Anti-Americanism: What is it?

[IControlThePast]

Im curious as to what you think of Reagans peace thru strength policies??

Well there was some good and some bad. There definately comes a point when what does another thousand nukes matter, except to drag the budget into a red ink abyss. The same for the number of tanks, soldiers, etc which don't really matter in a nuclear war. We shouldn't go out of our way to encourage an arms race, but instead maintain balance. I wasn't a fan of SDI "Star Wars," because it was highly unreasonable and tried to unbalance the situation. Buddhism is right about some things, peace is found in balance.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

No, but when you said he should be impeached for lying about it you were.

He was IMPEACHED....facts, must not be of any concern of your, either...selective memory.

 

[IControlThePast]

He was IMPEACHED....facts, must not be of any concern of your, either...selective memory.

Yes I know, I was just using the language of the previous poster, just semantics. If it makes you happy, he should have been removed from office.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

As should any public official for lying while under oath.

 

[Yurt]

ICTP,


You may want to consider controlling the present, as it could very well affect your future.

If Iran gets nukes, as you say the inevitably will, then what do you think will happen when al qaeda passes through their borders, undetected because they do not stamp their passports? The question then becomes more significant. If a State, gives a non-state entity nuclear arms, most likely on the very hush hush, whom then do we attack? Well, on 9/11, we attacked those who harbored, yet, wouldn't this be much more difficult with Iran as how does one harbor a nuke?

Further, this philosophy of "they will get it, so let it be" is truly weak. You are basically saying to back down, because, hey, everyone will have this soon because it is 60 years old ya know. Well guess what, if no one backs off, maybe this could be extended, ever think of that?

 

[IControlThePast]

ICTP,


You may want to consider controlling the present, as it could very well affect your future.

If Iran gets nukes, as you say the inevitably will, then what do you think will happen when al qaeda passes through their borders, undetected because they do not stamp their passports? The question then becomes more significant. If a State, gives a non-state entity nuclear arms, most likely on the very hush hush, whom then do we attack? Well, on 9/11, we attacked those who harbored, yet, wouldn't this be much more difficult with Iran as how does one harbor a nuke?

Further, this philosophy of "they will get it, so let it be" is truly weak. You are basically saying to back down, because, hey, everyone will have this soon because it is 60 years old ya know. Well guess what, if no one backs off, maybe this could be extended, ever think of that?

I've tried controlling the present, but I haven't quite had too much success yet.

I think then there will be a major problem when that happens. We need to bring our culture in and replace that which tells people that there is 70 virgins after the destruction part, a moral code that doesn't coincide with violence. If a state gives a non-entity a nuclear device, and that state has more nuclear devices, it is quite a dilemma, because we will be destroyed if we attack them. We would definately have to act like any country that did that would be severly punished. The solution to beating an international fluidly forming group is a cultural revolution. The idea is that at some (probably fast approaching) point in the future military action will not be an option of ours.

I am not saying "let it be." In my other post I said that we shouldn't sit back and let other countries try and provide the Middle East with nukes. We need to create a cultural revolution there, something that can be achieved with military force, although occupying the region can help.

 

[KarlMarx]

Is it anti-american to wish to see the role and influence of the United States in world affairs diminished? I believe it is anti american.

I know you libs will say you don't want to diminish U.S. influence, you just don't believe Bush is growing our influence "in the right way". It's the same nonsensical way you deprive Bush of any credit for elections in Iraq and the spread of democracy in the mideast by saying "that wasn't the reason given". But yet you also believe Bush planned the invasion from the first moment he was in office. SO which is it?

If America were to disappear today.... what would the result be?
Where would the oppressed people of the world go for refuge?
Who would stand up for their freedom?

Some claim that there are other countries that would, for instance, the European Union. But look at their track record. The United Nations, too, is no defender of liberty and freedom. No, America is probably the only defender of liberty and freedom that has both the will and the strength to do so.

How about American capital and innovation that has created wealth not only in this country but in others? India and China being two of the most recent beneficiaries.

If America were to fall today, it would mean the end of Western Civilization.

 

[Merlin1047]

Is it anti-american to wish to see the role and influence of the United States in world affairs diminished? I believe it is anti american.

RWA, I guess I'm a quasi-isolationist. To me, the type of influence we should have is two fold.

First, I think we should exert our influence by kicking every one of the UN pigs out of the country. We should tell them that they can set up shop in any country they wish, but they won't be looking to the American taxpayer for their source of graft and corruption any longer.

Next, we should seek to divert our limited foreign aid resources to countries where we might actually get some return on our investment. We should support our friends and allies and openly confront our enemies. We should let the world know that there are benefits to being our friends and there are consequences for being our enemy. France is the first nation that needs to learn that lesson, then North Korea, Iran, a couple of South American countries and Mexico. In short, we should be our own UN and the cost of membership in that circle needs to be mutual support and respect. I'm not asking for obeisance or servile attitudes from our friends. I'm asking for honest disagreements, open discussion and mutual support once a decision has been agreed upon.

We have very few true friends in the world. Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, and Taiwan as well as a few of the Eastern European countries can be counted on most of the time. Note I did leave out Israel on purpose because I believe that they are not really any friend of the US. I believe that they merely see us as a resource of military might and money which they seek to exploit for their own ends. I believe that the Israelis would sell us out in a heartbeat if it ever suited their purposes.

So I think it's time to circle the wagons. I think it's time to figure out who is "us" and who is "them" and to formulate our policies appropriately.

 

[BR-549]

Well there was some good and some bad. There definately comes a point when what does another thousand nukes matter, except to drag the budget into a red ink abyss. The same for the number of tanks, soldiers, etc which don't really matter in a nuclear war. We shouldn't go out of our way to encourage an arms race, but instead maintain balance. I wasn't a fan of SDI "Star Wars," because it was highly unreasonable and tried to unbalance the situation. Buddhism is right about some things, peace is found in balance.

blowing them to hell. One quote from Mao Tse Tung I always agreed with: "All political power flows through the barrel of a gun". Mao was right there and that's a good recipe for peace. Balance tends to let one party underestimate their opponent and attack. I say let the good guys, the United States, have military hegemony, so the bad guys, Iran, N. Korea, and Red China, are scared to death that we might unleash hell on them.. Just my opinion but it's RIGHT!! As Machiavelli said it's better to be feared than loved.. hhehhhhaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww.. And keep your powder dry..

 

[musicman]

blowing them to hell. One quote from Mao Tse Tung I always agreed with: "All political power flows through the barrel of a gun". Mao was right there and that's a good recipe for peace. Balance tends to let one party underestimate their opponent and attack. I say let the good guys, the United States, have military hegemony, so the bad guys, Iran, N. Korea, and Red China, are scared to death that we might unleash hell on them.. Just my opinion but it's RIGHT!! As Machiavelli said it's better to be feared than loved.. hhehhhhaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww.. And keep your powder dry..

Great post, BR! And it points out a truth too many in this country and around the world have forgotten: We ARE the good guys!

 

[IControlThePast]

blowing them to hell. One quote from Mao Tse Tung I always agreed with: "All political power flows through the barrel of a gun". Mao was right there and that's a good recipe for peace. Balance tends to let one party underestimate their opponent and attack. I say let the good guys, the United States, have military hegemony, so the bad guys, Iran, N. Korea, and Red China, are scared to death that we might unleash hell on them.. Just my opinion but it's RIGHT!! As Machiavelli said it's better to be feared than loved.. hhehhhhaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww.. And keep your powder dry..

Conversely, unbalance tends to let you underestimate your opponent. Don't forget all the people that wanted us to attack the USSR, and that we came close several times because we felt we could win.

Countries (or their advisors) don't always stay good, and it would take only a small letdown. Bismark unbalanced Europe, and kept control while he was leader, but after he was fired the flammable situation of diplomatic ties he created started WW1.

 

[nosarcasm]

Bismarck isolated France politically his successors didnt.
It is a really bad example all around in this context.

 

[IControlThePast]

Bismarck isolated France politically his successors didnt.
It is a really bad example all around in this context.

Right, but the example still holds. Bismark unbalanced. His successors decided not to continue to politically isolate France, and allowed them to engage in a treaty with Russia and created the Schleiffen Plan because they thought it was so imbalanced they could win easily. Bismark wouldn't have done this, and the point was those who create the imbalance won't be able to control whether it is used justly in the future. We are able to do wrong and unjust things if we elect the wrong people.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is is both countries have nukes and use them. Plus, you don't always win.

If it will soothe your inferiority complex, I'll just admit you're smarter than me

Isolationism is just a fancy term for ignoring stuff. It is nice to just think happy ignorant thoughts, but the world we live in demands much more. The world demands we plan ahead for our survival.

Inferiority complex? You're soaking in it.

 

[IControlThePast]

Isolationism is just a fancy term for ignoring stuff. It is nice to just think happy ignorant thoughts, but the world we live in demands much more. The world demands we plan ahead for our survival.

Inferiority complex? You're soaking in it.

There's quite a difference between Isolationism and not making unnecessary preemptive attacks.

Why else would you feel the need to insult people, much less over the internet where you're not even face to face? Need to bolster your ego?

 

[BR-549]

Conversely, unbalance tends to let you underestimate your opponent. Don't forget all the people that wanted us to attack the USSR, and that we came close several times because we felt we could win.

Countries (or their advisors) don't always stay good, and it would take only a small letdown. Bismark unbalanced Europe, and kept control while he was leader, but after he was fired the flammable situation of diplomatic ties he created started WW1.

However this only holds true if that country actually WANTS to attack the other. I don't believe the US ever really considered open thermonuclear conflict with the USSR, though the Cuban missile crises was a close one. However Kennedy and his advisors guessed correctly that the Sovs would back down if we agreed to remove some missiles from Turkey. The late 50's through the 70's the US of course practice MAD as our policy vis a vis the Sov's and it worked for a time. But then Reagan put major pressure on them in the 80's and the poor commies just could not compete. It remains my assertion that peace in the context of the early 21st century is dependent on US military hegemony.. The counter balance to that would be whom? A united Euro-military or the block of Iran, N. Korea and Red China.. That balance would produce potentially horrific results. (That dog won't hunt). The Euros ain't gonna play hard ball. The other manner of balance would produce a potential war in the Pacific: which given N. Korea and Red Chinas' recent saber rattling is a definite possibility. Or Iran could pop off a nuke on Israel and then all hell breaks loose. Given either of these undesireable futures I maintain that the United States should increase its military budget over the next decade to ensure continued dominance and to sweat these closed societal dictatorships out till their people have a chance to come to their senses and overthrow their governments.. Worked with the Sovs probably will work with these folks too. What was it Jefferson said? Oh yeah, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".. The old redhead was right in the 18th century and it holds true for our time as well.. There's my two cents for what it's worth. Gracias and sayonara.

 

[IControlThePast]

However this only holds true if that country actually WANTS to attack the other. I don't believe the US ever really considered open thermonuclear conflict with the USSR, though the Cuban missile crises was a close one. However Kennedy and his advisors guessed correctly that the Sovs would back down if we agreed to remove some missiles from Turkey. The late 50's through the 70's the US of course practice MAD as our policy vis a vis the Sov's and it worked for a time. But then Reagan put major pressure on them in the 80's and the poor commies just could not compete. It remains my assertion that peace in the context of the early 21st century is dependent on US military hegemony.. The counter balance to that would be whom? A united Euro-military or the block of Iran, N. Korea and Red China.. That balance would produce potentially horrific results. (That dog won't hunt). The Euros ain't gonna play hard ball. The other manner of balance would produce a potential war in the Pacific: which given N. Korea and Red Chinas' recent saber rattling is a definite possibility. Or Iran could pop off a nuke on Israel and then all hell breaks loose. Given either of these undesireable futures I maintain that the United States should increase its military budget over the next decade to ensure continued dominance and to sweat these closed societal dictatorships out till their people have a chance to come to their senses and overthrow their governments.. Worked with the Sovs probably will work with these folks too. What was it Jefferson said? Oh yeah, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".. The old redhead was right in the 18th century and it holds true for our time as well.. There's my two cents for what it's worth. Gracias and sayonara.

Look how many more nukes we have than the next fellas. Plenty to destroy China, N. Korea, and Iran. Wars will be fought between economies in the future, and there are two sides to an economy: the ability of the government to stimulate it with funding (using either Keynesian or Supply Side Theory) and the actual workers in the country. Let's not ruin the government's ability to wage economic war by burdening the budget with excessive defense spending. Frankly I'm more worried about the culture that feels they have something better after they are destroyed than the other countries, I feel they are far more dangerous in a MAD situation.

 

[BR-549]

Look how many more nukes we have than the next fellas. Plenty to destroy China, N. Korea, and Iran. Wars will be fought between economies in the future, and there are two sides to an economy: the ability of the government to stimulate it with funding (using either Keynesian or Supply Side Theory) and the actual workers in the country. Let's not ruin the government's ability to wage economic war by burdening the budget with excessive defense spending. Frankly I'm more worried about the culture that feels they have something better after they are destroyed than the other countries, I feel they are far more dangerous in a MAD situation.

any society using those methods will not advance. Showed your socialist colors there. Burdening the Budget? That's nonsense as far as military expendiures are concerned. Defense expenditures are one of the VERY few federal programs that actually create jobs and spinoff jobs that contribute to the economy as a whole. Keynesian economic policies have NOT proven effective. Supply side is really not a government stimulant, but rather simply eliminating money that would otherwise be wasted on government giveaways and reinjecting it into the economy. I suggest you take Econ 101 or 102 depending on the class classification at a particular school. Capitalism is the root of all economic growth. Just look at the Red Chinese. The misguided Commies even realize that some capitalism is required for economic growth.. Sorry don't buy your economic theories and time has proven you wrong.. But keep your head up and pay close attention to reality and you may yet become enlightened. If you really think wars in the future will be economic alone you are sadly naive. Wars will be fought the same way they always have: kill your enemies, destroy their morale and means of production.. Geez folks who think like you simply reject history and human nature..

 

[IControlThePast]

any society using those methods will not advance. Showed your socialist colors there. Burdening the Budget? That's nonsense as far as military expendiures are concerned. Defense expenditures are one of the VERY few federal programs that actually create jobs and spinoff jobs that contribute to the economy as a whole. Keynesian economic policies have NOT proven effective. Supply side is really not a government stimulant, but rather simply eliminating money that would otherwise be wasted on government giveaways and reinjecting it into the economy. I suggest you take Econ 101 or 102 depending on the class classification at a particular school. Capitalism is the root of all economic growth. Just look at the Red Chinese. The misguided Commies even realize that some capitalism is required for economic growth.. Sorry don't buy your economic theories and time has proven you wrong.. But keep your head up and pay close attention to reality and you may yet become enlightened. If you really think wars in the future will be economic alone you are sadly naive. Wars will be fought the same way they always have: kill your enemies, destroy their morale and means of production.. Geez folks who think like you simply reject history and human nature..

That's not socialism. Government inevitably contributes to the economy, even you acknowledge they do with defense spending (and look how that worked on the depression). Government injects money into the economy (supply side theory) like I've said, and the government does use it to try and make the economy better (manipulate it). I simply emphasized manipulating the supply and demand side of the economy by specifically mentioning these two theories. There are many ways our capitalist government tries to control the economy, like interest rates to reduce inflation, and cutting taxes to try and stimulate economic growth.

What was the primary reason for the defeat of the Cold War? Communism couldn't keep up with capitalism. The Cold War was mostly fought economically with minor military conflicts (compared with the damage each country had the potential to do) in third world countries. We bankrupted the USSR through the arms race: the end of that war came because of economic reasons.

While we're on econ, von Neumann, one of the founders of Game Theory, was an advisor and ardent supporter of a preemptive attack during the Cold War.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There's quite a difference between Isolationism and not making unnecessary preemptive attacks.

Why else would you feel the need to insult people, much less over the internet where you're not even face to face? Need to bolster your ego?

Al quaeda attacked us, dumbass. And they are a global network with cells in Iraq. And then there's the fact that all nations believe saddam had more wmd, and the fact that it IS possible the weapons were hidden or moved prior to invasion. I call you dumbass, not because of any nascent insecurity in myself, but because you are a dumbass.