[DRB]

Originally posted by LordOpie
well that's an unfair statement. I'm sure most of the people here could and would do quite a decent job of defending ourselves. And if there was an honest need for defense -- as opposed to being proactive -- that most of us would serve.

Proactive? Yeah like Bosnia for instance. Let "them" slaughter and kill of 10's of thousands until they get tired and then do something about it. Or Somalia. Yeah I'm sure that plenty of ya'll would love to go to those sh!tholes and protect the oppressed. Plenty of folks in this world have no means or skills to defend themselves.

Sometimes sitting around and waiting isn't the smartest of defenses.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Grimey
I'm just going to step in here and intervene...



You subjective opinion is objectively incorrect.

So objectively his correctness is subjective? Or is that to say that correctly objecting subjectively is incorrect?

Please clarify... Subobjectively.

 

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by LordOpie
well that's an unfair statement. I'm sure most of the people here could and would do quite a decent job of defending ourselves. And if there was an honest need for defense -- as opposed to being proactive -- that most of us would serve.

My response was already typed out for me thanks to DRB

Originally posted by DRB
Proactive? Yeah like Bosnia for instance. Let "them" slaughter and kill of 10's of thousands until they get tired and then do something about it. Or Somalia. Yeah I'm sure that plenty of ya'll would love to go to those sh!tholes and protect the oppressed. Plenty of folks in this world have no means or skills to defend themselves.

Sometimes sitting around and waiting isn't the smartest of defenses.

 

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by DRB
Completely selfless? Is there such a thing?

I joined because they paid my tuition bill.
Nothing wrong with that.
[\B]

I'm going to add for one of the reasons I joined is because of the money they offer for education. I don't want my parents helping me out any more than they already have. I probably won't be going to school for a while, but it won't hurt to take some night classes and build up some college credit hours on the gov't's tab.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by DRB
Proactive? Yeah like Bosnia for instance. Let "them" slaughter and kill of 10's of thousands until they get tired and then do something about it. Or Somalia. Yeah I'm sure that plenty of ya'll would love to go to those sh!tholes and protect the oppressed. Plenty of folks in this world have no means or skills to defend themselves.

Sometimes sitting around and waiting isn't the smartest of defenses.

I misunderstood Jorvik just as you two misunderstood me...

I thought he was saying that the average american adult is incapable of defending themselves and our homes and families.

I totally believe that the USA should play global policeman and should never allow Bosnia type situations again.

 

[Jorvik]

Agreeance.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I totally believe that the USA should play global policeman and should never allow Bosnia type situations again.

I totally do not believe that any one state should play global policeman. That is the role the UN should be filling and if you think the UN is not filling it use the power of the US to allow it to do so but accept the UN as representative of all nations and accept that it may sometimes rule against you.

As for Bosnia, that was completely screwed up. As was Kosovo but for different reasons.

As an aside (and I'm not trying to be smart here because these are geniunely complex and difficult questions), how many people here understand what happened in Yugoslavia and also why the Northern Ireland situation seems so hard to resolve?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Sideways
Who gives a damn what they think?
Bunch of morons for ever enlisting.

Here's to you... boy:

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
So objectively his correctness is subjective? Or is that to say that correctly objecting subjectively is incorrect?

Please clarify... Subobjectively.

Hell yeah...thats some clever ****.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I misunderstood Jorvik just as you two misunderstood me...

I thought he was saying that the average american adult is incapable of defending themselves and our homes and families.

I totally believe that the USA should play global policeman and should never allow Bosnia type situations again.

Same page then.

 

[Jesus]

Originally posted by ohio
Actually that WOULD be all well and good, except if your real motivation for doing something WASN'T to protect your wife and kids. It was to get the dude's house. And he had lots and lots of friends that would later avenge his death by going after not just your wife and kids, but your other neighbors and friends.

The motivation doesn't matter, as long as the bad "neighbor" is exterminated.

IMHO

 

[Jesus]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I totally believe that the USA should play global policeman and should never allow Bosnia type situations again.

I agree also.

The U.N is completly inneffective. And our country seems to wait until the last minute to ever do anything.

Put all the political bull $hit aside for a few mintues, and think about this...

Someone needs to help those who can't help themselves.

I think it should be the U.S.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Jesus
I agree also.

The U.N is completly inneffective. And our country seems to wait until the last minute to ever do anything.

Put all the political bull $hit aside for a few mintues, and think about this...

Someone needs to help those who can't help themselves.

I think it should be the U.S.

Then you sure as hell better decide to do it everywhere, and not just where oil or other resources are involved.

You've gotta love the current US intervention in Tibet, for example....

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Jesus
I agree also.

The U.N is completly inneffective. And our country seems to wait until the last minute to ever do anything.

Put all the political bull $hit aside for a few mintues, and think about this...

Someone needs to help those who can't help themselves.

I think it should be the U.S.

The last minute or an opportune moment? US foreign policy is not exactly littered with altruistic acts.

It would be a step in the right direction if the US decided to help those who can't help themselves. As Silver points out, there's plenty of people who've been crying out for help for years yet are still suffering. What should really cause people to stop and think is that in some of these places the US is actually propping up the regime.

A cynic might suggest that US foreign intervention isn't anything to do with helping anyone other than themselves.

Not to mention the tax effect..

Let the UN get on with its job and accept that sometimes the will of the world is not the will of the US. No single country can possibly play global policeman, judge, jury and executioner which is really what you're proposing.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Then you sure as hell better decide to do it everywhere, and not just where oil or other resources are involved.

You've gotta love the current US intervention in Tibet, for example....

so you have one of those bumper stickers on your diesel volvo? Last i recall, tibet was a sovereign state of china, invaded sometime back, and thusly that dispute was settled 1/2 a century ago. You know how many news cycles that is!?!?

As much as i do agree with you that we should go into N.K., Colombia, Syria, Lichenstien, Burkina Faso, we most likely won't.

Woodrow Wilson rocks!

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Abs like Jesus
I agree also.

The U.N is completly inneffective. And our country seems to wait until the last minute to ever do anything.

Put all the political bull $hit aside for a few mintues, and think about this...

Someone needs to help those who can't help themselves.

I think it should be the U.S.

and definitely get it on video! starting my war-pr0n collection one clip at a time...

 

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by $tinkle
and definitely get it on video! starting my war-pr0n collection one clip at a time...

I've already got that one. Cool though, ain't it? Those AC-130's are badass, 105mm howitzer built into the wing.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
A cynic might suggest that US foreign intervention isn't anything to do with helping anyone other than themselves.

I don't think a cynic, I think a reasonable person. It's obvious that we, the USA, do things to serve our own purpose, but consider two things... the USA is more effective than the UN and that while serving our own purposes, we're helping others.

Granted, I believe our foreign policy needs some serious work and we need to go to those countries who desperately needs us but have no strategic value.

I don't think anyone here who believes the USA should play global policeman thinks we're doing a great job. I'm sure most of us would like to see us do a better job.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so you have one of those bumper stickers on your diesel volvo? Last i recall, tibet was a sovereign state of china, invaded sometime back, and thusly that dispute was settled 1/2 a century ago. You know how many news cycles that is!?!?

As much as i do agree with you that we should go into N.K., Colombia, Syria, Lichenstien, Burkina Faso, we most likely won't.

Woodrow Wilson rocks!

Well, I don't have a free Tibet sticker or a diesel volvo, unfortunately. I had just finished a bottle of Yulesmith last night (Alesmith ) so Tibet was the best example I could think of. I forgot completely about Saudi Arabia, my personal favorite.

Tibet still holds though. You have a people there being oppressed, but we don't seem to be worried about it. Anything to do with the fact that China is a huge market? Nah......

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Silver
Then you sure as hell better decide to do it everywhere, and not just where oil or other resources are involved.

You've gotta love the current US intervention in Tibet, for example....

Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan....

Real vacation spots with tons of payoff for US interests.

AND I really hear that global policeman ya'll espouse, you know the UN, doing a whole hell of a lot about Tibet. Or maybe the French are going to send a dipolmatic mission to China and lead boycotts against China............................. Oh wait that's right as soon as they sell the A380 to enough airlines to service China.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan....

Real vacation spots with tons of payoff for US interests.

AND I really hear that global policeman ya'll espouse, you know the UN, doing a whole hell of a lot about Tibet. Or maybe the French are going to send a dipolmatic mission to China and lead boycotts against China............................. Oh wait that's right as soon as they sell the A380 to enough airlines to service China.

So whay was the US in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and Afghanistan?

Were you aware that in Somalia four large US Oil companies held exploratory rights to large areas of the country and had a vested interest in who held power within the country?

Bosnia. What did happen there?

Kosovo. Likewise.

Haiti. Why did US troops go in?

Afghanistan. Do you really think the US was acting for interests other than its own in Afghanistan at any point?

Ultimately the problem the US faces is perception. If the reasons for the actions above were humanitarian that is totally negated in the eyes of the world if they perceive that the US had some other agenda. Unfortunately one doesn't usually have to look too far to see some other agenda. Allied to this is the USA's selective blindness to actions of 'friendly' governments (e.g Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia) and lack of humanitarian action where to do so would mean acting against these regimes. Also the apparent lack of interest from the US in many parts of the third world where there is no strategic value in territory adds to the view that the US is out for itself only.

Yeah, the UN is toothless, it was designed that way... ever wonder why?

And why pick on the French, are you suggesting that US aviation companies did not try to sell planes to China on humanitarian grounds? If you would like to see the US play global policeman you need a consistent outlook and a high moral standpoint. Suggesting that the US not act because some faded European state is not acting is not a good base from which to start to save the world.

 

[Jesus]

I don't think the U.S is doing a good job helping others. But the U.N. isn't either. Both suck! Both only help when it serves there own purpouse.

I am just saying someone needs to step-up and do something. And I don't care who it is, but someone be it U.N., U.S., or hell even the Canadians.

I know it will never happen, but I just keep hoping someday it will.

 

[fluff]

The UN is constitutionally hamstrung. It was designed that way so that it could not turn on its creators. It probably seemed a good idea at the time but it has proved that the only places the UN will have anu power are in the places where nobody really cares.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
The UN is constitutionally hamstrung. It was designed that way so that it could not turn on its creators. It probably seemed a good idea at the time but it has proved that the only places the UN will have anu power are in the places where nobody really cares.

Wait a minute, we are only supposed to work thru the UN BUT the UN is hamstrung into not being able to doing anything.

So we aren't supposed to do anything?

And why pick on the French, are you suggesting that US aviation companies did not try to sell planes to China on humanitarian grounds? If you would like to see the US play global policeman you need a consistent outlook and a high moral standpoint. Suggesting that the US not act because some faded European state is not acting is not a good base from which to start to save the world.

Then who is supposed to act. The UN can't act. The French can't act because they are a faded power. The US because of our lack of morality and consistency shouldn't act.

Give me an alternative here. Or are you satisfied that if you can't take care of yourself tough sh!t?

 

[fluff]

Here are two alternatives.

1. Don't act. Does the world really need a global policeman? Some might argue that we let each country look after its own interests. (In reality probably simply a more honest assessment of the way the world works today, with the UN acknowledged for what it is - a talking shop).

2. Re-create the UN. The US is in a position to act unilaterally as we have seen in Iraq. The US could therefore force a constitutional change on the UN or create another organisation to succeed it altogether (after all the UN is a second generation League of Nations). Of course this would mean ceding ultimate authority to an independent body which might not place US interests first.

It would appear that the only possible alternatives that you see are:

If you can't take care of yourself tough sh!t

or

We'll take care of you if it suits us and you do what we tell you.

Which of course leaves plenty of people in the first group anyway (East Timorese, Tibetans, Bosnians, Burmese, Saudis, Palestinians..)

This probably reads as anti-US and I can understand that it would but it's not really meant that way. It is simply that I cannot see how the US can act in any way that serves against its own interests which means it cannot be the policeman of the world.

Arguably US domination could be a good thing. In previous times of single state supremacy (Roman Empire especially and to a lesser extent British Empire) there have been long periods of peace (relatively speaking), perhaps we are approaching a 'Pax Americanus'?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Here are two alternatives.

1. Does the world really need a global policeman?

Yes, as long as there are evil leaders who tortures and kills his own people, someone needs to do something.

Originally posted by fluff
Here are two alternatives.

2. Re-create the UN.

I like the idea.

Originally posted by fluff
Arguably US domination could be a good thing.

I like it!

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Yes, as long as there are evil leaders who tortures and kills his own people, someone needs to do something.


I like the idea.


I like it!

See, I'm not the evil anti-US pinko you all think I am...

 

[DRB]

But do any of these answers get folks off the US's back? No because any action that this country takes will be frowned upon by someone. We do nothing and folks get bent out of shape..... We do something and folks get bent out of shape..... It simply doesn't matter. The US is the big kid on the block and that big kid is going to be disliked no matter what he does.

There is no right solution if that solution has to include some sort of global feel good about it.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
But do any of these answers get folks off the US's back? No because any action that this country takes will be frowned upon by someone. We do nothing and folks get bent out of shape..... We do something and folks get bent out of shape..... It simply doesn't matter. The US is the big kid on the block and that big kid is going to be disliked no matter what he does.

There is no right solution if that solution has to include some sort of global feel good about it.

I would have thought option two satisfied all these criteria.

What did you not like about it?

 

[Ridemonkey]

Seems that I may have made a mistake. I retract my statements. Sorry to Fluff.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Actually I will always remember the single stupidest statement ever made on RM:

"the US bombed their own ship (the USS Cole)"

Any guesses as to the genius that uttered those words?

You belong to the group of hyper-paranoid armchair politicians that have the magic ability to know everything that goes on in the world at all times. If the US has hidden motives, like freaking magic you are there to expose it. If the US is doing something utterly insane like bombing its own ships to adjust the political climate, Fluff sweeps down from the sky like superman and lets everyone know what is really going on. With these magical powers, you oughta be playing the stock market.

..da-a-a-a-a-a-mn... well put.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Here's what the troops think of the President:

Soldiers said they were impressed to see the commander in chief, the world's most powerful man, flying into Baghdad just days after a cargo plane was struck by a shoulder-fired missile.

"It was a shock," said Pvt. Jason Strickland of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

"It was a display of confidence in our ability to protect not just us, but him," said Pfc. Telo Monahan, 20, of Woodinville, Washington. "It was just three or four days after that DHL plane got hit."

Others said they'd been given a heartfelt boost after struggling with a difficult occupation.

"After 13 months in theater, my morale had kind of sputtered," said Capt. Mark St. Laurent, 36, of Leesburg, Virginia. "Now I'm good for another two months."

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Actually I will always remember the single stupidest statement ever made on RM:

"the US bombed their own ship (the USS Cole)"

Any guesses as to the genius that uttered those words?

Gotta link to that?

I've searched here and I don't find it anywhere and I don't remember typing that.

If you can find it please show me.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by fluff
Gotta link to that?

Old stuff gets deleted in this forum. You saying you never posted that?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Old stuff gets deleted in this forum. You saying you never posted that?

Yes. As in my now edited post above, I have no memory of typing that and no reason to do so.

I guess one of us has a faulty memory.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by fluff
Yes. As in my now edited post above, I have no memory of typing that and no reason to do so.

I guess one of us has a faulty memory.

Well then my bad I guess

Can you tell me how it is you know that every conflict the US has been involved in around the World is motivated by oil?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Well then my bad I guess

Can you tell me how it is you know that every conflict the US has been involved in around the World is motivated by oil?

Is that an apology? Because, to be frank, I'm pretty pissed off with the implication that I posted that about the USS Cole. In fact until you posted that, I had never even heard of the theory that the US had bombed their own ship.

I have heard plenty of conspiracy theories about 9/11 being "allowed to happen" by the CIA/Pentagon but I do not believe them and I have never posted anything along those lines here. I would consider the USS Cole statement to be along similar lines.

Regarding the quesiton above, I don't. And I don't actually think this is accurate anyway.

If you think I have said that then you have misunderstood something I have posted.

What I do think is that the US government is not always honest about its motives for getting involved in conflicts. In most of the times that it has become involved in conflict since 1945 the motive has been power and influence. At times oil will be a motivating factor but only where the US wants greater control/influence over oil supply/reserves (as stated in the Carter doctrine I believe). To say it is about oil is to over-simplify (and I will admit that I may have done that in some posts regarding Iraq).

You clearly think I am anti-US. I am not, I have been to the US and I have met many US citizens, the vast majority of whom I have liked. I also know that many good things have come from the US.

I do think that certain aspects of US foreign policy are poorly thought out and presented and serve to antagonise large parts of the world. This may be inevitable given the USA's dominant position and I am aware that no other nation who has had a similar position could claim a higher moral position. I would prefer the US to be more honest about their foreign actions and not claim to always be the defender of the free world, but that they are working for US interests and continued dominance.

I would certainly prefer US dominance over USSR dominance but can I not wish for the US to be a good as it could be?

Do you think the US can do no wrong and is without blemish? Because I do not think that nor do I think it of my own country.

Or is this simply personal?

 

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by fluff
Is that an apology? Because, to be frank, I'm pretty pissed off with the implication that I posted that about the USS Cole. In fact until you posted that, I had never even heard of the theory that the US had bombed their own ship. [/i]

Not sure what to say about that since I have a pretty clear memory of it. Ah well, if that isn't your belief then fine, I'm sorry. I really shouldn't have brought it up since it was way after the fact.

I do think that certain aspects of US foreign policy are poorly thought out and presented and serve to antagonise large parts of the world.

Yeah

Do you think the US can do no wrong and is without blemish? Because I do not think that nor do I think it of my own country.

.

Actually I think we do a lot wrong.

Or is this simply personal?

No (although your views on horse **** on the trail suck)

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Not sure what to say about that since I have a pretty clear memory of it. Ah well, if that isn't your belief then fine, I'm sorry. I really shouldn't have brought it up since it was way after the fact.



Yeah

.

Actually I think we do a lot wrong.




No (although your views on horse **** on the trail suck)

Seriously, if I had posted that about the USS Cole I'm sure I'd remember it. I would imagine I would have a got a lot of heat about it at the time. And I really have never even thought it was anything other than a terrorist attack. No doubt I have posted stuff that has been simplistic, poorly worded or even incorrect but I am sure that I did not post that.

However, you guys clearly repainted your planes and donned Japanese uniforms to bomb Pearl Harbour and create an excuse to invade the moon..

As for the horse****.. Yup, I did post that stuff and quite clearly I was right