truth on hold Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) No, your point is that America shouldn't act as a moral actor in the geopolitical sphere where it is the sole world power in a post-Cold War, 21st century world "because Vietnam". My point is that Vietnam is irrelevant to the conversation for multiple reasons, and that we shouldn't make the mistake of inaction to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our friends, because you don't like the fact that we became involved in a proxy war against communism 60 years ago. Further, you didn't answer my question at all. You might have answer some question posed somewhere, but it wasn't the one I asked. Lol at US policy based on "moral" activism. Explain then why we: - have funded Israeli apartheid for decades - helped remove democratically elected leaders in places like Iran and Ukraine - why do we support "rebels" in Syria and help bomb them in Yemen? Heck per that last point since the Hoothis in Yemen were only effective ally fighting al Qaeda there, and the blowback from our support of Israel and Saudis, not only is our foreign policy not moral, its not even in our own self preservation interests. Wake up man, foreign policy IS NOT determined by moral and self preservation considerations. Edited June 5, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 you mean we not getting that from out competing everybody with our business smarts ?What did that have to do with the post you responded to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 What did that have to do with the post you responded to? I responded to your post, you seem to imply that we should keep a global military presence for economic advantage is that what you are saying? I wanted to make sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Keep waiting, mutton-head. That you need something so self-evident explained is conclusive proof that you wouldn't understand. Why don't you just be honest and say you can't explain it because it's a stupid comment? When you typed it you were typing out of your A$$. Edited June 6, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Chaffe is a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Why don't you just be honest and say you can't explain it because it's a stupid comment? When you typed it you were typing out of your A$$. Because it's not a stupid comment, and I wasn't typing out of my ass. The process by which things happen is often more important than the outcome. It's actually very easy to explain. It's just not worth explaining to you, because unlike most people here, you won't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) You just don't like may answer. You asked me how Viet Nam relates. I told you it relates because it's very similar to the ISIS deal (except Viet Nam was about global communism whereas this one is global jihadism). Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it. That's how it relates IMHO. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, .... can't get fooled again. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean I didn't answer it. If you still think I didn't, please expand it a little to let me know what you're looking for. Who says we have to be the world's police person anyway? Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Bell Helicopter, among others and the politicians they've bought. McCain and his pocket book love it. You didn't answer my question if you are going to sign up for the fight since it's so damned important ... So... To summerize: "All enemies or potential threats are equal, geopolitics are static, and therefor "because Vietnam"!" Is that about right? Edited June 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Because it's not a stupid comment, and I wasn't typing out of my ass. The process by which things happen is often more important than the outcome. It's actually very easy to explain. It's just not worth explaining to you, because unlike most people here, you won't understand it. Making a stupid comment and then when asked to explain all you can say is I'm too stupid to understand is a chicken$hit move. If you can't explain it I'll go with my initial assessment that you were typing out your A$$. So... To summerize: "All enemies or potential threats are equal, geopolitics are static, and therefor "because Vietnam"!" Is that about right? No. When we go after ISIS full hog like I expect we will sooner or later, I hope you volunteer for the front line since you think its so damned important. Or would you just rather send other people's children while you stay home and wave a flag like a true patriot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) When we go after ISIS full hog like I expect we will sooner or later, I hope you volunteer for the front line since you think its so damned important. Or would you just rather send other people's children while you stay home and wave a flag like a true patriot?I'd send those individuals who volunteered, as a part of our all volunteer military, as is appropriate. Incidentally, I also support restricting the franchise to only those who own property and/or who have served in the military. Also, how is this: "All enemies or potential threats are equal, geopolitics are static, and therefor "because Vietnam"!" An incorrect summary of your position, based on your contributions to this thread? Edited June 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Making a stupid comment and then when asked to explain all you can say is I'm too stupid to understand is a chicken$hit move. If you can't explain it I'll go with my initial assessment that you were typing out your A$$. Trying to discuss it with you is a waste of time. So go ahead, you do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Trying to discuss it with you is a waste of time. So go ahead, you do that. You're typing out of your big ole idiotic A$$. Edited June 6, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Not to completely hijack the thread (or the ongoing discussion), but how much longer do we expect the United States to be the world's lone super power? You could make a pretty convincing case that Russia is still very much a super power with its ability to exert influence through its nuclear arsenal alone. China is the next obvious super power in waiting, they can't be more than a decade away and seem to know it with the way they're expanding their sphere of influence in the China Sea. BRICS seems to be a legitimate threat to the dollar as the world's reserve currency (which would further accelerate the US's diminishing scope of influence)... What changes when we aren't the only super power (if we even really are that currently)? I'm throwing this out there for debate, not because I have an answer (or even a specific question). Just curious about some of your opinions on this. Edited June 6, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Not to completely hijack the thread (or the ongoing discussion), but how much longer do we expect the United States to be the world's lone super power? You could make a pretty convincing case that Russia is still very much a super power with its ability to exert influence through its nuclear arsenal alone. China is the next obvious super power in waiting, they can't be more than away and seem to know it with the way they're expanding their sphere of influence in the China Sea. BRICS seems to be a legitimate threat to the dollar as the world's reserve currency (which would further accelerate the US's diminishing scope of influence)... What changes when we aren't the only super power (if we even really are that currently)? I'm throwing this out there for debate, not because I have an answer (or even a specific question). Just curious about some of your opinions on this. I have no doubt that Putin would love to return to most, if not all of the old Soviet ways, but I'd be more inclined to place China ahead of Russia in terms of both economic and military power. Sooner or later, there will be other superpowers, and Russia and China are the most likely to emerge as such IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Not to completely hijack the thread (or the ongoing discussion), but how much longer do we expect the United States to be the world's lone super power? You could make a pretty convincing case that Russia is still very much a super power with its ability to exert influence through its nuclear arsenal alone. China is the next obvious super power in waiting, they can't be more than a decade away and seem to know it with the way they're expanding their sphere of influence in the China Sea. BRICS seems to be a legitimate threat to the dollar as the world's reserve currency (which would further accelerate the US's diminishing scope of influence)... What changes when we aren't the only super power (if we even really are that currently)? I'm throwing this out there for debate, not because I have an answer (or even a specific question). Just curious about some of your opinions on this. Russia has a declining population and can't seem to make consumer products even though they have a very well educated population ( Iran has a stronger auto industry than Russia) but when you have thousands of nukes you can basically kick over the risk board anytime you feel you are losing too badly- China has economic problems now and will be facing some serious demographic challenges coming soon but I've been hearing about China's impending economic collapse for about 20 years now and it hasn't happened yet. I don't think any single country will be able to challenge us for a very long time but if China and Russia became dedicated military allies and economic partners and took strong actions in unison that would be a serious challenge, which is why I can't understand the Obama's administration seeming intention to antagonize China and Russia at the same time - Obama is a Brzezinski disciple and Brzezinski did have a theory that you could contain both Russia and China and eventually Russia and China would go to war over east Siberia with America being the big winner- personally I think Kissinger, Brzezinski and all the neocon global military strategists should be put somewhere far away where their theories won't get somewhere dangerous like a president's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 North Korea. North Korea is Best Korea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 A quick point: There are really only four true schools of thought on foreign policy. - Neoconservatism - Neo-Realism - Liberal Interventionism (whose only real divergence with Neoconservatism is a policy towards Israel) - Isolationism Where do all participants stand on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Not to completely hijack the thread (or the ongoing discussion), but how much longer do we expect the United States to be the world's lone super power? You could make a pretty convincing case that Russia is still very much a super power with its ability to exert influence through its nuclear arsenal alone. China is the next obvious super power in waiting, they can't be more than a decade away and seem to know it with the way they're expanding their sphere of influence in the China Sea. BRICS seems to be a legitimate threat to the dollar as the world's reserve currency (which would further accelerate the US's diminishing scope of influence)... What changes when we aren't the only super power (if we even really are that currently)? I'm throwing this out there for debate, not because I have an answer (or even a specific question). Just curious about some of your opinions on this. About 20 years or so. Really, what defines a "superpower" is the ability to exert and project influence over a global scale (or as near enough to global as is meaningful in the era - the neo-Assyrian empire was a superpower even though their influence wasn't truly global, but it extended over everywhere that possibly mattered at the time.) Currently, the US is the only country that can do that (Russia...no. Nuclear weapons don't project influence, they threaten destruction. Very important difference). But China's growing their ability...give them about two decades, and they'll be able to power project on a global scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 A quick point: There are really only four true schools of thought on foreign policy. - Neoconservatism - Neo-Realism - Liberal Interventionism (whose only real divergence with Neoconservatism is a policy towards Israel) - Isolationism Where do all participants stand on this issue? I'm not intentionally dodging your question, I'm just finding it difficult to answer. So, I decided to ramble instead: It depends (for me) on what the ultimate goal is. I think we as private citizens have a very different goal when it comes to foreign policy than most of our elected officials -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing but should be delineated -- while the defense industry has its own agenda. These three agendas are seldom aligned. Between the close of WW2 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the ultimate aim by all three of those elements was to prevent our extinction in a nuclear holocaust. Different administrations had different methods for accomplishing that goal of course, but if you boiled our nation's foreign policy down to its essence at that time, that was the finish line. Nuclear war wasn't good for anyone, but one thing the defense industry learned for certain was the fear of nuclear war was GREAT for business. Since 9/11, our foreign policy has been driven largely by the economic interests of the defense industry. Their goal (not the American people's goal, regardless of party) was to find a way to run a perpetual war state with as little blowback at home as possible. The War on Terror has always been more about serving the interests of the defense contractors than it has been about keeping Americans safe. This is inarguable. America has been at war for 12+ years, and there's no sign of that stopping any time soon -- regardless of who wins in '16. Who does this perpetual war state benefit most? It certainly doesn't benefit every day Americans as much as some politicians would like you to believe, in fact you could argue it does more to put Americans in harm's way than it does to protect them. Whether or not it helps private citizens can be debated about at length, but what cannot be debated is how much this state of perpetual war improves the bottom line of America's number one industry. The element of our misadventures in the desert that gets discussed the least, but arguably is the most significant game changer to come out of the entire engagement, was the creation of a fifth branch of the military. While not an official branch, the growth of private security contractors in the past decade has been staggering and cost the country untold billions. The military industrial complex used to be made up solely of munition makers. Boeing, Lockheed, and General Dynamics have made out like bandits -- even while the rest of the country underwent the greatest economic turmoil since the Great Depression -- but private security contractors continue to join the ranks of the industry's most profitable companies. Are there real threats in the world? Absolutely. Do I believe America has a responsibility (militarily speaking) to aid its allies across the globe? 100%. I believe America is capable of doing great things, and I've seen first hand how our men and women in uniform have helped those in need time and time again, selflessly so. But our entire foreign policy right now is broken on purpose by those who seek to profit from this perpetual war state. Until those bad actors in our own system are removed, our country will continue to dance to the beat of the defense industry's tune -- regardless of what specific foreign strategy is applied by POTUS or Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Presents a strong case against the economic costs of overseas intervention. And even though he's highly critical of hillary as SoS, Defense Contractor Tom types will attack him fearing their entry-level data entry jobs would be threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Tom types will attack him fearing their entry-level data entry jobs would be threatened. DC Tom will not like it because he follows a bad process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts