The Military

[Kinslayer]

Where do you really use your "advanced military" to keep the peace at the moment (besides Afghanistan/Iraq)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They're not there to keep the peace or to conduct some other noble purpose, they are there to serve and ensure America's political, strategic and economic interests, as it is the role of every military, nothing else....

[BattleCookiee]

I meant "Where do they actually peace-keep", not where are they stationed...

[Hurlshort]

I meant "Where do they actually peace-keep", not where are they stationed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peace keeping is a part of every one of those stations. It's not the only priority, of course. There is an agenda, the US wants people in power who serve their interests best. They want solid trade and economic certainty. You seem to think this is evil, but I say it's business. Running a country is the same as running a business. You can be ethical, but there is a bottom line that must be managed.

[Azarkon]

Do not confuse countries with empires. Countries respect one another's sovereignty, empires do not.

[Commissar]

I meant "Where do they actually peace-keep", not where are they stationed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peace keeping is a part of every one of those stations. It's not the only priority, of course. There is an agenda, the US wants people in power who serve their interests best. They want solid trade and economic certainty. You seem to think this is evil, but I say it's business. Running a country is the same as running a business. You can be ethical, but there is a bottom line that must be managed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And let's not forget that, more often than not, democratic regimes do in fact serve US interests, for a variety of reasons.

[alanschu]

I bet that that is probably the situation in Canada as well.

 

 

I find it kind of funny, because IMO privacy is a myth.  Unless you're a hermit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am a hermit and I like it.

 

I don't get in the business of government and the government doesn't need to get into mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Ah but you aren't. You're interacting with the outside still. You have a job? I bet you have a SSN. Other things such as addresses, various forms of identification, etc.

 

To maintain absolute privacy, you'd have to literally disconnect yourself from the world.

[alanschu]

We are not the police of the world.  The US government needs to learn that.  We shouldn't let our boys and daughters go to the front lines for these people and mind our own borders.  Oh, I say we should still trade and have good relations in the economic sense.  However next time someone decides to wage war in some region of the world I say let them all die.

 

Brilliant way to keep up those good trade relations though. I'm sure the U.S. really didn't mind Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

 

Imagine how the world would react if we remove ourselves from NATO and the UN completely or eliminate all foreign aid to other countries and demand all loans to other countries paid back in full.  I think the results would be interesting.  Countries that cannot pay their debt to the US we will sieze all assets within the country, including property belonging to foreigners of those countries and that is not covered we will impose a trade sanctions aginast that country til the debt is paid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Forcing countries to pay back their loans in full would ultimately hurt the U.S. too. Furthermore, how exactly do they plan on seizing assets? And you do realize that trade sanctions will also hurt the United States, especially when dealing with the foreign loans.

 

A huge amount of the foreign loans have strings attached to them, which generally call for an opening of the economy to allow those foreign nationals come in and start setting up shop. It allows many U.S. companies to get excessively cheap labour. The U.S. (or any country) doesn't hand out those loans because they're nice people. They do benefit from them. Decided to impose trade sanctions onto a country that you are benefitting from by trading with them will also hurt the U.S.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: To Battlewookie

 

The US, despite the Great Depression, was still becoming an economic powerhouse prior to the second world war.

 

The ironic thing here is that you criticize them for not getting involved, or only getting involved when there was money to be made, in WW2. However, FDR sympathized with the plight of Europe, and there were concerns as to whether or not the population would support the war. There's even the idea that the US knew about the assault on Pearl Harbour, and used it as an excuse to get involved in the war. It does seem convenient that all the "useful" ships like Carriers were notably absent during the attack. They were very isolationist, much like how you would like them to be today, though you criticize them for it in the past.

 

 

On a final note, I highly doubt that your country would just "give" stuff away as well. Furthermore, I doubt that the Lend-Lease was really the primary catalyst for the US economic dominance. On July 8, 2002, Lord McIntosh of Haringey still considered it to be an advantageous loan to the UK. The Lend-Lease was created in an attempt to redefine "neutrality" so that the US could remain neutral, yet still help countries whose defense was vital to the defense of the United States.

 

They also provided excruciatingly valuable supplies and equipment to the Eastern Front as well.

Edited December 19, 2005 by alanschu

[BattleCookiee]

Peace keeping is a part of every one of those stations.  It's not the only priority, of course.  There is an agenda, the US wants people in power who serve their interests best.  They want solid trade and economic certainty.  You seem to think this is evil, but I say it's business.  Running a country is the same as running a business.  You can be ethical, but there is a bottom line that must be managed.

 

Yeah, they really need peace-keeping of US-Soldiers right now in France or Germany. Or Austrialia for that matter. Big wars are there, or were there recently, no?

And running businesses means you bring businessman over to the other countries, not 100's of soldiers...

I don't really think these soldiers being in Germany for example help the US get financial contracts from the German companies.

 

The US, despite the Great Depression, was still becoming an economic powerhouse prior to the second world war.

 

The ironic thing here is that you criticize them for not getting involved, or only getting involved when there was money to be made, in WW2.  However, FDR sympathized with the plight of Europe, and there were concerns as to whether or not the population would support the war.  There's even the idea that the US knew about the assault on Pearl Harbour, and used it as an excuse to get involved in the war.  It does seem convenient that all the "useful" ships like Carriers were notably absent during the attack.  They were very isolationist, much like how you would like them to be today, though you criticize them for it in the past.

 

On a final note, I highly doubt that your country would just "give" stuff away as well.  Furthermore, I doubt that the Lend-Lease was really the primary catalyst for the US economic dominance.  On July 8, 2002, Lord McIntosh of Haringey still considered it to be an advantageous loan to the UK.  The Lend-Lease was created in an attempt to redefine "neutrality" so that the US could remain neutral, yet still help countries whose defense was vital to the defense of the United States.

 

They also provided excruciatingly valuable supplies and equipment to the Eastern Front as well.

 

I am critizing that they didn't help untill Pearl Harbor because that is what happened then. Didn't have alot to do with the subject.

But what did have alot to do with it is how the economical malaise that struck Europe due to WO II was one of the major reasons that the Americans have so many power. How can the government try to make a American-like society from Irak if there is needed alot of others countries hard earned cash needed for it to make such a system, and no countries that can quickly fight and provide that cashflow...

 

And I never stated that my country would "give" stuff away. Not a single country does that. Just replying on somebody else's post...

 

And I would doubt that a loan to the UK (Americans biggest supporter in war-situations) in 2002 (After 11 sept.) got that loan for "making the US neutral"...

[Blank]

Yeah, they really need peace-keeping of US-Soldiers right now in France or Germany. Or Austrialia for that matter. Big wars are there, or were there recently, no?

look at it this way, the fact that no wars are there now can be attributed to the US bases . you can't know for sure, so that argument will always hold up. even if it isn't true, it still might be partially true, and again, you can't know for sure.

I am critizing that they didn't help untill Pearl Harbor because that is what happened then. Didn't have alot to do with the subject.

... omg

 

you are criticizing that the US didn't help when they weren't involved back in WW2 and then you are criticizing modern day US for helping when they weren't involved... so what the heck are you saying?

 

But what did have alot to do with it is how the economical malaise that struck Europe due to WWII was one of the major reasons that the Americans have so much power. How can the government try to make an American-like societies like Iraq if a lot of others countries also need hard earned cash for them to make such a system, and no countries that can quickly fight and provide that cashflow...

but the fact that there was a freakin war in europe which consequently ushered in economical malaise doesn't mean it is the US's fault that the war happened to start with. and therefore it doesn't mean it is the US's fault that there was economical malaise subsequently.

 

And I never stated that my country would "give" stuff away. Not a single country does that. Just replying on somebody else's post...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but countries do give stuff away. just look at all the money for food flowing into Iraq from the US. and look at all the money flowing in to louisiana from other countires. and look at all the money that flowed into tsunami ridden southeast asia from other countries. you must be talking about something else...

 

EDIT:

Could be you, but I don't think that I would really like the Intelligence Services to read my mail or listen to my calls without me knowing.

Worse still if they can just bust in with cops, drag me off, torture me, and then I appear to be innocent, and get kicked out without a sorry because I was just fooling around with a friend doesn't sound like fun to me, but the possibility seems high...

its just me probably... i am used to thinking Someone is watching me (God), so i guess if somebody wrongfully accused me when i was innocent, i wouldn't care because i know justice will be served after my death.

 

the possibility doesn't seem high to me that they'd bust in on me, but it does to you. we might just always disagree on that since it is a matter of opinion.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Blank

[Judge Hades]

If the world doesn't like the US poking its nose in the business of other countries then I say we pull out completely and let them fend for themselves. It is as simple as that.

[Gabrielle]

They're not there to keep the peace or to conduct some other noble purpose, they are there to serve and ensure America's political, strategic and economic interests, as it is the role of every military, nothing else....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've become the new British Empire. The sun does not set on the American Empire.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Gabrielle

[Commissar]

We've become the new British Empire. The sin does not set on the American Empire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Name a single American colony.

[Gabrielle]

If the world doesn't like the US poking its nose in the business of other countries then I say we pull out completely and let them fend for themselves.  It is as simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would prefer we did. We can go back to our isolation period prior to WW1. We mind our business and the world deals with their own.

[Gabrielle]

We've become the new British Empire. The sin does not set on the American Empire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Name a single American colony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm making that statement based on where we have influence/bases at in the world not colonies.

[Judge Hades]

I not saying we should be completely isolated for it is a global economy out there. We should simply not give aid to anyone.

[Blank]

If the world doesn't like the US poking its nose in the business of other countries then I say we pull out completely and let them fend for themselves.  It is as simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"with great power comes great responsibility". i believe that quote. although the US has been irresponsible by making mistakes in using their power in wrong places, i also think it has fulfilled some of its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the evil in the world. of course, the US doesn't hold this principle nor do they act upon it, but i do hold that principle. so even though people crticize the US's reasons for going into war with Iraq, i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

[Gabrielle]

I would prefer almost total isolation. The only things we should deal with in other countries is diplomatic relations and trade. No more aid, no more getting involved in someone else's wars, no more immigrants, no more of our companies moving out of our country.

[mkreku]

Name a single American colony.

You're easily fooled if changing the name of something is enough to confuse you.

[Gabrielle]

If the world doesn't like the US poking its nose in the business of other countries then I say we pull out completely and let them fend for themselves.  It is as simple as that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"with great power comes great responsibility". i believe that quote. although the US has been irresponsible by making mistakes in using their power in wrong places, i also think it has fulfilled some of its responsibilities when it comes to stopping the evil in the world. of course, the US doesn't hold this principle nor do they act upon it, but i do hold that principle. so even though people crticize the US's reasons for going into war with Iraq, i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A country will not evolve on their own if we keep sticking our nose into their business. If the people truely want a change in their government, like Iraq, than Saddam would have been removed from power eventually. Who are we to interfer with a country's natural development? They will not learn from their mistakes if we keep getting involved. Soon they will grow dependent on us and not be able to stand on their own.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Gabrielle

[Vashanti]

A country will not evolve on their own if we keep sticking our nose into their business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Prime Directive?

 

[Blank]

A country will not evolve on their own if we keep sticking our nose into their business. If the people truely want a change in their government, like Iraq, than Saddam would have been removed from power eventually.  Who are we to interfer with a country's development? They will not learn from their mistakes if we keep getting involved. Soon they will grow dependent on us and not be able to stand on their own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but they are already standing on their own. what the heck?

 

the country was not developing in a good way, it was developing in a bad way, epitomized by the bad bad Saddam ruler. so we are responsible to interfere with a country's development, in that, we were protecting ourselves from Iraq becoming a dangerous place, and we were protecting Iraq's own people from being further oppressed by Saddam.

 

we can stick our nose in, and we can pull our nose out. which we are doing, slowly but surely, i don't see a problem in that.

[DemonKing]

i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

 

There are plenty of evil, tin-pot dictators in the world...are you proposing that the US should intervene everywhere?

 

I found it pretty funny how 2.5 years ago Bush was playing dress-ups on an air-craft carrier declaring victory and now he's begging for continued patience and saying that victory in Iraq is "still possible".

 

I can't believe the US public was dumb enough to give this guy a second term.

[Vashanti]

Next on the hit list:

 

Cuba

Bhutan

Iran

North Korea

Sudan

Somalia

Syria

Republic of China

 

:ph34r:

 

 

edit: it wasn't the US public, but rather a slight majority of the US public. It was one of the largest voter turnouts in history. But, popular votes don't really matter, as it's the electoral college who really votes in presidents, but that's a story for another day...

Edited December 20, 2005 by Vashanti

[Blank]

i think Saddam himself was evil enough to start a war.

 

There are plenty of evil, tin-pot dictators in the world...are you proposing that the US should intervene everywhere?

 

I found it pretty funny how 2.5 years ago Bush was playing dress-ups on an air-craft carrier declaring victory and now he's begging for continued patience and saying that victory in Iraq is "still possible".

 

I can't believe the US public was dumb enough to give this guy a second term.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, if you read the thread before posting, then you would know my stance on that question.

[Calax]

A country will not evolve on their own if we keep sticking our nose into their business. If the people truely want a change in their government, like Iraq, than Saddam would have been removed from power eventually.  Who are we to interfer with a country's development? They will not learn from their mistakes if we keep getting involved. Soon they will grow dependent on us and not be able to stand on their own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but they are already standing on their own. what the heck?

 

the country was not developing in a good way, it was developing in a bad way, epitomized by the bad bad Saddam ruler. so we are responsible to interfere with a country's development, in that, we were protecting ourselves from Iraq becoming a dangerous place, and we were protecting Iraq's own people from being further oppressed by Saddam.

 

we can stick our nose in, and we can pull our nose out. which we are doing, slowly but surely, i don't see a problem in that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So... wouldn't this give the brits the right to control america because we were opposed to them and were a fledgling nation in 1776? I mean if we are interfereing in order to preserve ourselves wouldn't that make it so we have to charge in and kill heads of state every third day on the idea that MAYBE just MAYBE that head of state harbors a dislike for america?

 

And on the wiretap thing, if bush can allow indiscriminate wiretaps what's to stop him from looking in your window at night, or from tagging you with a microchip that keeps track of where you are? Dispite your attempt to deflect it I really don't think you want Big Brother to pop up with a vengance which is what the wiretap is.