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

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

Marini -> Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 7:29:08 PM)
A question for the collarme political "crowd": Unless the United States is being attacked DIRECTLY, or being threatened of being attacked, why should the United States EVER be involved in any war? Should we "help" our friends when they are involved in a conflict {Israel, UK, Germany, South Korea, UAE, Canada}, if they are involved in a conflict? Should we "help" countries that have resources that we need? Should we "help" countries in which innocent citizens are being massacred, or just watch and hope they are able to sort it out? Should we go along with whatever our President/Congress decide and protest US involvements we don't "agree" with? I think being involved in wars, unless we are being attacked, should be on a case by case basis. At the end of the day, when should the USA, EVER become involved in any war unless we are being attacked or threatened of being attacked?

pahunkboy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:12:57 PM)
Because each lie is built on other lies- and so many that we cant possibly tell the truth right now as everything would collapse into anarcky.

pahunkboy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:20:07 PM)
Also- wars require loans from banks... which charge interest... no matter who wins.

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:20:07 PM)
Thanks for at least answering. So many don't want us involved in Libya, yet are unwilling to answer this question. lol Things that make ya say "hummmmmm".

kdsub -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:24:30 PM)
I think we don't agree Marini Our Friends : We have treaties and should honor them…but only after the Congress is informed…debates…and OK’s the well defined proposed action. Resources: Have we not learned with oil? Innocents: Who is innocent? Certainly not Libyans…and if so were not the Tutsi’s...how about the Sudan…Israel...Gaza… On and On where would it stop? No we can not physically be the worlds policemen let alone afford to be. We should follow our conscience and exercise our right to protest. Bottom line we should never go to war unless we are attacked directly or through treaty. We can and should support those nations we choose without going to war. Butch

slvemike4u -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini A question for the collarme political "crowd": Unless the United States is being attacked DIRECTLY, or being threatened of being attacked, why should the United States EVER be involved in any war? Because we have interests that range far beyond these borders. Should we "help" our friends when they are involved in a conflict {Israel, UK, Germany, South Korea, UAE, Canada}, if they are involved in a conflict? If we have expectations that they would do the same for us....certainly.Provided those conflicts are not in direct opposition to any of our own vital interests Should we "help" countries that have resources that we need? Should those resources be considered critical to some segment of our economy...I would think so,lest we can somehow plug the gap,so to speak. Should we "help" countries in which innocent citizens are being massacred, or just watch and hope they are able to sort it out? Here I think we enter into an area that can surely be called "case by case" as I really do not like the "world cop" role Should we go along with whatever our President/Congress decide and protest US involvements we don't "agree" with? If we are protesting...we are not "going along.Protesting an action our gov't is engaged in is of course our right....and in some cases a duty,but that is about personal conscience ,isn't it? I think being involved in wars, unless we are being attacked, should be on a case by case basis. Agreed,save where treaty obligations are involved. At the end of the day, when should the USA, EVER become involved in any war unless we are being attacked or threatened of being attacked? I think this last has been covered by the above....but I certainly disagree with any sort of turtle like isolationism,especially of the type advocated in such crude ways by popeye.The world is getting smaller every day...we can not afford to disengaged from the rest of the world....in the false belief that were we just to ignore others we will be left to our own. Just doesn't work.

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think we don't agree Marini Our Friends : We have treaties and should honor them…but only after the Congress is informed…debates…and OK’s the well defined proposed action. Resources: Have we not learned with oil? Innocents: Who is innocent? Certainly not Libyans…and if so were not the Tutsi’s...how about the Sudan…Israel...Gaza… On and On where would it stop? No we can not physically be the worlds policemen let alone afford to be. We should follow our conscience and exercise our right to protest. Bottom line we should never go to war unless we are attacked directly or through treaty. We can and should support those nations we choose without going to war. Butch Hiya Butch! What did I say to agree with? I am seriously asking a question, I don't know the answer! My point is, who really DOES know the answer? I think it is OFTEN/NORMALLY going to be, a "case by case" basis, UNLESS of course we are attacked. [;)]

kdsub -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:42:55 PM)
I'm sorry I just got the feeling we were on different sides of an issue. I believe there is an answer...at least to every question you proposed. But I am not nieve...I understand there will always be special circumstances where we may need to at least consider going to war without being directly attacked... but Libya is not one of these...In my opinion anyway. Butch

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 8:50:30 PM)
Thanks for the reply Butch. We might as well ask the question now, because the way things are going in the Middle East, we will have a lot more to ponder besides our involvement in Libya.

pahunkboy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 9:14:34 PM)
War profiteering means more money can be made off of war- then off of peace. GE is a part of the war machine- and as you know they paid no tax on the 14 billion they earned last year.... enter halliburton- black water, lockheed martin- and so forth.

popeye1250 -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 9:52:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Marini A question for the collarme political "crowd": Unless the United States is being attacked DIRECTLY, or being threatened of being attacked, why should the United States EVER be involved in any war? Because we have interests that range far beyond these borders. Should we "help" our friends when they are involved in a conflict {Israel, UK, Germany, South Korea, UAE, Canada}, if they are involved in a conflict? If we have expectations that they would do the same for us....certainly.Provided those conflicts are not in direct opposition to any of our own vital interests Should we "help" countries that have resources that we need? Should those resources be considered critical to some segment of our economy...I would think so,lest we can somehow plug the gap,so to speak. Should we "help" countries in which innocent citizens are being massacred, or just watch and hope they are able to sort it out? Here I think we enter into an area that can surely be called "case by case" as I really do not like the "world cop" role Should we go along with whatever our President/Congress decide and protest US involvements we don't "agree" with? If we are protesting...we are not "going along.Protesting an action our gov't is engaged in is of course our right....and in some cases a duty,but that is about personal conscience ,isn't it? I think being involved in wars, unless we are being attacked, should be on a case by case basis. Agreed,save where treaty obligations are involved. At the end of the day, when should the USA, EVER become involved in any war unless we are being attacked or threatened of being attacked? I think this last has been covered by the above....but I certainly disagree with any sort of turtle like isolationism,especially of the type advocated in such crude ways by popeye.The world is getting smaller every day...we can not afford to disengaged from the rest of the world....in the false belief that were we just to ignore others we will be left to our own. Just doesn't work. Conservative Mike, it's interventionism that's taking us down the road of war, not isolationism! I'd hardly call wanting to end the theft of tens of billions of Taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and wanting to end immigration and eject illegal aliens and enforce the law of the land, "isolationism." If you want to be "Mr Atlas" and take care of the rest of the world while your countrymen suffer go find your checkbook! I'm watching CNN as I type this and Syria and Yeman are ready to explode! Am I to wake up wed or thurs morning and find out that I am then responsable for the "human rights" of Syria and Yemen? Conservative Mike, you need to find the nearest recruiting office. Marini, I don't understand the mindset of people who want to get us involved in all these "perpetual wars." Do they want to test the new military equipment in "real time" conflict situations? NATO needs to be dissolved as the European countries have cut and cut and cut again their ever shrinking militaries and hope that the bankrupt U.S. comes to their rescue! Also, that area of the world is a snakepit, you don't know who the bad guys are! You could be feeding a guy this week only to find out next week that he killed three of your guys and is in al queda! It's not our country's job to get involved in the internal wars of foreign countries. That's called political suicide. Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam and the deaths of 58,000 of our Troops? Funny, military veterans want nothing to do with wars! But, the people who cry out the loudest for wars always want "someone else" to go, take a bow Geraldo Rivera! There's something wrong mentally with people who want to help total strangers thousands of miles away yet do nothing to help poor people in this country! Marini, what happened? Did we run out of poor people in this country???

blacksword404 -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 10:11:25 PM)
"There's something wrong mentally with people who want to help total strangers thousands of miles away yet do nothing to help poor people in this country!" I can't speak on anyone in particular you might have in mind. But for a lot of them it's a form of self hate. They hate themselves and the groups they are a part of. Their family, country. Ones considered a part of them. They want themselves to fail. Problem is they want to take others down with them.

Aylee -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 10:14:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini A question for the collarme political "crowd": Unless the United States is being attacked DIRECTLY, or being threatened of being attacked, why should the United States EVER be involved in any war? Should we "help" our friends when they are involved in a conflict {Israel, UK, Germany, South Korea, UAE, Canada}, if they are involved in a conflict? Should we "help" countries that have resources that we need? Should we "help" countries in which innocent citizens are being massacred, or just watch and hope they are able to sort it out? Should we go along with whatever our President/Congress decide and protest US involvements we don't "agree" with? I think being involved in wars, unless we are being attacked, should be on a case by case basis. At the end of the day, when should the USA, EVER become involved in any war unless we are being attacked or threatened of being attacked? I suggest looking up and reading on the Just War Theory.

Fellow -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 10:25:09 PM)
quote: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? USA is a corporate state. It should not be involved in "any war", and it is not. Every time corporate gain is in jeopardy or gain can be made the US military is ready to act. Gaddafi removal operation (pain in the ass and a good chance to get him out of the way) is low risk but potentially good business. Weapons manufactures have already made 1+ Billion guaranteed contracts a reality and more favorable conditions for US banks and oil companies will come in short time. Bad or good, but this is as it is.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 10:43:57 PM)
SlaveMike: "Because we have interests that range far beyond these borders." Who does? I certainly don't. Nobody I know does. But the US Chamber of Commerce certainly does, and the military is used to advance the agendas of the arms pushers, the oil companies, GE. Boeing, and every other company that has the resources to buy politicians. Personally, I don't think We The People should allow corporations to dictate foreign policy. We have no business engaging in any military adventures anywhere beyond our borders. We should unilaterally withdraw from any mutual defense treaties, and use our military to defend ourselves only. I don't even think we should maintain a standing army.

blacksword404 -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 10:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Personally, I don't think We The People should allow corporations to dictate foreign policy. We have no business engaging in any military adventures anywhere beyond our borders. We should unilaterally withdraw from any mutual defense treaties, and use our military to defend ourselves only. I don't even think we should maintain a standing army. Do you think xerxes or darius thought the medo-persian empire would be overcome by the greeks? Or that the greeks thought they would be supplanted by the romans? Every empire eventually falls. We are not an empire but a single country. We have though had the power of an empire. In this time of our slowly declining power, at some point we may need our allies to protect us. We do that by keeping to our agreement now while we are still in a position of strength.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/27/2011 11:22:00 PM)
quote: At the end of the day, when should the USA, EVER become involved in any war unless we are being attacked or threatened of being attacked? Define threatened? Thats the problem I have with this thread. What is viewed as a threat? A direct threat, such as.. we have our missles aimed at you, the US.. ? Or could it be an indirect threat? Where is that line drawn? People insist human rights shouldnt be a reason. However, according to the Charter of Unitied Nations... All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Article 43 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Article 45 In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter Seems to me we are doing what we agreed to do.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 3:09:44 AM)
Sung to the tune of Lydia the Tattooed Lady Libya Our Next War...Maybe... by Driftglass "3...2...1... Libya oh Libya, say have you met Libya, Libya, our next war...maybe. Unknown rebels folks adore so, And all that oil even more so. Libya oh Libya, our martial ad-libia Despoiled by Colonel Macbeth. Beneath him's a footstool called Tripoli. (Where he shared a few hot tubs with Berlusconi) And from where he now murders by land, air and sea, You can learn a lot from Libya. La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la Homicidally unbound, Muammar'll dance you around, Like a pinata made by a Neocon. If you squint you can see Kosovo or Granad-ee Or Caesar crossing the Rubicon. La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la Libya oh Libya, say have you met Libya, Libya, our next war...maybe. When the bombs start to flyin', That's when comes the real lyin' Libya oh Libya, our martial ad-libia Despoiled by Colonel Macbeth. For a dime Billy Kristol will show you his dick And explain what makes a Fox fascist tick As 10 years vanish like a cheesy card trick You can learn a lot from Libya. La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la Come along and see Newt with his ass out. John McCain panting so hard he might pass out. While side-kick Joe digs out his war pout. And Beck doubles down on his freak out. La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la Republicans suddenly caring where the money goes. Chickenhawks suddenly back on the talk shows. Here are PNACers back rattling sabers. Back to tossing kids 'round like flesh cabers. La la la, la la la, la la la, la la la Libya oh Libya, our martial ad-libia Oh Libya the champ of them all. Where once was a Commie who French-kissed big banks ('Til Ghadaffi started killed civilians with tanks) Now that Kenyan Usurper has risen 10 ranks For he went and conquered Libya! I said Libya {He said Libya} They said Libya {We said Syria} La La!"

rulemylife -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 5:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u ]I think this last has been covered by the above....but I certainly disagree with any sort of turtle like isolationism,especially of the type advocated in such crude ways by popeye.The world is getting smaller every day...we can not afford to disengaged from the rest of the world....in the false belief that were we just to ignore others we will be left to our own. Just doesn't work. Why would it not work? There are plenty of countries that manage to mind their own business rather than constantly getting involved in others affairs. There has never been a point in my lifetime when this country has not been involved in another country's conflict. Why is this our responsibility? What exactly did we accomplish in Vietnam other than sending thousands of our soldiers to their deaths and thousands more to a lifetime of disabling injuries. That was supposed to be a humanitarian mission also. And now we have normalized diplomatic relations with the evil commie empire that was such a threat to us.

rulemylife -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/28/2011 5:42:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: At the end of the day, when should the USA, EVER become involved in any war unless we are being attacked or threatened of being attacked? Define threatened? Thats the problem I have with this thread. What is viewed as a threat? A direct threat, such as.. we have our missles aimed at you, the US.. ? Or could it be an indirect threat? Where is that line drawn? People insist human rights shouldnt be a reason. However, according to the Charter of Unitied Nations... All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Article 43 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Article 45 In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter Seems to me we are doing what we agreed to do. Answer the question for me that you asked. Where is the line drawn? Why is it that we choose to intervene in certain countries with a history of human rights abuses while ignoring others? China for example.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875