Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

I often wonder if the USA needs a military at all beyond a national guard. Maybe that will get the ball of debate rolling.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The oceans would be crawling with pirates if not for America's global naval dominance.

[Owlbread]

The oceans would be crawling with pirates if not for America's global naval dominance.

Are you happy with America playing the "world policeman" role in that case then? The same as the British back in the 18th and 19th centuries? There has to be a better way, perhaps if we could somehow get countries like Somalia, India, Indonesia, East Timor etc to police their own waters more effectively.

Also, that's just considering the Navy. If the USA retained a Navy capable of world policeman activities, does it really need an army beyond a national guard?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Are you happy with America playing the "world policeman" role in that case then?

Not completely, but there are certainly situations in which I would back interventionism (mostly on a humanitarian basis).

The same as the British back in the 18th and 19th centuries?

Not really the same situation. The British had viable competitors and the oceans really were crawling with pirates.

There has to be a better way, perhaps if we could somehow get countries like Somalia, India, Indonesia, East Timor etc to police their own waters more effectively.

Those countries vary wildly. Somalia is barely even a nation, India is a rising superpower.

Local policing is all well and good, but there is much more water than land on this planet. You need some kind of monodominant force that keeps international waters clear.

Also, that's just considering the Navy. If the USA retained a Navy capable of world policeman activities, does it really need an army beyond a national guard?

As above, I am not totally against interventionist policy.

More importantly, there is a balance of power created merely by the army's existence. Nobody believes it can walk over America or its allies without extreme consequences, as long as this perception remains the truth is irrelevant, people will act accordingly. Similarly, the sheer scale of large armed forces in powerful nations makes war unpalatable because of the undeniable death toll in even a best-case victory for one side. Deterrence does not only apply to nukes.

[Owlbread]

Not completely, but there are certainly situations in which I would back interventionism (mostly on a humanitarian basis).

Not really the same situation. The British had viable competitors and the oceans really were crawling with pirates.

Those countries vary wildly. Somalia is barely even a nation, India is a rising superpower.

Local policing is all well and good, but there is much more water than land on this planet. You need some kind of monodominant force that keeps international waters clear.

More importantly, there is a balance of power created merely by the army's existence. Nobody believes it can walk over America or its allies without extreme consequences, as long as this perception remains the truth is irrelevant, people will act accordingly. Similarly, the sheer scale of large armed forces in powerful nations makes war unpalatable because of the undeniable death toll in even a best-case victory for one side. Deterrence does not only apply to nukes.

The countries do vary wildly indeed, but the need for them to police their waters effectively is the same. It's the same final goal, they just require very different approaches.

I think that "monodominant force" isn't really necessary - that role could be provided by some kind of UN peacekeeping naval force in international waters, not just the USA or any other single country.

But who would try to walk over America and its Allies if the USA disarmed itself tomorrow? Could you give me a comprehensive list?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think that "monodominant force" isn't really necessary - that role could be provided by some kind of UN peacekeeping naval force in international waters, not just the USA or any other single country.

The UN is a totally useless shell of an organization for the Security Council to try constantly to screw each other over in. I wouldn't trust them to guard anything.

But who would try to walk over America and its Allies if the USA disarmed itself tomorrow? Could you give me a comprehensive list?

Anyone looking to alter the power balance of the world, really. China, India, Russia, various Islamists, potentially the EU depending upon the political situation.

Of course, it wouldn't actually end in the US being walked over. It would end in bloody war and political radicalism.

[Owlbread]

The UN is a totally useless shell of an organization for the Security Council to try constantly to screw each other over in. I wouldn't trust them to guard anything.

Anyone looking to alter the power balance of the world, really. China, India, Russia, various Islamists, potentially the EU depending upon the political situation.

Of course, it wouldn't actually end in the US being walked over. It would end in bloody war and political radicalism.

Wouldn't a logical conclusion be "we need to reform the UN to actually make it viable in some way" rather than "it's a totally useless shell, don't bother"?

What about attempting dialogue with Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda, as well as states like China, India, Russia etc over mutual disarmament. The USA declares outright neutrality in all conflicts (e.g. with Russia, North Korea, Islamism and so on) and explains its desire to retreat from the world scene to concentrate on its own affairs. Begin drafting lots of treaties that would ensure that America would not interfere in international politics provided other nations don't interfere in theirs.

The USA is the great satan, but if they explained to representatives of the now-truncated Al-Qaeda that they will not interfere in Middle Eastern affairs (including Israeli affairs) I suspect some of that would die down. Make public apologies for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that sort of thing. Even if you consider it morally wrong I'm sure it would get international Islamic terrorism off your backs, it'll certainly get it off ours across the pond.

[Sheb]

I'm for one is glad we have the deterrent to stop Russia from walking over smaller EU nations like Estonia. I'd prefer a EU army rather than being dependent on the US though.

[Owlbread]

I'm for one is glad we have the deterrent to stop Russia from walking over smaller EU nations like Estonia. I'd prefer a EU army rather than being dependent on the US though.

I'm much more concerned about Russia than I am America in terms of world domination/imperialism or all that stuff. I was just trying looking at how the USA could serve its own interests.

As ashamed as I am of saying it, the Japanese were hit with two nuclear bombs and completely disarmed - now they're effectively neutered to the point that nationalism (the bad kind) is practically dead, beyond flare ups like the Senkaku dispute. The Germans were utterly flattened in possibly the most traumatic few years of that country's life - again, same result. The Russians have never had their hands burned (i.e. experiencing complete and utter national humiliation) and now nationalism of the bad sort flourishes. The kind that leads to imperialism and thinking in terms of open international dominance rather than the more peaceful, economic dominance sought by Germany, Japan and so on.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wouldn't a logical conclusion be "we need to reform the UN to actually make it viable in some way" rather than "it's a totally useless shell, don't bother"?

The UN cannot be reformed. Reforms have to get the unanimous approval of the Security Council. The Security Council have wildly varying agendas, but unanimously disapprove of reforms. Do you see the problem here?

What about attempting dialogue with Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda,

We do not negotiate with terrorists.

as well as states like China, India, Russia etc over mutual disarmament.

Will never be accepted. Better to let the gradual growth of peace in the world take it's course than trying something like that.

The USA declares outright neutrality in all conflicts (e.g. with Russia, North Korea, Islamism and so on) and explains its desire to retreat from the world scene to concentrate on its own affairs. Begin drafting lots of treaties that would ensure that America would not interfere in international politics provided other nations don't interfere in theirs.

Our affairs and the world's affairs are the same thing. Globalization is not an ongoing process, it is a thing that has happened. You cannot shut yourself off from the world. Not to mention, the last time the US tried neutral isolationism, the Axis powers had their heyday. It is simply not a good idea.

The USA is the great satan, but if they explained to representatives of the now-truncated Al-Qaeda that they will not interfere in Middle Eastern affairs (including Israeli affairs) I suspect some of that would die down. Make public apologies for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that sort of thing. Even if you consider it morally wrong I'm sure it would get international Islamic terrorism off your backs, it'll certainly get it off ours across the pond.

No, it won't. Radical Islamists do not seek peace. They'll keep fighting the West just because of who we are. That we do not bow to them and believe in their god is reason enough for them to try to kill us.

There's also the small problem that everything you just suggested is political suicide, and that if Israel and the Arab states are left to themselves there is only one outcome, and that is that one of the two are going to genocide the other, possibly through nuclear weapons.

[Owlbread]

The UN cannot be reformed. Reforms have to get the unanimous approval of the Security Council. The Security Council have wildly varying agendas, but unanimously disapprove of reforms. Do you see the problem here?

If the UN cannot be reformed at all then what is the solution?

We do not negotiate with terrorists.

I negotiate with terrorists.

Will never be accepted. Better to let the gradual growth of peace in the world take it's course than trying something like that.

I think it would be foolish not to approach the USA's "enemies" on those grounds to see what kind of a reaction is received.

Our affairs and the world's affairs are the same thing. Globalization is not an ongoing process, it is a thing that has happened. You cannot shut yourself off from the world. Not to mention, the last time the US tried neutral isolationism, the Axis powers had their heyday. It is simply not a good idea.

Globalization is partly reversible. The world's affairs do not have to be the USA's, one can look at nations like North Korea or Turkmenistan that have effectively retreated from the world stage into their own little worlds. They are bizarre, insane states of course, but that doesn't mean a neutral USA would have to be.

No, it won't. Radical Islamists do not seek peace. They'll keep fighting the West just because of who we are. That we do not bow to them and believe in their god is reason enough for them to try to kill us.

Don't be so sure, my fine fellow. Radical Islamism (of the sort that targets the USA specifically) is often tied in with a kind of confused extreme "Islamic" nationalism that involves hatred of the Jews and Israelis by extension. If you offered to stop supporting Israel as a bargaining chip, it would be interesting to see the Islamist reaction.

There's also the small problem that everything you just suggested is political suicide, and that if Israel and the Arab states are left to themselves there is only one outcome, and that is that one of the two are going to genocide the other, possibly through nuclear weapons.

Oh yes, of course it's political suicide. No president or government in their right mind would try it, I'm just being a contrarian. Genocide would also be likely, yes. Though not in America.

[GlyphGryph]

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/05/virtually-everything-government-did-wikileaks-now-being-done-mainstream-us-reporters

Hard as it is to believe, I desperately wish I had not voted for Obama. I can't imagine much different would have happened on the fronts that actually matter (what has he accomplished that isn't merely symbolic? The healthcare reform clusterfuck? The one that started as a Republican proposal?)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If the UN cannot be reformed at all then what is the solution?

I told you, the situation as it is now. You are trying to fix what is not broken.

I negotiate with terrorists.

Then I most sincerely question your moral compass.

Globalization is partly reversible. The world's affairs do not have to be the USA's, one can look at nations like North Korea or Turkmenistan that have effectively retreated from the world stage into their own little worlds. They are bizarre, insane states of course, but that doesn't mean a neutral USA would have to be.

Yes it would, dude. We are locked in, both by population and everything that has been set up over the last century, to a globalized scenario. Isolationism in such an environment is, by definition, insane and demonstrably bad.

Don't be so sure, my fine fellow. Radical Islamism (of the sort that targets the USA specifically) is often tied in with a kind of confused extreme "Islamic" nationalism that involves hatred of the Jews and Israelis by extension. If you offered to stop supporting Israel as a bargaining chip, it would be interesting to see the Islamist reaction.

What part of "guaranteed genocide and probable nuclear war" is not getting across here?

Genocide would also be likely, yes. Though not in America.

You may find this odd given your expressed opinions thus far, but I care about what happens to people who are not Americans.

[Owlbread]

You may find this odd given your expressed opinions thus far, but I care about what happens to people who are not Americans.

I know you do, we've discussed this sort of thing before. I also support intervention in Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Chechnya etc and any other totalitarian state, though it must be done well and with humanitarianism as the chief objective, not ulterior political motives. I'm taking just taking a radical approach (such as allowing genocide) for the sake of debate, don't take it personally.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm taking just taking a radical approach (such as allowing genocide) for the sake of debate, don't take it personally.

That's not really a good thing to be doing. If people start playing devil's advocate we'll lose track of the actual debates.