The Political Discussion Thread

[Goose]

I should just say, perhaps as a closing to this argument, that many countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Germany, allow women to serve in any active combat roles (including special forces), as well as one submarines, which have been traditionally restricted to men only.

[Falcon Horus]

Must say I enjoy discussion that involve LOS talking... ... I'm a fan.

Anyway, onwards...

Many countries that B#$% about us policing the world are the first ones to come crying to us when they need help or money.

The US sticks their nose in if there's something to gain from it (Vietnam), or if they have personally come under attack (f.e. terrorism, Pearl Harbor). At least, that's what I remember from my history classes.

And yeah sometimes that leads to different views from different countries/individuals, as the above discussion between yourself, AlexanderD and LOS clearly demonstrates.

[QUOTE=lordofseas;13178778]And so does every other country. Lots of other countries give money to others to recuperate from natural disasters.[/quote

Organizations like Doctors Without Borders, the Red Cross, ... are not connected to one country alone, I should think.

Of course they didn't. But, is the chance that they might get raped a good enough reason for them not to serve on the front lines?

Sometimes people seem to forget that men get raped as well... and I imagine is just as traumatizing and violating of the human self.

*shakes head*

And let us accept that premise. Most women would not be fine in the wilderness. And...most men would be fine in the wilderness? Because we have testicles, we are more able to adapt and survive?

If women wouldn't have been fine with surviving in the wilderness, wouldn't that logically mean that we shouldn't be here today?

Seeing as how prehistoric ladies ran around in the wilderness just fine.

If they weren't fine with it, humans would not exist today. Just think about it! Let it sink in.

Except that the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, they tend not to do colonialism anymore. They don't tend to invade countries, unless being led around by the nose by the US.

Our colonial past in Africa - not exactly something to be proud of.

**//**

Besides the whole should women be allowed in front row battle roles is moot - we all know the female race is the superior race anyway.

[Womble]

The US sticks their nose in if there's something to gain from it (Vietnam)

What exactly did the US want to gain in Vietnam?

Also, you forgot Korea. Everyone always forgets Korea. There's a reason for that, too.

[lordofseas]

Must say I enjoy discussion that involve LOS talking... ... I'm a fan.

*wipes a tear from the eye* I have fans.

Sometimes people seem to forget that men get raped as well... and I imagine is just as traumatizing and violating of the human self.

*shakes head*

Indeed.

If women wouldn't have been fine with surviving in the wilderness, wouldn't that logically mean that we shouldn't be here today?

Seeing as how prehistoric ladies ran around in the wilderness just fine.

If they weren't fine with it, humans would not exist today. Just think about it! Let it sink in.

There was no prehistoric man, there was only Adam and Eve. :/

Our colonial past in Africa - not exactly something to be proud of.

Not of any country's history on that continent. :/

Besides the whole should women be allowed in front row battle roles is moot - we all know the female race is the superior race anyway.

Paaaaaah. Lies. Vicious, unfounded lies!

What exactly did the US want to gain in Vietnam?

They wanted to stop the spread of communism, and gain an ally on the Indochina continent, to have two different supporting countries in the area in case of conflict with China or Russia (the latter the more important at the time due to the ongoing conflict of the Cold War).

Also, you forgot Korea. Everyone always forgets Korea. There's a reason for that, too.

No one likes Korea?

[Womble]

They wanted to stop the spread of communism, and gain an ally on the Indochina continent, to have two different supporting countries in the area in case of conflict with China or Russia (the latter the more important at the time due to the ongoing conflict of the Cold War).

Yes. And it was a worthy goal at the time. The non-Western human rights activists of that era (few Western ones had the guts to protest or confront the Soviet Union's oppressive system, and many heroes of the US civil rights movement- like Angela Davis- shamefully sold out to the Communists) were far more appaled by the US abandoning Vietnam than by anything the US did during the war.

The most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this.
(From Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard address, June 8, 1978)

No one likes Korea?

No, it's because the Korean war doesn't quite fit the "evil American imperialism" narrative.

[Graybrew1]

I think if it is not appreciated. We should just pull the plug on it. Let us see how well you all fair without any assistance from us and we can keep our money and fix our own economy and let you all fend for yourselves.

http://www.countrysurvival.com/us-gi...150-countries/

[lordofseas]

Yes. And it was a worthy goal at the time. The non-Western human rights activists of that era (few Western ones had the guts to protest or confront the Soviet Union's oppressive system, and many heroes of the US civil rights movement- like Angela Davis- shamefully sold out to the Communists) were far more appaled by the US abandoning Vietnam than by anything the US did during the war.

The entire war was a mess. It had the markings of poor planning all over. I won't go so far to say it was doomed from the start, and I don't necessarily object to the removal of dictatorships and oppressive regimes, I just want a good entrance plan, a good exit strategy, and permission from the UN. The first two, we did not have. At all.

No, it's because the Korean war doesn't quite fit the "evil American imperialism" narrative.

Because of the UN mandate.

[Womble]

The entire war was a mess. It had the markings of poor planning all over. I won't go so far to say it was doomed from the start, and I don't necessarily object to the removal of dictatorships and oppressive regimes, I just want a good entrance plan, a good exit strategy, and permission from the UN. The first two, we did not have. At all.

The trouble with the exit strategy part is that you can't go into a war with the goal of getting out. If you must go to war, you must do it to accomplish a goal, not to move your troops out by year X. Having an exit strategy is a good idea, but making the war planning about an exit strategy is planning for defeat.

Because of the UN mandate.

And another thing.

You see, no one would've said a bad word about the Vietnam war had the US won.

[lordofseas]

The trouble with the exit strategy part is that you can't go into a war with the goal of getting out. If you must go to war, you must do it to accomplish a goal, not to move your troops out by year X. Having an exit strategy is a good idea, but making the war planning about an exit strategy is planning for defeat.

That's exactly what an exit strategy is. Stating your goals, and after completing them, figuring how to get out as efficiently as possible, while allowing the country to "heal".

And another thing.

You see, no one would've said a bad word about the Vietnam war had the US won.

Is this just your feeling, or do you have something to back this up...?

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

Going back back to women in the military. I would have thought with the right training a male solider wouldn't act any differently towards a female colleagues in danger than a male one in the same situation.

And just because you open up say the special forces you have to lower standards. Isn't there some kind of training course you have to pass in order be admitted? Surely women should be at least allowed on these training courses?

We all know that the average woman is less physically strong as the average man but it would silly to say no woman could serve in the special forces IMO.

As for women being more prone to infections I am a bit skeptical.

[Falcon Horus]

No, it's because the Korean war doesn't quite fit the "evil American imperialism" narrative.

The reason I didn't mention Korea - no memory of it whether this was ever touched upon. So can't say one way or another.

I think if it is not appreciated. We should just pull the plug on it. Let us see how well you all fair without any assistance from us and we can keep our money and fix our own economy and let you all fend for yourselves.

Maybe the US should do exactly that and start cleaning up their own mess first.

FYI - the rest of the world has been around longer than the US, as far as civilizations/states/countries go anyway, not landmass. And we fared quite well before the US existed.

[Goose]

FYI - the rest of the world has been around longer than the US, as far as civilizations/states/countries go anyway, not landmass. And we fared quite well before the US existed.

That's not really a fair comparison. The world in 1750 was a much, much different world than it is in 2012.

[Falcon Horus]

That's not really a fair comparison. The world in 1750 was a much, much different world than it is in 2012.

1750 - I'm talking way back when the many Indian tribes were masters over the plains of the North American continent...

True, by fairing well I'd have to add we were keen on a little war now and again... Once in a while the ruling class got bored, okay.

[Graybrew1]

Yes. I agree. We have our own problems, I for one would vote for that.

Sure we might be newer and kids but we are bigger than most and have given more than enough.

[Col.Foley]

The reason I didn't mention Korea - no memory of it whether this was ever touched upon. So can't say one way or another.



Maybe the US should do exactly that and start cleaning up their own mess first.

FYI - the rest of the world has been around longer than the US, as far as civilizations/states/countries go anyway, not landmass. And we fared quite well before the US existed.

Interesting statement...