Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1702431" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I for one would feel much safer if our military was being used purely for national defense and not for nation-building. I think it pisses more people off than otherwise when we invade countries and try to install governments... and I think that it is a fool's errand to try to be converting the whole middle east to european-style social democracies with parliamentary government. It doesn't help that the people we back are almost always massively corrupt, like Karzai's admin in Afghanistan... and like the Shah was back when we tried the whole "regime change" thing in Iran (if you've ever wondered why they are so hostile toward us, you might read something about the history of US-Iran relations). </p><p></p><p>Foreign intervention almost always seems to get us into more trouble on down the road, and we frequently end up going to war against the governments of countries we formerly supported... I already mentioned Iran, but after that we supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran, since we were still pissed at them for overthrowing our handpicked Shah... we even gave him some of the chemical weapon know-how that we later used as justification for invading him. And in Afghanistan we supported the Taliban because we thought it would be great to give the Russians a black eye, but didn't think about the possibility that a radical Muslim state might be WORSE. And people are already claiming that the regime change in Libya is a wonderful thing, but I say it is too soon to tell whether the next bunch to be in power will be any better than the last guy. The 20th Century is full of other examples, like the dictators we supported in South America who committed all kinds of atrocities and wound up getting overthrown. I think we would be a lot safer and a lot more prosperous right now if we had just stayed the hell out of all of those places and only worried about people who were actually planning on attacking us militarily (which would be a very short to nonexistent list in the modern age, because 1. it would be suicidal, and 2. because people would have a whole lot less to be pissed at us about if we minded our own business). </p><p></p><p>North Korea is an absolute joke, and anyone who thinks otherwise should read some books about them. They can't even keep their own people fed. Even the political class goes hungry in that country. They have a nearly complete lack of industry. Sure they have one of the largest militaries in the world going purely by number of men, but most of their soldiers are starving as it is... just think of trying to keep them fed, much less armed, in the field while trying to invade a vastly technologically-superior country. All their military pomp and circumstance is pure posturing... typical of Communists. But even if your supposed "doomsday scenario" came true and they somehow took over the South, what would the consequences be to the United States? What leads you to believe that things would be any worse than what happened when South Vietnam fell to communism in 1975? Communist Vietnam is now one of our biggest trading partners in the region... pretty well proving that the whole "domino theory" that got us into that war (and Korea for that matter) was a complete crock.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1702431, member: 4235"] I for one would feel much safer if our military was being used purely for national defense and not for nation-building. I think it pisses more people off than otherwise when we invade countries and try to install governments... and I think that it is a fool's errand to try to be converting the whole middle east to european-style social democracies with parliamentary government. It doesn't help that the people we back are almost always massively corrupt, like Karzai's admin in Afghanistan... and like the Shah was back when we tried the whole "regime change" thing in Iran (if you've ever wondered why they are so hostile toward us, you might read something about the history of US-Iran relations). Foreign intervention almost always seems to get us into more trouble on down the road, and we frequently end up going to war against the governments of countries we formerly supported... I already mentioned Iran, but after that we supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran, since we were still pissed at them for overthrowing our handpicked Shah... we even gave him some of the chemical weapon know-how that we later used as justification for invading him. And in Afghanistan we supported the Taliban because we thought it would be great to give the Russians a black eye, but didn't think about the possibility that a radical Muslim state might be WORSE. And people are already claiming that the regime change in Libya is a wonderful thing, but I say it is too soon to tell whether the next bunch to be in power will be any better than the last guy. The 20th Century is full of other examples, like the dictators we supported in South America who committed all kinds of atrocities and wound up getting overthrown. I think we would be a lot safer and a lot more prosperous right now if we had just stayed the hell out of all of those places and only worried about people who were actually planning on attacking us militarily (which would be a very short to nonexistent list in the modern age, because 1. it would be suicidal, and 2. because people would have a whole lot less to be pissed at us about if we minded our own business). North Korea is an absolute joke, and anyone who thinks otherwise should read some books about them. They can't even keep their own people fed. Even the political class goes hungry in that country. They have a nearly complete lack of industry. Sure they have one of the largest militaries in the world going purely by number of men, but most of their soldiers are starving as it is... just think of trying to keep them fed, much less armed, in the field while trying to invade a vastly technologically-superior country. All their military pomp and circumstance is pure posturing... typical of Communists. But even if your supposed "doomsday scenario" came true and they somehow took over the South, what would the consequences be to the United States? What leads you to believe that things would be any worse than what happened when South Vietnam fell to communism in 1975? Communist Vietnam is now one of our biggest trading partners in the region... pretty well proving that the whole "domino theory" that got us into that war (and Korea for that matter) was a complete crock. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom