Our ambassadors of peace speak

[Ardsgaine]

That is a chance one must take upon entering the service. Somalia was a war. We didn't need to be involved though. The UN was taking care of business

Unfortunately, it is a chance one takes when entering the US military. You never know who's going to gain office while you're in the service, and what sort of war you're going to be asked to fight. I distrust any war undertaken for altruistic reasons, and one of the things I like about Bush is that he said from the beginning that he would only send our troops into war if it served a vital national interest (or something to that effect).

 

[RD_151]

What exactly do you think we're facing here? America & most of it's allies have been attacked, at one time or another. This will eventually lead to a showdown with China. Right now, we have to put a stop to the potentail outcome. Take away the troubles before they become dangers. If we (and the UN if they get off their ass) put an end to this now, the eventuality may be stopped. If not, piss ant countries like Iraq will have WMD's & our job gets a whole lot harder.

Don't you think thats a bit of an imperialist veiw of things?

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Eventually EVERY countr will have a nuclear wepon or maybe an whole arsenal of them. Then it will be difficult indeed. But do you really think we can stop proliferation FOREVER? Come on now, we built them in 45, technology has come a long way since then, and its gonna go a lot further in the future. Do you honestly think containment is a sustainable policy. Do you really think its POSSIBLE to stop proliferation indefinitely? I don't!!! Well, so you stop them now, so you prevent it THIS TIME. What happens next time, in 10 years, in 20, in 50? How many ememies did you make, how many future "Hitlers" did you create in the process? Hitler wasn't born to be the leader and tyrant he became, he wasn't predestined to this fate. History, and circumstances in his life made him to be who he was. The same goes for the terrorist of 911, and those that will follow. This is bad policy, you just don't see it that way. YOu are creating far more problems than you are solving. Its like the American Auto industry, and American industry in general in the 1980s, they could see past the quarter they are in. Ok, it happened again with Enron, and all the others. People AREN'T thinking ahead. They claim to be, IN THIS CASE, but they aren't looking at the full implications, and ALL possible outcomes of this. Do you think the world loves us? You can see what you want to see if you look through rose colored lenses, but we aren't the worlds saviour, we aren't the worlds favorite nation, and THAT is already the problem. This isn't gonna help our image. Ok, during the cold war, you needed an ICBM to be a threat, today, you only need a pocket full of U 235 or Plutonium, and couple suicidal people to deliver the device to the target. Or, the same goes with bioterrorism, only its much easier, and possible EVEN TODAY. Ok, both are possible today, but not with such ease as will be the case in the future. Time is the factor you are neglecting. China WILL over take us eventually, and if the EU can pull together, they too will over take us. We will NOT remain the largest and strongest nation through out the rest of time. That is a fact you must accept, whether you like it or not. You aren't considering this. You are too caught up in the present to see beyond it to what challenges will come in the not too distant future. I don't know what your backgroud was, but I tend to look at thinks in terms of decades and maybe even a centruy ahead, and think what might be then. Even in OUR lifetimes the US will cease to be the worlds superpower. That isn't so difficult to see. We feared it was happening in the late 1980s as Japan rose to power. Ok, this was only economically, but guess what, without the largest economy, you can't maintain the largest and most powerful army anymore can you? Thats why the USSR lost the cold war, now isn't it, because they didn't have the economic support to back their military. Well, we are on top NOW, but to ASSUME it will remain this way is foolishness and arrogance. Further, one of the suicidal terrorist I refered to ealier could take us out of the race a hell of a lot sooner couldn't they?

Consider this, consider the loss of our 3 largest cities. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

New York City is the worlds 13th largest economy, LA the 15th, and Chicago the 18th. Now this is comparing them to other Nations!!! New York City alone is a larger economy than South Korea, The Netherlands, Australia, and Russia. Chicago is only slightly smaller than Russia, and of these, only South Korea is slightly larger than LA. Clearly we are easy targets for terrorists, now aren't we? Our economy is highly concentrated and easily targeted by terrorists. Its not like its so easy to cripple the "terrorists" or "rouge nations." They have nothing to loose anyway!!!

Here is a link to show you how US metro economies compare to other economies (nations) in the world. WE are easy targets for terrorist. Think again!!! This is bad policy!!! They have NOTHING to loose, we have EVERYTHING to loose!!!

http://www.usmayors.org/70thAnnualMeeting/metroecon2002/MetroNations.pdf

 

[Gato_Solo]

I don't think anyone is willing to commit to that Gato. That was my original question on the subject and I don't recall seeing a definitive answer yet.

I knew from the beginning that neither you nor Gato would be satisfied with a simple assertion that, yes, I would be willing to go. I didn't want to get into a debate about whether I would really be willing, or whether I was just saying it.

I was satisfied with PT's answer, so why wouldn't I be satisfied with yours? Nice of you to actually join the debate after it's pretty much over.

It's stupid, and it's totally beside the point. The debate was about whether we ought to be fighting a war against Iraq. This BS about who is willing to serve is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against those who support the war.

Actually, that was the whole point. If you can't see it after all of this, then I truly feel sorry for you. PT saw it. Squiggy saw it. I kept asking the same question and saying the same statements after responding to the posts.

Am I willing to fight for my freedom? Yes! Do I believe this war is necessary to defend my freedom? Yes! Would I be willing to go if it were necessary? Yes!

Is it necessary? No!

The question was if it was necessary.

We pay taxes to support a standing, professional volunteer army. It's their job to defend this country. They accepted the job when they signed up. It's our job to make sure that they have the best training and equipment that money can buy, because, as Patton said, war isn't about dying for your country, it's about making some other poor bastard die for his. It's also our job to respect and honor the people who serve in the military. Above all, it's our job never to send them into a war that does not serve our country's best interest.

Thank you. You, unlike some, at least understand that much.

Sending our soldiers into BS "police actions" like Bosnia, Vietnam, Somalia, etc, was wrong. Those wars did nothing to make America more secure. There was no vital national interest at stake. I do not blame men who refuse to fight in such wars.

Doesn't matter in the long run. What does matter is how we are supported when we return. The public, since the late 1960's, has generally thought of the military as a bunch of war-mongering killers who want nothing more than total domination of the world at the expense of the civilian population. They fail to remember that the president and congress are the folks who tell us what we should, and shouldn't, do...elected, of course, by the public and/or their representatives.

Having said that, I do blame a soldier who takes the country's money, receives our technical training, and then when asked to go fight a war to defend our freedom says, "you don't have the right to send me unless you're coming too." Yes, we do have the right to send him. We paid his salary, we paid for his training and he agreed to fight when needed. If we all have to go fight the war, then we don't need to worry about having a standing army. We'll just call up the militia when the shooting starts.

Tsk, tsk. Who said that? I only said that you claim the right to order us into a 'situation' that you, yourself, are unwilling to go into. That makes you a hypocrite. I never said that I would refuse to go. I only took exception to the fact that you are hypocritical on the matter...You haven't admitted as such, but it's right here in the quotes.
You say we need to go out and sacrifice ourselves to protect you. Fine. That, as you stated, is my job. I asked if you, if necessary, would go as well, and you balked. I question your conviction, and you become angry. Good. At least you feel something. Now, go ahead and find all the quotes I made that seem to contradict what I just said so we can debate some more on your stance...and your motives.

 

[Gonz]

RD, I have plenty to say about your last post but don't have time right now. Check back for more Imperialistic views from the wacko, coming soon.

 

[RD_151]

gotcha

Don't worry, I don't think you are a wacko, or an imperialst. I felt the same way about 2 months ago (blame my wife for the reversal, its true, its her fault), and I still do in some respects. It would be wonderful to stop them before they get them, but I worry it won't work, not in the long-run at least..

I do look forward to hearing you views. After all, its you way that this country is going to pursue, not mine!!!

 

[Gonz]

Don't you think thats a bit of an imperialist veiw of things?

No. It is a sensible way to keep ourselves out of harms way. I don't advocate control over another's government but I expect not to be threatened.

Eventually EVERY country will have a nuclear wepon or maybe an whole arsenal of them. But do you really think we can stop proliferation FOREVER? Come on now, we built them in 45, technology has come a long way since then, and its gonna go a lot further in the future. Do you honestly think containment is a sustainable policy. Do you really think its POSSIBLE to stop proliferation indefinitely?

According to (about) 168 nations worldwide & their legal signatories, it is illegal to create or possess nuclear arms, according to the UN mandate. When 5 nations had them, we were relatively safe. Now that 9(?) have them, we're not so safe. When 100 have them someone, somewhere WILL use one or more. Stop them now or pay the consequences for all eternity.

How many ememies did you make, how many future "Hitlers" did you create in the process? This is bad policy, you just don't see it that way. You are creating far more problems than you are solving.

Bad policy? It's bad to piss off the bad guys? So what. Better a pissed off Hitler wannabe than an armed & pissed off wannabe. Enemies, like allies, ebb & flow, with so many more reasons than nuclear control. As long as there is trade to be had or something to be gained, for either party, enemies will become allies, or at least trading partners.

Do you think the world loves us?

As a matter of fact, mainly, yes. You want an example? Look at the news, right now. Those aren't Americans jumping off that ship to go to Haiti. Not EVERY individual (must be PC now thanks to another thread) wants to live here & live relatively free, but a huge plurality most certainly do. I'd rather see them stay home & make their own country a capitalistic republic satan.

Time is the factor you are neglecting.

Not at all. As long as the US is able to protect, we are obligated to do so. When we are unable, then allow the new kid on the block to take over.

...I tend to look at thinks in terms of decades and maybe even a centruy ahead, and think what might be then.

As an amateur history buff, I too look at time. I tend to look backwards because that is also our future. Names & faces may change but history repeats itself. If we forget or fail to act things go from bad to worse.

Further, one of the suicidal terrorist I refered to ealier could take us out of the race a hell of a lot sooner couldn't they?

Which is why we have to act now & not put off the inevitable. Since WWI the US has gotten into one scrape or another for all the wrong reasons. I have never supported military action (post 1945). We were attacked. We have reason, opportunity & evidence to point to one of the contributing factors. We need to quit talking about it & poo-pooing it & protect ourselves, and the world with us.

Here is a link to show you how US metro economies compare to other economies (nations) in the world. WE are easy targets for terrorist. Think again!!! This is bad policy!!! They have NOTHING to loose, we have EVERYTHING to loose!!!

All the more reason to act.

 

[RD_151]

We aren't gonna agree on this. You see things differently. I will agree to disagree.

According to (about) 168 nations worldwide & their legal signatories, it is illegal to create or possess nuclear arms, according to the UN mandate. When 5 nations had them, we were relatively safe. Now that 9(?) have them, we're not so safe. When 100 have them someone, somewhere WILL use one or more. Stop them now or pay the consequences for all eternity.

I don't think we are having this discussion because treaties work, but rather becaue they fail.

I think we can agree that China helped Pakistan get its nuclear program up an running, and that they are helping Iran and NK as well. What happens when Iran and NK have nuclear weapons programs online? Do you think they will abide by the treaty? China hasn't exactly been following it, they have done plenty of technology transfers to those we least want to have such knowlege. To make matters worse, they stole all our best technology (or bought from Clintion for campaign contribuitions depending on which you believe) a short while back. No, this doesn't work, if it did, we wouldn't be discussing this.

As far as the world loving us so much, well, I think 911 speaks for itself doesn't it. To hate us so much as to die for it says a lot. We won't agree on this.

I'm also aware of numerous nuclear plants in the former "Soviet Block" and many of those countries are not friendly to us. Take Serbia for instance. Ok, they transfered weapons grade material out of there a while back with US and Russian help, but still, we aren't exactly loved in the world as some would believe.

Put this way, do you love your "liberators" when they kill your family in the process. No, probably not. Well, it only takes a few as we saw last september. There are hostilities to the US in the world, and they grow every time we try to use our power to "protect ourselves, and the world with us. "

If Iraq was behind it, we would have hit Iraq before Afghanistan. Don't ya think? Ok, they ALL hate us in that region. If not the people at least their gov'ts. Well, the people don't control the military, their gov'ts do, as we discussed in another thread. And I can assure you, enough of the people hate us as well. Take Saudi Arabia. There gov't is terrifed because the people hate us, yet the gov't is "friendly" to the US, if you can call it that. No, its not quite like you think. The same is true in Pakistan. Don't you remember all the fears that those countries were having when they were helping the US in its "war on terrorism." Most of them feared they couldn't help us without risking rebeilion and possible revolution at home. Maybe its not as bad as I think, but there are plenty of people who hate us out there. I found that out while I was in Central Europe. And I remember every time I go back!!! And they aren't even against us, they just aren't too thrilled about us. I can only imagine what the middle east must be like.

Ok, we will see I guess. They will do it your way, I'm certain of that. I guess we will let time and history be the judge of what was the right choice in this matter.

 

[Gonz]

China is the key to much, in not most, of our problems. Since they haven't done anything, directly, we have no current reason to start (anything) with them. Iran & Iraq are our major, foremost concerns. If Iraq is stopped & we have troops in place, that may be enough to start an revolution in Iran. Many of their citizens, growing expedientially, are ready to retry life with the US. They are already taking steps.

North Korea is another kettle of fish altogether. Since they have weapons or have near immediate ability to them, it's a much larger issue, just not so urgent, seeing how they can't feed themselves at the moment.

We went after Afghanistan first because al qieda was there, en masse, and the government openly & defiantly backed them. Not any longer. If the liberators kill your family it makes problems. When iberators kill your family but you see the end result is better than the previous, it lessens the hostility. Look to Japan & western Europe as examples. The pain doesn't leave but the reasoning remains.

 

[RD_151]

I guess only time will tell. Western Europe and Japan were different, but again, time will tell.

 

[Ardsgaine]

If the liberators kill your family it makes problems. When iberators kill your family but you see the end result is better than the previous, it lessens the hostility. Look to Japan & western Europe as examples. The pain doesn't leave but the reasoning remains.

The determining factor will be whether there is a large enough section of the population willing to support a democratic republic. It doesn't automatically follow that they will be hostile to us because we went in and tried to set up a more liberal regime, but it doesn't automatically follow that they will love us either. It will be up to them and whether they want to live free and be happy, or whether they're bent on revenge against us, or against each other.