When all is said and done, either the US polices the world, or the world goes unpoliced. If we don’t support out government in this effort, the world becomes just like the South Bronx. Want to live there?
The megapolitical structure of the world is based upon pure power. The last time we had a power transition, 1918-1945, the world went through hell. Want to live through that?
If we don’t police the world, someone else might try. The UN? China? Good luck!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When all is said and done, either the US polices the world, or the world goes unpoliced. If we don’t support out government in this effort, the world becomes just like the South Bronx. Want to live there?
The megapolitical structure of the world is based upon pure power. The last time we had a power transition, 1918-1945, the world went through hell. Want to live through that?
If we don’t police the world, someone else might try. The UN? China? Good luck!![/quote]
I laughed when I read this. Do we want the world to be like the South Bronx? If there is a South Bronx in America, what gives us the right to police anyone else?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I laughed when I read this. Do we want the world to be like the South Bronx? If there is a South Bronx in America, what gives us the right to police anyone else?
[/quote]
Because the policing of the South Bronx is a function of the NYPD - not the Fed.
But you had to have known that, right?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When all is said and done, either the US polices the world, or the world goes unpoliced. If we don’t support out government in this effort, the world becomes just like the South Bronx. Want to live there?
The megapolitical structure of the world is based upon pure power. The last time we had a power transition, 1918-1945, the world went through hell. Want to live through that?
If we don’t police the world, someone else might try. The UN? China? Good luck!!
I laughed when I read this. Do we want the world to be like the South Bronx? If there is a South Bronx in America, what gives us the right to police anyone else?
[/quote]
Because we’re America, duh. And saying that our South Bronx isn’t the best South Bronx in the world is REPREHENSIBLE!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I laughed when I read this. Do we want the world to be like the South Bronx? If there is a South Bronx in America, what gives us the right to police anyone else?
Because the policing of the South Bronx is a function of the NYPD - not the Fed.
But you had to have known that, right?
[/quote]
That doesn’t matter. We have many problems right here in our own country. Acting as if we are the world police implies that we have the resources to back that up. I am wondering if anyone thinks that we aren’t spread thin in the middle east as it is. Again, if that is truly our goal, there are other countries out there with political systems that go against what we believe in this country. How did Iraq become the world’s focus at the expense of all others?
[quote]vroom wrote:
It is hard to “win” against “terrorism” by fighting in Iraq – no matter how long you stay. There will probably be violence and attacks for decades, how can you declare victory with this criteria?
I’m predicting that the troops will be mostly withdrawn before the next election.
No, instead he’ll flip flop into calling this a victory when Iraq can fight the battle, because it will be far from over when US troops finally do leave.
Then, after the troops do leave, there will be all kinds of strife and unrest in Iraq. Then, Bush will have left both too late and too early.
Honestly, Bush should just come right out and say what he intends to do without trying to couch this in terms of victory and defeat. He is digging his own grave with that language. All he needed to say was “we’ll leave as soon as Iraq can police itself competently”.
However, I understand the reason for it, after all nobody wants to surrender to the evil terrorists. Nobody wants to admit defeat. Nobody wants to encourage terrorism. Nobody wants to be unpatriotic or anti-american.
That’s why he is wrapping himself in such language. It’s a mistake.[/quote]
“We will make decisions about troops levels based upon the capability of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy,” Bush said in El Paso, Texas. “I will make decisions on the level of troops based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground.”
Same article. Same President.
Your quote is talking about the War on Terror - and yes I think we should fight that until we have achieved a victory. I know how hard it is for some to grasp the fact that the war in Iraq is part of the GWOT, but the actual withdrawal of troops in Iraq is dependent on Iraqi readiness.
But nice try all the same.
I guess it goes unpoliced then… because there is a lot of shit that is going on these days!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Why surrender when you are winning? The illusion that the US is losing is largely a creation of the media and fabrication of the left to score political points.
If we were losing key battles, had no plan to win or sustain the battle I would think about exiting. When the defeat of the enemy is a foregone conclusion why hand them victory?
Hedo,
You paint a really nice picture. I don’t by any means intend to suggest that I think the US is losing. The questions I’m asking are not defined by win and loss.
The point is that at some point the troops are actually going to leave Iraq. Whenever that is, there is going to be risks as to what will then happen there afterwards. Get beyond the win/lose mentality here.
All you are doing is echoing talking points when you call leaving a surrender… at some point the US will leave, that doesn’t make it a surrender by any means. If the mission is already accomplished, why stay?
What is the mission now? What will be the next mission? When will there stop being more missions?
Again, I ask you, if the current administration decides to remove the forces from Iraq prior to the next election, will you support that move?
Instead of chanting some propaganda, why don’t you just try to give an honest answer concerning when it is appropriate to leave and whether you would support the administration if it left just to help it’s chances in the next election?[/quote]
Vroom you getting funny now…what exactly is your point? I have answered you in clear, precise terms and because it is not what you want to hear you respond with…huh?
I don’t think the US should pull out to coincide with any election. I think they should pull out when the Iraqi’s can become a stable deomocracy. I think we will always garrison a force in Iraq because of it’s strategic location.
The mission ends when the civilians in power say it ends. The next one is where they say to go. Always had been that way for a military man.
Bye the way the picture I am painting comes from a very accurate source, military bloggers and returning vets. We’ve welcomed a lot home recently. It’s not my picture…it’s theirs. If all your news comes from people with an axe to grind it’s going to be skewed.
I am curious by what measure do you feel the insurgency is defeating the US? Why do you think we should consider a pull out or discuss it? Do you feel discussimg a “cut and run” strategy would benefit our troops who are engaged in combat? Should their morale come into the equation?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That doesn’t matter. We have many problems right here in our own country. Acting as if we are the world police implies that we have the resources to back that up. I am wondering if anyone thinks that we aren’t spread thin in the middle east as it is. Again, if that is truly our goal, there are other countries out there with political systems that go against what we believe in this country. How did Iraq become the world’s focus at the expense of all others?
[/quote]
So you think that every time there is a problem, that the fed should jump in and fix it? Aren;t you the one complaining the loudest about PATRIOT Act?
How do you reconcile your hypocrisy/
[quote]vroom wrote:
When all is said and done, either the US polices the world, or the world goes unpoliced.
I guess it goes unpoliced then… because there is a lot of shit that is going on these days![/quote]
Just how shitty it would be if Canada were in charge.
It’s too easy to blame the U.S. for everything that is wrong in the world. Just like it is too easy to throw up one’s hands and quit because there are bad things happening.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When all is said and done, either the US polices the world, or the world goes unpoliced. If we don’t support out government in this effort, the world becomes just like the South Bronx. Want to live there?
The megapolitical structure of the world is based upon pure power. The last time we had a power transition, 1918-1945, the world went through hell. Want to live through that?
If we don’t police the world, someone else might try. The UN? China? Good luck!!
I laughed when I read this. Do we want the world to be like the South Bronx? If there is a South Bronx in America, what gives us the right to police anyone else?
[/quote]
Power is shifting. It is now far easier for small groups to challenge the prevailing order. Until someone comes up with a better weapon system (maybe nanotech-based), the US will be fighting in a more challenged role as the world’s policeman.
(Hopefully, the terrorists will not be the first ones to discover the next step concerning weapons). Our federal government needs our support, just like the brave police and firefighters who guard our neighborhoods.
I fail to see how this would make any sane person laugh.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So you think that every time there is a problem, that the fed should jump in and fix it?
[/quote]
No, I don’t…just like I don’t think that anyone needs to start promoting the concept that we are the “World Police” when we have our own problems right here at home. It is funny how you seem to straddle the line.
You don’t expect the Feds to jump in for every little problem but do expect America to run around the globe and make everyone think and act like us. I think it is a very catchy phrase that makes our actions in Iraq look better. I don’t think the “World Police” do much more than play politics.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Power is shifting. It is now far easier for small groups to challenge the prevailing order. Until someone comes up with a better weapon system (maybe nanotech-based), the US will be fighting in a more challenged role as the world’s policeman.
(Hopefully, the terrorists will not be the first ones to discover the next step concerning weapons). Our federal government needs our support, just like the brave police and firefighters who guard our neighborhoods.
I fail to see how this would make any sane person laugh.
[/quote]
Why do you even have the desire to “police the world”? Other than ensuring our own place in a balance of power, when did it become America’s goal to govern how everyone else on the planet behaves?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, I don’t…just like I don’t think that anyone needs to start promoting the concept that we are the “World Police” when we have our own problems right here at home. It is funny how you seem to straddle the line. [/quote]
We are in a global economy. Hell - we are the biggest consumer on the planet. We have interests all over the world. Vital interests. Interests that, if compromised, would end life as 300 million of us know it. The U.S. protecting its interests is hardly a concept that needs promoting. If I am straddling a line I’d like to know what it is.
Who has said anything of the sort? When have we done anything of the sort? Spreading democracy and personal freedom is now the same as trying to create a bunch of little U.S.A.'s? I don’t think that is accurate.
If we pitch in and help in the World Community - we get bitched at, our flags are burned, and huge people hold demonstrations. If we don’t do anything - we get bitched at, our flags are burned, and people hold huge demonstrations.
That just goes with the territory of being the strongest, richest, most powerful nation on earth.
The history of our world shows that peace is maintained when one country has overwhelming superiority with which to play the role of ‘policeman’. It is precisely when no country has that power that all the little ‘power elites’ set up all their own rules, taxes, confiscations and so forth. The world becomes stagant and experiences depression and chaos. Look at a map of all the little countries in Africa, each with its own elite, and you’ll see why the continent is very underdeveloped. A powerful country, like Britain in the 19th century, breaks down trade barriers and gets economies going.
The world truly is a global community. Letting it deteriorate into little clusters of gangs fighting each other will truly make the world more and more like the south Bronx.
[quote]Just how shitty it would be if Canada were in charge.
It’s too easy to blame the U.S. for everything that is wrong in the world. Just like it is too easy to throw up one’s hands and quit because there are bad things happening. [/quote]
Rainjack,
Canada isn’t in charge. The US isn’t in charge. Clue train coming by here… we’re talking about the world here oh quick one.
Grab a clue next time the train comes by okay?
What a shame your mission to is destroy any chance at having a reasonable discussion with anyone.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,
Canada isn’t in charge. The US isn’t in charge. Clue train coming by here… we’re talking about the world here oh quick one.[/quote]
The U.S. is a world leader in just about everything. Too think for a minute that the most powerful nation on the face of the earth does not think of itself as a leader is just…well…vroomish. I fear it would take more than a clue train for you to latch on to reality.
[quote]
What a shame your mission to is destroy any chance at having a reasonable discussion with anyone. [/quote]
What has been destroyed? Your feelings?
Let me get this straight. I offer my opinion. You reply with something about grabbing a clue from the clue train. And then you have the audacity to tell me that I am the one that is bent on destroying any chance at a reasonable discussion?
I hate to break it to you - but you have been shown the door by more folks than just me. I would think that the discussion would be much more reasonable if you weren’t a part of it. At least then everyone would know where everyone stands, and we wouldn’t have to wonder which one of the “5 D’s” of dodgeball you would employ next.
Rainjack, are you now claiming that playing a leading role is the same as being in charge?
Make up your mind already.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The world truly is a global community. Letting it deteriorate into little clusters of gangs fighting each other will truly make the world more and more like the south Bronx. [/quote]
I hate to break this to you, but the world “deteriorated” into that around the time of Moses. Hell, some might even say Cain and Abel.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
“We will make decisions about troops levels based upon the capability of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy,” Bush said in El Paso, Texas. “I will make decisions on the level of troops based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground.”
Same article. Same President.
Your quote is talking about the War on Terror - and yes I think we should fight that until we have achieved a victory. I know how hard it is for some to grasp the fact that the war in Iraq is part of the GWOT, but the actual withdrawal of troops in Iraq is dependent on Iraqi readiness.
But nice try all the same.
[/quote]
Rainjack, both quotes are, as you so astutely noticed, in the same article. However, I think you are mistaken when you try to separate the two.
The president and administration are most certainly trying to frame Iraq as a win/lose proposition with respect to getting out.
I think that is going to bite them on the ass later. You don’t. We disagree. I’m shocked.