What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

joecct said:
Does that make you an isolationist? Just asking, not pointing fingers.
Click to expand...

I do not think so. It probably does in some people's minds. For the specific situation in Syria, I have stated the I do not think the United States should get involved at this time and that there is zero good to be gained by getting involved.

In general terms, I simply think that the United States should re-evaluate our place in the world, how our foreign policy (meddling seemingly everyone's business) and adjust our foreign policies to best suit where we want to be. For me personally that means not getting involved in wars as much as can be avoided, stop being the "world's policeman", and encourage other countries that have the means to start taking the lead on some of these things. It does not mean cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and saying to hell with them. If that makes me an isolationist to some people then so be it. I prefer to call myself more of a passisvist when it comes to foreign policy. I do fully understand that I am in the minority in my way of thinking, but that doesn't mean all of my ideas are wacko. I certainly consider myself a bit more sane than say Rand Paul. :D
 
Last edited:
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Rover said:
Makes him a libertarian as best I can tell, which isn't too dissimilar. While I don't agree in the least about abdicating the US's place in the world, its an interesting perspective.
Click to expand...

I used to be a registered Libertarian (among others) but while I am a currently registered as Green party, I most closely but not completely identify with libertarian socialism with regards to my political views.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

MattS said:
The US only has this "unique place in the world" because past leaders have decided to make it our place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that strain of thinking goes back to Calvin Coolidge's maxim, "the business of America is business." (or however he actually worded it) ??

After World War II, I don't think our "past leaders" had much of a choice to make it our "unique place in the world": Much of continental Europe was in ruins, as were two major cities in Japan. Had we not acted swiftly and decisively to intervene in those two places, who knows what kind of trouble would have reared its head in those two power vacuums?

The "Marshall Plan" seems to have been a huge success in fulfilling its objectives: to provide stable democratic governments and to establish the basis for prosperous global trade. Since then, the strategic use of US military power to keep a stable environment in which global free trade could take place has been a primary objective of US foreign policy. It has worked well, both domestically and abroad, in doing a remarkably fine job of raising living standards both in the US and abroad. It's beyond the scope of this thread to point out how economic prosperity has done far more to alleviate poverty, suffering, infant mortality, etc. than any narrowly-targeted government program, although there is plenty of data to support that assertion.

Anyway, I do agree with you that the problems in Syria should have been addressed forthrightly several years ago; and I would go further than you and suggest that they actually started when we abandoned the Iraqis before we ensured that the country was first stabilized (the most telling criticizm of the Iraqi Invasion v 2 was that we allowed so much sectarian violence to occur between 2003 and 2007; the "surge" should have started on day 1).
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
. Since then, the strategic use of US military power to keep a stable environment in which global free trade could take place has been a primary objective of US foreign policy. It has worked well, both domestically and abroad, in doing a remarkably fine job of raising living standards both in the US and abroad. It's beyond the scope of this thread to point out how economic prosperity has done far more to alleviate poverty, suffering, infant mortality, etc. than any government program, although there is plenty of data to support that assertion.
Click to expand...

What do you call the strategic use of military force to keep trade open if not a government program? What do you call the Marshall Plan if not a gov't program? Economic prosperity does not arise in a vacuum.
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Old Pio said:
So not supporting the resolution "in its present form" equals wanting "boots on the ground?" Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Not supporting the bombing means you are a terrorist sympathizer.

See how stupid that sounds?
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

The latest whip count

syria_vote_graphic90413.2-132.png



ETA: This news just came through via CNN

Washington (CNN) – The Russian government is moving forward with its plan to directly lobby the U.S. Congress and try to undercut President Obama on Syria. A spokesman for the Russian embassy in Washington told CNN Wednesday that diplomats sent an official request to congressional leaders to meet with them on Capitol Hill.

“We’re planning the visit,” an embassy spokesman told CNN, “We can’t tell you the exact time but it will be next week.”

---

“At this particular point, my understanding has been that relations between members of Congress and the Russian parliament have been very sour,” said Dick Lugar, former head of Senate Foreign Relations Committee and known for his work with Russian officials.

“I don’t think a delegation from Russia will make any difference in terms of congressional votes,” he added. “But at the same time there may be the possibility that dialogue could lead to other positive things.”

When told about the request, one House leadership aide was less embracing, sarcastically replying, “Good luck to ‘em!"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

That sad part is that a majority of Republicans in the "No" block are probably only leaning that way to oppose something "The One" wants to do, and not based on any sort of principled stance against excess spending, or intervening in a war that isn't ours.
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
That sad part is that a majority of Republicans in the "No" block are probably only leaning that way to oppose something "The One" wants to do, and not based on any sort of principled stance against excess spending, or intervening in a war that isn't ours.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the lefty Dem congressmen who've been whining for years about "go it alone neo-con cowboys" who will vote yes to show support for HIM?
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Correct, it's the same sh*t.
Click to expand...

Despite the nearly overwhelming temptation to vote "no" and allow this incompetent, bumbling, feckless president to stew in his own blather, I would hold my nose and vote "yes." We only have one POTUS at a time. And there are far more serious matters down the road, like Iran's nukes. And we need for POTUS to be seen as speaking for the American people as much as possible. One hopes The Field Marshal will opt for a strike that is more than a "shot across Assad's bow." Such a strike wouldn't impress him in the slightest. Neither would it get the attention of the Mullahs in Tehran.
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

Old Pio said:
So not supporting the resolution "in its present form" equals wanting "boots on the ground?" Nonsense.
Click to expand...
From the article
McCain is an outspoken advocate of intervention against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime and wants more than cruise missile strikes and other limited action.
Click to expand...

What's more than bombs and missiles? I thought that was boots on the ground. If I am mistaken, then my apologies.
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

joecct said:
From the article


What's more than bombs and missiles? I thought that was boots on the ground. If I am mistaken, then my apologies.
Click to expand...

Nuke them from space.
 
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

joecct said:
From the article


What's more than bombs and missiles? I thought that was boots on the ground. If I am mistaken, then my apologies.
Click to expand...

A more robust air campaign with a wider array of targets, designed to pulverized his air bases and destroy his planes and helicopters (remember how Hussein snookered us after the first gulf war and slaughtered the Kurds using his choppers?) and not just his chemical assets. Who knows, maybe we could find an appropriate target for a MOAB? Hoo baby, ten tons of fun!* All of this instead of the "shot across the bow" pinpr*ck the Generalissimo is advocating. And arms and training for the non-Islamist anti-Assad forces (which the Field Marshal has promised but not yet delivered).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb
 
Last edited:
Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!

joecct said:
Does that make you an isolationist? Just asking, not pointing fingers.
Click to expand...

Before reading through the rest as I don't want to get skewed by other thoughts on this -- it does not. That term has been thrown around far too loosely over the course of the past few weeks. Not wanting to get militarily involved in one specific instance does not make one an isolationist.

Regarding this specific instance, the isolationist tag is being highly misappropriated. When the only rationale I've seen for mucking it up in Syria comes from that of a humanitarian bent, the question then becomes "why this and why not many other places in the world where far, far more inhumane and brutal things have occurred over the course of the past 50 years while we stood by and did nothing?" While at times there may very well be merit to getting involved in a region due to humanitarian concerns, looking at what we've done militarily over the past 12 years and believing we shouldn't get involved because there is absolutely no upside for us (at best) is not isolationist. It certainly sets the stage for a discussion on where we should get involved, and when and why, but that's unrelated to the attempts to paint anyone against this as being some sort of nationalistic hermit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top