The Military

[Darque]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah you regained some of your plus points back with me.

[Dark Moth]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Right. I think you're forgetting that the Brits wanted to control us as a colony for their own ends, just as they were doing with countries around the world. They interfered to preserve their imperialism. We interfered because we wanted to remove a dictator whom we thought was a threat, and not just because he disliked America.

 

I also think you're forgetting that the patriot act was initiated after 9/11. It was a necessary evil because the old system wasn't good enough. It was a security measure to an unprovoked attack, which is what makes it different from being a "Big Brother". Mind you, a lot of the same people who criticize the patriot act are the same people who criticize Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9/11. I'm fine with the patriot act (for the most part) as of now, I just don't want the government to get too carried away with it, which is I'm sure what many people are afraid of.

[Gabrielle]

Way back in the 50's I'm sure it would have been a just cause to invade and try and remove Stalin from power. One of the most evil men in history who did more atrocities towards his people, even more than Hitler, yet we just left him alone. Wonder why....

[Reveilled]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since you won't be needing it any more, then, could I have that sign of yours out front that says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? I think it would make a nice lawn ornament in my front garden.

[Dark Moth]

Way back in the 50's I'm sure it would have been a just cause to invade and try and remove Stalin from power. One of the most evil men in history who did more atrocities towards his people, even more than Hitler, yet we just left him alone. Wonder why....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure we can say which man was more evil. I do think it was a mistake to let him live, a mistake we payed for. Heck, we never would have sided with the likes of Stalin if Hitler wasn't such a threat.

[Darque]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah you regained some of your plus points back with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(w00t)

[Blank]

Way back in the 50's I'm sure it would have been a just cause to invade and try and remove Stalin from power. One of the most evil men in history who did more atrocities towards his people, even more than Hitler, yet we just left him alone. Wonder why....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs...

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since you won't be needing it any more, then, could I have that sign of yours out front that says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? I think it would make a nice lawn ornament in my front garden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can if you wish but I think the glory days of the Empire are long gone. I don't think your country has the resources to be taken in too many people as it is.

[Gabrielle]

Way back in the 50's I'm sure it would have been a just cause to invade and try and remove Stalin from power. One of the most evil men in history who did more atrocities towards his people, even more than Hitler, yet we just left him alone. Wonder why....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it would have been two nuclear super powers going to war. You do the math on what the end results would have been.

[Reveilled]

You can if you wish but I think the glory days of the Empire are long gone. I don't think your country has the resources to be taken in too many people as it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh no, as I said, I'd like it for a lawn ornament. How does $50 sound?

 

Hey, on second thought, you can actually go inside it, right? Might make a nice house...

[Blank]

Way back in the 50's I'm sure it would have been a just cause to invade and try and remove Stalin from power. One of the most evil men in history who did more atrocities towards his people, even more than Hitler, yet we just left him alone. Wonder why....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

people like you not wanting the US to interfere with foreign affairs...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it would have been two nuclear super powers going to war. You do the math on what the end results would have been.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so now you want that they didn't interfere? look at your first comment i quoted^... this just supports my belief that there will always be criticism about political decisions no matter what happens.

[Gabrielle]

We didn't interfer with the Sovient Unions natural development and see what has happened when we didn't? No more super power dictatorship oppressing it's people and casting it's influence across the world. Now we have a country that fractured and became a couple of free countries and some still stuck in the old ways. Some of the people learned their pasts mistakes but others have not. In time they will, and become a better people for it.

 

 

The end result if we interfered with Stalinist Russia is a nuclear war and we would either not exist or we would be mitated humans living on a desolate wasteland.

[Darque]

The world will be a better, kinder, safer place when men no longer try to play politics

[Gabrielle]

You can if you wish but I think the glory days of the Empire are long gone. I don't think your country has the resources to be taken in too many people as it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh no, as I said, I'd like it for a lawn ornament. How does $50 sound?

 

Hey, on second thought, you can actually go inside it, right? Might make a nice house...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell I'll let you have it for free. Whats an act of kindness?

[Gabrielle]

The world will be a better, kinder, safer place when men no longer try to play politics

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It must be a male hormone thing. I'm bigger and stronger than you, submit before me!

[Darque]

Which probably worked well in the stone age cave days... but not in the now really real world

 

It's time for them to let go.

[Azarkon]

There's a difference between good interference and bad interference. We've already established that the US interferes for its own interests (and therefore the argument that the US invades with "good" intentions is blatantly false). What needs to be established is whether those interests correspond to the interests of the native people. That must be done on a case by case basis and, unfortunately, can only be understood in hindsight. In the case of WW2, I'd say that US interference was a good thing, because in this case non-interference would've led to the deaths of many more millions. In the case of Iraq, removing Saddam was initally a good thing for pretty much the same reason. Unfortunately, we overstayed our welcome in a futile attempt to establish a pro-US secular government. That failed, as the election results indicate. Besides, even if the US succeeded in establishing a pro-US regime in Iraq, how long before it turns against us? Saddam was our responsibility since we, in many ways, put him in power - and if the next government, very likely dominated by Shi'ites this time around, institutes its own version of Saddam's terror? The blood will be, once again, on our hands.

 

It's hard to say whether the US should adopt an isolationist policy. My thought in this is that an isolationist US would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater: we remove US aggression, it is true, but in the same breath prevent US interference in cases where interference is truly justified. This does not suggest, however, that the US should maintain its current foreign policy, which is overly aggressive, essentially self-serving, and gratuitously meddlesome. If the US wants to be the police man of the world, fine - but good cops don't act in their self-interest, they act for the betterment of society and uphold the laws. If the US can't fill these shoes, then it doesn't deserve to be a cop at all.

[Judge Hades]

The world will be a better, kinder, safer place when men no longer try to play politics

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And leave it to the women, right?

[Judge Hades]

Interference is interference and I rather see none whatsoever if we can get rid of the bad in sacrificing the good.

[Commissar]

Name a single American colony.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That...that doesn't even make any sense.

 

Compare the current method of US foreign policy to the imperial system and I think you'll come up with very few similarities.

[Commissar]

It's hard to say whether the US should adopt an isolationist policy.  My thought in this is that an isolationist US would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater: we remove US aggression, it is true, but in the same breath prevent US interference in cases where interference is truly justified.  This does not suggest, however, that the US should maintain its current foreign policy, which is overly aggressive, essentially self-serving, and gratuitously meddlesome.  If the US wants to be the police man of the world, fine - but good cops don't act in their self-interest, they act for the betterment of society and uphold the laws.  If the US can't fill these shoes, then it doesn't deserve to be a cop at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The counterargument, of course, is that the US working towards its own interests is likewise in the interest of the rest of the world. As has been stated many times throughout this thread, American commerce makes up a huge chunk of world trade. The US makes more money, so does everyone else.

 

Would I like to see an end to dollar-a-day wages in third-world countries? Sure. But tell me something; what were those countries doing before they provided cheap manpower for the US? Don't act like America came in, demolished their flourishing societies and economies, and put them to forced labor. Working for a dollar a day is better than getting nothing at all.

 

And let's not forget that the American involvement in international commerce is what allows numerous countries to ride out the socialist wave. It's really easy to not care much about turning a profit when the big kid on the block is picking up the real check with regards to things like a national defense.

 

Von Clausewitz was right in suggesting that war is simply a continuation of political policy; diplomacy in and of itself is often not successful without that potential threat of military action if things get bad. The Europeans are striking out spectacularly with the Iranians at the moment precisely because they can only politely request, not demand. To put it another way: You think Swedish negotiators could keep the North Koreans from taking a road trip to the south? I don't.

[Azarkon]

The benefits of American commerce has little to do with Iraq, unless you're suggesting that in order to maintain our commerce, we must continue to invade other countries. Last I checked, the Iraqi invasion did not improve US commerce. Quite the opposite, really. I mean, we certainly tried to churn a profit by selling oil contracts, but that didn't work out, did it?

 

Would I like to see an end to dollar-a-day wages in third-world countries? Sure. But tell me something; what were those countries doing before they provided cheap manpower for the US? Don't act like America came in, demolished their flourishing societies and economies, and put them to forced labor. Working for a dollar a day is better than getting nothing at all.

 

Last I checked, before Western imperialism the rest of the world got along just fine. In many cases, the West *did* simply come in, demolish the native society through colonialism, corrupt its economy through the introduction of drugs like opium, exploit its resources, and then force said society into labor. Doesn't operate like that on the surface nowadays, but tell me this: what came first - the world's dependency on the dollar or imperialism, which caused said dependency?

 

It's more complicated than that, but the term "third world" exists only relative to the presence of "first worlds." First worlds exist because of two things: 1) the scientific revolution and 2) imperialism. If you want to trace things back to the source, the reason many nations are poor today has less to do with the fact that they were poor to begin with and more to do with the fact that they are measured by a system that predetermines their poverty. The very system of capitalism favors those who already have control over the wealth of the world - ie the US - and forces everyone else into servitude for scraps. This is the essence of economic imperialism.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Azarkon

[Calax]

I'm gonna don't agree with Commisar in that I think america has become an imperialist state. Before you say anything realize that without america South Korea, Israel, and Tiwan probably would be under the control of their opponenets. In south Korea it's because we give them the tech and some extra manpower to keep the DMZ as a hard point. I know we make up a sizable percentage of the bodies on the DMZ while most of the Sk army is covering the coasts from covert insertions or an amphibious attack.

 

Israel relies on american benevolence in equipment. We sell them aircraft and weapons. While their home made guns are great they hardly have the industrial capacity or the resources needed to pump them out in case of a war.

 

Tiwan is easy. We keep them safe by running interference between them and the Chinese. We keep active military bases on Tiwan in order to keep china from attacking. If China decided to attack Tiwan, politically we could say we are fighting china as an agressor because inevitably the chinese government would target american assets because they could be used by the tiwanese as a cover. For china to allow the Tiwanese to run to an american military base and a embassy would be stupid because if they can't touch the Tiwanese units on the american soil the Tiwanese can still shoot out and stage ops from there.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Calax

[Azarkon]

There will come a day when the US will no longer be able to maintain its influence in those countries. It's already happening, really. South Korea's ties with the US are weakening. Israel is increasingly confronted with a hostile and armed Middle-East. Taiwan (not Tiwan) cannot declare independence lest both the US and China turn against the island (the US has pledged to China that Taiwan will not declare independence, in return it obtains the guarantee that China will not force the issue... But that's only a temporary solution).