Corbic

Exactly. God Bless the Atlantic and Pacific ocean.


We are the only country in the world (right now) that can project power clear across the world. Everyone else needs to be in driving distance to start a fist-fight.

However, sadly, China is trying to catch up with their rapid military expansion funded by Walmart, Ebay and all their cheap copy right infringement consumer bullshit-

FUCK CHINA. Fuck their Walmart, Fuck their piracy, Fuck their hackers, Fuck their MMO-Farmers, Fuck their knock off parts, Fuck China.

Corbic

The UN is a colossal joke. In fact world politics are a joke. In the 90's we but sancantions on the former Yugoslavia and Iraq, supported and voted on by all the major players.

Yet England (BAE) sold equipment to both countries, Germany and France offered bogus loans and helped launder money for both regions, and China sold military hardware to both regions.

The Human Rights Counsel is also a joke, comprised of counties like the Congo, India, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Philippines, Romanai, and Saudi Arabia.

What a group.

kingkilburn

Saddam got into power because we backed his takeover of the previous government.

We failed in Iran(as we should have) so we backed their enemy.






How many times does America have to fuck with the politics of other countries in this fashion? It failed in Korea. It failed in Vietnam, every time we did it. It failed in Cuba. It failed in Iran. It failed in Afghanistan. It failed in Iraq. It failed in Nicaragua, as well as all the other drug lords and crazy South American governments. Those are just off the top of my head. I know there are others.

Why can't we MIND OUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS?

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Corbic

Please stop with your idiotic dribble.

The Ba'ath party over threw the British backed proxy Government. Saddam came to power after escaping from prison in ~1968 and took over in essentially a bloodless coup. There are several documentaries about him and he is actually a rather fascinating individual.

We succeeded in Korea (maintained the UN mandated lines). You can argue we succeeded in Vietnam (goal was to stop Communism from taking over the world - it didn't Socialism did). Cuba was because of Kennedy having a limp dick and freaking out last minute.

The bottom line is we like our American lifestyle. We like consuming 40% of the worlds resources, playing on Xboxs, keeping up with the Kardashians and working on 240sxs. This means we need to secure our interests over seas, this means you have to pick sides - sometimes you do good, sometimes you don't.

Our other problem is we have two strongly opposing political parties. I don't care which one you vote for, but they have very different goals, agendas and world views. It doesn't help that every 4-8 years one takes over and completely shifts everything the other had been doing.

kingkilburn

Who funded the Ba'ath take over?

Who backed the Democratic leader of the then still unified Korea?

The Cuban revolution happened before Kennedy was even running for president.

Arguing we succeeded in Vietnam proves you're full of shit.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

KA24DESOneThree

The argument is simple.

Can the deaths of innocents be rightfully avenged with if the vengeful action results in the deaths of innocents?

It doesn't matter if the intention is to kill the guilty; the fact that we've killed innocents while avenging innocents puts us in the wrong. The "greater good" is an idea thought up by people who knew what they were doing was ethically wrong but needed a way to sleep at night. Bomb a thousand so that a hundred thousand may live. Kill a kid while killing 20 terrorists. That person died so that others may live.

It has been the policy of our military to murder civilians to bring about a faster truce, or to punish countries for what they've done.

HalveBlue

Yeah...no.

I'd like to see some factual evidence of said policy.

Civilians bear the brunt of war. It's been this way since time immemorial.

Our military is one of the few that actively seeks to reduce the impact war has on civilians and reduce collateral damage associated with military operations.

Certainly, civilian casualties will always be a fact of war. Unfortunately, this holds especially true in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where US forces are engaged in fighting insurgencies. The nature of insurgency/COIN warfare almost guarantees that civilians will get caught up in the cross fire.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need to fight wars, and civilians wouldn't be subject to the miseries thereof.

In the absence of such a perfect world, the best we can hope for is to develop systems, capabilities, and doctrines that minimizes the impact war has on non-combatants.

KA24DESOneThree

Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

The nukes were dropped on Japan to prevent our military casualties and to show our power.

You been to Nagasaki? I have.

Corbic

Your point? Have you been to Manchuria? Nanking?

In case you forgot.

Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KA24DESOneThree

Not our problem, broseph.

Are you trying to justify the killing of Japanese civilians by showing the atrocities committed by Japanese military actions?

Corbic

Wow, talk about ideologically warped.

You argue its imoral to respond to an act of violence with more violence because more people will get hurt - but then you have no problem sitting by and watching violence happen.


You also clearly do not understand "total war" or the limitations of technology in the 1940's.

Major cities where targets because the technology of the time did not allow the finding and pin point attacking of military support centers (factories, ect).

Also, it was "Total War" meaning every facet of each countries life was revolving around the war.

Those "civilians" are the farmers making food to feed enemy soldiers, they are the workers building bombs and planes, they are politicians voting for war, they are will and back bone of an enemy nation.

Each one you kill is one less cog in their warmachine.

holemilk00

You desperately need a history lesson, the decision to drop the atom bomb (because we didn't have "nukes" yet) was made because it had been clearly evident that the Japanese people (civilians) were willing to fight to the death along side the Japanese army. And those that didn't would rather commit suicide instead of surrender to the allied armies. The decision was made to target those cities with the atom bomb in order to bring the war to a sudden stop, get ready for this, to SAVE civilian casualties in Japan. So your point is completely moot.

__________________
I had a cool signature

Toi

Bwuhahaha oh man, you know how EASY life would have been if that were the case.

You are seriously mistaken my friend.

Done plenty of tours there, OIF ~ OEF, convoy, forward convoy, Ravens, and several other things. The best time I had there was giving things to the kids of that country. While people like you complain about us we actually did something, but then we actually care.

word sux

Well I could have brought up the genocide by Suharto that we helped fund in East Timor but I didn't want to get the thread too off track

holemilk00

You keep talking about conflicts that we "funded" like we were pumping money into these places while the atrocities were being committed and I hate to break it to you, but that's just not the case. There may be evidence of a slight overlap between our foreign policy having us involved in helping with one side of a conflict and the horrible acts that are revealed to the public later, but it was never the mission to go out and fund the extermination of millions of people through funding of a radical group during a hostile revolution.

Its like someone tried to explain to you earlier, what you are talking about is like blaming the bank for loaning a guy money and him going out and buying a gun with it and killing his family. Is it the banks fault his family is dead? No its still the mans fault because he made the decision to use the money for that.

We funded revolutions, coops, warlords, and so on that benefited our foreign policy. If in the end these groups went crazy with power and ended up being worse than the previous ruling faction/government then while its terrible, we can't be held accountable for that. Believe it or not the US government can't see the future.

Granted a lot of times we had to pick the lessor of two evils, when we should have kept our big ass noses out of the entire business. But this isn't always the case, and I have yet to see you post one that fits this scenario.

You're being the typical Monday morning quarterback. Its easy to sit here and judge the actions of the past, when you see the outcome of those actions from the present.

Also it would be a great pill of humility if a lot of us realized, we only know a tiny percentage of most of these stories being played out around the world in the last 100 years. As members of the none ruling party we're kept in the dark about most things. We only know what the heavily partisan new channels and media want us to know. Most of that is made up for "dramatic effect" and highly influenced by the current government and their relations with the media.

__________________
I had a cool signature

Magical Trevor

^
Yup.... this.

word sux

so far "lesser of two evils" is the best response I have heard but its the same thing I have been hearing over and over again


how about not getting involved or funding any foreign entity in the first place?


o and yes we supplied suharto with weapons at the peak of his atrocities. Yet we didn't take any action until 30 years later in the late 90's when we finally said enough is enough.

holemilk00

Because a completely closed government never last, it sets you up for failure as a country. Keynes theory of global economics and socialism has been tried and failed several times. Its impossible to be a part of a global economy like we live in today and not have a foreign policy and get involved around the world. Its like having a hardware store and not caring about anything around you. You're only going to sell what you can make in the back room. You don't care if the store down the street is having a sale, you don't care if your neighbor is getting robbed everyday, and you don't care if the guy across the street is making rocket fuel in a plastic container and it could blow up at any minute. How long do you think this little hardware store would be around? As shitty as it sounds that's the way the world works now because we living in a global economy, and have so since the turn of the century. If you aren't involved around the world, we won't be here for long. Its a tough pill to swallow but its the truth.

__________________
I had a cool signature

holemilk00

As for this, you mean everything I posted this is all you saw? Because I plainly said in this situation we should stay out of it. But that didn't work for your little rhetoric did it?

__________________
I had a cool signature

kingkilburn

It was our problem, broseph.

America and UK insisted upon sanctioning Japan and forcing them to keep a much smaller navy(in reaction to Russia getting their asses handed to them) out of fear of their growing power. Japan is a small place with little in the way of the natural resources need for industrialization. We blockaded them and forced them into a position of needing to use their military might to obtain even basic things like oil and wood.

I'm not excusing the horrific things they did but to act as if it was all unprovoked and didn't involve the US before pearl harbor is ignorant at best.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

kingkilburn

Not funding idiots that now have guns because we just bought them for them doesn't make us a closed off country. It makes us a responsible one. Let the Department of Defense DEFEND the country not reach out democracy people to death.

And FUCK the CIA. There have been and continue to have way too many programs that undermine the country that not even congress and the president know about. The US through the CIA nearly single handedly made the South American cocaine trade AND the heroin trade through Afghanistan and south east Asia.




I'll say it again. America needs to mind it's own damn business. We can't even handle our own affairs so why do we insist on handling every other countries?

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Corbic

The sanctions on oil where placed in response to their invasion of China. Yes, America was well aware Japan would either attack or before forced to give up on their dreams of Imperial domination and the genocide of all non-Japanese Asians.

They attacked Pearl Harbor and not the Philippians - that was the surprise.


On a personnel note, I find it rather reprehensible and morally disturbing that you are questioning the validity and actions of the US in regards to WW2. Most humanitarians argue the US did not react soon enough or harsh enough.

Do no you honestly not grasp that MILLIONS of people were being systematically murdered by the Japanese and Germans? Dragged out into pits to be bayoneted, shot or simply buried alive all for shits and giggles?

I find it not hard, but impossible to believe that you give a fuck about any Iraqi civilian death or any of this other righteous bullshit your spewing.

kingkilburn

I'll start with this, ACTUALLY READ THE FUCKING POST BEFORE CALLING SOME ONE REPREHENSIBLE AND MORALLY DISTURBED.

So America gets to be an imperial nation but no one else? We sure as hell went stomping all over the globe in search of resources and labor. And the sanctions came before Manchuria. They started immediately after the Russo-Japanese war.



P.S.
We funded the early NAZI party too, knowing full well their views on ethnic minorities.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

KA24DESOneThree

It is immoral for a government to coerce its citizens into paying taxes which are then used against the good of the country and are siphoned off to play world police. It is not the job of our government to protect the world; if you want to keep the peace, go be a mercenary.

It is immoral for a government to kill innocents regardless of their contributions to war effort; there was not much choice in a military-run, imperial Japan. How many of those killed were likely against the war effort and found every way not to contribute? Does that not matter? How many humanitarians deem the killing of innocents as collateral damage and shrug? What is your definition of innocent?

By your logic, which is unwilling to look at the citizens of a country as truly innocent or as truly independent, every single American is on the hook for the deaths of innocents by our military actions. Does that not mean that if we are attacked by these countries, we deserve it? After all, we haven't removed the warmongering politicians from office, haven't ceased doing business with the war profiteers, haven't ceased offering discounts to the military. You're heading down a slippery slope.

All of this exists in some sort of theoretical vacuum, by the way, where our country hasn't contributed to the collapse of multiple countries, funded "freedom fighters" who turned into terrorists, and generally stuck its nose where it doesn't belong for centuries to try and balance power where there can be no balance of power. We've been reaping what we've sown for centuries, and until we stop sowing the seeds of destruction, that's what we're going to get.

As an aside, I find it hilarious that pacifism is considered morally reprehensible and the obvious product of a disturbed mind.

Corbic

I am going to make the assumption that your post is entirely honest and sincere. In which case I am going to say you have very juvenile views of the world and geo politics.

In the grand scheme of things no one person or political party has any control over America. If Gore had been elected and 9/11 happened we would still have ended up in the “war on terrorism”. Some of the details would have changed but the overall story would remain the same. Regardless, Iraq and Afghanistan will be barely remembered as footnotes in American history. 4,000 people in a country of a 300 million are a drop in the bucket. The best comparison will be the Spanish American War. (Coincidentally was started under false pretenses but accomplished our goal of ridding European influences in the Western Hemisphere)

The US has major core objectives that no leader, regardless of political or ideological background can avoid. Our goal in many of our interactions with the world is not to actually “accomplish” a goal, but rather to prevent others from accomplishing their goals. Saddam represented a threat as he wanted to take dominance over the Middle East. If he could control the entire Gulf region he would then be able to dictate oil terms to the world. This was not in our best interest. Just like Afghanistan was harboring terrorists who wanted to lash out at America, again, not in our best interest.

We accomplished our goal by destabilizing both. So what if Iraq breaks into three federations in 5 years or Afghanistan never becomes a modern civilized country? The Middle East remains a collection of fractured governments and countries squabbling amongst themselves and competing to sell us oil.

Look at the former Yugoslavia. It had been in our interest to support the communist nation during the cold war to counter the Russians, but a unified (Serb lead) Yugoslavia with a collapsed economy, internal ethnic tensions and a powerful military was not a good situation in the 90’s post Soviet Union.

What resulted was a civil war that brought the attention of NATO and America to intervene, supporting the groups trying to succeed from Yugoslavia (Serbia). In the past Europe had supported the unification of the region. Today the region is now fractured and impoverished. The only thing that was accomplished was Serbia no longer has the ability to wage any sort of meaningful conflict and the rest of Europe can sleep easy at night.

You need to understand that the United States is so large, so powerful, that our goal is not always to win, nor does it need to be. Bosnia does not need to prosper or be happy for us to continue on. Also, as a global super power, no matter what the reaction the US makes we are going to have an impact. Even a choice of inaction would have had significant impact in Yugoslavia, so no matter what we did. However choosing to act or not act would have been of little consequence to the US, but for Yugoslavia either choice is a huge impact in their daily lives.

KA24DESOneThree

You have one of the most nationalistic views of US foreign policy I have ever seen typed.

Those actions, every one you posted, cost us money which could have been used in any number of ways. It's funny that a war for oil ended up being a war on oil, with US forces using hundreds of millions of gallons per year.

In addition, the US was never intended to go on the path of worldwide peacekeeping and meddling; in fact, we began as a nation dead-set on doing just the opposite. Through people advocating just what you are, the "greater good" as well as "stability" and lower prices through destabilizing countries and regimes, we lost our way and became the corrupt, morally bankrupt nation we now are. The "core objectives" you list are not the core objectives upon which the country was founded and illustrate the effect of weakness on a society unwilling to give people the respect they deserve.

The more people willing to accept the way things are, and the way things are set to be, the farther the US will fall. My idealism is heartfelt and I will never accept things the way they are; I never have. Our path is evil and we must change it.

kingkilburn

So you are saying that it is indeed ok for America to go around doing the very things you would demonize it's enemies for.

You are spouting off the status quo as if it is the only way for the world to operate. Anything made by man can be unmade by man and this habit of knowing what is best for others and enforcing that "knowledge" needs to be unmade.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Ghost240

Just adding fuel to the fire.

__________________
"Dare to bear the crown."
Illantic.com

kingkilburn

And of all those killed not a single one was ever more than a passing threat to America and most were no threat at all.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

Corbic

And you have the most nieve, juvenile and discounted views I've ever read.

The money it cost is insignificant, so are the lives. Any action one takes also has unforeseen consequences.

Read a book or two, you might learn something -

In the case of the US objectives - I'll cite "The Next 100 Years".

US Strategic Goals.

1: Complete Domination of North America by the US Army
2: Elimination of any threat to the US by any power in the Western Hemisphere
3:Complete control of all maritime approaches by the US Navy to preclude any possibility of invasion
4: Complete world domination of the worlds oceans to guarantee US safety and control of the worlds shipping trading system
5: Prevention of any other nations ability to rival US navel power.

I also hate to break it to you, America was born in war and has spent most of its time at war. It is who we are. One of the reasons we flourish is because we fight ware overseas. Europe was torn to pieces twice in the early 20th century while the US remained untouched.

So with all your belly aching - who is the model country/society? Who is a world savior that is truly "moral" and just? Who works only for the common good of the world?

China?
Russia?
Germany?
Turkey, Japan?