Happy Atheist Forum

It’s time to challenge America’s approach to foreign policy. It’s time to heed Eisenhower’s warning and dismantle the military-industrial complex.

The problem of having a huge military budget is the temptation to use the military far too often. Let’s take a look at US military involvement in the 20th century:

• Philippine-American War (1899â€"1913)
• Boxer Rebellion (1900)
• Panamanian Revolution (1903)
• Second U.S. occupation of Cuba (1906â€"1909)
• Tampico Affair & Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico (1914)
• Invasion of Haiti (1915-1934)
• Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916â€"1924)
• Pancho Villa Expedition (1916â€"1917)
• World War I (1917â€"1918)
• Polar Bear Expedition (Russian Civil War) (1918â€"1919)
• Spanish Civil War (1936â€"1938)
• World War II (1941â€"1945)
• Korean War (1950â€"1953)
• Jayuya Uprising - Puerto Rico (1950)
• Vietnam War (1964â€"1975}
• Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965)
• Mayagüez Incident (1975)
• Operation Eagle Claw (1980)
• Gulf of Sidra Incidents (1981, 1989)
• Lebanon Peacekeeping (1982â€"1984)
• Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) (1983)
• Libyan Patrol Boats (Jan-Mar 1986)
• Operation El Dorado Canyon (15 April 1986)
• Operation Earnest Will (1987â€"1988)
• Operation Prime Chance (1987â€"1988)
• Operation Praying Mantis (1988)
• Operation Golden Pheasant (1988)
• USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 (1988)
• Operation Just Cause (Panama) (1989)
• Persian Gulf War (1990â€"1991)
• Somali Civil War (1992-1995)
• Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti) (1994)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (as member of IFOR and SFOR peacekeeping forces, 1995â€")
• Operation Infinite Reach (strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, 1998)
• Operation Allied Force (Kosovo War, NATO operations, 1999)
• Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) (2001â€")
• Operation Iraqi Freedom (Second Persian Gulf War) (2003â€")
• Liberian peacekeeping (Liberia) (2003)
• Haiti Rebellion (2004)

Covert operations, coups, military advisors etc:
• Greek Civil War (1946-1949)
• Operation Ajax (Iran, 1951â€"1953)
• Operation PBSUCCESS (Guatemala, 1954)
• Bay of Pigs Invasion (Cuba, 1961)
• The Cuban Project, also known as Operation Mongoose (Cuba, 1961â€"1962)
• Brazilian Military Coup (Brazil 1964)
• Secret War (Cambodia-Laos, 1962â€"1975)
• Chilean Coup (Chile, 1973)
• Argentine Military Coup (Argentina, 1976)
• Operation Condor (Latin America, 1960sâ€"1970s)
• Mujahideen vs. USSR (Afghanistan, 1979â€"1989)
• Contras (Nicaragua, 1980s)
• El Salvador (1981-1992)
• Pentagon-contracted advisors to Croatia prior to Operation Storm (1994)

Let’s get one thing straight, right from the beginning. I am not suggesting that we weep over the history we have wrought, nor do I see the US as a force for evil in the world. For the most part, I think our motives have been more on the side of angels, though a lot of our methods have not. However, the history of the world is complex, and what may have been ok in the past must be analyzed on a continuing basis. With hindsight, we can see the big problem with military action as a primary tool of foreign policy…unintended consequences.

Yep, who would have thought we would still be reaping the harvest of our overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, and the installation of our own hand-picked dictator, Shah Pahlavi? Yet, 29 years later the shah was overthrown by a rebellious and resentful populace, albeit one taken advantage of by Islamic extremists. Our embassy was stormed and overtaken at that time, and our relations severed with Iran…and still are. As a result, we encouraged and supported the military efforts by Saddam Hussein in launching a war against Iran, a war that lasted almost a decade, cost a million lives, and decimated the economies of both nations.

History does not happen in a vacuum. Seemingly unrelated events have historical consequences. After Iran was forced to a ceasefire, largely by US military pressure in the Gulf in 1988, and Hussein was humiliated in the eyes of the Arab world, in danger of a military coup, and desperate to resurrect his image and power…Sadaam Hussein set his sights on Kuwait, eventually leading to US involvement in the first Gulf war, and to our present circumstances in the Mideast.

…unintended consequences. Let’s get to the subject of this rant…a new approach to foreign policy.

It should be clear to most people by now that America can’t control world events through military force and the imposition of political will. If it isn’t, let me give you three major reasons we can’t:

1. We can’t afford it. Diverting resources to the military-industrial establishment will eventually turn the US into a 2nd world country. The 20th century may have been “America’s Century”, but the world is changing rapidly. If America does not get serious about solving the growing internal problems of our nation, and plowing the necessary resources into solutions for education, environment, health, and combating the deteriorating social construct, we will eventually reach the same outcome militarily; reduction due to lack of resources. If you were a political leader in an allied country, would you pony up for higher military expenses if you knew you could count on the US to always be there? Of course not, and that is exactly what has happened over the past 60 years.

2. America has lost support and respect throughout the world, and no longer speaks with moral authority. Because of the lies and deception of the Bush leadership, world opinion has plummeted ever since we launched a preemptive war against Iraq, with little support from the rest of the world. Remembering the Iran example, we have no idea of the consequences we will face down the road. One thing we can be sure of though, we have motivated Islamic fundamentalists, and radically increased the number of people willing to consider us as an enemy. The number of terrorists has increased dramatically since we launched our “war on terrorism”. Btw, have you ever analyzed what “terrorism” is? It is a method of warfare that has been employed throughout history, with great success, by those that are unable or unwilling to field a formal military. My next rant will delve into “terrorism” and explain why it is impossible to have a war on a “method” of warfare, but only upon defined individuals, groups, or countries.

3. Proliferation of nuclear technology and the resulting weapons is inevitable. Nine countries presently possess nuclear weapons. The total number outside of US control is approximately 17,000. The dirty little secret is that nations do not control nuclear weapons technology, people do. As has been demonstrated time and time again, there is no way of preventing people from sharing scientific knowledge, either for monetary gain, political advantage, or ideology. Did you really think nuclear weapons technology was spontaneously developed by all of these countries in the last half of the 20th century? Nope, it was individuals sharing for the reasons listed. Additionally, the technology for biological and chemical weapons is much more readily available than nuclear technology…for now.


This third reason is the critical argument for a new approach to foreign policy…we need to approach the rapidly approaching future as a world community, gathering as many sane people as possible to ward off the looming threat. We need to stop trying to impose our will on our friends and enemies, and become a real example of what a republic can be. We need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past. We need to be a leader in the world community and not a rogue state.

America must lead by example. We need a compact, reduced military to be used for defensive purposes only. We need to set a stage for a new, cooperative world effort to minimize the dangers of future technological advances. Let’s stop creating enemies, and start cultivating friends in the world.

I yearn for a world without borders, for a world without war. This will not happen in my lifetime, but it can happen...with will, reason, and common sense.

Quote from: "chris"America must lead by example. We need a compact, reduced military to be used for defensive purposes only. We need to set a stage for a new, cooperative world effort to minimize the dangers of future technological advances. Let’s stop creating enemies, and start cultivating friends in the world.

I yearn for a world without borders, for a world without war. This will not happen in my lifetime, but it can happen...with will, reason, and common sense.

I agree...great post

What a synopsis of world events in which the USA has been involved! Your ideas are well thought out and generous in a time that is dominated by personal greed and power grabs---exactly what we don't need now. Unfortunately those in charge put their own interests first and convince the rest of us that it is good for us all. I hope you are right and that uncommon sense will prevail ---but I will not hold my breath! Civilization would be great in your view.

Quote from: "epi406"I hope you are right and that uncommon sense will prevail ---but I will not hold my breath! Civilization would be great in your view.

Thanks, epi. I know it's tough, but don't lose hope. If you take an historical view of events, we really have progressed as a species...although it is often a process of two steps forward, and one step back. However, I do believe technological advancement now requires us to abandon some concepts of "containment", in favor of a unified approach to world problems. If not you, who? I am from another generation...the youth of today must take that torch and run with it. (pardon the cliche. Wink )

QuoteWe need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past.

Thank goodness you're not crafting foreign policy for any nation.  Sunshine, flowers and puppy dogs.. uh huh.  How do you propose we come to the table and negotiate with:

Hezbollah
Hamas
Al-Qaeda
Abu Nidal
Abu Sayyaf
Al-Aqsa
Ansar Al-Islam
Ansar al-Sunnah
Asbat al-Ansar  
Aum Shinrikyo
Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna
Batasuna
Revolutionary People's Liberation
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Ellalan Force
Epanastatiki Organosi 17 Noemvri
Gama'a al-Islamiyya
Harakat ul-Mujahidin
Harakat ul-Ansar
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jaish Ansar Al-Islam
Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad
Jemaah Islamiya Organization
Jund Al-Islam
Kahane Chai
Khuddam-ul-Islam
Kongra-Gel
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
Lashkar-e-Toiba
Lashkar i Jhangvi
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
al-Mansoorian
The Mujahedin-e Khalq
Palestinian Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi
PKK
Sangillan Force
Shining Path
Talaa'al-Fateh
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn
Tehrik ul-Furqaan

Negotiation is NOT AN OPTION they exercise.  I know it's hard for you to understand this unwaiverable stance but they don't give two shits about PEACE with you or anyone else for that matter.  If you don't believe me I'll gladly provide you with pronouncements from many of these groups.  This is just a short list of many "terrorist" organizations which inhabit this earth.  They are comitted to your destruction and to the destruction of all western civility.  They wish for NO PEACE and are proud to state as much.  They have no fear of their own deaths or of sacrifice for their cause.  Please...enlighten us as to how you would deal with these groups by negotiation.  How would you have negotiated with the Third Reich.

Israel is a wonderful example of a country trying to negotiate with terrorists.  Even when you give them what they want it's never enough.  Israel agreed to EVERY demand that Arfat made, EVERY ONE, yet what do we see today????  What did it gain them??? Palestine refused to sign the peace treaty even though Israel agree to each and every demand.  They got NOTHING.  Oh no...wait...they have been subjected to incessant suicide bombing for the last 10 years.  Thanks, but no thanks.

That's the problem in this debate...most people are quick to dole out the criticisms but unable to offer viable alternatives.  This is not the classroom or the land of theory.  Ideas are great but results are better.

(Update:  Looks as if Israel has been reading my post and his about to drop the proverbial sh@t hammer on Hezobollah...L'shalom be'koach yasher koach!)

If Scott Adams' assumptions about the future of war and radical Islamic terrorism are correct, we're all in big trouble.  "Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" kind of trouble.


Link (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/07/is_the_religion.html)

None of the "organizations" iplaw listed can be reasoned with.  They will not negotiate.  Plain and simple, they want us dead.  The situation in the Middle East is only going to get worse and the longer our troops stay, the more likely they are to die.

I think our money would be better spent developing ways to protect ourselves against these insane people.  And we should stop buying their oil.

I agree, but we simply cannot stand by and watch attrocities like Darfur and Somalia happen as the world has and be content to just protect ourselves; that seems evil.  It pisses me off to no end to see that no one is addressing that issue.  Iraq, I am split on.  I think the war was justified but poorly managed, but that doesn't absolve our duties elsewhere.  Where would we be if we ignored Hitler and proceeded down a merely nationalist path?  Hitler would have built the bomb and conquered Europe; not a pretty thought.  Nuclear proliferation is another topic that I agree with Chris exists, but don't agree with his solution.  Most of the countries seeking to possess these weapons will only be stopped by US intervention.  France, Germany, China and Russia simply don't seem to care if N.K. or Iran get the bomb!  We simply cannot allow certain countries to obtain those weapons.

QuoteI think our money would be better spent developing ways to protect ourselves against these insane people. And we should stop buying their oil.

Hear! Hear!

Quote from: "iplaw"I agree, but we simply cannot stand by and watch attrocities like Darfur and Somalia happen as the world has and be content to just protect ourselves; that seems evil.  

I agree, we shouldn't let the rest of the world fend for themselves and focus solely on our nation.  That would be wrong on many levels.  But we only have so many resources to share with the world.  I think our government should pay more attention to what's going on within our own borders.

Like the flight attendants always say:

QuoteIf you are seated next to someone who might need some assistance..., you should put your own mask on first, then breathe normally as you assist the other person. That way, if the other struggles, you will have a steady flow of oxygen as you fight the person to get their mask on.

(cute analogy, huh?)

I agree with you, iplaw

have you seen the website listed below?  scroll down the page for the real-time clock depicting the cost of the iraq war.

http://www.projectbillboard.org/ (http://www.projectbillboard.org/)

On a lighter note:
AMERICANS. Wipe out the Iraqi insurgency by simply joining their side. With your 'friendly fire' tactics, the war should be over in days.

Ok, Ok!  It was just a joke!  Lighten up.   It wasn't my creation, by the way, it came from the website below, which i think is quite funny.  If you care to look at it, once on the website, click on the 'top-tips' section towards the bottom right of the page, for more readers' top tips.

I said it was a joke, didn't I?   Lighten up, already!

http://www.viz.co.uk/ (http://www.viz.co.uk/)

MommaSquid you are right.  Balance should always be goal and defense of our own borders should be on par with any international action.  To think that islamic fundamentalists haven't crossed our borders is narrow minded.  Unfortunately, when we try and protect our borders we get called ractist and bigots.  When we attempt to fend off terrorist actions within it's called an illegal abridgement of our rights.  There are some segments of this society name the ACLU who would never give their blessing to any corrective action, no matter how minor, taken within to discover and sift out even the evil within our own borders waitiing for an opportune moment to inflict damage.  Damned if we do, double damned if we don't.  Our PC mindset will be our undoing.  I don't often condone extreme behavior but we may eventually find ourselves in need of a modern day General Pershing.

http://mysite.verizon.net/jialpert/Poli ... rshing.htm (http://mysite.verizon.net/jialpert/Politics/Pershing.htm)

Iplaw, I hardly know how to respond to you.  We should not negotiate with any of the groups you named, nor was it suggested.  Obviously, you have a limited understanding of history, or you would know that there have always been groups such as these.  The problem I was addressing was how we engage "countries" in the world, and how we have micro-mismanaged ourselves into precarious positions everywhere.  You can't stop nuclear and other types of proliferation through force, but only by building strong alliances. Our foreign policy has increased our vulnerability, not reduced it.

First of all.  Don't talk down to me and tell me I don't understand history because I don't agree with your insane summation of US geopolitical strategy.  Face it, people will disagree with you and their disagreements have little or nothing to do with a lack of historical context.

Quotebuilding strong alliances

That was the jist of my response.  With whom do we build these wonderful alliances?  France, China, Russian, Iran?  Maybe you can tell me who?  Countries like France who state that Iran is a STABILIZING force in the middle east?  Maybe the countless Near and Middle East countries who seek our destruction, along with any other nation who opposes their brand of Islam?  How about Russia?  Probably not since they are blatantly aiding Iran and North Korea in their pursuits of nuclear technology?  Maybe China?  I think you can answer that one on your own.   You can't complain about the status quo without a real solution.  Big talk, little action.

QuoteOur foreign policy has increased our vulnerability, not reduced it.

Our foregin policy illuminates humanitarian and military issues worldwide and demands that those issues be dealt with and not swept under the table like so many other countries in this world wish would happen.  We don't stand by idly by and watch people get slaughtered, WWII taught us that lesson.  

We also don't let wackjob regimes gain power while the rest of the world world eats cheese and drinks wine pretending like nothing is going on, because when it comes down to it we get to clean up the mess.  No thanks, I'd rather deal with the cancer at stage I befor it spreads.

Frankly, I don't really care if you consider it "talking down to you".  I meant it.  You list a number of groups, the vast majority are local in nature, and use that as a justification.  By that logic, all of the "terrorist" groups", and there have been a lot of them, that have existed in the US at various times, would be justification for outside intervention.  Secondly, apparently you are under the mistaken impression that we only negotiate with those countries that agree with us.  That is in complete contradiction to the history of the post WWII era, hence...your limited understanding of history.

QuoteBy that logic, all of the "terrorist" groups", and there have been a lot of them, that have existed in the US at various times, would be justification for outside intervention.

Name another terrorist group inside the US who committed mass murder of our citizens within our borders that we failed to deal with; that's the difference oh great one.  It just happens to be that Al-Qaeda is tied, even if tacitly, to most if not all of the groups I listed.

QuoteSecondly, apparently you are under the mistaken impression that we only negotiate with those countries that agree with us.

Apparently you think these countries just "disagree" with us, that's the main flaw in your logic.  Consensus, truce or peace is not their goal, our elimination is.  



Again.  Please Mr. Superior Intellectual History Buff, please enlighten me as to how YOU would craft our foreign policy and who YOU would negotiate with.  Back up your assertions with actual ideas or shut your yapper.  I have a feeling that you are like every other liberal politician or historian who misunderstands the current geopolitical climate and is hopelessly short-sighted and wants to deal with the world according your set of rules which 90% of the world doesn't acknowledge or hold themselves to.  Our greatest enemies are not interested in discussion, but that won't stop you from talking.  Lemme guess, you're gonna suggest that the UN should deal with it...

Nah, no need.  I think I'll just sit back and chuckle.  I have better things to do than to teach you remedial history.  You have a self-imposed view of the world that is myopic at best, and completely blind at worst...impossible to cure without major surgery, I'm afraid.  Let's just hope there are not too many like-minded creative historians and diplomats such as yourself, or this world is destined to be blown to smithereens. ta ta

Yeah, you're right.  You've proven yourself to be a real intellectual titan.  Best to run away than to debate.  You're a drive-by pseudo-intellectual who makes statements and doesn't care to debate others when challenged on those statements.

If my ideas are such easy pickins you should have no problem refuting my error and laying out a coherent plan based upon your superior understanding of the material.  Nice copout; next time don't start a thread without backing up your assertions or fully expect to get summarily bounced.

This thread should be deleted for your lack of ability to debate, but if you manage to find your spine I'm ready to address any topic you throw out.

Quote from: "iplaw"I agree, but we simply cannot stand by and watch attrocities like Darfur and Somalia happen as the world has and be content to just protect ourselves; that seems evil.  It pisses me off to no end to see that no one is addressing that issue.  Iraq, I am split on.  I think the war was justified but poorly managed, but that doesn't absolve our duties elsewhere.  Where would we be if we ignored Hitler and proceeded down a merely nationalist path?  Hitler would have built the bomb and conquered Europe; not a pretty thought.  Nuclear proliferation is another topic that I agree with Chris exists, but don't agree with his solution.  Most of the countries seeking to possess these weapons will only be stopped by US intervention.  France, Germany, China and Russia simply don't seem to care if N.K. or Iran get the bomb!  We simply cannot allow certain countries to obtain those weapons.

I agree with you totally on that, iplaw

Chris wrote: "I yearn for a world without borders, for a world without war. This will not happen in my lifetime, but it can happen...with will, reason, and common sense."

Most reasonable people yearn for that, but I don't think it can happen, as there will always be rogue elements seeking their own selfish agenda as long as man rules on the earth.  I agree with most people on this forum regarding this, that religion will always play a largely negative role in continuing this strife between man.

Iplaw, if I had not run into your type so often when I was younger, perhaps I would debate...but obviously it would be pointless.  You chose to ignore all of the examples in the orginal essay, choosing instead to pull isolated quotes.  You avoided the two major themes altogether; 1.  Attempting to control world events through force has proven to be a misguided illusion.  Historical examples abound; one given in detail.  2.  We have lost sight of diplomacy.  Reagan's greatest strength was a willingess to talk with the enemy, no matter how despicable.  If we do not "create" allies, then we will be overrun by non-state terrorists.  I have read your other posts.  If I thought it possible to educate you, I would attempt to do so.  It is not.  I shall not.  I am done.

Nice try, but your gutless appeals to your perceived flawless intelligence and supposition that I should bow to you because of your age are pathetic.  Debate or go home.

Your "essay" if you can call it that was nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, hoping people don't have any clue as to the historical context of the conflicts you listed.  When looked at objectively most of those wars actually disprove your assertion.

I will READDRESS your "points":

Quote1.  Attempting to control world events through force has proven to be a misguided illusion. Historical examples abound; one given in detail.

Stating that examples abound doesn't score you any points.  You can make claims all day long and stand on your claim as objective evidence and it still doesn't make it true no matter how loud you yell.  In fact I think that's called circular logic.

WWII is a perfect example of when force MUST have been used to control world events; there were no other options.  We can go down the list and provide ample justification for the use of force in light of most, if not all of the situations involved in precipitating each conflict.  I am up for that debate if you are slim, but something tells me you won't be.

Quote2.  We have lost sight of diplomacy.

Countries tend to lose sight of diplomacy as a viable alternative when your enemy doesn't have that word in their vocabulary nor plans on exercising it as an option even if you gave them the definition.

Your ideas are wonderful theory, but we need solutions, not theories.  I wish we could sit at a table over tea and negotiate.  Then the leaders of the Islamic world and America could go and hunt butterflies and pet puppy dogs together and we can all live together in a bubble gum house on lipop lane.  

You keep saying we should negotiate, but you still haven't told me who we should be negotiating with.

This is why the American people don't elect hippies into office.  Never have, never will...

I apologize.  Obviously you require remedial reading lessons.  History will have to wait, I'm afraid.

Cute.  Run away gramps.  Do us all a favor and stop posting.  No surprise you have nothing substantive to say.

Who is "us", you pompous pipsqueak?

Chris and iplaw:

Please desist right now, or I will be forced to come over there and bang your heads together

Your not too big to go across my knee, you know!

Seriously, though, this is a forum for debate. Please don't anybody let your side down (whatever side that is) by resorting to insults and impatience.  We will never meet in real life.  Just try and keep it civil, ok?

Now go across and shake hands, ok?

QuoteWho is "us", you pompous pipsqueak?

Anyone else who has the misfortune of reading your hippie drivel.

HAHA!! Pompus, surely you jest...

QuoteI think I'll just sit back and chuckle. I have better things to do than to teach you remedial history.

Obviously you require remedial reading lessons.

...if I had not run into your type so often when I was younger, perhaps I would debate...but obviously it would be pointless

You do however have a good grasp on irony though and the pot/kettle paradigm.

Time to head back to the home for jello pudding and craft time.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage3.greetingcards.com%2Fdgc%2Fi%2Fc%2Fshs_seniorCenterRoadSign.jpg&hash=77cfa53e77b7031baa36731f886ac3b6251656cd)

I want in on this. I responded to Chris's Taliban mini-rant thread on July 8th, and never got a response. So here's the post as written:

QuoteMikey V, you may want to read the post titled "A Radical Response to Terrorism".

OK, I did. I agree it was a nice essay, with a good military campaign history of the US.

But, you didn't provide any suggestions. For instance, here are the last two paragraphs:

QuoteThis third reason is the critical argument for a new approach to foreign policy…we need to approach the rapidly approaching future as a world community, gathering as many sane people as possible to ward off the looming threat.

What do you mean "gather", and how do you propose we do this?

QuoteWe need to stop trying to impose our will on our friends and enemies, and become a real example of what a republic can be.

I can agree with this to some extent. I don't however, see anything wrong with trying to improve US interests around the world, as long as we're not giving other countries the shaft.

QuoteWe need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past.

Such as? I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with this statement, because you haven't really said anything.

QuoteWe need to be a leader in the world community and not a rogue state.

I'm interested in hearing when it is you think we went rogue. Could you pinpoint the year?

QuoteWe need a compact, reduced military to be used for defensive purposes only.

In an ideal world, I'd agree with this sentiment. If we could count on every other country to do so, it would be an awesome thing. But, it's just not the way the world works. How do you suggest we handle future Pol Pots, Hitlers and Stalins? Should we send them a letter from the UN telling them how very very angry we are with them (thanks Team America)?

QuoteWe need to set a stage for a new, cooperative world effort to minimize the dangers of future technological advances.

Advances such as what? Are you a Luddite? Or are you talking about military application of technology?

QuoteLet’s stop creating enemies, and start cultivating friends in the world.

I can agree with that. We have dirty hands in many places on this earth. One of the simplest solutions would be to stop supporting corrupt regimes, such as Saudi Arabia. Stop pissing away money into crooked programs such as oil for food. See, real solutions.

I share your dream of a peaceful world. One in which crime and poverty are virtually non-existant the world over. One in which my daughters feel safe and don't need to fear a vacation in the middle east, or a midnight walk in the park. But, you haven't really offered anything, just ranted. Let's hear some suggested solutions.

MikeyV,

QuoteSuch as? I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with this statement, because you haven't really said anything.

What do you mean "gather", and how do you propose we do this?

But, you haven't really offered anything, just ranted. Let's hear some suggested solutions.

Bada Bing!  Enjoy the condescending tongue lashing you are about to receive from Chris.  He won't respond to anything you say other than "you don't know history, and I don't have time to teach you."

We live in a real world with actual adversaries and issues which deserve deliberately calculated solutions, not just good vibes and happy thoughts.

Mikey V, I started to respond a month ago, but decided there would be no point in doing so.  I find this method of pulling selected passages to be useless, when the answers to the questions are already there.  When I realized that I would just be repeating myself, but in a disjointed and non-comprehensive manner, I decided against it.  I have reviewed my original essay.  I am satisfied that it addresses all of your "questions", if you would choose to see them.  I believe that you and Iplaw are more interested in creating heat than shedding light, so I welcome you two to engage in mutual back-slapping.  I have moved on to other matters.

Thank you professor.  The world awaits your next intellectual triumph, and I can't wait to see what topic you mangle next.

Quote from: "Chris"Mikey V, I started to respond a month ago, but decided there would be no point in doing so.  I find this method of pulling selected passages to be useless, when the answers to the questions are already there.  When I realized that I would just be repeating myself, but in a disjointed and non-comprehensive manner, I decided against it.  I have reviewed my original essay.  I am satisfied that it addresses all of your "questions", if you would choose to see them.  I believe that you and Iplaw are more interested in creating heat than shedding light, so I welcome you two to engage in mutual back-slapping.  I have moved on to other matters.

Typical. Your essay points out percieved flaws and then provides non solutions. I don't need to "back-slap" anyone, because you failed to make a coherent argument, or even hint at solutions.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I was really interested in hearing how the doves propose to bring about change.

Do you honestly believe that:

QuoteThis third reason is the critical argument for a new approach to foreign policy...we need to approach the rapidly approaching future as a world community, gathering as many sane people as possible to ward off the looming threat.

is an answer? Other than your fascination with the word "approach", you haven't suggested any solutions. Hell, you don't really even define a problem.

QuoteWe need to allow the conflicts of the world to be resolved in different ways than we have in the past.

How? That's all I'm asking. You whet my appetite by telling me that there are conflicts in the world. I agree whole heartedly with this...it's obvious. Then you say we need to approach conflict resolution in a different manner than in the past. I suppose you believe that the only way we've ever resolved conflicts is through force. So, what methods do you suggest? You don't answer this anywhere in your essay. You offer no solutions, only carp about "problems". You have in effect pointed out the obvious, and then let it drop.

Come on...this is your chance to educate this free market libertarian nee republican on how the future should play out. If you choose not to do so, then why bother bloviating? I'm pretty sure that your too old to be doing this as a high school poli/sci term paper, you have something to say. So, say it!

Edit: typo

Apparently he did and neither you nor I can decipher it.  Damn we're dumb. :wink:

Quote from: "iplaw"Apparently he did and neither you nor I can decipher it.  Damn we're dumb. :wink:

Apparently :-)

Apparently.  Gentlemen, we are all in agreement.  Now, you two should go find another country to blow up.  America will be running short of enemies...have to keep that pump primed.  And Mikey, I don't think you're dumb...naive, short-sighted, Fox-Newsy, and seemingly incapable of following a complete line of reasoning...but dumb?  That would be harsh.  I am more compassionate than that.  Iplaw...well, he is amusing, in a rabid dog, restrained by a leash kinda way.

We're done here. You've just shown that although you can give history lectures, you can't elucidate on any one item. When pressed for clarification, you resort to name calling that belies your age. I guess I should have expected as much.

I can't follow a complete line of reasoning with your post because you haven't presented one. In typical liberal fashion, you have presented nothing, and then bad mouthed those who dared criticize, or asked for clarification. Excuse me for questioning your superior intellect and literary skills. But, unlike the first two responses to your essay, don't expect any congratulatory hand jobs from me. Like most of my poli/sci and English teachers, I expect you to actually say something.

As for your false assumption that I'm some sort of Fox News Ditto head, I don't watch Fox news. By the same token, I don't listen to NPR or Intelligence (I mean Radio) Free America.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, feel free to ignore me, because I will be ignoring you, asshole.