RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened?

RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (Full Version)

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

Message

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 6:58:17 PM)
I don't give a fuck if it's a republican or democratic president sending us to war in countries that haven't attacked us. I'm against it. Dependence on foreign oil is no excuse. That's what solar and wind is for. The US government needs to be concentrating on saving the middle class by bringing decent paying jobs back, not on policing the world.

kdsub -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 7:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I don't give a fuck if it's a republican or democratic president sending us to war in countries that haven't attacked us. I'm against it. Dependence on foreign oil is no excuse. That's what solar and wind is for. The US government needs to be concentrating on saving the middle class by bringing decent paying jobs back, not on policing the world. We agree completely and we are consistant...it just gets to me when political affiliations rule peoples lives and blind them to their hypocrisies. Butch

servantforuse -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 7:30:33 PM)
We get less than 1% of our oil from Libya. That is not the issue.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 7:35:27 PM)
Where Obama's logic is wrong is that unlike Saddam Hussein who was killing his own people (kurds being gassed to death), Gaddafi wasn't killing his own people until there was an attempted revolution. That's what happens when you attempt a revolution. People get killed and especially if you hide behind civilians when you're getting your asses kicked. We have no business getting involved in an attempted revolution and civil war.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 7:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse We get less than 1% of our oil from Libya. That is not the issue. But Europe gets a whole lot! We are there because of European Energy concerns.

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 7:52:05 PM)
FR, to no-one in particular. It is interesting to see many "liberals" wanting involvement and many "conservatives" wanting less involvement in other countries. As a moderate, of course, I can see both sides. [:D] Seriously, I don't think there is any "right" or "wrong" opinion, America is going to have to seriously decide when, why and how we get involved in the ever increasing turmoil in the Middle East and other countries around the world. I don't think the United States has the "option" of just sitting on the side-lines these days. We do have our NOSES and asses involved all over this wonderful "global world" that we live in, and this is one of the prices, we will pay. You have to pay the cost, to be the boss....and whether we like it or NOT, many/most still see this country as the go-to country. If we wanted to "stay out of conflicts" around the damn world, we should have started doing that a long fucking time ago, too late baby, bye bye for that one. Many have stated that many of the countries in the UK have decreased their military. Is this the time to do that? I think our friends in Europe need to increase the size of their military, so that those involved in NATO, are not so dependent on the United States military. This is really a tough subject, and I have never considered myself a "militaristic sort of person". But as our "world" becomes more chaotic, and the fact that we know there are "forces" that hate America and all it stands for, I don't see us decreasing our military and sitting here like sitting ducks. As much as I disagree and despise a lot of what is going on in the United States {and the United States is certainly spiraling downhill, and has yet to hit the bottom/depression, though it is still coming}, this is my country, my home, and I want it to be as strong as possible. Which is one of the reasons, that I feel having open borders is going to certainly have an impact on us, sooner or later. How can we spend so much $$$$$ running around the world, and basically have our borders open to those that want to do us harm? How the hell are you going to blame President Obama for all this crap? Former Presidents Daddy Bush and baby Bush, along with the "powers that be" have had our asses involved in Middle East conflicts for over 20 fucking years. The United States wanted to be "the man", and now we are seen as "the man" all around the fucking world. Too late for "the man" to NOT want to be the fucking man. I am enjoying reading the responses!!

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 8:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse If we did not invade Libya, ( a military action ) in Obamas own words, what do you call it ? It is called "military involvement". silly wabbit

tweakabelle -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 9:31:39 PM)
Being an Australian, I don't want to get involved in what is essentially an internal US debate. But there is one aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned thus far that demands consideration. At the moment, the US is the world's pre-eminent power, economically, financially and politically. It is not going to remain this way forever. Within the next 50 years, it's likely that this dominance will be considerably diminished by the rise of China and India, and possibly regional powers like Brazil, the EU and Russia. Whatever precedents that are set by the US will be noted by those countries and applied by them. China's record in human rights generally and suppression of Tibet is an immediate cause for concern. There is little reason to believe that the Chinese will use their strength and muscle as benevolently as the US has. So please think: How comfortable will I be if and when, in the future, other countries act on principles or policies I am currently advocating for the world's sole superpower? Finally, I would suggest that it is everyone's interest to change and strengthen international organisations so that the 'world's policeman' role is adopted by those international institutions rather than being the preserve of a single nation, no matter what that nation is.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 9:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Being an Australian, I don't want to get involved in what is essentially an internal US debate. But there is one aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned thus far that demands consideration. At the moment, the US is the world's pre-eminent power, economically, financially and politically. It is not going to remain this way forever. Within the next 50 years, it's likely that this dominance will be considerably diminished by the rise of China and India, and possibly regional powers like Brazil, the EU and Russia. Whatever precedents set by the US will be noted by those countries and applied by them. China's record in human rights generally and suppression of Tibet is an immediate cause for concern. There is little reason to believe that the Chinese will use their strength and muscle as benevolently as the US has. So please think: How comfortable will I be if and when, in the future, other countries act on principles or policies I am currently advocating for the world's sole superpower? Finally, I would suggest that it is everyone's interest to change and strengthen international organisations so that the 'world's policeman' role is adopted by those international institutions rather than being the preserve of a single nation, no matter what that nation is. Actually, Tweaky, I don't think there will be any sort of superpower in 50 years. Why? Research "Peak Oil". And, in China's case, research their environmental destruction. They have already lost about 20% of their arable land to desertification, IIRC.

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 9:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Being an Australian, I don't want to get involved in what is essentially an internal US debate. But there is one aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned thus far that demands consideration. At the moment, the US is the world's pre-eminent power, economically, financially and politically. It is not going to remain this way forever. Within the next 50 years, it's likely that this dominance will be considerably diminished by the rise of China and India, and possibly regional powers like Brazil, the EU and Russia. Whatever precedents that are set by the US will be noted by those countries and applied by them. China's record in human rights generally and suppression of Tibet is an immediate cause for concern. There is little reason to believe that the Chinese will use their strength and muscle as benevolently as the US has. So please think: How comfortable will I be if and when, in the future, other countries act on principles or policies I am currently advocating for the world's sole superpower? Finally, I would suggest that it is everyone's interest to change andstrengthen international organisations so that the 'world's policeman' role is adopted by those international institutions rather than being the preserve of a single nation, no matter what that nation is. [sm=agree.gif] I totally agree with this post, IF/when China became/becomes the #1 superpower, they will never be as benevolent. They are not real "nice" now, even with their own people, no need to even consider that they would be to others. : )

tweakabelle -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 9:47:51 PM)
quote: Hippekinkster Actually, Tweaky, I don't think there will be any sort of superpower in 50 years. Why? Research "Peak Oil". And, in China's case, research their environmental destruction. They have already lost about 20% of their arable land to desertification, IIRC. Who knows? Things might turn out the way you predict with China and oil. If they do, the powers in that world will be those large countries that successfully and quickly wean themselves of fossil fuels and adapt to alternative energy sources. There will still be international powers, countries with far more might and influence, and the ability to project that power and influence than others. I feel my point is relevant regardless of the exact identity of those powers.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 10:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Hippekinkster Actually, Tweaky, I don't think there will be any sort of superpower in 50 years. Why? Research "Peak Oil". And, in China's case, research their environmental destruction. They have already lost about 20% of their arable land to desertification, IIRC. Who knows? Things might turn out the way you predict with China and oil. If they do, the powers in that world will be those large countries that successfully and quickly wean themselves of fossil fuels and adapt to alternative energy sources. There will still be international powers, countries with far more might and influence, and the ability to project that power and influence than others. I feel my point is relevant regardless of the exact identity of those powers. Well, be hard to project power. Ya can't run an F-22 on windmills.

popeye1250 -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 12:48:54 AM)
Marini, "Washington" and Exon/Mobil want to be "Boss of the World" not the American People! They just want us to pay for it. What I saw in Obama's speech was Joe Isuzu trying to sell me a car! I didn't buy it. If he'd just extend one tenth of that effort, the Mexican border would be closed and Detroit would be a bustling city again. He needs to be the "Boss" of the USA not the "world." That's not what we're paying him to do.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 5:09:24 AM)
Ok you got me. What does the mexican border and the economy of Detroit have to do with each other. Detroit has been a mess my whole life. It didn't start last year.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 5:18:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk When you know ahead of time that people are going to be slaughtered cause the man doing the slaughtering just told he was going to do it. And this same man has done this type of thing in the past.......Isn't inherent on humans to try and intervene? Not to mention as Christians. We stood by as Rwanda devolved into a bloodbath both as Americans and as members of the Unitied Nations. I would hope this puts us on a better path as Humans. Just as we are standing by doing nothing in The Congo. It will be curious now that the precedent has been set that the United States will go to war solely for Humanitarian reasons (As opposed to European Energy needs) how the left wing of the American Political spectrum will react when it's a Republican president claiming the same reason. Sure, I would like us to do something in Congo. Obvious reasons why we aren't but does that mean we shouldn't help someone else. It isn't a zero sum game.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 5:24:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I get the Pacific war. How about Europe? Why'd we go? Our dog wasn't in that fight. Sure a few million people were slaughtered....but did it effect us? No...- I suspect the fact the Germany and Italy declared war on the United States first, had something to do with it. So that was the reason we were supplying the British?

domiguy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 5:39:52 AM)
Fatdaddy is worried about what is transpiring in the Congo, h has every right to be concerned. We should be trying to stabilize the situation to the best of our abilities and dwindling resources.. It is just a matter of time before the poverty and ignorance will perverse itself into something much more serious and the cost will be far greater than acting in a responsible and humanitarian fashion right now.

rulemylife -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 6:06:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse We get less than 1% of our oil from Libya. That is not the issue. Yes it is the issue because we have western oil companies with large investments there, including Exxon-Mobil. Whether that oil is used here or elsewhere is irrelevant.

rulemylife -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 6:14:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Being an Australian, I don't want to get involved in what is essentially an internal US debate. But there is one aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned thus far that demands consideration. At the moment, the US is the world's pre-eminent power, economically, financially and politically. It is not going to remain this way forever. Within the next 50 years, it's likely that this dominance will be considerably diminished by the rise of China and India, and possibly regional powers like Brazil, the EU and Russia. Whatever precedents that are set by the US will be noted by those countries and applied by them. China's record in human rights generally and suppression of Tibet is an immediate cause for concern. There is little reason to believe that the Chinese will use their strength and muscle as benevolently as the US has. So please think: How comfortable will I be if and when, in the future, other countries act on principles or policies I am currently advocating for the world's sole superpower? Finally, I would suggest that it is everyone's interest to change andstrengthen international organisations so that the 'world's policeman' role is adopted by those international institutions rather than being the preserve of a single nation, no matter what that nation is. [sm=agree.gif] I totally agree with this post, IF/when China became/becomes the #1 superpower, they will never be as benevolent. They are not real "nice" now, even with their own people, no need to even consider that they would be to others. : ) Interesting though, that doesn't stop us from supporting them by purchasing their products.

Moonhead -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 7:09:53 AM)
"If/when"? They're already doing a lot better than you people as a superpower. Apart from anything else, they still have a manufacturing base...

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02