US Opening 3 Front War?

[truth on hold]

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.

Have to stick as close to non-intervention philosophy as possible. Obviously what we've been doing is far from that. America as a "super power" does play a "special role", and that special role is guarding itself from getting involved in conflicts that are not of our interest or doing. It raises the questions a) who makes our foreign policy, and b) who is it made for? I say it's largely bureaucrats in Washington operating on their own agenda, or politicians for special interest donors.

 

Take Ukraine for example: remember that state department do#@&^ Victoria Nuland, who was caught on tape saying "f^&@ the EU" because they may not go along with our more interventionist stance?

 

 

Turns out her husband is Robert Kagan, signatory to the Neocon manifesto "Project for the New American Century", and a contributing editor to war propagandist rags like "The New Republic" and "Weekly Standard."

These people execute policy based on their interests, not Americans ... who can't even find Ukraine on a map and when polled "65 percent of Americans do not think the U.S. should provide military aid and equipment to Ukraine in response to Russia's actions"

http://www.cbsnews.c...ity-in-ukraine/

 

So you have your Nuland-Kagan's making policy for themselves using the super power's might, and alleged "allies" like France, Israel, and Saudis cheerleading for us to enter their conflicts, with not the slightest thought of is it good for America. Why would they? There should be no expectation otherwise. The burden is not on others to stop acting in their interests, it's on us to act in our own, and being a super power be especially aware that others will try to get us to fight their battles.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Nanker]

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.

That might be a good argument against global warmists climate changers!

[truth on hold]

 

 

None. Your point?

Clearly that your analogy doesn't apply. When you claim youd intervene to stop a man beating a woman, its you personally doing the intervening (although I highly doubt you'd do that either). But in a war there isn't even any false pretense of your non-involvement

Edited June 16, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[meazza]

Clearly that your analogy doesn't apply. When you claim youd intervene to stop a man beating a woman, its you personally doing the intervening (although I highly doubt you'd do that either). But in a war there isn't even any false pretense of your non-involvement

 

If that's what you understood, then I can totally understand how you fail to miss any other point as well.

 

But yes, you know my real life persona well from a few posts on the internet

[DC Tom]

Clearly that your analogy doesn't apply. When you claim youd intervene to stop a man beating a woman, its you personally doing the intervening (although I highly doubt you'd do that either). But in a war there isn't even any false pretense of your non-involvement

 

This post is artwork. !@#$ing artwork. A true masterpiece of incomprehensible !@#$tardedness. And not just for the whacked-out triple negative.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Clearly that your analogy doesn't apply. When you claim youd intervene to stop a man beating a woman, its you personally doing the intervening (although I highly doubt you'd do that either). But in a war there isn't even any false pretense of your non-involvement

So, in short: "The B word had it comming."?

[....lybob]

American policy has always been to stop men from beating their wives/girlfriends- at least if the women are attractive and might sleep with them and the men aren't on their bowling team, or coworker, or a business client or something like that.

[meazza]

American policy has always been to stop men from beating their wives/girlfriends- at least if the women are attractive and might sleep with them and the men aren't on their bowling team, or coworker, or a business client or something like that.

 

That's true. No one cares if roseanne is getting an ass whoopin.

[truth on hold]

 

So, in short: "The B word had it comming."?

The whole analogy doesn't work on many levels, I'd think even you'd recognize that not being quite the simpleton meazza is (granted that's a very low standard to beat). The most obvious reason is that one can speak in the first person about the wife beating, but not war if they're not fighting them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

The whole analogy doesn't work on many levels, I'd think even you'd recognize that not being quite the simpleton meazza is (granted that's a very low standard to beat). The most obvious reason is that one can speak in the first person about the wife beating, but not war if they're not fighting them.

I'm not sure you understand how analogies work.

 

The comparison was empowering the use of force on moral grounds.

 

Further, it's more than valid to argue what the role of the US military should be in the world.

 

Finally, given that the US military acts with a singular over-arching objective, with the individuals comprising the military not empowered to act autonomously exactly as an individual; it becomes entirely apt to draw the analogy that meazza did.

 

Now, if you'd like to argue that the US military should not engage in these circumstances, and should simply allow bad actors to exert themselves around the globe, by all means make your case.

 

However your critique of meazza's analogy is a non-starter.

[truth on hold]

 

However your critique of meazza's analogy is a non-starter.

Nope it's not. His use of first-person is the non-starter

[DC Tom]

Nope it's not. His use of first-person is the non-starter

 

Not in a democratic republic, it's not.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Nope it's not. His use of first-person is the non-starter

As Tom just noted, in a democratic republic, it is in the very legitimate scope of individuals to state what moral actions they feel the US military should take on their behalf.

 

It is because of this that meazza's analogy is apt.

 

Again, your argument against the appropriateness of his analogy is a non-starter.

[meazza]

 

As Tom just noted, in a democratic republic, it is in the very legitimate scope of individuals to state what moral actions they feel the US military should take on their behalf.

 

It is because of this that meazza's analogy is apt.

 

Again, your argument against the appropriateness of his analogy is a non-starter.

 

debating jtsp is a non starter.

[DC Tom]

debating jtsp is a non starter.

 

Embarrassing him isn't.

[truth on hold]

As Tom just noted, in a democratic republic, it is in the very legitimate scope of individuals to state what moral actions they feel the US military should take on their behalf.

 

It is because of this that meazza's analogy is apt.

 

Again, your argument against the appropriateness of his analogy is a non-starter.

Nope it's not, one says "I'd put myself in harm's way", the other is "I'd put others in harm's way." Maybe if he offered to volunteer to serve that would be different. But in any case as stated it's just the tip of the iceberg why a one-off domestic altercation is not comparable to a complicated foreign conflict.

 

So yeah keep it up, I see you bozos have your own "simpleton circle jerk". ... lol

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Nope it's not, one says "I'd put myself in harm's way", the other is "I'd put others in harm's way." Maybe if he offered to volunteer to serve that would be different. But in any case as stated it's just the tip of the iceberg why a one-off domestic altercation is not comparable to a complicated foreign conflict.

 

So yeah keep it up, I see you bozos have your own "simpleton circle jerk". ... lol

You've almost got it...

 

See, our volunteer military men and women have volunteered to be put in harms way for whatever reasons our democratic republic sees fit. Our military is nothing more than the punch we decide to throw, or not.

 

Your argument that we shouldn't throw the punch is legitimate.

 

Your argument that we don't have the right to decide to throw the punch is not.

Edited June 16, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[truth on hold]

You've almost got it...

 

See, our volunteer military men and women have volunteered to be put in harms way for whatever reasons our democratic republic sees fit. Our military is nothing more than the punch we decide to throw, or not.

 

Your argument that we shouldn't throw the punch is legitimate.

 

Your argument that we don't have the right to decide to throw the punch is not.

As phrased, the analogy is incorrect for reasons already stated. Has nothing to do with "right(s)".

 

Really nothing else to say here. Meazza is a simpleton and has no depth to offer, at least you try but alas get all confused with "rights et al."

 

Anyway fellas keep up the .....

 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[meazza]

As phrased, the analogy is incorrect for reasons already stated. Has nothing to do with "right(s)".

 

Really nothing else to say here. Meazza is a simpleton and has no depth to offer, at least you try but alas get all confused with "rights et al."

 

Anyway fellas keep up the .....

 

 

Yes I'm the one that is a simpleton

 

Aren't you the one who accused me of threatening you via PM because you thought it would give you some credibility?

 

Yeah cool story bro. When all else fails, circle jerk.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

As phrased, the analogy is incorrect for reasons already stated. Has nothing to do with "right(s)".

 

Really nothing else to say here. Meazza is a simpleton and has no depth to offer, at least you try but alas get all confused with "rights et al."

 

Anyway fellas keep up the .....

You've yet to demonstrate that your criticism of the analogy is legitimate, though with your attempts, you've demonstrated that your understanding of both our language, and our system of government are lacking.