It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:45 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: future occupation of other countries by the U.S.A.?
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 5981
I was wondering if the U.S. is going to end up occupying a lot of countries that develop WMD. What will happen if they use these to destroy one of our cities? Will the U.S.A. then occupy that country? I guess the other option is to continue to let them pick us off one by one. It seems to me that once radical Islamist get the firepower to do us some substantial damage (nuclear attack on one of our cities), they're going to take advantage of the oppurtunity rather quickly. I don't foresee a cold war with them.

A situation like that seems to present you with the option of either trying to exterminate them, assimilate them, or occupy them. None of these options look good, but I'm not sure the average American voter understands that there is not always a good option, or even what the options really are let alone each options consequences. I'm not sure our country has the backbone to exterminate them, not to mention that it's very difficult to kill every last one. Yet if they kill enough of us, perhaps we might get that backbone. I'm not sure. Occupation hasn't gone so well either. I really hate the idea of our troops basically going over there to be targets for a faceless enemy that they'ró not allowed to shoot until it's too late. I'm not so sure we can assimilate them very quickly if at all either. It seems like that would require a long occupation as well.

Regardless of who is in office, I think this problem is going to pop up in other parts of the world, not just Iraq. I will be interested to see if the Democrats do anything different when they're in office. I mean, I'm sure CNN will report it differently, but I haven't seen them offer a very good method at dealing with the problem than to blame the Republicans for the problem. So if all they're going to do is get in office and say, "Well now we have to keep occupying because the Republicans messed this up early on, what good will that do anyone?" Oh and by the way, we're going to have to occupy Iran as well.

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: future occupation of other countries by the U.S.A.?
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:59 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13813
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
ajax18 wrote:
A situation like that seems to present you with the option of either trying to exterminate them, assimilate them, or occupy them. . . I'm not sure our country has the backbone to exterminate them, not to mention that it's very difficult to kill every last one. Yet if they kill enough of us, perhaps we might get that backbone.


I want to be absolutely clear on what is written above. . . did you, or did you not, just advocate genocide on this message board?

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 5981
I really wasn't advocating anything. I just wanted to see what people thought was the best option on how to deal with the situation. To me those are the options that you have when you're in a war, especially with an enemy that refuses to surrender.

I think we sit in our armchairs as voters and come up with rosó colored solutions that simply aren't an option. We do this because we don't really have the means to understand the true situation.

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:17 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13813
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
ajax18 wrote:
I really wasn't advocating anything. I just wanted to see what people thought was the best option on how to deal with the situation. To me those are the options that you have when you're in a war, especially with an enemy that refuses to surrender.


I'm extremely Libertarian when it comes to foreign policy, so I think the best option is to not stir up wars to begin with.

For starters, we (i.e. the U.S.A.) ought not meddle in foreign nations' affairs to begin with. That's what causes everyone to hate us. If we pull all our troops back into our own borders and shut down all bases on foreign soil, we wouldn't have all these problems.

Notice how no planes were flown into any buildings in Switzerland. Why is that, I (don't) wonder?

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:58 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Draper Temple Slough
ajax18 wrote:
I think we sit in our armchairs as voters and come up with rosó colored solutions that simply aren't an option. We do this because we don't really have the means to understand the true situation.


Judging from our fractured, inconsistent, ineffective history of foreign policy, I'm not sure the voters are the only people incapable of understanding the true situation.

I would prefer that we drop books on our enemies instead of bombs...and that we truly allow them to practice political self-determination.

_________________
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Dr. Shades wrote:
Notice how no planes were flown into any buildings in Switzerland. Why is that, I (don't) wonder?

I suppose you would know, but how easy was it for them to bow to Germany in WWII? How easy would it be for them to bow to someone else? I'm not saying they have the wrong idea. Just trying to learn something.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:26 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13813
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
asbestosman wrote:
I suppose you would know, but how easy was it for them to bow to Germany in WWII? How easy would it be for them to bow to someone else? I'm not saying they have the wrong idea. Just trying to learn something.


Either way, it would be Switzerland's problem, not anyone else's. Which pretty much boils down my entire view of foreign policy.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Dr. Shades wrote:
Either way, it would be Switzerland's problem, not anyone else's. Which pretty much boils down my entire view of foreign policy.

Speak softly and carry no stick?

I think the only way America would quit being a target is if we got rid of our nukes (not that I'd mind if everyone else really did that too), quit meddling in foreign affairs, quit having such a huge economy, destroyed Hollywood, and made Americans more aware of and respectful of the rest of the world (others hate how little Americans know about the rest of the world in general). Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.

Even Denmark is hated because of the cartoonist who used freedom of speech. Are we supposed to put in more restrictions? Is drawing a cartoon of Muhammed like shouting fire in a crowded theatre? Can I use similar arguments to silence my opposition? What balance do you see in the world?

Note, I do not buy the argument that Muslims attacked us because they hate our freedom.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 5981
Quote:
For starters, we (i.e. the U.S.A.) ought not meddle in foreign nations' affairs to begin with. That's what causes everyone to hate us. If we pull all our troops back into our own borders and shut down all bases on foreign soil, we wouldn't have all these problems.


I'm sure you've heard WWII arguments then. The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger. Europe tried to appease Hitler and it only worked for a while. Eventually we had no choice but to enter the war, yet at this point it was far more costly in troops and money than had we entered earlier.

The Spanish probably weren't meddling in foreign affairs when the Moors invaded Spain. Perhaps that sounds archaic, but then again I don't think the views of Islamic fascists have changed much since the middle ages. Let's not forget that for many Moslems that rise to leadership positions, global conversion to Islam is what they seek. It won't be just some annoying missionaries knocking at your door either. I fully believe that they would enforce it by the sword if they had the power to do so. They still have other reasons to hate us. Religion, economic advancement, perceived and actual past wrongs) While I agree that isolationism might help the problem, I don't see it as completely fixing the problem. I could even see the problem just festering and getting worse until it blows up in our face.

I don't like the idea of going to war either. I just think that if we do, we should do it all the way, and not hold back in the least. The most ridiculous criticism I ever heard of Israel by the liberal press on CNN was that they should only give a proportionate response. I just don't think that's how wars are nor should be fought.

I don't think isolationism would have worked in the cold war either, unless you were happy being communist. That was clearly the objective of the Soviet Union and had we not set up military bases around the world, we'd have never had the political leverage to fight the cold the war.

Isolationism sounds so nice. It'd be a whole lot cheaper too. I don't see it working forever though.

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 5981
Quote:
Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.


The Spanish left such robust economies everywhere they went didn't they? Maybe the Mexicans have something going. Perhaps we should join them, then we could make the Swiss government pay us to keep our people in our own country![/quote]

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:03 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13813
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
asbestosman wrote:
Speak softly and carry no stick?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.

Quote:
I think the only way America would quit being a target is if we got rid of our nukes (not that I'd mind if everyone else really did that too), . . .


I disagree. France has nukes but nobody bothers them.

Quote:
. . . quit meddling in foreign affairs, . . .


I wholeheartedly agree here.

Quote:
. . . quit having such a huge economy, . . .


I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

Quote:
. . . destroyed Hollywood, . . .


I disagree again. Hollywood movies are some of our most cherished exports, eagerly welcomed by the rest of the world.

Quote:
. . . and made Americans more aware of and respectful of the rest of the world (others hate how little Americans know about the rest of the world in general).


We're far, FAR more knowledgeable about the "outside world" than most non-european countries. Even so, nobody would attack us for something as trivial as that.

Quote:
Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.


Now you're just being silly.

Quote:
Even Denmark is hated because of the cartoonist who used freedom of speech.


No it isn't. That was just one guy. The controversy has since blown over.

Quote:
Are we supposed to put in more restrictions?


No.

Quote:
Is drawing a cartoon of Muhammed like shouting fire in a crowded theatre?


No.

Quote:
Can I use similar arguments to silence my opposition?


No.

Quote:
What balance do you see in the world?


The balance enjoyed by all other countries who keep their troops in their own borders.

ajax18 wrote:
I'm sure you've heard WWII arguments then.


Ad nauseum.

Quote:
The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger.


But the problem wasn't our problem.

Quote:
Europe tried to appease Hitler and it only worked for a while.


That's because they insisted in meddling in international affairs instead of defending their own borders.

Quote:
Eventually we had no choice but to enter the war, yet at this point it was far more costly in troops and money than had we entered earlier.


I disagree. We had every choice not to enter the war. We did everything except paint a target on our collective foreheads.

Quote:
The Spanish probably weren't meddling in foreign affairs when the Moors invaded Spain.


I'm not advocating for a second that nations shouldn't defend themselves against foreign invasion.

Quote:
I don't think isolationism would have worked in the cold war either, unless you were happy being communist. That was clearly the objective of the Soviet Union and had we not set up military bases around the world, we'd have never had the political leverage to fight the cold the war.


I don't think the cold war was even necessary on the U.S.A.'s part.

Quote:
Isolationism sounds so nice. It'd be a whole lot cheaper too. I don't see it working forever though.


I see it working a heck of a lot better than interventionism.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Dr. Shades wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
Speak softly and carry no stick?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.

America certainly could work on speaking softly.

Quote:
Quote:
I think the only way America would quit being a target is if we got rid of our nukes (not that I'd mind if everyone else really did that too), . . .


I disagree. France has nukes but nobody bothers them.

True. But France's economy sucks. Still, it's more likely because:
Quote:
Quote:
. . . quit meddling in foreign affairs, . . .


I wholeheartedly agree here.

But what exactly does that entail? Would always following the UN be sufficient? What if the things we vote for in the UN are highly unpopular? Would we still be in danger even if we begrudgingly submitted to the UN? Note, I am not a UN hater.

Quote:
Quote:
. . . quit having such a huge economy, . . .


I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

But Japan doesn't have nukes. Besides, Anime is much better than Hollywood:
Quote:
Quote:
. . . destroyed Hollywood, . . .


I disagree again. Hollywood movies are some of our most cherished exports, eagerly welcomed by the rest of the world.

Not by the Islamic world. Not that they'd like Anime either. But they might not destroy us over it. It's hard to say for sure, but I think us leaving Israel without support would probably go a long way toward taking us off their hit list.
Quote:
Quote:
. . . and made Americans more aware of and respectful of the rest of the world (others hate how little Americans know about the rest of the world in general).


We're far, FAR more knowledgeable about the "outside world" than most non-european countries. Even so, nobody would attack us for something as trivial as that.

What can I say? I served a mission in Europe so that was how my views on this were formed. It was the first time I'd lived outside of Utah let alone the US. My American arrogance wasn't appreciated.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.


Now you're just being silly.

I have a knack for that sort of thing. I like being silly sometimes. Hopefully it lightens up the conversation a bit.

Quote:
Quote:
What balance do you see in the world?


The balance enjoyed by all other countries who keep their troops in their own borders.

Is it wrong to help those who ask for help? Would it be OK if the UN approves? Just curious.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm
Posts: 5981
[
Quote:
I don't think the cold war was even necessary on the U.S.A.'s part.

Are you ok with the idea of global communism then?

Quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.


If you're not willing to use that stick, the enemy picks up on that real quick during negotiations.

Quote:
I disagree. France has nukes but nobody bothers them.


I think they have terrorists problems as well. I don't see radical Islam as acting in a rational and predictable manner that we would readily understand. Even though we disagreed with the Soviets, at least we were able to understand their motives a little better.

Quote:
I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

Good point

Quote:
I'm sure you've heard WWII arguments then.


The point being that isolationism didn't work in this situation. What makes you think it's a better path for the different situation we're facing now.

Quote:
The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger
But the problem wasn't our problem.


That's the point. It became our problem.

Quote:
That's because they insisted in meddling in international affairs instead of defending their own borders.


So you're saying Hitler would have stopped at France if the western nations hadn't meddled with him for taking over other countries? History always portrays him and the Japanese as wanting to take over the entire world. Do you disagree?

Quote:
I'm not advocating for a second that nations shouldn't defend themselves against foreign invasion.


My point being that this is best done in a preemptive fashion. For one thing it keeps the war off our own soil and takes it to the enemy. Part of the economic success we now enjoy is due to the fact that our infrastructure wasn't destroyed by WWII as the infrastructure of other nations involved.

[/quote]

_________________
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:58 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13813
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Asbestosman:

Quote:
Quote:
. . . quit meddling in foreign affairs, . . .


But what exactly does that entail? Would always following the UN be sufficient?


No; withdraw from the U.N.

Quote:
What if the things we vote for in the UN are highly unpopular?


Don't vote for anything in the U.N. Withdraw from it completely. Our system of ambassadors worked just fine for over 150 years.

Quote:
Would we still be in danger even if we begrudgingly submitted to the UN?


Don't submit to the U.N.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
. . . quit having such a huge economy, . . .


I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

But Japan doesn't have nukes.


A good economy + nukes doesn't anger other nations. Meddling in their affairs does. Hence the reason Japan, with its large economy, would still be safe if they had nukes.

Quote:
Is it wrong to help those who ask for help? Would it be OK if the UN approves? Just curious.


It's not wrong for individuals to voluntarily take up arms to help those who ask, but it's wrong for the government to get officially involved.

Ajax18:

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think the cold war was even necessary on the U.S.A.'s part.
Are you ok with the idea of global communism then?


Not exactly: I'm OK with the idea of global communism everywhere but my own country.

Quote:
Quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.
If you're not willing to use that stick, the enemy picks up on that real quick during negotiations.


I'm not against being willing to use that stick. I'm against using it for anything other than self-defense.

Quote:
The point being that isolationism didn't work in this situation. What makes you think it's a better path for the different situation we're facing now.


That's just it: Isolationism is precisely what we weren't practicing prior to 9-11.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger.

But the problem wasn't our problem.


That's the point. It became our problem.


Not if we'd stayed isolationist. Repeatedly provoking Germany and Japan was not the way to remain isolationist.

Quote:
So you're saying Hitler would have stopped at France if the western nations hadn't meddled with him for taking over other countries? History always portrays him and the Japanese as wanting to take over the entire world. Do you disagree?


There's a difference between wanting to take over the world and actually being able to do so. Hitler typically only went after prostrate countries, or ones he believed to be prostrate. He didn't see France or the other Western powers that way, so they could've easily stayed out of it.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not advocating for a second that nations shouldn't defend themselves against foreign invasion.


My point being that this is best done in a preemptive fashion. For one thing it keeps the war off our own soil and takes it to the enemy. Part of the economic success we now enjoy is due to the fact that our infrastructure wasn't destroyed by WWII as the infrastructure of other nations involved.


That's just it: Pre-emptive war is still war. Pre-emptive war isn't necessary since dictatorships collapse under their own weight anyway.

_________________
"Belief is driven by psychology, not intelligence."

--Analytics, 09-11-2019


Last edited by Dr. Shades on Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:55 pm 
Sunbeam

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:35 pm
Posts: 79
Location: Corridor
We need to learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration and use the tool of negotiation and any other tactics with war as a last resort. Saddam was in violation of multiple UN resolutions, and was being the typical jerk he was, but there were a bunch of inspectors in Iraq. We could have saturated Iraq with inspectors and maintained our military at the ready in Quwait and in the Gulf, but the fact is the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld trio had already set the course for war. Bush is not a negotiator, which is evident in his current policy.

Shades believes we should pull out of the UN, but the fact is, we need to use all negotiating avenues available, including the UN, our State Dept., government coalitions and whatever. Military action may be necessary, but only as a last resort. WWII gave us the lesson that we should not stand by in isolation while other nations attack, but attacking Iraq in response to 9/11 was tantamount to attacking Cuba in response to Pearl Harbor.

I’m sure this is not news, but the fact is, the world is now dealing with religious hatred which is exacerbated by the potentially available weapons not in existence during past periods of religious hatred/wars.

A religious society that promotes suicide bombings to the point that the families and friends of the dead bombers rejoice, and the parents are typically given gifts and such, will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons at the first opportunity.

Aside from a suitcase bomb or the like, the most likely scenario I see, is the Islamic factions, led by Iran with nuclear weapons will take out Israel and we will retaliate with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and if that doesn't do the job then just one Trident which has ten MIRV units (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle) to target whatever is left would take out the major cities of Iran and Syria. That would leave 23 Trident missiles left on that particular sub and probably another 75 or so subs in the fleet, not to mention the fleet of Poseidon subs still hanging around! Hope to hell that never happens!

What is sad about that scenario is any Muslims left over would rejoice at the prospect that their dead Muslim martyrs are now in the presence of Allah and the men have their 72 virgins to deal with.

Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate!

_________________
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. –Blaise Pascal
Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion. -Stephen Weinberg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoubtingThomas, huckelberry, Smokey and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group