quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I am shocked that the US is being blamed for how other governments and countries run themselves. It's not like we have the authority (no matter what we, or anyone else thinks) to dictate to others how they should run their country economically.

I wasn't talking about whether we have the legal authority to do it, but more about what has actually happened in the world. It used to be called "dollar diplomacy" - or sometimes "gunboat diplomacy" if mere bribery didn't work.

quote:

quote:

What we can do, however, is let consumers and The Market take care of things for us, a la Nike Sweatshops.

Yes, that's the prevailing theory nowadays with our global economy, although it's not running that smoothly these days.

quote:

quote:

For a corrupt Communist regime? The recent advance of China's economy is a result of more free market strategies being employed. Go figure, huh?

The Chinese learned to play the game, but again, they were already pretty powerful anyway. Their main problem was in the mess left by WW2 and the corrupt regime they had to overthrow.

quote:

quote:

China was a "superpower" in the '80's? Wasn't it just the US and the USSR as the only two superpowers?

No, I would say that China emerged as a third superpower in the 1960s or 70s. They were no longer aligned with the USSR to the point where the USSR was more afraid of China than they were of the United States. Nixon and Kissinger believed that by forging closer and friendlier ties with China, it would make the Soviet Bloc far more manageable, which turned out to be an effective strategy in the long run.
That was still the leading argument which led to China getting Most Favored Nation status as a US trading partner, even after the Tienanmen Square massacre and China clamping down on the pro-democracy movement. The argument was that China is powerful and we still have to deal with them - and if we deal with them as business partners, the less likely we'll be enemies down the road. That was the reasoning behind our cozier relationship with China - not because we had any great desire to pull them out of the shit hole - since they were already out by that time anyway.

quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a summary of published academics' opinions. Please remember that opinions are only allowed in Wikipedia if they are held by writers in reliable sources. While it is possible that an editor is more knowledgeable and correct than any given academic, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions.


...
James Fallows writes that too many people in China live without indoor plumbing, and that no mainland Chinese scientist has yet won a Nobel Prize, so it is unlikely able to become an "economic Superpower". He also recalled his mid-1980s visit to China, where he found virtually everyone "poor", and that "rich" people were farmers that had their own family. He further suggests that people usually talk about how life in China is improving, yet if they go to China, they would see that Chinese officials spend too much time thinking about how to deal with the upcoming problems that their country faces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Are you supporting the idea that the US is at fault for the poor working conditions in underdeveloped/developing nations?

quote:


Not running smoothly? Please explain (because I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming isn't running that smoothly).

quote:


Yep. And it's been all peachy since. [8|]

quote:


It seems not everyone agrees with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Are you supporting the idea that the US is at fault for the poor working conditions in underdeveloped/developing nations?

I wouldn't put it exactly that way. I'm not so much interested in finding fault with the US government as much as pointing out mistakes that we'd be better off not making again.

quote:

quote:

Not running smoothly? Please explain (because I'm not exactly sure what you're claiming isn't running that smoothly).

Haven't you been paying much attention to world events lately? I mean, we have ISIS, Greece, problems with North Korea, Iran, ongoing civil wars in Africa and the Middle East - along with border issues with Mexico - which you and I have discussed in the past. These are just a few things off the top of my head.

quote:

quote:

Yep. And it's been all peachy since. [8|]

For them it has.

quote:

It seems not everyone agrees with you.

This article refers to China's potential as an economic superpower, which is different from what I was talking about. If we're talking about the relative poverty of the common people ("virtually everyone 'poor'"), then one could have made the same observations about the Soviet Union, which was definitely considered a superpower during the Cold War. Heck, one could just as easily go around the US and find some poverty-stricken areas and make erroneous conclusions about our economy.
Of course, considering how devastated they were after WW2 (while the US was virtually untouched during the war), the fact that they were able to quickly recover and reach the level of national power they did was nothing short of a miracle. The US never could have recovered as quickly as they did.
Nixon considered China to be a superpower, and even Nixon's staunchest critics would argue that recognizing China was the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal presidency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Mistakes like attempting to dictate political structure through "spreading democracy?" Much of our problem in the M.E. is due to our support of Israel.

quote:


You've taken a tangent off this tangent. Much of what cloudboy brought up was economic in nature, where you're getting political in nature. I'm more of an "isolationist" than I am an imperialist.

quote:


Again, I was coming at this from an economic viewpoint, not a political one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Mistakes like attempting to dictate political structure through "spreading democracy?" Much of our problem in the M.E. is due to our support of Israel.

This is true, although our problems in the M.E. also had to do with the fact that Britain and France were now our NATO allies which put us on their side in the various areas of the world where they were involved. Prior to WW2, our involvement in the Middle East was practically nil. Our goal was not really to spread democracy, but to prevent the Soviets from gaining a foothold in the region.

quote:

But I was also talking about mistakes like bringing in strange bedfellows. It wasn't just Israel we've supported, but also folks like the Shah of Iran, the Saudi royal family, the military dictatorship in charge of Pakistan, as well as many other tinpot dictators around the world, such as Batista, Somoza, Pinochet. We have quite a rogues' gallery of "friends."

quote:

There's also the question of whether any of these foreign policy escapades have been any long-term benefit to America. Does it even pay for us to have trade agreements with countries like China? Why does our government keep making sucker deals which benefit foreign governments yet screw the American people? Why are we fucking around in the Middle East if it doesn't translate into cheaper energy prices for Americans? By all rights, the Department of Defense should be showing a huge profit by now; they shouldn't be a drain on our economy. The fact that they're still a net loss for America is proof positive of the many mistakes our government is making.

quote:

quote:

You've taken a tangent off this tangent. Much of what cloudboy brought up was economic in nature, where you're getting political in nature. I'm more of an "isolationist" than I am an imperialist.

Yeah, well, I guess we've both strayed from the original topic of whether the American Revolution was a mistake. [;)]

quote:

Again, I was coming at this from an economic viewpoint, not a political one.

I don't think it's possible to really separate economics and politics. They're both connected to each other, so bad economic policies will lead to bad politics - and vice versa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Spreading democracy is much of what we've been doing since the USSR started caving in.

quote:


We agree on that stuff. I'm not in support of American Imperialism.

quote:


We didn't use our military to return with treasure.

quote:


We have done a lot of stuff to simply maintain the trade status quo from those who might tend to use our consumption against us. For instance (hypothetical coming), if Ukraine decided to dick over Europe, they could reduce the amount of nat gas flowing from Russia to Europe, keeping it for themselves, unless Europe cows to various demands. The US could go into Ukraine to militarily hammer Ukraine into submission. We didn't do that to physically bring back any natural gas, but we did it to keep it flowing to Europe.
(I know, not the most accurate or elegant hypothetical, but the point gets across.)

quote:


As true as that is, how you reach your goals differs. We have no authority to dictate to another country what form of government they have. We also have no authority to dictate to another country what the economic conditions are in that country. That is opposite to what cloudboy thinks, which is where this tangent started.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Spreading democracy is much of what we've been doing since the USSR started caving in.

And you view that as a mistake? I agree.

quote:

quote:

We agree on that stuff. I'm not in support of American Imperialism.

Then we are agreed. However, the one caveat to this is that our support of globalist economics necessitates American Imperialism in one form or another. You can't have one without the other, and therein lies the problem.

quote:

quote:

We didn't use our military to return with treasure.

Well, we might as well have. It's not as if they had any real legitimate reason to be there in the first place. All I'm saying is that America's military should be used exclusively for America's benefit, not to benefit foreign governments. If our government chooses to use our military as mercenaries to prop up foreign dictatorships, the least they can do is get some return on our investment. You think it's a good deal that American blood gets shed, paid for by the US taxpayers, while the Arabs get to keep all the profits for themselves? That's a sucker deal that we never should have gotten into in the first place.

quote:

quote:

We have done a lot of stuff to simply maintain the trade status quo from those who might tend to use our consumption against us. For instance (hypothetical coming), if Ukraine decided to dick over Europe, they could reduce the amount of nat gas flowing from Russia to Europe, keeping it for themselves, unless Europe cows to various demands. The US could go into Ukraine to militarily hammer Ukraine into submission. We didn't do that to physically bring back any natural gas, but we did it to keep it flowing to Europe.
(I know, not the most accurate or elegant hypothetical, but the point gets across.)

That may be so, but the bottom line is that it would be Europe's supply of natural gas, so it would be their problem to solve, not ours.

quote:

quote:

As true as that is, how you reach your goals differs. We have no authority to dictate to another country what form of government they have. We also have no authority to dictate to another country what the economic conditions are in that country. That is opposite to what cloudboy thinks, which is where this tangent started.

Yes, but the thing is, you're stuck on technicalities and paper law - when the reality of world affairs is not so neat and painless.

quote:


That's one of the difficulties with being a country that, more or less, follows the rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes! I have no problem with helping populations who are trying to bring a more democratic government to their own countries. Without those citizens, any government we install will fail, unless it's less democracy and more brutal. That's why it's so damn important to let other countries decide what form of government they are going to have (I may not have liked that Egypt went Muslim Brotherhood, but, who the fuck am I to not support the democratic election of Egyptians?).

quote:

quote:


Then we are agreed. However, the one caveat to this is that our support of globalist economics necessitates American Imperialism in one form or another. You can't have one without the other, and therein lies the problem.

Please explain.

quote:


We should not let our government use our military as merc's to prop up foreign governments (dictatorships or not). Period. Our military should be used to defend our national security from ne'er-do-wells. I'm okay with using our military to defend an ally from an attack from another country.

quote:


Like I said, not the most elegant or accurate hypothetical, but the point is that our military went in to maintain the flow of resources. Maybe I should have used Iran guarding the Strait of Hormuz (or whatever it is), preventing oil from leaving the area to the rest of the world. Sending our military to maintain the flow of oil isn't really a bad thing, even though it's not just the US it's benefiting.

quote:


That's one of the difficulties with being a country that, more or less, follows the rules. We get taken advantage of (ie. our military in Iraq being shot at from mosques, but not returning fire so as to not destroy the mosque). Lots of people (here and abroad) will, essentially, deny the US the right to go after those who attack the US; criticizing every civilian casualty, while ignoring the civilian casualties at the hands of our enemies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes! I have no problem with helping populations who are trying to bring a more democratic government to their own countries. Without those citizens, any government we install will fail, unless it's less democracy and more brutal. That's why it's so damn important to let other countries decide what form of government they are going to have (I may not have liked that Egypt went Muslim Brotherhood, but, who the fuck am I to not support the democratic election of Egyptians?).

Well, the best way to help them is to leave them alone and let them run their countries by themselves.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Then we are agreed. However, the one caveat to this is that our support of globalist economics necessitates American Imperialism in one form or another. You can't have one without the other, and therein lies the problem.

Please explain.

Based on past track record, the US generally intervenes in world affairs when it believes its national interests are at stake. National interests usually reads as "economic interests," and that's where our problem exists.

quote:

quote:

We should not let our government use our military as merc's to prop up foreign governments (dictatorships or not). Period. Our military should be used to defend our national security from ne'er-do-wells. I'm okay with using our military to defend an ally from an attack from another country.

An isolationist policy would entail not having any allies. The whole problem begins and ends when we have to "defend an ally from attack."

quote:

quote:

Like I said, not the most elegant or accurate hypothetical, but the point is that our military went in to maintain the flow of resources. Maybe I should have used Iran guarding the Strait of Hormuz (or whatever it is), preventing oil from leaving the area to the rest of the world. Sending our military to maintain the flow of oil isn't really a bad thing, even though it's not just the US it's benefiting.

That's part of what justified all this "imperialism" which you spoke against earlier. As I said, you can't have one without the other. Sure, the government will use whatever pretext sounds legitimate, whether it's "defending an ally" or "maintaining the flow of resources."
Besides, if we supposedly respect the sovereignty of other nations, then we have to respect their right to control whatever flows through their country.

quote:

Just like we often impose economic sanctions on other nations; we wouldn't want them sending their military against us to force us to change our minds.

quote:

quote:

That's one of the difficulties with being a country that, more or less, follows the rules. We get taken advantage of (ie. our military in Iraq being shot at from mosques, but not returning fire so as to not destroy the mosque). Lots of people (here and abroad) will, essentially, deny the US the right to go after those who attack the US; criticizing every civilian casualty, while ignoring the civilian casualties at the hands of our enemies.

It depends. When it came to attacking Afghanistan after 9/11, most Americans and most of the world supported it. Former Soviet republics even allowed us to use their territory as bases - something that would have been unheard of 10-20 years earlier. The reason for that was because it was one of the extremely rare occasions when the US actually had a legitimate reason to use military force. That, and Pearl Harbor.
Iraq was a different story, and many believe that we didn't have the right to go into Iraq.

quote:

So, I think you're mistaken here. Most of the world and most Americans will support America's right to go after those attack the US, but only when they attack the US!
Iraq didn't attack the US, so why should anyone support US military actions against countries which haven't attacked us? That's a recurring theme in US military policy, where we've involved ourselves in military actions against countries which never attacked us: Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Somalia - just to name a few.

quote:

In cases where we were attacked or declared war upon, then that was different. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; Italy and Germany declared war on us.

quote:

Britain attacked us in the War of 1812, and even burned our Capitol and White House. Come to think of it, we never really got them back for that. They should let us burn a couple of their buildings, just so we're even. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

"National interests" have such an incredibly subjective definition. Everything can be of "National interest" in one way or another. And, that's not something I support. I'd rather have things more defined, so as to allow for better control of the government, by the States and the People.

quote:


I don't agree that we need American Imperialism to also support global economics.

quote:


Being "more isolationist than imperialist" (which is what I said I am) does not mean there are no allies, or ties with other countries.

quote:


Correct, but, the Strait of Hormuz isn't necessarily "through" Iran. And, much of what we've been doing in the Middle East has been activities that maintain the flow of products, rather than as raids to gain plunder.

quote:


Thus, the role the UN should be playing.

quote:


Yet, the rules of warfare still applied in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. We did more to play by those rules than our enemies, yet, we were still called to the carpet more when we broke those rules, than they were when they broke those rules.

quote:


I would say those are more examples of US Imperialism, which, as I've pointed out a couple times, at least, I'm opposed to.

quote:


Italy and Germany never attacked war against us, though.

quote:


Does bin Laden and al Qaeda issuing a fatwa against the US count?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


That's one of the difficulties with being a country that, more or less, follows the rules.

Unfortunately, DS, it's only the USA that sees it that way. The USA pissed away any moral authority it thought it might have way, way before Guantanamo Bay. Whatever rules the USA has asserted in world politics it's blatantly, and frequently, not followed itself - so far as the USA's enemies are concerned (and who else matters?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


That's one of the difficulties with being a country that, more or less, follows the rules.

Unfortunately, DS, it's only the USA that sees it that way. The USA pissed away any moral authority it thought it might have way, way before Guantanamo Bay. Whatever rules the USA has asserted in world politics it's blatantly, and frequently, not followed itself - so far as the USA's enemies are concerned (and who else matters?).

It's true. I'm a patriotic American, but the US ignores any rules/laws that aren't convenient, and has for a long time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
"National interests" have such an incredibly subjective definition. Everything can be of "National interest" in one way or another. And, that's not something I support. I'd rather have things more defined, so as to allow for better control of the government, by the States and the People.

I think most would agree with us that the government should better define its position and objectives in world affairs. That's the main problem that a lot of people have with it, since the government is terribly vague about what it does and classifies the rest as "top secret" for reasons of national security. But the trouble is, too many people are all too willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt in these matters. We're just supposed to "trust them" that they have our best interests at heart and that we don't really need to know all the details.

quote:

quote:

I don't agree that we need American Imperialism to also support global economics.

I agree that it shouldn't be necessary.

quote:

quote:

Being "more isolationist than imperialist" (which is what I said I am) does not mean there are no allies, or ties with other countries.

George Washington wrote: “Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world — so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it.”

quote:

quote:

Correct, but, the Strait of Hormuz isn't necessarily "through" Iran. And, much of what we've been doing in the Middle East has been activities that maintain the flow of products, rather than as raids to gain plunder.

I wasn't seriously advocating plunder and looting, but the thing is, we're already violating "the rules" which you alluded to earlier. My only point was that, if we're going to violate the rules, use military force, and besmirch our own national reputation anyway, then the least we could do is work it out for our own advantage. Otherwise, why do it?

quote:

Other countries depend far more on Persian Gulf oil than we do, so let them worry about the trade routes through the Strait of Hormuz. If it really gets that bad, they can always build a pipeline across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea (if they haven't done so already). There is a pipeline to the Med, but unfortunately it goes through Syria. But they don't have to go through the Strait of Hormuz if it's not a safe trade route.
And why would Iran or any other country shoot themselves in the foot like that? They depend on selling their oil just as much as the West depends on buying it. No matter what their politics are, they still have to do commerce and survive just the same.

quote:

One could make the same argument regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Why should it be any skin off us that we would need to interfere? What do we care if a gas station goes under new management, just as long as we can still get gas? And they have no reason not to sell to us (or anyone else), since it's all they have to sell anyway.

quote:

So, in other words, all this concern about "maintaining the flow of resources" is much ado about nothing. Of course, resources are going to flow - mainly because the people in that region have very little choice. Even if they get cranky and cut us off, the fact remains that we can wait out an embargo much longer than they can.

quote:

quote:

Thus, the role the UN should be playing.

Yeah, well, the UN hasn't really lived up to expectations. US politicians have had a kind of love/hate relationship with the UN, and public opinion seems sharply divided as well.

quote:

quote:

Yet, the rules of warfare still applied in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. We did more to play by those rules than our enemies, yet, we were still called to the carpet more when we broke those rules, than they were when they broke those rules.

It's no different with cops when they go after criminals. Cops have to operate under a chain of command, follow orders, follow the policies and procedures of their department. Criminals don't really answer to anyone; they just do whatever they want and hope they get away with it. Of course, they're going to break some rules along the way - which is part of what the fighting is all about to begin with.

quote:

It's also a matter of politics, since our role in these countries is more that of interventionism, where we're taking the side of one or more factions against opposing factions. It's not like we're going up against the entire country and population. We need local support - "hearts and minds" and all that. So we have to make every effort to make it appear like everything is on the up and up.

quote:

quote:

I would say those are more examples of US Imperialism, which, as I've pointed out a couple times, at least, I'm opposed to.

So, your position is that US military force is justified only when US soil is directly attacked?

quote:

quote:

Italy and Germany never attacked war against us, though.

Germany did, or at least they attempted to land some saboteurs on the East Coast, but they were quickly caught. They also built a bomber which could carry enough fuel to fly to New York and back, but it was built too late in the war and was never used.
Still, the declaration of war was enough. Of course, few countries (other than the Axis Powers themselves) actually complained about us going to war against Germany. Even the Russians were happy to have us on board. So, it's not like we had to justify ourselves in any way or come up with some bogus pretext - not like later wars.

quote:

Does bin Laden and al Qaeda issuing a fatwa against the US count?

Probably not anymore, since Bin Laden is dead. However, as I understand the conditions of the fatwa, it is not binding on any actual Middle Eastern government in existence, so there'd be nobody of any official capacity with whom to negotiate.
At least with Germany, Italy, and Japan, there was still some sort of nominal government to deal with when it came time for their surrender. So, at least we knew when it ended.
But with these terrorists, it is like dealing with street gangs. Even if you take out one, there's always someone else waiting to take their place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, we continually get screwed over because of it.

quote:


Using "shouldn't" implies that it is still necessary. I disagree that it is necessary.

quote:


Washington's Farewell Address: "The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

quote:


Rather than advocate for looting and plundering, you're questioning why we aren't looting and plundering since we're already dragging our name through the dirt. Not so sure there's much of a difference there.

quote:


Why? To make it more difficult on us. It seems that some governments care less about it's citizens than the US cares about US Citizens. That's not on us to correct for them, either.

quote:


Wasn't the US part of a UN coalition against Iraq?

quote:


It's not much ado about nothing. It's extremely important to the global economy. Can you even imagine what chaos would erupt in the US if people can't get their fill of crap?!?

quote:


Both statements are true, but neither disagrees with my statement.

quote:


It's a sad commentary when a person breaking the law is held up in the court of public opinion as not being in the wrong when a police officer doesn't follow the rules. Both should be held responsible for their actions.

quote:


We should not insert ourselves unless the "hearts and minds" are already with us.

quote:

quote:


So, your position is that US military force is justified only when US soil is directly attacked?

That's not the only time. As much as neither of us likes it, we currently do have agreements in place, and we should follow through with those when necessary. I'd be much more agreeable to ending most of those agreements and falling back to the stance that we'll only get involved when the US is attacked directly.

quote:


But, they still declared war, and there is a political structure with gangs and terrorist groups. A fatwa may not have any binding effect on a M.E. government, but it's supposed to have some binding effect on some, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

Rather than advocate for looting and plundering, you're questioning why we aren't looting and plundering since we're already dragging our name through the dirt. Not so sure there's much of a difference there.

Well, it's just that my overall view is that we should stay out of the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. I'm somewhat of an isolationist - not much different from your view.
But if the political consensus goes against the idea of isolationism and the choice of our country is to get involved and play these games that they like to play - then my view is that we should play to win. Either we go all the way, or not at all. But this half-ass interventionist bullshit is the worst of both worlds.

quote:

quote:

Why? To make it more difficult on us. It seems that some governments care less about it's citizens than the US cares about US Citizens. That's not on us to correct for them, either.

Why would it be difficult on us? If Iran is able to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, there would be other ways of transporting oil out of there. Or we could find other sources of oil elsewhere in the world. The Persian Gulf isn't the only game in town when it comes to oil. Sure, it would be an inconvenience and might cost a bit extra, but we can sustain that more easily than going to war.

quote:

quote:

Wasn't the US part of a UN coalition against Iraq?

Yes, but I don't see how this question is relevant.

quote:

quote:

It's not much ado about nothing. It's extremely important to the global economy. Can you even imagine what chaos would erupt in the US if people can't get their fill of crap?!?

Well, then, I guess we're stuck with American imperialism in one form or another then. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?
I'm not sure if it really be that chaotic, though. We do have domestic oil reserves that we can utilize, as well as sources of oil closer to home. We are still a major food producer and plenty of resources. We'd still be able to trade with most of the rest of the world, even if the Middle East suddenly became inaccessible. Our trade routes in our own hemisphere and across the Atlantic and Pacific would still be relatively safe.

quote:

But if it does get worse, then perhaps now would be a good time to slowly extricate ourselves from the global situation and not make our economy so dependent on these countries teetering on the brink. As a country, we should learn to become more self-sufficient and self-reliant, rather than wagering our nation's future in the hope that the dictators and tyrants of this world might develop a conscience.

quote:

quote:

Both statements are true, but neither disagrees with my statement.

Yes, but if the UN should be playing a role but isn't, then what should we do about it?

quote:

quote:

It's a sad commentary when a person breaking the law is held up in the court of public opinion as not being in the wrong when a police officer doesn't follow the rules. Both should be held responsible for their actions.

I don't think it's that way. If a criminal kills an innocent person, then society and public opinion would demand that he/she be held accountable and punished for it. Likewise, if a police officer kills an innocent person, then society and public opinion would demand that he/she be held accountable and punished for it.

quote:

But I get your general point about following the rules. I think many have this belief that the rules should apply to everyone consistently and equally, regardless of their position, rank, or the kind of clothes they wear. When people have reason to believe that the rules are not being applied consistently, equally, and fairly, then that's when the fireworks begin. Whether it's in the Middle East or the inner cities of America, if people think they're being mistreated, then all the "rules" go right out the window.
Public opinion is what it is because many people know the score and they know how things are.

quote:

quote:

We should not insert ourselves unless the "hearts and minds" are already with us.

That's where it gets dicey. In just about every situation we've inserted ourselves, we've had some whose hearts and minds were already with us - usually those who are wealthy and on the right wing of the political spectrum. But sometimes we've picked the wrong people to back.

quote:

quote:

quote:

So, your position is that US military force is justified only when US soil is directly attacked?

That's not the only time. As much as neither of us likes it, we currently do have agreements in place, and we should follow through with those when necessary. I'd be much more agreeable to ending most of those agreements and falling back to the stance that we'll only get involved when the US is attacked directly.

It depends on what the exact agreements are and whether the US has a binding obligation to use military force and to what degree. I don't think there's anything beneficial about an agreement which somehow forces us to maintain a huge military budget, a network of overseas bases, a permanent military force in multiple countries, and a virtual state of constant war and crisis around the globe. So, whatever part of the "agreement" which includes all that, maybe we can just ditch that. We can just pledge ourselves to help out in case of a real, bona fide emergency - something at the magnitude of World War II. But anything smaller than that, they're on their own.

quote:

quote:

But, they still declared war, and there is a political structure with gangs and terrorist groups. A fatwa may not have any binding effect on a M.E. government, but it's supposed to have some binding effect on some, no?

There may be a political structure, but it seems unstable and fluid - constantly changing. Regardless of whatever cause they might be fighting for overall, there's still splinterism and clashes between small fry who all want to be the big fish. In some ways, that works to our government's advantage, whether dealing with terrorists or gangs. If they're small, disorganized, and characterized by a lot of infighting and internecine violence, then they're far easier to deal with. The downside is that there are so many that it's impossible to deal with them all at the same time. The only thing we really need to worry about is if all the countries and factions in the Middle East unified under a single leader and a single banner. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Political consensus means nothing, if the action isn't authorized by the Constitution. That's part of the issue: majority can supercede the Constitution, which is damn wrong.

quote:


Should we "play to win?" Fuck yeah, we should! The issue arises, though, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, we weren't fighting against Iraq and Afghanistan. We were fighting a group, or groups within Afghanistan and the regime in Iraq, and the typical citizen was to be spared at almost all costs (noble goal, but makes waging war all but impossible). Had we gone in with the idea that the mission came first and with the most expedient means, and limiting collateral damage, fighting in both countries would have been done and over with quite rapidly.

quote:


Why would it be difficult on us? Because we'll be the ones blamed for the plights of their citizens. That's why. It's our own damn fault, though, for putting ourselves in that situation.

quote:


The Persian Gulf War wasn't a US only thing. We were part of the UN. In the case of Iraq invading Kuwait, the UN acted like the UN is supposed to. The UN doesn't have it's own forces, but relies on member countries, which is why we were part of liberating Kuwait.

quote:


It won't be about food. It will be about junk that we fill our lives with. Look at what happens when the newest "Jordans" are released. There were fights, and people injured, hours before the store was to open in Toledo. Kids, fighting in a parking lot, on a school day no less, to get a pair of shoes.

It's American consumerism that is the problem.

quote:


It's not our problem if they have a conscience or not.

quote:


I have no idea how to fix the UN. It might be time to scrap it and start over.

quote:


The problem isn't when a cop kills and innocent person, or a criminal kills an innocent person. When a cop kills a criminal, or suspected criminal) (especially while attempting to apprehend because of a crime), lately, it's the cop that's being blasted, and the suspected criminal being held unaccountable for the crime.

quote:


The Public is being led to an opinion, more than anything.

quote:


It should be a majority of hearts and minds, and not just some.

quote:

quote:


There may be a political structure, but it seems unstable and fluid - constantly changing. Regardless of whatever cause they might be fighting for overall, there's still splinterism and clashes between small fry who all want to be the big fish. In some ways, that works to our government's advantage, whether dealing with terrorists or gangs. If they're small, disorganized, and characterized by a lot of infighting and internecine violence, then they're far easier to deal with. The downside is that there are so many that it's impossible to deal with them all at the same time. The only thing we really need to worry about is if all the countries and factions in the Middle East unified under a single leader and a single banner. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

But, if they're more stable, and attend themselves to the hierarchy, then what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Political consensus means nothing, if the action isn't authorized by the Constitution. That's part of the issue: majority can supercede the Constitution, which is damn wrong.

It depends on what action we're talking about. If the Constitution is vague or unclear on something, then it's left open to interpretation. This is especially true when it comes to foreign policy, which the Constitution says very little about. Treaties are a different matter, although it still requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to ratify a treaty.

quote:

quote:

Should we "play to win?" Fuck yeah, we should! The issue arises, though, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, we weren't fighting against Iraq and Afghanistan. We were fighting a group, or groups within Afghanistan and the regime in Iraq, and the typical citizen was to be spared at almost all costs (noble goal, but makes waging war all but impossible). Had we gone in with the idea that the mission came first and with the most expedient means, and limiting collateral damage, fighting in both countries would have been done and over with quite rapidly.

But which "mission"? That's part of the problem, since the process of defining their mission is too vague and non-specific. During WW2, we consider ourselves at war with the entire countries which were part of the Axis Powers. We viewed the entire country as the enemy, not just certain portions of it. Our bombings of their cities were far more devastating and had no intention of sparing anyone. And yet, their populations were far more cooperative and less resentful over the long run than anything we've ever seen in the Middle East.
I think a lot of what infuriates the local populations in the Middle East is the hypocrisy behind the "game" itself. If we had simply acted like the ruthless conquerors they've been used to throughout their history, then some of these problems never would have arisen. It's the fact that we go out, conquer, fuck these people up the ass, and then try to claim that we were "doing them a favor" - that's a uniquely American attitude to take - and it's infuriatingly hypocritical. At least Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, et al. had a sense of honesty and sincerity that is completely lost on our contemporary politicians. Our politicians actually believe that the local populations over there hate us because we're not nice enough, but the real reason is due to our politicians' propensity towards obsessive and compulsive lying. That's the real issue here, far more than "rule violations."

quote:

quote:

Why would it be difficult on us? Because we'll be the ones blamed for the plights of their citizens. That's why. It's our own damn fault, though, for putting ourselves in that situation.

If they blame us for things our government actually did, that would be one thing. But in this hypothetical, you're saying that Iran would be blaming us because THEY blocked the Straits of Hormuz?

quote:

quote:

The Persian Gulf War wasn't a US only thing. We were part of the UN. In the case of Iraq invading Kuwait, the UN acted like the UN is supposed to. The UN doesn't have it's own forces, but relies on member countries, which is why we were part of liberating Kuwait.

You're making it sound like the US government was "just following orders" from the UN, as if we really didn't want to liberate Kuwait - the UN just forced us to act against our will. I don't think it was like that.

quote:

quote:

It won't be about food. It will be about junk that we fill our lives with. Look at what happens when the newest "Jordans" are released. There were fights, and people injured, hours before the store was to open in Toledo. Kids, fighting in a parking lot, on a school day no less, to get a pair of shoes.
It's American consumerism that is the problem.

Yeah, I never could understand why these kids make such a big deal over name-brand merchandise. There was some of that when I was a kid, but never to this extent.
But if something like that suddenly becomes unavailable, most people will adjust. They only want something and will fight over it if "it's there," but if it's not there, then there's nothing to fight about.
I recall several years ago when a major gas pipeline from Texas burst between Tucson and Phoenix. Suddenly, 70% of the Phoenix area's gas supplies were cut off until they could fix it. While they trucked in as much as they could and tried to soften it somewhat, it was still two weeks of chaos. Gas lines, price gouging, fights - it was a mess. That's what I thought you were talking about, not shoes.

quote:

quote:

It's not our problem if they have a conscience or not.

That's beside the point. It wouldn't be our problem if we got less involved, but since our government insists on a global economy and getting involved in every hornets nest out there, then it does become our problem.

quote:

quote:

I have no idea how to fix the UN. It might be time to scrap it and start over.

That might be difficult to do at this point, but one thing we could do is propose a more limited role for the UN.

quote:

quote:

The problem isn't when a cop kills and innocent person, or a criminal kills an innocent person. When a cop kills a criminal, or suspected criminal) (especially while attempting to apprehend because of a crime), lately, it's the cop that's being blasted, and the suspected criminal being held unaccountable for the crime.

It depends on the circumstances of the individual case, although it might be better if we discuss those cases in a different thread. But relating this to US military activities and the point about "following the rules," those matters are handled in actual courts, not in the court of public opinion, which carries no official weight. While it might be upsetting to hear someone criticizing the cops or the US military, it doesn't really mean anything in terms of whatever actual legal decision is reached.
Certainly, it doesn't follow that the suspected criminal would be let off or held unaccountable, but if they've been killed, there doesn't seem much point in having a trial for a dead man.

quote:

quote:

The Public is being led to an opinion, more than anything.

To a large extent, this is true - although that also depends on the shared experience of the public. People who are aware of the government's track record on foreign policy might be less inclined to believe what the government says. I think a lot of people are as disgruntled as the townspeople became in The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Even when the media cry wolf these days, fewer people believe it now than they would have 50-60 years ago.

quote:

quote:

It should be a majority of hearts and minds, and not just some.

They would tell us that it's the majority who are on our side. I recall in the early days, they were showing footage of throngs of Iraqis cheering the Americans for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. At least at that time, it looked like their hearts and minds were with us. Maybe it was all typical media smoke and mirrors.

quote:

quote:

quote:

There may be a political structure, but it seems unstable and fluid - constantly changing. Regardless of whatever cause they might be fighting for overall, there's still splinterism and clashes between small fry who all want to be the big fish. In some ways, that works to our government's advantage, whether dealing with terrorists or gangs. If they're small, disorganized, and characterized by a lot of infighting and internecine violence, then they're far easier to deal with. The downside is that there are so many that it's impossible to deal with them all at the same time. The only thing we really need to worry about is if all the countries and factions in the Middle East unified under a single leader and a single banner. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

But, if they're more stable, and attend themselves to the hierarchy, then what?

It would probably be easier on a diplomatic level to deal with a single government which rules over the entire Middle East, but it would also be a very powerful regime with the resources and manpower which could potentially rival any superpower. They could pose a much larger threat than what we're facing today, but on the other hand, if we can deal with them the right way, they could potentially be an effective ally in a strategically advantageous position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Thus my desire for a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution...

quote:

quote:

quote:

Should we "play to win?" Fuck yeah, we should! The issue arises, though, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, we weren't fighting against Iraq and Afghanistan. We were fighting a group, or groups within Afghanistan and the regime in Iraq, and the typical citizen was to be spared at almost all costs (noble goal, but makes waging war all but impossible). Had we gone in with the idea that the mission came first and with the most expedient means, and limiting collateral damage, fighting in both countries would have been done and over with quite rapidly.

But which "mission"? That's part of the problem, since the process of defining their mission is too vague and non-specific. During WW2, we consider ourselves at war with the entire countries which were part of the Axis Powers. We viewed the entire country as the enemy, not just certain portions of it. Our bombings of their cities were far more devastating and had no intention of sparing anyone. And yet, their populations were far more cooperative and less resentful over the long run than anything we've ever seen in the Middle East.
I think a lot of what infuriates the local populations in the Middle East is the hypocrisy behind the "game" itself. If we had simply acted like the ruthless conquerors they've been used to throughout their history, then some of these problems never would have arisen. It's the fact that we go out, conquer, fuck these people up the ass, and then try to claim that we were "doing them a favor" - that's a uniquely American attitude to take - and it's infuriatingly hypocritical. At least Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, et al. had a sense of honesty and sincerity that is completely lost on our contemporary politicians. Our politicians actually believe that the local populations over there hate us because we're not nice enough, but the real reason is due to our politicians' propensity towards obsessive and compulsive lying. That's the real issue here, far more than "rule violations."

What do you mean "which mission?" We've already agreed that we shouldn't be going into places willy-nilly simply for our own economic benefit. We've already agreed that the reasons we are intervening need to be less vague.

quote:


I have a feeling the people aren't pissed off at us because we weren't ruthless enough (I'm even willing to bet there was at least one soldier named Ruth...). Our despicable actions at Abu Ghraib and the resentment wasn't because we were too nice and accommodating.

quote:


No. They would be blaming us for their having to block the Straits, thus making life horrible for the typical Iranian. Another example would be sanctions get imposed to punish a dictator, but the dictator lives high on the hog and the people suffer, but the dictator blames all the suffering on those who put the sanctions on, regardless of the merits of the sanctions.

quote:


We definitely did want to liberate Kuwait. But, we still didn't just act on our own. We were part of a coalition, authorized by the UN.

quote:


Noooo. lol. Gas shortages would suck and people won't be happy, but it will be more of the lack of crap to buy that makes society explode.

quote:


And, we already agree that we shouldn't be getting involved in every hornet's nest out there. It's not the "global economy" that's to blame, but the getting involved in every hornet's nest out there that causes the problems.

quote:


I don't think a more limited role is what would fix it. That would only mean that a "governing body" that doesn't do much already will do less, still falling well short of what it should be doing.

quote:


Please. A big part of the reason we "play" war is because of the court of public opinion.

quote:


I think the percentage of people who are aware of government's track record on foreign policy is a lot lower than it was years ago. Yet another problem with our society today.

quote:


I don't think diplomacy is going to take care of ISIS, or another terrorist group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Thus my desire for a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution...

When it comes to foreign policy, I would agree, although the Founding Fathers had a completely different view of foreign policy at the time. On a practical level, we may have to update how we implement our foreign policy.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Should we "play to win?" Fuck yeah, we should! The issue arises, though, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, we weren't fighting against Iraq and Afghanistan. We were fighting a group, or groups within Afghanistan and the regime in Iraq, and the typical citizen was to be spared at almost all costs (noble goal, but makes waging war all but impossible). Had we gone in with the idea that the mission came first and with the most expedient means, and limiting collateral damage, fighting in both countries would have been done and over with quite rapidly.

But which "mission"? That's part of the problem, since the process of defining their mission is too vague and non-specific. During WW2, we consider ourselves at war with the entire countries which were part of the Axis Powers. We viewed the entire country as the enemy, not just certain portions of it. Our bombings of their cities were far more devastating and had no intention of sparing anyone. And yet, their populations were far more cooperative and less resentful over the long run than anything we've ever seen in the Middle East.
I think a lot of what infuriates the local populations in the Middle East is the hypocrisy behind the "game" itself. If we had simply acted like the ruthless conquerors they've been used to throughout their history, then some of these problems never would have arisen. It's the fact that we go out, conquer, fuck these people up the ass, and then try to claim that we were "doing them a favor" - that's a uniquely American attitude to take - and it's infuriatingly hypocritical. At least Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, et al. had a sense of honesty and sincerity that is completely lost on our contemporary politicians. Our politicians actually believe that the local populations over there hate us because we're not nice enough, but the real reason is due to our politicians' propensity towards obsessive and compulsive lying. That's the real issue here, far more than "rule violations."

What do you mean "which mission?" We've already agreed that we shouldn't be going into places willy-nilly simply for our own economic benefit. We've already agreed that the reasons we are intervening need to be less vague.

You wrote "Had we gone in with the idea that the mission came first," so that's why I asked "which mission?" What is our goal here? What is our objective? Bush said "mission accomplished" back in 2003, and yet here we are, 12 years later.

quote:

quote:

I have a feeling the people aren't pissed off at us because we weren't ruthless enough (I'm even willing to bet there was at least one soldier named Ruth...). Our despicable actions at Abu Ghraib and the resentment wasn't because we were too nice and accommodating.

Oh, I never said we were nice. You had pointed out earlier that the US was called to the carpet for not following the rules, which I pretty much agree with. I don't think it was just about Abu Ghraib; that may have been the tip of the iceberg. The whole reason for invading Iraq in the first place was to topple Saddam Hussein and check to see if there were any weapons of mass destruction. Once that was done, the fact that our forces remained revealed the original pretext to be a lie. The whole business about WMDs was a lie. It's the lie that causes trouble more than anything else.

quote:

quote:

No. They would be blaming us for their having to block the Straits, thus making life horrible for the typical Iranian. Another example would be sanctions get imposed to punish a dictator, but the dictator lives high on the hog and the people suffer, but the dictator blames all the suffering on those who put the sanctions on, regardless of the merits of the sanctions.

I suppose so, but other nations might not see it the same way. They might blame the US, or they might blame the dictator, or they might put a bit of blame on both. Of course, I don't think anyone could solely blame the US for the world's problems, particularly in the Middle East, where our involvement was minimal prior to WW2.

quote:

quote:

We definitely did want to liberate Kuwait. But, we still didn't just act on our own. We were part of a coalition, authorized by the UN.

Yes, but that still brings us back to the original question of why we'd want to get involved in the first place. If the UN wants to handle it, let them handle it.

quote:

quote:

Noooo. lol. Gas shortages would suck and people won't be happy, but it will be more of the lack of crap to buy that makes society explode.

I disagree. People will riot over food, energy supplies, and other things which are vital to sustaining life. But as far as expensive sneakers and other such crap, the only reason they want that crap in the first place is due to the very same media that we've been lambasting. If someone has something they want to sell, they're going to push heavily on the marketing and advertising to artificially create the "demand" which leads to teenagers rioting outside a store waiting to buy sneakers. All this advertising is directed mostly at that age group because they're the most gullible.
All that it really means is that with the right kind of propaganda, it's possible to work people up into a frenzy over whatever you want them to. Kind of frightening, when you think about it.

quote:

quote:

And, we already agree that we shouldn't be getting involved in every hornet's nest out there. It's not the "global economy" that's to blame, but the getting involved in every hornet's nest out there that causes the problems.

But where do the hornets nests come from? How are they caused, and what are the ramifications to the global economy if we just leave them to fester? Now, if we didn't have to worry about the "global economy," then our view on such things would be much simpler.

quote:

quote:

I don't think a more limited role is what would fix it. That would only mean that a "governing body" that doesn't do much already will do less, still falling well short of what it should be doing.

The only real "governing body" of the UN is the Security Council, with the US being one of five permanent members with veto power.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say what the UN "should be doing." I think the only real benefit of the UN is for diplomatic purposes, in the hope that nations could resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation rather than war.

quote:

quote:

Please. A big part of the reason we "play" war is because of the court of public opinion.

Well, this is definitely one of those cases where the public was led by their nose to that opinion.

quote:

quote:

I think the percentage of people who are aware of government's track record on foreign policy is a lot lower than it was years ago. Yet another problem with our society today.

Perhaps, although there's a lot of apathy that goes along with it. At least during the Cold War era, I recall that there were a lot of people who were truly worried about the world situation, supported containment and other interventionist, anti-communist policies. There were enough people who were actively convinced that such policies were necessary, but now, I don't see as many of them as there used to be. There may be a larger percentage who are unaware, but the only way such a policy will work is if there are enough true believers to support it, and their numbers seem to be dwindling.

quote:

quote:

I don't think diplomacy is going to take care of ISIS, or another terrorist group.

Not now, but this would be assuming a hypothetical situation where internal dissent would have already been quashed. If we're just dealing with a single, stable government which is firmly in charge, then we wouldn't have to worry about ISIS or any of these splinter groups.