Quote:
Originally Posted by
wallis
Governments are in it for themselves. Correct.
The difference in OUR government and Iran and China is that OUR government IS here to protect our way of life, NOT to give in to someone else's idealism.
Quote:
States and individuals that threaten our government and our way of life should be prevented from being able to change our government and way of life "in their own image." Correct.
Foreign governments who attempt to subvert our way of life should be destroyed.
Quote:
Destroy them? I strongly disagree. When any State or individual declares an ideology as superior to another, then that State or individual has stepped over the moral grounds in respecting the rights of other States or individuals.
And that's why you live in a foreign country. I have a close friend who was about as gung-ho military as they come. Then he moved to and lived in Germany for about 10 years. Last time I saw him he was touting the benefits of Marxism and how Obama (whom he voted for for this very reason) was the best thing to ever happen to America, because he could turn it into another Europe, which is GOOD for Americans..... This is a guy also with a clearance. He needs to have his security clearance YANKED and he needs to be fired.
Quote:
Sorry, but I do not see an overt intervention either by the PRC or Iran as to change or subvert the U.S. Covert? Of course!
There you go. Overt? Not at the moment. Will there be a "Red Dawn" scenario? Not NOW, no, but as soon as America is weakened to the point that such an event could be successful, you bet your American ass it will happen. Overtly.
Quote:
Yet, striking at the heart of one's adversary just because they are thinking of ruining my day is not the medium of influencing change in the hearts and minds of the adversary.
In the other thread you mentioned your studies, and I'm here to tell you if they were effective (your studies) then you would understand that certainly there is an adversarial relationship here and no overt military actions will occur unless and until a real threat has taken place.
China has been very careful not to "cash in" because if they DO then that is a direct and dangerous threat to the US economy and can be considered an act of war. Of course China knows we can vaporize them and they won't get in as many hits as we will thus they keep up the subtle spycraft, just as the Russians have NEVER STOPPED.
Quote:
Now, as to the U.S. mostly siding on the "good," I believe that you are wearing rose-colored glasses. Whose "good"? It has almost always been in the "good" for the U.S., not necessarily for the good of the people of another nation.
It's called the good of the people of the world, for freedom and the ability to elect governments, rather than be forced into a way of life as those people in Iran and the Middle East are.
That you have this idea we do NOT stand for Good is precisely why you are wrong all the time in your remarks. You are wrong to be an American living in a foreign country - YOU are the one who is wearing the rose-colored glasses for your own society, and you are the one who shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Quote:
Vietnam was a necessary war, but it was not necessarily fought for anyone's good. The U.S. entered Vietnam in order to create a unification of the three Allied divisions of Germany. Then power-hungry brokers saw a chance to enhance their pockets both financially and politically by exploiting the situation, dragging our government deeper into the quagmire.
Vietnam was an UNNECESSARY war - and in fact it was exactly the same situation we're in right now with the middle east that led up to that war. We've not put military advisors on the ground yet, but when we do Libya will turn into something similar.
Now... "power hungry brokers" would be.. who again? The French were in that war first. Not the US. The DEMOCRATS in our government fouled that up because they were trying to run the war in Congress. Instead of letting the military leaders do their job, with a CLEAR MISSION they let us lose.
Quote:
While we demonized Ho Chi Minh (remember the prevalent thinking and biased opinions of this period) we propped up a corrupt South Vietnamese government that had no chance of remaining in power or garnering support of the people. In retrospect, Ho Chi Minh had no hard-on for the U.S. or the West and would have most likely been willing to engage in dialogue. But, no, we backed him into a corner, and in a very Vietnamese style slapped us around silly for some 10 years: to what end?
Corrupt in your opinion... then again, every government appears corrupt to you, including our own. At least here in the US I don't have to BRIBE anyone to get my bloody pay check, or to travel from state to state, or even to fly out of the states.
Every country I've visited in the past 10 years has REQUIRED I leave a... "departure fee". There's nothing written, and Jamaica changes it depending on who is sitting at the glass booth when you leave, but you can't leave if you don't give them their little bribe.
All the countries I'm planning to visit in the next five years have a "cruising fee". If I stop, and drop my anchor there I have to check into customs (ok) and then immigration (not ok) because Immigration wants their money. And to get passed through in a "timely manner" (read Island time, so in 3 hours to a week) then I will have to "grease the palms" of perhaps as many as three or four officials).
Do I still want to visit? Yeah. But when I come back to the US, I don't have to PAY anyone to come into or leave the country, and neither do any of the other immigrants passing through. And they don't pay to leave.
Quote:
Vietnam's good was this: it stopped the slide of third world countries gravitating towards the Soviet Union. Finally, the U.S. was backing up its words with action. Third world nations took note and started cheering a little more for the U.S.
Maybe, but we didn't really "back up" much. We let a lot of good men die when it was unnecessary. Placing people into a situation and taking away their bullets is akin to murder. The Johnson administration was worse for it, and Congressmen and women that allowed it to continue under Nixon should still be tried for treason.
Quote:
Iraq-Iran. What good came out of the U.S.'s support for Iraq's side of this age-long conflict? Iran was the bad guy simply because they had taken our embassy hostage for more than a year and had decided to set up a theocracy. While we supported a maniaical dictator. Who was making "good"? It certainly wasn't the Iraqi or the Iranian people; but the arms-dealers were sure making good.
Good question that. I don't know. I don't know why we supported Saddam. To this day I think we should go in and kill every last person involved in the hostage taking in Iran. I want to see Nutjob dead myself. I spent a lot of time sitting in a fucking desert because of that guy (he was one of the hostage takers) and I think the Muslims deserve a good pounding over it as well. All of them. But that's me.
Quote:
Kuwait. Yep. There we did good.
Saudi Arabia. The Saudis played us real good.
And still are.
Quote:
Iran today? Mahmoud is a nut job, and the sooner he is taken to Allah's heaven, the better (IMO). But all this talk about taking him out is counter-productive to the end goal. Sure. It alleviates some tension by eliminating one devil; but then we now have an entire nation of hostile natives incensed at us (or the West collectively) when it was supposed to be their hand that removed the nut. They haven't eliminated him soon enough? Again, where is it written that the U.S. owns the time-table? What makes us or even our government so omniscient that it should know when is a good time to eliminate a leader or a government as well as understand all the ramifications in doing so?
Good questions. I'd prefer to kill him myself though. On my time line.
Quote:
Iran is definitely a boil in the world's backside. I would question why Iran should take a place further downstage than, say, North Korea? Is Iran more dangerous than North Korea? No. They have a nuclear weapon? BFD! I cannot believe that the whole world will suddenly shrivel like a shrinking violet because one more nuke is detonated over some sovereign state.
Between the two of them... the more dangerous is North Korea. They can get and use weapons, missiles better than Iran. However, they are supplying Iran with a good portion of it's missile systems and those systems are viable weapons. I know, I work for the Missile Defense Agency, I've seen the briefings. I know who our adversaries are and why we do what we do. I don't expect you, living in the Phillipines to have much of a true clue.
Quote:
Likewise with the PRC. It makes a move economically, and people cry out to slap its hand. What? Only the West and Japan are allowed to make economic moves? Suddenly, the move is seen as a kind of prosyletizing move on the PRC's part to spread its godless news of its form of communism, an enemy that has to be killed before it breeds.
The economic moves being made by China hurt the economics of the world... there's a difference.
Quote:
Problem: Al Quaida is a disease, but in the attempt to erradicate it, it breeds even greater in number. Why? You kill one member, and now you have the whole family up in arms against you. They take "eye-for-eye" quite seriously. We have backed ourselves into a corner where we are going to have to kill entire generations.
Then we need to take 10 eyes for one. Or one hundred. This Wallis is where the bullshit of Rules of Engagement come in. If attacked the military should obliterate a region. Everything that moves. Not be nice. Either the civilians learn to fucking leave, or die with the scum. Yes, I advocate killing them all.
When one American is killed by a terrorist or "combatant" then everything in the area better die. Everything. People, chickens, cows, dogs, fish. Kill it. Then salt the fucking earth so it don't grow back and then pass the word along that it will 100 times worse the next time, and 1000 times the area.
The killing WILL stop. After the first such attack.
Quote:
And it isn't just Al Quaida. It is any idea. Communism takes root in fertile ground where poverty is rife and injustice is norm. Religious extremism is just as likely to find fertile root. Capitalism comes along and offers the chance of bettering an individual. Forget freedom and equality and all that jazz, because that is not capitalism's parlayance. Capitalism is "every man for himself" and "the won who dies with the most toys wins!"
Which is why Americans need to STOP allowing Socialism to take root in the states.
Quote:
As a person who is destitute and oppresed, which system looks rosier? Capitalism, where you struggle against the many? or Communism, where the many struggle against the few?
lol. So feed the evil intent people have, take what they can, huh? LOL
Quote:
Sun Zhong Shan (Sun Yat-sen) defined the process of reaching a "perfect" state of capitalism. One must undergo a benevolent dictatorship to set things right. Interestingly, Pak Jun Hee or South Korea was able to luse his authoritarian power to launch South Korea into its world position today. Similarly, we have seen a transition of fundamentalistic communism in the PRC into a mixture of capitalism tempered by overarching communistic principles, the result of a grand experiment allowed by Deng Xiao Ping.
And while the PRC made hesitant forays into Capitalism, no one was cheering them. They were criticized for not making the changes fast enough. They were castigated for not opening up as "transparent" (laugh) as Western nations were. The West harangued the Chinese, where half a century ago were fair game for exploitation and domination by the West, for not going far enough and fast enough.
And the "good"? We merely solidified the Chinese people behind this new Chinese Great Wall of ideology. Look how long it has been to normalize relations and realize how many years have been wasted in clubbing each other over who's government is right.
Sit and wait? No. Using Sun Tzu's philosophy, one does not rush into battle simply because the bloodlust is present. One chooses the battleground; nay, one prepares the battleground.
Some here like to quote that Soviet line where they will lull the West into a defenseless sleep. If one can look deeply into such a public statement that was designed to raise the hackles of the West, and if one can discern the clever use of Sun Tzu's philosophy in doing so, then I have one additional question:
Why is it that with all the good intentions of the U.S., with the emphasis we place on learning Sun Tzu at our military academies, that the U.S. is consistently being wagged as the tail on the body of the dog? All the while, we think that we are wagging the tail, and with the use of certain trigger words (such as New World Order, Communism, even Iran and China), we come out of the trees, foaming at the mouth like so many Pavlov's dogs ready to kick and bury ass and take names later.
blah blah blah you're getting monotonous.