RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake

RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/15/2015 11:04:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Well, we went in to take Saddam out of power. That mission was accomplished. We also went in with the mission to prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD. That mission was accomplished (though, technically, it was accomplished many years prior). We went in to force Iraq to comply with the requirements of the First Gulf War Agreement. That mission, I believe wasn't accomplished. After we toppled Saddam, we were coming under fire from local groups. At that point, we either needed to get the fuck out (and leave behind an infrastructure much worse than the one Iraq had before we went in), or destroy the "new" enemies and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure (to make up for (and then some) the damage we caused). We kept trying to rebuild the infrastructure, but didn't make destroying our enemies part of the mission. So, then, regarding the "mission," do you believe these were coherent objectives which benefited America? As you said before, tyrants and dictators shouldn't really be America's problem, so why would we have an objective to remove someone from power? I don't think there are any Constitutional guidelines on this at all, as to when it's okay to remove a foreign leader from power and when it's not. quote: I don't believe it was a lie. It wasn't correct, but I don't think it was a lie. Still, we damaged their infrastructure, and I do think it was on us to spearhead that rebuilding. So, you believe it was an honest mistake? To quote Captain DeVriess in The Caine Mutiny: "There are mistakes and mistakes. The margin for error is narrow in the Navy. There's too much loss of life and property damage possible in every act." As for the rebuilding, it may have been on us to pay for it, but that doesn't mean we actually have to keep troops there. quote: I don't think every other country would have to, but the people within a country may be "misled" by their government in blaming us. It's not our problem if tyrants and dictators have no conscience or lie to their people. quote: It is very few that blame the US solely for all the world's problems (now, the numbers of people who blame the US and Israel for all the world's problems, esp. in the M.E. will be exponentially higher). We've done one helluva job fucking up the M.E. since WWII, though, haven't we? The Middle East was already fucked up by the time we got there. All we've been doing since then has been damage control, although our main problem has been one of ignorance. For example, in 1943, when the Allied leaders met at Tehran, almost nobody in our government knew very much about Iran - not even in the State Department, filled with all those brilliant Ivy Leaguers - they were clueless and relied mainly on the British and the Soviets for information about that country. Our people knew nothing! This has been a recurring theme in US foreign policy, where our government picks morons to be our diplomatic representatives, while relying on faulty information and making senseless decisions as a result. This is how these "mistakes" keep happening. And yet, for a country that we knew nothing about, somehow we knew "enough" to interfere with Iran's internal affairs and install the Shah dictatorship in 1953. Likewise, the creation of Israel was based more in emotionalism and religious fanaticism rather than any kind of rational, logical examination of the situation and the region in question. quote: They did. We have a responsibility to enforce the UN's mandates. It's one of them there "treaty" things we were talking about maybe wanting to reassess. So, now, you're saying that the UN did force the US to act against its will? You keep going back and forth on this. We don't have any responsibility to enforce the UN's mandates, especially since we have veto power on the UN Security Council. Even then, there have been UN mandates (mostly regarding Israel) which we have willfully ignored. So, if you really believe that "we have a responsibility to enforce the UN's mandates," then what gives? Why aren't we living up to our responsibilities? If you're saying that we shouldn't saddle ourselves with these kinds of responsibilities, then I agree. However, that still brings us back to the same original question (which you keep ducking) as to why should it matter to us if Iraq invades Kuwait. quote: It won't be food or energy, though. We have quite a lot of capacity in those areas. It's much more likely that we'll see a reduction in the amount of cheap crap (as well as inexpensive stuff), and that will set things off. Consumption is King in the US, sadly. People seem to be more inclined to buy stuff to temporarily placate some inner angst. It's a method to escape reality. That's why so many people tune into the latest gossip show, or "reality" TV. They'd rather read about and see someone else's life (even when the "reality" show is scripted). Hollywood thrives off that, too. People go to movies to get away from their own realities (something I'm definitely not immune to). People buy stuff because they're being led to buy it in much the same way the "court of public opinion" is reached, as you noted earlier. You may have a point in that they may want to placate some inner angst, although it might be worth examining where that angst actually comes from. Some have noted similar sociological phenomena when explaining why there's so much alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental illness in our society. Consumerism, hyper-materialism, judging people's intrinsic value by externalities such as wealth - this might also contribute to the level of angst in society. People who struggle to keep up with the Joneses are trying to fill a hole inside them that can never be filled. quote: Sadly, many of the current "hornet's nests" were caused, at least in part, by the US government "helping," not because of the "global economy." But the reason that the US government "helps" is because we worry about the global economy. As I said, our options would be a lot easier if we didn't have to worry about the global economy. Also, it should be noted that a lot of these hornets nests were created mainly due to ideological, religious, or nationalistic concerns. I didn't say they were caused by the global economy, but the problem with humans is that we don't always think in a "strictly business" mindset. The supporters of globalism generally tend to forget this little foible of human nature which points up the folly of such a system. quote: The UN should support the idea that each country is sovereign, and work to protect that sovereignty. The Kellogg-Briand Treaty was probably sufficient in terms of gaining agreement on national sovereignty and condemning aggressive invasion. The basic idea is sound, but it all gets twisted around by politicians and diplomats who struggle to define terms like "sovereign" and "aggressive invasion." There's also the question of whether the world can operate in such a way on a practical level. As we agreed earlier, too many people/governments break the rules - or at least bend them so far that they become meaningless. quote: The UNSC is definitely the big dog there, and, yes, we do hold a permanent veto seat. Yes, the UN should act to maintain peace through diplomacy, but there may arise a situation where diplomacy won't work. In those cases, the UNSC should act militarily (but, having no actual military of it's own, the UN military is made up of members military. The UN should be the body placing sanctions. The UN should be the arbiter in negotiations like the Iran nuke negotiations. Our own government prefers to take the lead in such things. That's part of the problem right there, since our own political leadership feels the need to do all this by themselves, without stepping back and letting the UN handle it. A lot of US politicians don't really trust the UN, particularly the UN General Assembly in which the majority of nations are non-aligned and don't see the world as we see it. quote: Well, the basis of the Cold War hasn't existed for decades, so, it's not a big surprise there are fewer people worried about the world situation. I'm willing to bet there was another spike after 9/11. Perhaps, although there seems to be fewer people who actually know about the world situation, much less worry about it. During the Cold War - and back during the time when there were more people from the WW2 generation who were still around (not many left these days) - a lot of people argued and disagreed over foreign policy. But at least many of them actually knew what they were talking about. Over the past 10-15 years, I've encountered people who have no clue who Stalin was. Never heard of him. There was another time many years ago where I was talking with a woman at work who was telling me about a new employee who said he was from Ukraine. She never heard of Ukraine - and she called several of her friends to ask if they knew about it, and none of them knew what it was. It just astounds me as to how many utterly clueless people are out there. Sure, a lot of people were angry and upset over 9/11, as was I. More people may have been worried about the world situation, but did that motivate them to inform themselves better regarding the outside world and the complexities, causes, and consequences of the foreign policy our government was carrying out? quote: Yes, if we're just dealing with a single, stable government, sure. But, we aren't. And therein lies the problem. That's why we should question the practicality of our devotion to protecting their "sovereignty." It may seem like a nice idea from a sentimental and emotional point of view, but if a country can't maintain order and keep a stable society, can they really be "sovereign" on a realistic and practical level? Should we really split legal hairs like this when world security is threatened?

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/15/2015 12:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 And therein lies the problem. That's why we should question the practicality of our devotion to protecting their "sovereignty." It may seem like a nice idea from a sentimental and emotional point of view, but if a country can't maintain order and keep a stable society, can they really be "sovereign" on a realistic and practical level? Should we really split legal hairs like this when world security is threatened? I don't recall anyone trying to invade England, even the Germans only gave it a half-hearted go when they had all the means at their disposal. So, if no one is trying to invade us, and it seems no one is trying to invade the United States either; then what does it matter whether or not other countries are stable? Let them get on with it, and they'll arrive at democracy through their own internal process. Some will argue that the only reason these countries don't invade us is because we have the armed forces watching over us. I for one am not convinced. The problems currently faced are a result of the likes of the British Government thinking we need to invade countries and make them like us: this is the problem and certainly not the solution. I read with interest your post on Afghanistan, and correct me if I'm wrong but you felt it was justified? I find that line of reasoning to be baffling. And, the rest of the world didn't support you in that venture, which I think you suggested but correct me again if wrong. A few governments, granted. But, to any reasonable person putting emotion aside there is no way on this earth that 12 people hell bent on destruction warrants the invasion of a country and all of the destruction that that will inevitably will entail. It's a fairly obvious thing that people can live together where they respect one another's property, and that is no different for nations. And, I think it is demonstrable that Western countries are the ones showing a lack of respect, not these places where a lot of idiots have an excuse to act like idiots in the last 25 years or so.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/15/2015 2:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Well, we went in to take Saddam out of power. That mission was accomplished. We also went in with the mission to prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD. That mission was accomplished (though, technically, it was accomplished many years prior). We went in to force Iraq to comply with the requirements of the First Gulf War Agreement. That mission, I believe wasn't accomplished. After we toppled Saddam, we were coming under fire from local groups. At that point, we either needed to get the fuck out (and leave behind an infrastructure much worse than the one Iraq had before we went in), or destroy the "new" enemies and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure (to make up for (and then some) the damage we caused). We kept trying to rebuild the infrastructure, but didn't make destroying our enemies part of the mission. So, then, regarding the "mission," do you believe these were coherent objectives which benefited America? As you said before, tyrants and dictators shouldn't really be America's problem, so why would we have an objective to remove someone from power? I don't think there are any Constitutional guidelines on this at all, as to when it's okay to remove a foreign leader from power and when it's not. And, that's where things get muddy. I do believe we shouldn't be knocking over dictators unless they have attacked the US directly. But, in the case of Saddam, it's muddy because we were the ones that "installed" him. It's almost like "cleaning up our mess" from before. quote: quote: I don't believe it was a lie. It wasn't correct, but I don't think it was a lie. Still, we damaged their infrastructure, and I do think it was on us to spearhead that rebuilding. So, you believe it was an honest mistake? To quote Captain DeVriess in The Caine Mutiny: "There are mistakes and mistakes. The margin for error is narrow in the Navy. There's too much loss of life and property damage possible in every act." As for the rebuilding, it may have been on us to pay for it, but that doesn't mean we actually have to keep troops there. We should keep troops there since we're the ones paying, and the ones that brought the damn contractors over. Someone's gotta keep them safe! quote: quote: I don't think every other country would have to, but the people within a country may be "misled" by their government in blaming us. It's not our problem if tyrants and dictators have no conscience or lie to their people. True. But, we do have to acknowledge that at a later date, there may be actual direct security risks to the US because of those lie campaigns. quote: quote: It is very few that blame the US solely for all the world's problems (now, the numbers of people who blame the US and Israel for all the world's problems, esp. in the M.E. will be exponentially higher). We've done one helluva job fucking up the M.E. since WWII, though, haven't we? The Middle East was already fucked up by the time we got there. All we've been doing since then has been damage control, although our main problem has been one of ignorance. For example, in 1943, when the Allied leaders met at Tehran, almost nobody in our government knew very much about Iran - not even in the State Department, filled with all those brilliant Ivy Leaguers - they were clueless and relied mainly on the British and the Soviets for information about that country. Our people knew nothing! This has been a recurring theme in US foreign policy, where our government picks morons to be our diplomatic representatives, while relying on faulty information and making senseless decisions as a result. This is how these "mistakes" keep happening. And yet, for a country that we knew nothing about, somehow we knew "enough" to interfere with Iran's internal affairs and install the Shah dictatorship in 1953. Likewise, the creation of Israel was based more in emotionalism and religious fanaticism rather than any kind of rational, logical examination of the situation and the region in question. What about arming bin Laden and creating the Taliban? Was that "damage control?" quote: quote: They did. We have a responsibility to enforce the UN's mandates. It's one of them there "treaty" things we were talking about maybe wanting to reassess. So, now, you're saying that the UN did force the US to act against its will? You keep going back and forth on this. We don't have any responsibility to enforce the UN's mandates, especially since we have veto power on the UN Security Council. Even then, there have been UN mandates (mostly regarding Israel) which we have willfully ignored. So, if you really believe that "we have a responsibility to enforce the UN's mandates," then what gives? Why aren't we living up to our responsibilities? If you're saying that we shouldn't saddle ourselves with these kinds of responsibilities, then I agree. However, that still brings us back to the same original question (which you keep ducking) as to why should it matter to us if Iraq invades Kuwait. We agree to a treaty. We had a hand in developing the UN strategies and response. Instead of reneging on our treaties, we upheld our end. If you want to say the UN forced us to act against our will, be my guest. We did want to go in and liberate Kuwait. We weren't acting against our will. quote: quote: It won't be food or energy, though. We have quite a lot of capacity in those areas. It's much more likely that we'll see a reduction in the amount of cheap crap (as well as inexpensive stuff), and that will set things off. Consumption is King in the US, sadly. People seem to be more inclined to buy stuff to temporarily placate some inner angst. It's a method to escape reality. That's why so many people tune into the latest gossip show, or "reality" TV. They'd rather read about and see someone else's life (even when the "reality" show is scripted). Hollywood thrives off that, too. People go to movies to get away from their own realities (something I'm definitely not immune to). People buy stuff because they're being led to buy it in much the same way the "court of public opinion" is reached, as you noted earlier. You may have a point in that they may want to placate some inner angst, although it might be worth examining where that angst actually comes from. Some have noted similar sociological phenomena when explaining why there's so much alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental illness in our society. Consumerism, hyper-materialism, judging people's intrinsic value by externalities such as wealth - this might also contribute to the level of angst in society. People who struggle to keep up with the Joneses are trying to fill a hole inside them that can never be filled. I truly believe it's ingrained in our society at many levels. Yes, ad campaigns continue to pound it into our heads that we need this, that, or the other thing. Ad men and good at their craft, too. But, it's hard to sway someone who isn't willing to be swayed. If I'm not looking for the next "weight loss miracle pill," I'm significantly less likely to buy into an ad. Look at how people are raised, too. We get presents at certain Holidays, gifts on our birthdates, etc. We're almost "taught" from an early age to consume. quote: quote: Sadly, many of the current "hornet's nests" were caused, at least in part, by the US government "helping," not because of the "global economy." But the reason that the US government "helps" is because we worry about the global economy. As I said, our options would be a lot easier if we didn't have to worry about the global economy. Also, it should be noted that a lot of these hornets nests were created mainly due to ideological, religious, or nationalistic concerns. I didn't say they were caused by the global economy, but the problem with humans is that we don't always think in a "strictly business" mindset. The supporters of globalism generally tend to forget this little foible of human nature which points up the folly of such a system. We have thrust ourselves in as "World Police." Much of what we're doing with regards to maintaining smooth operation of the global economy has to do with that, too. I'm good with reducing our role down to policing our waters. quote: quote: The UN should support the idea that each country is sovereign, and work to protect that sovereignty. The Kellogg-Briand Treaty was probably sufficient in terms of gaining agreement on national sovereignty and condemning aggressive invasion. The basic idea is sound, but it all gets twisted around by politicians and diplomats who struggle to define terms like "sovereign" and "aggressive invasion." There's also the question of whether the world can operate in such a way on a practical level. As we agreed earlier, too many people/governments break the rules - or at least bend them so far that they become meaningless. Yep, and that's why we need to have some sort of over-arching structure to help limit the rule breaking. quote: quote: The UNSC is definitely the big dog there, and, yes, we do hold a permanent veto seat. Yes, the UN should act to maintain peace through diplomacy, but there may arise a situation where diplomacy won't work. In those cases, the UNSC should act militarily (but, having no actual military of it's own, the UN military is made up of members military. The UN should be the body placing sanctions. The UN should be the arbiter in negotiations like the Iran nuke negotiations. Our own government prefers to take the lead in such things. That's part of the problem right there, since our own political leadership feels the need to do all this by themselves, without stepping back and letting the UN handle it. A lot of US politicians don't really trust the UN, particularly the UN General Assembly in which the majority of nations are non-aligned and don't see the world as we see it. Very true. quote: quote: Well, the basis of the Cold War hasn't existed for decades, so, it's not a big surprise there are fewer people worried about the world situation. I'm willing to bet there was another spike after 9/11. Perhaps, although there seems to be fewer people who actually know about the world situation, much less worry about it. During the Cold War - and back during the time when there were more people from the WW2 generation who were still around (not many left these days) - a lot of people argued and disagreed over foreign policy. But at least many of them actually knew what they were talking about. Over the past 10-15 years, I've encountered people who have no clue who Stalin was (wasn't he a middle linebacker with those first Super Bowl Champ Packers teams? [8D]). Never heard of him. There was another time many years ago where I was talking with a woman at work who was telling me about a new employee who said he was from Ukraine. She never heard of Ukraine - and she called several of her friends to ask if they knew about it, and none of them knew what it was. It just astounds me as to how many utterly clueless people are out there. Sure, a lot of people were angry and upset over 9/11, as was I. More people may have been worried about the world situation, but did that motivate them to inform themselves better regarding the outside world and the complexities, causes, and consequences of the foreign policy our government was carrying out? Of course it didn't, but that's partially on the media. I shared an experience a year or two back about my boys and a friend's two kids. I want to say the school grade levels for the 5 kids were HS freshman, 7th grader (my oldest), 6th grader, and my twins in 4th grade. None of them knew why 1776 was an important time in US History. Not one. They all attended the same school district, too. I felt like a failure as a responsible parent that my boys barely knew why we celebrated on the 4th of July. quote: quote: Yes, if we're just dealing with a single, stable government, sure. But, we aren't. And therein lies the problem. That's why we should question the practicality of our devotion to protecting their "sovereignty." It may seem like a nice idea from a sentimental and emotional point of view, but if a country can't maintain order and keep a stable society, can they really be "sovereign" on a realistic and practical level? Should we really split legal hairs like this when world security is threatened? I don't think you got what I was saying. We weren't dealing with a stable government. We were dealing with a terrorist organization.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/15/2015 3:02:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I don't recall anyone trying to invade England, even the Germans only gave it a half-hearted go when they had all the means at their disposal. So, if no one is trying to invade us, and it seems no one is trying to invade the United States either; then what does it matter whether or not other countries are stable? Let them get on with it, and they'll arrive at democracy through their own internal process. I think Zonie and I would agree with you there. quote: Some will argue that the only reason these countries don't invade us is because we have the armed forces watching over us. I for one am not convinced. What, in your opinion, is the reason they don't invade England or the US? quote: I read with interest your post on Afghanistan, and correct me if I'm wrong but you felt it was justified? I find that line of reasoning to be baffling. And, the rest of the world didn't support you in that venture, which I think you suggested but correct me again if wrong. A few governments, granted. The UN backed our going into Afghanistan. It's our going into Iraq that wasn't supported by more than a handful of countries. quote: And, I think it is demonstrable that Western countries are the ones showing a lack of respect, not these places where a lot of idiots have an excuse to act like idiots in the last 25 years or so. I don't completely agree with your statement. I do agree, to a point, that Western countries are showing a lack of respect, but the other countries are doing it, too. That's not to be taken as an excuse for Western actions, either. That's just me stating what I believe are the facts. I do believe the US has to take a more diplomatic tack, regardless of how we're disrespected by others.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 7:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I don't recall anyone trying to invade England, even the Germans only gave it a half-hearted go when they had all the means at their disposal. So, if no one is trying to invade us, and it seems no one is trying to invade the United States either; then what does it matter whether or not other countries are stable? Let them get on with it, and they'll arrive at democracy through their own internal process. Some will argue that the only reason these countries don't invade us is because we have the armed forces watching over us. I for one am not convinced. The problems currently faced are a result of the likes of the British Government thinking we need to invade countries and make them like us: this is the problem and certainly not the solution. I tend to agree, although this begs the question as to why we would do anything at all. Why install the Shah? Why support the Bay of Pigs invasion? Why support the Contras? Why support South Korea against North Korea? Why support South Vietnam against North Vietnam? Why support a coup in Chile? Why support a coup in Guatemala? We seem to want to bend over backwards (and risk American lives) to make it appear as if these countries are operating according to their own internal processes, yet that is simply not true. What kind of "sovereignty" is that? quote: I read with interest your post on Afghanistan, and correct me if I'm wrong but you felt it was justified? I find that line of reasoning to be baffling. And, the rest of the world didn't support you in that venture, which I think you suggested but correct me again if wrong. A few governments, granted. Actually, much of the world did support the US invasion of Afghanistan (link includes a list of nearly 60 countries which participated), including former Soviet Republics which allowed US forces to operate from their countries. Such would have been absolutely unheard of a few years earlier. Even Iran supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. Granted, Iraq was a different matter, and there was significant opposition over that, but not over Afghanistan.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 9:50:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, that's where things get muddy. I do believe we shouldn't be knocking over dictators unless they have attacked the US directly. But, in the case of Saddam, it's muddy because we were the ones that "installed" him. It's almost like "cleaning up our mess" from before. We didn't "install" him. We may have supported him after the fact, and only as a temporary ally of convenience against Iran. But if US military action is justified by "cleaning up our mess," then we would need to have military forces all over the world in perpetuity. Since our military actions typically involve making even bigger messes, then we'll never get out of there if we go by that standard. quote: We should keep troops there since we're the ones paying, and the ones that brought the damn contractors over. Someone's gotta keep them safe! Maybe they should wait until the fighting stops before attempting to rebuild. After all, what's the point in going to all the trouble and expense of building something if it's just going to get blown up anyway? quote: True. But, we do have to acknowledge that at a later date, there may be actual direct security risks to the US because of those lie campaigns. We should be more worried about our own government's lies than anything else. That's what brings the greatest risk to the US. quote: What about arming bin Laden and creating the Taliban? Was that "damage control?" One could make such a case, yes. quote: We agree to a treaty. We had a hand in developing the UN strategies and response. Instead of reneging on our treaties, we upheld our end. If you want to say the UN forced us to act against our will, be my guest. We did want to go in and liberate Kuwait. We weren't acting against our will. I didn't say the UN forced us to act against our will; you were suggesting that yourself. You say "We did want to go in and liberate Kuwait," and I asked you why, and all you can tell me in response is that we were part of a UN coalition. So that's the only reason? What specific "treaty" obligated us here? In the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, the US specified that we did not have any treaty obligations to use military force in the event of aggressive invasion. quote: I truly believe it's ingrained in our society at many levels. Yes, ad campaigns continue to pound it into our heads that we need this, that, or the other thing. Ad men and good at their craft, too. But, it's hard to sway someone who isn't willing to be swayed. If I'm not looking for the next "weight loss miracle pill," I'm significantly less likely to buy into an ad. Look at how people are raised, too. We get presents at certain Holidays, gifts on our birthdates, etc. We're almost "taught" from an early age to consume. Yes, that's usually how it works, but it's not just about consumption. The same methods are used for political indoctrination and societal conditioning. quote: We have thrust ourselves in as "World Police." Much of what we're doing with regards to maintaining smooth operation of the global economy has to do with that, too. I'm good with reducing our role down to policing our waters. I'd be okay with that, too. But we'd have to be very clear on what our role in the world should be. We didn't become the "world police" by accident. We weren't even "police," as such, since that would imply a more neutral, objective, purely "law enforcement" function which was clearly not the case. We were acting as the leading member of an alliance which included Western European powers with extensive interests and possessions far flung around the world. After WW2, the collapse of their empires created a power vacuum in much of the world, and our whole foreign policy was based more on ideological enforcement than anything else. So, it's not like we're the "world police," but we're more like the "world thought police." quote: Yep, and that's why we need to have some sort of over-arching structure to help limit the rule breaking. Yes, but if those in charge of that over-arching structure also break the rules, then we're really up the creek. quote: Of course it didn't, but that's partially on the media. 20-30 years ago, I might have agreed with this, although it still wouldn't have been a good enough excuse. But in the Internet era, people have access to a wealth of information at their fingertips. quote: I shared an experience a year or two back about my boys and a friend's two kids. I want to say the school grade levels for the 5 kids were HS freshman, 7th grader (my oldest), 6th grader, and my twins in 4th grade. None of them knew why 1776 was an important time in US History. Not one. They all attended the same school district, too. I felt like a failure as a responsible parent that my boys barely knew why we celebrated on the 4th of July. My father always had a lot of books about history and current affairs, and I grew up in a family where politics was discussed often - and very loudly at times. We also did a lot of traveling when I was younger, visiting all the famous historical sites. I was in sixth grade in 1976 when the Bicentennial was a pretty big deal. They had "Bicentennial Minutes" on TV every night for over a year or more. I don't think anyone could have avoided hearing about 1776 back then. But I would think that the Declaration of Independence and the significance of July 4, 1776 would be pretty basic. We learned that stuff pretty early in elementary school. It was even covered on "Schoolhouse Rock."

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 10:42:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Actually, much of the world did support the US invasion of Afghanistan (link includes a list of nearly 60 countries which participated), including former Soviet Republics which allowed US forces to operate from their countries. Such would have been absolutely unheard of a few years earlier. Even Iran supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. Much of the world didn't. Everyone I know here was scratching their heads thinking: "hang on a minute, 12 lunatics cause severe destruction, mainly North Africans and the like; so let's invade Afghanistan and cause even more destruction??" You had nowhere near as much support as you seem to think. Maybe governments wanting to keep on the right side of the United States government, granted.

joether -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 12:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, that's where things get muddy. I do believe we shouldn't be knocking over dictators unless they have attacked the US directly. But, in the case of Saddam, it's muddy because we were the ones that "installed" him. It's almost like "cleaning up our mess" from before. We didn't "install" him. We may have supported him after the fact, and only as a temporary ally of convenience against Iran. But if US military action is justified by "cleaning up our mess," then we would need to have military forces all over the world in perpetuity. Since our military actions typically involve making even bigger messes, then we'll never get out of there if we go by that standard. Actually we did 'install' him. In fact, the America media is ALSO at fault, for not really doing enough to report to the American people the EXACT SITUATION in Iraq. Journalists failed to explain the religion, the culture, ideas, the people, and even the infrastructure. Before the invasion in 2001, most Americans held the view Iraq was mostly a pile of nomads, rather than common people living in buildings. The only difference on infrastructure was Iraq had many sources to create concrete (all that sand and gravel....). Later, after the removal of Saddam, did we learn of all three seperate factions whom fought for power in the power vacuum we created. That Saddam had to use brutality just to keep all three from waging war against each other was not understood by the American people before 2003. They all had their reasons for why they should led the whole of the nation. The Bush administration 'installed' someone totally loyal to them, rather than making in-roads to all three factions. Go figured, the other two factions not really represented got pissed off.... quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We should keep troops there since we're the ones paying, and the ones that brought the damn contractors over. Someone's gotta keep them safe! Maybe they should wait until the fighting stops before attempting to rebuild. After all, what's the point in going to all the trouble and expense of building something if it's just going to get blown up anyway? You want to keep troops there, DS? Get a BDU, rifle, and plane ticket over there. Why should we waste our US Military members on your petty political viewpoint on 'how the world should be'? The ones often stating so, are the chicken hawk Republicans. When conflict comes, they seem to find a creative assortment of excuses for why they can not 'take the fight to the enemy'. Like Dick Cheney on the Iraq and Vietnam Wars.... Likewise, the 'fighting' will never die down in the Middle East. Its like stating 'lets do something about firearms in America after everyone comes down about their usage". For the Middle East to be peaceful, there would have to be no humans living within it. The only way that will happen is by turning it into a nuclear wasteland. Be careful what you wish for. Since all those people will move elsewhere after that happens. They'll bring all their 'thousand year' squabbles with them. To America... quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri True. But, we do have to acknowledge that at a later date, there may be actual direct security risks to the US because of those lie campaigns. We should be more worried about our own government's lies than anything else. That's what brings the greatest risk to the US. I have to agree with Zonie here, DS. The amount of lies and half truths, have done more damage to our nation, than the half-likely security risks. I did liked the Bush administrations use of 'The Ends Justify the Means". That lying about the usefulness of torture, to circumvent the 8th amendment.....SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. Had this nation known that Saddam's WMD pile consisted of less inventory and ability than even the Iraqis stated just two months prior to the invasion; would America be with President Bush on the invasion? Hell no! Clinton got impeached for what? Lying about an affair? Obama and (Hillary) Clinton got attacked about Benghazi. All three, by the Republican Party. How many Republican committees got formed to attack Mrs Clinton over Benghazi? How many were formed over the 17 'Benghazi' like attacks under Bush? None. Imagine if President Gore had invaded Iraq using the same bullshit as Bush in 2003; would Republicans have formed committees to attack him all over the place on things? Oh Fuck Ya! Why didn't they do this with a Republican President? Shouldn't we investigate things fully regardless of 'whom is in power' or 'whom is likely to become the next US President'? Of course! But to many conservatives say that, and vote Republican in the next election. Sort of undermines their integrity to be taken seriously, doesn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What about arming bin Laden and creating the Taliban? Was that "damage control?" One could make such a case, yes. That was a bad decision. Not from the point of view of 'What we know now', but 'placing power in the hands of a people whom we could not control'. There is a reason we do not allow anyone under the age of 18 to hold public office in America. The concept of "Lord of the Flies' comes to mind here. A people that would misuse power. Or a metaphorical 'One Ring to Rule Them All' mentality; the desire to do great good, but accomplish extreme evil without realizing it. To bad no one can really admit that from those whom signed off on the process. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I truly believe it's ingrained in our society at many levels. Yes, ad campaigns continue to pound it into our heads that we need this, that, or the other thing. Ad men and good at their craft, too. But, it's hard to sway someone who isn't willing to be swayed. If I'm not looking for the next "weight loss miracle pill," I'm significantly less likely to buy into an ad. Look at how people are raised, too. We get presents at certain Holidays, gifts on our birthdates, etc. We're almost "taught" from an early age to consume. Yes, that's usually how it works, but it's not just about consumption. The same methods are used for political indoctrination and societal conditioning. More scary then both of your observations? That with every piece of knowledge or technology, there exists two possible uses (generally speaking): a positive and negative use. With the use of behaviorial and mental techniques, humanity has started to understand the human mind. Understand how it operates and handles differing levels of stress and pressure. That I've used some of the same techniques these political individuals/groups used on the American population, but to help people with serious problems. You talk down a former US Marine about to kill themselves with a 1911.... I could not fully explain 'how this works' with this medium. I would have to show you in person. That I could 'condition' you onto a belief and you would think it was your normal belief with just ten to twenty minutes of 'work time'. Now try to imagine organizations like the NRA whom have had...YEARS....to do this same stuff. Most people will say what the NRA wants them to say, without once questioning the notion. An organization with very little moral standards, deep pockets, and a thirst for power and domination; should be something to be worried about. One that can manipulate the population, while restricting the ability of media to expose the facts and truth, should ALSO be worried about. Worst than both of those? Many organizations working together, whose population is just a few percentage points, controlling the other 90% of the nation. Hitler and his goon squad had early forms of this knowledge. Its been over seventy years. Do you have any idea how advance this knowledge is now? How its being applied? Towards 'Low Information Voters'? quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We have thrust ourselves in as "World Police." Much of what we're doing with regards to maintaining smooth operation of the global economy has to do with that, too. I'm good with reducing our role down to policing our waters. I'd be okay with that, too. But we'd have to be very clear on what our role in the world should be. We didn't become the "world police" by accident. We weren't even "police," as such, since that would imply a more neutral, objective, purely "law enforcement" function which was clearly not the case. We were acting as the leading member of an alliance which included Western European powers with extensive interests and possessions far flung around the world. After WW2, the collapse of their empires created a power vacuum in much of the world, and our whole foreign policy was based more on ideological enforcement than anything else. So, it's not like we're the "world police," but we're more like the "world thought police." 'Why should the United States not be the World Police?" 'Why should the United States be the World Police?' Lets use the more logical question: 'Why should the United States deal with some evil people, while allowing others to flourish?' Or even more logical question: 'Why should the people of the world allow some evil people to exist, but attack others?' At any point in time, someone, somewhere, is being evil towards someone else. Likewise, at any point, someone, somewhere, is being good towards someone else. So why cant the good people band together to remove the evil people? If things were so simple, that would have been taken care of by now.... We are the world police because we have the resources to do so. So long as our defense budget is equal to the next ten largest nations of the world; we'll be the world police. After all, we got to use those tax dollars on something, right? quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Yep, and that's why we need to have some sort of over-arching structure to help limit the rule breaking. Yes, but if those in charge of that over-arching structure also break the rules, then we're really up the creek. More plainly: Whom Watches the Watchmen? That was the idea with the three branches of government. If one behaved in a negative manner the other two could deal with it. Of course, what happens when all three have been neutralized or corrupted? "They people will stand up and take action", right? Didn't see that happen when the GOP/TP have behaved in a tyrannical manner. Particularly by those folks whom say their guns are there for that sort of duty. Or the Media? Yeah, what happens when the media, whom is controlled by corporate interests 'overlooks' one thing while intensely 'reporting' on something else? Conservative media right how is 24/7 attacks on Hillary Clinton, yet, not much is known of the 16 GOP/TP candidates on a huge variety of topics. We as the American people already know Mrs. Clinton and her stances on many things. Should we really care about what she is wearing on a particular day? When at the same time we are just as ignorant on the viewpoints of those GOP/TP'ers running for office on issues of the day: immigration, gun control, foreign policy, healthcare, infrastructure. Not only know their viewpoints, but know their plan as being 'well structured and thought out' rather than 'spur of the moment ideas'? Yeah, we the American people are even more fucked, because we are allowing ourselves to be dumb down here and there. All three make for a recipe of being controlled and manipulated by a small group of people. You know, those 'watchman' we just installed into power. They would....never...do anything bad, right? Because we all know Ted Cruz and other other nut jobs running for the GOP/TP ticket are so 'honest' and 'truthworthy' of being a US President.... quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Of course it didn't, but that's partially on the media. 20-30 years ago, I might have agreed with this, although it still wouldn't have been a good enough excuse. But in the Internet era, people have access to a wealth of information at their fingertips. While at a party with friends recently (we are the entire spectrum of politics), I asked a simple question: What are all the rights given under the 1st amendment. Even with smartphones before them on the table, not one of them could guess two correct answers (of the total five). That's right, in 2015 we have more information at our disposal, but all to often, the inability to use that information for something useful. Any one of those could have picked up their smartphone and googled '1st amendment'. When you next meet up with people for a political chat, ask them to define the 1st amendment's five parts. Most people (dumbly) assume they cant use a smartphone to look information up. Isn't a smartphone's technical ability the same as the human mind's bio ability for information purposes? People (dumbly again) assume they must know everything in order to answer something. If that was true, we'd still be living in caves! That is while things are written down; so we don't have to remember it. All the stories in the holy bible were past down until someone got the brilliant idea 'lets write it down, so we dont keep fucking up the story'. Back in the early 90's, I knew my neighbors quite well. Knew them on a first name basis. Their occupations, their hobbies, stuff they like to do on the weekend. Flash forward to 2015, and I only know half of them by last name. Dont know their kid's names or anything. We have better technology now, and know less of our own neighbors in good terms. With more technical ability than any other point of humanity, you'd think we would be advancing left and right. Creating bases on Mars and Pluto by now! Solving hunger and energy problems around the world. Living better with our neighbors. Traveling to distance places on Earth with exceptional ease. That we would have found a better way to organize things, stable economies, little strife, and an end to hatred. In the 1920-30, that is what they thought of those in the next century. By the 1950's the belief we would be in space and solving cancer. In the 1980's it was the dread we would all be dead by nuclear war before the next millennium. 2016, most Americans think 'The American Dream' is only accessible by the very rich or the exceedingly lucky. So much technology. So little hope. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I shared an experience a year or two back about my boys and a friend's two kids. I want to say the school grade levels for the 5 kids were HS freshman, 7th grader (my oldest), 6th grader, and my twins in 4th grade. None of them knew why 1776 was an important time in US History. Not one. They all attended the same school district, too. I felt like a failure as a responsible parent that my boys barely knew why we celebrated on the 4th of July. My father always had a lot of books about history and current affairs, and I grew up in a family where politics was discussed often - and very loudly at times. We also did a lot of traveling when I was younger, visiting all the famous historical sites. I was in sixth grade in 1976 when the Bicentennial was a pretty big deal. They had "Bicentennial Minutes" on TV every night for over a year or more. I don't think anyone could have avoided hearing about 1776 back then. But I would think that the Declaration of Independence and the significance of July 4, 1776 would be pretty basic. We learned that stuff pretty early in elementary school. It was even covered on "Schoolhouse Rock." In a few years, children born after 9/11 will be asked in college course, its significance. Measure that to any of ours, whom lived through the event and everything that followed. Which will feel more authentic? For humanity, keeping a link to its past has always thought to be important. Yet, we often romance the past while overlooking the problems and hells that came with it. Many people romance the American Civil War. How many of them take that 'hardcore' role playing to the next step, and saw off an arm? Since getting shot in the arm during that time generally meant your arm would be hacked off. People romance about the American Revolution; try being George Washington and trying to eat food! We romance about Europe during the medieval to Renascence periods. Yet how many people want to 'vacation' with the Spanish Inquisition as a non-believer? 1776 was a tough period for America. So is 2015. Our politics is...UGLY....just as the Tories were ugly to the Americans. Yes, some good came out of that year, just as 2010 gave us the ACA. In both years, the same mentality of people were against the idea of liberty (of governing in 1776, of the body in 2010). Ask your kids about the unions, DS. What created them. Who lead the innovation towards this formation of organizations. What was going on in America when it happened. Have the unions given good things to America? Have they given bad things? Most school systems gloss over many subjects. You should be happy, since that's your 'limited government' on display. Imagine if we gave more money to educated our children in schools? To cover more topics, in-depth, over a longer time. We do that in Massachusetts, DS. As a result, the children in my state are on par not just with other states in America (in the top 3 places for the last twenty years), but around the world. You didnt fail to teach them, you failed to give them the environment to learn. I'm all for keeping taxes low and getting the most 'bang for the buck' on education. But I also know, that ego gets in the way of good decision making, which results in poor allocation of resources (or lacking resources) to make education better in the nation. To many education really sink into the mind, there has to be a connection. A motivation for the child to REALLY want to know more about something. There are many things that happen in [color=#0000FF1776. Should we not teach all of them?

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 12:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I tend to agree, although this begs the question as to why we would do anything at all. Why install the Shah? Why support the Bay of Pigs invasion? Why support the Contras? Why support South Korea against North Korea? Why support South Vietnam against North Vietnam? Why support a coup in Chile? Why support a coup in Guatemala? We seem to want to bend over backwards (and risk American lives) to make it appear as if these countries are operating according to their own internal processes, yet that is simply not true. What kind of "sovereignty" is that? I think it's an all or nothing scenario. Once people start invading countries because it's perceived to be justified then clearly justification is subjective, and that can be used to bend to any scenario with the motives not always being benevolent. And, even in the event the motives are benevolent: well, one man's benevolence is another man's Imperialism. This does lead to uncomfortable and searching questions. For example, the scenario of a pack of street thugs and out-and-out lunatics like Germany of 1939. In my opinion, you (general you) can't pick and choose and I would say Britain should not have been involved in attempting to defeat the Germans. Not our quarrel. Some would say: "you'd let millions of people be exterminated?" I'm afraid that once you see yourself as some sort of police force then there are many areas in the world in which you will inevitably become involved. As said, it's all or nothing. Either you (general you) want to be the master of the world's affairs, and at least people should be honest and say we're trying to run the world; or you (general you) just leave everything alone.

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 12:43:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't completely agree with your statement. I do agree, to a point, that Western countries are showing a lack of respect, but the other countries are doing it, too. That's not to be taken as an excuse for Western actions, either. That's just me stating what I believe are the facts. I do believe the US has to take a more diplomatic tack, regardless of how we're disrespected by others. I think it's demonstrable that when it comes to invading other people's countries there are very few around that can hold a candle to the United States and Western Europe.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 12:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Actually, much of the world did support the US invasion of Afghanistan (link includes a list of nearly 60 countries which participated), including former Soviet Republics which allowed US forces to operate from their countries. Such would have been absolutely unheard of a few years earlier. Even Iran supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. Much of the world didn't. Everyone I know here was scratching their heads thinking: "hang on a minute, 12 lunatics cause severe destruction, mainly North Africans and the like; so let's invade Afghanistan and cause even more destruction??" You had nowhere near as much support as you seem to think. Maybe governments wanting to keep on the right side of the United States government, granted. But the UK supported the invasion of Afghanistan, too - or at least your government did. But you're saying they didn't have the backing of the people? As I recall, this was one of the rare occasions where the US actually did have a lot of support for a military action (since, unlike most other military actions, we actually had a justifiable reason this time). I know there will always be those who oppose the US no matter what we do, but apart from that, how much opposition was there?

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 1:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Actually, much of the world did support the US invasion of Afghanistan (link includes a list of nearly 60 countries which participated), including former Soviet Republics which allowed US forces to operate from their countries. Such would have been absolutely unheard of a few years earlier. Even Iran supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. Much of the world didn't. Everyone I know here was scratching their heads thinking: "hang on a minute, 12 lunatics cause severe destruction, mainly North Africans and the like; so let's invade Afghanistan and cause even more destruction??" You had nowhere near as much support as you seem to think. Maybe governments wanting to keep on the right side of the United States government, granted. But the UK supported the invasion of Afghanistan, too - or at least your government did. But you're saying they didn't have the backing of the people? As I recall, this was one of the rare occasions where the US actually did have a lot of support for a military action (since, unlike most other military actions, we actually had a justifiable reason this time). I know there will always be those who oppose the US no matter what we do, but apart from that, how much opposition was there? In England a fair amount of opposition. You have to remember we've been here before, many times. It's merely a reasonable proposition that the actions of 12 people simply can't justify the invasion of a country, as shocking as the situation in New York was. Regardless of what people think about the British Empire, it's just not the sort of country that advocates a disproportionate response to a situation. We're natural sceptics and we've seen enough of our own government to know that the best course of action is a reserved one. This isn't to say that somehow the United States needs to be watched like a hawk because they're different; it's because we know our own government has the ability to contrive of a plan of action that really doesn't hold much merit. Ultimately, though, 12 people justify the invasion of a country? Not a chance on this earth.

mnottertail -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 1:31:57 PM)
But we didnt have justifiable reason, we know that was manufactured.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 1:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In England a fair amount of opposition. You have to remember we've been here before, many times. It's merely a reasonable proposition that the actions of 12 people simply can't justify the invasion of a country, as shocking as the situation in New York was. Regardless of what people think about the British Empire, it's just not the sort of country that advocates a disproportionate response to a situation. We're natural sceptics and we've seen enough of our own government to know that the best course of action is a reserved one. This isn't to say that somehow the United States needs to be watched like a hawk because they're different; it's because we know our own government has the ability to contrive of a plan of action that really doesn't hold much merit. Ultimately, though, 12 people justify the invasion of a country? Not a chance on this earth. Well, sure, we can look back on it now and say that, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the US didn't have a great deal of worldwide support for the initial invasion. What we did was not unprecedented. After all, we invaded Mexico to get Pancho Villa, and Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia over the actions of a single lone nut. We also invaded Panama just to get Noriega.

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 2:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In England a fair amount of opposition. You have to remember we've been here before, many times. It's merely a reasonable proposition that the actions of 12 people simply can't justify the invasion of a country, as shocking as the situation in New York was. Regardless of what people think about the British Empire, it's just not the sort of country that advocates a disproportionate response to a situation. We're natural sceptics and we've seen enough of our own government to know that the best course of action is a reserved one. This isn't to say that somehow the United States needs to be watched like a hawk because they're different; it's because we know our own government has the ability to contrive of a plan of action that really doesn't hold much merit. Ultimately, though, 12 people justify the invasion of a country? Not a chance on this earth. Well, sure, we can look back on it now and say that, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the US didn't have a great deal of worldwide support for the initial invasion. What we did was not unprecedented. After all, we invaded Mexico to get Pancho Villa, and Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia over the actions of a single lone nut. We also invaded Panama just to get Noriega. Not at all. Looking back, forwards, anything else; it's not relevant. The point is that in any point in time there just can't be a sentiment that the actions of 12 people justify invading a country. Not when thinking reasonably. Where the thought process is different and people believe there is justification then that's fine because it won't affect me anyway. But, people should be honest with themselves and other people. Where 12 people justify the invasion of a country then they should be upfront and say they are easily caught up in emotion, pride and the rest of it. Edited to add: surely when 12 people commit a crime the answer is a sustained police investigation?

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 2:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In England a fair amount of opposition. You have to remember we've been here before, many times. It's merely a reasonable proposition that the actions of 12 people simply can't justify the invasion of a country, as shocking as the situation in New York was. Regardless of what people think about the British Empire, it's just not the sort of country that advocates a disproportionate response to a situation. We're natural sceptics and we've seen enough of our own government to know that the best course of action is a reserved one. This isn't to say that somehow the United States needs to be watched like a hawk because they're different; it's because we know our own government has the ability to contrive of a plan of action that really doesn't hold much merit. Ultimately, though, 12 people justify the invasion of a country? Not a chance on this earth. Well, sure, we can look back on it now and say that, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the US didn't have a great deal of worldwide support for the initial invasion. What we did was not unprecedented. After all, we invaded Mexico to get Pancho Villa, and Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia over the actions of a single lone nut. We also invaded Panama just to get Noriega. Not at all. Looking back, forwards, anything else; it's not relevant. The point is that in any point in time there just can't be a sentiment that the actions of 12 people justify invading a country. Not when thinking reasonably. Where the thought process is different and people believe there is justification then that's fine because it won't affect me anyway. But, people should be honest with themselves and other people. Where 12 people justify the invasion of a country then they should be upfront and say they are easily caught up in emotion, pride and the rest of it. Edited to add: surely when 12 people commit a crime the answer is a sustained police investigation? I understand what you're saying, and I tend to agree that one should not make any important decisions while one is angry. I think that's what was going on at the time. There was a kind of "war fever" gripping the country after 9/11. People wanted revenge over what was done. Should the government have waited and studied the situation more closely before going in? Yes, that would have been the more prudent course of action, but there was also a lot of political pressure to "do something." As I said, it was not unprecedented, as there have been similar situations in history where a single criminal or a group of criminals might prompt an international invasion. As to your point that it's not reasonable, who's to say? Most pretexts for war or invasion are generally not reasonable no matter how you slice it. More often than not, it depends on whose ox is gored.

mnottertail -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 2:46:03 PM)
NG, see here, old bean, do you rotters want another go, then?

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 3:25:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail NG, see here, old bean, do you rotters want another go, then? That's why I'm here. Still sharpening my seven starred Chinese death sword. Queensbury rules Gentleman's duel?

NorthernGent -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 3:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I understand what you're saying, and I tend to agree that one should not make any important decisions while one is angry. I think that's what was going on at the time. There was a kind of "war fever" gripping the country after 9/11. People wanted revenge over what was done. Should the government have waited and studied the situation more closely before going in? Yes, that would have been the more prudent course of action, but there was also a lot of political pressure to "do something." As I said, it was not unprecedented, as there have been similar situations in history where a single criminal or a group of criminals might prompt an international invasion. As to your point that it's not reasonable, who's to say? Most pretexts for war or invasion are generally not reasonable no matter how you slice it. More often than not, it depends on whose ox is gored. Political pressure to do something sounds a touch like mob rule, and I don't think such a situation boils down to an interpretation of what is reasonable. As said, 12 people warrants an invasion of a country? It's not debatable for me.

Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/16/2015 4:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I understand what you're saying, and I tend to agree that one should not make any important decisions while one is angry. I think that's what was going on at the time. There was a kind of "war fever" gripping the country after 9/11. People wanted revenge over what was done. Should the government have waited and studied the situation more closely before going in? Yes, that would have been the more prudent course of action, but there was also a lot of political pressure to "do something." As I said, it was not unprecedented, as there have been similar situations in history where a single criminal or a group of criminals might prompt an international invasion. As to your point that it's not reasonable, who's to say? Most pretexts for war or invasion are generally not reasonable no matter how you slice it. More often than not, it depends on whose ox is gored. Political pressure to do something sounds a touch like mob rule, and I don't think such a situation boils down to an interpretation of what is reasonable. As said, 12 people warrants an invasion of a country? It's not debatable for me. It may very well have been a case of mob rule, although the "mob" in this case was pretty much guided towards an opinion that supported the intentions of the US government in regards to Afghanistan. But I may have overstated it a bit, as I should point out that the US government did go through proper diplomatic and legal channels before just charging in. And they did drum up a lot of international support in the process, along with UN approval. You said that "much of the world didn't" support the US invasion, but I just didn't see that as accurate. I get your point earlier about it being an "all or nothing" prospect, and under that circumstance, there may be no "reasonable" pretext for one nation invading another nation. But then in that case, it wouldn't matter if it's "12 people" or 12 million. It seems the principle would be the same either way, regardless of the number of people.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

8.007813E-02