Well, offense is the best defense right?
Chickenhawk Hall of Shame
- Thread starter Paul in Saudi
- Start date
Well, offense is the best defense right?
This is one thing on which we can agree. To publicly give up his title and take a prison sentence when he probably could have fled the country or joined the military and arranged to avoid a combat position takes a tremendous amount of courage. I am not anti-military although I have never served in the military and I highly respect him for this.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In some ways yes, but running around poking around random hornet nests isn't a good idea either.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
There is an implication here that some sort of defense was needed in the first place, which is a dubious supposition at best.
It's not random poking though, it's calculated poking. The idea being to get as many nations on your side as you possibly can and then continually work to destabilize those that won't fall in line so they never get strong enough to oppose you.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Is that right? I've got the impression that there's not a lot of calculating going on. Apart from, maybe, let's see what we can get away with.
Look at Iraq. The invasion went well. But who gave any thought to what came after?
Especially compared to what was implemented in Germany after WW2, Iraq was a right pig's ear. And you're suggesting that was a result of calculation?
Look at Iraq. The invasion went well. But who gave any thought to what came after?
Especially compared to what was implemented in Germany after WW2, Iraq was a right pig's ear. And you're suggesting that was a result of calculation?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Weren't you just saying that the US is participating in the UN in good faith? The two arguments do not fit together very well. I know they are in different threads, but c'mon man, a little consistency.
That's assuming though that the nations we destabilize wouldn't be a threat to global peace if left alone and that the UN is somehow ignorant of our intentions. Why do you think the other members of the UN publicly poo-pooed at our invasion of Iraq, but really didn't even lift a finger to stop it from happening? I'll tell you: Because even though other governments didn't like being lied to by the US, they still knew taking out Saddam and keeping the Middle East destabilized is ultimately a good thing for the world. In other words, deep down, the UN approved of the action itself, it just didn't like the way the US went about doing it. That means we are still acting in good faith since ultimately we are advancing an agenda that leads to overall global stability, peace, and progress.
It's the same reason there hasn't been a larger response to the Syrian civil war or the ISIS uprising. Honestly, nobody outside of the Middle East wants a stable, strong Middle East. If that region of the world were allowed to gain any sort of real power on the international stage, I shudder to think what the world would become.
Yes it was calculated. Calculated destabilization. Things went better in Germany after WWII because we actually wanted them to recover because we knew we could turn them into an ally. No nation in the Middle East will ever truly be our ally (when I say "our" I'm not just talking about the US, but the West in general) so I have absolutely no problem with keeping them unstable and weak, and it seems the world at large doesn't really have a problem with it either since there hasn't been a real opposition to our actions in the Middle East.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
And while all this is happening, allegiances shift, priorities shift, enemies become friends, and friends become enemies.. Short term tinkering with unpredictable long term results.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Gee. And here I thought it was because they understood that the US does in fact operate from the 'If you ain't with us you're agin' us and we will put you on the destabilize and maybe even invade list' concept that you referred to earlier...because the most aggressive and dangerous nation on the planet is unfortunately the best armed, and the US is it.
Having the rest of the world intimidated doesn't actually count as acting in good faith for peace, or stability, or progress, or anything else. It's just bullying, plain and simple.
"Dodged"? Really? There's evading the draft, and then there's (if you were born after 1952 in the US) simply not signing up for military service, which by definition includes every woman on that list.
And the list reads like a generic who's who of celebrity conservatives. Billy Graham? Not someone I'd readily label a hypocrite. Tom Clancy? The darling of the military during his post-insurance-salesmen days as a novelist? Gerald McRaney, who presented the military in a favorable light, and did his fair share of USO tours? Lee Greenwood, who Snopes notes didn't dodge the draft? Meh. I'm sure there really are some classic "pulled strings because they were afraid to get shot at, but later had no qualms about sending our soldiers into combat" types on the list, but I'd take it with a gram of salt.
And what's the equivalent term for chickenhawk as it applies to police? I favor law enforcement policies that would likely end up making duties more hazardous for law enforcement officers, and "dodged" joining the police force, so whatever the label, I'm presumably one.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Self-preservationist?
Suspect or target
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Or America could have government regulations for all airlines to have anti-terrorist cockpit doors ? Which was pushed back by airline lobbyist because it would have increased airplane fee by 5 cents.
Good job Republicans.
Ask the Seahawks.
There you go with those anti-US blinders again. North Korea fires two missiles at South Korea with absolutely zero provocation, Russia is making land grabs and fueling civil wars in their former sphere of influence and sending warships through the English Channel, Israel bombs any Muslims who look at them funny, and China sinks fishing boats and is sending warships to drive all of their competitors out of the South China Sea.
What has the US done? Invaded two nations in the past 15 years. One with provocation, the other not so much. Considering the damage the US could do with its military might, I'd say that's making us look pretty passive. You give any nation mentioned above the same military might as the US, and I guarantee you'd be seeing it get used a lot more than what we see from the US now.
Again, the US is not some shining beacon of positive morality, but when compared to the potential alternatives, well, the world could have a much worse hegemon.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Only invaded two nations..... that killed upward millions of people, while bombing people in half a dozen other countries and supporting international trade treaties that subjugate smaller, poorer nations into damned-if-you-do/don't agreements that result in suppressed wages and growth.
Acknowledging the reality that we are the most aggressive military state in the world doesn't come from "anti-US blinders", it comes from a sober understanding that, regardless of "aggression per dollar" being lower than others, we are still the number one attacker in the world.
I'm very positive on the US, and that means accepting our faults, not pretending they are less.
Acknowledging the reality that we are the most aggressive military state in the world doesn't come from "anti-US blinders", it comes from a sober understanding that, regardless of "aggression per dollar" being lower than others, we are still the number one attacker in the world.
I'm very positive on the US, and that means accepting our faults, not pretending they are less.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Why do you ask when you know the answer?
Who else has invaded two countries in the last fifteen years? Most countries haven't invaded any. Even on your 'villains' list you didn't come up with any.
You said yourself that the US operates on a 'bend the knee or we will aggressively destabilize your government' policy, and I believed you.
The entire hypothetical 'we are so powerful that we have the right to invade a few countries here and there, and if anyone else was so powerful they'd be worse' rationalization just reeks. I can't even stomach it sufficiently to debate the idea.
PS...when Israel (on your villain list) does their little bomb and genocide thing, who is it that protects them from sanction by the UN again?
Narz
keeping it real
Of course, when I see shady looking people I generally try to start fights with them in the interest of my personal safety.
