36 replies to this topic

[Emperor Khan]

Is it bad that I read the news article as "Mail crisis" and thought it was about the USPS?

Not if you're American.

[Senji]

No, there have been several posts by liberals in the BR that dismissed historical arguments for being irrelevant because they were old. I wasn't calling anyone conservative or liberal in my post, I am just pushing for consistency.

You're misunderstanding them. Liberals argue that they are allowed to use historical arguments. You however are not allowed due to being "not liberal." Just ask Aeternos Astramora and the like.

[Icewolf]

You're misunderstanding them. Liberals argue that they are allowed to use historical arguments. You however are not allowed due to being "not liberal." Just ask Aeternos Astramora and the like.

I wasn't aware of the use of a historical argument in this thread. Reminding the USA that their independence was won by France is shorthand for pointing out that there is 0 reason for the USA to be so antagonistic towards France. I don't see anything like the same level of anatogonisation towards Germany who in recent history have been far more at odds with US foreign policy.

[Senji]

I wasn't aware of the use of a historical argument in this thread. Reminding the USA that their independence was won by France is shorthand for pointing out that there is 0 reason for the USA to be so antagonistic towards France. I don't see anything like the same level of anatogonisation towards Germany who in recent history have been far more at odds with US foreign policy.

"Reminding" is always the reason that leads to all "wah you can't use that" cries.

[Lord GVChamp]

I wasn't aware of the use of a historical argument in this thread. Reminding the USA that their independence was won by France is shorthand for pointing out that there is 0 reason for the USA to be so antagonistic towards France. I don't see anything like the same level of anatogonisation towards Germany who in recent history have been far more at odds with US foreign policy.

Lol, wut? Our independence wasn't "won" by the French, the French were part of a major anti-British alliance at the time. France is a historic enemy of the United States at that time period. We had just finished fighting a war against them in the 1760s, and fought another war against them in the 1790s. Napoleon intended to create a new Western hemisphere empire, and France invaded our neighbors in Mexico, which resulted in another near-war between the US and France.

This idea that France and the US are the bestest of buddies and always have been is...not exactly informed.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

I don't see anything like the same level of anatogonisation towards Germany who in recent history have been far more at odds with US foreign policy.

Haven't they pretty much done exactly the same thing? Both followed us into all the NATO conflicts (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya) and both stayed out of Iraq when we went in in 2003.

Lol, wut? Our independence wasn't "won" by the French, the French were part of a major anti-British alliance at the time.

While there were other members of the alliance such as Spain, several indian tribes, and independent volunteers from around Europe, the French were by far the largest ally in terms of commitment of money, supplies, men, and most importantly, ships. Would we have won the war without them? Most likely, but the conflict could have stretched far into the late 1780s or even the 1790s, and who knows how different the country would have been. Maybe George Washington could have been captured or killed some time during the conflict. Maybe the southern states would have stayed colonies and the country originally ran from Maine to Virginia.

France is a historic enemy of the United States at that time period. We had just finished fighting a war against them in the 1760s, and fought another war against them in the 1790s.

I wouldn't really count the Quasi-War as a war. It was simply a series of battles between warships due to the French capturing American sailors for their wars in Europe. Only 20 people died on the American side, although we did lose a significant number of ships.

Napoleon intended to create a new Western hemisphere empire, and France invaded our neighbors in Mexico, which resulted in another near-war between the US and France.

It was Napoleon III who invaded Mexico, and that was over debts that the Mexicans either refused or couldn't pay to France. Yes, it was Napoleon III's attempt to also try to emulate his grandfather, but it was not an attempt to form an American Empire.

This idea that France and the US are the bestest of buddies and always have been is...not exactly informed.

Not to mention the fact that France and Britain were on the fence about supporting the Confederacy.

[commander thrawn]

I wasn't aware of the use of a historical argument in this thread. Reminding the USA that their independence was won by France is shorthand for pointing out that there is 0 reason for the USA to be so antagonistic towards France. I don't see anything like the same level of anatogonisation towards Germany who in recent history have been far more at odds with US foreign policy.

Oh, you are right, that isn't a historical argument.

It is a historically revisionist argument.

[Icewolf]

Haven't they pretty much done exactly the same thing? Both followed us into all the NATO conflicts (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya) and both stayed out of Iraq when we went in in 2003.

Germany loudly stayed out of Libya.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Germany loudly stayed out of Libya.

Well then they are lame.

[juslen]

Well then they are lame.

Why? Because they had more important things to worry about than toppling one of Europe's favorite dictators?

[Icewolf]

Why? Because they had more important things to worry about than toppling one of Europe's favorite dictators?

Had Qaddafi's column reached Benghazi it is not an exaggeration that 10 000 civilians would probably have died. We got to see what happened later in Misrata.

I know you dislike states and interventions but there comes a point when whatever your disapproval of how we got to a situation there are not many good choices left.

[juslen]

Had Qaddafi's column reached Benghazi it is not an exaggeration that 10 000 civilians would probably have died. We got to see what happened later in Misrata.

I know you dislike states and interventions but there comes a point when whatever your disapproval of how we got to a situation there are not many good choices left.

And yet they have not invaded Syria nor have they invaded at least a half a dozen countries in Africa where people have been slaughtered by the thousands. And when I said "Europe's favorite Dictator," I was implying that before the 2011 Civil War, governments in Europe (specifically France and the UK) were more than happy to maintain friendly relations with Gaddafi so long as oil imports went uninterrupted. Gaddafi was was safe so long as he was politically and economically beneficial to them.

85% of Libyan oil exports went to Europe in 2010

Speaking of politics..

http://reason.com/bl...afi-helped-fund

Edited by juslen, 20 January 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Lord GVChamp]

It was Napoleon III who invaded Mexico, and that was over debts that the Mexicans either refused or couldn't pay to France. Yes, it was Napoleon III's attempt to also try to emulate his grandfather, but it was not an attempt to form an American Empire.

I don't really have any objection except for this tiny part. From my understanding of the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon did intend to rebuild his North American empire, and had a sizable occupation of Haiti to try to recapture the territory. His selling of the Louisana territory to us was more or less after he conceded he didn't have a chance of doing that (though he only held Louisiana briefly anyways)

[Isaac MatthewII]

Please hand back your independence.

Yeah I think we have payed that back in full.

[The Archivist]

Northern Africa has become more of a criminal syndicate than it already was. The Islamists and the non-Islamist rebels use trafficking and robbery to fund their militas, helped by Libya falling apart after Gaddafi, and many weak states like Chad and Sudan.

 

It seems to me that each intervention will just kick the can down the road. You intervened in Libya, then it became a bunch of militas fighting each other. You go next door to Mali which already has a shaky government- will intervention solve that problem of no stability?

 

Is northern Nigeria and Boko Haram next? Groups like AQIM already seem to be operating there.

Edited by The Archivist, 25 January 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

And yet they have not invaded Syria nor have they invaded at least a half a dozen countries in Africa where people have been slaughtered by the thousands. 

Many people consider not intervening in Darfur to be one of the UN's greatest failures.  As for Syria, the main problem is that the Russians are highly supportive of the Assad regime due to the favorable treatment they've showed them.  We don't want to piss Russia off any more than we have to.  If it wasn't for them, you can bet that Assad would have been gone last year.

[bgorre1013]

Yeah I think we have payed that back in full.

 

twice