toxicmedia
Gold Member
In Korea...we were reactive. We reacted to the North Korean agression.
In Vietnam...we were being proactive, and that really didn't get us anywhere. Look at Vietnam right now. They got what they wanted out of that war, indpendence.
In Iraq...we were proactive, and the need for proactivity didn't exist. Iraq will also be no less of a threat to the US after we leave.
In Afghanistan....we were reactive, and after we leave, the same threat of terrorism camps will exist.
In Libya....we were reactive, and tried to ride the wave of anti Qudaffi-ism, and we'll see if a hostile government emerges.
I don't subscirbe to your oversimplified concepts of proactive VS reactive. In WWII, even though Republicans lead the isolationist charge, we were dragged into war. Since then, we have always intervened, and never been attacked. Thus the concept of NOn interventionlism.
The war on Terror....is as Ron Paul says, not a war on a country, but a war on a tactic. Our modern military that is built to win wars of attrition, and is not nearly as neccessary in 2012 as good counter intell, and a fleet of drones is.
China is not imperialistic, nor are they showing signs of becomming so. I lived in China, and it's part of most of thier cultures to mind their own business, and let other countries do what they want, but trade with those countries nonetheless......Which is what non interventionlism is!.
No other countries pose a threat to the US. Even if alll other counties on the world attacked the US at once, without nukes of course, they would not have the money or amphibious capability to invade and hold the US. If anybody fires nukes at the US, there is nothing a standing mechanized Army can do about it.
Our situation today, has NOTHING to do with the pre WWII situation, and the detriments of appeasement.
Germany was a real threat, with an army sophisticated enough to possibly win a war of attrition, where the losers are conquered, the US included.
Terrorism has zero potential to take our freedom and conquer the US.
George Bush's tender notion that if we fought terrorists in the middle east, we wouldn't have to fight them here....is more at home in a hollywood movie script than it is out here in the real world. Sure....they can pull off random attacks, or maybe even a nuke attack, but our conquer Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya plan won't stop people in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya from using the tactic of terrorism.
Now if you're one of those that thinks the US has stopped terrorism, and needs to stay in the middle east forever to make sure it stays that way......there isn't anyway I will be able to unwind that notion with any form of reality.
You have to have spent time in places like China, and the middle east, to know why they aren't the threat some say they are.
The US is one of the only countries still practicing cold war militarism. Nobody else can afford that, and we can't either anymore. That sort of Churchill / Audie Murphy worship thing will continue to exist in Chuck Norris and Clint Eastwood movies...not to fret!
Last edited:
