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

[_ajax18]

I was wondering if the U.S. is going to end up occupying a lot of countries that develop WMD. What will happen if they use these to destroy one of our cities? Will the U.S.A. then occupy that country? I guess the other option is to continue to let them pick us off one by one. It seems to me that once radical Islamist get the firepower to do us some substantial damage (nuclear attack on one of our cities), they're going to take advantage of the oppurtunity rather quickly. I don't foresee a cold war with them.

A situation like that seems to present you with the option of either trying to exterminate them, assimilate them, or occupy them. None of these options look good, but I'm not sure the average American voter understands that there is not always a good option, or even what the options really are let alone each options consequences. I'm not sure our country has the backbone to exterminate them, not to mention that it's very difficult to kill every last one. Yet if they kill enough of us, perhaps we might get that backbone. I'm not sure. Occupation hasn't gone so well either. I really hate the idea of our troops basically going over there to be targets for a faceless enemy that they'ró not allowed to shoot until it's too late. I'm not so sure we can assimilate them very quickly if at all either. It seems like that would require a long occupation as well.

Regardless of who is in office, I think this problem is going to pop up in other parts of the world, not just Iraq. I will be interested to see if the Democrats do anything different when they're in office. I mean, I'm sure CNN will report it differently, but I haven't seen them offer a very good method at dealing with the problem than to blame the Republicans for the problem. So if all they're going to do is get in office and say, "Well now we have to keep occupying because the Republicans messed this up early on, what good will that do anyone?" Oh and by the way, we're going to have to occupy Iran as well.

[_Dr. Shades]

A situation like that seems to present you with the option of either trying to exterminate them, assimilate them, or occupy them. . . I'm not sure our country has the backbone to exterminate them, not to mention that it's very difficult to kill every last one. Yet if they kill enough of us, perhaps we might get that backbone.

I want to be absolutely clear on what is written above. . . did you, or did you not, just advocate genocide on this message board?

[_ajax18]

I really wasn't advocating anything. I just wanted to see what people thought was the best option on how to deal with the situation. To me those are the options that you have when you're in a war, especially with an enemy that refuses to surrender.

I think we sit in our armchairs as voters and come up with rosó colored solutions that simply aren't an option. We do this because we don't really have the means to understand the true situation.

[_Dr. Shades]

I really wasn't advocating anything. I just wanted to see what people thought was the best option on how to deal with the situation. To me those are the options that you have when you're in a war, especially with an enemy that refuses to surrender.

I'm extremely Libertarian when it comes to foreign policy, so I think the best option is to not stir up wars to begin with.

For starters, we (i.e. the U.S.A.) ought not meddle in foreign nations' affairs to begin with. That's what causes everyone to hate us. If we pull all our troops back into our own borders and shut down all bases on foreign soil, we wouldn't have all these problems.

Notice how no planes were flown into any buildings in Switzerland. Why is that, I (don't) wonder?

[_MormonMendacity]

I think we sit in our armchairs as voters and come up with rosó colored solutions that simply aren't an option. We do this because we don't really have the means to understand the true situation.

Judging from our fractured, inconsistent, ineffective history of foreign policy, I'm not sure the voters are the only people incapable of understanding the true situation.

I would prefer that we drop books on our enemies instead of bombs...and that we truly allow them to practice political self-determination.

[_asbestosman]

Notice how no planes were flown into any buildings in Switzerland. Why is that, I (don't) wonder?

I suppose you would know, but how easy was it for them to bow to Germany in WWII? How easy would it be for them to bow to someone else? I'm not saying they have the wrong idea. Just trying to learn something.

[_Dr. Shades]

I suppose you would know, but how easy was it for them to bow to Germany in WWII? How easy would it be for them to bow to someone else? I'm not saying they have the wrong idea. Just trying to learn something.

Either way, it would be Switzerland's problem, not anyone else's. Which pretty much boils down my entire view of foreign policy.

[_asbestosman]

Either way, it would be Switzerland's problem, not anyone else's. Which pretty much boils down my entire view of foreign policy.

Speak softly and carry no stick?

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), quit meddling in foreign affairs, quit having such a huge economy, destroyed Hollywood, 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). Maybe if we let the whole US be ruled by Mexico things would work out.

Even Denmark is hated because of the cartoonist who used freedom of speech. Are we supposed to put in more restrictions? Is drawing a cartoon of Muhammed like shouting fire in a crowded theatre? Can I use similar arguments to silence my opposition? What balance do you see in the world?

Note, I do not buy the argument that Muslims attacked us because they hate our freedom.

[_ajax18]

For starters, we (i.e. the U.S.A.) ought not meddle in foreign nations' affairs to begin with. That's what causes everyone to hate us. If we pull all our troops back into our own borders and shut down all bases on foreign soil, we wouldn't have all these problems.

I'm sure you've heard WWII arguments then. The country took on an isolationist philosophy and it pretty much simply allowed the problem to get bigger. Europe tried to appease Hitler and it only worked for a while. 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.

The Spanish probably weren't meddling in foreign affairs when the Moors invaded Spain. Perhaps that sounds archaic, but then again I don't think the views of Islamic fascists have changed much since the middle ages. Let's not forget that for many Moslems that rise to leadership positions, global conversion to Islam is what they seek. It won't be just some annoying missionaries knocking at your door either. I fully believe that they would enforce it by the sword if they had the power to do so. They still have other reasons to hate us. Religion, economic advancement, perceived and actual past wrongs) While I agree that isolationism might help the problem, I don't see it as completely fixing the problem. I could even see the problem just festering and getting worse until it blows up in our face.

I don't like the idea of going to war either. I just think that if we do, we should do it all the way, and not hold back in the least. The most ridiculous criticism I ever heard of Israel by the liberal press on CNN was that they should only give a proportionate response. I just don't think that's how wars are nor should be fought.

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.

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

[_ajax18]

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

The Spanish left such robust economies everywhere they went didn't they? Maybe the Mexicans have something going. Perhaps we should join them, then we could make the Swiss government pay us to keep our people in our own country![/quote]