Unchained Preppers
General Category => News & Politics => Topic started by: EJR914 on February 09, 2012, 12:50:57 PM
-
All of that having been said, our rapidly impending, and apparently unavoidable invasion of Iran, and the subsequent counter-insurgency we are going to embroiled in, just like the one we just left in Iraq, is stupid. I genuinely believe it is intended not to secure peace in the Middle East (good luck with that fucking pipe dream!), but to provide ammunition to further tighten the chokehold of the police-state here in the United States, that we are currently beginning to suffer under.
Let's look at historical fact. If the Israelis genuinely believe that Iran poses a clear and present danger to the security of the Jewish state, they are more than capable of pre-emptively ending that threat, with no direct help from the United States government. They've done it before, on more than once occasion.
The current claim is that Iran is less than one year away from the completion of a functional nuclear weapon. That's been the claim for well over half a decade! I put that into the same category as using Hussein's WMDs as an excuse to legitimize the invasion of Iraq (i.e. it's a load of horse-shit).
There is much much more at the link: http://mountainguerrilla.blogspot.com/2012/02/apologiaand-rant.html (http://mountainguerrilla.blogspot.com/2012/02/apologiaand-rant.html)
I agreed with everything he said.
-
All of that having been said, our rapidly impending, and apparently unavoidable invasion of Iran,
The current claim is that Iran is less than one year away from the completion of a functional nuclear weapon. That's been the claim for well over half a decade!
Those two parts I don' think are accurate. We won't invade Iran. We'll bomb the shit out of them. I doubt we'll invade Syria either. But we'll probably supply the rebels if we haven't already. Taking Iran out of the picture is the key to stopping the civil war in Syria. Russia and China are not going to like it.
Having watched the Iran situation develop since '79 I've "never" heard that they were within a year of building a bomb until recently.
Either way, it's going to get ugly and I doubt it's going to stay regional.
-
Taking Iran out of the picture is the key to stopping the civil war in Syria. Russia and China are not going to like it.
It's also key to civil wars starting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Hezbollah starting a big-ass barrage. [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
Seriously invading Iran can not, and will not help ANYTHING in the middle east.
-
Having watched the Iran situation develop since '79 I've "never" heard that they were within a year of building a bomb until recently.
Ohh really? Well let me google that for you...
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1316l5875l0l7267l23l23l0l20l0l2l511l1073l0.1.0.1.0.1l3l0#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&pbx=1&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=0l0l0l174710l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&fp=1&biw=1289&bih=656&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1316l5875l0l7267l23l23l0l20l0l2l511l1073l0.1.0.1.0.1l3l0#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&pbx=1&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=0l0l0l174710l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&fp=1&biw=1289&bih=656&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b)
-
lol there was an article for every year since 2005, and several from 1998.
"less than a year away" [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
Those war drums sure do beat loud.
-
Taking Iran out of the picture is the key to stopping the civil war in Syria. Russia and China are not going to like it.
It's also key to civil wars starting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Hezbollah starting a big-ass barrage.
Seriously invading Iran can not, and will not help ANYTHING in the middle east.
I agree with you 100% on those statements. I also think NOT invading Iran can not, and will not help ANYTHING in the middle east. With Iran's religious fanatic leaders it is going to be a disaster either way.
Have you ever watched the movie they came out with last year stating that the Iranian leaders are those mentioned in their holy books that will bring about the destruction of the world that will usher in the 12th Imam?
The Coming Is Upon Us.
http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/the-coming-is-upon-us/ (http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/the-coming-is-upon-us/)
The Coming is Upon us - Iran - Imam Mahdi - Dajjal - Messias [ENG SUB] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcLS724zM7A#)
-
lol there was an article for every year since 2005, and several from 1998.
"less than a year away" [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
Those war drums sure do beat loud.
LOL
-
The words "Bat Shit Crazy" comes to mind when I think of their wacked out leadership. This 12th Imam BS is for the birds.
-
Having watched the Iran situation develop since '79 I've "never" heard that they were within a year of building a bomb until recently.
Ohh really? Well let me google that for you...
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1316l5875l0l7267l23l23l0l20l0l2l511l1073l0.1.0.1.0.1l3l0#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&pbx=1&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=0l0l0l174710l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&fp=1&biw=1289&bih=656&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1316l5875l0l7267l23l23l0l20l0l2l511l1073l0.1.0.1.0.1l3l0#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&pbx=1&oq=%22less+than+a+year+away%22+iran+nuclear&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=0l0l0l174710l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&fp=1&biw=1289&bih=656&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b)
Maybe there were claims. Most of what I saw in the google was current or stuff like this:
Iran corruption claims stoke political infighting -...
Boston Globe - Dec 17, 2009
The allegations in Tehran aim high: Iran's top-ranked vice president facing ... big political moment in Iran, parliamentary elections less than a year away. ...
Edit: Oh wait, I saw one from 2005.
-
Maybe there were claims. Most of what I saw in the google was current or stuff like this:
Iran corruption claims stoke political infighting -...
Boston Globe - Dec 17, 2009
The allegations in Tehran aim high: Iran's top-ranked vice president facing ... big political moment in Iran, parliamentary elections less than a year away. ...
Its ok sledge, I just guess you haven't been paying attention, like some have.
? fresh voice adds to the alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitio...
Times Online - Jan 27, 2005
AM - Iran defiant on nuclear issue as UN rebukes loom
ABC Online - Feb 2, 2006
Us Needs A Missile Defense Against Nuclear Blackmail .
Post And Courier - Jul 21, 1998
Keeping an Eye on Iran's Nuclear Program - OhmyNews...
OhmyNews International - Apr 12, 2007
Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran
commondreams.org - Mar 30, 2005
USATODAY.com - We can't take chances with Iran
USA Today - Feb 21, 2006
That's just on the first page of google hits. ???
Fact is, for over 5 years, the MSM has been feeding us this fucking bullshit that Iran is less than a year away from developing nuclear weapons. Face it.
-
Have you ever watched the movie they came out with last year stating that the Iranian leaders are those mentioned in their holy books that will bring about the destruction of the world that will usher in the 12th Imam?
Honestly sledge I do not care.
You think Shia Islam is the first dogmatic apocalyptic religion the world has seen?
It's no different than the shit taught in churches and synagogues, it all has the same result.
Revenge and Subversion is the cornerstone of both Islam and Judaism.
These people are on a crash course, while i want to get the fuck out of the way, you want to drag hundreds of thousands of american soldiers and personnel to be smashed in between the two.
How can you advocate sending troops over seas to this mess?
Seriously? If you care so much go yourself, how can you advocate sending the families of others?
This whole "war with Iran" is just littered with Sadistic, Violent, Statist patterns of thought.
Seriously america, this hyper-nationalist and pro-intervention stance will never work.
-
? fresh voice adds to the alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitio...
Times Online - Jan 27, 2005
AM - Iran defiant on nuclear issue as UN rebukes loom
ABC Online - Feb 2, 2006
Us Needs A Missile Defense Against Nuclear Blackmail .
Post And Courier - Jul 21, 1998
Keeping an Eye on Iran's Nuclear Program - OhmyNews...
OhmyNews International - Apr 12, 2007
Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran
commondreams.org - Mar 30, 2005
USATODAY.com - We can't take chances with Iran
USA Today - Feb 21, 2006
That's just on the first page of google hits. ???
You call that proof? LOL! LOL! I gotta quit trolling, TG's gonna get me. :)
-
Have you ever watched the movie they came out with last year stating that the Iranian leaders are those mentioned in their holy books that will bring about the destruction of the world that will usher in the 12th Imam?
Honestly sledge I do not care.
You think Shia Islam is the first dogmatic apocalyptic religion the world has seen?
It's no different than the shit taught in churches and synagogues, it all has the same result.
Revenge and Subversion is the cornerstone of both Islam and Judaism.
These people are on a crash course, while i want to get the fuck out of the way, you want to drag hundreds of thousands of american soldiers and personnel to be smashed in between the two.
How can you advocate sending troops over seas to this mess?
Seriously? If you care so much go yourself, how can you advocate sending the families of others?
This whole "war with Iran" is just littered with Sadistic, Violent, Statist patterns of thought.
Seriously america, this hyper-nationalist and pro-intervention stance will never work.
Hold on RS. I don't advocate sending troops anywhere or doing anything with Iran. My opinion is doing or not doing anything with them isn't going to make any difference in the outcome. We are going to be affected by their actions either way. At that point I suspect you'll care a little more. Although you won't be able to do anything about it any more than I can.
-
Although you won't be able to do anything about it any more than I can.
truer words have never been said my friend
-
You call that proof? LOL! LOL! I gotta quit trolling, TG's gonna get me.
???
The problem that I now see with our situation is that I want a non-interventionist policy, but the problem with that, right now, is that if we do that right now, we're fucked. I'll tell you why.... WE NEED THEIR OIL. We need cheap gasoline and diesel, our economy depends on it!
Our politicians and government have fucked us. Our hands are now tied. We have to do something with Iran now. Our economy can clearly not handle 8 dollar a gallon gas here right now. They politicians and our government have made damn sure that we do not drill for the oil that we do have, and that our refineries are so old they are probably close to breaking anyway. Or the refiners may be private businesses fault, I really don't know. I know the drilling problem comes directly from our politicians and government. We either have to bomb the shit out of them and let the CIA provide all the rebels with material support, ect.
I'd much rather bomb the shit out or Iran and maybe even Syria compared to getting into another conventional war and getting stuck there with a counterinsurgency thing going on like Iraq and 'Stan. The problem is now, we have to act.
Not to mention, Iran selling oil in gold, instead of US dollars, the Central bank isn't going to stand for that, Igotmydinnerjacket is now on their hit list, just like Kennedy, just like Jackson, and anybody else that has gotten in there way. You see, they are worried that is going to catch on.
As soon as you know it, more countries are going to start bypassing the dollar for anything. Soon enough, bye bye US dollar as the reserve currency, and then at that point, bye bye US and your economy.
Like I said, we've gotten ourselves in such a bad predicament with our backs to the wall that we have to act, we have to fight.
I still do wonder what the hell would happen, if at this exact day in time, we bring all our troops home, we stop all of our interventionist policies, we take after Thomas Jefferson's words and do commerce with everyone that will and make no allegiances. I have to wonder if even now, if that could cure a hell of a lot of our problems.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto" - Thomas Jefferson
I think there is a lot of wisdom in that statement.
-
Your words are absolutely right. Although, pulling back to our borders hasn't worked in the past and probably wouldn't work in today's world either. It would be nice, but there are a lot of evil people and want to be emperors out there.
-
Your words are absolutely right. Although, pulling back to our borders hasn't worked in the past and probably wouldn't work in today's world either. It would be nice, but there are a lot of evil people and want to be emperors out there.
Let them be emperors then. Fuck 'em.
Please tell us what negative effects the US had on them with a non-interventionist policy, besides the Nazi taking over Europe. Don't say Pearl Harbour, either, because you know we were not 100 percent innocent in that as well.
I've found that sometimes sanctions lead to WAR instead of leading to peace. We need free trade with all nations that will do it with us. All I see sanctions doing is pissing off countries that eventually attack you, and then we go to war.
-
Your words are absolutely right. Although, pulling back to our borders hasn't worked in the past and probably wouldn't work in today's world either. It would be nice, but there are a lot of evil people and want to be emperors out there.
Pulling back to our borders and defending our sphere of influence (AKA, the Americas' hemisphere) actually did work well. We didn't have trouble until WWI, and you could only take that partly seriously because Germany was trying to get Mexico to attack us. If it had only been Germany, we could have laughed in their faces. They would not have been able to journey across the ocean to subdue us. Same situation in WWII. We were imperialistic in the Pacific, sure, but Japan came over largely because they wanted natural resources and they wanted to dominate the Pacific. Cuba is in our sphere of influence, and we dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other than these, we have never been directly threatened except with nuclear war by Russia, a nation that would never have launched on us because we would have launched on it, and whose economy imploded within a handful of decades. We have always proven that we are more than strong enough to secure our sphere of influence, and as long as we've done this we have had no direct threats.
Please don't use the example of the 9/11 attack as a "direct threat." It is a product of blowback from the political meddling and covert operations we've conducted there for decades. If we had left the Mid East alone, it would have left us alone. We gave those people over there American technology, American money, and American training. That's the only reason they were able to do what they did. We bit ourselves in the ass. Oh, wait, correction...the generation in political power at the time, probably your dad/granddad (or my grandfather/great-grandfather), are the ones who bit us in the ass. It's always the older generation making the progressive policies that negatively impact the future generations, isn't it? Kinda like the Federal Reserve, the federal restrictions on "dangerous" firearms, etc. Seems we still haven't learned from our past mistakes.
With love, though...with love. ;)
-
Your words are absolutely right. Although, pulling back to our borders hasn't worked in the past and probably wouldn't work in today's world either. It would be nice, but there are a lot of evil people and want to be emperors out there.
Let them be emperors then. Fuck 'em.
Please tell us what negative effects the US had on them with a non-interventionist policy, besides the Nazi taking over Europe. Don't say Pearl Harbour, either, because you know we were not 100 percent innocent in that as well.
I've found that sometimes sanctions lead to WAR instead of leading to peace. We need free trade with all nations that will do it with us. All I see sanctions doing is pissing off countries that eventually attack you, and then we go to war.
This all goes into Ron Paul's foreign policy argument. If we pulled back to our borders we would eventually be surrounded by those who would be looking longingly at our property as well. And it wouldn't take as long as you might think. Being younger, you'd still be around to see it.
Human nature is what it is. There will always be unnecessary wars. Us pulling back to our borders won't stop it or keep us out of them. It's always been a fact of life. If we don't go to them they will come to us. I don't expect everyone to believe it. But everyone and every generation is going to continue to live it.
There have always been two types of nations. Those that are victors and those that are trampled on. Each gets to choose which type they will be. Usually without even knowing it.
-
lol would there be Iranian carriers off the coast Sledge?
North Korean spy planes in the skies?
what are you talking about?
-
lol would there be Iranian carriers off the coast Sledge?
North Korean spy planes in the skies?
what are you talking about?
The most likely would be a Russian and or a Chinese Federation dividing up the world. Although an Arab Calif could also evolve.
Who knows if there would be Iranian carriers or NK spy planes. If there were they would be flying the colors of whom ever took them over. We would just be sitting back waiting for them to decide that we needed to be flying their colors as well.
-
lol would there be Iranian carriers off the coast Sledge?
North Korean spy planes in the skies?
what are you talking about?
The most likely would be a Russian and or a Chinese Federation dividing up the world. Although an Arab Calif could also evolve.
Who knows if there would be Iranian carriers or NK spy planes. If there were they would be flying the colors of whom ever took them over. We would just be sitting back waiting for them to decide that we needed to be flying their colors as well.
That's pure speculation sledge, Nobody knows who would fill the US power vacuum given a US withdrawal.
All the free real estate could easily put Russia and China back at odds as they have been know to compete with each other until only recently.
The FACT is that China is and would remain a massive trading partner. Our markets are somewhat dependent on each other, and given the fact that the growth of the chinese middle class has been rather slow their US export market will remain. The countries that are pissed at us are the one's we invaded and their friends. We are fucking around with all the countries that BORDER RUSSIA AND CHINA, it's no wonder they are trying to have each other's backs.
The increasing aggressiveness of Eurasian foreign policy is due solely to the increasing western military intervention in the region, is it really that hard to see?
Besides, what makes us better than the Russians or Chinese these days?
An invasion is an invasion, an occupation is still an occupation, and all people hate puppet regimes, whether the string pullers are chinese or american, it doesn't matter, it's equally fucking EVIL.
-
You're quite right! The question is, would you rather be a string puller or a puppet? Although, I doubt we will get to that point because I suspect it will all blow up around us soon in the mid east. Then at that point it all starts over again like it has from the beginning. The population rebounds and there would be those who conquer and those who are conquered.
-
You're quite right! The question is, would you rather be a string puller or a puppet? Although, I doubt we will get to that point because I suspect it will all blow up around us soon in the mid east. Then at that point it all starts over again like it has from the beginning. The population rebounds and there would be those who conquer and those who are conquered.
Ehh, it's all for moot anyway.
lol at the end of the world it'll be you and me arguing on top of a pile of ash, munching on MRE's, eh buddy?
-
Ehh, it's all for moot anyway.
lol at the end of the world it'll be you and me arguing on top of a pile of ash, munching on MRE's, eh buddy?
Until Reaver emerges from under the pile of ash with a knife, fork, and an evil grin. >:D
-
This all goes into Ron Paul's foreign policy argument. If we pulled back to our borders we would eventually be surrounded by those who would be looking longingly at our property as well. And it wouldn't take as long as you might think. Being younger, you'd still be around to see it.
Human nature is what it is. There will always be unnecessary wars. Us pulling back to our borders won't stop it or keep us out of them. It's always been a fact of life. If we don't go to them they will come to us. I don't expect everyone to believe it. But everyone and every generation is going to continue to live it.
There have always been two types of nations. Those that are victors and those that are trampled on. Each gets to choose which type they will be. Usually without even knowing it.
If I wanted more fear-mongering I would have flipped it on Fox News.
I asked for real world examples. All I hear is fear.
"If we don't attack everyone, and if we don't start a bunch of useless wars, and if we don't stay the policemen of the world and have bases in every country then the US is screwed."
Its a shame that you buy into this line of thinking, sledge.
Instead of wasting all that money on foreign useless wars, why don't we just put that into the National Defense, within our own waters and borders?
If we become the strongest nations from WITHIN, good luck on anybody attacking us and taking us over, besides nukes, but I'm pretty sure they'd have to smuggle it in, because we'd knock a missile out of the sky, from what I understand we have that technology. With a strong defense, and if we secured the border, they'd have a hard time smuggling it in.
I'm not talking about isolationism, either, I'm talking about non-interventionism. There is a huge difference.
Also, I think we're spread WAY too thin right now, we need to bring it all back, and make our country the strongest from within, and secure our country first, before we go be the police of the entire world again.
-
I'm sorry. I disagree with your reasoning. In fact, if China could figure a way to boat their billion + army over here it wouldn't matter how strong we were we would be in a world of trouble. It's not fear mongering when there is good reason to be concerned. (IE: For example it's not fear mongering to say the Federal Reserve is sending us all to hell in a hand basket. It's fact.)
-
(IE: For example it's not fear mongering to say the Federal Reserve is sending us all to hell in a hand basket. It's fact.)
an irrefutable one at that [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co
-
Just so they can make sure we all stay informed.
"Israel news agencies are reporting the western media outlets are obtaining assets and gearing up infrastructure to provide live coverage of war with between Iran and Israel."
Media Making Emergency Preparations To Cover War With Iran
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/02/08/media-preparing-infrastructure-war-iran-81991/ (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/02/08/media-preparing-infrastructure-war-iran-81991/)
-
I'm sorry. I disagree with your reasoning. In fact, if China could figure a way to boat their billion + army over here it wouldn't matter how strong we were we would be in a world of trouble. It's not fear mongering when there is good reason to be concerned. (IE: For example it's not fear mongering to say the Federal Reserve is sending us all to hell in a hand basket. It's fact.)
OK, are you going to give me one example of things that hurt us while we were being non-interventionist, or are you just going to ignore my question?
I can give you one example, right now, of something that hurt our freedoms here at home as well as our economy, 9/11 was BLOWBACK from all of our meddling in the Middle East, and also, the bombing of the USS Cole as well. Beruit comes to mind.
I believe that being the policemen of the entire world and getting in everyone's business has had a FAR greater negative impact on our national security and our freedoms here at home, more so that when we were a non-interventionist country.
I'm still waiting for you to provide me with examples that I'm not right. Please show me in our nation's history where being non-interventionist HURT us as a country.
-
I'm sorry. I disagree with your reasoning. In fact, if China could figure a way to boat their billion + army over here it wouldn't matter how strong we were we would be in a world of trouble. It's not fear mongering when there is good reason to be concerned. (IE: For example it's not fear mongering to say the Federal Reserve is sending us all to hell in a hand basket. It's fact.)
OK, are you going to give me one example of things that hurt us while we were being non-interventionist, or are you just going to ignore my question?
I can give you one example, right now, of something that hurt our freedoms here at home as well as our economy, 9/11 was BLOWBACK from all of our meddling in the Middle East, and also, the bombing of the USS Cole as well. Beruit comes to mind.
I believe that being the policemen of the entire world and getting in everyone's business has had a FAR greater negative impact on our national security and our freedoms here at home, more so that when we were a non-interventionist country.
I'm still waiting for you to provide me with examples that I'm not right. Please show me in our nation's history where being non-interventionist HURT us as a country.
Look EJR, this isn't an insult or putting you down. It doesn't do me any good to try to explain foreign policy to you. Because we are looking at two separate things. You're looking at a smaller picture that has it's frames surrounding the U.S. I see that picture plus a lot larger picture that apparently you can't see yet.
It's not much different than when you try to explain to someone why you prep and they give you the look. They do that because they don't see the same picture that you do. They see the picture of what is going on in their lives but not the things that can affect it. This discussion we are a having is the same thing.
You think the reason we were attacked on 9/11 or on the Cole was because we are meddling in other people affairs. I disagree. We would have been attacked anyway. Maybe not at those precise times, at those precise locations, but we would have been attacked and will be attacked anyway. Not because we are "over there", but because we are two different cultures and theirs tells them to take over the world for Allah.
Yes, WWII is an excellent example of what happens if we step out of the picture. It encourages and allows expansionist policy by those who desire more power. In that case Hitler. Now, what do you think the world would look like today if we had followed the foreign policy you are advocating then? What if we had stayed out of WWII? You would have Germany, Japan ad Italy ruling a large portion of the world if not all of it. Do you think they would have left our continent or South America alone after completing those conquests?
If we follow the foreign policy you advocate today we will get the same result from the major players active today. The U.S. has been able until today to hold those players in check. We haven't permanently taken over other peoples lands and planted our flag on them. There are still only 50 states. Our problem is that we spent vast sums of money trying to rebuild nations we defeated. We never get paid back when we do that.
The U.S. looks to be in decline at this point and it's ability to hold those other players in check may come to an end. So it is highly likely you will get your wish at some point. My only comment is to be careful what you wish for. It comes with consequences as has been shown in the past. If it occurs the U.S. will find itself surrounded by a world power military it won't be able to match and will be forced to submit.
-
Yes, WWII is an excellent example of what happens if we step out of the picture. It encourages and allows expansionist policy by those who desire more power. In that case Hitler. Now, what do you think the world would look like today if we had followed the foreign policy you are advocating then? What if we had stayed out of WWII? You would have Germany, Japan ad Italy ruling a large portion of the world if not all of it. Do you think they would have left our continent or South America alone after completing those conquests?
You sure do assume a lot don't you sledge? Where did I ever say that I advocated us not getting invovled in WWII? I think we were forced to act in WWII. There you go again, putting words and ideas into my mouth. I hate it when people do that. Its what makes posting in forums and trying to have discussions on the internet so impossible. Stop putting words and ideas into my mouth that I never said. ::)
If we follow the foreign policy you advocate today we will get the same result from the major players active today. The U.S. has been able until today to hold those players in check. We haven't permanently taken over other peoples lands and planted our flag on them. There are still only 50 states. Our problem is that we spent vast sums of money trying to rebuild nations we defeated. We never get paid back when we do that.
Umm, actually, we've acquired quite a few territories beyond the 50 states. Guam, the Phillipines, and I believe Puerta Rico as well. Just to name a few. That's really besides the point. I also, believe you are wrong as you are still putting words into my mouth. I believe you do not have a firm grasp at all to what a non-interventionist policy is. You think it means you never go to war, you think it means that you just sit on your ass while the whole world goes to shit. You are wrong.
I agree, we need to stop the nation building, which is a huge part of our foreign policy now.
The U.S. looks to be in decline at this point and it's ability to hold those other players in check may come to an end. So it is highly likely you will get your wish at some point. My only comment is to be careful what you wish for. It comes with consequences as has been shown in the past. If it occurs the U.S. will find itself surrounded by a world power military it won't be able to match and will be forced to submit.
Yes, and it will be our piss poor economy that does us in, because our politicians have sold us up the river, when it comes to our economy. When the US had more of a capitalist economy, our economy was the envy of the whole world. Through government regulation, the central bank, high taxation, wealth redistribution, ect, our government has turned our economy into a government demand socialist corporatist economy, and it KILLED our thriving economy. We have our elected officials to blame for this, and the electorate, nobody else is to blame. If we had an electorate that paid attention to who they voted into office and what their policies did to our economy, and elected men that were not corrupt and actually supported capitalism, we wouldn't be in this position anyway.
And yes, I firmly believe that we if just left the Muslims alone, and wouldn't have gone over their training them, giving them weapons, vehicles, and other material support, and money, and then backed out on them, we would have never had the blowback attacks that we have had.
You think its a flaw in their religion, I think its because of our meddling in their business and their affairs that has pissed them off.
The fact that you and many others cannot see it, is quite startling to me. The Muslims are NOT the boogey man. If we left them alone, we would stop getting attacked.
Also, to add to this, I think you're WRONG about me not seeing the big picture, I believe it is you who is looking at a small picture because of your preconceived notion that Muslims are the boogey man, and they are all out to destory the United States because we're a "Christian nation" which we actually are not. You are wrong about that. I see the bigger picture of our CIA and all the toppling of leaders, and setting up dictators, then taking out those same dictators that we set up, and the bombing and the terrorism that our CIA does in other countries. I truly believe that they think all the killing and bombing is "for the greater good" but what they don't see is that all it makes the people of other countries do is hate us. Also, the CIA are doing all this in our foreign policy for one thing right now, trade, oil, precious metals, ect. They think they are doing the right thing for the US, what they don't understand is that the BLOWBACK from these actions is why we are being attacked. Not because of the Muslim boogey man. After all, its our fault that we don't have our own oil, we shouldn't even need the Middle East right now. We should be drilling our own oil and becoming energy dependent so we don't have to keep getting into these wars over oil.
I know quite a few Muslims, they don't want to all kill us, you're wrong about that. Sure a small amount of people have bastardized the religion called Wahhabism, don't believe me look it up.
I truly believe that one huge problem that I see is that the older guys, are so set in their ways, so engrained in their thinking that they will not accept or even look at other ideas and see if they have any merit on their own.
You see, I was just like you when 9/11 happened. I thought Muslims were the problem, that they will attack us no matter what we did, but I researched it, and did a lot of reading, talking to Muslims, ect, and I realized it was our foreign policy, our CIA actions, our military actions that have lead to these attacks, and NOT a religion.
Open your mind, stop being so close-minded, and actually try to look at these ideas, see if they actually make sense if the situation was reversed, if we constantly had a country over here, like China, that was constantly bombing us, killing citizens, toppling our leadership, and instituting dictators, that WE WOULD BE ATTACKING THEM TOO. I beg you to please open your mind and look at the merit, the logic, and the reasoning behind these ideas.
What would YOU be doing, if a country like China, was over in the United States doing exactly what we do in the Middle East? Would you be attacking Chinese soldiers? Would you be carrying out terror plots in China trying to get them to stop?
What would you do if China was over here bombing us, killing citizens, had drones flying over our country armed with surveillance equipment and bombs, killing citizens, toppling our leadership, instituting dictators? Please answer that for me.
-
So we disagree. Man, I'm really shocked by that. :o It really doesn't matter if you are wrong or I am wrong. There are consequences either way. Sorry if I miss understood what you said and put words in your mouth. I must have misunderstood:
"If we don't attack everyone, and if we don't start a bunch of useless wars, and if we don't stay the policemen of the world and have bases in every country then the US is screwed."
I took from that statement that your belief was that we shouldn't get involved in a war unless we are attacked on our own shores. My belief is following that line of thought ensures that it will happen.
By the way, I think you've missed something in that statement. We haven't started any wars. We have gone to war in response to what other nations have done.
Anyway, I'm done with this. It's not going to get us anywhere by continuing to prove that we disagree. You have your point of view, I have mine, and the world is full of people who think totally differently than both of us.
Cheers :)
-
So we disagree. Man, I'm really shocked by that. :o It really doesn't matter if you are wrong or I am wrong. There are consequences either way. Sorry if I miss understood what you said and put words in your mouth. I must have misunderstood:
"If we don't attack everyone, and if we don't start a bunch of useless wars, and if we don't stay the policemen of the world and have bases in every country then the US is screwed."
I took from that statement that your belief was that we shouldn't get involved in a war unless we are attacked on our own shores. My belief is following that line of thought ensures that it will happen.
By the way, I think you've missed something in that statement. We haven't started any wars. We have gone to war in response to what other nations have done.
Anyway, I'm done with this. It's not going to get us anywhere by continuing to prove that we disagree. You have your point of view, I have mine, and the world is full of people who think totally differently than both of us.
Cheers :)
Why won't you even look at the ideas that I'm talking about? Why will you not even roll them around in your head and consider them? See if they make any sense.
What are you so afraid of?
Please answer me this question.
What would YOU be doing right now, if China was over here, occupying our country, or bombing us, killing citizens, had drones flying over our country with surveillance equipment and bombs, toppled our leadership and put in their own dictators that they liked?
What would you be doing right now?
Just please, answer that one question.
-
EJR what makes you think I haven't considered the ideas you are talking about? I have thought about it, examined it, forecast where I think it leads, and decided it carries more risk than what we face by holding adversaries in check.
It's not that I don't see what you are saying because I do. We just disagree on the safest course for our country and many others. I believe in peace through strength and power projection. That does not include fighting other people for no reason. It does include carrying a big stick and using it on people who would try to subjugate others until they were strong enough to subjugate us. Your question on a Chinese invasion ties in directly to the above statement. No big deal because neither of us has any way to have an affect on what will happen.
Of course I would fight if China invaded us. I understand that you are saying the people of the middle east are fighting us because we are there. That is a tiny part of the entire equation.
There is a difference between your China invasion question and what we are doing in the middle east. We are fighting there because of the actions of those people. We didn't start it. We do not go to war to take over territory like your Chinese invasion would be. They have been able to hold elections and elect whomever they chose. We are leaving them to rule themselves however they wish to do so.
And the message is fuck up again and we'll be back. If your neighbor fucks up and becomes aggressive we'll visit him as well. Why, because that's the way the world is and someone has to do it. Thank God it's us. Because if it wasn't us it would be someone else forcing their will upon us. Someone without our morals, standards, and sense of justice.
I know you don't agree with that. But I do.
Anyway, be happy! :)
-
EJR what makes you think I haven't considered the ideas you are talking about? I have thought about it, examined it, forecast where I think it leads, and decided it carries more risk than what we face by holding adversaries in check.
Ok, fair enough.
It's not that I don't see what you are saying because I do. We just disagree on the safest course for our country and many others. I believe in peace through strength and power projection. That does not include fighting other people for no reason. It does include carrying a big stick and using it on people who would try to subjugate others until they were strong enough to subjugate us. Your question on a Chinese invasion ties in directly to the above statement. No big deal because neither of us has any way to have an affect on what will happen.
You do realize that right now, we do not and are not trying to get or do have peace through strength and power projection, because I totally agree with looking as strong and powerful as we can to everyone, including our enemies. I want us to look like a tank sitting there to a guy that has a spit wad. As you know, that is not the case. I'd say our country is really weak right now, and is about to become powerless because of our economy. I hope you understand that right now, we are the police of the world. See, that's the thing, you think that people could get strong enough to subjugate us. I hate to say it, but that is never happening. Its fear mongering to think otherwise. They'd literally have to kill everyone with nuclear bombs to subjugate us, another thing that is not happening.
Of course I would fight if China invaded us. I understand that you are saying the people of the middle east are fighting us because we are there. That is a tiny part of the entire equation.
Nope, that is the equation, sledge. They fight us because we are over there, they fight us because our country, our military and CIA, controlled by our government is over there getting all up in their business, killing citizens accidentally, flying armed drones over their country, bombing them, toppling their leaderships and setting up dictators that we like in their place, and most of the time, these dictators are bad for the people of the countries. Is it any wonder that we have blowback? Is it any wonder that they attack us and hate us? I hate to break it to you, sledge, the religion aspect of it is is the small part of the equation. The meddling in their affairs is the huge part of the equation, you have it completely backwards.
There is a difference between your China invasion question and what we are doing in the middle east. We are fighting there because of the actions of those people. We didn't start it. We do not go to war to take over territory like your Chinese invasion would be. They have been able to hold elections and elect whomever they chose. We are leaving them to rule themselves however they wish to do so.
First, you're wrong, when we got done with many countries, WE propped up a dictator that WE wanted in, and the people of that country suffered under their rule, until recently, they have been toppled. You're looking back in the past decade or so. I'm looking back many decades and the way the US has chosen to act in its foreign policy. You need to look a lot further back then a decade, sledge, you need to look back many decades to understand this. If you do not look further back, you will NEVER understand why the rest of the world hates us and wants to kill and attack us. You're being WAY too short sighted.
Ok, well feel free to tell me what Iraq did to the Unites States of America to make us go over there, and kill countless civilians, bomb them, topple their leadership, and establish a government that the United States wanted. The same with Afghanistan, the same with Libya, and while you're at it, explain to me what Egypt did or Iran did to us, before we took out their leaders, and replaced them with someone that we wanted in power. Explain to me what all the countries did to us, where we toppled their leadership and put in a government that we wanted. Include all the South American countries into that equation as well, sledge. Please explain to me what they did to us, that forced our hand to go over there and do what we did to them. You could not be more wrong in your above paragraph sledge. You're just plain wrong.
What we are following right now, is the Wolfowitz Doctrine... look it up. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine[/url])
Do you think that governments or tribes in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya or now Iran had anything to do with 9/11? Please tell me that you don't actually believe that, right? We had NO business invading Iraq or Afghanistan.
We invaded Iraq because we WANTED TO, because we needed a war to feed the MIC cash. We were being the police of the world because we suspected they broke UN rules. They never did SHIT TO US. Saddam, never did shit to the US. The UN should have taken care of Iraq breaking rules, the US had no business going in there in the first place.
And the message is fuck up again and we'll be back. If your neighbor fucks up and becomes aggressive we'll visit him as well. Why, because that's the way the world is and someone has to do it. Thank God it's us. Because if it wasn't us it would be someone else forcing their will upon us. Someone without our morals, standards, and sense of justice.
I know you don't agree with that. But I do.
I think its great that we did what we did in WWII. I'm glad that it was US that have the power and capability to help other countries and people out, when they call on us and need our help. My problem is that most of the time, THEY DON'T ASK FOR OUR HELP. We just show up and become Team America World Police. We show up even when we aren't wanted. We topple leaders that the people of the country either didn't want out, or were to pussy to topple the leader themselves. Let the people earn their own freedom like we did. Why do we always have to be doing it? Like I said, we are completely sticking our nose in places where it doesn't belong, in people's business that don't even want us there.
If people want freedom in their country, they are going to have to earn it themselves, or that freedom will be lost in a shorter period of time that it took for us to give it to them. Make them bleed their own blood like we did to get our own freedom if they want it that bad. Because I promise you this, if you go around the world trying to give people their freedom, when they don't want it enough to take it themselves, you are literally wasting your time, because they will not keep that freedom worth a damn. A people have to be willing to kill and die for their freedom, because if not, they will not keep it. You're literally wasting your time.
You sure do paint a completely naive and rosie glasses pictures of what we have actually done in the past in our foreign policy, I don't know if its out of ignorance or if you just think it will help make your argument look better.
Anyway, be happy! :)
I'll be happy when our government stops being Team America World Police, and stops destroying MY freedoms and liberties here at home. Until that happens, no, I won't be happy.
-
EJR you should talk to Rah. You both have very close views and could bounce this stuff off of each other. You see what you see, you think what you think, and I'm fine with it. I don't agree with you at all on this subject and I think you miss a lot because in my opinion your evaluation is off. I'm fine with that too. It doesn't matter to me.
I know you think my evaluation is off. That doesn't matter to me either.
Now, did we solve anything by continuing this discussion? What a waste of time.
I hope you can spend yours more usefully. I know I will. :)
-
EJR you should talk to Rah. You both have very close views and could bounce this stuff off of each other. You see what you see, you think what you think, and I'm fine with it. I don't agree with you at all on this subject and I think you miss a lot because in my opinion your evaluation is off. I'm fine with that too. It doesn't matter to me.
I know you think my evaluation is off. That doesn't matter to me either.
Now, did we solve anything by continuing this discussion? What a waste of time.
I hope you can spend yours more usefully. I know I will. :)
I don't consider it a waste of time at all. If we have a crash and if we have the ability to rebuild this country, I don't want our country falling into the same traps that have brought on our own destruction, again. If we have people in this country that still feel the way that you do, there is no doubt it my mind that we will again, one day, suffer the same fate again.
I've talked to Rah before, Rah is the guy who got me over to LNL in the beginning anyway, we have discussed this in length, and he and I agree with some things, other we do not. I've known RAH for quite some time.
-
If we have a crash and if we have the ability to rebuild this country, I don't want our country falling into the same traps that have brought on our own destruction, again. If we have people in this country that still feel the way that you do, there is no doubt it my mind that we will again, one day, suffer the same fate again.
Good luck with all of that and changing the way the world works! It hasn't happened since the dawn of time. But maybe you'll do it. :) I suspect you are going to experience a lot of frustration in your life.
-
If we have a crash and if we have the ability to rebuild this country, I don't want our country falling into the same traps that have brought on our own destruction, again. If we have people in this country that still feel the way that you do, there is no doubt it my mind that we will again, one day, suffer the same fate again.
Good luck with all of that and changing the way the world works! It hasn't happened since the dawn of time. But maybe you'll do it. :) I suspect you are going to experience a lot of frustration in your life.
Yeah, since our country had a non-interventionist foreign policy for the first hundred and some odd years and it actually worked for them. [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
-
Yeah, since our country had a non-interventionist foreign policy for the first hundred and some odd years and it actually worked for them.
First Barbary War (1801 to 1805)
War of 1812 (1812 to 1815)
Mexican- American War (1846 to 1848)
Spanish-American War (April 25?August 12, 1898)
-
Yeah, since our country had a non-interventionist foreign policy for the first hundred and some odd years and it actually worked for them.
First Barbary War (1801 to 1805)
War of 1812 (1812 to 1815)
Mexican- American War (1846 to 1848)
Spanish-American War (April 25?August 12, 1898)
Thanks for proving my point. None of those wars were brought on by us being interventionist in our foreign policy.
Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of "realism".
Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States' interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.
Non-intervention, sometimes referred to as military non-interventionism, seems to some to be the antithesis of isolationism.[1] Maintaining the participation of the United States in global economic affairs is thought to likely boost trade and expand US diplomacy, in the view of Edward A. Olsen.[1]
Early background
Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.
George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
[edit] No entangling alliances (19th century)
President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase "entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[2]
In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar."[3] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention ? straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."[3]
The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.
20th century non-intervention
Theodore Roosevelt's administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).
United States President Woodrow Wilson, after winning reelection with the slogan "He kept us out of war," promptly intervened in World War I. Yet non-interventionist sentiment remained; the U.S. Congress refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism)
There is a lot more there, I beg that you please go read it all and educate yourself.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism) LOLOLOLOLOL!
Thanks for proving my point. None of those wars were brought on by us being interventionist in our foreign policy. LOL!
There is a lot more there, I beg that you please go read it all and educate yourself. LOL!
Oh that's funny! :) I'm getting tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. LOL! Thanks I needed that!
Ok EJR, LOL! Thank you for bringing those to my attention. LOL!
Somebody help me! LOL! I can't quit laughing! LOL!
-
Umm ok. ::)
-
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism[/url]) LOLOLOLOLOL!
Thanks for proving my point. None of those wars were brought on by us being interventionist in our foreign policy. LOL!
There is a lot more there, I beg that you please go read it all and educate yourself. LOL!
Oh that's funny! :) I'm getting tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. LOL! Thanks I needed that!
Ok EJR, LOL! Thank you for bringing those to my attention. LOL!
Somebody help me! LOL! I can't quit laughing! LOL!
So when you get proven wrong with cold hard facts, your baseline reaction is to revert to putting LOL! all over the screen?
-
So... what was the OP about again? [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at lol
-
Here is another link for your funny bone so you can get on the LOLZCoaster...
Non-interventionism, sometimes called neutrality or ?isolationism? (more often by its detractors), refers, unsurprisingly, to a government?s deliberate policy of abstaining from interfering in the affairs of other countries. It was the foreign policy of such early American statesmen as George Washington (as seen in his Farewell Address), Thomas Jefferson (as seen in his First Inaugural Address), and John Quincy Adams (as seen in his July 4, 1821, address as Secretary of State) and of later political leaders such as Senators Robert LaFollette and Robert Taft.
Traditional American non-interventionism was combined with advocacy of free international trade and the free movement of people, which is why the term ?isolationism? was inappropriate. These policies are consistent because they avoid intervention in the affairs of foreign nations and in the private transactions of international finance and commerce. Today many left and right opponents of abstaining from military intervention nevertheless want the government to limit private global commercial relations. In fact, both proponents of military interventionism and opponents of free global trade and capital flows are the true ?isolationists.? Classical liberals also oppose neo-mercantilist policies--that is governmental subsidization of industry through subsidies of the use of armed force to open or guarantee foreign markets. But the classical-liberal descendants of America?s founding generation (libertarians) consistently uphold non-intervention and private global free-market activity. They oppose both economic nationalism and the sort of globalism that entails trade managed by governments or their international organizations, realizing that both approaches require government control over private resources and individual liberty.
Non-interventionism averts the perilous dynamic of its opposite policy, in which government meddling creates crises that in turn rationalize more power and further meddling. For this reason, it has also been called the foreign policy of peace.
http://www.onpower.org/foreign_non_inter.html (http://www.onpower.org/foreign_non_inter.html)
-
So... what was the OP about again?
John, Mosby, a former special forces soldier does not support our interventionist foreign policies, especially with Iran. He's saying we should get Israel's back, but only attack Iran after certain things take place. I tend to agree with him.
-
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism[/url]) LOLOLOLOLOL!
Thanks for proving my point. None of those wars were brought on by us being interventionist in our foreign policy. LOL!
There is a lot more there, I beg that you please go read it all and educate yourself. LOL!
Oh that's funny! :) I'm getting tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. LOL! Thanks I needed that!
Ok EJR, LOL! Thank you for bringing those to my attention. LOL!
Somebody help me! LOL! I can't quit laughing! LOL!
So when you get proven wrong with cold hard facts, your baseline reaction is to revert to putting LOL! all over the screen?
LOL! Stop it, your killing me! :) EJR if Wiki is what you base your "cold hard facts" on I'm starting to understand your positions better. :) Yeah, that's a pretty good argument there. Run with it. You've convinced me that I've been wrong all these years. Thank you!
But I'm still confused about one thing. How will Non-interventionism keep other countries from overtaking their neighbors? And as those countries continue to get larger and more powerful how will we keep them from reaching a point where they over take us. When it eventually reaches the point of us against the world what happens then?
By the way, all of those wars in the 1800's. We started. I guess isolationism and non-interventionism leads to such things.
-
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism[/url]) LOLOLOLOLOL!
Thanks for proving my point. None of those wars were brought on by us being interventionist in our foreign policy. LOL!
There is a lot more there, I beg that you please go read it all and educate yourself. LOL!
Oh that's funny! :) I'm getting tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. LOL! Thanks I needed that!
Ok EJR, LOL! Thank you for bringing those to my attention. LOL!
Somebody help me! LOL! I can't quit laughing! LOL!
So when you get proven wrong with cold hard facts, your baseline reaction is to revert to putting LOL! all over the screen?
LOL! Stop it, your killing me! :) EJR if Wiki is what you base your "cold hard facts" on I'm starting to understand your positions better. :) Yeah, that's a pretty good argument there. Run with it. You've convinced me that I've been wrong all these years. Thank you!
But I'm still confused about one thing. How will Non-interventionism keep other countries from overtaking their neighbors? And as those countries continue to get larger and more powerful how will we keep them from reaching a point where they over take us. When it eventually reaches the point of us against the world what happens then?
By the way, all of those wars in the 1800's. We started. I guess isolationism and non-interventionism leads to such things.
Bullshit sledge, I'm calling bullshit on you. Also, each one of those things on Wikipedia comes with its own source. Why don't you start looking at the base sources first? ::)
Also, more fear mongering. Our enemy is going to invade Canada and Mexico, and then they're going to invade us and take us over. Yeah, because that's so easy and so many times it has almost been successful, I just don't know how we ever got out of that.
The closest we ever came to that was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and everyone decided that they didn't want to nuke each other into oblivion. ::)
-
Yeah, since our country had a non-interventionist foreign policy for the first hundred and some odd years and it actually worked for them.
First Barbary War (1801 to 1805)
War of 1812 (1812 to 1815)
Mexican- American War (1846 to 1848)
Spanish-American War (April 25?August 12, 1898)
Please explain to me HOW we started each of those wars, and how each of those wars were not the reaction to some action that was first taken upon us.
Also, three out of those four wars WERE HERE, either on American soil or right here on an American neighbor, right in our own backyard. How in the hell are you even coming close to comparing that to what we are now doing in the Middle East for oil?
-
Also, explain to me how Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and George Washington were all full of shit, and didn't know what the fuck they were talking about when they told us that America should have a non-interventionist foreign policy.
That's right, sledge, somehow you know what is better than our founding fathers did.
George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
-
If it's written it must be true. Honestly, it had the smell of agenda all through it. And several of the statements in it were flat out opinion which sounded like Bull Shit to me.
I still can't believe we've wasted this much time on this. Don't ask me for answers to stuff you should be able to figure out yourself.
Are we finished?
I'll tell you what. You are right, you are so right! Does that do it?
I'm finished with the nonsense.
-
If it's written it must be true. Honestly, it had the smell of agenda all through it. And several of the statements in it were flat out opinion which sounded like Bull Shit to me.
I still can't believe we've wasted this much time on this. Don't ask me for answers to stuff you should be able to figure out yourself.
Are we finished?
I'll tell you what. You are right, you are so right! Does that do it?
I'm finished with the nonsense.
Some of what you've said sounded like bullshit to me, such as the four wars that you listed as proof that we've always had an interventionist foreign policy. When I ask you to prove it, you tell me to prove it myself? I've already proved it myself by reading history books, and I have a fairly good knowledge of what actually caused each of those wars, at least from all sources that I could possibly get information from.
Don't forget to take your ball with you.
-
Don't forget to take your ball with you.
Thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot it.
-
Cautiously peers from foxhole before speaking.
:o
Ah, well if I could make a point here....
To address the endgame of sledge's argument: I agree that, if China/Russia/X-Nation were to subdue the majority of the world and use its natural resources for their own benefit, they would eventually be able to take us in anything but a nuclear war. I think it's likely that China/Russia have the capability to overtake Western Europe and the Middle East. I think one of them could overpower the other one, given opportunity/luck. I do think it's unlikely that Russia or China would just allow the other to accumulate vast natural resources via conquest without intervention, even if just to ensure that the other's power does not increase too much to become unmanageable. However, let's assume that one of them has conquered everyone else, or that they have both formed an alliance. They still will not be able to succeed.
The U.S. has the most powerful navy in the world. We have the best military technology (or technology that is the equal of everyone else) in the world. Bringing our money and military back home will only increase its effectiveness via a much stronger economy, meaning strong advances in military hardware and training. The problem with China subduing us has never been a lack of numbers. It's their lack of ability to establish and maintain a foothold on the U.S. to successfully land and supply their several hundred-million troops. Their plan completely relies on a strong naval presence, which neither the Chinese nor the Russians possess. Lacking this presence, they are cannon fodder for our naval, coastal and air forces, only a portion of which would be necessary to successfully destroy all or most of their landing forces. The rest could be used for counter-offensive operations, taking the fight to their home soil. The Russians would be able to land some people here, I would imagine, if they were able to mount a strong enough air contingent to overcome the Alaskan defenses. If they were to land enough troops (or make a window for the Chinese to land troops), they could possibly sever the Alaskan pipeline, severely increasing supply problems for American troops. However, especially considering that the Canadians would also be threatened by this move, I doubt any landed force would last long against a counter-offensive, if they were even good enough to expel our forces from the Alaskan theatre.
All that is a moot point, however, and I'll tell you why. Look back at history - when have you ever seen a nation (particularly a Communist nation) successfully assimilate several other nations into itself and function well enough that it actually increases its efficiency? You don't. The Roman Empire was able to conquer in that manner, but only because the lands it conquered were adjacent to itself or just across the Mediterranean. The more it expanded, the weaker it became. Its supply lines were strained more every day it advanced. It had to commit more of its forces to suppress civil unrest, because just because conquered lands belonged to Rome, the people and the culture weren't "Roman." They were the conquered. This increased the need for replacements. The replacements eventually almost solely came from the "assimilated" peoples, and were essentially mercenaries (not Roman soldiers) who were just as likely to sack Rome herself if they were not kept appeased by gold that the Western Roman emperors had to borrow. Eventually, what was left of the empire imploded upon itself. The modern equivalent might be Soviet Russia. She conquered her neighbors and was checked by the U.S. However, she did not fall because we attacked her. She fell because her own economic and political practices failed. She was not able to sustain an economy that would fund the constant military buildup. Her subjugated peoples were not "Russian" any more than the Germanic tribesmen were "Roman." There was resistance, and eventually the Eastern European peoples regained their independence. The point is this - if China or Russia conquers Europe and the Middle East, all the natural resources won't guarantee success against the U.S. It would take a phenomenal amount of resources, manpower and coordination to take us down without nuclear attacks. The resources and manpower they would have, but the coordination they would not have. To think that the European and Middle Eastern nations would blindly submit, instead of reawakening a fire of independence and starting resistances and revolutions, is just silly. Human history proves that empires of this magnitude cannot long last and maintain their effectiveness. As expansion occurs, the effectiveness diminishes. They will not be able to take us if they conquer everyone else, sledge, because if they do they'll be doing everything in their power just to keep their empire functioning at its basic levels.
A great example of current overextension is us. You say that we're stronger when we're projecting by interventionism? I believe you're wrong. As EJR has already stated, we're spread too thin. We're more vulnerable now than we should be, because we have our fingers in too many pies. Our military is committed across the globe. The British Empire once was as we are now...they had a small but effective military that was technologically superior to their enemies. However, they were kicked out of many other nations and are now reduced to that small island. If we don't keep our military organized and strong, we can be defeated piecemeal. It's only a matter of time.
So, to recap...China and Russia could not hope to conquer all of the world and then come for us, because they'd be too occupied keeping their empires functioning. We cannot project our strength like this much longer without someone taking advantage of it and hurting us, making us bleed. The only solution seems to be to recall our troops, defend our immediate sphere of influence (the Americas), and become strong once more.
@EJR: What exactly did we disagree about? I thought we see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything...did I forget? ???
-
Cautiously peers from foxhole before speaking.
:o
LOL! There aren't any bombs coming. EJR and I disagree. He turns a little more aggressive than I do. As long as he doesn't try to keep my ball we don't have a problem. :)
Your argument is well thought out. I don't know that I agree with China or Russia not being able to cause us problems by going expansionist which I think they would. Even if they were successful for only a short time. (25-40 years.)
The idea of drawing back and protecting only the Americas is possibly a doable idea that would work if they became expansionist. It makes me think of the North American Union thing. Only with South America added. (Chavez would hate this idea.)
At any rate, I'm getting out of this discussion. You guys type to much for my tastes. :)
-
@EJR: What exactly did we disagree about? I thought we see eye-to-eye on pretty much everything...did I forget? ???
I don't remember, Rah, it was a while ago. I think we agree on a lot of the big stuff, though.