Difference between white republican and taliban member?

[BRP]

in before 'who paid for their guns in the 80s?'

It was acceptable in the '80s. Leaders change, sides change, if they were allies at the time, then it was cool.

Some would argue that an interventionist foreign policy is never acceptable.

Oh, whoever could that be?

Maybe History?

I was just making a joke about his avatar and sig. Pretty obvious who he meant!
I believe this is where I say "Wooosh"

[Septimus]

[quote=BRP]

in before 'who paid for their guns in the 80s?'

It was acceptable in the '80s. Leaders change, sides change, if they were allies at the time, then it was cool.

Some would argue that an interventionist foreign policy is never acceptable.

Oh, whoever could that be?

Maybe History?

I was just making a joke about his avatar and sig. Pretty obvious who he meant!
I believe this is where I say "Wooosh"[/quote:1v9yq7xh]

I think that our interventionist foreign policy from the 80's coming back to bite us in the ass in 2001 may be a better example.

[Beckwin]

Difference between white republican and taliban member?

One won't meet you in the airport restroom for a good time.

*ba-dump ching*

[Stumblingdrunk]

Difference between white republican and taliban member?

One won't meet you in the airport restroom for a good time.

*ba-dump ching*

what? i just have a wide stance

[Khamsin]

in before 'who paid for their guns in the 80s?'

It was acceptable in the '80s. Leaders change, sides change, if they were allies at the time, then it was cool.

Some would argue that an interventionist foreign policy is never acceptable.

Oh, whoever could that be?

Maybe History?

We had an interventionist foreign policy in the '40s, and that worked pretty well. And to think, not long before that, everyone was opposed to getting involved in foreign conflicts.

[pohibaba]

We had an interventionist foreign policy in the '40s, and that worked pretty well. And to think, not long before that, everyone was opposed to getting involved in foreign conflicts.

Because of course there's no difference at all in declaring war against factions who attack your country and selling guns to terrorists. Nope, no difference at all.

[Egon]

No such thing as a conservative from Michigan.

[Khamsin]

We had an interventionist foreign policy in the '40s, and that worked pretty well. And to think, not long before that, everyone was opposed to getting involved in foreign conflicts.

Because of course there's no difference at all in declaring war against factions who attack your country and selling guns to terrorists. Nope, no difference at all.

*Terrorists doing your bidding.

But either way, it was meant to refute:

Some would argue that an interventionist foreign policy is never acceptable.

as there are clearly cases where it would be acceptable, and advised. Aside from direct attacks on your homeland, what about assisting allies? What about our duty to the UN?

[pohibaba]

as there are clearly cases where it would be acceptable, and advised. Aside from direct attacks on your homeland, what about assisting allies? What about our duty to the UN?

Entangling ourselves with "allies" and getting our young people killed for them is never advisable. The Founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear that they'd be carelessly used. They were right.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

as there are clearly cases where it would be acceptable, and advised. Aside from direct attacks on your homeland, what about assisting allies? What about our duty to the UN?

Entangling ourselves with "allies" and getting our young people killed for them is never advisable. The Founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear that they'd be carelessly used. They were right.

They weren't opposed to standing armies. They just thought there should be civilian leadership of the armed forces because of previous armed forces taking over government.

[Khamsin]

as there are clearly cases where it would be acceptable, and advised. Aside from direct attacks on your homeland, what about assisting allies? What about our duty to the UN?

Entangling ourselves with "allies" and getting our young people killed for them is never advisable. The Founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear that they'd be carelessly used. They were right.

So having no allies and no standing army would be the best position to be in, and would enable us to maintain our status in the world?

[pohibaba]

as there are clearly cases where it would be acceptable, and advised. Aside from direct attacks on your homeland, what about assisting allies? What about our duty to the UN?

Entangling ourselves with "allies" and getting our young people killed for them is never advisable. The Founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear that they'd be carelessly used. They were right.

So having no allies and no standing army would be the best position to be in, and would enable us to maintain our status in the world?

Of course, having economic allies is important to America as a whole. Does this mean that we need to order our youth to the death to protect these allies? We have a choice: Be a superpower or continue to have an all-volunteer army. Personally, I choose the latter.

Edit:

They weren't opposed to standing armies. They just thought there should be civilian leadership of the armed forces because of previous armed forces taking over government.

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson

"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." -- Luther Martin

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army,
the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry

"[The King of Great Britain] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power... For protecting them, by mock trial,
from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states ... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses...."
-- Declaration of Independence

[Khamsin]

Of course, having economic allies is important to America as a whole. Does this mean that we need to order our youth to the death to protect these allies? We have a choice: Be a superpower or continue to have an all-volunteer army. Personally, I choose the latter.

Even if it's an all-volunteer standing army?

[pohibaba]

Of course, having economic allies is important to America as a whole. Does this mean that we need to order our youth to the death to protect these allies? We have a choice: Be a superpower or continue to have an all-volunteer army. Personally, I choose the latter.

Even if it's an all-volunteer standing army?

The Iraq Conflict has pretty much proven that an all-volunteer army does not have the resources to maintain an extended conflict. We're society simply has too many other choices for middle-class/wealthy kids for us to remain a super power without conscription. And seriously, would it be that bad of a fate for America for us to focus on our domestic problems rather than be the world's policemen?

[Ushallbeasgods]

Of course, having economic allies is important to America as a whole. Does this mean that we need to order our youth to the death to protect these allies? We have a choice: Be a superpower or continue to have an all-volunteer army. Personally, I choose the latter.

Even if it's an all-volunteer standing army?

The Iraq Conflict has pretty much proven that an all-volunteer army does not have the resources to maintain an extended conflict. We're society simply has too many other choices for middle-class/wealthy kids for us to remain a super power without conscription. And seriously, would it be that bad of a fate for America for us to focus on our domestic problems rather than be the world's policemen?

I hate people who take protectionist stances. You are so narrow sighted no offense meant of course. The world is interconnected now. You can't just choose to ignore the worlds problems and hope they go away. Globalization has made this world more global than it has ever been with some even arguing that the concept of nation-states do not exist, and that borders do not exist.

A crash of the Asian markets will affect the American markets... likewise American economic problems (see: credit crunch) are effecting the economies of the rest of the world.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Of course, having economic allies is important to America as a whole. Does this mean that we need to order our youth to the death to protect these allies? We have a choice: Be a superpower or continue to have an all-volunteer army. Personally, I choose the latter.

Even if it's an all-volunteer standing army?

The Iraq Conflict has pretty much proven that an all-volunteer army does not have the resources to maintain an extended conflict. We're society simply has too many other choices for middle-class/wealthy kids for us to remain a super power without conscription. And seriously, would it be that bad of a fate for America for us to focus on our domestic problems rather than be the world's policemen?

Go turn on the news (CNN, NBC, etc), go listen to the democratic candidates. Notice something? They aren't talking about the Iraq war. That means the surge is working and were winning in Iraq. And at the beginning it was a failure of policy, not our military.

Edit:

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson

"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." -- Luther Martin

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army,
the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry

"[The King of Great Britain] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power... For protecting them, by mock trial,
from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states ... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury, For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses...."
-- Declaration of Independence

Most of those are justifications for the people's rights to bear arms. If the framers were against a standing army they would not have provided for it in the constitution. If however, some were against a standing army, I'm sure they still felt it necessary, as it appears with that first quote with Jefferson.

[Septimus]

Go turn on the news (CNN, NBC, etc), go listen to the democratic candidates. Notice something? They aren't talking about the Iraq war. That means the surge is working and were winning in Iraq. And at the beginning it was a failure of policy, not our military.

And when the surge is over? It will go back to the same old clusterfuck it was before. Or are we going to force our "volunteer" solders to stay over there for 30-40 years until we get the job done?

[archibaldcrane]

Go turn on the news (CNN, NBC, etc), go listen to the democratic candidates. Notice something? They aren't talking about the Iraq war. That means the surge is working and were winning in Iraq. And at the beginning it was a failure of policy, not our military.

Just because we can do something, even if it ends up working, doesn't mean we should.

Iraq is going to be a mess for a long time, and until the pumps start pumping and massive wealth gets shifted to the people's betterment (after filtering through war-profiteering corporations) it will continue to be very bad.

[Khamsin]

Just because we can do something, even if it ends up working, doesn't mean we should.

Unless it improves our nation or some of those living within it, of course.

And before anyone gets all hyperbolic with me and says "What if we conquered Canada, that'd improve our nation, does that mean it's good?", that wouldn't be good because if we did that, the rest of the world would react negatively in such a way that could not be managed, and in the end, tip the scales against us. Therefore, it'd be a short-term improvement with very negative long-term consequences. People would go World War III on our asses.

In a world like ours, you have to play your cards right and recognize the value in allies and public image, as well as flex your economic and military might in order to stay where you want to be. So you are right, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should, especially if it negatively affects our power and influence in the world through loss of support, key allies, economic or military power, etc. However, if the negative attention we get for it is insignificant or is outweighed by the long-term benefits, then by all means, we most definitely should do it.

[archibaldcrane]

Just for the record, that post was specifically about the Iraq war - I'm not an isolationist. Iraq could sprout beautiful flowers everywhere and sunshine and rainbows could start flowing from the assholes of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds everywhere, but it still wouldn't be worth the loss of life of 3900+ american soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.