Will pulling out work?

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I sometimes read the Manchester Guardian just to be sure that I'm getting my money's worth out of my blood pressure meds.

Why would you want to read old newspapers published no later than the second last year of the Eisenhower presidency?

Since 1959, it's just been The Guardian.

Since 1964, it's been published in London.

(Edit: Hmmm. I see Dong has beaten me to it.)

 

[dong20]

Since 1964, it's been published in London.

Aah but you see, it retains an office is Manchester:

GUARDIAN NEWS & MEDIA LIMITED
NUMBER 1 SCOTT PLACE
MANCHESTER
M3 3GG
Company No. 00908396

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Aah but you see, it retains an office is Manchester:

GUARDIAN NEWS & MEDIA LIMITED
NUMBER 1 SCOTT PLACE
MANCHESTER
M3 3GG
Company No. 00908396

To be frank, they still even print some of their issues in Manchester.
You're right ... my statement went too far, Dong.

 

[dong20]

To be frank, they still even print some of their issues in Manchester.
You're right ... my statement went too far, Dong.

I grew up not a million miles from Manchester, so I guess it caught my attention, though not for the first time.:smile:

 

[dong20]

....The world still benefits from the US as the world's plicemen....

Minor correction if I may; those parts of the world that agree with US foreign policy objectives and/or word view benefit somewhat, maybe and usually at a cost. The consequences for the great many who quite reasonably and justifiably don't? Well, the list is long and none too illustrious.

 

[Quite Irate]

Hearing people over on this side of the globe (France) has made me realize much about what's really going on. I'm kind of ashamed to see nationalism on the rise all over the place in a time like this. The western world is so culturally survivalist it's scary. I'd like to try and frame a discussion on pulling troops out of foreign countries as a discussion on how to improve america's standing in the world, but the truth is I can't. Country names are nothing more than dotted lines on the map, political tools for international business. I just hope the humanists come out of the cracks in the wall soon, otherwise we're in for a rough time.

That had absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but I felt like saying it.

 

[dong20]

Hearing people over on this side of the globe (France) has made me realize much about what's really going on. I'm kind of ashamed to see nationalism on the rise all over the place in a time like this.

Well, it seems the majority of the French feel otherwise, given their recent choice of President elect. But your point is valid, nationalism has a time and a place.

 

[transformer_99]

Simply put, the reason anyone has a military base on foreign soil is to avoid an invasion similar to D-Day of WW II. Watch the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan", that was with WW II technology, then imagine what it would be like to get a foothold in Europe or anywhere else without cooperation or a pre-existing military base with today's technology cutting down your force on a beach head ? Afghanistan, required Pakistan to be a war freindly entry point. The first Gulf War as well, nations in the middle east had to be invasion friendly, without US friendly nations cooperating with overlooking airspace infringements and providing that entry point, many would simply die in an attempt to come ashore, the war might escalate beyond the surgical attack on a single member nation in that area.

 

[dong20]

Simply put, the reason anyone has a military base on foreign soil is to avoid an invasion similar to D-Day of WW II. Watch the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan", that was with WW II technology, then imagine what it would be like to get a foothold in Europe or anywhere else without cooperation or a pre-existing military base with today's technology cutting down your force on a beach head ? Afghanistan, required Pakistan to be a war freindly entry point.

Its late here and I'm probably missing your point somewhat but I don't quite follow; if the purpose of the foreign base is to facilitate an invasion your argument implies (theoretically) that the US are seeking a military invasion of say, Europe or somewhere else from within Europe or again, somewhere else. If it's defensive i.e. to deter one, then today from whom exactly would that be? The former Soviet Union, Iran, China?

Your D-Day analogy makes little sense; if the allies had had a base in Northern France there would have been no need for the landings - if not then the 'beach-head' needed to be established in situ did it not? The D-Day landings were launched, successfully from southern England, only about 60 or so miles away.

This would seem to be in direct opposition to your opening remark, i.e. the D-Day landings were launched from a foreign base, with the cooperation of its host nation yet, the purpose of a foreign base is to prevent just that?

The first Gulf War as well, nations in the middle east had to be invasion friendly, without US friendly nations cooperating with overlooking airspace infringements and providing that entry point, many would simply die in an attempt to come ashore, the war might escalate beyond the surgical attack on a single member nation in that area

In the first Gulf war, as I recall, hardly anyone came 'ashore' from anywhere, and if they had it would have been from International waters in the Gulf.

It was in all probability however as you say essential to have had the cooperation of neighboring nations for support, much as it was in WWII.

 

[Belly_Dancer]

we don't want to knock up Iraq

I think it's too late.

 

[Lordpendragon]

I think if George had a bigger cock, it would be harder to ask him to pull out. The problem seems to be that so many of us haven't even noticed that he has been fucking us. Little pricks are like that.

 

[Belly_Dancer]

I think if George had a bigger cock, it would be harder to ask him to pull out. The problem seems to be that so many of us haven't even noticed that he has been fucking us. Little pricks are like that.

:lmao:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The first Gulf War as well, nations in the middle east had to be invasion friendly, without US friendly nations cooperating with overlooking airspace infringements and providing that entry point, many would simply die in an attempt to come ashore, the war might escalate beyond the surgical attack on a single member nation in that area.

In the first Gulf war, as I recall, hardly anyone came 'ashore' from anywhere, and if they had it would have been from International waters in the Gulf.

Well, dong, I think transformer recognizes they came in by air ("overlooking airspace infringements and providing that entry point," as he says).
And if they had had to come ashore from the Gulf onto Iraqi shores, they would have been far more exposed (at least in principle) to Iraqi attack (though we now know that Iraqi forces were hardly in a position to mount any very effective attack on anything, anywhere).
EDIT: I'm assuming that a nation that disallowed sending planes over airspace would also disallow use of its land as a transit route. Hence the need to step directly onto Iraqi territory from a flotilla in the Gulf.

 

[dong20]

Well, dong, I think transformer recognizes they came in by air ("overlooking airspace infringements and providing that entry point," as he says).
And if they had had to come ashore from the Gulf onto Iraqi shores, they would have been far more exposed (at least in principle) to Iraqi attack (though we now know that Iraqi forces were hardly in a position to mount any very effective attack on anything, anywhere).
EDIT: I'm assuming that a nation that disallowed sending planes over airspace would also disallow use of its land as a transit route. Hence the need to step directly onto Iraqi territory from a flotilla in the Gulf.

Yes, reading the post while awake helps. However I was confused by the statement about the staging of attacks from bases on foreign soil in the context of the D-D landings, it seemed illogical, still does in fact. The same would apply in the Gulf context - Iraqi army (in)competence notwithstanding.:smile:

Yes, I think it would be logical to assuming denying airspace transit would preclude land use, though perhaps not necessarily vice versa. As I recall however, the US has a habit of disregarding such denials, though I'm sure they're not alone in that.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Well, if you have a strong millitary presence in a country, it sure helps if they start getting stroppy. A weapon is as dangerous to its owner as to the enemy after all.

 

[B_big dirigible]

You expect BP inducing (or reliable and unbiased) news from the Guardian?

BTW, you've referenced it as the Manchester Guardian here and in several previous posts, unless there's some other (former) Manchester Guardian I assume you're aware it ceased to be so called over 40 years ago (1959 to be precise, well before my time) and you're usually so.....precise. That said it is still based in Manchester, I imagine it's changed a tad since then. Though, from some of your comments I sometimes wonder that that is where your opinions are still rooted.

Actually, to be fair, I've heard it so called in the US before, perhaps like others you're just saving your fellow citizens from consfusion with say, the San Francisco Guardian, or, heaven forbid the Australian Communist Party rag?

There are other Guardians. There are some twenty thousand cities and towns in the US, and most of them have one or more newspapers. For that matter, there are other Manchester Guardians, but not as many as there are Guardians. But no matter, it may try to change its spots, but it's still the same old Manchester Guardian on the inside, except for those sections cribbed from Le Monde or the Washington Post. I don't bother to distinguish, say, Guardian Online by name - that's a detail only a circulation manager could love.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I just hope the humanists come out of the cracks in the wall soon, otherwise we're in for a rough time.

We're in for it in any case. People don't want to hear that, so far too many simply deny it. But Francis Fukuyama was wrong. We're not at the end of history; we're still very close to the beginning. And it's noisy, and it will stay that way for a while.

As for the current unpleasantness, if it is a real war, and if it's as serious as some think it is, then it will probably last, at a minimum, a bit longer than the Cold War. That is, few reading the news today will be around to see the end of it. That's if it goes well. If it doesn't go well, the 21st and 22nd centuries will likely be a period of even more pervasive warfare than the 20th was. The longer we wait before taking it seriously, the longer the eventual fight will last.

The general parallels with 1939 are alarming. Denial is an overpowering force. Recall that even such a paranoic as Stalin succumbed to it, for a while. A German deserter alerted the Russians to Barbarossa a few days before its launch, complete down to places and times of the coming attacks. Stalin, who had a unique way of dealing with unwanted news, simply had the man shot. Barbarossa happened anyway (fine, fine; 1941, not 1939) - a colossal disaster for the Soviet Union, hardly a minor oversight on Uncle Joe's part. Another clear parallel is the unfounded faith in the efficacy of a transnational organization's ability to do anything useful. If the delegates to the League of Nations had ever had any illusions, they should have cleared out their desks and gone home after their failure to do anything at all about Italy's invasions in North Africa. That was supposedly what the League was there for. Failure, total and complete, was its only enduring legacy. Only a Pollyanna would insist that the UN is a useful improvement over the League.

Sometimes, one really must simply pick one's side (an obvious first step, sometimes overlooked), and then fight until one wins. People don't want to hear that, either.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I think if George had a bigger cock, it would be harder to ask him to pull out. The problem seems to be that so many of us haven't even noticed that he has been fucking us. Little pricks are like that.

Sorry, you're paddling uphill - by far the best dick political slogan has come and gone, never (I'm sure) to be topped. It dates from the Tricky Dicky era -

Don't change dicks
in the middle of a screw -
Vote for Nixon
in '72

 

[dong20]

There are other Guardians. There are some twenty thousand cities and towns in the US, and most of them have one or more newspapers. For that matter, there are other Manchester Guardians, but not as many as there are Guardians. But no matter, it may try to change its spots, but it's still the same old Manchester Guardian on the inside, except for those sections cribbed from Le Monde or the Washington Post. I don't bother to distinguish, say, Guardian Online by name - that's a detail only a circulation manager could love.

Well that's all very interesting but actually says, well, nothing at all really.

I only know of one (former) Manchester Guardian and I don't think the Middleton and North Manchester Guardian counts, not really.

So, out of interest if for no other reason; to which Manchester Guardian do you refer when you do? Or does it vary depending on your current level of capriciousnous?

 

[dong20]

Stalin, who had a unique way of dealing with unwanted news, simply had the man shot..

Hardly unique and I don't know if he was motivated by the Bard. Still, I expect it's cathartic, if rather redundant.

You're quite right about the likelihood of the remainder of the 21st and quite likely 22nd centuries being marred by a series of increasingly squalid, destructive and pointless conflicts, at least until GW or a sizeable meterorite focuses our collection attention elsewhere, if we aren't too busy screwing each over to notice.