Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

was there ever a time that the US didn't think about war?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
    Russia, China, and the US have very difference defense policies.

    Russia's defense policy is centered around maintaining a nuclear detterrence and not losing even more influence in its near-abroad.

    China's defense policy is evolving, but is mainly centered around protecting its interests in the South China Sea.

    The US defense policy centers around maintaining a proactive involvement throughout the world. In other words, we'll go to them before they come to us (see: Iraq). Since that doesn't sell as well to defend a $600 billion a year machine, we have expanded that to a form of "white men's burden" -- i.e. we are the only ones with the capability and therefore an obligation to [selectively] protect human rights (see: Kosovo, Syria). Since that no longer sells very effectively either, we have to make up boogeyman (see: Russia).

    The defense industry is a massive, massive machine. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, not to mention very influential people's careers, etc.
    agreed . The problem is if you want to vote against this policy who do you vote for ? The dems / republicans effectively have the same views on defence . There seems to be no democratic resistance to an ever expanding military budget .

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bfc1001 View Post
      agreed . The problem is if you want to vote against this policy who do you vote for ? The dems / republicans effectively have the same views on defence . There seems to be no democratic resistance to an ever expanding military budget .
      Nah, there's resistance. You got Ron Paul, for example, but nobody takes them seriously at the political level. Lots of people talk about the problem, but nobody knows how to turn it.

      The machine is too damn big at this point. It's a whole hell of a lot more complicated then just "cutting the defense budget." If any change is to be expected it would have to be forced and as part of a massive and comprehensive overhaul of the entire national defense strategy. You're talking about thousands of good people losing their jobs, etc.

      There would have to be something that would prompt this forceful change. My guess is it's impossible to expect meaningful change as long as we can borrow as much as we damn well please (which itself is a massive machine). Since I don't expect that to change any time soon, nothing's going to change.
      Last edited by Jonathan; 12-08-2017, 07:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by commanding View Post
        answering your question by comparison to the Vietnam war.
        Fair point, but at least the Vietnam war was in a relatively defined area, with a somewhat clear goal. The war on terror is one of the most vague and nebulous campaigns ever undertaken.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by commanding View Post
          One of our members posted this question, and said in his life he could not remember a time the US was not planning for war or at war.....etc.

          Open for discussion. Fire for effect.
          Should you ever stop 'planning' for war?

          Comment


          • #20
            The term "Indian Wars" is just a slice of a much larger picture. There was never a time when the natives of North America were really at peace with each other. Since before Europeans showed up till their final defeat war was a way of life for most all of them. Crazy Horse's claim that he had the right to make war on anyone he chooses is rooted in a philosophy over a thousand years old when he made it. The US did not start wars with the Indians, they crashed the party. In archaeological sites the proof is in the bones that bear the marks of a lifetime of combat.


            Comment


            • #21
              Another aspect to take into account when judging American foreign policy is the petro dollar . This makes effectively the dollar the world's reserve currency which equates to no matter how much debt the U.S takes on , the value of the dollar will never drop . a large part of U.S policy is built around oil which allows America to run huge deficits at minimal cost ,like the war games pays for the debt .

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Corrupt View Post

                Fair point, but at least the Vietnam war was in a relatively defined area, with a somewhat clear goal. The war on terror is one of the most vague and nebulous campaigns ever undertaken.
                Corrupt look at post 14 this thread, for a summary of the questions by the original poster of the query.

                his words:
                my point is this "is the Unites States addicted to war?" In my 36 years living on this planet there wasn't a time I could remember that the US was not bombing a country, threatening to bomb a country or offering to bomb a country
                and his original query....


                was there ever a time that the US didnt think about war? In my 36 years of living on this planet, there wasnt a time I could think of that the US stopped talking or actually going to war.

                Comment


                • #23
                  To call Vietnam an American war is to ignore everyone else who also played in the game. That's not fair since the game was on before the US entered the fight and there were many players throughout the whole thing. The spectrum of players made it the long drawn out conflict it was.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post
                    To call Vietnam an American war is to ignore everyone else who also played in the game. That's not fair since the game was on before the US entered the fight and there were many players throughout the whole thing. The spectrum of players made it the long drawn out conflict it was.
                    I think it's really disingenuous to see Cold War era conflicts (of which Vietnam was a part) in the same context as recent conflicts. The Cold War was a very different time. The fact is we WERE at war with an ideology, and we countered that ideology, as it did us, pretty damn consistently.

                    That's no longer the case. What the hell kind of ideology are we at war in Syria with? "Oppressive regime?" Then why are we friends with other oppressive regimes? Same goes for Iraq.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                      I think it's really disingenuous to see Cold War era conflicts (of which Vietnam was a part) in the same context as recent conflicts. The Cold War was a very different time. The fact is we WERE at war with an ideology, and we countered that ideology, as it did us, pretty damn consistently.

                      That's no longer the case. What the hell kind of ideology are we at war in Syria with? "Oppressive regime?" Then why are we friends with other oppressive regimes? Same goes for Iraq.
                      My point is that the original position about America's near constant war footing is just a small part of the bigger question. Was there ever a time when we all didn't think about war? Look at every conflict and you find the same players, some are wearing masks, many are in the shadows, but they are all there on one side or the other, some gaming both sides, but they all there. America is not the only player in Syria so what are we all doing there?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post

                        My point is that the original position about America's near constant war footing is just a small part of the bigger question. Was there ever a time when we all didn't think about war? Look at every conflict and you find the same players, some are wearing masks, many are in the shadows, but they are all there on one side or the other, some gaming both sides, but they all there. America is not the only player in Syria so what are we all doing there?
                        We're arguably the only state party in Syria with little to no national interests we're protecting or pursuing. At least as far as I can tell.

                        Russia is there because of their port and long-term alliance with the incumbent government. Same with Iran. Both are pretty clearly protecting their existing national interests. What existing national interests we're pursuing there I haven't a freaking clue.

                        Same goes for Iraq, by the way. Both were projects that don't seem to have benefited our national interests in any way.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                          We're arguably the only state party in Syria with little to no national interests we're protecting or pursuing. At least as far as I can tell.

                          Russia is there because of their port and long-term alliance with the incumbent government. Same with Iran. Both can be literally said to be protecting their existing national interests. What existing national interests we're pursuing there I haven't a freaking clue.

                          Same goes for Iraq, by the way.
                          If the Assad regime falls does the port vanish in puff of smoke? I agree we don't have any business in this but Russia's business there isn't very defensible either considering the meager resources at stake. As for the long term alliance? It's a deal with the Devil. We all play the Devil's game, but why? That's my question.

                          As for other state parties, they are there with a mask on, everybody is there.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JHomes View Post
                            Should you ever stop 'planning' for war?
                            It is one thing for the military of a nation to always plan for war. It is another for the politicians of a nation to always plan for war. One is a necessity, the other an interest.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post

                              If the Assad regime falls does the port vanish in puff of smoke?
                              That certainly becomes a very real possibility. On what basis would Russia be allowed to maintain/expand its presence under a hostile western-backed "democratic government" that would want them to leave?

                              Originally posted by RobertKLR
                              I agree we don't have any business in this but Russia's business there isn't very defensible either considering the meager resources at stake.
                              I disagree completely. The fact is they have real interests at stake. You seem to acknowledge that.

                              First, in terms of their naval base, which, while currently underutilized gave them very significant strategic capabilities in the future. Likewise, if some retards decided to overrun our "not crucially important bases" in the Marshall Islands, the US would have jumped in and defended its bases and people there, regardless of how unimportant they are in the grand scheme of things.

                              Second, in terms of their long-standing alliance with the incumbent government. Likewise, if North Korea invaded South Korea, you bet your ass the US would have jumped in to defend their ally.

                              The point is that unlike Russia and Iran, I don't see the US as having any national interests that we're defending in Syria or Iraq. These are precisely the types of conflicts I believe we only got involved in because we have the capabilities AND the politicians either itching to test those capabilities or wanting to advance personal (rather than national) interests. The same can be said about the rhetoric concerning Venezuela from Trump.

                              If it doesn't concern defending national interests which are being threatened by military force, we shouldn't be involved with military force.
                              Last edited by Jonathan; 12-08-2017, 04:31 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                                Yes. That pretty much goes without saying.


                                I disagree completely. The fact is they have real interests at stake. Both, in terms of a military base, as well as a long-standing alliance (which equals a lot of money in trade). A new hostile government as a result of some foreign backed rebellion would threaten that. Russia's position in Syria seems very logical to me. I guarantee you if some retards decided to overrun our "unimportant bases" in the Marshall Islands, the US would have jumped in and defended its interests.

                                The point is that unlike Russia and Iran I don't see the US as having any national interests that we're defending in Syria or Iraq. These are precisely the types of conflicts I believe we only got involved in because we have the capabilities and politicians either itching to test those capabilities or advance personal (rather than national) interests.
                                You say Russia has a legitimate right to do what it is doing but I say having the right to do something and the right thing to do are not the same thing but we tend to honor deals with the Devil more often than with God. Yes, the US should back out, everyone should back out. If the warring sides find they have no allies anywhere what could they do but count their bullets vs targets and do the math to find out who is going to win.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X