If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
The 'focused manner' of which you speak, Phil, doesn't exist though. There simply is no organization equipped to deal with the task of Nation Building. So it falls to our military and those we hire in a quasi-military form.
We excel at kicking ass. Our military is far and away the best in the world. But it is not a police force, nor the United Way- although we're forced to use it as such. To remove any threat gov't (whether you think Iraq was or not) is to completely shatter the infrastructure of a nation. With despots like Saddam or Kim Jong Il, the nation and it's infrastructure ARE the leadership. You cannot separate the two.
When we dismantled the entire Iraqi gov't- as I believe we were forced to do because of the Baathist dominance of it- we all but made Iraq another US state.
But the fact of nation building cannot dominate our foreign policy either. It's a risk that must be taken at times (and again- whether this was one of those times, I'll leave to the individual) despite the long term fallout.
The invasion of a country and the toppling of it's gov't means we are taking de facto responsibility to rebuild that country after. It's hard, expensive, and riddled with issues. Certainly it wasn't all roses and candygrams with the Marshall Plan in Europe, but there we also had the support of the world, where today that support is gone- and not just from us starting wars.
Long ago the UN and Euro Union stopped representing what's 'best' for the world in favor of what's best for themselves.
Simply- we cannot remove a dictator from the job so easily. It's not like the US where we go happily along changing leadership. There, the entire system IS the leader and his cronies (yeah I know, we suffer from that here too, but less so) and removing them plunges the entire country into chaos.
Nation Building is a losing effort 99% of the time. People might point to the Marshall Plan, but given the recent problems we've had with france and germany- I'd hardly call Marshall a victory for the US.
It just can't dictate our policy though to avoid nation building. We want change in the world, and that ain't free.
But we (as you note) are not suited for nation building, and it pretty much never works anyway. So back to the focused part. If all of these two-bit tinpots knew that if they fuck with us, we'll just show up, kick their butts, and leave, (and if they didn't we'd mind our own business) they wouldn't fuck with us so much. It's all this game-playing and fiddling about and wishy-washyness that makes them think they can. Part of the problem is this attitude of "we want change in the world". It's not just our world. We ought to be concerned with being the best and most free country we can be, lead by example, and let the rest of the world figure out how to solve their own problems. They are all grownups, too.
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
The Marshall Plan +50 years doesn't look all rosy now because there are a couple of generations who don't understand the history. Or don't care.
Lead by example is a great theory, too bad it doesn't work all the time. The rest of the world can't work out their own problems because the thugs won't let them, be it the radical Muslims, some damned dictator, whatever. Not everyone is as brave as our forefathers and England was nowhere near as ruthless as a Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Pol Pot.
Getting into this war was just a matter of time really. If you look at it, radical Muslim has been building in various parts of the world since Jimmy Carter allowed them to get a firm stronghold in Iran. They hate what we stand for - freedom of choice, and will do anything to undermine us.
Yes, we have caused some of our own problems by nosing around other's business, but to some extent, we need to know what is happening in certain areas of the world for strategic purposes. Like it or not, oil is one of those strategic purposes, and that isn't just the oil companies' problem to be dealt with.
Sitting back did nothing for us but make them grow more bold until they had the courage to bring it to our shores. Saddam may or may not have been directly involved with Al-Queda, it doesn't matter. They watched and saw that time after time nobody did anything to stop him, thinking nobody would do anything to stop them.
And finally, Switzerland is a non-issue. What the hell do they have that anyone wants? That's really why nobody fucks with them.
__________________
For as dumb as you are, even you will remember this. - Lee Ving/ Fear
Ever feel you've been cheated? - Johnny Rotten
I go Beltway blitzin' on my mad mofo musclebike WFO. Its a true choice, a god-like experience if you will. The thought that I could buy the farm in a spectacular fireball...................well, that gives me a stiffie! Tesco Vee/The Meatmen
Actually Phil, that's a damn good idea. The elite of the arab world live lives of incredible luxury thru oil sales- and do little to earn any of it. Our soldiers have time and again sacrificed to maintain the oil flow- which benefits the arab leaders far more than it benefits us.
But why stop there? Canada has hidden behind the skirt of the US for decades- saving enough on defense to spend on public healthcare. Why not charge Canada, our biggest oil supplier, for decades of protecting them so they could have a miniscule military.
How about charging the UN for back rent on that office space in NYC? The US's backing of the corrupt and ineffective UN has cost the US taxpayer far more than it's benefited them.
I think you hit the nail right on the head calling the mid-east strategy little more than welfare. I think you ought to expand that to many other recipients of US goodwill.....and tax dollars...........
Actually Phil, that's a damn good idea. The elite of the arab world live lives of incredible luxury thru oil sales- and do little to earn any of it. Our soldiers have time and again sacrificed to maintain the oil flow- which benefits the arab leaders far more than it benefits us.
But why stop there? Canada has hidden behind the skirt of the US for decades- saving enough on defense to spend on public healthcare. Why not charge Canada, our biggest oil supplier, for decades of protecting them so they could have a miniscule military.
How about charging the UN for back rent on that office space in NYC? The US's backing of the corrupt and ineffective UN has cost the US taxpayer far more than it's benefited them.
I think you hit the nail right on the head calling the mid-east strategy little more than welfare. I think you ought to expand that to many other recipients of US goodwill.....and tax dollars...........
Exactly. You may be being sarcastic here, but I think most of what you just said above is actually on the right track.
I don't think we've spent all that much defending Canada; no one wants to attack them (perhaps because they are pretty darned non-interventionist, perhaps?), but I think it would be fair to start charging fair market price to, say, Japan for keeping them secure, or Korea, or Europe. Then each could decide to pay us to do it, or take over themselves; they all could afford to handle their own affairs.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
The Marshall Plan +50 years doesn't look all rosy now because there are a couple of generations who don't understand the history. Or don't care.
Lead by example is a great theory, too bad it doesn't work all the time. The rest of the world can't work out their own problems because the thugs won't let them, be it the radical Muslims, some damned dictator, whatever. Not everyone is as brave as our forefathers and England was nowhere near as ruthless as a Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Pol Pot.
Getting into this war was just a matter of time really. If you look at it, radical Muslim has been building in various parts of the world since Jimmy Carter allowed them to get a firm stronghold in Iran. They hate what we stand for - freedom of choice, and will do anything to undermine us.
Yes, we have caused some of our own problems by nosing around other's business, but to some extent, we need to know what is happening in certain areas of the world for strategic purposes. Like it or not, oil is one of those strategic purposes, and that isn't just the oil companies' problem to be dealt with.
Sitting back did nothing for us but make them grow more bold until they had the courage to bring it to our shores. Saddam may or may not have been directly involved with Al-Queda, it doesn't matter. They watched and saw that time after time nobody did anything to stop him, thinking nobody would do anything to stop them.
And finally, Switzerland is a non-issue. What the hell do they have that anyone wants? That's really why nobody fucks with them.
Of course leading by example doesn't work *all the time*. But it works some of the time, and whether or not it works is not really our concern. It's entirely up to other people whether they want to folllow any example or not; that's their rights.
Yeah, "the rest of the world can't work out their own problems" and "not everyone is as brave as our forefathers", etc., etc. All those poor inferior people need the great white hope to come and save them from themselves and teach them how to live. How f'in arrogant can you get?
Radical Islam is an internal struggle (or is if left alone), concerned primarily with control over the Islamic world, it's more like the Protestant Reformation than anything else, with Radical Islam playing the part of the Catholic Church struggling to maintain control over the faith. We played a significant part in the radical takeover of Iran, by propping up the Shah for decades and pissing off all the Iranians thereby. (Yet another example of why we oughtn't be doing this crap.)
And if we have allowed ourselves to become dependent enough on someone else's resources that their internal politics can threaten our security and "strategic purposes", then we have made a mistake, and we need to change our own policies so as not to be in that vulnerable position. And it still isn't right for us to use that position as an excuse to stomp all over someone else's sovereignty.
It still comes back to behaving well and being a good and responsible country. Watch the world, defend ourselves vigorously and in a clear manner when attacked or threatened, keep the response focused on those who did or intended us the harm, and leave anyone who isn't doing us harm alone. It's wrong to start fights, but right to act in self-defense. How hard is that to understand?
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
Exactly. You may be being sarcastic here, but I think most of what you just said above is actually on the right track.
--No, I'm dead serious. You have a brilliant idea here. Of course it'll never fly in DC....think the world hates us now, imagine if we stopped being the world's equivelant of asking dad for gas money.......
As for Canada- all of NORAD is a 'joint' US-Canadian venture. Read that to say the US paid for it all and Canada sent a few officers to hang out in the Mountain. Canada knows any attack across the Bering Strait would be dealt with by US forces. Hell since we get most of our oil from Canada- it's way more important to protect than any sandbox in the middle east.
Knowing that the US took responsibility for North America's defense has allowed Canada to spend far less on defense all this time. So- they get our money for oil, and they get free military defense.
There should be a price tag attached to that. Canada has often criticized the US for not having universal healthcare. But imagine how much extra change we'd have if the entire western hemisphere wasn't banking on the US to defend it.........the US doesn't just pay for our defense- but pretty much everyone on this side of the planet. Had these nations been more self-reliant, they wouldn't have the money either for pleasantries like universal healthcare.
I am all for presenting bills for services rendered.
--No, I'm dead serious. You have a brilliant idea here. Of course it'll never fly in DC....think the world hates us now, imagine if we stopped being the world's equivelant of asking dad for gas money.......
As for Canada- all of NORAD is a 'joint' US-Canadian venture. Read that to say the US paid for it all and Canada sent a few officers to hang out in the Mountain. Canada knows any attack across the Bering Strait would be dealt with by US forces. Hell since we get most of our oil from Canada- it's way more important to protect than any sandbox in the middle east.
Knowing that the US took responsibility for North America's defense has allowed Canada to spend far less on defense all this time. So- they get our money for oil, and they get free military defense.
There should be a price tag attached to that. Canada has often criticized the US for not having universal healthcare. But imagine how much extra change we'd have if the entire western hemisphere wasn't banking on the US to defend it.........the US doesn't just pay for our defense- but pretty much everyone on this side of the planet. Had these nations been more self-reliant, they wouldn't have the money either for pleasantries like universal healthcare.
I am all for presenting bills for services rendered.
Well then, we're on the same track.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
Perhaps Hitler would have left them alone due to the blond haired types but if they had Jews...
Anyway I reject neutrality because I honestly believe that naked aggression could give a fuck about it.
The Swiss do have money so there is your probable cause.
Quote:
Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."
It's also well documented that Hitler considered Switzerland to be a country that was required to be part of the new Germany, but he knew the cost was too high.
It's an example of non-intervention working 100% in modern foreign policy.
Argue that it's not realistic for the US all you want, but don't think for a second that SUVs and bigscreen TVs are a valid defense for a nation-building policy.
Disproving the idea that non-intervention never works doesn't qualify as a locial fallacy FYI.
"You, stop posting evidence that undermines my argument!"
It's also well documented that Hitler considered Switzerland to be a country that was required to be part of the new Germany, but he knew the cost was too high.
It's an example of non-intervention working 100% in modern foreign policy.
The Swiss might not have had anything Hitler needed to fuel the war machine or perhaps the logistics weren't possible once we engaged them.
Who cares really, these types will take what they want if given the chance. If we ignore them they will gain power in the vacuum created when we disengage.
WOOHOO!!! Now that's some fucking change right there, I don't care you you are
His thoughts aren't all that outragous, I'm sure there are a lot of people that think the same he does about those two specific RP issues.
You hear on the news of lay offs and a possible recession, you don't want to lay off the IRS. I get that. There are also a lot of people that think pulling out immediately isn't the best idea.
He didn't say anything that wacko and I think you are doing the right thing by not getting in his face or saying something offensive to him. If you want convince a pussy that he's being a pussy, you probably aren't going to intimidate or scare him 'tough'.
I've heard a lot dumber things, at least the guy gives a rat's ass apparently. As for the social medicine/right to carry, I won't get involved and my stance is pretty clear towards your thinking.
I agree, I am completly against laying off the IRS, Id rather just see our entire tax system revamped.
Switzerland was heavily armed. The damage they would have done to the Germans would have been too great.
Point being, neutral and armed seems to keep the enemy away from your cornhole.
Was that a swipe at Barack HUSSEIN Obama?
The notion that switzerland could have withstood the blitz is nonsense to say the least. the reason the germans did not invade is switzerland is a leader in banking, that was known, and that was very much needed, so nothing would be gained by taking them over in the first place.
The notion that switzerland could have withstood the blitz is nonsense to say the least. the reason the germans did not invade is switzerland is a leader in banking, that was known, and that was very much needed, so nothing would be gained by taking them over in the first place.
You are familiar with the Swiss version of national defense, no?
Yes, Swiss banking played a part. I'll give you that much.
But plans were drafted for a Swiss invasion by the Germans. It never took place. Swiss pilots shot down German planes that intercepted their airspace. Hitler ordered covert operations against Swiss airfields. From 1940 to 1944, Switzerland was virtually surrounded by Axis controlled countries, but a formal act of war was never declared.
Quote:
During World War II, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the German miltary command,[2] such as Operation Tannenbaum, but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of economic concessions to Germany, military deterrence and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion. Attempts by Switzerland's small Nazi party to cause an Anschluss with Germany failed miserably, largely due to Switzerland's multicultural heritage, strong sense of national identity, and long tradition of direct democracy and civil liberties. The Swiss press vigorously criticized the Third Reich, often infuriating its leadership. Under General Henri Guisan, a massive mobilization of militia forces was ordered. The Swiss military strategy was changed from one of static defense at the borders, to a strategy of organized long-term attrition and withdrawal to strong, well-stockpiled positions high in the Alps known as the Réduit. This controversial strategy was essentially one of deterrence. The idea was to make clear to the Third Reich that the cost of an invasion would be very high.
Nothing to be gained by invading one of the most financially well-off countries in Europe at the time?
But it works some of the time, and whether or not it works is not really our concern. It's entirely up to other people whether they want to folllow any example or not; that's their rights.
Linear Mode
