truth on hold Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Let's see ..... 1. Western: Ukraine is sliding closer to civil war, in the aftermath of a violent rebellion we supported to remove a democratically elected leader. And we've committed military support to Western Europe thru NATO if they meet Russian troops in battle. 2. Middle East: Al Qaeda (whose side we supported in Syria), is building their own state in the neighboring Syrian and Iraqi territories, against the government we installed in Iraq. 3. Asia: we are committed to provide military support to Japan if war with China erupts over some disputed tiny uninhabited islets that 99.99% of Americans can't name or find on a map. Edited June 13, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Well Joe, if those don't work out he can alway fan the flames back home with the wars on... 1. Women - continue paying them 76¢ on the male dollar 2. Immigrants - accelerate the raping of our culture - and as a bonus making thousands of orphans in the process 3. The 1% and their allies - ooooooooohh those filthy-rich sum-a-beotches wiff all the money like Buffet, Fred Eychaner, James H. Simons, Amy Goldman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steve Mostyn, George Soros, Jon Stryker, Irwin Jacobs, Anne Cox Chambers, Frank Haney, and the unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Well Joe, if those don't work out he can alway fan the flames back home with the wars on... 1. Women - continue paying them 76¢ on the male dollar 2. Immigrants - accelerate the raping of our culture - and as a bonus making thousands of orphans in the process 3. The 1% and their allies - ooooooooohh those filthy-rich sum-a-beotches wiff all the money like Buffet, Fred Eychaner, James H. Simons, Amy Goldman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steve Mostyn, George Soros, Jon Stryker, Irwin Jacobs, Anne Cox Chambers, Frank Haney, and the unions. We may not agree on all the issues at home, but that's where we and our politicians should be committing our focus. I think the people are there, it's Washington thats not. Polls support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 So basically what we've been doing since the end of WWII? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 So basically what we've been doing since the end of WWII? Elements of it sure. So what are you saying, due to it being a legacy we should continue with horrific disasters like Viet Nam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Elements of it sure. So what are you saying, due to it being a legacy we should continue with horrific disasters like Viet Nam? What I'm saying is you're starting a thread about it as if it is some revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 Bad news from the western front Forty-nine Ukrainian troops killed in plane shot down by rebels - military spokesman http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/14/ukraine-crisis-plane-idUKL5N0OV04I20140614 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) I actually do think the recent rise in isolationism is an interesting topic to discuss on this board and would be interested to hear some of the regulars' opinions on the subject. Joe, since you started the thread, what do you think is our responsibility as the last remaining super power (for now at least)? Or do we have any responsibility at all, outside of our own national interests, to the rest of the world? Personally I think strict isolationism, at least in the traditional sense, is impossible today simply due to the interwoven nature of global markets. That, and the world has gotten a hell of a lot smaller. Iraq II is still a fresh wound for me, especially since I was very much in favor of taking Saddam out at the outset of it and have been proven completely wrong in my prediction of its outcome, and I'm sure it is for a lot of other folk too. But even that debacle hasn't soured me on the notion that we have a duty to help those who cannot help themselves -- when we can. Those last three words are the flies in the ointment of course because it's too vague to be useful as a foreign policy. And historically speaking the last twenty or thirty years have not been filled with a lot of bright shining moments in terms of foreign policy. It's been bi-partisan !@#$kk-ups too so clearly it's not an issue of elephants versus donkeys. Is it because intervention is a fool's errand on any level? Or is it something else? Clearly I have more questions than answers, which is why I would be curious to hear other thoughts on the topic overall if people are willing. Edited June 14, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I agree we have a duty to help those who can't help themselves...nationally and internationally. We do NOT have a duty to define the needs of others nor to interpret their needs to fit "our" solutions. Unfortunately, we've become masters at deciding we know best in the context of other cultures where, in fact, we simply have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) I actually do think the recent rise in isolationism is an interesting topic to discuss on this board and would be interested to hear some of the regulars' opinions on the subject. Joe, since you started the thread, what do you think is our responsibility as the last remaining super power (for now at least)? Or do we have any responsibility at all, outside of our own national interests, to the rest of the world? Personally I think strict isolationism, at least in the traditional sense, is impossible today simply due to the interwoven nature of global markets. That, and the world has gotten a hell of a lot smaller. Iraq II is still a fresh wound for me, especially since I was very much in favor of taking Saddam out at the outset of it and have been proven completely wrong in my prediction of its outcome, and I'm sure it is for a lot of other folk too. But even that debacle hasn't soured me on the notion that we have a duty to help those who cannot help themselves -- when we can. Those last three words are the flies in the ointment of course because it's too vague to be useful as a foreign policy. And historically speaking the last twenty or thirty years have not been filled with a lot of bright shining moments in terms of foreign policy. It's been bi-partisan !@#$kk-ups too so clearly it's not an issue of elephants versus donkeys. Is it because intervention is a fool's errand on any level? Or is it something else? Clearly I have more questions than answers, which is why I would be curious to hear other thoughts on the topic overall if people are willing. Strict isolationism is now impossible. It's the same reason why "China can't collect our debt" and other stuff like that. Our economies are interdependent. On the whole though, foreign policy isolationism is what we should have done from the start. We're arrogant !@#$ing idiots and we have been for 70 years. Oh, the Soviet Union failed spectacularly trying to stabilize the Middle East? That won't happen to us! Oh, the French got the **** kicked out of them in Vietnam? That won't happen to us. Hell, this country was founded on guerrilla war tactics, where we didn't necessarily win every fight, but we punished the British while they were here. Till they gave up. It happened with the Boers too. If we didn't nuke Japan, we would've lost millions fighting civilians in the streets. The only way to win a guerrilla war is to destroy them utterly. But we aren't fighting a government or nation that can surrender, we're fighting every able body in a hovel. And that's why these wars are stupid and we should never get involved. Noble intentions are good, but "trying to save everyone" kills you in the long run. Ask any doctor. EDIT: saw you wanted regulars. That's a shame. Edited June 14, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Strict isolationism is now impossible. It's the same reason why "China can't collect our debt" and other stuff like that. Our economies are interdependent. On the whole though, foreign policy isolationism is what we should have done from the start. We're arrogant !@#$ing idiots and we have been for 70 years. Oh, the Soviet Union failed spectacularly trying to stabilize the Middle East? That won't happen to us! Oh, the French got the **** kicked out of them in Vietnam? That won't happen to us. Hell, this country was founded on guerrilla war tactics, where we didn't necessarily win every fight, but we punished the British while they were here. Till they gave up. It happened with the Boers too. If we didn't nuke Japan, we would've lost millions fighting civilians in the streets. The only way to win a guerrilla war is to destroy them utterly. But we aren't fighting a government or nation that can surrender, we're fighting every able body in a hovel. And that's why these wars are stupid and we should never get involved. Noble intentions are good, but "trying to save everyone" kills you in the long run. Ask any doctor. EDIT: saw you wanted regulars. That's a shame. I don't like to get involved in other people's relationship problems but if i see someone beating up their gf/wife i will intervene. Get my drift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I don't like to get involved in other people's relationship problems but if i see someone beating up their gf/wife i will intervene. Get my drift? Well it does depend on if she is deserving of her beat down. Get my drift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) I don't like to get involved in other people's relationship problems but if i see someone beating up their gf/wife i will intervene. Get my drift? Even if you'll get your ass kicked and not change anything? Wait, that's not a fair comparison because it'll satiate your "honor." How about, you intervene someone beating up their wife and he shoots your friend in the head. The guy goes to jail. Then the wife steals a trillion dollars and ends up beating up her next boyfriend. Is that still worth it? Edited June 14, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Even if you'll get your ass kicked and not change anything? Wait, that's not a fair comparison because it'll satiate your "honor." How about, you intervene someone beating up their wife and he shoots your friend in the head. The guy goes to jail. Then the wife steals a trillion dollars and ends up beating up her next boyfriend. Is that still worth it? Then should i rethink my analogy's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Then should i rethink my analogy's? :lol: Edited June 14, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 EDIT: saw you wanted regulars. That's a shame. Not just regulars, no worries. Thanks for the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 I don't like to get involved in other people's relationship problems but if i see someone beating up their gf/wife i will intervene. Get my drift? So what wars have you fought in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 So what wars have you fought in? None. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 None. Your point? Don't tell him, JtSP. Don't spoil your insane, pot-addled ramblings by implying there's a point to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The point being that i can't possibly talk about military intervention since i never fought in a war. Because that's his level of stupid. Pessimist. Look at the glass as half-full: if that's the standard for talking about military intervention, then he has to shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts