Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 12:07 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1984 300SD 1986 300SDL 1989 300SE 1998 740iL
Location: NY
Posts: 1,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
kvining - 3/27/2005 12:58 PM

The nation and government of Afghanistan engaged in activity that lead to a direct attack upon the continental United States, something even a notch above the Japanese.
Now, I know that you are not a complete moron. In a dictatorship, what possible criminal acts have the general population of Afghanistan done to you whereby you would exterminate them with a nuclear warhead?

What possible benefit would you obtain for using such a weapon?

You think that using firepower that is 100X what is necessary to complete a mission and the killing 100X more people than you absolutely have to kill will result in 100X the fear in the remaining living population?

Wake up. This is pure bullshit. We have plenty of huge weapons for the purposes of annilihating a terrorist cell(s) without the repurcussions of a nuclear weapon.

You sure that somebody hasn't hijacked your identity today?[:D]

Brian Carlton
1984 300 SD
1986 300 SDL
1987 300 SDL
Brian Carlton is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 12:33 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
CowtownBallin - 3/27/2005 3:51 AM
When you have a small army, increasing its size is tough, recruiting is slow, and it really makes you think twice before commiting the small amount of troops and resources you have. Clinton cut down the size of the military because he had responsible foreign policy.

Had he not cut that military down and let GWB inherit the force we had in 1993 plus whatever we built up through the 90s, we'd be tied up in four global conflicts now instead of just two.

Our "well-oiled" war machine had replacement M1 Abrams turboshaft engines sitting in machine shops miles away from the front lines due to the overstretched supply lines that could not keep up with the Blitzkrieg we launched. Our "well-oiled" machine was critically low on .223 Remington ammo (aka 5.56x45mm NATO) so that we had to buy ammo from Belgium and other NATO countries while our only two factories were at full capacity. Our "well-oiled" war machine keep failing to meet recruitment quota. It seems that many of our nation's sons aren't willing to die in the sandbox for a lie.

Hoo-ah to that, buddy [:D][/QUOTE]

You explain it much better than I ever could have with those examples.
Thanks for making my point
post #23 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 02:48 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Brian Carlton - 3/27/2005 2:07 PM

Quote:
kvining - 3/27/2005 12:58 PM

The nation and government of Afghanistan engaged in activity that lead to a direct attack upon the continental United States, something even a notch above the Japanese.
Now, I know that you are not a complete moron. In a dictatorship, what possible criminal acts have the general population of Afghanistan done to you whereby you would exterminate them with a nuclear warhead?

What possible benefit would you obtain for using such a weapon?

You think that using firepower that is 100X what is necessary to complete a mission and the killing 100X more people than you absolutely have to kill will result in 100X the fear in the remaining living population?

Wake up. This is pure bullshit. We have plenty of huge weapons for the purposes of annilihating a terrorist cell(s) without the repurcussions of a nuclear weapon.

You sure that somebody hasn't hijacked your identity today?[:D]
The purpose of the attack would have been to wipe out al-Queda, in order to protect the United States from further attack. You're the one that should wake up. Better their kids dead than mine.

The advantage of using it was obvious - we had no troops on the ground there, and a nuke would have done the job without anymore Americans dying to kill these scumbags.

As far as hijacking my identity, I've always advocated this. War should be total in nature, and only resorted to when all else fails and a clear and present danger exists. Instead we have elective, immoral war. If we had nuked them and been done with it, it would have been the end to it. It also would have sent a message to the nations who allow terrorist networks to operate in their countries a clear message, giving them an incentive to join us in the fight against these bastards. I nuclear attack, followed by a campaign of assasination of Islamic clerics who advocated attacking the US, would have been the right way to fight this war. Instead we are paying our armies to stand around in Iraq with their collective thumbs up their asses, waiting to get shot.




Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #24 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 03:21 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

I'm not sure I see much difference between your argument and that of the Botnst here. Both of you appear to be arguing for an exceptionalist notion of US power politics--i.e. our unilateral right to impose our will and military might on others, regardless of their direct or credible threat. That's naked aggression, period. We might as well dump all of our toxic and radioactive waste on other poor nations, cuz it's better their kids suffer the side effects than our own.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #25 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 04:42 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
MetaPhysicalPajamas's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: Runs
Location: Varies
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

It is possible that the troops were not there to accomplish what you thought they were there for.

Every nuclear warhead that is manufactured and every nuclear warhead that is exploded is one step closer to the demise of human life.
MetaPhysicalPajamas is offline  
post #26 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 04:50 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 3/27/2005 5:21 PM

I'm not sure I see much difference between your argument and that of the Botnst here. Both of you appear to be arguing for an exceptionalist notion of US power politics--i.e. our unilateral right to impose our will and military might on others, regardless of their direct or credible threat. That's naked aggression, period. We might as well dump all of our toxic and radioactive waste on other poor nations, cuz it's better their kids suffer the side effects than our own.

We all know that the Taliban and Al Queda were a joint operation. The 9-11 attack was unprovoked agression, upon us, and under international law we had a right to respond in whatever manner best fit our need for self defense. For god sakes man, 3000 of your fellow citizens were massacred - if you are going to have a nuclear force at all, what other justification can there be for using it? I see no triumphalism or exceptionalism here - I am advocating pure self defense.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #27 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 07:20 PM Thread Starter
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
kvining - 3/27/2005 5:50 PM

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 3/27/2005 5:21 PM

I'm not sure I see much difference between your argument and that of the Botnst here. Both of you appear to be arguing for an exceptionalist notion of US power politics--i.e. our unilateral right to impose our will and military might on others, regardless of their direct or credible threat. That's naked aggression, period. We might as well dump all of our toxic and radioactive waste on other poor nations, cuz it's better their kids suffer the side effects than our own.

We all know that the Taliban and Al Queda were a joint operation. The 9-11 attack was unprovoked agression, upon us, and under international law we had a right to respond in whatever manner best fit our need for self defense. For god sakes man, 3000 of your fellow citizens were massacred - if you are going to have a nuclear force at all, what other justification can there be for using it? I see no triumphalism or exceptionalism here - I am advocating pure self defense.
I like being the biggest and baddest country on the earth. But I would never let the role of victim slip away from me. Being a victim pays well, very well, throughout history. The world supported Afganistan. We had it made. The tide turned when we took Iraq. Now we are no longer the victims. That is a terrible loss that a great president like Lincoln would never let happen. Case in point was Fort Sumter, and more recently FDR on Pearl Harbor.
Shane is offline  
post #28 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 08:15 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1426 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Quote:
kvining - 3/27/2005 3:50 PM
We all know that the Taliban and Al Queda were a joint operation. The 9-11 attack was unprovoked agression, upon us, and under international law we had a right to respond in whatever manner best fit our need for self defense. For god sakes man, 3000 of your fellow citizens were massacred - if you are going to have a nuclear force at all, what other justification can there be for using it? I see no triumphalism or exceptionalism here - I am advocating pure self defense.
We essentially agree that the administration did not respond properly or effectively to bring the 911 perps to justice. I do not however, agree with your premise that 911 was a military attack, requiring a military response. And, I emphatically do not agree that we needed to go nookular on a bunch of impoverished goat herders.

911 was a crime--a crime against humanity, and as such, required a proper police response to those criminal activities. Pretty basic stuff really, solid detective work in the field, and aggressive pursuit of the perps--not the devastation of an entire nation, which has only enflamed the population in the ME, creating broad sympathy for the wrong actors in this melodrama.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #29 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 08:41 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

Posted by KirkVining: The purpose of the attack would have been to wipe out al-Queda, in order to protect the United States from further attack. You're the one that should wake up. Better their kids dead than mine.

----------------------------------------------------

As I said in the argument over at MBShop, this is a preposterous proposal, and one that does not show your usual depth of thinking. Al Quaeda is, from all reports, an organization with membership in many countries around the globe. The notion that one nuclear weapon dropped on one location would "wipe out" such a group is ridiculous. And most important, it certainly would not wipe out the idea behind Al Quaeda. It's the idea that creates more suicide bombers day by day.

Joe B.
Joe Bauers is offline  
post #30 of 96 (permalink) Old 03-27-2005, 09:43 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2005
Vehicle: 1989 W201.029/M103 3.0
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Garage
RE: Is it wrong for the USA to be militaristic?

I think the best way to fight Al Queda is to completely disregard it. To give your citizens even more freedoms and even more individual rights. Facilitate even more general financial opportunities for your people and even more pathways to excellent, dynamic and interesting education, available to all.
In short, to breed an invulnerable democracy and don't stop for anybody.

Much less to fix a world that doesn't like what you believe in.
It's a mistake to need oil from the middle east. You can get to the Moon, find another way and let them degenerate back to slingshots and sabres. When India finally nukes Pakistan they're all going to die from the fallout anyway.
You know I even had this Indian guy try to tell me his cultural perspective that India had developed the first martial arts in the world and were the true warrior race of human peoples.

And don't ever underestimate the CIS. Ukraine has the greater bulk of Soviet cold war surplus and Russia can still field thousands of brand new MiG's whenever it feels like it.
Just because Communism no longer thinks western Europe is a rogue state needing a bit of discpline, doesn't mean they think democracy is cool bananas.
And China thinks it knows better than everybody but clings to medieval philosophies like a barnacle.
North Korea...well they've just plain figured everything out. Don't try to tell them anything.

To think the US doesn't need a properly organized and funded military is a bit ignorant. But to level it at the middle east thinking terrorism is being fought is equally.

driving a fast car should feel like falling off a building.
vanir is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome