future occupation of other countries by the U.S.A.?

[_Dr. Shades]

Speak softly and carry no stick?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.

I think the only way America would quit being a target is if we got rid of our nukes (not that I'd mind if everyone else really did that too), . . .

I disagree. France has nukes but nobody bothers them.

. . . quit meddling in foreign affairs, . . .

I wholeheartedly agree here.

. . . quit having such a huge economy, . . .

I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

. . . destroyed Hollywood, . . .

I disagree again. Hollywood movies are some of our most cherished exports, eagerly welcomed by the rest of the world.

. . . and made Americans more aware of and respectful of the rest of the world (others hate how little Americans know about the rest of the world in general).

We're far, FAR more knowledgeable about the "outside world" than most non-european countries. Even so, nobody would attack us for something as trivial as that.

Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.

Now you're just being silly.

Even Denmark is hated because of the cartoonist who used freedom of speech.

No it isn't. That was just one guy. The controversy has since blown over.

Are we supposed to put in more restrictions?

No.

Is drawing a cartoon of Muhammed like shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

No.

Can I use similar arguments to silence my opposition?

No.

What balance do you see in the world?

The balance enjoyed by all other countries who keep their troops in their own borders.

I'm sure you've heard WWII arguments then.

Ad nauseum.

The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger.

But the problem wasn't our problem.

Europe tried to appease Hitler and it only worked for a while.

That's because they insisted in meddling in international affairs instead of defending their own borders.

Eventually we had no choice but to enter the war, yet at this point it was far more costly in troops and money than had we entered earlier.

I disagree. We had every choice not to enter the war. We did everything except paint a target on our collective foreheads.

The Spanish probably weren't meddling in foreign affairs when the Moors invaded Spain.

I'm not advocating for a second that nations shouldn't defend themselves against foreign invasion.

I don't think isolationism would have worked in the cold war either, unless you were happy being communist. That was clearly the objective of the Soviet Union and had we not set up military bases around the world, we'd have never had the political leverage to fight the cold the war.

I don't think the cold war was even necessary on the U.S.A.'s part.

Isolationism sounds so nice. It'd be a whole lot cheaper too. I don't see it working forever though.

I see it working a heck of a lot better than interventionism.

[_asbestosman]

Speak softly and carry no stick?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.

America certainly could work on speaking softly.

I think the only way America would quit being a target is if we got rid of our nukes (not that I'd mind if everyone else really did that too), . . .

I disagree. France has nukes but nobody bothers them.

True. But France's economy sucks. Still, it's more likely because:

. . . quit meddling in foreign affairs, . . .

I wholeheartedly agree here.

But what exactly does that entail? Would always following the UN be sufficient? What if the things we vote for in the UN are highly unpopular? Would we still be in danger even if we begrudgingly submitted to the UN? Note, I am not a UN hater.

. . . quit having such a huge economy, . . .

I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

But Japan doesn't have nukes. Besides, Anime is much better than Hollywood:

. . . destroyed Hollywood, . . .

I disagree again. Hollywood movies are some of our most cherished exports, eagerly welcomed by the rest of the world.

Not by the Islamic world. Not that they'd like Anime either. But they might not destroy us over it. It's hard to say for sure, but I think us leaving Israel without support would probably go a long way toward taking us off their hit list.

. . . and made Americans more aware of and respectful of the rest of the world (others hate how little Americans know about the rest of the world in general).

We're far, FAR more knowledgeable about the "outside world" than most non-european countries. Even so, nobody would attack us for something as trivial as that.

What can I say? I served a mission in Europe so that was how my views on this were formed. It was the first time I'd lived outside of Utah let alone the US. My American arrogance wasn't appreciated.

Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.

Now you're just being silly.

I have a knack for that sort of thing. I like being silly sometimes. Hopefully it lightens up the conversation a bit.

What balance do you see in the world?

The balance enjoyed by all other countries who keep their troops in their own borders.

Is it wrong to help those who ask for help? Would it be OK if the UN approves? Just curious.

[_ajax18]

[

I don't think the cold war was even necessary on the U.S.A.'s part.

Are you ok with the idea of global communism then?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.

If you're not willing to use that stick, the enemy picks up on that real quick during negotiations.

I disagree. France has nukes but nobody bothers them.

I think they have terrorists problems as well. I don't see radical Islam as acting in a rational and predictable manner that we would readily understand. Even though we disagreed with the Soviets, at least we were able to understand their motives a little better.

I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

Good point

I'm sure you've heard WWII arguments then.

The point being that isolationism didn't work in this situation. What makes you think it's a better path for the different situation we're facing now.

The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger
But the problem wasn't our problem.

That's the point. It became our problem.

That's because they insisted in meddling in international affairs instead of defending their own borders.

So you're saying Hitler would have stopped at France if the western nations hadn't meddled with him for taking over other countries? History always portrays him and the Japanese as wanting to take over the entire world. Do you disagree?

I'm not advocating for a second that nations shouldn't defend themselves against foreign invasion.

My point being that this is best done in a preemptive fashion. For one thing it keeps the war off our own soil and takes it to the enemy. Part of the economic success we now enjoy is due to the fact that our infrastructure wasn't destroyed by WWII as the infrastructure of other nations involved.

[/quote]

[_Dr. Shades]

Asbestosman:

. . . quit meddling in foreign affairs, . . .

But what exactly does that entail? Would always following the UN be sufficient?

No; withdraw from the U.N.

What if the things we vote for in the UN are highly unpopular?

Don't vote for anything in the U.N. Withdraw from it completely. Our system of ambassadors worked just fine for over 150 years.

Would we still be in danger even if we begrudgingly submitted to the UN?

Don't submit to the U.N.

. . . quit having such a huge economy, . . .

I disagree. Japan has an enormous economy by any other nation's standard but ours, but nobody bothers them either.

But Japan doesn't have nukes.

A good economy + nukes doesn't anger other nations. Meddling in their affairs does. Hence the reason Japan, with its large economy, would still be safe if they had nukes.

Is it wrong to help those who ask for help? Would it be OK if the UN approves? Just curious.

It's not wrong for individuals to voluntarily take up arms to help those who ask, but it's wrong for the government to get officially involved.

Ajax18:

I don't think the cold war was even necessary on the U.S.A.'s part.

Are you ok with the idea of global communism then?

Not exactly: I'm OK with the idea of global communism everywhere but my own country.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Speak softly and carry a big stick, like normal.

If you're not willing to use that stick, the enemy picks up on that real quick during negotiations.

I'm not against being willing to use that stick. I'm against using it for anything other than self-defense.

The point being that isolationism didn't work in this situation. What makes you think it's a better path for the different situation we're facing now.

That's just it: Isolationism is precisely what we weren't practicing prior to 9-11.

The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger.

But the problem wasn't our problem.

That's the point. It became our problem.

Not if we'd stayed isolationist. Repeatedly provoking Germany and Japan was not the way to remain isolationist.

So you're saying Hitler would have stopped at France if the western nations hadn't meddled with him for taking over other countries? History always portrays him and the Japanese as wanting to take over the entire world. Do you disagree?

There's a difference between wanting to take over the world and actually being able to do so. Hitler typically only went after prostrate countries, or ones he believed to be prostrate. He didn't see France or the other Western powers that way, so they could've easily stayed out of it.

I'm not advocating for a second that nations shouldn't defend themselves against foreign invasion.

My point being that this is best done in a preemptive fashion. For one thing it keeps the war off our own soil and takes it to the enemy. Part of the economic success we now enjoy is due to the fact that our infrastructure wasn't destroyed by WWII as the infrastructure of other nations involved.

That's just it: Pre-emptive war is still war. Pre-emptive war isn't necessary since dictatorships collapse under their own weight anyway.

[_Quantumwave]

We need to learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration and use the tool of negotiation and any other tactics with war as a last resort. Saddam was in violation of multiple UN resolutions, and was being the typical jerk he was, but there were a bunch of inspectors in Iraq. We could have saturated Iraq with inspectors and maintained our military at the ready in Quwait and in the Gulf, but the fact is the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld trio had already set the course for war. Bush is not a negotiator, which is evident in his current policy.

Shades believes we should pull out of the UN, but the fact is, we need to use all negotiating avenues available, including the UN, our State Dept., government coalitions and whatever. Military action may be necessary, but only as a last resort. WWII gave us the lesson that we should not stand by in isolation while other nations attack, but attacking Iraq in response to 9/11 was tantamount to attacking Cuba in response to Pearl Harbor.

I’m sure this is not news, but the fact is, the world is now dealing with religious hatred which is exacerbated by the potentially available weapons not in existence during past periods of religious hatred/wars.

A religious society that promotes suicide bombings to the point that the families and friends of the dead bombers rejoice, and the parents are typically given gifts and such, will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons at the first opportunity.

Aside from a suitcase bomb or the like, the most likely scenario I see, is the Islamic factions, led by Iran with nuclear weapons will take out Israel and we will retaliate with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and if that doesn't do the job then just one Trident which has ten MIRV units (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle) to target whatever is left would take out the major cities of Iran and Syria. That would leave 23 Trident missiles left on that particular sub and probably another 75 or so subs in the fleet, not to mention the fleet of Poseidon subs still hanging around! Hope to hell that never happens!

What is sad about that scenario is any Muslims left over would rejoice at the prospect that their dead Muslim martyrs are now in the presence of Allah and the men have their 72 virgins to deal with.

Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate!