angrymnk wrote:
French civilians are not US responsibility. Period. They never were.
You've heard of NATO? You *think* that French civilians should not be US responsibility, but the actual fact is that for the last 5-6 decades a primary security factor for Europe has largely rested on US actions around the globe. I find is amusing when people argue that the US military is just too expensive, and parrot stats like (we spend as much on our military as the res tof the world combined), and then they fail to grasp that this military doesn't just sit on it's rear doing nothing. It has an effect on global politics. And a *huge* part of that has been "mess with our friends and we'll make you wish you'd not gotten up this century".
What do you think happens when the president of the US starts his administration basically going around the globe apologizing for doing that protecting for the previous 5-6 decades, and the follows that up with a number of actions that shows he's utterly unwilling to use the US military in said protective fashion. The irony is that the threat alone has often been sufficient, so that we don't actually have to take any action and no lives are lost. But once your enemies believe you wont act, then they will act against you and your friends, and that's when you'll see lots of deaths. So yes, whether you think the safety of French civilians in Paris *should* be related to US willingness to uses military force around the globe, the actual fact is that it has been the case for many decades now.
Quote:
You do realize that US has been waving its **** for a fair amount of time now, right?
Yes, and as long as we were doing that, the world has been a pretty safe place. Now that we've stopped, we're seeing the kinds of regional conflicts we haven't seen since before WW2 (and honestly more like pre WW1). It's just been so long that people have forgotten what that was like, and why we started doing what we were doing in the first place. You've just grown to assume that the world and its people magically "grew up" or something and now such conflicts are behind us. Um... No. It was because the US was around to whack anyone who got out of line. And once a few powers realize that the US wont act, it starts a flood of violence. Which is what we're seeing.
Quote:
Yes. It is a cause and effect. I can see you are able to recognize simple patterns now. I am not sure how closely you were following the 'refugee crisis' ( EU-version ), but this is absolutely a result of a retarded refugee policy generated by bureaucrats...
Um... Yeah. You're missing the forest for the trees. Why are there refugees and what are they fleeing? Now. Re-read my point about how if the US had taken a firm position on the Syrian revolution 3 years ago, this would not have happened. See? Cause and effect. Obama's waffling has caused a conflict that should not have lasted more than a few months (maybe 6 at the most) to drag on for 3 years. That's why there are so many refugees. Seriously, it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Quote:
So we are sold Bush war part 3. Great. Lets go on that ride again. We root it out, and then wait for ISIS 2.0 rise from the ashes. Maybe we could try doing something else?
Like foolishly hope that human nature will magically change? Whack a mole is a terrible policy, I agree. But it's a better policy than any other we could attempt. After you've whacked a few moles, the rest stop popping their heads up. You stop, and you'll get more moles, not fewer. That may suck and all, but it's the only sane approach.
Quote:
Quote:
Seriously curious: What do you think we should be doing in response to these attacks?
Nothing. We were not attacked. France was. US is not France. France is part of EU. When something changes in that regard, let me know.
Nothing. We were not attacked. France was. US is not France. France is part of EU. When something changes in that regard, let me know.
How very isolationist of you. Talk about repeating a policy that failed horrifically the last time it was tried.
Quote:
Of course, were it not for Bush and war started with a false claims of WMDs we probably would not be having this conversation...
And FDR knew about and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. Right?
Quote:
I am against those as well. US should seriously start rolling down the empire. It costs too much.
Tell that to the dead in Paris.
Quote:
Do you really think we should not leave Germany or Japan, because it is about to become a source of violent action? I just find the notion silly.
It is not that it is unthinkable, but it is not 'normal' either. It is, however, very American. And silly. And wasteful.
It is not that it is unthinkable, but it is not 'normal' either. It is, however, very American. And silly. And wasteful.
And yet, someone has to do it, or the world devolves back into regional conflicts like it constantly engaged in prior to the rise of US power in the mid 20th century. The US has a pretty good track record of involving itself in these sorts of things and *not* just conquering everyone around them. You get that the replacement if we're not there probably wont be so kind.
And no. Europe has an absolutely horrific record of managing this on their own. Remember when people were shocked at the violence in the former Yugoslavia after the fall of the USSR? How could this happen in modern civilized European countries? Humanity didn't magically evolve just in the last 60 years or so. We're just as violent. We're just as hateful. Europe has been a peace because the US has been the "glue" holding them together in one cause. We go away, you'll see the next WW1 style conflict happen again within 20 years. Once it ceases being "NATO/West against the world", European nations will shrink its real politik in scope, and start seeing their neighbors as their enemies. And 60+ years of work will be flushed down a drain with the first resource conflict.
Peace is not a natural state for humanity. People really need to learn that.
Quote:
I think you misunderstood me on purpose here. I am not arguing for more surveillance. I am saying you can't whine no fair in a match after you are given superpowers.
But the Left's response to attacks like this will be to argue for more surveillance. That was my point.
Quote:
Was that supposed to be deep or something? I have no idea what that means.
Outward, meaning going to foreign lands, putting "troops on the ground" and fighting against enemies there so as to prevent them from being able to attack us on our soil. Inward meaning, beefing up security in our own lands to make us more safe, which inevitably means less freedoms at home, and arguably not a whole lot of safety (see the earlier comment about how despite draconian surveillance, with strong gun laws, it didn't prevent this attack, or protect the victims.
Trying to protect yourself from a foreign enemy by acting only in your own country is really really really stupid. You have to project power outward to be successful. Yet, it's this outward action that is decried as "warmongering". Um... What do you think the alternative is? Yup. More draconian "security" at home. Don't just argue *against* the foreign policy actions. Pick a course between the options you have.
Edited, Nov 23rd 2015 2:28pm by gbaji