RE: Who Most Threatens America? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

caitlyn -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 7:38:11 AM)

I don't agree at all. The thread was entitled, "Who MOST Threatens America?" ... not, "Define ALL Threats to America."
 
I gave my opinion. Allowing the military to degrade is historically the greatest threat to a hyper strong nation.
 
Again, I'm sorry that I took the question literally and answered it with an on-point answer. If you want to discuss ALL threats to America, then perhaps you should make a post with that title, and we can talk about all sorts of potential enemies.



meatcleaver -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 8:30:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Allowing the military to degrade is historically the greatest threat to a hyper strong nation.
 


I can't agree with you on this Caitlyn. Over burdening the economy with an unproductive military is the greatest danger to a nation. It's what caused the USSR to collapse, though to be fair, their system was rotting from inside out from the day of its inception but trying to have a military it couldn't afford over burdened its economy. The other danger to a superpower is militarily over extending itself in the belief it is omni-potent. The problem with a big military is that you have to find it something to do to stop it becoming decadent and a threat at home. The last thing Rome wanted was for the Roman army to be in Rome with nothing to do but make mischief.

However you look at it, America has an aggressive military. It is far too big for it to be just for the US's defence and its far too big to have nothing to do so things are found for it to do. However, once it is used, its fear factor is diminished because it is seen not to be as powerful as what people think it is. Yes, it has the military technology and capability to win any war with a standing army but armies don't win the peace, diplomacy does and for the last few decades American diplomacy has proved inept because it has too much faith in its military.

The stupid thing what I find about American policy, is that it wins far more battles with its culture but its politicians appear to ignore this strength and favour pointing guns in peoples faces. That is a sign of weakness.



philosophy -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 8:48:05 AM)

"I don't agree at all. The thread was entitled, "Who MOST Threatens America?" ... not, "Define ALL Threats to America."
 
I gave my opinion. Allowing the military to degrade is historically the greatest threat to a hyper strong nation.
 
Again, I'm sorry that I took the question literally and answered it with an on-point answer. If you want to discuss ALL threats to America, then perhaps you should make a post with that title, and we can talk about all sorts of potential enemies."
 
Caitlyn......please actually read my post. Your sarcasm was undeserved......you just seem to have failed to understand what i am driving at..........who most threatens america? Right now, its people like you Caitlyn.......people who think understanding america is all they need to do to keep america safe. You are, quite literally, your own worst enemy.



caitlyn -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 11:15:40 AM)

I have no idea how you get from me pointing out the single thing that I feel most threatens America (most, being a singular), to your statement:

"people who think understanding america is all they need to do to keep america safe."

I'm just going to let you take that leap on your own, as it's not part of my mindset.



philosophy -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 11:29:37 AM)

"I have no idea how you get from me pointing out the single thing that I feel most threatens America (most, being a singular), to your statement:

"people who think understanding america is all they need to do to keep america safe."

I'm just going to let you take that leap on your own, as it's not part of my mindset."

....as far as i am concerned i answered this point in post 34...........but basically the gist was that you only analysed history in terms of how it applied to america........this has an inevitable weakness, it has just the one viewpoint ...........that is the error i am trying to point out. Between individuals we call the ability to think in terms of the other person as empathy........considering history from more than one culture's viewpoint is broadly the same thing, and without empathy you will fail to understand.........



caitlyn -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 11:53:43 AM)

Yes, the analysis was based on history as it applies to America.
 
The title of the post is, "Who Most Threatens America?"
 
If the title of the post was, "Who Most Threatens Brazil?", I would have based my historical analysis as it applies to Brazil.



philosophy -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 12:50:52 PM)

"Yes, the analysis was based on history as it applies to America.
 
The title of the post is, "Who Most Threatens America?"
 
If the title of the post was, "Who Most Threatens Brazil?", I would have based my historical analysis as it applies to Brazil."
 
...and been equally wrong. You persist in misunderstanding my point Caitlyn......i shall make it really simple for you. The thing that most threatens america is the habit of too many of its citizens to percieve things only in how they impact america. Is that clear enough for you now Caitlyn?.....because you are busily proving the assumption that americans think only of how things affect them.....



Mercnbeth -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 1:16:32 PM)


quote:

 shall make it really simple for you. The thing that most threatens america is the habit of too many of its citizens to percieve things only in how they impact america. Is that clear enough for you now Caitlyn?.....because you are busily proving the assumption that americans think only of how things affect them.....

 
Philosophy,
The citizens of the US have every right to apply a US perspective to the answer. You are doing the same. Why, being from the UK, would you even care or consider to post a thread "Who most threatens America" if you didn't consider how America effects you and/or the UK?
 
What most threatens the UK? Following the US politically? You'll have the opportunity to change that situation in May '07 I believe. Why aren't you focused on that? Why obsess with the US and what threatens the US?
 
Your leaders determine the path of the UK NOT the US or its citizens. We're busy paying the bills for the world relying on the US to solve with US money all the ills of the world, such as poverty, hunger, infant mortality, AIDS, the UN; but we require no censorship. Unlike the UK where words can get you arrested, international words of hatred toward the US are published and put first on the nightly news. Afraid to confront an common enemy who swears to kill you or die trying, no problem leave the alliance, like Spain, with no consequence.
 
I'll add to my previous post on this matter. What threatens the US, since I'm sure you didn't mean to include Canada, Mexico, or any of the South AMERICA countries in your question, is that not enough of us believe the words of our enemies, we even call some of them 'allies' and/or friends.



gentlethistle -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 1:27:24 PM)

Americans.

They can remove their own freedoms without the help of foreign terrorists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1864180,00.html



philosophy -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 2:08:02 PM)

oh for petes sake.........Mercnbeth, the reason i post on this thread is for just the reasons i've been saying all along. What affects one of us, in the world, can affect all of us in the world. This seemingly wilful emphasis on what a thing means for just one country or another is what blinds us to solutions.
As for the jibe about free speech, you didnt answer the specific point in the thread where it came up, about lines being crossed......so lets not hijack this thread eh?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 2:52:04 PM)

quote:

What affects one of us, in the world, can affect all of us in the world. This seemingly wilful emphasis on what a thing means for just one country or another is what blinds us to solutions.

philosophy,
But again, why is the US the focus? Care for me to list the issues and the countries of origin that have a negative impact on the US? The logical conclusion if the US really did have the non-consideration of any other foreign government would be to unilaterally destroy any who don't comply with US directives. Visit any day at the UN and you'll get amble evidence that the US does not have that policy.

I think the biggest problem that the US has is that its image is based upon US Corporate image NOT the Constitution or even the foreign policy. There has been no other conquering country in the history of the world who abandoned the lands they conquered. Yet, because oil companies are based in the US the lines of distinction are blurred.

I disagree with your basic premise and your concept that "what affects one of us, in the world, can affect all of us". Since you have "can" included it implies it also can not. I'll take the contrary side and say you should focus on the side that indicates can not. Instead of focusing outside your political realm, focus on what you can impact. Case in point, the world was, and is in an uproar regarding the treatment of prisoners held in Cuba. The US the Supreme Court defined our treatment of the prisoners in Cuba to be illegal. The US changed its policy. The held the world opinion to be valid. The government sponsored beheading and stonings occurring regularly in Muslim countries go mostly unheralded in the world. WHY? Why not a thread; "Who most threatens to cut off the heads of people who don't hold to a specific religious dogma?"

I took your last word on the repression of speech in the UK as definitive, and saw no reason to respond. It is what it is. As I said in response, I prefer the US, where my disgust for illegal immigration and/or stated Muslim goals for world conquest doesn't preclude me from accepting their "right" to say they hate the US in a public forum. However, our difference is I won't care or see a need to post why the US constitution should be applied to the UK. Yet you think UK laws should be applied here. I enjoy that difference.



caitlyn -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 3:45:57 PM)

You will not win this argument with logic Mercnbeth.
 
The United States is wrong for trying to influence policy in the Middle East ... but Middle Eastern countries seem to get a pass for terrorist acts against us, because we support Israel. Isn't that an attempt by them to influence our policy? Don't we have the right to be friends with whomever we choose? Not only do they get a pass, but some here actually want to put the blame back on us. We are not only wrong for trying to influence their policy, we are equally wrong for having a policy of our own that they don't agree with. That is exactly the sort of logic some here are selling.
 
Little wonder why some in this country become internally focused. The Romans learned that long ago. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't.", is actually paraphrased from a work by Cornelius Tacitus.
 
You are not going to win this debate, but I applaud the effort. I very much liked this part:

"Afraid to confront an common enemy who swears to kill you or die trying, no problem leave the alliance, like Spain, with no consequence."
 
That's an excellent suggestion. Those here that don't agree with the way we row the boat are more than welcome to jump out and swim. We will even let you back in when the sharks show up.



meatcleaver -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 3:55:20 PM)

I wouldn't blame the US for the middle east but the west in general, well particularly Britain and France as well as the US, all have interfered. How often do you hear westerners say the Arabs should sort themselves out, well if they had been given the chance they might have but the west have never given them that chance. Now extremists are trying to do it and to deny that the west has nothing to do with creating a situation where terrorism flourishes is plainly to bury ones head in the sand. But what sort of message does it send out to Arabs when the US government (backed by its poodle) instead of demanding a cease fire to Israel's obvious over reaction, actually encourages it.

Seneca also said and I paraphrase. It is logically unsound to contemplate the destruction of a whole nation, whilst advocating personal justice.



philosophy -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 4:28:38 PM)

"But again, why is the US the focus?"

...no other reason than thats what the thread is about...as Caitlyn has pointed out repeatedly......start one about the UK and i'll join in on that one too :)

"I disagree with your basic premise and your concept that "what affects one of us, in the world, can affect all of us". Since you have "can" included it implies it also can not."

....your point about 'can' implying 'can not' is wholly valid.......

"Case in point, the world was, and is in an uproar regarding the treatment of prisoners held in Cuba. The US the Supreme Court defined our treatment of the prisoners in Cuba to be illegal. The US changed its policy. The held the world opinion to be valid."

...i was under the impression that Guatanamo Bay was still open and holding prisoners. i'm pleased that once the whole idea was finally tested in court it was shown to be illegal...thing is, it was obviously illegal from the get go. In a way i can claim it as evidence of my thesis regarding the worst problem America faces in the world. If looked at from an international standpoint it was clearly in breach of fundamental ways of being just. It is exactly this blind spot that i see as americas worst enemy, it breeds external enemies for your country and alienates allies.

"I took your last word on the repression of speech in the UK as definitive, and saw no reason to respond."

...fair enough, though in that thread i would have welcomed a chance to debate that issue further. We rarely agree but i find your challenges are always fair and hope that i can at least sometimes meet them.



philosophy -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 4:30:30 PM)

"You will not win this argument with logic Mercnbeth."
 
.....Mercnbeth clearly understood and argued with me based on what i'd said Caitlyn. It was an exercise in logic. You however have clearly not understood what i was getting at.....once you apply some logic to my thesis i will gladly answer it.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 5:04:07 PM)

Philosophy,
Thanks for providing the best evidence of US prejudice. Your post quoted:
quote:

Case in point, the world was, and is in an uproar regarding the treatment of prisoners held in Cuba. The US the Supreme Court defined our treatment of the prisoners in Cuba to be illegal. The US changed its policy. The held the world opinion to be valid."

...i was under the impression that Guantanamo Bay was still open and holding prisoners. i'm pleased that once the whole idea was finally tested in court it was shown to be illegal...thing is, it was obviously illegal from the get go. In a way i can claim it as evidence of my thesis regarding the worst problem America faces in the world. If looked at from an international standpoint it was clearly in breach of fundamental ways of being just. It is exactly this blind spot that i see as americas worst enemy, it breeds external enemies for your country and alienates allies.


My original post:
quote:

I disagree with your basic premise and your concept that "what affects one of us, in the world, can affect all of us". Since you have "can" included it implies it also can not. I'll take the contrary side and say you should focus on the side that indicates can not. Instead of focusing outside your political realm, focus on what you can impact. Case in point, the world was, and is in an uproar regarding the treatment of prisoners held in Cuba. The US the Supreme Court defined our treatment of the prisoners in Cuba to be illegal. The US changed its policy. The held the world opinion to be valid. The government sponsored beheading and stonings occurring regularly in Muslim countries go mostly unheralded in the world. WHY? Why not a thread; "Who most threatens to cut off the heads of people who don't hold to a specific religious dogma?"


See how the legal process that interpreted the form of detention in Cuba was contrary to US becomes a focal point of US "crime". These men are not dead. They are detained. Ironically what they stated and documented would be cause for arrest in the UK and would be justified based upon your previous affirmation that "hate speech" is cause for imprisonment.

Yet the comparison to people dying at the hands of Muslims it wasn't worth commenting upon as a comparison. Yes they are still detained but a whole list of new regulations have been implemented regarding their treatment. (Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/terror/main1976599.shtml)

I don't understand this part of any debate. Why doesn't the possibility of anything being correct regarding US policy get acknowledged? The recent foiled hijacking from the UK is a great case in point. It was easier to believe it was a US/UK initiated government conspiracy than to accept it as factual. Iran's policy and plan for the destruction of Israel; the Muslim dogma of "join us or die", are treated casually when compared to any US policy. Again, from the perspective of a country that never colonized conquered lands. If the Germany or Japan prevailed after WWII would they have just left the UK after establishing a post war economy? I just don't understand that for any position, everything originating from the US is, because of it's source, evil or wrong.

Remember, corporate America is NOT representative of the dogma of the US. Were it true, the conquered lands of Kuwait, floating on oil, would be US territory after the first go around with Saddam. Why didn't that happen if the oil companies dictate policy? Our access to oil in the middle east is worse due to current hostilities. Where the oil companies in charge, better to follow the leads of France and Germany where state run oil companies have free access? At the fundamental level, US policy is to try to establish freedom; albeit as defined by the US. Often that position contrary to US corporations and not beneficial to US citizens. I don't agree with that philosophy, but I understand it. I've stated before I'd leave and let them kill each other for their religions and gods.

Sorry you felt I had prematurely left the other thread. I too enjoy your focus on issues and political philosophy without the interjection of personal attack. Once I saw your perspective and read your links there was no factual or even philosophical disagreement. I learned something regarding the UK that I didn't know. Always a good thing even if you don't agree with the fact that you learned. I'm sure someday we'll agree upon something!



subfever -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 5:43:29 PM)

Who most threatens America? The gullible, unthinking, apathetic American public.

The public is being led by the nose by a controlled media which; with it's spins, half-truths, and illusions, has become a master marketing agent for the powers-that-be. 




mnottertail -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 5:52:37 PM)

I was going to say something like that, but I guess I will just 'aye' if the question is being called. If not, I will retire to the cloakroom.


Hear! Hear! (not-- here! here! OK? FYI to some of you but not all of you)

Ron



FangsNfeet -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 9:34:03 PM)

1. Fire Ants

2. Meteors

3. An alien invasion from outer space.

4. God. After all, he's the one who plans for the world to end.



perverseangelic -> RE: Who Most Threatens America? (9/6/2006 9:58:49 PM)

Who's the biggest threat?

People who are willingly and willfully ignorant.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875