Madness

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: All right MagiK, not-so-subtle hint taken. Sorry for being anal about the post sizes.

LLAO no hint intended TL , you were right and I was just trying to be a bit funny with that post I did however mean what I wrote in it, humor or no.

[ 01-13-2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Iron_Ranger]

TL, about Somalia, I am not saying that was the correct way to carry it out, I am not saying it was successful, because it most certaintly was not. What I was saying is that it was a good ideal.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: TL, about Somalia, I am not saying that was the correct way to carry it out, I am not saying it was successful, because it most certaintly was not. What I was saying is that it was a good ideal.

But, IR, the question is *what* was a good idea? To get involved? Well, according to the Powell Doctrine, you only use military force for a defined, narrow, clear, understandable goal - and then you use overwhelming force. The whole notion of "what to do" in Somalia - which was fraught with no less than 8 equally strong factions vying for power at the time - is mission creep at its finest. When it's all-out anarchic civil war, it's best to back off til at least some few people to oppose rise to the top. So, I guess I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have gotten involved there at all.

I think that helping out was a good idea, it just wasn't a job for the Military. That is not what they are good at, andit isn't what they train for. Clinton never really understood the Military and what it was for.

[Iron_Ranger]

Well, I guess just the most very basic of the idea was a good thing. As MagiK said, to help out was a good idea, and as I said, maybe it wasnt carried out right, but it was still a good idea, I think anyway.

Even if it was all out anarchic civil war, the UN are, suppousedly, peace keepers correct? How many more people were going to be killed if forces wearnt brought in?

Hmm, just out of curosity, whats the current sintiuation in Somalia? Has it setteled down, does it have an ruler of some kind now?

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As for US imperialism, the US has never sought nor wanted an empire. The US, more than any other country, has willingly freed just about every piece of land it's ever gained dominion over. Again, read your history. American imperialism actually ended at the Pacific Ocean, when Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. We happen to sit on one of the nicest largest most untouched pieces of real estate on the planet, and we don't need more land. Plus, who needs the headache of managing an empire? The US model is to liberate, babysit, and then move out when democracy is established. Yes, like all nations the US tries to garner good deals with other nations and it strongly pursues its interests. But an empire - puh-lease.

Actually, you can see parallels between America's method of "spreading Democracy" and Rome's Empire. Rome, after setting up shop, basically made sure the trade revinues filtered back to Rome. Other than changing the currency, they let the out lying counties run themselves. They way, they didn't need to manage the Empire. It's part of the reason they split when it got too big. One region was doing something different from the other.

I'm not saying we are an Empire, but there are some parallels.

[Yorick]

A link to "to Magik"

[Yorick]

A link to "to Iron Ranger"