Page 25 of 28 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
26
27
... LastLast
  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by Arantir View Post
    There's this little thing call NATO, please look it up and tell me why there would possibly be US presence there. Another thing, its called global reach.
    We have "global reach" without having bases established all over the world. That's why I specifically talked about naval and air superiority. We can still have this even without paying and maintaining the current model. We don't need troops in stone throw's length from anywhere in the world. This only makes the situation worse, and puts more US soldiers in harm's way. Instills more resentment to our occupation.

    Do 'some' people want US military bases everywhere? Yeah, the local merchants certainly want those American troops buying their stuff right outside the base. Spreading that American dollar around a bit more. At the same time, if there was local resistance to our presence there, would those same people defend us, physically or verbally, to the people who didn't want us there? Doubt it. Financial incentive only goes so far.

  2. #482
    I think I'd rather direct any disagreement and anger towards the government that's sending them there.

  3. #483
    1) The United States has never in its entire existence faced a foreign invasion of its own soil, unless you count the War of 1812. Certainly no US soldier in living memory has died defending any American freedoms. That doesn't mean those deployments weren't worthwhile though. I mean, they weren't, but that's a coincidence :P

    2) Terrorism is the use of violence in service of a political outcome so dubious if you could call spree killers that. Also they are not organised.

    3) On the other hand our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been a debacle and has done little to solve the long term problem of Middle Eastern/fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Possibly even made it worse. Hell, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, there's probably way more terrorists there now than there were before the invasion.

    4) Funny part is that the whole thing began as a response to 9/11, which was perpetrated by 19 guys - 15 Saudis, 2 from the UAE, 1 was Egyptian and 1 was Lebanese. Al Qaeda was run by Osama, another Saudi. Which is our ally in the war, and we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiralphoenix View Post
    Those shooters were mentally unstable people who just went off the deep end. There was no planning, probably very little thought involved. They had weapons, they wanted to hurt people, and probably wanted to become infamous. End of story. They didn't have a history of it, an organization behind them, etc. The military can't combat them, it doesn't make sense. It's not predictable enough or "big" enough to warrant military involvement. I can understand people disagreeing the reasons for why we are there, but the way you are putting it is just silly. Sure they cause "terror", but not in the sense in which that word was originally intended.
    Pretty much true, although I'd like to point out that all of those spree killers were better armed than the 9/11 hijackers, for example. They had nothing but box cutters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    1) The United States has never in its entire existence faced a foreign invasion of its own soil, unless you count the War of 1812. Certainly no US soldier in living memory has died defending any American freedoms. That doesn't mean those deployments weren't worthwhile though. I mean, they weren't, but that's a coincidence :P
    Does Pearl Harbor not count? I know it was Hawaii, and they never actually landed, but still.

    Not that I think your logic is entirely sound regardless. A US soldier doesn't need to die in US territory in order to be defending America's freedom. The soldiers fighting in World War I and II were doing so elsewhere before it could reach the United States.

  5. #485
    Pandaren Monk docterfreeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Finding a stranger in the alps.
    Posts
    1,900
    They aren't just fighting for the U.S, they are fighting for other countries too. What's stopping terrorists from flying a jet into Big Ben or bombing the Queen of England?

    You're welcome for the whole Osama kill, BTW

    Words to live by.

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by docterfreeze View Post
    What's stopping terrorists from flying a jet into Big Ben or bombing the Queen of England?
    Maybe ending the constant stream of reasons for them to do so?

  7. #487
    If you all read the OP, you would realize that the OP's problem lies not in all military members but those who are disillusioned with our purposes for having such an active military. I feel this is a legitimate complaint. If I'm understand the OP correctly, his/her problem lies with the people who seem to think we're doing the world good and defending freedom at home, not with those who enlist just to pay for college or to get a career.

    I think the OP does have a point. Sadly, main US policies over the last 1/2 century have set us on a path of perpetual war. We should not be in perpetual war. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial-complex. Our monetary policy is effecting people who us it. Many middle eastern countries use our dollars and simply do not want to. Saddam didn't and look what happened to him. Saudi Arabia meanwhile has a few rich families that tolerate us and everyone else who doesn't.

    Personally, I appreciate those willing to serve our country. I have no problem with members of our armed forces and part of me admires them. Unfortunately I have a huge problem with our foreign policy and our monetary policy. We are already in a situation where the enemy itself is "vague." It allows the government to do whatever it likes to whomever in the name of "National Defense." We cannot afford the military we have now. With no clear enemy, no declaration of war, and with no end in sight our liberties are in jeopardy at home. In other words, I don't think we're better off doing what we're doing now. Would we tolerate soldiers in our streets? We certainly shouldn't and I can't imagine other people do as well. When we force countries to use American Dollars they're being raped every day as we inflate it constantly and their savings dwindle. We also contract out work to American companies in Iraq and Afghanistan to whoever happens to have a buddy in political office.

    This constant state of war is profiting major corporations in America. We've come to accept that this war on terrorism is never going to end. We're also propagating hatred towers us through our actions. All it's going to take in the future is for a white non-muslim American to blow up something important and, in the name of the war on terror, we're going to see more surveillance on Americans, stricter gun laws, and targetted killings of Americans.

    God bless our soldiers, fuck these greedy politicians.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 11:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by docterfreeze View Post
    They aren't just fighting for the U.S, they are fighting for other countries too. What's stopping terrorists from flying a jet into Big Ben or bombing the Queen of England?

    You're welcome for the whole Osama kill, BTW
    The problem is monetary. Our American Dollar would collapse if foreign countries stopped using it. This would have drastic effects on our economy, mainly massive inflation. Sure you can bomb England but there isn't really any point. America will still be buddies with England, and nothing will really change.

    Despite killing 3000 Americans on 9/11, a compelling argument can be made that some of the people deciding our foreign and monetary policy are more corrupt and have indirectly killed many thousands more than Osama.

    On a side note, death by terrorism in America, even with 9/11, is an astronomically small chance.

  8. #488
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Quote Originally Posted by vindicatorx View Post
    Not that we "borrow" from them they bought as much of our foreign debt as they could.
    The government borrows money by issuing T-bills. By China buying up most of our T-bills they are in a way loaning the US money. If they would stop buying the T-bills we may just have to stop spending because we will no longer be able to "borrow" money.

    It is all fucking crazy. This video helped me understand it a little better, but it does not take into consideration that our debt is in a currency that we control. I am not sure exactly what needs to be done, but it can't continue.


  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    How exactly is China going to collect? They know full well that we can't pay them and they keep loaning us money because someone has to buy their shit. Codependency.
    That's exactly what I've said, if u read my previous quotes. Thanks for furthering my argument. If you want, I can post them here... Or you could read the forum instead of skimming over it. ~ I start talking about it on page 22.
    Last edited by Elemair; 2013-02-08 at 05:18 AM.

  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    The government borrows money by issuing T-bills. By China buying up most of our T-bills they are in a way loaning the US money. If they would stop buying the T-bills we may just have to stop spending because we will no longer be able to "borrow" money.
    Since T-bills are issued in US currency, if China ever decides to stop buying T-bills thus letting the US economy crash, they'll get royally fucked as well (since they own so many US T-bills).

    Every other successful country has become rich by selling some form of resource, whether actual (Middle East + oil; Canada + lumber, Australia + steel) or human (Japan + high end electronics, other countries + high tech manufacturing). The US doesn't produce much in the form of physical or human resources, yet we're stupid wealthy and almost every country's economy is tied to ours. Pure genius from whoever developed this system (probably government).

  11. #491
    It's people like the OP that makes me wish we have mandatory service commitments like some other countries. I've been in the military for 13+ years and while it's not all glory and air medals, I'm thankful for what our current and past vets have done for us. Learn some respect.

  12. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by StationaryHawk View Post
    Does Pearl Harbor not count? I know it was Hawaii, and they never actually landed, but still.
    Well Hawaii is a tiny island in the ocean half a world away from the US (and the only reason it was even a territory of the US is because of American commercial interests which lead to its effective annexation). And its naval facilities were bombed once, it was never invaded. So I think that's not even remotely in the same ballpark as an actual invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by StationaryHawk View Post
    Not that I think your logic is entirely sound regardless. A US soldier doesn't need to die in US territory in order to be defending America's freedom. The soldiers fighting in World War I and II were doing so elsewhere before it could reach the United States.
    I suppose you could argue that you're still defending freedoms in a foreign war if the foreign party has the capability and intent to invade and conquer the United States. I think the idea of the Japanese invading and conquering America is ludicrous though. So no I don't think any of the US soldiers who fought in WWII were fighting to defend your freedoms. Not that fighting the Axis forces wasn't a good deed. Nothing to do with American freedom though.

    As for WWI, the US was not even involved in it until the last year or so. Most of its reason for entry into the war was at least nominally in response to unrestricted marine warfare on the part of the Germans which resulted in American casualties on civilian ships such as the Lusitania. There was never the remotest threat of the US being conquered. None of the US soldiers who fought in WWI were fighting for American freedoms, no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  13. #493
    Herald of the Titans Lothaeryn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland, U.S.
    Posts
    2,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's more like, that's what they set out to do but they have no control over where they are sent. Are you going to blame the soldier for the actions of his commander when the soldier signed up in order to defend the country (even if that isn't what he is directed to do)?
    My sentiments exactly, I do not hate the Soldiers who fight to defend this country, in fact I respect their dedication and their sacrifice for a cause they believe is a just one. If not them, who would defend the meek of this country? No nation can be classified as a respectable state without a military presence to enforce their sovereignty, to be without an army is being as good as a town without walls, it will be invaded...

    My only hatred is towards the corrupt politicians and political machinations that force these brave souls to fight for causes that are unworthy of their efforts.
    And should he be a prophet of It's coming, he shall be cast out by his kin and his peers, for they cannot comprehend and fear the end of the corrupt empire. - Unknown, 3/1/2012
    I am Lothaeryn, Dragonborn of Nirn and Paladin of Azeroth. Hear my voice and tremble... Bask in my radiance and be inspired...
    For I am the Hand of Dawn, and justice shall be done by my shout and by my blade.

  14. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by Brasco View Post
    It's people like the OP that makes me wish we have mandatory service commitments like some other countries. I've been in the military for 13+ years and while it's not all glory and air medals, I'm thankful for what our current and past vets have done for us. Learn some respect.
    You want to fight alongside people who don't respect your institution or its goals and don't want to be there?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  15. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    You want to fight alongside people who don't respect your institution or its goals and don't want to be there?
    No, I think walking a mile in their shoes would change their minds.

  16. #496
    Fighting terrorists in some countries while supporting them in others is not a fight aimed at freedom and world stability for sure.
    The Mists of Pandaria coming on September 25

  17. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    Are you just posting this to insult serving members of the forces or veterans that visit this forum?
    This.

    Also the OP defines defense far too narrowly too. He may define defense that narrowly. Our enemies don't. Defending our interests is defense of the country. They are one and the same.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 06:28 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethas View Post
    Fighting terrorists in some countries while supporting them in others is not a fight aimed at freedom and world stability for sure.
    So you regret our funding of the Afghan Mujihadeen which broke the back of the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s, delivering upon the USSR a gangrenous wound that made Vietnam look like a mere slap to the face?

    The consistency you seek is unrealistic and also undesirable. Every situation is different. If the goal of the Grand Strategy requires internal contradictions, that's entirely acceptable.

  18. #498
    Soldiers fight for what they believe it. Even if they are often mislead by their superiors, they still believe that they're fighting for their country. I cannot say I support the war, and I cannot say I support ALL of the soldiers. I have had far too many people who I know join the Marines because, "they want to kill some sand monkeys". Though I can say that I fully support anyone who fights for what they believe in.

  19. #499
    Bloodsail Admiral soulcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    A Black Land of Sorcery and Nameless Horror
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    So you regret our funding of the Afghan Mujihadeen which broke the back of the Soviet Red Army in the 1980s, delivering upon the USSR a gangrenous wound that made Vietnam look like a mere slap to the face? .
    and then the West go and make the same mistake just like the Russians did? Id guess he's talking about arming the al queada jihadist terrorists in Syria whilst killing them elsewhere. The operations in Mali and Algeria are a direct result of meddling in Libya. Iraq is now a largely broken dysfunctional country and so on.

  20. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by Nos View Post
    Again, this is just /so/ much easier than drilling more here.
    Yes. Far more easy. You do not have to deal with environmental regulation, law suits will never happen, huge surplus of workers to exploit. The cost of doing business is not even beared by your company but the gov't whose officials you have bought already. So, why the hell do anyone think it is cheaper to drill oil here? Seriously, can anyone explain this to me?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •