| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Guns in the US
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Guns in the US

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 03:49
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 It's far too early, imo, to say that Allied Forces have succeeded in their mission, which, by the way is War on Terrorism.
 


It seems to be like a pendulum really. In the very beginning, it was reported that no matter what was happening, the allies failed, except they  didn't. Now it is being said that we succeeded, except when it seems that the allies have fumbled the political football for many a reason. However it goes, i do agree it's too darn early to write the history for what is occurring in a factual sense when all we seem to have are working hypothesis.

Quote
Five or ten years after all foreign forces have left Afghanistan will show whether or not the mission has been accomplished.
 


Ten years seem the surer bet.

Quote
Personally, I think all that has gone will return, Afghan tribes will go to war against each other again, and the country will return to the days before the Russians and the Americans. 


Maybe it will happen again. Or maybe they will surprise the hell out of us and succeed as a country. Or perhaps the Pashtun south and the Afghan north will go their separate ways and everybody in present Afghanistan is happy with this solution. Or perhaps regional and world powers will continue like they always have done and continue in interfering in this unhappy country's affairs until the sun dies itself.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4464
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 06:35
Panther wrote, "........until the sun dies itself."
 
Is there something you're not telling me?Ermm
NEXT?
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:57
The WOT has failed. The Taliban will regain supremacy. The pittance of US primarily allied troops that will be left after the Obama withdrawal and surrender. Will probably be forced to evacuate through a hostile Pakistan or a hostile Russian Air space.

The concessions to facilitate that..will be even more harsh and detrimental to the US; than the recent freeing of 5 major Taliban terrorists for the deserter Bergdahl.


The Iranians will continue to enrich to obtain nuclear capabilities thereby causing a major arms region in the region.

The Russians and Chinese, as well as the Iranians, will continue to foster, support and foment unrest in the Israeli-Lebanon-Syria-Jordan regions. To fracture any remaining alliance to the US and or NATO.

The Egyptians remain where they were...back on the fence. The Turks as well.

All that's left is regional conflict and protection by the participants.
Especially those with borders aligned with the fanatics.

Edited by Arlington - 07 Jun 2014 at 05:02
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4464
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 05:18
Arlington: I totally agree. But the USA surely can't be expected to shoulder the burden of interceding in all of these areas to attempt to establish peace. It's not sustainable as the $US14.3 billion bill for Afghanistan is showing.
 
I've often said that I believe that the UN should have a standing Army of Peacemakers, consisting of contributions from all member states. Different members have scoffed at the idea, but what's the alternative. Perhaps where American lives, property and interests are not directly threatened, they should be permitted to fight it out among themselves.
 
US involvement in foreign adventures over the past fifty years haven't gone all that well:-
 
  • Viet Nam=Loss;
  • Central America=Loss;
  • Drug Cartels=Losing/Lost;
  • Drug smuggling=Lost;
  • Arms Trade=Loss;
  • Iraq= 50-50; and
  • Afghanistan=50-50 so far, with guaranteed downgrading of security when last foreign troops leave.

All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time.

Perhaps it would be better for the US government to prioritise its hierarchy of overseas interests and allocate troops and other assistance accordingly.
 
Let's face it, there are plenty of areas in the USA where spending a few billion dollars would be greatfully received.
 
 
NEXT?
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 09:38
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Arlington: I totally agree. But the USA surely can't be expected to shoulder the burden of interceding in all of these areas to attempt to establish peace. It's not sustainable as the $US14.3 billion bill for Afghanistan is showing.
 

I've often said that I believe that the UN should have a standing Army of Peacemakers, consisting of contributions from all member states. Different members have scoffed at the idea, but what's the alternative. Perhaps where American lives, property and interests are not directly threatened, they should be permitted to fight it out among themselves.

 

US involvement in foreign adventures over the past fifty years haven't gone all that well:-

 


  • Viet Nam=Loss;

  • Central America=Loss;

  • Drug Cartels=Losing/Lost;

  • Drug smuggling=Lost;

  • Arms Trade=Loss;

  • Iraq= 50-50; and

  • Afghanistan=50-50 so far, with guaranteed downgrading of security when last foreign troops leave.

All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time.



Perhaps it would be better for the US government to prioritise its hierarchy of overseas interests and allocate troops and other assistance accordingly.
 

Let's face it, there are plenty of areas in the USA where spending a few billion dollars would be greatfully received.

 

 


No they should not have had to bear an unreasonable burden in treasure or blood. The fact they did, merely corroborates the disingenuous actions, with some caveats noted, and policies considered and implemented within the region. And the competing foreign market interests and trade policies between varying European states and the terrorist regimes dating back to 1979. If not earlier.

Couple this to the reemergence of a 'soviet style block state' in current Russia..

(viz economic ties and dependencies and their ongoing efforts to regain a supremacy in Europe)(not to mention the reemergence of distinct anti-American policies reminiscent of the cold war)


(The emergence and competition between the PRC and the Americans in the Pacific rim and now in Africa)

(The attempts and efforts to redesignate a world currency)

(A reemergence of latent nationalism in Europe and elsewhere)


..the multiplication factor of allied reluctance increases dramatically.




''All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time''



Agree with this.. but it's not the reality of the geo-political development of the World since the close of 1945. Since then, for various reasons, with numerous failings in American foreign policy, under varying administrations..the reality is: that no one short of the Americans were in a position to claim a world leadership role.

Certainly no one in Europe or Russia or elsewhere at the time.

The carry over effect of this well intended world policing role was as much hubris as honest intentions.

Bad combinations. While many Americans balk at a throwback to isolationism policies; more and more, for all the reasons you have cited, are beginning to view and advocate a more stricter view for commitment.


The problem with that however, lies in the acceptance of a 'concept' of a secondary world role. Which vary few, other than the liberals and socialist, advocate. Iow. It's been a historical tradition for the US to lead. Rightly or wrongly. Ever since the " greatest generation". Resetting the mind will not be easy for many; considering the losses and gallant efforts of many fine Americans and their allies.


We did not lose the WOT due to a lack of gallantry on American or allied efforts-parts militarily.


We lost the WOT because of the inconsistency of US administration foreign polices since 1992. Tied to nationalistic foreign policy conflicts-competitive interests (particularly trade relations) between ourselves and our allies and those, they and we, do business with.

As for the UN that will never happen simply because of policy and trade and sovereignty issues.

best.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 11:32
Originally posted by Arlington Arlington wrote:

The WOT has failed. The Taliban will regain supremacy. The pittance of US primarily allied troops that will be left after the Obama withdrawal and surrender. Will probably be forced to evacuate through a hostile Pakistan or a hostile Russian Air space.

I thought Osama bin Laden was dead and Pakistan was a long and historic ally.
Quote
The Egyptians remain where they were...back on the fence. The Turks as well.

Turkey is part of NATO and Egypt a stauch ally of America. That's hardly on the fence.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 19:45
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Arlington: I totally agree. But the USA surely can't be expected to shoulder the burden of interceding in all of these areas to attempt to establish peace. It's not sustainable as the $US14.3 billion bill for Afghanistan is showing.
 
I've often said that I believe that the UN should have a standing Army of Peacemakers, consisting of contributions from all member states. Different members have scoffed at the idea, but what's the alternative. Perhaps where American lives, property and interests are not directly threatened, they should be permitted to fight it out among themselves.
 
US involvement in foreign adventures over the past fifty years haven't gone all that well:-
 
  • Viet Nam=Loss;
  • Central America=Loss;
  • Drug Cartels=Losing/Lost;
  • Drug smuggling=Lost;
  • Arms Trade=Loss;
  • Iraq= 50-50; and
  • Afghanistan=50-50 so far, with guaranteed downgrading of security when last foreign troops leave.

All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time.

Perhaps it would be better for the US government to prioritise its hierarchy of overseas interests and allocate troops and other assistance accordingly.
 
Let's face it, there are plenty of areas in the USA where spending a few billion dollars would be greatfully received.
 
 

The US, like all other major world powers before in history, have made decisions on military actions based on their own strategic interests, in the overwhelming majority of cases. Those that have looked more like a moral/legal police action have, for the most part, been those incidents that were easily dealt with due to asymmetric force, or at least the perception of it, and significant goals, at least a small portion of which could be considered a geopolitical gain for the "policeman". True altruism has been rare in history, at least from political leadership.

Afghanistan can hardly be described as a police action. The terrorists that attacked on 9/11 had no fixed base- they trained in the US and other countries. Afghanistan was a modest target, housing some very basic training facilities, and sheltering some criminal elements. However, after the outrage of 9/11, something had to be done. Urging the CIA and Interpol to do their best was not enough, given the emotional turmoil at that time. A target was needed, and Afghanistan was as good as any: they had housed terrorists and criminals, they were run by a bunch of wackos, it was a violent and seedy backwater, and above all, it was easy. There was nothing to stop the cruise missiles, and no awkward fallout from hitting a more important part of the world (Saudi Arabia, for example). In short, a fine place for a cathartic light show. Which of course did nothing. The training camps were empty by then, and Bin Laden was on his way to Pakistan.

It was only later, when the futility of the mission started to become apparent, that the mission changed to "nation building". Again, as in Vietnam and Iraq, academics that had a broader view of the world urged caution, as the surmised that an entrenched society was not going to change 180 degrees within a few short years, and at the barrel of a gun. They were correct. Now the US is pulling out, a decade or so being judged enough to save honor, and claim a victory of some convoluted sense.

We can rest assured that the US will continue to do what it deems in its own best interest, whatever the cost. Sometimes this might coincide with the rule of law and higher purpose. History shows us that sometimes it might not. It depends on the circumstances.

A UN military force would be a good idea, but unfortunately the mentality out there is still rather tribal, and each nation supports only what is considered to be in their own interest, which very much complicates any coordinated action.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4464
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 02:35
Captain:
I wasn't implying that all of the activities listed were "police actions", obviously they weren't.
 
The underlying point I was trying to make that it's unfair for the rest of the world to sit on its hands and watch while the US does the international cleaning up.
 
I understand that the international tribalism would probably prevent the UN from setting up a Ready Response Force, but the US can't be expected to carry the load forever, it's simply not sustainable.
NEXT?
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 16:43
I don't think it is a matter of the rest of the world sitting on their hands. In cases where a legitimate international cause is seen, many will step up to the plate. The international naval force off Somalia, NATO intervention in Libya, Australia in E Timor, etc., are examples. Many of the US military expeditions in recent decades have arguably created as much mess as they have cleaned up. Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan, and a number of smaller outings were all based primarily on the needs of US foreign policy, and to some degree domestic perception, and not on any sort of altruistic "cleaning up" of world problems. In those three major cases, the US did not achieve what it wanted, and had to walk away after leaving considerable "mess"" behind. In some cases in fact the US has defied world opinion in taking on these campaigns.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to heap scorn on the US here, but merely pointing out that world politics can be a pretty cool and calculating game, and historically, altruism has taken a back seat in the planning rooms of world powers. There have been a few exceptions, such as British anti-slavery efforts in the mid 19th century for example, but overall it has been a case of self-interest.

If the US is cleaning up, it is a very selective janitor.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4464
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 08:04
Another Mass Shooting in the USA.
 
This is about the fifth such incident in the past two weeks, and is the 74th incident since the Sandy Hook School massacre in 2012.
 
Are you people all mad in the USA?
 
How many more innocents must die before you shuck off the Wild West mentality, and start doing something towards Gun Control. 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 11 Jun 2014 at 08:05
NEXT?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4464
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 04:28
Make that now 76.
NEXT?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.