When will it end?

[Atreides]

Well I'm sure after the Bush admin, candidates for the next presidency will be very eager to stress how shrewdly they'll handle the money.

[Reveilled]

Well I'm sure after the Bush admin, candidates for the next presidency will be very eager to stress how shrewdly they'll handle the money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pshaw. Bush didn't create the U.S.'s national debt, and I strongly doubt any president in the near future will take even a significant chunk out of it. If the people don't get back more in the way of services than they have paid into the system, they're going to want either more programs or bigger tax cuts. Since repaying the national debt would largely involve keeping taxes are roughly the same levels while cutting social programs and military spending, the plebs won't be happy about that. And when the plebs aren't happy, the politicians aren't elected.

 

Trust me, the candidates will talk about handling the money well (and I'll be rather surprised if Bush didn't too), but once you get into office, there's no such thing as honour. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Walsingham]

I'm sorry to hear you're still feeling so negative about people in general, Judge. I would have thought that having the simplest faith in oneself translates into the notion that others can be at least as good. Never mind the evidence all around of people being very good indeed to one another.

 

As for self-interest I think the last century has shown that nutbars and failed states breed threats like infected wounds. Not just terrorism, but drugs, piracy, people smuggling, and wars.

 

Also US isolationism has twice been followed by massive wars, while US interventionism during the Cold War saw probably the longest period of peace between the Great Powers in all history.

 

*shrugs*

 

But each to their own, I guess.

 

Back to the thread, Gabs :"> :

 

1) After the surprisingly good turnout during the recent elections, and first hand reports coming back from Iraq it seems that this is a long long way from a second Vietnam.

 

2) A failure to successfully prosecute the war now we are in Iraq will be taken as proof by Islamic extremists the world over that the West can be beaten and otherthrown because it lacks resolve. Withraw before the Iraqis can hold tehir own and we will see a rise in attacks globally. Extremist terrorism is not going to vanish away just because we run home and hide.

 

3) The media have almost completely failed to give attention to the stupendous progress being made in Afghanistan. We went in there to effect regime change. It got done. And the people have hope for the future. I don't see why Iraq could not be headed in a comparably good direction without the disruption being effected by the insurgents.

 

4) I can't say enough about the death toll. Daily deaths of civilians in Iraq are around a third the level achieved by Saddam Hussein. And the average is dropping. Indeed, violent deaths are substantially higher in many countries presently at peace, notably South Africa.

[Rosbjerg]

My worst fear is that the US will collapse under it's own weight, that the (powerful) industries that follow war will keep the country in a constant race for bigger and more expensive weapons and wars to use them in ..

 

because then we will see a third Roman Empire (the 3rd reich if you like that analogy) rise and fall with a crash that will tear most of this world apart...*

 

*worst case scenario of course ..

[Judge Hades]

Again you bring up isolationism and that is not my point either. I am advocating self-sufficience, not isolationism. That means we keep our resources in to better the lives of our own citizens while we still keep trade going strong on the global front. Yes, I want us to be free of foreign oil by exploring alternative fuels and if we can make a solid alternative base which can be exported then lets do it. Keep the captialism going, but let the US government put its own citizen first.

[Reveilled]

My worst fear is that the US will collapse under it's own weight, that the (powerful) industries that follow war will keep the country in a constant race for bigger and more expensive weapons and wars to use them in ..

 

because then we will see a third Roman Empire (the 3rd reich if you like that analogy) rise and fall with a crash that will tear most of this world apart...*

 

*worst case scenario of course ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if we're going to see another Roman Empire, it should be another few hundred years in the making. Here, you might like this.

 

In any case, I think we're up to five Roman Empires now, so I don't think there's a danger of seeing a resurrected Holy Roman Empire (that's #3 by my count, anyway). "

[Rosbjerg]

sorry for using a cliche analogy Reveilled.. but I did so to make a point not to do a comparison..

[Lucius]

Some would say that I am a pretty cynical guy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Noooooo, really?

 

To be fair, you would probably put Marvin to shame.

[Walsingham]

Again you bring up isolationism and that is not my point either.  I am advocating self-sufficience, not isolationism.  That means we keep our resources in to better the lives of our own citizens while we still keep trade going strong on the global front.  Yes, I want us to be free of foreign oil by exploring alternative fuels and if we can make a solid alternative base which can be exported then lets do it.  Keep the captialism going, but let the US government put its own citizen first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, I see. Apologies for misunderstanding.

 

However, I'm not sure I understand how/why the US should pursue a no-troops approach. In the last five years we've seen military force accomplish what decades of talking failed to do. Expensive certainly, but quite within the national budget. The load would be lighter still if the really expensive toys were left at home.

 

In any event with the electoral process as it stands in the US I can't see money getting cut from military spending even without the odd excursion. The political ethic seems rather darwinian over your way. I can't see the US govt 'looking after' its own citizens any better no atter what stance you take externally. And this ignores all the trade advantages of being the Big Cheese.

[Delta Truth]

My worst fear is that the US will collapse under it's own weight, that the (powerful) industries that follow war will keep the country in a constant race for bigger and more expensive weapons and wars to use them in ..

 

because then we will see a third Roman Empire (the 3rd reich if you like that analogy) rise and fall with a crash that will tear most of this world apart...*

 

*worst case scenario of course ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if we're going to see another Roman Empire, it should be another few hundred years in the making. Here, you might like this.

 

In any case, I think we're up to five Roman Empires now, so I don't think there's a danger of seeing a resurrected Holy Roman Empire (that's #3 by my count, anyway). "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

All Empires collapse and new ones rise

It happened before and it will happen in the future at some point

[Reveilled]

sorry for using a cliche analogy Reveilled.. but I did so to make a point not to do a comparison..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I thought you were making a comparison. I hope you didn't take my post as hostile, I find the comparison a genuinely interesting one.

[Delta Truth]

Again you bring up isolationism and that is not my point either.  I am advocating self-sufficience, not isolationism.  That means we keep our resources in to better the lives of our own citizens while we still keep trade going strong on the global front.  Yes, I want us to be free of foreign oil by exploring alternative fuels and if we can make a solid alternative base which can be exported then lets do it.  Keep the captialism going, but let the US government put its own citizen first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The U.S. doesn't have any resources to keep their massive economy going they have to import

 

The US government constantly strong arms Canada believing they can get all the resources they want while throwing on extremely high tariffs and charging Canada subsidizes there industries such as lumber - Even the Wto on numerous accounts ruled the U.S. was wrong.

 

This is no different in how the U.S conducts there trade with a handshake first closely followed by a gun

 

If you take away the gun then the U.S. will have to be like any other country and obey the rules of the WTO and Nafta

 

Its nice to take about finding new ways to be free of foreign oil but the U.S. wouldn't last a week if it didn't import right now. and even if your government cared about the environment and invested heavily into new technology's such as hydrogen, wind power it would be another 20 years away until you could bring it down to affordable levels for the average consumer

 

This is not the middle ages anymore no country can exist isolated the way things are going the countries are only going to become more dependant not less

 

 

Also if remember when Katrina happened Foreign governments and citizens opened there wallets to help even if the U.S. didn't want it -

 

Helping one another is the reason why countries sign trade agreements or alliances if you say screw it then when a disaster happens in your county the world wil tell you the same

Edited December 29, 2005 by Delta Truth

[Judge Hades]

believe me the US people wanted it. The US government denied this.

 

I would definitely take away the un. Opening up trade is vital in order to keep a strong economy and only when such trade can occur without threats can real and stable growth can happen. Other nations do have some very good ideas that the US needs to implement on a national level. One being Canada's healthcare system, while not the best is certainly better than the US.

[Dark Moth]

Just because you still maintain trade doesn't mean it's not isolationism. The U.S. had a very similar policy before both world wars, and many consider that isolationism. You are proposing isolationism. And I'll say it as I've said in the past: isolationism, especially for a country such as ours, just doesn't work in this day and age.

[Judge Hades]

How would it not work? We keep to ourselves and not interfere withouther countries. If someone does threaten us we destroy them, utterly anc ompletely. We have WMDs that can do this. How can it not work?

[Dark Moth]

How would it not work?  We keep to ourselves and not interfere withouther countries.  If someone does threaten us we destroy them, utterly anc ompletely.  We have WMDs that can do this.  How can it not work?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, first off, isolationism is what makes a country reactive rather than proactive. And it is because of that things like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 heppened. By sitting at home not doing anything to snip threats in the bud, we allowed enemies to catch us with our pants down. 9/11 may have been prevented if Bill Clinton or George Bush had gone after Bin Laden when he had the chance. Also, we pretty much lose say in world affairs and how they are handled. Kim Jong Il will just keep building his nukes. Not to mention the billions of dollars in world aid that we'll be depriving other countries of. I know you don't care about them, but some people do.

[Judge Hades]

Then we must not have our pants down. If such attack hppens we use our own arsenal of weapons and completely destroy the offending nation. Scorched earth. Such as in WW2 when we had the atomic bomb, we had 2 of them. I would have used one on Tokyo and the other on Berlin. With Osama Bin Ladin and Afgansitan I wouldn't even bother sending in ground troops. Simply wipe Afganistan off the map, leveling it.

 

If they want to attack us then we have to teach the world that we will not hold back and send in soldiers. We will use the strongest most capable weaponry we have in our arsenal.

[Dark Moth]

Level Afghanistan? Okay, I'm sure the countless innocent lives you'd destroy in the process would be glad to hear that. I know what you'll say: so be it, they deserve it, blah blah blah. And that would of course justify every negative thing the world has to say about us and our military. Hildegard would have a field day. *shudders*

[Judge Hades]

The taliban was the government of Afganistan and the Al Qaeda was their arm to conduct attacks. That nation attacked us. We eliminate the threat of that nation and return home.

 

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[BattleCookiee]

Hades, lay off the Crack...

 

I would love to repeat what I said before; which would be

 

1. You surely know where the enemy is when you are being attacked? (Thus, you know where Osama's cave is)

 

2. It will kill millions of innocent lives. Note that all the aggression against the US is because you take innocent lives. More would only draw us (Asians, Europeans) into the hands of the Nuke-countries, as we would all love to level the US then...

 

3. Your "Nationalism" and "National improvements" would cripple the US itself untill it becomes poorer than Africa...

[Judge Hades]

Yeah, wouldn't it be cool. Now you are understanding my plan.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Judge Hades

[Gabrielle]

Kill one person, you're a murderer

Kill a thousand, a leader

Kill them all, a god

[BattleCookiee]

Yeah, wouldn't it be cool.  Now you are understanding my plan.

 

A Cold War where we actually Nuked each other into Oblivion. Sounds like fun...

[Judge Hades]

Only way for peace on earth to happen. Only way for all this crap to end.

[Dark Moth]

Only way for peace on earth to happen.  Only way for all this crap to end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that's exactly why I'm glad Hades isn't in the White House.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Mothman