Free Allegiance Forums

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Nov 22 2011, 11:55 PM) I think Madpeople was referring to how Gaddafi started out as a young officer in a military coup Sheff.

Yup, lots of the dictators got in to power via the military 40-60 years ago, and they tended not to disappear unless the US decided it didn't like them any more (often it was the US who helped put them in power / supported them in the first place).

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Nov 22 2011, 07:02 PM) Yup, lots of the dictators got in to power via the military 40-60 years ago, and they tended not to disappear unless the US decided it didn't like them any more (often it was the US who helped put them in power / supported them in the first place).

Don't forget the Shah of Iran
Fidel Castro (Bay of Pigs)
Saddam (Who you mentioned)


Who else don't we like that we tried to get rid of....

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Nov 22 2011, 04:02 PM) Yup, lots of the dictators got in to power via the military 40-60 years ago, and they tended not to disappear unless the US decided it didn't like them any more (often it was the US who helped put them in power / supported them in the first place).

The very reason everyone hates us.

Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ Nov 21 2011, 03:29 PM) We were broke 3 years ago. WHY ARE WE STILL SPENDING!!

3 years? Try 30 years

Well, tell that to the 1.3 Billion $ the US gifts the Egyptian Army every single year...

It's not a military coup if the military were in power before.

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 23 2011, 01:24 AM) The very reason everyone hates us.

Pretty much. Most of the US foreign policy / interventions tended to be for US short term gain / what would be good at the time. Sometimes it meant putting a ruthless dictator in power, but one who would sell you oil, sometimes it meant funding someone to fight a war for you, who then decides they don't like you when you stop sending them money after the war.

It's why I partially agree with the us-non-interventionism idea. I only partially agree because there are cases (like Libya) where intervening is a probably good thing - the people of Libya will think "we couldn't have won our freedom without the US* air support" (*well, probably more the French and British air support since the US tried to play down its role to avoid being accused of invading another arab state, but they know you played some part). If Libya gets a good government then you may have an arab state who likes you for helping them as opposed to providing them with weapons or something.
You should only intervene if it's the right thing to do and not just for personal gain (if you happen to get some other benefit like Libyan oil then that's a bonus, but shouldn't be the reason you do it).

SpkWill wrote:QUOTE (SpkWill @ Nov 23 2011, 07:13 AM) It's not a military coup if the military were in power before.

Yes, but some in the military look at other dictators and think "hey, we could run this place and live like kings happily ever after", but others are like "yes, but they got in to power with coups with popular support and we didn't, given how people are now over throwing them and want democracy this might not be a good time to try and take over".



Seems the military is trying to play the waiting game, the people are having none of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15848602

Kopperhead wrote:QUOTE (Kopperhead @ Nov 23 2011, 08:11 AM) Well, tell that to the 1.3 Billion $ the US gifts the Egyptian Army every single year...

The figure I saw was 2 billion USD, but yes... it's not chickenfeed.

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Nov 23 2011, 01:08 AM) It's why I partially agree with the us-non-interventionism idea. I only partially agree because there are cases (like Libya) where intervening is a probably good thing - the people of Libya will think "we couldn't have won our freedom without the US* air support" (*well, probably more the French and British air support since the US tried to play down its role to avoid being accused of invading another arab state, but they know you played some part). If Libya gets a good government then you may have an arab state who likes you for helping them as opposed to providing them with weapons or something.

US interventionism is not warranted, is not moral, and is not the right thing to do.

By your logic we should be invading China right now to stave off the gross humanitarian issues they have there, but we don't. How about Africa? There are tons of gross inhuman injustices going on there, but no first world country gives a flying fig.


It is time for America to bow out of the international military scene and become a great Neutral power, focusing on economic relations and ourselves (non-interventionists NOT isolationists). If the EU would like to take our place as World Police then be my guest, it is none of our concern.

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 23 2011, 04:55 PM) It is time for America to bow out of the international military scene and become a great Neutral power, focusing on economic relations and ourselves (non-interventionists NOT isolationists). If the EU would like to take our place as World Police then be my guest, it is none of our concern.

EU prefer soft power (it's much cheaper to implement if nothing else) but the first part of the idea sounds good. It's not like the American Empire is really working out for you guys anyway, and it's insanely expensive.

Reducing the nuclear deterrent to a ~500 warhead level would also solve a large part of the budget deficit, and still make sure nobody messes with you.