BF2S Forums Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate

Thank god you won't be either

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thank god you won't be either

Don't hold your breath...

FEOS you don't happen to be scumbag SNCO




at least theyre not as bad as butterbars

Take it easy, Francis. It's not like I said anything about doing anything in the next four years.

And I'm no more or less powerless than you are, Johnnyboy.

Ahh, I get it FEOS, your long term goal is to rank as high as you can and then become a defense industry lobbyist.

FEOS wrote:

Yeah, Jay. You've got it all figured out.

You're so much smarter than everyone else.

Am I getting under your skin? You know what set me off? It was your advocacy of using military force in order to open trade markets. I had hopes that neo-conservatism had finally died but you sadly showed otherwise.

I always respected you until you took that ridiculously awful stance.

Last edited by Jay (2011-12-11 07:06:16)

Because trade is a two-way street. By cutting off trade, both parties suffer. If wealth creation were a zero-sum enterprise, your world view would work, but it's not. Wealth isn't the accumulation of tangible resources like gold, or silver, or platinum. Wealth, by and large, is the summation of a nations human productivity. We have X number of people in our nation, producing Y number of goods, in Z hours. That's how wealth is created. Trade increases the productivity of both parties by allowing comparative advantage to come into play. It increases efficiency.

What you are advocating via 'big stick diplomacy' is the pre-Industrial 'let me pile up as much gold in my vault as possible because it makes me wealthy' attitude. It's been obsolete for over two hundred years. The British Empire didn't die because of the cost of WWI and WWII, it died because colonialism was a dead end for wealth generation. Just like in Soviet Russia, when you put a gun to someones head, they will produce only enough to avoid the bullet.

I would like for you to name one instance where US military intervention led to increased wealth at home.

FEOS wrote:

Are you on drugs?

Go back and re-read my post. I'm not advocating anything. I'm merely saying that there are circumstances--diplomatically--where it makes sense. Ideally, those circumstances are few and far between. In reality, they are not. Therefore, removing that option is nonsensical and weakens a nation's ability to negotiate diplomatically with some parties.

You are finding a position of advocacy on my part where none exists. I have no idea where or how you arrived at the conclusion you have--I have made none of those arguments.

No, it doesn't make sense FEOS. It doesn't make sense to run around the world interfering with other peoples governments. You are advocating colonialism. Please, enter the 21st century.

If people don't want to enter into trade negotiations with us, threatening them with war is not the answer, not even of last resort. It's their own loss.

Last edited by Jay (2011-12-11 07:53:33)

Shocking wrote:

I'm confused, what is this about?

Jay wrote:

If people don't want to enter into trade negotiations with us, threatening them with war is not the answer, not even of last resort. It's their own loss.

If it's this

I don't think that threatening war for trade would even work in today's world, nor has it been tried for obvious reasons.

FEOS, in another thread, was trying to justify the massive US military expenditures by saying that our diplomats need the might of the military in negotiations. If your arguments can't stand up without the threat of force, they aren't good arguments.

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I'm confused, what is this about?


If it's this

I don't think that threatening war for trade would even work in today's world, nor has it been tried for obvious reasons.

FEOS, in another thread, was trying to justify the massive US military expenditures by saying that our diplomats need the might of the military in negotiations. If your arguments can't stand up without the threat of force, they aren't good arguments.

That statement carries a great deal of ambiguity. If I were to put it in the context of talks with NK after the umpteenth (violent) border dispute, would you agree that 'big stick' diplomacy serves a purpose?

No, because NK is harmless, and we shouldn't be involved with them diplomatically in the first place. Let them rot for all I care. Sell weapons to South Korea and be done with the whole situation.

Shocking wrote:

Personal views aside, that's how big stick diplomacy works today.

When you should use military might as an argument in diplomacy is open for discussion, but not if you should use it - that's not realistic.  In a globalised world you can't ignore what's happening around you.

I disagree completely. Military should be defensive only, with plans for rapid mobilization in place, if necessary. If the next Saddam comes along and wants to invade the next Kuwait, it's not my problem unless I have outstanding defensive pacts that I have to honor.

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

unless I have outstanding defensive pacts that I have to honor.

It happens to be so that the US has quite a few of those. Many nations trust on your willingness to do much of the military stuff for them, it also allows you to have an important say in how the global economy should be run and by what rules nations ought to play. 'Every man for himself' is nicer on paper than it is in practice, on both national and international level. There's a reason why the wild west isn't around anymore, people prefer order over chaos for many obvious reasons.

Chaos is how we as a people get better. Order leads to stagnation and intellectual death.

I don't want to shoulder your countries military burden any longer. Fend for yourselves. Go to war with Belgium for all I care.

Shocking wrote:

I believe your issue with military intervention stems more from how the recent ones were conducted rather than the logic used for them.

Quite the opposite. I think the Iraq campaign was conducted well, even with the glaring mistake of assuming the population would welcome us with open arms and immediately transition to democracy without our military needing to serve as a police force. They missed the boat there.

Nope, my problem is with the invasion as a whole. We should not have gone there at all.

I want our military shrunk down to perhaps 100,000 people on active duty. I want the hawks to have their favorite toy taken away from them. They aren't god, they don't get to choose who lives and who dies from the safety of their living room.