of Japan, the cities aflame, highways toppled, the numbers of dead and un-found.  You have to look for it, and our help? Uh, I'm sure we're doing something.

[Pandora]

Japan, you are on the spot.  All these third world places (Haiti) that were pot holes in the first place and our money rains and the media rains tears.  Every time I see a new video of Japan, the cities aflame, highways toppled, the numbers of dead and un-found.  You have to look for it, and our help? Uh, I'm sure we're doing something.

I saw an array of photos of military-provided assistance (food and other supplies) at first; haven't seen much since then.  I keep waiting for the celebrity concerts and such to raise private money.  ::blueinface::

[Libertas]

Military action - national interest should trump all, period.  Start with the basic understanding that war should only be constrained by commanders in the field and that their number one purpose is to achieve national objectives by killing people and breaking things.  Political guidance should be limited to conventional/non-conventional arms and overall objective, period.

Humanitarian aid - should only be restricted to allies and neutral nations who we would like to place in our debt, the rest can go hang or look elsewhere.

Umbrella - where it makes strategic sense for us to be, we can be, where it makes sense to turn the reigns over to other nations, let them start carrying their load.  There are strategic areas of national interest to us where we should be, like Bahrain, but do we really need to be in Europe anymore (outside of some basing rights)?

Did I solve it?  Maybe.  Will it happen in my lifetime?  I have grave doubts...