CDZ Is the U.S. involved in too many wars?

[eflatminor]

I'm with Adams on this one...

 

[phoenyx]

I'm with Adams on this one...

That may well have been true in Adams' time. Since World War II, things have been a little different though...
US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

 

[GaryDog]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

No, we are not.

First of all, it is in our DNA to fight for others. Going all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, we have a historical reputation as a country willing to send men, and women; to die for the freedom of others.

Secondly, as the world's sole super power we have a moral obligation to defend the less fortunate.

The problem is we don't fight to WIN the wars we get involved in.

According to the Walt Disney history books anyway.

 

[phoenyx]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

No, we are not.

First of all, it is in our DNA to fight for others. Going all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, we have a historical reputation as a country willing to send men, and women; to die for the freedom of others.

Secondly, as the world's sole super power we have a moral obligation to defend the less fortunate.

The problem is we don't fight to WIN the wars we get involved in.

According to the Walt Disney history books anyway.

I don't discount the possibility that there are some in the U.S. who may want an unending war on terror or whatever terms are politically correct at the time, particularly individuals in the military industrial complex who profit greatly from it. George Orwell's book "1984" comes to mind. That being said, I think it's safe to say that most people engaged in a war, whether it's as spectators or the combatants themselves, want to win.

 

[Holos]

Originally, the U.S. Senate had to allow the U.S. President to go to wars of this nature, but that's no longer the case. Nowadays, U.S. Presidents can declare a "war on terror" or another label of this nature, foment political instability that leads to groups like ISIS, and then proceed to bomb a country's infrastructure to smithereens on the pretext of getting rid of the group their machinations they helped create, while refusing to take in most of the resulting refugees.

Thanks for the reply, but the last bit (quoted above) seems inaccurate from my personal political experience.

Are you sure the Senate has no longevity in Presidential decision, even as it was so in originating the country's infrastructure (in your own statement)? Are you sure the President can declare any national status without a consenting referendum?

I would like to ask for your information sources once again.

 

[phoenyx]

Originally, the U.S. Senate had to allow the U.S. President to go to wars of this nature, but that's no longer the case. Nowadays, U.S. Presidents can declare a "war on terror" or another label of this nature, foment political instability that leads to groups like ISIS, and then proceed to bomb a country's infrastructure to smithereens on the pretext of getting rid of the group their machinations they helped create, while refusing to take in most of the resulting refugees.

Thanks for the reply, but the last bit (quoted above) seems inaccurate from my personal political experience.

Are you sure the Senate has no longevity in Presidential decision, even as it was so in originating the country's infrastructure (in your own statement)? Are you sure the President can declare any national status without a consenting referendum?

I would like to ask for your information sources once again.

The U.S. can't officially declare war without the U.S. Senate- that hasn't changed. But that's just window dressing. The U.S. Senate hasn't declared war since World War II, but most people would agree that the U.S. has certainly -been- at war many times since that date. As to my source:
The US Is Now Involved In 134 Wars

 

[Holos]

I'm with Adams on this one...

That may well have been true in Adams' time. Since World War II, things have been a little different though...
US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

It seems you are confusing the concept of U.S. with the concept of America.

As to my source:
The US Is Now Involved In 134 Wars

Even the credible, Congressional Record, document in your source mentions nothing about America.

I do recognize, however, that the thread is not about America, but about the U.S. (which happens to be a solely individual matter).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
—
Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

 

[phoenyx]

I'm with Adams on this one...

That may well have been true in Adams' time. Since World War II, things have been a little different though...
US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

It seems you are confusing the concept of U.S. with the concept of America.

I believe that Adams meant then U.S. when he mentioned America. Do you believe otherwise?

As to my source:
The US Is Now Involved In 134 Wars

Even the credible, Congressional Record, document in your source mentions nothing about America.

I do recognize, however, that the thread is not about America, but about the U.S.

Yep...

(which happens to be a solely individual matter).

Not sure what you mean by that...

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
—
Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

I don't understand what you're saying here...

 

[Holos]

I believe that Adams meant then U.S. when he mentioned America. Do you believe otherwise?

I can't truly say what is to be believed in the case I am using the name of a person of which I have never met nor studied in depth, but the impression I have of those words is that America is not only a reference to the narrator, but a reference to what the narrator has perceived throughout life (and not throughout a carefully delineated or delineate time span), even as those perceptions happened to depart away from the narrator (and therefore lose the status of "united" except by the narrator's outreaching, rescuing memory).

Not sure what you mean by that...

If we are contrasting the United States of America to the United States, the principles of the latter are maintained applicable within any boundaries, but the principles of the former are only maintained when within a national, continental boundary.

Because the principles of the simplified "United States" are maintained applicable within any boundaries, those boundaries are especially individual (as in distributively divisive) and do not necessarily pertain to the totality of a progressing nation (distributively multiplying).

Individual because it has a final, conclusive, terminating direction. When division proceeds by exact terms (quantified dividends and quantified dividend beneficiaries) the process eventually stops or ends to bring the initial sought result.

Not really national because national matters are always including in their processes the possibility of one more or one less beneficiaries, therefore even as they are exact they are also indeterminately continuous, never truly completely halting in their directions.

 

[Spare_change]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

We would do that .... but the Democrats won't let us. Where do you propose to get the energy if we don't frack, use coal, or explore government lands?

 

[phoenyx]

I believe that Adams meant then U.S. when he mentioned America. Do you believe otherwise?

I can't truly say what is to be believed...

Ok.

Not sure what you mean by that...

If we are contrasting the United States of America to the United States, the principles of the latter are maintained applicable within any boundaries, but the principles of the former are only maintained when within a national, continental boundary.

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

 

[phoenyx]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

We would do that .... but the Democrats won't let us.

You're saying that Republicans are the doves ?

Where do you propose to get the energy if we don't frack, use coal, or explore government lands?

Hydropower, wind power, solar panels and biomass are the known contenders:
Renewable energy is not enough: it needs to be sustainable

The prospect of Cold Fusion is also making a comeback:
Why do scientists dismiss the possibility of cold fusion? | Aeon Essays

In Cold Fusion 2.0, Who's Scamming Whom? | Popular Mechanics

Congress Is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion | Popular Mechanics

What is Cold Fusion? | COLD FUSION NOW!

 

[Holos]

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

Americas | United Nations

The USA is one member of many of the UN, the US is a policy for all members of the UN.

 

[Spare_change]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

We would do that .... but the Democrats won't let us.

You're saying that Republicans are the doves ?

Where do you propose to get the energy if we don't frack, use coal, or explore government lands?

Hydropower, wind power, solar panels and biomass are the known contenders:
Renewable energy is not enough: it needs to be sustainable

The prospect of Cold Fusion is also making a comeback:
Why do scientists dismiss the possibility of cold fusion? | Aeon Essays

In Cold Fusion 2.0, Who's Scamming Whom? | Popular Mechanics

Congress Is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion | Popular Mechanics

What is Cold Fusion? | COLD FUSION NOW!

All of which are either fantasy, prohibitively expensive, or energy inefficient.

I suggest you review Donald Trump's energy/economic plan ... it will work. Willy Wonka fantasies won't.

 

[phoenyx]

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

Americas | United Nations

That's not the United States of America, that seems to be referring to America the Continent.

 

[phoenyx]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

We would do that .... but the Democrats won't let us.

You're saying that Republicans are the doves ?

Where do you propose to get the energy if we don't frack, use coal, or explore government lands?

Hydropower, wind power, solar panels and biomass are the known contenders:
Renewable energy is not enough: it needs to be sustainable

The prospect of Cold Fusion is also making a comeback:
Why do scientists dismiss the possibility of cold fusion? | Aeon Essays

In Cold Fusion 2.0, Who's Scamming Whom? | Popular Mechanics

Congress Is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion | Popular Mechanics

What is Cold Fusion? | COLD FUSION NOW!

All of which are either fantasy, prohibitively expensive, or energy inefficient.

You may want to check out the following article...
How America Could Get Rich by Going Green

I suggest you review Donald Trump's energy/economic plan ... it will work.

I have reviewed his economic plan, and so have many others. Here's the Washington Post's take:
Trump’s applause-line economic plan was a disaster

Moody's felt the same way:
Trump’s Economic Plan Would Be a Disaster for the US Economy: Moody’s

NPR critiques his recent economic speech in great detail here, in case you're interested:
FACT CHECK: Donald Trump Unveils His Economic Plan In Major Detroit Speech

 

[Holos]

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

Americas | United Nations

That's not the United States of America, that seems to be referring to America the Continent.

The United States of America is a Country constituent of America the Continent.

America the Continent is constituted of many nation-states, in similarity to our consideration of the whole planet, each Continent with their Countries abiding by their own legislature and given federal powers (laws).

The UN link is referring both to the Continent and to the Country in its text, both Continent and Country alternatively referred to as "America" in popular, colloquial language.

Also, in common verbatim often both Continent and Country are referred to as "America" when there is a large enough target audience considering multiple avenues of interest.

 

[GaryDog]

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

Americas | United Nations

That's not the United States of America, that seems to be referring to America the Continent.

The United States of America is a Country constituent of America the Continent.

America the Continent is constituted of many nation-states, in similarity to our consideration of the whole planet, each Continent with their Countries abiding by their own legislature and given federal powers (laws).

The UN link is referring both to the Continent and to the Country in its text, both Continent and Country alternatively referred to as "America" in popular, colloquial language.

Also, in common verbatim often both Continent and Country are referred to as "America" when there is a large enough target audience considering multiple avenues of interest.

Just putting this out there, but you seem to use words that you don't understand.

 

[Holos]

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

Americas | United Nations

That's not the United States of America, that seems to be referring to America the Continent.

The United States of America is a Country constituent of America the Continent.

America the Continent is constituted of many nation-states, in similarity to our consideration of the whole planet, each Continent with their Countries abiding by their own legislature and given federal powers (laws).

The UN link is referring both to the Continent and to the Country in its text, both Continent and Country alternatively referred to as "America" in popular, colloquial language.

Also, in common verbatim often both Continent and Country are referred to as "America" when there is a large enough target audience considering multiple avenues of interest.

Just putting this out there, but you seem to use words that you don't understand.

Do you have a suggestion?

Because I could probably tell you the exact same.

 

[GaryDog]

I was unaware that there was any difference between the United States and the United States of America. Could you source a reference that distinguishes between the 2?

Americas | United Nations

That's not the United States of America, that seems to be referring to America the Continent.

The United States of America is a Country constituent of America the Continent.

America the Continent is constituted of many nation-states, in similarity to our consideration of the whole planet, each Continent with their Countries abiding by their own legislature and given federal powers (laws).

The UN link is referring both to the Continent and to the Country in its text, both Continent and Country alternatively referred to as "America" in popular, colloquial language.

Also, in common verbatim often both Continent and Country are referred to as "America" when there is a large enough target audience considering multiple avenues of interest.

Just putting this out there, but you seem to use words that you don't understand.

Do you have a suggestion?

Because I could probably tell you the exact same.

Sure, study more English?