NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed alot of people who use this forum, all who I think are American citizens (correct me if I am wrong), espouse the good old "lets blow the crap out of it" soultion to their countries foriegn affairs problems. Military action in general seems to be how these people would solve the worlds problems, such as this example on how to solve the problems in Saudi Arabia;

"We could bomb their oil fields, oil pipelines, oil refineries and oil tankers"

I have found that most people who espouse these views have little or no knowledge of the actual issues involved. Also, their knowledge of the world around them is generally lacking. For example, one thought there was a link between the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Al - Qaeda.

I'm not trying to start an "All Americans are stupid" thread, I just ask, is this how the majority of American citizens view the world? Also, why do they think they can solve everything by dropping bombs on it? I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work. I am particulary interested to hear from Americans, to hear what they think. But I'd welcome anyones opinion/experiances, no matter where they are from.

No offence intended

Not at all. Don't be fooled by the current Neo-Con plague that seems to be running things.

I don't have that view and I came from a long military family. However, I do belive there comes a time where the response needs violence.

I am not you "typical" american as I have managed to get around this world.

Take Australia(not been there yet) I think you limies are ok! :P

We don't always go to guns. JFK didn't launch with the Cuban Missile crisis even though the joint cheifs wanted to go for it! :shock:

That's good to hear. I have come across allot of things Love Poetry says (that was his response to solving the problems of Saudi Arabia I used as an example above) and frankly, they scare me. But thruthfully, do many Americans think like that? I know we too have some people with views like that here (not too many though, thankfully) but from what I can see it appears more widespread in the US.

BTW - I don't think all Americans are stupid in case I was coming across like that.

*puts on flag g-string and a cowboy-hat, grows a big beer-belly*
Them Al-Kaidoo's are pretty weird-lookin' folks! I call them diaper-heads
*Waves big gun*

I have noted that people who hold these views are always apathetic or ignorant of the situation, and in general most situations that extend beyond their world (Which means generally their house, they can't even name my state's governor). They like to say these things in large groups to seem as if they have the simple fix-it-all answer, and also generally yell shut up when you challenge that view.

I personally do not hold such a view, I likewise, come from a family with a long military history. I can say that most people don't go for the gung-ho attitude, anymore then I've experienced in any other country (the Philippines in particular, people I talked to there were much more hostile then any one I've met in the US).

I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work
Vietnam and Cambodia proved that we can't go in half-assed, and that if we're going to take this route we need to actually have the political strength to carry it out to its extent.

Yeah, I've got to agree with what a lot of other people are saying. This definitely is not the dominant mentality in the States. Unfortunately, it is the one that happens to be running our country...for now.

Neo-Con plague, good analogy. Most Americans have an understanding that, though there is a time and place for military solutions, our leaders' current mentality will in the long wrong cause us more trouble than it gets us out of. I can understand how it can be perplexing to a non-American, but our society is actually very highly polarized between hard-core neo-conservatives, who believe in as little regulation of the market as possible, large military budgets, and are more prone to shooting first and never asking questions. On the other hand, there are many, many Americans, I would argue a sizeable majority, who would prefer we didn't have to keep the nation on a constant war-footing, would find political solutions first where possible, and re-adopt the policy of going to war only in the case of a direct attack on Americans or American allies. Though neo-cons would argue that those states that support terrorism (Iraq being a questionable example) essentially constitute a direct attack on the United States and allies and that the terrorist networks must be disrupted.

In my personal opinion, which is shared by many, the current priorities in the war on terror fight the symptoms rather than the disease. The only real solution, one that doesn't involve is in a constant state of conflict, is to encourage stable, secular regimes, increasing standards of living, and promoting the rule of law everywhere. Rather than seeking to undermine the terrorists themselves, we must undermine their popular (not just political) support.

Also, I'm not sure if this idea will be more popular in America than overseas, but I have to agree with Blair's idea of how we ought to treat dictatorial regimes: they should be overthrown based on their brutality to their own people, not just any interest we may have in having them ousted. I may be wrong, but I think that had we made that argument going into Gulf War 2, we'd see a lot more support from our allies. Maybe its militant and too agressive, but I think there is a certain ethical strength to that argument.

Living in America.... :?

I live in the bay area. Let's just say bay area | Rest of the us

We should succeed...too liberal for the rest of the country..

A lot of Americans disagree with the whole 'root 'em toot 'em cowboys' attitude, and Bush's declarations aren't as backed up as they seem...

I think we have a couple of conservatives at our school; but thats it. So yeah, us americans aren't all obese warmongerers...

Yeah, I've got to agree with what a lot of other people are saying. This definitely is not the dominant mentality in the States. Unfortunately, it is the one that happens to be running our country...for now.

Neo-Con plague, good analogy. Most Americans have an understanding that, though there is a time and place for military solutions, our leaders' current mentality will in the long wrong cause us more trouble than it gets us out of. I can understand how it can be perplexing to a non-American, but our society is actually very highly polarized between hard-core neo-conservatives, who believe in as little regulation of the market as possible, large military budgets, and are more prone to shooting first and never asking questions. On the other hand, there are many, many Americans, I would argue a sizeable majority, who would prefer we didn't have to keep the nation on a constant war-footing, would find political solutions first where possible, and re-adopt the policy of going to war only in the case of a direct attack on Americans or American allies. Though neo-cons would argue that those states that support terrorism (Iraq being a questionable example) essentially constitute a direct attack on the United States and allies and that the terrorist networks must be disrupted.

In my personal opinion, which is shared by many, the current priorities in the war on terror fight the symptoms rather than the disease. The only real solution, one that doesn't involve is in a constant state of conflict, is to encourage stable, secular regimes, increasing standards of living, and promoting the rule of law everywhere. Rather than seeking to undermine the terrorists themselves, we must undermine their popular (not just political) support.

Also, I'm not sure if this idea will be more popular in America than overseas, but I have to agree with Blair's idea of how we ought to treat dictatorial regimes: they should be overthrown based on their brutality to their own people, not just any interest we may have in having them ousted. I may be wrong, but I think that had we made that argument going into Gulf War 2, we'd see a lot more support from our allies. Maybe its militant and too agressive, but I think there is a certain ethical strength to that argument.

Let's start with Saudi Arabia and Israel! To war!!!! :roll:

Well, I don't really like being generalized because I'm American, but I don't take too much offense to it because I can see how easy it would be by the way things are going right now. Like the war in Iraq, the country was about half and half going in or not. That's what's nice about America, we can do something, and say that we really don't want to at the same time :)

Living in America.... :?

I live in the bay area. Let's just say bay area | Rest of the us

We should succeed...too liberal for the rest of the country..

A lot of Americans disagree with the whole 'root 'em toot 'em cowboys' attitude, and Bush's declarations aren't as backed up as they seem...

I think we have a couple of conservatives at our school; but thats it. So yeah, us americans aren't all obese warmongerers...

Join Canada.

I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work
Vietnam and Cambodia proved that we can't go in half-assed, and that if we're going to take this route we need to actually have the political strength to carry it out to its extent.

There was nothing half-arsed about Vietnam and Cambodia in terms of destruction wrought. I don't have the figures on me but the US dropped more ordanance on Vietnam from 1962 - 1973 then all that was expended by all countries in WW2 put together. Hard to believe, isn't it?. What I'm saying is, blowing the living hell out of places dosen't solve anything, quite the opposite actually. The massive bombing campaign in Cambodia by the US destablised the country to such an extent that the Khmer Rouge could take over, not exactly a posisitve outcome.

Thanks all for getting back to me, just wanted to ask this question and I was trying not to generalise so sorry. That's also my opinion about going after the disease instead of the symptoms

One thing about overthrowing dictators, I think we (western countries) should keep our noses out. History shows dictatorships are usually overthrown from within, such in the case of Romania and Chile.

You want a view of an American?

Try my 13 yr old view. 13 yr olds are among the most ignorant people in America

Unfortunatly, we are a nation of ignorant fools, thinking that nothing that happens outside of their social life matters. However, there are over 50 million of us few (rough estimate) that actually form our own opinions of what we try and understand about the world around us.

Unfortunatly, propaganda and the government gives us heavily biased views. Which is basically why we ended up like this.

But no. We cannot possibly solve everything by blowing it up. We actually know a tricky little technique called "diplomatic solutions." Now, since the knowledged Americans are outnumbered by the "BLOW IT UP! BLOW IT UP!" population, we have a problem.


I'm very sorry about the GOD DAMN ignorance my nation has. Be as it may, I love my nation. I still love the people that live among us. I still dislike the people that INTENTIONALLY gain weight, but I still have overweight pals.

thank you

*goes off to listen to "cool" music*

This whole attitude is based on a corrupt system. Let's start at the source shall we?
The media, they claim its free , but it is biased and shows society what that want them to see. The society corrupts the kids who then become are politicians who then control the media.
See where I'm going with this?
In my family alone there is a split between pro-war and no war. (my family is from Texas).
I'm to tired to rant anymore.

Living in America.... :?

I live in the bay area. Let's just say bay area | Rest of the us

We should succeed...too liberal for the rest of the country..

A lot of Americans disagree with the whole 'root 'em toot 'em cowboys' attitude, and Bush's declarations aren't as backed up as they seem...

I think we have a couple of conservatives at our school; but thats it. So yeah, us americans aren't all obese warmongerers...

Join Canada.
Canuck sharpens pencil and puts California at top of list for new Province. Thanks Haaregrad. Any chance of getting Oregon and Washington as well? That way, the US could save money on the Coast Guard and move them all over to the Atlantic side. :lol:

I have noticed alot of people, all who I think are American citizens (correct me if I am wrong), the good old "lets blow the crap out of it" soultion to their countries foriegn affairs problems. Military action in general seems to be how these people would solve the worlds problems, such as this example;
"We could bomb their oil fields, oil refineries and oil tankers"
I have found that most people who espouse these views have little or no knowledge of the actual issues involved. Also, their knowledge of the world around them is generally lacking. For example, one thought there was a link between the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Al - Qaeda.
I'm not trying to start an "All Americans are stupid" thread, I just ask, is this how the majority of American citizens view the world? Also, why do they think they can solve everything by dropping bombs on it? I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work

I think it is moderately representative of the US. (More response at the end.)

I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work
Vietnam and Cambodia proved that we can't go in half-assed, and that if we're going to take this route we need to actually have the political strength to carry it out to its extent.

There was nothing half-arsed about Vietnam and Cambodia in terms of destruction wrought. I don't have the figures on me but the US dropped more ordanance on Vietnam from 1962 - 1973 then all that was expended by all countries in WW2 put together. Hard to believe, isn't it?. What I'm saying is, blowing the living hell out of places dosen't solve anything, quite the opposite actually. The massive bombing campaign in Cambodia by the US destablised the country to such an extent that the Khmer Rouge could take over, not exactly a posisitve outcome.

Blowing the hell out of Cambodia and not doing anything about it, allowing the KR to take over, is actually a berfect example of how the US goes about things in a halfway manner.

Thanks all for getting back to me, just wanted to ask this question and I was trying not to generalise so sorry. That's also my opinion about going after the disease instead of the symptoms

One thing about overthrowing dictators, I think we (western countries) should keep our noses out. History shows dictatorships are usually overthrown from within, such in the case of Romania and Chile.

Personally I consider myself a realist. I agree that we should have kept our noses out of alot of places (Haiti, most of South and Central America, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia and Iraq). We haven*t been prepared to take the necessary measures to deal with either the annihilaton or absorption/colonization of these places that would be required to achieve the stated goals.

A note on removing threats:
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

Afghanistan is one of the very few wars we have really needed to persue. I think we have even managed to screw that up...

Indeed, "Vietnam and Cambodia proved that we can't go in half-assed, and that if we're going to take this route we need to actually have the political strength to carry it out to its extent." That statement is as historically inaccurate as it is offensive, which is to say, to an extreem degree.

First of all, the "half-assed" job we did resulted in some 5 Million dead throught Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, as an immediate result; furthermore, the death toll becomes even higer when one considers the events indirectly occuring as a result of these barbaric attacks. Firstly, that the most authoritarian political elements in those respective countries were the only ones to survive, which is unsurprising considering the amaing brutality of the assualt; the popular, mass-based National Liberation Front (the Viet Cong of US Propaganda) was totaly eliminated, and by the war's end, the North Vietnamese were the only political group left in the entire country. The same is true of the Khemer Rouge, the notorious regime of Pol Pot, which the US later supported indirectly through China and Thailand after the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, when they transforemed into the Democratic Kamchuka (sp?), circa 1980. Furthermore, the US continued a policy of "bleeding Vietnam" well into the 1990s, which consisted of threatening any country offering even the slightest aid to Vietnam.

This was done, largely, under the general abnner that Vietnam had not repayed it's debt to us, after having done us so much harm; ie, the POW issues, and such. In face of what was done to Vietnam, such statements are so vulgar that they can barely be repeated, at least not by any person with the slights bit of humanity in them.

Secondly, you make a clear error, in that you assume we did not accomplish the goal in Vietnam. The objective, in all 3 cases (Vietnam, Camboida, and Laos), was the same, and were all independant of eachother. Namely, in all 3, there were revolts against the US/European power systems, with an attempt to create their own, independant economic developemnt paths, which to US strategic planners is totaly unacceptable. That people might want to decide their own economic fate, and worse, potentially become a model for development along similar lines elsewhere, is a crime almost unimgainable in its horror. And, they suceeded in beating back the revolt quite well. Those countries aren't models for development anymore; their models for how to be utterly destroyed, and in the case of South Vietnam, prehaps beyond the threshold of return.

Thrid, I'd like to know what you mean by "political insability." Actualy, rationally, there's really only one thing you can be refering to, the anti-war movement. After all, mainstream intellectuals, liberal "doves" didn't oppose the war in the slightest- they were only cirtics from the war on strategic ground- you know, your fighting it all wrong (this was still the criticism even after the Tet Offensive, when the anti-war movment began to be supported by segments of the business community). Not opposition on prinicple, say, that is, that all aggression is wrong, wether ours or anyone elses; no, its a case of our "blundering efforts to do good", or other such nonsense.

Well, back to the topic at hand. I don't know why (well, I do, but I won't comment at this time, to help illustrate a point) why one would find it so horrible that people- yes, people, on a grassroots level- might start working together to stop an unjust, aggressive and murderous war, on principled grounds. If that's what one means by "political instability", I think this country would do well with a considerably higher amount of such "political instability."

But then again, what do I know, right?

Blowing the hell out of Cambodia and not doing anything about it, allowing the KR to take over, is actually a berfect example of how the US goes about things in a halfway manner.

im not sure that occupation works... or that the us had the recources to do anything but a half-assed invasion. besides, wasnt bombing cambodia evidence the us was fighting in vietnam to its fullest?

Thanks all for getting back to me, just wanted to ask this question and I was trying not to generalise so sorry. That's also my opinion about going after the disease instead of the symptoms

One thing about overthrowing dictators, I think we (western countries) should keep our noses out. History shows dictatorships are usually overthrown from within, such in the case of Romania and Chile.

Personally I consider myself a realist. I agree that we should have kept our noses out of alot of places (Haiti, most of South and Central America, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia and Iraq). We haven*t been prepared to take the necessary measures to deal with either the annihilaton or absorption/colonization of these places that would be required to achieve the stated goals.

A note on removing threats:
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

Afghanistan is one of the very few wars we have really needed to persue. I think we have even managed to screw that up...

how can you be a realist and suggest the only two options are burning a country to the ground or making it our slave? colonization didnt work, look at the twentieth century if you want to repeat tat fiasco again. annhilation doesnt work either, because then you get into either genocide or else the country rebuilds even more anti-american and anti-capiitalism. halfway makes more sense than any of those two options. the problem is you cant hold a gun to a country's head and make it love you.

Please re-read what I wrote.
First of all, the options are not burning a country to the ground or making it our slave. The options are kill enough people that there is no more resistance or make it a partner. The best way to do the later is to send your own people to live there.
Second, I didn*t say that these were the only options, but that they are the only two that will get what W wants - a democratised Iraq.

Colonisation works when it is done right. Mostly the Europeans in the 19th and 20th centuries screwed it up badly. The Brits did a pretty good job in Hong Kong and a halfway decent job in India.
As for holding a gun to a countries head to make them love you, you are right. But do we want the love of the Afgahns or do we want them (and anyone else who would attack us) to live in abject fear of our vengance. It is best to be both feared and loved, but far better to be feared and not loved than to be loved but not feared.

And on Cambodia, just bombing the place and not doing anything else is exactly the evidence that we were not doing everything we could have.

All that being said, I think we must be very careful to choose our wars. We do have constraints in the form of public and world opinion that do not allow us to persue the optimal solution to Iraq (for example). TheBush administration made a grave error in Iraq, and have been compounding it by prosecuting the war poorly (not enough troops, not enough munitions, not enough armor). Furthermore, we have ignored potentially greater threats (N. Korea in particular) and have slacked off in Afghanistan. We really needed to finish Afghanistan before going elsewhere.

Please re-read what I wrote.
First of all, the options are not burning a country to the ground or making it our slave. The options are kill enough people that there is no more resistance or make it a partner. The best way to do the later is to send your own people to live there.

sending your own people to live there like, er, britain did? i have news for you, india wasnt a partner, it was a slave. and killing people doesnt stop resistence, it just builds fear and resentment until revolution happens. i believe your words were we should colonize/absorb it. colonization is to international relations as slavery is to interpersonal relations.

Second, I didn*t say that these were the only options, but that they are the only two that will get what W wants - a democratised Iraq.

need to expound on this one. killing people or making them subjects will make democracy? im not quite seeing the cause and effect here.

Colonisation works when it is done right. Mostly the Europeans in the 19th and 20th centuries screwed it up badly. The Brits did a pretty good job in Hong Kong and a halfway decent job in India.
As for holding a gun to a countries head to make them love you, you are right. But do we want the love of the Afgahns or do we want them (and anyone else who would attack us) to live in abject fear of our vengance. It is best to be both feared and loved, but far better to be feared and not loved than to be loved but not feared.


fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger. anger leads to big bombs exploding in new york. okay, sorry for sounding like yoda there, but you get the point. stop reading machiavelli, he was writing in a time much different than our own and really, im not sure cutthroat, kill everything that moves foreign policy is the best.

also, colonization doesnt work. maybe it does when there was a lot of men with spears and indeginious people that never read marx and didnt have historical precedents on resistence. in a day before c-4, yeah, colonization works out fine. but occupation now is just a big money pit. name one place in the world the us occupied after 1945 that was better for it. and the 19th and 20th centuries were the only times that people actually *did* colonize, so basicaly, what you wqre saying is that large scale colonization was ALWAYS screwed up. and either way, it doesnt work now, so what is your point?

And on Cambodia, just bombing the place and not doing anything else is exactly the evidence that we were not doing everything we could have.

i think us recources were tied up a little in vietnam, its not like the us could afford to fight two unwinnable jungle wars. and if it did have the recources to fight it, shouldnt it have poured them into vietnam in the first place?

All that being said, I think we must be very careful to choose our wars. We do have constraints in the form of public and world opinion that do not allow us to persue the optimal solution to Iraq (for example). TheBush administration made a grave error in Iraq, and have been compounding it by prosecuting the war poorly (not enough troops, not enough munitions, not enough armor). Furthermore, we have ignored potentially greater threats (N. Korea in particular) and have slacked off in Afghanistan. We really needed to finish Afghanistan before going elsewhere.

how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money? maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that.

A lot of Americans are like that for many reasons. The top three is that:

1) Hitler. Hitler was so horrible that he gave war a good name, and kind of proved that war works.
2) Kuwait. We freed Kuwait. That kind of proved war works.
3) Americans like to do things, rather than talk.

A lot of Americans are like that for a lot of reasons. The top three is that:

1) they are protected by two oceans, and most problems caused by war dont directly, tangebly effect them (notice i said most, im not saying there arent any costs)

2) Iran. we screwed up Iran. nobody ever teaches about that

3) americans like to do things, even if they are steps in the wrong direction

A lot of Americans are like that for a lot of reasons. The top three is that:

1) they are protected by two oceans, and most problems caused by war dont directly, tangebly effect them (notice i said most, im not saying there arent any costs)

2) Iran. we screwed up Iran. nobody ever teaches about that

3) americans like to do things, even if they are steps in the wrong direction

Hey somebody who reads history! ;)

1) Also a major factor for isolationism in the old days!
2) Yup we did. But largely because the military was so ill-equipped for a responce. I always wondered about the helicopter accident until I read a book "The Guts to Try" by Col. James H. Kyle Planner and on-scene Desert commander for the rescue attempt.
3) As Churchel said: You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. After trying everything else!

A lot of Americans are like that for many reasons. The top three is that:

1) Hitler. Hitler was so horrible that he gave war a good name, and kind of proved that war works.
2) Kuwait. We freed Kuwait. That kind of proved war works.
3) Americans like to do things, rather than talk.

If war has worked so well, why is the Middle East in such mess right now? They sure have had plenty of wars, such as; Yom Kippur War, Iran - Iraq War (which lasted for about ten years) and the First Gulf War. The Balkans too has had it's fair share of wars and not much has been solved there.

We 'like to do things' too, the US isn't some 'great protector' whilst the rest of the western world dose nothing. How about our intervention in the Solomon Islands last year? That was 'doing something' but didn't lead to warfare because the populus wanted us there in the first place. When you say 'talk', do you mean 'diplomacy'?

Ooooh! Daistallia 2104, someone just read The Prince, didn't they! I must say, I'm partial to any argument that shows a grasp of the classics. A well reasoned argument and rather than praise you further; I'll add my two cents.

"Freedomstien: sending your own people to live there like, er, britain did? i have news for you, india wasnt a partner, it was a slave. and killing people doesnt stop resistence, it just builds fear and resentment until revolution happens. i believe your words were we should colonize/absorb it. colonization is to international relations as slavery is to interpersonal relations."

Freedomstien, as you know Daistallia is using here is an argument from The Prince, as such it pulls no punches about the application of violence. However The Prince is a more subtle book than you give it credit for. It argues not for violence to run the state, but instead argues that violence used wisely is sometimes the only way to secure a state.

There's a HUGE difference there, and one that needs be observed by anyone hoping to comprehend the book's meaning. This is a paraphrasing, but I'll put it in quotes so you see what I mean. "Once one has invaded a nation they have only a few options: Raze it, colonize it (living there oneself), or collect triubute from it. " This is because unless you do one of these three it will turn against you later; Machievelli cites numerous examples in history to back this up. I myself have tried to poke a hole in this theory but I cannot, if interpreted and appliedcorrectly, this assesment is worth its weight in gold.

However I believe Daistallia misstated the intention of killing people; you kill those who need to be killed in order to further your cause in the situation. As such in the Iraq situation the argument would be: "Find the loyalists and the opportunists who are using violence and kill them, for if they live they will work to bring you down." I seriously doubt Daistallia was simply saying to kill masses to cow into submission the general populace.

On the argument of Colonies...Colonization is a dirty thing, there is no clean way to insert a people into a new land. The US is an example of a "succesful" colony...but its history is one of the near-total destruction of the native peoples. Colonies are an imperfect solution because no one has figured out how to do it without massive repercussions, perhaps there is no good way of doing it. But the fact remains that history is frequently played out by the movement of peoples into new areas. I guess the point is this: we weren't discussing them here, but the view that all colonies are inherent failures is too shortsighted.

"Freedomstien: how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money? maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that."

As to the lack of support in Iraq...well, you're arguing from a different angle altogether. True, "Hearts and Minds" are not affected by having a better equiped force, but that wasn't the point. The point is that the underequipped force was just one symptom of the utter mismanagement of US policy in Iraq. Actually, if they US had a sizable force instead of the over-streched, over-worked one it had now, it could do a much better job covering ground, securing safe zones and putting a good face on the bad occupation. You actually can battle it with more money if you're smart about it, establishing work programs, schools and providing goods to people from the very moment you show up makes a lot better impression on people than leaving the water off for weeks.

You slight The Prince, (and what's more, my nation's namesake!), so I feel obligied to set this right. Someone can misquote or misuse The Prince, just like the Bible, the Art of War, or any book you care to name. This doesn't subtract from the fact that just like the Bible, or the Art of War (which Machievelli wrote a book by that title as well don'tcha know!), The Prince sums up the core principles of strategy in life! In the Prince's case, its the core principles of strategy for any sole ruler of a nation.

Actually, I'll submit to you this: Read "The Discourses" by the infamous Niccolo Machievelli and you'll see that the man actually prefered Republics as the best method of government, he wrote The Prince as a job interview of sorts, trying to get patronage from the Medici family.

A lot of Americans are like that for many reasons. The top three is that:

1) Hitler. Hitler was so horrible that he gave war a good name, and kind of proved that war works.
2) Kuwait. We freed Kuwait. That kind of proved war works.
3) Americans like to do things, rather than talk.

If war has worked so well, why is the Middle East in such mess right now? They sure have had plenty of wars, such as; Yom Kippur War, Iran - Iraq War (which lasted for about ten years) and the First Gulf War. The Balkans too has had it's fair share of wars and not much has been solved there.

We 'like to do things' too, the US isn't some 'great protector' whilst the rest of the western world dose nothing. How about our intervention in the Solomon Islands last year? That was 'doing something' but didn't lead to warfare because the populus wanted us there in the first place. When you say 'talk', do you mean 'diplomacy'?

I agree that all wars do not solve problems. But some wars do.

Diplomacy can only go so far.

A lot of Americans are like that for many reasons. The top three is that:

1) Hitler. Hitler was so horrible that he gave war a good name, and kind of proved that war works.
2) Kuwait. We freed Kuwait. That kind of proved war works.
3) Americans like to do things, rather than talk.

If war has worked so well, why is the Middle East in such mess right now? They sure have had plenty of wars, such as; Yom Kippur War, Iran - Iraq War (which lasted for about ten years) and the First Gulf War. The Balkans too has had it's fair share of wars and not much has been solved there.

We 'like to do things' too, the US isn't some 'great protector' whilst the rest of the western world dose nothing. How about our intervention in the Solomon Islands last year? That was 'doing something' but didn't lead to warfare because the populus wanted us there in the first place. When you say 'talk', do you mean 'diplomacy'?

I agree that all wars do not solve problems. But some wars do.

Diplomacy can only go so far.

Have to say I agree witht that sentiment, but I think there are more examples of war not solving problems than there are of it solving problems. I think the US government could take diplomacy a little further then it has though.

I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work.
Actually, Vietnam and Cambodia didn't prove jack. Our military was severely handicapped by the political hierarchy. If Vietnam had faced the full convetional might of the United States, it would have been crushed in weeks. If the USA had used its complete strength, it'd only take a few minutes to crush Vietnam. We just didn't bomb them WELL enough.

<I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work.
Actually, Vietnam and Cambodia didn't prove jack. Our military was severely handicapped by the political hierarchy. If Vietnam had faced the full convetional might of the United States, it would have been crushed in weeks. If the USA had used its complete strength, it'd only take a few minutes to crush Vietnam. We just didn't bomb them WELL enough.>

Are you serious? Do you think Russia could have won in Afghanistan too if it had used all its military might? The fact is, the US did try to 'bomb them well enough'. The US dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than it did on Germany in WW2. The amount of ordanance expended on Vietnam as a whole was enormous, look up the figures, you'll see what I mean. What arch-light raids?

Australia too was in Vietnam and employed different tactics to our US allies and suffered a much lower casualty rate (note I say rate, ofcourse Australia wouldn't have lost as many men, we had less troops in-country). Using conventional tactics against a well supported guerilla movement in that case just wasn't going to work, no matter how many resources you throw at it. The French showed that before we even entered the country.

Anyway, back on topic, I assume you're of the 'lets blow the crap out of them, that will sort it out' mentallity?

Wow.

Been a while since I've gotten a chance to talk about these kinds of issues with intelligent people. Most threads like this end up being pointless "my dic-tionary is bigger than yours" or "my country has bigger guns than yours". Nice to see some intelligent thought and discussion here!

A bit about me: I'm an American college student. I consider myself Centrist, as Democrats are too liberal and Republicans are too conservative. As a result of the second Iraq war, I'm now something of an ex-patriot, as I have a sincere lack of patriotism. I don't abide by what "my" country does in my name.

So here is my two-cents with that in mind.

On war:
It was said that war, in general, is basically the failure of diplomacy. That principle still holds today, except now we have a doctrine that says "screw diplomacy" (aka Bush Doctrine). This sort of throwback to the Roosevelt Corrallary is inherently dangerous. We talk about spreading the ideals of freedom and democracy, but we aren't truely interested in seeing the former and we spread the latter by oppressing entire countries? I see an inherrant contradiction between what we say and what we do.

We "defend" ourselves by striking first - When has this EVER been a morally acceptable thing to do? Most people don't teach thier children this type of behavior, as the LAWS of our country don't allow citizens to do this sort of thing. First-strike doctrine was also employed by other countries through out history. I'll name a few: France (Napoleon), Japan (WWII - Pearl Harbor), Germany (WWII - Blitzkreig). We don't tend to view these actions as "honorable" or morally correct. They are the tactics of an aggessive expansionist power.

We "free" people by occupying them - I could laugh for weeks at the fallacy of this idea. Sure, we aren't as crazy as Saddam, but let's be honest: the people of Iraq are NO BETTER OFF now than they were before. Sure, they might have some twisted concept of freedom... freedom to be under military occupation. Freedom to not have regular running water, medical supplies, jobs, security, or electricity (all were stable/better off in pre-invasion Iraq). Freedom to BECOME TERRORISTS. What better way to make more enemies? Lets drop bombs that accidentally kill civilians. I'm sure you could have some foriegn power 'accidentally' kill half YOUR family with a smart bomb and understand that it was just an accident... Americans wouldn't stand for that sort of behavior on our own soil. We'd declare war within minutes. The people of Iraq are left with few alternatives. The increasing attacks on US personel and assets will only continue to grow the longer we remain in Iraq, as will anti-US sentiment.

We "fight terrorism" by attacking countries - As if countries are the source of terrorists! Ok, Bush calls them "harborers of terrorists" but look at Iraq: We get attacked by RELIGIOUS extremists. We then attack the ONLY secular nation in the middle east! What kind of logic is that? Well, we don't like Saddam much and he has that arsenal of weapons of mass destruction lying around... (yeah right... if you still believe that lie...) but terrorists? Saddam's regiem could teach us some good ways to wipe out religous fanatics. Saddam would never help fundamentalists, as they were his sworn enemies over the control of Iraq. This was a BLATENT lie to excuse our invasion of that country. Anyone with any kind of credible position (outside the US government of course) would tell you that.

On Afghanistan:
This is the one bright spot in the whole war on terrorism. The Talliban were a nasty bunch of people. IMO, freeing that nation was legitimate. We actually FOUND terrorists and severely hurt them. We removed a corrupt government (more like an anarchy) from power, giving some hope to the people who lived there. We aren't following through with it very well, but that isn't much of a surprise from the US. Sort of par for the course. The UN is like our mother: cleaning up all our messes and Afghanistan is no different.


To address the topic more closely:
I am not anti-war, but I see it as a weapon of last resort. We seem to have the misguided idea that it is a weapon of preference when people don't kneel before us. That is a grave strategic error. Our own country was FORMED as the result of similar views. I know some people who are ignorant and uninformed (not hard to be in the ol' US of A) but that is mostly due to shoddy news coverage. Americans see VERY little news from outside the US. If it isn't buisness or American, it isn't important. I personally strive to read and find material not readily accessible to US citizens, so my views aren't what you'll see from most Americans.

LoL

One other country to add to the list of "Aggressive powers that employ first strike tactics": Iraq

LoL...

AstralisVir - One fine post there I must say, that is one damn good answer to the question I posed. Thanks, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. But I have been lucky with this thread, most people have taken it seriously and given their opinions/explanations without the whole "my country is better than yours" game starting.

Please re-read what I wrote.
First of all, the options are not burning a country to the ground or making it our slave. The options are kill enough people that there is no more resistance or make it a partner. The best way to do the later is to send your own people to live there.

sending your own people to live there like, er, britain did? i have news for you, india wasnt a partner, it was a slave. and killing people doesnt stop resistence, it just builds fear and resentment until revolution happens. i believe your words were we should colonize/absorb it. colonization is to international relations as slavery is to interpersonal relations.

Second, I didn*t say that these were the only options, but that they are the only two that will get what W wants - a democratised Iraq.

need to expound on this one. killing people or making them subjects will make democracy? im not quite seeing the cause and effect here.

Colonisation works when it is done right. Mostly the Europeans in the 19th and 20th centuries screwed it up badly. The Brits did a pretty good job in Hong Kong and a halfway decent job in India.
As for holding a gun to a countries head to make them love you, you are right. But do we want the love of the Afgahns or do we want them (and anyone else who would attack us) to live in abject fear of our vengance. It is best to be both feared and loved, but far better to be feared and not loved than to be loved but not feared.


fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger. anger leads to big bombs exploding in new york. okay, sorry for sounding like yoda there, but you get the point. stop reading machiavelli, he was writing in a time much different than our own and really, im not sure cutthroat, kill everything that moves foreign policy is the best.

also, colonization doesnt work. maybe it does when there was a lot of men with spears and indeginious people that never read marx and didnt have historical precedents on resistence. in a day before c-4, yeah, colonization works out fine. but occupation now is just a big money pit. name one place in the world the us occupied after 1945 that was better for it. and the 19th and 20th centuries were the only times that people actually *did* colonize, so basicaly, what you wqre saying is that large scale colonization was ALWAYS screwed up. and either way, it doesnt work now, so what is your point?

And on Cambodia, just bombing the place and not doing anything else is exactly the evidence that we were not doing everything we could have.

i think us recources were tied up a little in vietnam, its not like the us could afford to fight two unwinnable jungle wars. and if it did have the recources to fight it, shouldnt it have poured them into vietnam in the first place?

All that being said, I think we must be very careful to choose our wars. We do have constraints in the form of public and world opinion that do not allow us to persue the optimal solution to Iraq (for example). TheBush administration made a grave error in Iraq, and have been compounding it by prosecuting the war poorly (not enough troops, not enough munitions, not enough armor). Furthermore, we have ignored potentially greater threats (N. Korea in particular) and have slacked off in Afghanistan. We really needed to finish Afghanistan before going elsewhere.

how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money? maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that.

Sorry. I had a long point by point response typed in, and while I was getting a beer someone came by and crashed the computer. :? I'll try to get it in again tomorrow.

You want a view of an American?

Try my 13 yr old view. 13 yr olds are among the most ignorant people in America

Unfortunatly, we are a nation of ignorant fools, thinking that nothing that happens outside of their social life matters. However, there are over 50 million of us few (rough estimate) that actually form our own opinions of what we try and understand about the world around us.

Unfortunatly, propaganda and the government gives us heavily biased views. Which is basically why we ended up like this.

But no. We cannot possibly solve everything by blowing it up. We actually know a tricky little technique called "diplomatic solutions." Now, since the knowledged Americans are outnumbered by the "BLOW IT UP! BLOW IT UP!" population, we have a problem.


I'm very sorry about the GOD DAMN ignorance my nation has. Be as it may, I love my nation. I still love the people that live among us. I still dislike the people that INTENTIONALLY gain weight, but I still have overweight pals.

thank you

*goes off to listen to "cool" music*

One problem, 13 yr olds dont listen to cool music. They listen to pop. Cool music is discovered from age 15+

Ooooh! Daistallia 2104, someone just read The Prince, didn't they! I must say, I'm partial to any argument that shows a grasp of the classics. A well reasoned argument and rather than praise you further; I'll add my two cents.

"Freedomstien: sending your own people to live there like, er, britain did? i have news for you, india wasnt a partner, it was a slave. and killing people doesnt stop resistence, it just builds fear and resentment until revolution happens. i believe your words were we should colonize/absorb it. colonization is to international relations as slavery is to interpersonal relations."

Freedomstien, as you know Daistallia is using here is an argument from The Prince, as such it pulls no punches about the application of violence. However The Prince is a more subtle book than you give it credit for. It argues not for violence to run the state, but instead argues that violence used wisely is sometimes the only way to secure a state.

There's a HUGE difference there, and one that needs be observed by anyone hoping to comprehend the book's meaning. This is a paraphrasing, but I'll put it in quotes so you see what I mean. "Once one has invaded a nation they have only a few options: Raze it, colonize it (living there oneself), or collect triubute from it. " This is because unless you do one of these three it will turn against you later; Machievelli cites numerous examples in history to back this up. I myself have tried to poke a hole in this theory but I cannot, if interpreted and appliedcorrectly, this assesment is worth its weight in gold.

However I believe Daistallia misstated the intention of killing people; you kill those who need to be killed in order to further your cause in the situation. As such in the Iraq situation the argument would be: "Find the loyalists and the opportunists who are using violence and kill them, for if they live they will work to bring you down." I seriously doubt Daistallia was simply saying to kill masses to cow into submission the general populace.

On the argument of Colonies...Colonization is a dirty thing, there is no clean way to insert a people into a new land. The US is an example of a "succesful" colony...but its history is one of the near-total destruction of the native peoples. Colonies are an imperfect solution because no one has figured out how to do it without massive repercussions, perhaps there is no good way of doing it. But the fact remains that history is frequently played out by the movement of peoples into new areas. I guess the point is this: we weren't discussing them here, but the view that all colonies are inherent failures is too shortsighted.

"Freedomstien: how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money? maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that."

As to the lack of support in Iraq...well, you're arguing from a different angle altogether. True, "Hearts and Minds" are not affected by having a better equiped force, but that wasn't the point. The point is that the underequipped force was just one symptom of the utter mismanagement of US policy in Iraq. Actually, if they US had a sizable force instead of the over-streched, over-worked one it had now, it could do a much better job covering ground, securing safe zones and putting a good face on the bad occupation. You actually can battle it with more money if you're smart about it, establishing work programs, schools and providing goods to people from the very moment you show up makes a lot better impression on people than leaving the water off for weeks.

You slight The Prince, (and what's more, my nation's namesake!), so I feel obligied to set this right. Someone can misquote or misuse The Prince, just like the Bible, the Art of War, or any book you care to name. This doesn't subtract from the fact that just like the Bible, or the Art of War (which Machievelli wrote a book by that title as well don'tcha know!), The Prince sums up the core principles of strategy in life! In the Prince's case, its the core principles of strategy for any sole ruler of a nation.

Actually, I'll submit to you this: Read "The Discourses" by the infamous Niccolo Machievelli and you'll see that the man actually prefered Republics as the best method of government, he wrote The Prince as a job interview of sorts, trying to get patronage from the Medici family.

Well, if you consider having first read Il Principe some 20 years ago (and many, many times since) as having just read it, then you are correct. ;)

Look for my response tomorrow - you should be pleased....

Ooooh! Daistallia 2104, someone just read The Prince, didn't they! I must say, I'm partial to any argument that shows a grasp of the classics. A well reasoned argument and rather than praise you further; I'll add my two cents.

"Freedomstien: sending your own people to live there like, er, britain did? i have news for you, india wasnt a partner, it was a slave. and killing people doesnt stop resistence, it just builds fear and resentment until revolution happens. i believe your words were we should colonize/absorb it. colonization is to international relations as slavery is to interpersonal relations."

Freedomstien, as you know Daistallia is using here is an argument from The Prince, as such it pulls no punches about the application of violence. However The Prince is a more subtle book than you give it credit for. It argues not for violence to run the state, but instead argues that violence used wisely is sometimes the only way to secure a state.

There's a HUGE difference there, and one that needs be observed by anyone hoping to comprehend the book's meaning. This is a paraphrasing, but I'll put it in quotes so you see what I mean. "Once one has invaded a nation they have only a few options: Raze it, colonize it (living there oneself), or collect triubute from it. " This is because unless you do one of these three it will turn against you later; Machievelli cites numerous examples in history to back this up. I myself have tried to poke a hole in this theory but I cannot, if interpreted and appliedcorrectly, this assesment is worth its weight in gold.

However I believe Daistallia misstated the intention of killing people; you kill those who need to be killed in order to further your cause in the situation. As such in the Iraq situation the argument would be: "Find the loyalists and the opportunists who are using violence and kill them, for if they live they will work to bring you down." I seriously doubt Daistallia was simply saying to kill masses to cow into submission the general populace.

On the argument of Colonies...Colonization is a dirty thing, there is no clean way to insert a people into a new land. The US is an example of a "succesful" colony...but its history is one of the near-total destruction of the native peoples. Colonies are an imperfect solution because no one has figured out how to do it without massive repercussions, perhaps there is no good way of doing it. But the fact remains that history is frequently played out by the movement of peoples into new areas. I guess the point is this: we weren't discussing them here, but the view that all colonies are inherent failures is too shortsighted.

"Freedomstien: how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money? maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that."

As to the lack of support in Iraq...well, you're arguing from a different angle altogether. True, "Hearts and Minds" are not affected by having a better equiped force, but that wasn't the point. The point is that the underequipped force was just one symptom of the utter mismanagement of US policy in Iraq. Actually, if they US had a sizable force instead of the over-streched, over-worked one it had now, it could do a much better job covering ground, securing safe zones and putting a good face on the bad occupation. You actually can battle it with more money if you're smart about it, establishing work programs, schools and providing goods to people from the very moment you show up makes a lot better impression on people than leaving the water off for weeks.

You slight The Prince, (and what's more, my nation's namesake!), so I feel obligied to set this right. Someone can misquote or misuse The Prince, just like the Bible, the Art of War, or any book you care to name. This doesn't subtract from the fact that just like the Bible, or the Art of War (which Machievelli wrote a book by that title as well don'tcha know!), The Prince sums up the core principles of strategy in life! In the Prince's case, its the core principles of strategy for any sole ruler of a nation.

Actually, I'll submit to you this: Read "The Discourses" by the infamous Niccolo Machievelli and you'll see that the man actually prefered Republics as the best method of government, he wrote The Prince as a job interview of sorts, trying to get patronage from the Medici family.

Well, if you consider having first read Il Principe some 20 years ago (and many, many times since) as having just read it, then you are correct. ;)

Look for my response tomorrow - you should be pleased....

There's a HUGE difference there, and one that needs be observed by anyone hoping to comprehend the book's meaning. This is a paraphrasing, but I'll put it in quotes so you see what I mean. "Once one has invaded a nation they have only a few options: Raze it, colonize it (living there oneself), or collect triubute from it. " This is because unless you do one of these three it will turn against you later; Machievelli cites numerous examples in history to back this up. I myself have tried to poke a hole in this theory but I cannot, if interpreted and appliedcorrectly, this assesment is worth its weight in gold.

did we colonize ,raize or collect tribute from west germany and japan? did colonization work in the phillipines and cuba? fear only goes so far. its respect one needs to successfully exit a country after a war. i havent read the prince, so maybe he covered this. but, uh, it seems to me one of the sure fire ways to turn a country against you is to make yourself look like an occupier and heavy handed dictator. ghengis khan burned baghdad to the ground, but still couldnt keep his empire together

However I believe Daistallia misstated the intention of killing people; you kill those who need to be killed in order to further your cause in the situation. As such in the Iraq situation the argument would be: "Find the loyalists and the opportunists who are using violence and kill them, for if they live they will work to bring you down." I seriously doubt Daistallia was simply saying to kill masses to cow into submission the general populace.

ever hear of martyrs? sometimes a medicre loyalist or oppurtunist is better off living than being dead. france was founded on killing an oppurtunist. and even if assassination of leaders didnt come with problems, killing the spokespearson of one message doesnt make yours any more palatable.

On the argument of Colonies...Colonization is a dirty thing, there is no clean way to insert a people into a new land. The US is an example of a "succesful" colony...but its history is one of the near-total destruction of the native peoples. Colonies are an imperfect solution because no one has figured out how to do it without massive repercussions, perhaps there is no good way of doing it. But the fact remains that history is frequently played out by the movement of peoples into new areas. I guess the point is this: we weren't discussing them here, but the view that all colonies are inherent failures is too shortsighted.

if anything, its long sighted. im saying colonization only buries a problem, one which will eventually fester. unless the culture you are colonizing becomes totally assimilated (which is extremely unlikely in this day and age) problems are just going to keep bubling up.


"Freedomstien: how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money? maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that."

As to the lack of support in Iraq...well, you're arguing from a different angle altogether. True, "Hearts and Minds" are not affected by having a better equiped force, but that wasn't the point. The point is that the underequipped force was just one symptom of the utter mismanagement of US policy in Iraq. Actually, if they US had a sizable force instead of the over-streched, over-worked one it had now, it could do a much better job covering ground, securing safe zones and putting a good face on the bad occupation. You actually can battle it with more money if you're smart about it, establishing work programs, schools and providing goods to people from the very moment you show up makes a lot better impression on people than leaving the water off for weeks.

and im agreed with you for the most part. i just dont know how many more resources bush has at his disposal. is he going to institute a draft? raise taxes? will the american people even let this happen? i guess in a perfect world the us would pour all its wealth and power into rebuilding iraq no matter the cost, but i dont see that happening.

i havent read the prince, so i can only argue with what im hearing here. do i think violence is sometimes justified? yes. do i think that most failures in foreign policy can be attributed to not being aggressive enough? absolutly not

On Afghanistan:
This is the one bright spot in the whole war on terrorism. The Talliban were a nasty bunch of people. IMO, freeing that nation was legitimate. We actually FOUND terrorists and severely hurt them. We removed a corrupt government (more like an anarchy) from power, giving some hope to the people who lived there. We aren't following through with it very well, but that isn't much of a surprise from the US. Sort of par for the course. The UN is like our mother: cleaning up all our messes and Afghanistan is no different.


Uhm...Actually, you shouldn't be too hasty talking about the taliban in the past tense. Afghanistan is still screwed, no government and the taliban are openly going around cutting men's noses off for not having beards and executing women.
In fact, they have so much power in Afghanistan that the US may very well have to make deals with the taliban to get stability again.

Wow.

Been a while since I've gotten a chance to talk about these kinds of issues with intelligent people. Most threads like this end up being pointless "my dic-tionary is bigger than yours" or "my country has bigger guns than yours". Nice to see some intelligent thought and discussion here!

A bit about me: I'm an American college student. I consider myself Centrist, as Democrats are too liberal and Republicans are too conservative. As a result of the second Iraq war, I'm now something of an ex-patriot, as I have a sincere lack of patriotism. I don't abide by what "my" country does in my name.

So here is my two-cents with that in mind.

On war:
It was said that war, in general, is basically the failure of diplomacy. That principle still holds today, except now we have a doctrine that says "screw diplomacy" (aka Bush Doctrine). This sort of throwback to the Roosevelt Corrallary is inherently dangerous. We talk about spreading the ideals of freedom and democracy, but we aren't truely interested in seeing the former and we spread the latter by oppressing entire countries? I see an inherrant contradiction between what we say and what we do.

We "defend" ourselves by striking first - When has this EVER been a morally acceptable thing to do? Most people don't teach thier children this type of behavior, as the LAWS of our country don't allow citizens to do this sort of thing. First-strike doctrine was also employed by other countries through out history. I'll name a few: France (Napoleon), Japan (WWII - Pearl Harbor), Germany (WWII - Blitzkreig). We don't tend to view these actions as "honorable" or morally correct. They are the tactics of an aggessive expansionist power.

We "free" people by occupying them - I could laugh for weeks at the fallacy of this idea. Sure, we aren't as crazy as Saddam, but let's be honest: the people of Iraq are NO BETTER OFF now than they were before. Sure, they might have some twisted concept of freedom... freedom to be under military occupation. Freedom to not have regular running water, medical supplies, jobs, security, or electricity (all were stable/better off in pre-invasion Iraq). Freedom to BECOME TERRORISTS. What better way to make more enemies? Lets drop bombs that accidentally kill civilians. I'm sure you could have some foriegn power 'accidentally' kill half YOUR family with a smart bomb and understand that it was just an accident... Americans wouldn't stand for that sort of behavior on our own soil. We'd declare war within minutes. The people of Iraq are left with few alternatives. The increasing attacks on US personel and assets will only continue to grow the longer we remain in Iraq, as will anti-US sentiment.

We "fight terrorism" by attacking countries - As if countries are the source of terrorists! Ok, Bush calls them "harborers of terrorists" but look at Iraq: We get attacked by RELIGIOUS extremists. We then attack the ONLY secular nation in the middle east! What kind of logic is that? Well, we don't like Saddam much and he has that arsenal of weapons of mass destruction lying around... (yeah right... if you still believe that lie...) but terrorists? Saddam's regiem could teach us some good ways to wipe out religous fanatics. Saddam would never help fundamentalists, as they were his sworn enemies over the control of Iraq. This was a BLATENT lie to excuse our invasion of that country. Anyone with any kind of credible position (outside the US government of course) would tell you that.

On Afghanistan:
This is the one bright spot in the whole war on terrorism. The Talliban were a nasty bunch of people. IMO, freeing that nation was legitimate. We actually FOUND terrorists and severely hurt them. We removed a corrupt government (more like an anarchy) from power, giving some hope to the people who lived there. We aren't following through with it very well, but that isn't much of a surprise from the US. Sort of par for the course. The UN is like our mother: cleaning up all our messes and Afghanistan is no different.


To address the topic more closely:
I am not anti-war, but I see it as a weapon of last resort. We seem to have the misguided idea that it is a weapon of preference when people don't kneel before us. That is a grave strategic error. Our own country was FORMED as the result of similar views. I know some people who are ignorant and uninformed (not hard to be in the ol' US of A) but that is mostly due to shoddy news coverage. Americans see VERY little news from outside the US. If it isn't buisness or American, it isn't important. I personally strive to read and find material not readily accessible to US citizens, so my views aren't what you'll see from most Americans.
Very well thought out, especially your analogy to the countries that strike first, as to being taught better by your parents.

Eloquent post for sure and worth repeating!! :D

That bi**h goddess fate just does not want me to answer you. The evil server, 2 OS crashs, and a computer crash have conspired against me this morning - all in 2 hours. Anyway, here we go. :D

Note: rearranged slightly so as to group the answers together and avoid repitition. :)

sending your own people to live there like, er, britain did? i have news for you, india wasnt a partner, it was a slave.

i believe your words were we should colonize/absorb it. colonization is to international relations as slavery is to interpersonal relations.

also, colonization doesnt work. maybe it does when there was a lot of men with spears and indeginious people that never read marx and didnt have historical precedents on resistence. in a day before c-4, yeah, colonization works out fine. but occupation now is just a big money pit. name one place in the world the us occupied after 1945 that was better for it. and the 19th and 20th centuries were the only times that people actually *did* colonize, so basicaly, what you wqre saying is that large scale colonization was ALWAYS screwed up. and either way, it doesnt work now, so what is your point?

I think part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of the definition of colonization I am using. Colonization as I mean it, is sending people to live in a foreign nation, while taking over the functions of government and re-working that government (and possibly culture) to suit the occupier.

Successful colonizations in the last 200 or so years: Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Germany. I am using these three example because the first is such an excellent example, and the last two
answer both your questions about large scale colonizations and post-1945 colonizations, are familiar to everyone involved, and relate to the US goals in the current world situation.

Colonization is, as pointed out above, very difficult. To do it sucessfully, you need the right conditions and have to go about it the right way. Conditions are extremely variable. Cultural knowledge and sensitivity are key points. Also not making the colony a slave and knowing when to let the colony go are equally important.


The people of Hong Kong and Singapore were allowed a great deal of freedom, especially in comparisson to the surrounding areas. They flourished.

Germany was colonized by the allied powers at the end of WWII. The Western parts retained a great deal of freedom, and became a flourishing modern democracy. The Eastern part was ensalved and eventually failed, leading in part to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Japan was colonized by the US at the end of WWII. The US showed quite unusual cultural sensitivity (allowing the emperor to remain symbolic head of state, for example). Also, Japan retained a large degree of freedom. However, due to the early end of the occupation, the re-making of Japanese society failed to some degree. Japan has a much lesser degree of democracy than Germany.

Examples of partial sucesses: India and the Phillipines.

India was a slave. The British expoited it for it*s resources. However, India did recieve a fairly decent democratic tradition (indirectly via education in Britan and through example), as well as an improved economic base (British influance brough industrialization, modernized education, technical knowledge, and modern banking, to name a few improvements). Thus I consider it to have been partially a good thing.

The Phillipines were colonized first by Spain and the by the US. The Spanish colonization was also one of exploitation. However, it did bring many of the improvements mentioned with India above. The US colonization further improved conditions in the Phillipnes - it was one of the most developed countries in Asia by WWII. The weak democratic traditions and widespread corruption are the failings of this occupation.

Abject failures: Africa and the Arab nations. Do I need to say anymore on these?

and killing people doesnt stop resistence, it just builds fear and resentment until revolution happens.

need to expound on this one. killing people or making them subjects will make democracy? im not quite seeing the cause and effect here.

fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger. anger leads to big bombs exploding in new york. okay, sorry for sounding like yoda there, but you get the point.

The skillful and purposeful application of killing can stop resistance. Especially if taken to the extreme levels of, say the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols).
For example, the first suicidal Islamic terrorsist group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin) was only destroyed by the Mongol method. Hulagu Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan)s way of dealing with Baghdad amy not have been pretty, but it worked.

As for making people democratic, no the Mongol method can*t do that. But it isn*t the pupose of the Mongol method.

Note that, as with colonization, the Mongol method needs the right conditions. Currently, building a mountain of skulls outside Baghdad would not be acceptable. The use of nuclear weapons against the US would probably be required to do so.

In less extreme cases, you kill the right people to achieve your goals.

But most importantly, indiscrimainate killing achieves nothing.

stop reading machiavelli, he was writing in a time much different than our own and really, im not sure cutthroat, kill everything that moves foreign policy is the best.

First of all, this does not come only from Machiavelli. It comes from a wide reading of history. Second, if you really want to argue the relivance of Machiavelli, let us do so in another thread, later. (Machiavelli is very relevant to the real world.)

i think us recources were tied up a little in vietnam, its not like the us could afford to fight two unwinnable jungle wars. and if it did have the recources to fight it, shouldnt it have poured them into vietnam in the first place?

The US had the material and forces to win both. However, the necessary conditions were not there.
how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money?

More money puts more armor, munitions, and men on the ground. More forces, means more stability.

maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that.

Again, if the conditions are right it can work. The conditions are not right for the US to achieve its goal of making a democratic Iraq. The conditions are not right in Iraq. As I said before, the US must choose its wars very carefully. Bush was an idiot for trying to remake Iraq.

I dont think we are disagreeing any more. I dont know that I would call the operation in Japan and Germany 1945 colonization in the traditional sense. it was simply install a government and get out of there. I see colonization as a drive to incorperate new land and extract resources. hong kong and singapore seem to me to be glorified trading posts rather than actual colonies (he says as he offends about 10 million people). India and the Phillipines i think really drained the recources of their occupiers eventually and became lose-lose situations, which was kind of my point. but thats really just a matter of semantics. yeah, colonization works when it is a true, respectful partnership and temporary.

lets see, everything else, i guess, i agree with. violence has a very specific place and can be used effectivly, and there are times when it hurts more than helps. but it has been applied too liberally to us foreign policy and shoehorned into places it belongs. war is like surgery, nobody is doubting theres a place for it, it just might not be the right cure for the flu. if this is your view, im totally supportive of it. in fact, im not really sure we disagree anywhere.

okay, well, maybe on vietnam, but i dont really think this is the thread to do it in

I think part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of the definition of colonization I am using. Colonization as I mean it, is sending people to live in a foreign nation, while taking over the functions of government and re-working that government (and possibly culture) to suit the occupier.

Successful colonizations in the last 200 or so years: Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Germany. I am using these three example because the first is such an excellent example, and the last two
answer both your questions about large scale colonizations and post-1945 colonizations, are familiar to everyone involved, and relate to the US goals in the current world situation.

The people of Hong Kong and Singapore were allowed a great deal of freedom, especially in comparisson to the surrounding areas. They flourished.

-Excellent HOW? Ever heard of the rabid anti-americanism there and the extremely cruel punishments they practice? A lot is screwed up there, much is thanks to the US.

Examples of partial sucesses: India and the Phillipines.

India was a slave. The British expoited it for it*s resources. However, India did recieve a fairly decent democratic tradition (indirectly via education in Britan and through example),
-yeah, along with enslavement and war, loss of traditions and forced work.

as well as an improved economic base (British influance brough industrialization, modernized education, technical knowledge, and modern banking, to name a few improvements). Thus I consider it to have been partially a good thing.
-Influence first of all, and you completely fail to mention how britain f*ed up with making it a colony because of the whole orgy of blood with pakistan. It now has a great deal of unrest, and is possibily as unsafe as Israel. Partial success is more like mostly failure. India has the most dominant problems on this planet - population, polution, violence, kashmir, etc. How many can we blame britain for? Maybe not population...but...

The Phillipines were colonized first by Spain and the by the US. The Spanish colonization was also one of exploitation. However, it did bring many of the improvements mentioned with India above. The US colonization further improved conditions in the Phillipnes - it was one of the most developed countries in Asia by WWII. The weak democratic traditions and widespread corruption are the failings of this occupation.

-And look where it is now....rabid anti-US sentiment....near fascism...the Military Islamic Liberation Front...oh yeah.

Abject failures: Africa and the Arab nations. Do I need to say anymore on these?

-Just MORE failures.

The skillful and purposeful application of killing can stop resistance. Especially if taken to the extreme levels of, say the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols).
For example, the first suicidal Islamic terrorsist group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin) was only destroyed by the Mongol method. Hulagu Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan)s way of dealing with Baghdad amy not have been pretty, but it worked.

-Are you SERIOUS? Umm...who do you sound like? 'purposeful' and 'skillful' killings could count towards 9/11 and lowering US resistance...maybe even pearl harbor or dresden. Wow...REAL NICE way to stop resistance; did ANY of these work? And the mongols weren't skillful, they just pillaged everything they found...and maybe the mongols DID beat baghdad...but they also caused the upheavel of europe and the entrance into the dark ages.

In less extreme cases, you kill the right people to achieve your goals.

-And who would those be? Israel's been killing PLO officials for years...you see them stopping to resist?

But most importantly, indiscrimainate killing achieves nothing.

- I'm amazed. We agree on something. :wink:

First of all, this does not come only from Machiavelli. It comes from a wide reading of history. Second, if you really want to argue the relivance of Machiavelli, let us do so in another thread, later. (Machiavelli is very relevant to the real world.)

-Very relavent, but mostly in the fact that is used outdately, like in the whole US/Iraq war! Why not realize that, no the ends DONT justify the means, you can never clean your hands and The US has screwed itself over many times by this.

i think us recources were tied up a little in vietnam, its not like the us could afford to fight two unwinnable jungle wars. and if it did have the recources to fight it, shouldnt it have poured them into vietnam in the first place?

The US had the material and forces to win both. However, the necessary conditions were not there. Uh huh...no. The US Didn't have the forces, if those forces had been put to vietnam who knows how much better that war would have been besides 1.5 million vietnamese dead and 600000 americans.

how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money?

More money puts more armor, munitions, and men on the ground. More forces, means more stability.

-And a greater potential for hurt, morale drop, hatred, and criticism by many countries and people as well. Even though we have far superior forces, people are still dying and it is not right. More troops cant stop a suicide bomber or mortar launch, they can only create the feeling of utter submission on Iraq's part; a daily reminder of violence and foreign invasion.

maybe if we were brainwashing them wed get somewhere... we cant force democracy at gunpoint. if a country doesnt want to be democratic and give us their oil, no old school italian policies are going to change that.

Again, if the conditions are right it can work. The conditions are not right for the US to achieve its goal of making a democratic Iraq. The conditions are not right in Iraq. As I said before, the US must choose its wars very carefully. Bush was an idiot for trying to remake Iraq.[/quote]

-Yeah; but even if the conditions were right we should still try to get multilateral support....I'm amazed you don't support the war considering.

We "defend" ourselves by striking first - When has this EVER been a morally acceptable thing to do? Most people don't teach thier children this type of behavior, as the LAWS of our country don't allow citizens to do this sort of thing. First-strike doctrine was also employed by other countries through out history. I'll name a few: France (Napoleon), Japan (WWII - Pearl Harbor), Germany (WWII - Blitzkreig). We don't tend to view these actions as "honorable" or morally correct. They are the tactics of an aggessive expansionist power.

Yet anyone who takes a casual look at history sees glaring examples of times when pre-emptive strikes would've been beneficial to civilization. Who can stand here and argue that had France and Great Britain challenged Germany before the Rearmament went into full swing in '38, that Germany would not have backed down. Had France responded to Germany's re-occupation of the Rhineland by sending it's own troops into the Saar and Rhineland, Hitler, as he stated himself, would've backed down, and there is a likely chance he would never have produced the war he went on to, thus saving potentially millions of human beings.

Now I'm no fan of pre-emptive war being used to fight terrorism, I think this administration has handled this situation disastrously, but in some contexts, pre-emptive war is necessary.

This converstion is interesting and everything, you all seem pretty intelligent and are not getting personal about it but it is not what I started this thread for.

I don't mind that much if you keep going but I'd rather it if you realted it back my initial question. Is there anyone else out there who hasn't contibuted yet (ie. you've had a look but haven't posted) have anything to say? Don't feel like you have to join the discussion about colonisation etc.

We "defend" ourselves by striking first - When has this EVER been a morally acceptable thing to do? Most people don't teach thier children this type of behavior, as the LAWS of our country don't allow citizens to do this sort of thing. First-strike doctrine was also employed by other countries through out history. I'll name a few: France (Napoleon), Japan (WWII - Pearl Harbor), Germany (WWII - Blitzkreig). We don't tend to view these actions as "honorable" or morally correct. They are the tactics of an aggessive expansionist power.

Yet anyone who takes a casual look at history sees glaring examples of times when pre-emptive strikes would've been beneficial to civilization. Who can stand here and argue that had France and Great Britain challenged Germany before the Rearmament went into full swing in '38, that Germany would not have backed down. Had France responded to Germany's re-occupation of the Rhineland by sending it's own troops into the Saar and Rhineland, Hitler, as he stated himself, would've backed down, and there is a likely chance he would never have produced the war he went on to, thus saving potentially millions of human beings.

Now I'm no fan of pre-emptive war being used to fight terrorism, I think this administration has handled this situation disastrously, but in some contexts, pre-emptive war is necessary.

those wouldnt have been preemptive strikes, any more than kuwait and gulf war I was a preemptive strike. you should only send in the marines when there has been an act of agression that cannot be contained by any other means.

I dont think we are disagreeing any more. I dont know that I would call the operation in Japan and Germany 1945 colonization in the traditional sense. it was simply install a government and get out of there. I see colonization as a drive to incorperate new land and extract resources. hong kong and singapore seem to me to be glorified trading posts rather than actual colonies (he says as he offends about 10 million people). India and the Phillipines i think really drained the recources of their occupiers eventually and became lose-lose situations, which was kind of my point. but thats really just a matter of semantics. yeah, colonization works when it is a true, respectful partnership and temporary.

lets see, everything else, i guess, i agree with. violence has a very specific place and can be used effectivly, and there are times when it hurts more than helps. but it has been applied too liberally to us foreign policy and shoehorned into places it belongs. war is like surgery, nobody is doubting theres a place for it, it just might not be the right cure for the flu. if this is your view, im totally supportive of it. in fact, im not really sure we disagree anywhere.

Good. Glad that is cleared up.
And please do go and read The Prince. Machiavelli had an excellent grasp of history and international relations.
A good starting point (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=machiavelli+texts&btnG=Google+Search).

(BTW, please try to use quotes. It makes answering you much easier if I do not have to go through and separate out the quotes by hand. Thank you.)

I think part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of the definition of colonization I am using. Colonization as I mean it, is sending people to live in a foreign nation, while taking over the functions of government and re-working that government (and possibly culture) to suit the occupier.

Successful colonizations in the last 200 or so years: Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Germany. I am using these three example because the first is such an excellent example, and the last two
answer both your questions about large scale colonizations and post-1945 colonizations, are familiar to everyone involved, and relate to the US goals in the current world situation.

The people of Hong Kong and Singapore were allowed a great deal of freedom, especially in comparisson to the surrounding areas. They flourished.

-Excellent HOW? Ever heard of the rabid anti-americanism there and the extremely cruel punishments they practice? A lot is screwed up there, much is thanks to the US.

All of the nations I listed are modern democracies or semi-democracies with excellent economies, education systems, a high quality of life, etc. How are any of them screwed up?
Also, the US did not colonize Singapore or Hong Kong. And how did the US cause them to be screwed up?

Examples of partial sucesses: India and the Phillipines.

India was a slave. The British expoited it for it*s resources. However, India did recieve a fairly decent democratic tradition (indirectly via education in Britan and through example),

-yeah, along with enslavement and war, loss of traditions and forced work.

as well as an improved economic base (British influance brough industrialization, modernized education, technical knowledge, and modern banking, to name a few improvements). Thus I consider it to have been partially a good thing.

-Influence first of all, and you completely fail to mention how britain f*ed up with making it a colony because of the whole orgy of blood with pakistan. It now has a great deal of unrest, and is possibily as unsafe as Israel. Partial success is more like mostly failure. India has the most dominant problems on this planet - population, polution, violence, kashmir, etc. How many can we blame britain for? Maybe not population...but...

The Phillipines were colonized first by Spain and the by the US. The Spanish colonization was also one of exploitation. However, it did bring many of the improvements mentioned with India above. The US colonization further improved conditions in the Phillipnes - it was one of the most developed countries in Asia by WWII. The weak democratic traditions and widespread corruption are the failings of this occupation.

-And look where it is now....rabid anti-US sentiment....near fascism...the Military Islamic Liberation Front...oh yeah.

The failings were mentioned. As were the sucesses.

Abject failures: Africa and the Arab nations. Do I need to say anymore on these?

-Just MORE failures.


The skillful and purposeful application of killing can stop resistance. Especially if taken to the extreme levels of, say the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols).
For example, the first suicidal Islamic terrorsist group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin) was only destroyed by the Mongol method. Hulagu Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan)s way of dealing with Baghdad amy not have been pretty, but it worked.

-Are you SERIOUS?
Completely.

Umm...who do you sound like? 'purposeful' and 'skillful' killings could count towards 9/11 and lowering US resistance...maybe even pearl harbor or dresden. Wow...REAL NICE way to stop resistance; did ANY of these work?

And the mongols weren't skillful, they just pillaged everything they found...and maybe the mongols DID beat baghdad...but they also caused the upheavel of europe and the entrance into the dark ages.

:?: You need to go back and re-read your history. The Mongols were extremely skilled warriors, making many military innovations. They did not simply pillage everything. In fact, they made it a point to save cities when possible.
Nor did they cause the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages (or the Early Medieval period) are generally consideredc to have ended when Charlemange was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800, some 4 centuries before the Mongols reached Europe.


In less extreme cases, you kill the right people to achieve your goals.

-And who would those be? Israel's been killing PLO officials for years...you see them stopping to resist?

The Israel situation is extremely complex. It is an excellent example of what I am saying. The conditions must be right.

But most importantly, indiscrimainate killing achieves nothing.

- I'm amazed. We agree on something. :wink:

First of all, this does not come only from Machiavelli. It comes from a wide reading of history. Second, if you really want to argue the relivance of Machiavelli, let us do so in another thread, later. (Machiavelli is very relevant to the real world.)

-Very relavent, but mostly in the fact that is used outdately, like in the whole US/Iraq war! Why not realize that, no the ends DONT justify the means, you can never clean your hands and The US has screwed itself over many times by this.

i think us recources were tied up a little in vietnam, its not like the us could afford to fight two unwinnable jungle wars. and if it did have the recources to fight it, shouldnt it have poured them into vietnam in the first place?

The US had the material and forces to win both. However, the necessary conditions were not there.

Uh huh...no. The US Didn't have the forces, if those forces had been put to vietnam who knows how much better that war would have been besides 1.5 million vietnamese dead and 600000 americans.

The US certainly had the forces to do so. For example, a number of Titan II ICBMs would have been sufficient. The conditions would not have allowed for that. Just because you can*t do something correctly does not mean that you don*t have the ability to do it incorrectly.

how are more munitions, soldiers or armor going to help anything? the us iis fighting women and children and citizens for crying out loud. when every person could potentially be an enemy, when everybody wants you out, how do you battle it withmore money?

More money puts more armor, munitions, and men on the ground. More forces, means more stability.

-And a greater potential for hurt, morale drop, hatred, and criticism by many countries and people as well. Even though we have far superior forces, people are still dying and it is not right. More troops cant stop a suicide bomber or mortar launch, they can only create the feeling of utter submission on Iraq's part; a daily reminder of violence and foreign invasion.

Like I said the conditions were wrong. But Bush and his advisors made serious military mistakes by ignoring their generals advice. Part of this advice was to use sufficient forces to stabilize the country early. Now we are facingf the problems of having to try to stabilize it later.

Again, if the conditions are right it can work. The conditions are not right for the US to achieve its goal of making a democratic Iraq. The conditions are not right in Iraq. As I said before, the US must choose its wars very carefully. Bush was an idiot for trying to remake Iraq.

-Yeah; but even if the conditions were right we should still try to get multilateral support....I'm amazed you don't support the war considering.

Multilateral support is part of setting up the right conditions. Why is it amazing that I don*t support the war. It was a big mistake by everything I have outlined so far...

I have noticed alot of people who use this forum, all who I think are American citizens (correct me if I am wrong), espouse the good old "lets blow the crap out of it" soultion to their countries foriegn affairs problems. Military action in general seems to be how these people would solve the worlds problems, such as this example on how to solve the problems in Saudi Arabia;

"We could bomb their oil fields, oil pipelines, oil refineries and oil tankers"

I have found that most people who espouse these views have little or no knowledge of the actual issues involved. Also, their knowledge of the world around them is generally lacking. For example, one thought there was a link between the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Al - Qaeda.

I'm not trying to start an "All Americans are stupid" thread, I just ask, is this how the majority of American citizens view the world? Also, why do they think they can solve everything by dropping bombs on it? I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work. I am particulary interested to hear from Americans, to hear what they think. But I'd welcome anyones opinion/experiances, no matter where they are from.

No offence intended

This converstion is interesting and everything, you all seem pretty intelligent and are not getting personal about it but it is not what I started this thread for.
I don't mind that much if you keep going but I'd rather it if you realted it back my initial question. Is there anyone else out there who hasn't contibuted yet (ie. you've had a look but haven't posted) have anything to say? Don't feel like you have to join the discussion about colonisation etc.

Trying to return to our regularly scheduled thread. :D

I will try and sum up most what I have been expouinding on and it*s relivance to the topic at hand. Most American*s are poor at understanding the world at large and international relations. The reasons for this have been outlined by others above. However, "the good old 'lets blow the crap out of it' soultion" does have it's place.

<Actually, Vietnam and Cambodia didn't prove jack. Our military was severely handicapped by the political hierarchy. If Vietnam had faced the full convetional might of the United States, it would have been crushed in weeks. If the USA had used its complete strength, it'd only take a few minutes to crush Vietnam. We just didn't bomb them WELL enough.>

<Are you serious? Do you think Russia could have won in Afghanistan too if it had used all its military might?>
Yes. Afghanistan was a sideshow for the Soviets.
<The fact is, the US did try to 'bomb them well enough'. The US dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than it did on Germany in WW2. The amount of ordanance expended on Vietnam as a whole was enormous, look up the figures, you'll see what I mean. >
That proves nothing. The (aerially dropped) ordnance used on Germany was employed strategically. In Vietnam, we simply tried to stem the flow of troops from North Vietnam and push them out of South Vietnam. It was like trying to kill ants without killing the ant hill. If we'd invaded and destroyed North Vietnam's logistical capabilities, we would have won. The USA was stabbed in the back by its own politicians, who hadn't the intestinal fortitude to let the military pursue the war in the proper manner.

<Australia too was in Vietnam and employed different tactics to our US allies and suffered a much lower casualty rate (note I say rate, ofcourse Australia wouldn't have lost as many men, we had less troops in-country). Using conventional tactics against a well supported guerilla movement in that case just wasn't going to work, no matter how many resources you throw at it. The French showed that before we even entered the country.>
Well, duh. However, employing conventional tactics to destroy the guerilla's logistical base would've been effective. Linebacker-2 showed that most effectively.

<Anyway, back on topic, I assume you're of the 'lets blow the crap out of them, that will sort it out' mentallity?>
No. I'm of the "Use force when appropriate mentality". Don't presume to color me in an unfavorable light in order to suit your agenda, that is, spreading vitriolic anti-American garbage in an effort to subvert good will toward the USA.

<Anyway, back on topic, I assume you're of the 'lets blow the crap out of them, that will sort it out' mentallity?>
No. I'm of the "Use force when appropriate mentality". Don't presume to color me in an unfavorable light in order to suit your agenda, that is, spreading vitriolic anti-American garbage in an effort to subvert good will toward the USA.

Back to top

I was asking a question, not making a statement. It wasn't intended to be offensive, sorry if it was. Yeah, I'm a terrorist who's 'agenda' is to try and split the western world so I can feed off its festering carcass. If you hadn't realised, Australia is one your closets allies, really, that was just uncalled for. I didn't say any "'anti-American' vitriolic garbage", hey, I like your space program if you want a compliment. I was trying to give some Americans a chance to voice their opinions without getting into an argument.

I think 'subverting good will towards the US' has already been achieved by Bush whish really helps no - one. Why the hell would I want to do that? That's not one of my 'life aims'. Really, that has to be the most outlandish accusations I have ever come across.

Look, lets just agree to disagree on Vietnam, you are obviously getting pretty emotional about it, that was the last thing I wanted.

What would happen if someone posted a thread saying Islams policys are all wrong and only create terroristism? Called Racist wrightly so and that is what being 'anti-american' is.

What would happen if someone posted a thread saying Islams policys are all wrong and only create terroristism? Called Racist wrightly so and that is what being 'anti-american' is.

Really, why is disagreeing with things 'anti-American"? I never said all of Americas policies are wrong. Some, yes, all, no. Blowing things like this out of proportion is just pointless. I disagree with aspects of my own governments policy, such as its stance on immigration, that dosen't make me 'anti-Australian'. Look, accusing people of 'anti-Americanism' is just stupid and counter productive.

I'm no racist, I was merely commenting on a trend I have noticed. If I was racist I would have said 'you are all a pack of gun totting ignorant war mongers' and not asked for your opinions. I think Chinas policy in Tibet is wrong, but here I am working at the moment getting along Chinese people just fine.

Anyway, I wasn't even asking about policy, I asking wheter or not the image we get of Americans is true or not and if these views are held widely in the US. Far from racist. Why get all emotional?

Please, feel free to disagree/question my governments policies, that is what democracy is all about. I'd welcome another nationalities view on this, becuase, hey, I comment on the American government often enough. But please, don't get emotional or personal.

I have noticed alot of people who use this forum, all who I think are American citizens (correct me if I am wrong), espouse the good old "lets blow the crap out of it" soultion to their countries foriegn affairs problems. Military action in general seems to be how these people would solve the worlds problems, such as this example on how to solve the problems in Saudi Arabia;

"We could bomb their oil fields, oil pipelines, oil refineries and oil tankers"

I have found that most people who espouse these views have little or no knowledge of the actual issues involved. Also, their knowledge of the world around them is generally lacking. For example, one thought there was a link between the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Al - Qaeda.

I'm not trying to start an "All Americans are stupid" thread, I just ask, is this how the majority of American citizens view the world? Also, why do they think they can solve everything by dropping bombs on it? I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work. I am particulary interested to hear from Americans, to hear what they think. But I'd welcome anyones opinion/experiances, no matter where they are from.

No offence intended

There is a time and a place for military intervention. The "Blow 'em up" approach is simply a very old method of destroying a problem so it'll go away and stay down. But, it has to be brought to its natural and NOT stopped by political meddling. Let the military do its thing and the politicians do theirs. Vietnam was a half-ass approach, the damaged caused was not sufficient and U.S. opinion was against it. The U.S. didn't go through with threatening retaliation against China or the Soviet Union for aiding the VC. They should have also shot at every Eastern European "cargo" ship in the area; most of them were being used to transports weapons, supplies and machinery (I'm Polish, so I know a few people who served on those vessels).

The current model of international thinking is that we must discuss every issue. Everything comes down to going to the U.N. and giving up on formulating a national opinion. Countries nowadays simply defer to the U.N. and state that if the U.N. didn't approve of it I'm sitting on my hands and doing nothing. All the while failing to understand that the U.N. is no longer representative of current power/geopolitical politics. Most of the members are not democracies and none of them have been chosen by anyone in their respectice country. Leaving a decision as important as intervention/war to a body of people neither elected nor representative is ridiculous. This is what most people see; apathy across the world to undertake absolutely ANY action abroad for fear of local repercussions whether good or bad. Most governments now specialize in crisis management sitting in office and doing NOTHING during their tenure (speaking of democracies).

Oh and I'm not American. Born in Poland and living in Canada.

There is a time and a place for military intervention. The "Blow 'em up" approach is simply a very old method of destroying a problem so it'll go away and stay down. But, it has to be brought to its natural and NOT stopped by political meddling. Let the military do its thing and the politicians do theirs. Vietnam was a half-ass approach, the damaged caused was not sufficient and U.S. opinion was against it. The U.S. didn't go through with threatening retaliation against China or the Soviet Union for aiding the VC. They should have also shot at every Eastern European "cargo" ship in the area; most of them were being used to transports weapons, supplies and machinery (I'm Polish, so I know a few people who served on those vessels).

The current model of international thinking is that we must discuss every issue. Everything comes down to going to the U.N. and giving up on formulating a national opinion. Countries nowadays simply defer to the U.N. and state that if the U.N. didn't approve of it I'm sitting on my hands and doing nothing. All the while failing to understand that the U.N. is no longer representative of current power/geopolitical politics. Most of the members are not democracies and none of them have been chosen by anyone in their respectice country. Leaving a decision as important as intervention/war to a body of people neither elected nor representative is ridiculous. This is what most people see; apathy across the world to undertake absolutely ANY action abroad for fear of local repercussions whether good or bad. Most governments now specialize in crisis management sitting in office and doing NOTHING during their tenure (speaking of democracies).

Oh and I'm not American. Born in Poland and living in Canada.

Thank you. You managed to say a lot of what I have been trying to, but much more clearly. :D

What would happen if someone posted a thread saying Islams policys are all wrong and only create terroristism? Called Racist wrightly so and that is what being 'anti-american' is.

Really, why is disagreeing with things 'anti-American"? I never said all of Americas policies are wrong. Some, yes, all, no. Blowing things like this out of proportion is just pointless. I disagree with aspects of my own governments policy, such as its stance on immigration, that dosen't make me 'anti-Australian'. Look, accusing people of 'anti-Americanism' is just stupid and counter productive.

I'm no racist, I was merely commenting on a trend I have noticed. If I was racist I would have said 'you are all a pack of gun totting ignorant war mongers' and not asked for your opinions. I think Chinas policy in Tibet is wrong, but here I am working at the moment getting along Chinese people just fine.

Anyway, I wasn't even asking about policy, I asking wheter or not the image we get of Americans is true or not and if these views are held widely in the US. Far from racist. Why get all emotional?

Please, feel free to disagree/question my governments policies, that is what democracy is all about. I'd welcome another nationalities view on this, becuase, hey, I comment on the American government often enough. But please, don't get emotional or personal....ummm I would but I'm half Austrailian myself. The Russian war in Chechnia is far more damaging then the US one in Iraq. Why doen't the anti-war lobby go crazy over it. Because being anti-US is fashionable.

ummm I would but I'm half Austrailian myself. The Russian war in Chechnia is far more damaging then the US one in Iraq. Why doen't the anti-war lobby go crazy over it. Because being anti-US is fashionable.[/quote]

No, that's not it at all. Iraq we can help; what can we do to Russia? Do you really think they will listen? should we invade them and do exactly what we're doing in iraq? ...uh huh.

What would happen if someone posted a thread saying Islams policys are all wrong and only create terroristism? Called Racist wrightly so and that is what being 'anti-american' is.

Really, why is disagreeing with things 'anti-American"? I never said all of Americas policies are wrong. Some, yes, all, no. Blowing things like this out of proportion is just pointless. I disagree with aspects of my own governments policy, such as its stance on immigration, that dosen't make me 'anti-Australian'. Look, accusing people of 'anti-Americanism' is just stupid and counter productive.

I'm no racist, I was merely commenting on a trend I have noticed. If I was racist I would have said 'you are all a pack of gun totting ignorant war mongers' and not asked for your opinions. I think Chinas policy in Tibet is wrong, but here I am working at the moment getting along Chinese people just fine.

Anyway, I wasn't even asking about policy, I asking wheter or not the image we get of Americans is true or not and if these views are held widely in the US. Far from racist. Why get all emotional?

Please, feel free to disagree/question my governments policies, that is what democracy is all about. I'd welcome another nationalities view on this, becuase, hey, I comment on the American government often enough. But please, don't get emotional or personal....ummm I would but I'm half Austrailian myself. The Russian war in Chechnia is far more damaging then the US one in Iraq. Why doen't the anti-war lobby go crazy over it. Because being anti-US is fashionable.

. . . .ummm I'm half Australian, what do you mean by that? That dosen't preclude you from voicing an opinion.

What the hell can I do to stop the war in Chechnya? I don't think Putin's going to listen to me. Would you agree that the US and Australia are both democracies? I can debate, protest and voice my opinion on this issue becuase I can atleast hope to change the situation becuase my government is involved in it. If I was to do the same for Chechnya I'd just be wasting my breath.

Also, I think that because the US holds itself up to be a beacon of righteousness and that everything it dose is right is why it more attracts critisims for actions, unlike Russia which never claimed to be in the first place.

I see too many people on this forum who mistakenly believe that if other nations are just left alone, they will never pose a threat to the United States, Europe, or any other entity. ~ Michael.

My 2 cents worth:

One of the things that always amazes me is the Yank-bashing that goes on in these forums and the responses from Americans (not all of you) that feel indignant that anyone could criticise their great nation (again if this doesn't apply to you, don't get all uppity about it...).

Anyway, if anyone is interested in a good read about why anti-US sentiment exists, check out:

Sardar, Z. & Wyn Davies, M. (2002) Why Do People Hate America?, Cambridge: Icon Books.

I see too many people on this forum who mistakenly believe that if other nations are just left alone, they will never pose a threat to the United States, Europe, or any other entity. ~ Michael.


Please don't tell me people actually think like this?

Love Peotry - It was some of your posts that inspired this thread!

I have noticed alot of people who use this forum, all who I think are American citizens (correct me if I am wrong), espouse the good old "lets blow the crap out of it" soultion to their countries foriegn affairs problems. Military action in general seems to be how these people would solve the worlds problems, such as this example on how to solve the problems in Saudi Arabia;

"We could bomb their oil fields, oil pipelines, oil refineries and oil tankers"

I have found that most people who espouse these views have little or no knowledge of the actual issues involved. Also, their knowledge of the world around them is generally lacking. For example, one thought there was a link between the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and Al - Qaeda.

I'm not trying to start an "All Americans are stupid" thread, I just ask, is this how the majority of American citizens view the world? Also, why do they think they can solve everything by dropping bombs on it? I think Vietnam and Cambodia proved that approach didn't work. I am particulary interested to hear from Americans, to hear what they think. But I'd welcome anyones opinion/experiances, no matter where they are from.

No offence intendedThink of the average age of posters on this forum. That's why your get such idiots who are always talking about "neo-con plagues" or "kill everybody."

I have noticed alot of people who I think are American citizens (correct me if I am wrong), espouse the good old "lets blow the crap out of it" soultion to their countries foriegn affairs problems


WHAT??? There is no way that I, as a respectable AMERICAN, desire to use violence to solve foregin affairs!!! Grr . . . every time I think of 9/11, I am overwhelmed by GRIEF TOWARDS THOSE WHO DIED :cry: , rather than feelings of revenge upon Al-Queda!!! After seeing terrible pain inflicted on my own country, I NEVER want to do the same to another, even in the name of justice. :cry:

BUMP