| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nautilus wrote: |
Its not about what threat does Zimbabwe pose to the great United States.
Its about America living up to its world leader status and fostering / spreading democracy in other parts of the world. Thereby, creating political and trade allies, and ensuring its own future. |
Where would the money to finance such a war come from with America already in a financial crisis of epic proportions? What units would the troops come from? How many lives of American soldiers would it be worth to bring democracy to Zimbabwe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
Where would the money to finance such a war come from with America already in a financial crisis of epic proportions? What units would the troops come from? How many lives of American soldiers would it be worth to bring democracy to Zimbabwe? |
I think you may be overestimating the sophistication of Mugabe and his goons. US technology and expertise would overtake Mugabe in weeks to months. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| I think you may be overestimating the sophistication of Mugabe and his goons. US technology and expertise would overtake Mugabe in weeks to months. |
The war in Iraq was only going to last a few weeks to months and would finance itself, remember? The war in Afghanistan has been going on for seven years with no end in sight. Taking into consideration the fact that we've never, at any point in the past seven years, had enough troops in Afghanistan to win the war, where would we get the troops to fight an additional war in Zimbabwe? And where would the money come from to pay for such a war?
The only American that needs to be shipped out to Zimbabwe is Ben Bernanke. Marc Faber was exactly right when he said, "But I would argue that over the last seven years we had an unprecedented global economic boom where essentially every country has been growing with the exception of Zimbabwe, because you have a money printer in Zimbabwe who essentially should be joined by Mr. Bernanke. He would fit very well with Mr. Mugabe in that country."
It's another classic case of us trying to fix things everywhere else while we ignore our own major problems, causing things to totally go to shit in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
| I think you may be overestimating the sophistication of Mugabe and his goons. US technology and expertise would overtake Mugabe in weeks to months. |
The war in Iraq was only going to last a few weeks to months and would finance itself, remember? The war in Afghanistan has been going on for seven years with no end in sight. Taking into consideration the fact that we've never, at any point in the past seven years, had enough troops in Afghanistan to win the war, where would we get the troops to fight an additional war in Zimbabwe? And where would the money come from to pay for such a war? |
While I agree the US cannot afford to presently invade Iraq, Nautilus is right to some degree. If the US were not presently bogged down in two wars, it would be able to remove Mugabe fairly easily. Unlike those two countries you mentioned, Zimbawbe has a political opposition that is supported by the MAJORITY of the population (as illustrated by the first round of the Presidential election earlier this year). The country also does not have the huge divisions that those other two have. None of that sunni/shiite crap or pashtun vs. tajik vs. who knows who else.
A better comparison would be our involvement with Liberia. That went fairly smoothly I believe.
Alas, the US will not even think of sending in troops, and no such debate will ever take place in any branch of the US gov't, so it really doesn't matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Alas, the US will not even think of sending in troops, and no such debate will ever take place in any branch of the US gov't, so it really doesn't matter. |
I would hope not. The movie Black Hawk Down wasn't good enough for a sequel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
I would hope not. The movie Black Hawk Down wasn't good enough for a sequel. |
I find it strange that nowadays the US will not consider a war unless there is virtually 100% garuantee of zero casualties. Then if someone gets hurt they want to stop playing and go home.
Its a war after all. They are soldiers that have entered the scenario declaring themselves willing to die.
There are 300 Million people in the US. If 100 die in war will the whole country come to a standstill? In the long term game of nations surviving, forming allies, spreading their trade connections and philosophy, surely the threshold for what a losses a country is prepared to admit must be a lot higher than that?
is it that western civilisation has reached such a level now that a single death at the hands of the enemy is enough to make them recoil and go home in shock?
Or is it mostly about financial cost? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
A better comparison would be our involvement with Liberia. That went fairly smoothly I believe. |
Or by similar comparison, 1000 British royal marines in Sierra leone- who in 6 weeks defeated the rebels there and brought a 9 year old civil war to an end. That country is now an ally and a practising democracy, exporting all kinds of goods to Britain as a result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| is it that western civilisation has reached such a level now that a single death at the hands of the enemy is enough to make them recoil and go home in shock? |
No, but the thought of a single death (yours) explains why you're fighting in neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. It explains why Dick Cheney got five deferments during the Vietnam war. It explains why Joe Lieberman got two deferments and didn't serve either.
In the following clip, Jesse Ventura is upset at Bush for saying, "The problem with Vietnam was we left too soon." Ventura followed up the quote with asking, "Then why didn't he come over and help out? Or why didn't Five or Four or Five Deferment Dick Cheney show up?"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=99unD0ivfrE
It's why America has had so much difficulty in its wars in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So many Americans wanted the wars, but so few have had enough belief in the wars or the courage to actually go fight. Meanwhile, millions of Vietnamese or Iraqis or Afghans are already there and are not going anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
No, but the thought of a single death (yours) explains why you're fighting in neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. |
 The stock return jab i see.
Thats like saying "how can you support Manchester United when you don't even play for them?".
Because the team is full? there are more than enough troops willing to do so? its not exactly a conscript army. I'm not American either btw.
I'd be quite happy to render my services in Zimbabwe though, if there was any future for whites in that country. But they all left decades ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| its not exactly a conscript army. |
And that's why there aren't riots like the draft riots during the Vietnam War. When a chickenhawk gets a draft notice, the war isn't fun anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| And that's why there aren't riots like the draft riots during the Vietnam War. |
So theres no problem then.
You're talking about the Vietnam war?
We're talking about a short exercise to topple Mugabe with the majority of the population in agreement.
i already pointed out 1000 Royal marines managed it in 6 weeks in Sierra leone. A country with a 10X more difficult jungle terrain than the open savanna of zimbabwe.
I guess they obviously have better marines than the Americans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
N, I get your thing. You're from Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and are but-hurt that the West forced change in your country, creating a mad-man. They now remove a mad man in Iraq, but refuse to touch your boy down south. I get it.
But as far as I can tell, RJ and I are against the war in Iraq too. And I'm against all meddling in African affairs sum total, full stop.
If I were rah rah war in Iraq, but then against Zimbabwe, your crusade would make sense. But now, you're barking up the wrong tree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Alas, the US will not even think of sending in troops, and no such debate will ever take place in any branch of the US gov't, so it really doesn't matter. |
I would hope not. The movie Black Hawk Down wasn't good enough for a sequel. |
Talk about apples and oranges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USMC vs Royal Marines is the most apples and oranges of all since they don't even fight each other. The questions we have to ask is, "How significantly worse than the Afghans would the Zimbabweans have to be for the Royal Marines to even have a chance?" or "Why would the Royal Marines pick new fights when they're so impotent on the battlefields where they're currently fighting?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
