[Sakujo]

So China is better because they use military force nearby instead of farther away?

Where did this come from? That isn't at all what I said.

Iran has no right to a nuclear program until they can show some manner of stability and and ability to keep their arms out of the hands of the dangerous and the deranged. Thats the only guideline anyone should care about. Nuclear weapons are already the most likely reason humans will be wiped from the face of the earth, no need to rush towards a global suicide.

Iran has every right to a nuclear program. You can't legitimately force a country to hold off on infrastructure improvements solely because you're worried it Could create a problem for you later. As for nuclear weapons being a problem, why don't we disarm Israel, then, who has made nuclear threats against their enemies?

Israel is the only stable country in the entire area, its natural we support them. it gives us a base of operations in the area where the locale population isn't trying to get us killed. They've also made technical advances in medicine (as well as many other fields) that benefit to us. really, whats wrong with supporting a country that is actually doing us some good instead of trying to get us killed? It'd be a tremendous mistake to let them go under, for ourselves and the world.

This is a joke. Israel? Stable? Israel doing us good? I'm sorry, yes, we have a lot of business investments there, but beyond that, Israel does little for us besides offer a springboard into attacking and controlling the middle east, and that's Not a good thing considering who is in power. To separate religious discussion (By the way, most Zionists are secular), from questions of foreign affairs is to make the worst mistakes.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could talk fundamentalists into traveling a less violent path? I'm not opposed to trying, i just don't see it working.

I don't think we have tried it in earnest.

i do not approve of attempting to spread democracy by military means, but i do wholeheartedly support the use of overwhelming force to put down threats to our security. If they want to screw themselves up internally, to an extent, let em (lets try to keep genocide and the like to a minimum yes?). if they want to screw things up internationally, let em burn.

Very interesting words, there. Our attempts to spread democracy are considered an establishment of security via democratic process, it seems, by Cheney and the PNAC & Heritage Foundation. Of course, history shows them tobe wrong.

Furthermore, how would you define threats to our security? Economic threats? Threats of missile strikes, be they realistic or not? Threats of creating new weapons?

Why do we only have the right to make a strike, and not other countries? I ran has every reason to strike us right now, what with our running covert ops over there and trying to provoke an attack. Cheney is trying to engineer a cause for war, and this is no secret. The US and Israel have threatened Iran for years. Not only do they have a right to a nuclear program, but by your words they should have a right to making a pre-emptive strike.

Finally, what goes on inside of a country affects every country around them. Wars and crisis these days are rarely issues of country vs country or internal fighting. All wars these days affect not only the country in question, but also the countries around them, at minimum. Religion is one of the biggest instigators of war in history. It's incredibly important to address.

[marchosias]

Lemme be perfectly clear here. theres no good reason for any nuclear proliferation. it'd be just dandy to disarm everyone who has them, but since thats not going to happen i prefer to keep it isolated to its current locations and to prevent any further spread. nuclear energy is not necessary to the future development of Iran, so its not necessary that it be there.

i'm not concerned with being fair. fair is a luxury.

and im really, really not going to get into a debate about either religion or Israel here. it just never ends well. suffice to say that i believe i am correct in my assessment of Israel as an asset, and i don't think we're going to convince each other one way or the other, so i'll just move on.

as to China, then you suppose Tibet is being kept as part of the PRC how exactly?

ah the right to strike? interesting question actually. no one has that right. however, we have the ability, and as i am an American citizen, i prefer we keep it. Their are people and organizations out there that are dangerous to us. so i prefer we take them out early so they cause less damage to us. im not suggesting might makes right, i'm just a horrible cynic and i believe its a cruel, cruel world and i prefer the dying be other the other end of the equation. if my loyalties lay elsewhere it would be an entirely different matter, but i live where i live and thats it. its as simple as that.

realize i'm not a diehard conservative. im not a conservative at all. i don't think we have any god given right to meddle in others affairs, or any grand mission to spread democracy or Christianity or any of that rubbish. i go by marginal costs and marginal benefits. everything has its costs and benefits and in global politics they aren't confined to concrete economics. i support what i believe in the long term will net a greater benefit than cost to this nation. i'll leave it at that for now.

[Sakujo]

nuclear energy is not necessary to the future development of Iran, so its not necessary that it be there.

How convenient that you think you can declare that with certainty.

i'm not concerned with being fair.

That much is obvious.

as to China, then you suppose Tibet is being kept as part of the PRC how exactly?

Again, I never denied that China is using force in some parts of the world. However, their strength isn't coming through physical force in the majority of cases. The fact that China has such power Without using force all around the world is the point.

ah the right to strike? interesting question actually. no one has that right. however, we have the ability, and as i am an American citizen, i prefer we keep it. Their are people and organizations out there that are dangerous to us. so i prefer we take them out early so they cause less damage to us. im not suggesting might makes right, i'm just a horrible cynic and i believe its a cruel, cruel world and i prefer the dying be other the other end of the equation. if my loyalties lay elsewhere it would be an entirely different matter, but i live where i live and thats it. its as simple as that.

I understand that you aren't saying might makes right. Rather, you're saying that your loyalty makes right. This certainly isn't an uncommon sentiment. Of course, the point here is that war is going to exhaust us, cost lives, and could potentially be avoided. Especially in a world where the groups being fought no longer have a national identity, we can't keep trying to do everything with guns and bombs, even if people like you desire to.

realize i'm not a diehard conservative. im not a conservative at all. i don't think we have any god given right to meddle in others affairs, or any grand mission to spread democracy or Christianity or any of that rubbish. i go by marginal costs and marginal benefits. everything has its costs and benefits and in global politics they aren't confined to concrete economics. i support what i believe in the long term will net a greater benefit than cost to this nation. i'll leave it at that for now.

Yet you're not providing any evidence that military action is actually providing the greatest benefit to America. That's the problem.

[marchosias]

ya seem ta be missing the scope of the suggestion.

im not saying we flatten Iran. im sayin if we find a terrorist group in Iran, or wherever, we leave em a friendly 2000lb bomb on their doorstep. on the reactor, im sayin at most take out the reactor if they can't be pressured in other ways. airstrikes do not exhaust our military, and with our technical advantage run very low risk. efficiency mate, thats the goal. i don't want soldiers on the ground, thats messy.

i'm not saying diplomacy is wrong, that talkin is wrong; far from it, thats the ideal. the original topic asked if i thought we should be able to wander in ta other countries and take matters into our own hands. my response was yes, given a clear threat and a clear goal.

so mate, here is how thats the greatest benefit to the US of A. problem is dealt with at the cost of munitions and fuel, not lives. do you believe they could, ah, dislike us any more than they do now? nailing a reactor isn't going to make that happen, its been done before.

edit: ah and i didn't say loyalty made right, just that it was a basis for my opinion. still ain't right, but not everythin in the world can be dealt with by doing whats right.

[Sakujo]

im not saying we flatten Iran. im sayin if we find a terrorist group in Iran, or wherever, we leave em a friendly 2000lb bomb on their doorstep. on the reactor, im sayin at most take out the reactor if they can't be pressured in other ways. airstrikes do not exhaust our military, and with our technical advantage run very low risk. efficiency mate, thats the goal. i don't want soldiers on the ground, thats messy.

We shouldn't be going into other countries to get terrorist organizations unless it's necessary or we have co-operation with the local government. I also don't want to use troops but as a last result. Still, sometimes troops are more effective than airstrikes and the like.

i'm not saying diplomacy is wrong, that talkin is wrong; far from it, thats the ideal. the original topic asked if i thought we should be able to wander in ta other countries and take matters into our own hands. my response was yes, given a clear threat and a clear goal.

Clear threat? I suppose it depends on what you define as a clear threat, and how threatening it must be.

so mate, here is how thats the greatest benefit to the US of A. problem is dealt with at the cost of munitions and fuel, not lives. do you believe they could, ah, dislike us any more than they do now? nailing a reactor isn't going to make that happen, its been done before.

I have to laugh at how you used "they". Setting up a convenient dichotomy, eh? In any case, Yes, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the middle east in General could actually hate us, rather than be very pissed at some of our recent actions. You seem to be buying the media hype that the US is hated around the world. That's really not the case. Those who do hate the US, by the way, hate it for very legitimate reasons. One of those happens to be our military intervention and occupation policy.

edit: ah and i didn't say loyalty made right, just that it was a basis for my opinion. still ain't right, but not everythin in the world can be dealt with by doing whats right.

Here we get into semantics. Clearly we all strive to make the right decisions. What may seem right at one time may not seem right at another. There's never an excuse to do an action that is felt to be universally wrong or more wrong than other options.

[marchosias]

and heres the very clear split in our opinions. i think we should be going into other countries, or at least their airspace, with our without the cooperation of said country if they aren't willing to give it in order to hit targets attributed to terrorists. if the target is high enough priority we shouldn't even be looking for cooperation, depending on the country. theres as good a chance the information will be leaked as there is we'll get any help. also airstrikes are just as effective unless its an urban area, in which case admittedly specops troops can get the job done with less collateral damage. we're past the vietnam era, when our air force couldn't reach tunnels or buried bunkers. if it can be found, it can be removed with modern munitions.

A large portion of the middle east does hate us. if you prefer i can sub middle east for they, there wasn't any intentional undertones there, they is just shorter. my point there was that selective air strikes against defined targets really can't drop the general populous' opinion of us any further, and might even be considered a step up from sending an occupying army into the region as seems to be our present course of action. whether or not they hate us for legitimate reasons is inconsequential both to my conscience and my ideas, i had nothing to do with our national policy nor can i change the past; what i am expressing is an opinion of what i believe to be the best course of action in the future regarding our foreign policy in that region of the world, given the past and current circumstances. diplomacy still comes first in most cases, mind you, but military strikes have to remain an option in my opinion.

difference of opinion again. i believe that most of the time we all strive to make the decision that is best for ourselves. very, very few people strive to make the morally right decision all the time. we make decisions we consider less than morally optimal all the time. example. your last pay check, what did you do with it? fine thats a rather harsh example. over the course of your life, how much of your time and money have you spent helping the sick and poor of the world? maybe you're a better person than i think you are, but most people don't have a particularly flatterin answer. there may be no excuses, but thats just the way the world works.

[Sakujo]

The only thing I can say to you anymore is that you're living in a fantasy world. I know people who live in the middle east and watch a good amount of alternative news. I know a lot of the political intricacies here. I never said that we should absolutely remove military action from the table, but that it should be far back in our line of planning.

In sum, the middle eastern dislike of the US is a historically recent thing that I think we could rather easily turn around. What you're suggesting is only going to fuel more insurgents and hate of the US. It's bad foreign policy.

[H-Girl Jerri]

I really wish people would stop looking at history with rose colored glasses on. From the time of the Spanish/American war this country has been messing with others for it's own good. Like it or not it helped to keep the world together more than once. Like it or not this country is at it's best when we are messing with others. And with the rise of China as the next super power it's either we do it or they will.
However as far as a "pre-emptive" defense goes that's a load of crap. Defense would be taking out the air craft carriers before they attacked pearl harbor not carpet bombing Tokyo. If you want to stop terrorest them get them at the source don't pick a fight and hope they join in.

[denco]

Originally Posted by Archenix

Do you think that the U.S.A should keep out of other countrys, meaning that they shouldn't just barge into a country and claim war, and that they should just worry about themselves, and whats going on in there own country. What do you think? Do you think that either they should meddle in other countrys or stay in there own. I think that if they stayed out of Iraq we wouldn't of had such a loss of troops and same with the Iraqi people, and Afghani people. This is the place to talk about it.

yeah but how can??bush still need oil from iraq=_=,,,thats the reason,,,,hope obama can give change

[marchosias]

Originally Posted by Sakujo

The only thing I can say to you anymore is that you're living in a fantasy world. I know people who live in the middle east and watch a good amount of alternative news. I know a lot of the political intricacies here. I never said that we should absolutely remove military action from the table, but that it should be far back in our line of planning.

In sum, the middle eastern dislike of the US is a historically recent thing that I think we could rather easily turn around. What you're suggesting is only going to fuel more insurgents and hate of the US. It's bad foreign policy.

bloody hell mate, im not suggesting we go around the world bombing everything that moves. i'm suggesting we maintain the option to defend ourselves as a secondary measure to diplomacy, economic pressure and other non-military actions. all i'm saying is once, if, we get to the point where other options are out, we do indeed still have the both the ability and the will to carry through military strikes. the only time i recommend direct military action before exhausting other methods is in the case of nuclear/bio/chemical threats.

i know that not all the mideast hates us. two of my good friends from highschool are Iranian. my boss is Egyptian. their families are all still across the Atlantic. what i'm saying is that the general feeling of the US isn't exactly peachy over there, and that if it comes down to military action, limited strikes against specific targets are both our best course of action, as opposed to a full ground assault, and aren't going to hurt our standings drastically while still removing the threat.

short version, military action is a last resort but necessary option, and i favor airstrikes and specops over ground assaults. however, in the case of nuclear threats, military action gets a priority bump.

thats it. not kill everything, or bomb first and ask question later. just maintain a solid military contingency and be ready to use it. we're actually seem to be relatively on the same wavelength, except that i give military action a major priority bump in the face of nuclear(/bio/chem) threats.