US Politics Not-Actually-V: DSV

[Ser Greguh]

Lolwat.

We didn't have troops stationed in Europe or Asia in 1939, which is why we lost World War II.

Where exactly did anyone say it was impossible to win a conflict without locally situated troops and infrastructure? It helps. Is that so difficult a concept to understand?

For that matter if we have sizable military presence in Europe in 1939, WWII probably never becomes WWII, just an uppity dictator that tries to invade Poland and gets the everliving shit slapped out of him. WWII was allowed to become the scope of conflict that it was precisely because nobody with a military that was worth a shit could mobilize against Germany for literally years. That gave Germany the time to dig in and take advantage of the resources they'd conquered.

Continue on in fantasyland, though. It's amusing.

[Atreides]

Salt,

I don't believe we had troops stationed in North Africa when the Marines added "The Shores of Tripoli" to their hymn. Is Paul suggesting we disband the Navy?

Wasn't the Tripoli raid sort of like a Pearl Harbor surprise and smash attack? If the US didn't have bases all over the world it would be a lot harder to perform actions like the hostage rescue Shyrke mentioned. Otherwise the government would've had to sail a few ships halfway around the world to pull off this small scale rescue. Instead, it was probably easy to spare a couple ships from an Arabian naval base which could arrive on the scene a lot faster. I'm pretty sure that some US ships (like the carriers) are equipped to stay at sea for long voyages; some of the escorts I don't know about. It's all about logistics, which would be immensely more difficult if the US didn't have its worldwide bases. So essentially, if Paul had his way the US would be unable to rapidly intervene in far away places, especially for prolonged periods. This means less disaster relief to stricken nations, less humanitarian missions, etc in addition to the inability to rapidly intervene if a war if necessary.

[Ser Greguh]

Bass,

Shouldn't the Russians have troops all over the world too given their role in WWII?

You think they didn't?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well he is a big fan of letters of mark, so he might be.

The Company Formerly Known as Blackwater thinks letters of Marque and Reprisal are a good idea. Of course, I don't oppose the idea either, so I guess I should just shut up.

[Horza]

You think they didn't?

Eastern Europe, North Iran for a bit, North Korea for the fighting. Cuba. What am I missing?

(That's talking regular military deployments of comparable size to the sort of presence established by the US across the globe in the course of winning WW2.)

Doh, Afghanistan.

[ljkeane]

For that matter if we have sizable military presence in Europe in 1939, WWII probably never becomes WWII, just an uppity dictator that tries to invade Poland and gets the everliving shit slapped out of him.

Or alternatively a sizeable proportion of the US military ends up surrendering to the Wehrmacht in 1940 and the ability of the US to contribute to the Second World War is significantly reduced and the war is extended by years. Fantasyland is fun!

[Shryke]

The Company Formerly Known as Blackwater thinks letters of Marque and Reprisal are a good idea. Of course, I don't oppose the idea either, so I guess I should just shut up.

Well, you also like selling arms to terrorists, so it's no surprise you'd be pro-unaccountable-mercenaries and other war crimes.

[SpicyTurkey]

Has Ron Paul suggested disbanding the Navy? I though his beef was boots on the ground not ships in the water.

No he hasn't.

I expect Paul thinks ships should be floated by the states, with the navy under the control of coastal states while landlocked places like Nebraska would produce only infantry. There's probably something about that in his newsletter...oh, wait, Spicy Turkey tells us that Paul had no idea what was in the newsletter he admitted - on video - to knowing about in 1996. I have such trouble keeping all these assertions and denials straight!

Perhaps you should read up on his policies instead of falsely assuming. Paul believes the defense against foreign countries falls within the domain of the federal government. He also believes that the states also have the right to defend themselves as well.

The newsletters were investment newsletters. As for the supposed racism, I have said all that I have to say. Let others read our exchange, and decide for themselves. I am in no mood for rehashed arguments.

Warfare today is the same as warfare in 1939, then? Has nobody churned through the frozen mud of Northern Europe for our missing hovercar?

It's not the same. We need less troops now, then we did back then. We can destroy the world 20 times over with a push of a button.

The false notion that America should occupy every country to ensure our "safety" is self destructive.

[Horza]

Or alternatively a sizeable proportion of the US military ends up surrendering to the Wehrmacht in 1940 and the ability of the US to contribute to the Second World War is significantly reduced and the war is extended by years. Fantasyland is fun!

Actually for the US military to have substantial forces in Europe in 1939 a lot of things need to be different, to the point where the Germans might actually be the good guys.

[SpicyTurkey]

Wasn't the Tripoli raid sort of like a Pearl Harbor surprise and smash attack? If the US didn't have bases all over the world it would be a lot harder to perform actions like the hostage rescue Shyrke mentioned. Otherwise the government would've had to sail a few ships halfway around the world to pull off this small scale rescue. Instead, it was probably easy to spare a couple ships from an Arabian naval base which could arrive on the scene a lot faster. I'm pretty sure that some US ships (like the carriers) are equipped to stay at sea for long voyages; some of the escorts I don't know about. It's all about logistics, which would be immensely more difficult if the US didn't have its worldwide bases. So essentially, if Paul had his way the US would be unable to rapidly intervene in far away places, especially for prolonged periods. This means less disaster relief to stricken nations, less humanitarian missions, etc in addition to the inability to rapidly intervene if a war if necessary.

If America would mind its own business, then we would be rescuing a lot less hostages.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The false notion that America should occupy every country to ensure our "safety" is self destructive.

I don't think anyone has either stated or implied that. On the other hand, it's tough to argue that a U.S. withdrawal from all foreign nations now would undoubtedly encourage some dirtbags out there, previously deterred by our system of alliances, from military adventurism.

There is a whole world of reasonable disagreement between "Troops everywhere", and Paul's rabid isolationism.

[salt]

The false notion that America should occupy every country to ensure our "safety" is self destructive.

Yes, this false notion that you just came up with is self-destructive. That might be why I've never heard it suggested by anyone, ever.

If America would mind its own business, then we would be rescuing a lot less hostages.

Are you under the impression that these hostages were taken for political reasons? Or that the pirates captures Iranian ships because the US didn't "mind its own business"?

We can destroy the world 20 times over with a push of a button.

Believe it or not, when it comes to military action there is actually a middle ground between doing nothing, and destroying the world 20 times.

[Ser Greguh]

Actually for the US military to have substantial forces in Europe in 1939 a lot of things need to be different, to the point where the Germans might actually be the good guys.

Well that's true enough, and I'm not saying that WWII was the result of our screwup or anything, given the geopolitics of the time.

But the point was more that Hitler's takeover of Europe was only so successful precisely because the geopolitics allowed for him to go on an all-out, balls-to-the-wall offensive, and gave him plenty of time to consolidate before anyone could counterattack.

[Shryke]

Also, having the fire power means nothing if it's not in range.

[Ser Greguh]

If America would mind its own business, then we would be rescuing a lot less hostages.

I agree with this, but not in a way that makes it good.

[Horza]

If Paul's serious about marque and reprisal then he's in favour of privatising US interventionism, not eliminating it

[SpicyTurkey]

I don't think anyone has either stated or implied that. On the other hand, it's tough to argue that a U.S. withdrawal from all foreign nations now would undoubtedly encourage some dirtbags out there, previously deterred by our system of alliances, from military adventurism.

There is a whole world of reasonable disagreement between "Troops everywhere", and Paul's rabid isolationism.

By favoring the bases, you are essentially favoring occupation, which ends up creating more enemies, which in turn hurts our defense.

What does isolationism mean exactly? From my understanding isolationism means we shut ourselves from the rest of the world, and Ron Paul does not advocate that all. He advocates free trade.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that your definition of isolationism is anyone who refuses to militarily intervene in other nations affairs.

Yes, this false notion that you just came up with is self-destructive. That might be why I've never heard it suggested by anyone, ever.

While my statement was an over exaggeration, it isn't far from the truth. By advocating bases in other countries, you are essentially occupying them.

Are you under the impression that these hostages were taken for political reasons? Or that the pirates captures Iranian ships because the US didn't "mind its own business"?

Some people here have brought the Letters of Mark and Reprisal. That is an appropriate approach. When the government does, it's an act of war, which gets us into deeper waters.

If Paul's serious about marque and reprisal then he's in favour of privatising US interventionism, not eliminating it

That's false, because it would imply that everyone in the United States is at fault for the actions of a few. When an America commits murder in another nation, the court of that nation does not convict the U.S. in its entirety.

Believe it or not, when it comes to military action there is actually a middle ground between doing nothing, and destroying the world 20 times.

True, but that in no way negates my original argument.

[Horza]

That's false, because it would imply that everyone in the United States is at fault for the actions of a few. When an America commits murder in another nation, the court of that nation does not convict the U.S. in its entirety.

What sophistry. If the United States Government authorises private companies to exercise force in its name, it is responsible, whether it does so explicitly through a Letter of Marque or simply turns a blind eye.

This is the ugly side of the paleolibertarian foreign policy agenda: reauthorising freebooting and filibustering under the figleaf of isolationism and nonintervention.

[Shryke]

And, again, it's against like every international law and has been for awhile.

[Howdyphillip]

Salt, I don't believe we had troops stationed in North Africa when the Marines added "The Shores of Tripoli" to their hymn. Is Paul suggesting we disband the Navy?

I am fairly certain that we maintained a military presence in Libya from the second Barbary war in 1815 to 1970 when Quadaffi came into power. I am not 100% sure that it was continuous, but my father was stationed in Libya in the late 60's. The Marine Corps hymn was written in or around 1845 lyrically allegedly by a marine fighting in the Mexican/American war and was put into music in the 1880's or so. It was copy written in 1891 I believe.