It's time for BIG cuts in our military

India and Japan balance China's interests, and Europe balances Russia's - so there's no risk of that.

 

There's always a risk...

 

React quickly to what?

How does it fall to the US to determine what is and is not misbehavior? What justification do we have to make such a call?

I thought it was to contain communism.

What justification do we have been there filling this "vacuum" in the first place?

Ethereal, I like your sig;

I wish you really believed it.

 

Our own interests and our ability to, that's our justification. Right or wrong, ultimately the biggest dog on the block dictates. When other country's interests intefere with our own someone has to yield. As the world's only superpower that usually leaves the other guy hanging.

 

We can, therefore we should? What the hell kind of philosophy is that?

 

Isn't exactly this kind of philosophy that extended the USA west to the Pacific Ocean? Can it be that in an internatioal environmnt, equillibrium is always only temporary, one always wins and th other looses. If yes, then I think it is better to be proactive and do whatever if we can.

 

A realist one. I'm not advocating that we try and take over the world. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that we live in a brutal world where every country has their own self-interests. Don't be niave enough to think that if we kept purely to ourselves other countries wouldn't fill our shoes in a more brutal manner.

 

Why not? Los2rec just did.

Purely?? Where does "purely" come from?
Yes, other countries will act in their own self interests, but we should, we must, respect their right of self-determination as much as we demand that they respect ours. IF another nation "fills our shoes" (shoes that aren't rightly ours, btw) in a more brutal manner, we can decide if and how to respond. It has become the new American norm to assume people will do wrong if not strip-searched and constantly surveiled. It's wrong for the American citizenry and it's wrong as a foreign policy.

 

>>>All I can say is what I said previously. Our military is spread out all over the globe and dozens of conflicts persist. Proof/pie/pudding. And our military has proven powerless against rogues in Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, the Sudan, Afghanistan and probably Iraq. Combined, there have been big global consequences.

Why do we keep setting ourselves up to get our butts kicked?

 

Well there was that whole 15 year long Central African Conflict, sometimes called "Africa's World War". We did (*)(*)(*)(*) all to stop that.

 

Because it didn't affect U.S. (or world) interests enough to warrant the cost of responding.

 

"demand that they respect ours".....thats the fine line. When do we determine whether a country is promoting their own self-interests at the cost of ours? When the Taliban was harboring AQ they were promoting their own self-interests of hardline Islamic rule. We decided our own self-interests were more important (9/11) and took them out. What if Egypt decided to restrict the Suez canal with a heavy tax for increased tax revenue and self-interest? Would the billions in dollars of economic loss this caused to the U.S. and world (our self-interests) warrant military action against Egypt? The world is incredibly interconnected and deciding exactly when self-interests trump other countr's self-interests in a huge grey area. Luckily for the U.S. and its allies being top dog means we have the ability to defend our interests.

 

No, respecting their right to self-determination as much as we want ours respected is not a fine line. You falsely make it fine by assuming ours is more important than theirs. When you conseder them as equal, the line becomes much more distinct.

Non-example, but you don't really care about that, do you?

Absolutely not.

That's precisely the attitude I'd like to see get changed.

 

The deaths of millions of people and the sudden cutoff in access to rare resources didn't matter?

So you admit that the US doesn't stop conflicts?

 

What kind of a justification are you looking for? A legal one? A moral one? A pragmatic one?

Correct, and in order to effectively contain it, we had to preempt the commies by filling strategic power vacuums.

It's in the best strategic interests of the United States and the free world.

Totally juvenile and unnecessary. I expect more from you.

 

Their right to self-determination does not trump our right to self-defense.

 

How can he admit something which cannot be proven?

 

I believe the U.S. will willingly try and intervene in genocide scenarios, but not when its comes at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of troops. The same is even more true for Europe and the rest of the world. Plus, I think in many cases no one really knows what the answer is. Throwing money and troops doesn't always solve the situation....sometimes it makes it worse.

 

Look at it this way. There are finite resources in the world. Everyone (nation) has its own self-interests at heart. It's a mad scramble for positioning. Inevitably one country's interests will conflict with another one's. There's no way everyone can just keep to themselves. If we ignored Syria, North Korea, Iran etc. their "self-interests" would inevitably come to harm our own. Since we have the leg up on them we do what we can to stop them. If we reversed roles the situation would be the same. The lives of soldiers and the billions of dollars in aid/reconstruction/peacekeeping is rarely if ever going to be wasted for purely idealistic reasons. Inevitably there has to be some justification for getting involved in a conflict....often its something as simple as the destabilization of a region.

 

But isn't your whole argument that the US forces abroad stop major conflicts? US forces abroad did nothing to stop millions of deaths in the Central African Conflict. That really hurts that argument.

 

That's not my argument. My argument is that world politics for better or worse are virtually always dictated by a country's own interests. Sure, imposing a few sanctions and sending aid may go out for the "moral reasons" but the real interdictions are always somehow connected to self-interests; Often not the simplistic ones like oil or resources but the more complicated ones like regional stability.

 

That is actually more of the job of the UN. But as we have seen over the last 3 decares, the UN is largely impotant, more interested in hand-wringing then actually doing anything.

And what exactly is a "major conflict"? Is it when 4+ nations gang up to attack a single smaller country? Is it when a large superpower invades and takes over a smaller third world nation? Is it when 2 third world nations duke it out against each other with 14 year old children drafted into murder battalions?

And the US and other nations did try getting involved in some of the African conflicts. The result was both sides attacking them, and an incident that made a great movie.

I would be more supportive of the US getting involved in such conflicts, if the UN would actually do something worthwhile. But when you have a nation with multiple UN sanctions violate more sanctions, generally the only result is yet more UN sanctions that are also ignored.

 

If you're offering all three I'd love to read them.

We used to stand for freedom. How does that balance with threatening and actually using military power to force our will on sovereign nations?

Not totally. Your sig espouses liberty and your posts speak the opposite. I expect more from you.

 

Don't drag my point away from where I put it. You'd be hard-pressed to find me saying we don't have a right to self-defense. My point, as I think you well know, is that we don't have a right to claim self-defense where attack has not happened. Our right to self-determination does not trump theirs. If they cross the line, then of course we stand our ground, but we must respect that line as well.

 

More money for missile defense. Bad things are going to be flying our way.