War...Where Next?

[Samson]

We need to invade Cuba and then admit it as the 51st state. We already have a large proportion of the Cubans here as citizens. I'm sure the Cubans still there would welcome the federal governments assistance from food stamps to FHA assistance. Plus it is a great place for idustrial expansion, casinos and resorts that would be subject to fedreal taxation.

There are a "Large Proportion of Cubans here as citizens?"

There are approximately 1.5 million Cubans in the United States.

pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/23.pdf

There are over 300 million people in the USA.

How is 1.5 Cubans/300+ Citizens a "Large Proportion?"

 

[The T]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

Right now? The PEOPLE of The United States v. The Government Of The United States.

 

[Samson]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

Right now? The Government Of The PEOPLE of The United States v. The Government Of The United States.

<<<<<sigh>>>>>

 

[The T]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

Right now? The Government Of The PEOPLE of The United States v. The Government Of The United States.

<<<<<sigh>>>>>

Sigh all you like. That's what is going on whether any of you will admit it or not.

 

[AHILLS205]

We must beg the forgiveness of european socialists and third world dictators for our oppressive, expansionist, warmongering, capitalistic, exploitive, corporatist schemes...............

Isolationism and "containment" are worthwhile "strategies"..............lol

 

[Samson]

Right now? The Government Of The PEOPLE of The United States v. The Government Of The United States.

<<<<<sigh>>>>>

Sigh all you like. That's what is going on whether any of you will admit it or not.

The thread is about WAR: military conflict, not an idealogical civil conflict.

 

[Samson]

We must beg the forgiveness of european socialists and third world dictators for our oppressive, expansionist, warmongering, capitalistic, exploitive, corporatist schemes...............

Isolationism and "containment" are worthwhile "strategies"..............lol

What the **** are you babbling about?

 

[Flopper]

there seems to be an association between war and republicans. while republicans are the neoconservatives of the day, i argue that the US government is predisposed to warfare as an obligation to our interests, and that our war policy runs on rails if you will. in that way, i'm not sure if the party or personality at the helm really matters much in terms of if or where. i think how and how it will be perceived is the biggest variable an R or D could contribute.

Over the last hundred years Democrat and Republican presidents have taken us into war. Democratic presidents did the deed in first half of the 20th century then the Republicans presidents decided it was past time for them to try their hand at war. I guest they liked it so they have continued into the 21st century.

Of the 13 presidents we have had beginning with WWII, the only presidents that did have to deal with military action was:
Eisenhower, guest he had enough after WWII,
Ford, wasn't president long enough to get us into a war
Cartier, not sure what his excuse was.

Looks likes about 3 out of every 4 presidents have engage in war somewhere.

Looking back, I don't think we had much choice about going to war in WWII.

But suppose we had not gone to war in Korea and Viet Nam. What difference would it have made today with communism a dead duck in most of the world.

I'm not sure why we invaded Grenada or what was accomplished.

Had we not invaded Iraq, Kuwait would have fallen to Iraq and Sudam would probably be in power.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably still be in power.

In the US, tens of thousands of American service men would not have lost their lives and we would not have spent many trillions of dollars.

Was is it worth it?

it wasn't worth it. the net result of all of that conflict during the cold war was our victory in the cold war. that was important, but our methods to include war in vietnam and CIA-wars around the periphery of the USSR were inefficient as a compliment. their biting us in the ass in 2001 only drives that home.

in the end, the role of the US military has been pretty central to our position in the world and plays a big part in the character of american life. the carelessness of the way that these actions have been pursued really qualifies the idea that it wasn't worth it in the end. the means fails to justify the end i guess.

I agree.
The military action in Grenada has always seemed unwarranted, but maybe I just don't understand what it was all about.

 

[antagon]

latin america and the caribbean love the concept of communism. grenada was about nipping some of that in the bud. cuban commies i think.

 

[Samson]

I agree.
The military action in Grenada has always seemed unwarranted, but maybe I just don't understand what it was all about.

WTF Flopper!!!

Is there anything else you don't understand but about which you have an opinion?



its shit like this that makes reading message boards worthwhile.

 

[gautama]

Let's see, Vatican City is small as far as nations go, but that will rile up the Catholics, and our SCOTUS is mostly Catholic, hm, how about Monaco, nah, Grace Kelly was beautiful, we just can't invade romantic places, how about Nauru, should be easy, small, one bomb would probably suffice, we could have the GOP all decked out like Bush was on a carrier with Mission Accomplished signs everywhere. Now what is they did? We need another Colin Powell speech. And then we will feel better like Reagan and Granada. Isn't war great.


"'The Culture of Contentment' is a deliberate misnomer. Galbraith is using irony here, irony little short of sarcasm. What he really means is the culture of smugness. His argument is that until the mid 1970s round about the oil crisis the western democracies accepted the idea of a mixed economy and with that went economic social progress. Since then, however, a prominent class has emerged, materially stable and even very rich, which, far from trying to help the less fortunate, has developed a whole infrastructure - politically and intellectually - to marginalize and even demonize them. Aspects of this include tax reductions to the better off and welfare cuts to the worst off, small 'manageable wars' to maintain the unifying force of a common enemy, the idea of 'unmitigated laissez-faire as embodiment of freedom,' and a desire for cutback in government. The most important collective end result of all this, Galbraith says, is a blindness and a deafness among the 'contented' to the growing problems of society. While they are content to spend, or have spent in their name, trillions of dollars to defeat relatively minor enemy figures.... they are extremely unwilling to spend money on the underclass nearer home. In a startling paragraph he quotes figures to show that 'the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 28% in just 10 years from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32 million in 1988 by then nearly one in five children was born in poverty in the United States more than twice as high a proportion as in Canada or Germany." Peter Watson

Amazon.com: Culture of Contentment, the (Penguin economics) (9780140173666): John Kenneth Galbraith: Books

CanOshit....... this Lieberrhoidal Idiot just made the list of fools.

 

[zzzz]

We need to invade Cuba and then admit it as the 51st state. We already have a large proportion of the Cubans here as citizens. I'm sure the Cubans still there would welcome the federal governments assistance from food stamps to FHA assistance. Plus it is a great place for idustrial expansion, casinos and resorts that would be subject to fedreal taxation.

There are a "Large Proportion of Cubans here as citizens?"

There are approximately 1.5 million Cubans in the United States.

pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/23.pdf

There are over 300 million people in the USA.

How is 1.5 Cubans/300+ Citizens a "Large Proportion?"

I meant in relation to the population of Cuba! Cuba has 11 million and there are 1.5 Cubans here. That makes the "American" Cubans equal to approximately 14% of the Island of Cuba. We are never going to invade it anyway. It doesn't have oil or any other materials that we need.

The meaning of war has changed in the last century and has really split into 2 areas. One, we still have the violent conflict that characterizes the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the guerilla campaigns carried on by Al Qaida and other groups. The second area of war is economic and this war is being waged by China and the US. Violent conflict has no rewards. The victor and loser both suffer major losses to men, material and bankrolls. Sure there will always be violent conflicts but the nation versus nation conflict like Iraq is fading into the past. More and more it will be the economic warfare that will prevail. The US is losing the war against China because we fail to see it as a war. Until the American people wake up and realize that economics is the new warfare we will continue to lose jobs and wealth until we are broke and just a shell of what we were, like the British.

 

[Samson]

We need to invade Cuba and then admit it as the 51st state. We already have a large proportion of the Cubans here as citizens. I'm sure the Cubans still there would welcome the federal governments assistance from food stamps to FHA assistance. Plus it is a great place for idustrial expansion, casinos and resorts that would be subject to fedreal taxation.

There are a "Large Proportion of Cubans here as citizens?"

There are approximately 1.5 million Cubans in the United States.

pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/23.pdf

There are over 300 million people in the USA.

How is 1.5 Cubans/300+ Citizens a "Large Proportion?"

I meant in relation to the population of Cuba! Cuba has 11 million and there are 1.5 Cubans here. That makes the "American" Cubans equal to approximately 14% of the Island of Cuba. We are never going to invade it anyway.

 

[antagon]

zzzzzzzz, i think war will always entail tangible conflict and force, much like economics will always entail tangible commerce. where the tangible ends of each of these cross, i feel our posturing to china indicates differently than you have observed. there is either amazing coincidence, or there are some people who matter who recognize that there is a cold economic war at play with the chinese. it couldn't be said that the US is winning without reproach, but i argue inverse to yourself, that we are winning.

what i think americans fail to realize sometimes is that in a fight, even the winning party will break a sweat and take some punches. many, perhaps yourself, have confused the pain of winning with the pain of defeat and not bothered to analyze the fight itself.

 

[xotoxi]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

Montenegro would be pretty easy to take.

 

[Intense]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

Canada! Shhhh!!! It's a secret.

 

[Samson]

The US is a warring nation. As our grip on world influence increased, so has our participation in conflicts across the globe. The last half of the 20th century has seen us jumping from conflict to conflict, and in this century, we've been at it full-time. Is our involvement Afghanistan and Iraq really going to subside any time soon? Will that bring us a spell of peace? If not, who's next in line for a showdown with America?

Canada! Shhhh!!! It's a secret.

I thought Canada was already part of the USA?

 

[antagon]

how about another panama-based conflict... not with panama but over panama and its exclusivity with the canal. something about venezuela and columbia's lovemaking recently which imperils the regional peace. they either have a lover's spat we'd be interested in, or they combine to project aggression against our interests. we need a reason to renew our grip on the canal territory too.

 

[zzzz]

how about another panama-based conflict... not with panama but over panama and its exclusivity with the canal. something about venezuela and columbia's lovemaking recently which imperils the regional peace. they either have a lover's spat we'd be interested in, or they combine to project aggression against our interests. we need a reason to renew our grip on the canal territory too.

Regional peace? The banana republics do not merit our attention. The only military powers in this hemisphere is the US and Canadian armies, all the rest are police forces. As long as the oil and minerals flow out of the republics there is no need for intervention.

Realistically other than the ongoing Korean police action a possible quick strike is likely on Taiwan by China. China’s growing economic clout and modernization of their military makes this scenario quite likely in the next 10 years. If they invade Taiwan who is going to care? Of course we will do all kinds of posturing but are we going to go to war with the new superpower of the world? Someone who has the capability of hitting the US with Nukes? Over Taiwan? I don’t think so.

It will be a quick strike with paratroopers, and air strikes. A build-up of military forces will come under the guise of an exercise. But the main thrust of the attack will come internally. China is already placing troops (as civilians) in Taiwan and recruiting people in country to help during the invasion. When the attack commences, these people will disable the key communications and defense facilities. It will be a blitzkrieg type of attack that will be over in a day or so and the US will be faced with a dilemma. Do we attack the Chinese or say let it go?

 

[rdean]

As long as we have what other nations/dictators want, we will be at war. When we have nothing, we will be ignored.

I get it. That's the Republican strategy. Ooh, insight. If the middle class and the economy is destroyed, then we won't be attacked. We will be "safe".

Only,

After 8 years of war

A generation of young men killed or maimed

a ruined economy

Iraq was attacked. By us.

Maybe the Republicans need to rethink their "plan".