Reply With Quote
I gave bosnia as an example.
who hates reading. Exhibit A
Shaky definition of an empire.
Under this definition.. the Vatican, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, and possibly now India fall under this definition.
I gave bosnia as an example.
who hates reading. Exhibit A
You gave Bosnia as an example of an intervention you were against.
It is true that it is also an example of "humanitarian" intervention, ideologically speaking at least, but this ignores the realpolitical dimension of our action there, and you did not explicitly raise it in the context you cite now.
I appreciate your effort to unpack your comments, gtown. Sometimes they are not exactly clear to begin with.
Yeah I did, it's in the bold.
China, the Vatican, Saudi Arabia and India project military might worldwide? I was unaware of this. Can you give any support for this strange thesis?
You said, power. That can mean influence. You should make your statements a little more clearer.
Ex=example. Got it. I thought you were using a Latin preposition. The lack of a period threw me off.
Contextually, I used the word right after my question about US military bases worldwide. You ignored the frame to mount a captious semantic argument, as you often do.
Those are the only two? Are we to take it that you are otherwise 100% for US military interventions, wherever and whenever they have happened?
If so, you are undoubtedly a liberal interventionist, per my comment upstream.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-07-2010 at 04:00 AM.
True.
If we don't commit the type and number of forces necessary to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, plus whatever technical and civilian resources (i.e., soft power) are needed to sustain the civil society, we are stuck with a straight, notionally endless war of counterinsurgency, despite the noble intentions of our commanders.
Have we committed US forces and soft power adequate to the task?
Will we do so?
The answer would seem to be no.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-07-2010 at 03:09 AM.
Fact is, we cannot, are unwilling/unable, or cannot politically sustain the level of security required for civil society to thrive in Iraq or Afghanistan. The all-volunteer character of the military practically insures that we can't, and the political will to alter this limitation does not exist.
Neither does the political will exist to expand our foreign aid and assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan on the scale of the Marshall Plan.
What then are we to do, given that our commitments to security and civil assistance will never be up to snuff?
To say absolutely nothing of the fact that that our prolonged military presence is resented, both for being foreign and for propping up widely disliked, corrupt regimes.
War is perpetual. Everyone likes war. It keeps an ungody number of people employed in a countless number of fields. It projects power and keeps you on the top. The same reason that the alpha male routinely displays their authority in a pack of animals. They can nip any challengers in the bud before they get caught off-guard and keep an eye on things. Spread their influence, ideals, customs, thoughts, prejudices. Do it all under the guise of helping for bonus points.
You could write a book on why the most powerful will keep waging war; however some common sense quickly shows why it seems like it must occur.
Nothing will change until society becomes enlightened enough to shun all violence. People have waged war as long as they have organized, and they will probably continue to do so until their species is obliterated.
I doubt there is a conspiracy. People probably genuinely think their war is just for whatever reason. A million little justifications to hide the gruesome reality of war. Deep down though, people just project their instinctive aggression onto their nation.
Europe and friends are the pups nipping at the big dog. They'd do the same "global security" act to the world if they had the power. You could say that they already do through their military alliances with us.
Yes I was disappointed. I thought it was some cute gay way of saying the ass was not for exit only. I'm still waiting for some gays in here to stand up and let the peope of ST know they are gay.
It's not really pertinent here or in the other thread where you urged posters to declare their sexuality.
Why don't you start your own thread about it, instead of hijacking somebody else's? Again.
Don't be gay. Nobody is hijacking threads. You and Ignignokt are the only ones really talking in here and you asked me a questions and I answered it. In fact this is the second time I suggested it 2 years. I know you are gay, It's cool. Serioulsy. I really don't care. Watch me move on. You can have this thread all to your little self.
You seriously arent going to last long here, and thats tough to do at ST. Your blatant, outspoken hate for sexuals borders on the psychotic.
Its one thing to crack a gay joke or even declare that you dont agree with their lifestyle, but youre one ideologue away from spraying a Rainbow crowd with a submachine gun.
Youre either a self-hating closet or a seriously disturbed and petty soul not worth the air you breathe.
Either way, youre useless.
Why do you keep bringing it up if you really don't care?
It doesn't really bother me that you call me gay, and I doubt it would bother me much if I actually were gay. If I was gay, I'd just tell you, Jack. That you keep insisting I am is just weird.
Probably both.
Jack is a little too interested in learning who is gay.
I guess a message board is safer than public restrooms or parks.
I don't know what the obsession with pointing out what defines a conservative. When I think of the cramming down of throats, I think of Cuba, with money from SOviets, to overthrow as many central and south american govts as possible. The SOviets in every country they controlled. China, SE Asia, etc. I don't think creating an environment where people can vote is cramming something down their throat. Time and time again, it has proven beneficial to America and the world when a country's leaders are elected. The Rhineland would not have been in such a long peace time if not for America.
You know, I didnt really want to go further with this than I already did, but this made me
I have no clue why you guys think I hate gays. I mention gays and some guys go off half ed. I hear everything from "Jack is a gay hater, Jack is really gay, Jack is obsessed with gays, Jack will be kicked off because his take on gays, if you don't care about gays why do you mention it" etc, etc, etc...... Chill out peeps. It's going to be OKAY. I promise.
Again, I don't hate the gays. I said it would be interesting if people who are gay on ST would let us know when talking about gay issues in the political forum. You don't want to do this, thats cool. I said it once a few weeks ago and mention it again today for the 2nd time and this is what I get. Relax.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions