Lol that would be to good for the defence deparments budget reveiw now would it?Spark wrote:
It'll be difficult to find a source.
I mean, the Defence Dept. is hardly going to go round shouting 'THERE AIN'T ANY AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ AS FAR AS WE KNOW'.
Spark u a conversation stopper after your post it seems that no one is intersted in replying... hmmm interesting...
Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII, went on to become American president from 1953–1961. He used his farewell address to the nation - his final speech as president before becoming a private citizen - to warn the nation about the growing, dangerous influence of the weapons industry, or the "military industrial complex". From his speech:|BFC|Icenflame wrote:
All Americans out there what are your views on the War are you freeing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you think your government has alterior motives?
Everything he warned about has come true. Bush is pwned by the military-industrial complex. Cheney is part of the military-industrial complex. The weapons industry needs to secure their margins and meet their revenue targets, and the best way to do that is through long-term engagement abroad.A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Such an engagement must be justified. 9/11 happened, and made us all blood-thirsty for revenge, giving the Bush administration carte blanche to do anything they wanted, and so they took advantage of the emotionally-charged environment in a number of ways. One was naming an absolutely horrible and damaging piece of legislation as "The USA Patriot Act" to get it rammed through the senate. Another was convincing the American public that we should use American forces to invade Iraq, and that Iraq was somehow part of the War on Terror and linked to Al Qaida.
History is littered with examples of warring nations that won plenty of battles but who lost the war. The most poignant is this case is the American Revolutionary War. British forces held Boston, New York City, and Charleston - the three most important cities in America. They won the vast majority of battles, but ultimately lost the war. The tide of opinion in America went strongly against Great Britain. Here was the fatherland, forcing Americans to yield to the majesty of the crown at bayonet point. As a British historian said, "You win but you don't take control of the territory, and you don't take control of the population... you don't have their hearts and minds. You can kill their soldiers, but your victories don't convince. People go on disliking you."
Clearly, it is a lesson that American administrations and military forces did not learn or have choose to avoid, first in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld are fond of smirking at press conferences and saying "these things take time". Yet in Afghanistan, by many accounts, the Taliban is now even more powerful than before. Judging from this track record, I have zero faith in this administration's committment to change.
The administration would have us believe that they are fighting for freedom and democracy. It's clear that this is just not true. You mention Africa, and it is a fair indictment. If we were actually committed to establishing freedom and democracy above all else, our administration would be doing a hell of a lot more around the world - militarily, politically, economically, diplomatically.
America had the world on her side after 9/11, but the actions of the Bush administration have burned through the entirety of this goodwill.
Meanwhile, as you can see in these forums, a great number of Americans have been blindfolded by the flag.
A lot of them help tie their own knots each morning.
CameronPoe wrote:
This is going to become a MASSIVE flame war. I can feel it in my bones. It's good to have an African perspective. I may post views later on.
Sadly my country is following the footsteps of other past failed superpowers. Butting our noses into matters that do no concern us; causing hatred towards us and our way of life.
As an American.........I feel that if we really want to promote democracy around the world then we would lead by example. What made U.S.A. great was our ability to have a democratic society (actually a republic), that was self sustaining and did not force our will on the rest of the world. Can you imagine what would have happened if Europe, France, or any other nation of power at that time would have stuck there nose into our business during our civil war??
Iraq.......what a joke. We have no idea why we went there at all (at least the public doesn't). The Iraqi people were suppose to toss roses in the streets right? Wrong. Yeah yeah......Saddam was a bad guy.......whatever, I don't see us running into North Korea do you? We only enter conflicts that we believe we have something to gain, not that we believe is morally right. I love to hear people talking about "Freeing the Iraqi people". What have we freed them from? They have a puppet government that they do not respect and more people die now in Iraq then before. Not to mention they seem to be on the brink of civil war
Our "We Know Best" attitude will only in the long run turn the entire world against us and open the door for #2 to step in and take our place
As an American.........I feel that if we really want to promote democracy around the world then we would lead by example. What made U.S.A. great was our ability to have a democratic society (actually a republic), that was self sustaining and did not force our will on the rest of the world. Can you imagine what would have happened if Europe, France, or any other nation of power at that time would have stuck there nose into our business during our civil war??
Iraq.......what a joke. We have no idea why we went there at all (at least the public doesn't). The Iraqi people were suppose to toss roses in the streets right? Wrong. Yeah yeah......Saddam was a bad guy.......whatever, I don't see us running into North Korea do you? We only enter conflicts that we believe we have something to gain, not that we believe is morally right. I love to hear people talking about "Freeing the Iraqi people". What have we freed them from? They have a puppet government that they do not respect and more people die now in Iraq then before. Not to mention they seem to be on the brink of civil war
Our "We Know Best" attitude will only in the long run turn the entire world against us and open the door for #2 to step in and take our place
Here is a crazy idea. Why didn't yours ? Sit back and point why don't you.Bertster7 wrote:
People always go on about Saddam killing Kurds, but if that were a reason for invasion why didn't the US do something about it at the time.
Has there been a major attack on US soil since 9/11 ?Jusster wrote:
Iraq.......what a joke. We have no idea why we went there at all (at least the public doesn't).
They are being fought in their backyards, not ours. Look at the recent foiled plot in the UK there has to be some degree of success.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-10 13:39:48)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well I posted this in an ignored thread, which may be pertinent to discussion.
I agree with the statement in the last paragraph of this article:
"It would undermine the wisespread and increasingly corrosive suspicion in the region that Washington's democracy agenda is a cover for an Israeli-inspired plan to spread chaos in the Arab world, so as to break up Arab states and neuter their threat to Israel. And it would finally demonstrate that the United States is committed to spreading liberty, even in the face of great adversity."
Meaning - we are trying to help as long as you don't kill us first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/opini … ref=slogin
I agree with the statement in the last paragraph of this article:
"It would undermine the wisespread and increasingly corrosive suspicion in the region that Washington's democracy agenda is a cover for an Israeli-inspired plan to spread chaos in the Arab world, so as to break up Arab states and neuter their threat to Israel. And it would finally demonstrate that the United States is committed to spreading liberty, even in the face of great adversity."
Meaning - we are trying to help as long as you don't kill us first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/opini … ref=slogin
North Korea thus far hasn't invaded any neighboring countries that in turn asked us for help, you have to handle each situation as it comes. As for it not being profitable, a foot hold in the Koreas would be a great asset to the US/UK (the only 2 countries that seem to remember NATO anymore), geographically, economically, not to mention what is suspected to be the world's second largest oil reserve not too far away between it and taiwan (a little closer to taiwan i think). Here you are crying foul over military intervention (after a diplomatic approach was attempted) in one theater and crying foul because it hasn't happened yet in another, which do you want?Jusster wrote:
Sadly my country is following the footsteps of other past failed superpowers. Butting our noses into matters that do no concern us; causing hatred towards us and our way of life.
As an American.........I feel that if we really want to promote democracy around the world then we would lead by example. What made U.S.A. great was our ability to have a democratic society (actually a republic), that was self sustaining and did not force our will on the rest of the world. Can you imagine what would have happened if Europe, France, or any other nation of power at that time would have stuck there nose into our business during our civil war??
Iraq.......what a joke. We have no idea why we went there at all (at least the public doesn't). The Iraqi people were suppose to toss roses in the streets right? Wrong. Yeah yeah......Saddam was a bad guy.......whatever, I don't see us running into North Korea do you? We only enter conflicts that we believe we have something to gain, not that we believe is morally right. I love to hear people talking about "Freeing the Iraqi people". What have we freed them from? They have a puppet government that they do not respect and more people die now in Iraq then before. Not to mention they seem to be on the brink of civil war
Our "We Know Best" attitude will only in the long run turn the entire world against us and open the door for #2 to step in and take our place
Ok, here's a hypothetical.
Back in WW2, things were just starting to heat up. Germany has just invaded Poland.
Aliens above are watching this and saying, WOW, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people will die in this war. What do they do? They invade Europe and Japan. They tell Germany exactly how it should respect and love the planet Mars for saving their ass from years of war and millions of death. They tell Japan that they were saved from a terrible fate, too. Meanwhile, America is not the superpower we like to think of it today, and to make a long story short, world history is rewritten forever because Aliens thought it was their business to save humans from themselves.
What's my point? Yeah, life sucks, and sometimes you have to let bad things happen. It's how humans evolve. It's how we learn. Why didn't we liberate the USSR? Because people have to fight and learn the truth for themselves. Yeah, sure, it's cruel, but do you reall think that nuking Moscow after WW2 then invading would save more lives than were lost? Hell no, we'd have a generation of suicidal neo-Communists pissed at the US and the capitalistic west for murdering thousands of innocents and wouldn't stop fighting us until their whole country was dead. We let the USSR crumble, yes, many people died, but the lasting effect was an example of how the USSR sucked and ultimately the US was better. Silent peace always works better than violent force. Am I saying that we abandon all hope and never give any aid whatsoever? Hell no. Just don't invade a country, tell them how to run it, and tell them who's right and who's wrong. It's up to them to decide. And it's up to them to decide their own fate.
Back in WW2, things were just starting to heat up. Germany has just invaded Poland.
Aliens above are watching this and saying, WOW, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people will die in this war. What do they do? They invade Europe and Japan. They tell Germany exactly how it should respect and love the planet Mars for saving their ass from years of war and millions of death. They tell Japan that they were saved from a terrible fate, too. Meanwhile, America is not the superpower we like to think of it today, and to make a long story short, world history is rewritten forever because Aliens thought it was their business to save humans from themselves.
What's my point? Yeah, life sucks, and sometimes you have to let bad things happen. It's how humans evolve. It's how we learn. Why didn't we liberate the USSR? Because people have to fight and learn the truth for themselves. Yeah, sure, it's cruel, but do you reall think that nuking Moscow after WW2 then invading would save more lives than were lost? Hell no, we'd have a generation of suicidal neo-Communists pissed at the US and the capitalistic west for murdering thousands of innocents and wouldn't stop fighting us until their whole country was dead. We let the USSR crumble, yes, many people died, but the lasting effect was an example of how the USSR sucked and ultimately the US was better. Silent peace always works better than violent force. Am I saying that we abandon all hope and never give any aid whatsoever? Hell no. Just don't invade a country, tell them how to run it, and tell them who's right and who's wrong. It's up to them to decide. And it's up to them to decide their own fate.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-10 17:49:46)
Ok..........what does that have to do with Iraq? So your telling me we went there to stop terrorism? Was that the weapons of mass destruction that we never found? Or is it now because we are Freeing the Iraqi people? Thank God there hasn't been another attack but as kr@cker points out they are definitely trying now more then ever. Seems to me we are doing a GREAT job of breading moreKmarion wrote:
Has there been a major attack on US soil since 9/11 ?
They are being fought in their backyards, not ours. Look at the recent foiled plot in the UK there has to be some degree of success.
No North Korea hasn't invaded any countries, but I'd say they are a greater threat to our security then Iraq was. We already took care of the problem didn't we during the first gulf war? We made Saddam what is was in the first place. He probably thought he had our blessings to invade Kuwait sense we had his back for all the other B.S. he would do. We gave him the weapons he used on his own people, and turned our backs while he did it. Iraq was only a fraction of the strength it was before the first golf war. When we invaded that country Saddam didn't even position his military for an attack. Not that it would have made a difference, they were crippled to begin with.Now all of a sudden we run in there in the sake of "National Security" to stop terrorist. Where are these terrorist we stopped in Iraq? Alqada in Iraq didn't start til after we got there. And by the way, no one asked us to go back. The U.N. who made the resolutions didn't even want to take the course of action that we chose.kr@cker wrote:
North Korea thus far hasn't invaded any neighboring countries that in turn asked us for help, you have to handle each situation as it comes. As for it not being profitable, a foot hold in the Korea's would be a great asset to the US/UK (the only 2 countries that seem to remember NATO anymore), geographically, economically, not to mention what is suspected to be the world's second largest oil reserve not too far away between it and taiwan (a little closer to taiwan i think). Here you are crying foul over military intervention (after a diplomatic approach was attempted) in one theater and crying foul because it hasn't happened yet in another, which do you want?
The amount of money and man power it would cost us to fight North Korea would be insane. Much stiffer opposition would mean a long war. Do you really think that we can sustain to win the war? We didn't do it the first time what makes you think it would be different now?
Your point about me crying foul is neither here nor there, what theater did I cry foul about us entering? I don't think we should enter either one. My comment was strictly to state the fact that if we really cared about national security or freeing people under a dictatorship..........why not go there? Because its not about that at all
Jusster
Last edited by Jusster (2006-08-10 21:04:06)
Agreed Spearhead
Jusster
Jusster
you read wrong history books, no one won cold war US had nuclear missles pointed at USSR and other way around when they decided that it was really insane Russia, Cuba backed out for sanity reasons. Fact is both countries are fucked up for having nuclear warheads.Spearhead wrote:
Ok, here's a hypothetical.
Back in WW2, things were just starting to heat up. Germany has just invaded Poland.
Aliens above are watching this and saying, WOW, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people will die in this war. What do they do? They invade Europe and Japan. They tell Germany exactly how it should respect and love the planet Mars for saving their ass from years of war and millions of death. They tell Japan that they were saved from a terrible fate, too. Meanwhile, America is not the superpower we like to think of it today, and to make a long story short, world history is rewritten forever because Aliens thought it was their business to save humans from themselves.
What's my point? Yeah, life sucks, and sometimes you have to let bad things happen. It's how humans evolve. It's how we learn. Why didn't we liberate the USSR? Because people have to fight and learn the truth for themselves. Yeah, sure, it's cruel, but do you reall think that nuking Moscow after WW2 then invading would save more lives than were lost? Hell no, we'd have a generation of suicidal neo-Communists pissed at the US and the capitalistic west for murdering thousands of innocents and wouldn't stop fighting us until their whole country was dead. We let the USSR crumble, yes, many people died, but the lasting effect was an example of how the USSR sucked and ultimately the US was better. Silent peace always works better than violent force. Am I saying that we abandon all hope and never give any aid whatsoever? Hell no. Just don't invade a country, tell them how to run it, and tell them who's right and who's wrong. It's up to them to decide. And it's up to them to decide their own fate.
Huh?kr@cker wrote:
a foot hold in the Koreas would be a great asset to the US/UK (the only 2 countries that seem to remember NATO anymore), geographically, economically, not to mention what is suspected to be the world's second largest oil reserve not too far away between it and taiwan
Do the 37,000 American troops stationed in country, not to mention the massive Yongsan US Army base smack dab in the middle of Seoul, not count as a foothold in Korea? I'm confused.
I meant an undisputed foothold not offset by the presence of lil kim's troops in the north acting as sort of a buffer zone for china, which brings up a good point. What's up with China? Now that I think about it they've been relatively quiet news-wise. At least nothing compared to what they were in the 90's and early 00's. The occasional stink regarding trade deficits and something once in a while concerning North Korea, but none of the brash statements regarding western nations, news about people being politically persecuted or the head butting with the Russians like they used to. I do understand that they've been lightening up on the economic freedoms, but aren't they still banning words on the internet and musical acts and such? I'll need to dig it up.
I don't understand what you're talking about. We've had troops stationed since the Korean War. Our presence there has, for 50 years, been a great asset in terms of economy and geopolitical positioning.kr@cker wrote:
I meant an undisputed foothold not offset by the presence of lil kim's troops in the north acting as sort of a buffer zone for china, which brings up a good point. What's up with China? Now that I think about it they've been relatively quiet news-wise. At least nothing compared to what they were in the 90's and early 00's. The occasional stink regarding trade deficits and something once in a while concerning North Korea, but none of the brash statements regarding western nations, news about people being politically persecuted or the head butting with the Russians like they used to. I do understand that they've been lightening up on the economic freedoms, but aren't they still banning words on the internet and musical acts and such? I'll need to dig it up.
But you say that what we need is a "undisputed foothold not offset by the presence of lil kim's troops in the north acting as sort of a buffer zone for china" because "a foot hold in the Koreas would be a great asset to the US/UK geographically, economically".
Who disputes our current foothold in Korea? If your answer is North Korea, then how does the fact that they don't like our presence in the south do anything to affect our economic and geopolitical goals in the region? In fact, isn't it in our best interests to ensure that North Korea stays there? With North Korea gone, we would have zero justification for maintaining our presence on the peninsula.
My thoughts are the people of America need to exercise their right to throw out the current government & put up a new one in its place but that will never happen because most of the people are pacified & told what to think by the TV.
If there is to be true change then the people have to take an interest in their government, & do something instead of talk.
In a way I think they mean to do good but there are definite ulterior motives in their actions which are usually misunderstood by most.
This post has an excellent view from both sides without being biased http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=38927
If there is to be true change then the people have to take an interest in their government, & do something instead of talk.
In a way I think they mean to do good but there are definite ulterior motives in their actions which are usually misunderstood by most.
This post has an excellent view from both sides without being biased http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=38927
Well we do have a habit of setting up shop in nations that were once our enemies, like japan, which is now a pretty close ally. If there were a military incursion into NK, we would end up with bases there. It wasn't so much to say that we don't have a military presence there now, but more could always be better. Mostly though it was all just hypothetical "what ifs" in regards to someone stating that the only reason we haven't gone into NK was that there's no economical gain from it. As I mentioned, China isn't even acting in a threatening manner to the west anymore and has become more and more co-operative. As things stand now, excepting a real threat/security breach like a missile test overflying Japanese airspace or actually making it to Hawaii as the last one was allegedly was supposed to, I see no reason for such shenanigans.
Are you miss quoting me to wiggle your way out? Juss curiouskr@cker wrote:
Mostly though it was all just hypothetical "what ifs" in regards to someone stating that the only reason we haven't gone into NK was that there's no economical gain from it.
Jusster
wiggle my way out of what?
and why would you enter a conflict if you thought you had something to lose from it anyway?
I'm sorry but I took this to mean economically as most of the critics on here claim economic gain from Iraqi oil as the only reason we went in.Jusster wrote:
We only enter conflicts that we believe we have something to gain
and why would you enter a conflict if you thought you had something to lose from it anyway?
My point was that if we entered into war with Iraq for the "Moral reasons", then why not enter North Korea, China, and too many African countries to mention. I don't believe we should enter any of them. Let them handle there own affairs. We have enough to deal with at home.kr@cker wrote:
wiggle my way out of what?I'm sorry but I took this to mean economically as most of the critics on here claim economic gain from Iraqi oil as the only reason we went in.Jusster wrote:
We only enter conflicts that we believe we have something to gain
and why would you enter a conflict if you thought you had something to lose from it anyway?
Well you could enter a conflict without looking for something to gain..........because its the right thing to do or you are threatened in some sort of way. For instance, when we were pulled into WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Last edited by Jusster (2006-08-11 08:03:51)
uh dude. When did I ever say that happened? It's generally assumed that the US came out on top, because, uh, the USSR is no longer in existence. I don't know what you're trying to sayFat guy in speedos wrote:
you read wrong history books, no one won cold war US had nuclear missles pointed at USSR and other way around when they decided that it was really insane Russia, Cuba backed out for sanity reasons. Fact is both countries are fucked up for having nuclear warheads.Spearhead wrote:
Ok, here's a hypothetical.
Back in WW2, things were just starting to heat up. Germany has just invaded Poland.
Aliens above are watching this and saying, WOW, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people will die in this war. What do they do? They invade Europe and Japan. They tell Germany exactly how it should respect and love the planet Mars for saving their ass from years of war and millions of death. They tell Japan that they were saved from a terrible fate, too. Meanwhile, America is not the superpower we like to think of it today, and to make a long story short, world history is rewritten forever because Aliens thought it was their business to save humans from themselves.
What's my point? Yeah, life sucks, and sometimes you have to let bad things happen. It's how humans evolve. It's how we learn. Why didn't we liberate the USSR? Because people have to fight and learn the truth for themselves. Yeah, sure, it's cruel, but do you reall think that nuking Moscow after WW2 then invading would save more lives than were lost? Hell no, we'd have a generation of suicidal neo-Communists pissed at the US and the capitalistic west for murdering thousands of innocents and wouldn't stop fighting us until their whole country was dead. We let the USSR crumble, yes, many people died, but the lasting effect was an example of how the USSR sucked and ultimately the US was better. Silent peace always works better than violent force. Am I saying that we abandon all hope and never give any aid whatsoever? Hell no. Just don't invade a country, tell them how to run it, and tell them who's right and who's wrong. It's up to them to decide. And it's up to them to decide their own fate.
The last part was referring to Iraq. If that's what you were wondering about
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-08-11 16:29:56)
well guys thanks for not turning this into a huge flame war I have just gone through the all the posts and everyone makes a brilliant point... this was a great and calm discussion thank you all people involved...
We all tried our bests not to get to ahead of ourselves and considered each point carefully... there is hope for the world
We all tried our bests not to get to ahead of ourselves and considered each point carefully... there is hope for the world
is imperialism the correct term? I thought in order for a country to be imperialist it had to seek to permanently control/occupy others, not just oust a dictator and split.
Modern imperialism is not like that at all these days. One needn't occupy a country militarily - just hold the client nations government to ransom and economically rape the country (through monopolisation of its markets, resources, etc.) and make sure you exert and maintain the most influence on said nation. Of course military intervention helps you set up said nation for the kind of 'new colonialism' of which I speak. The country can be left in a mess, as long as you have the relevant groundwork for 'new colonisation' completed.kr@cker wrote:
is imperialism the correct term? I thought in order for a country to be imperialist it had to seek to permanently control/occupy others, not just oust a dictator and split.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-17 06:52:25)
Post brought back from the dead...
Xbone Stormsurgezz