Total Posts:240|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

USA Military Defense Budget/Overseas Policy

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
With controversial government officials being nominated (not anymore, now Kerry is in for sure), such as Chuck Hagel, Kerry, and previously Rice, what do you think foreign policy is going to be like for the next four years? How is Obama going to further assist the French in Mali, should the war heat up? What is he going to do in response to the Algerian Crisis? What is he going to do in Libya, to contain Iran? What should he do to assist or contain controversial nations such as Israel, Egypt, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela? With the recession starting to lift, but debt still an prominent issue, how much should Obama cut the defense budget, (or increase it, if you think this is appropriate for some reason or another) what is he going to do in North Korea, with their ever expanding weapons programs? How is Obama going to further extend a hand of friendship to our current Latin American and Western European allies? Will the Republicans stay quiet on foreign policy to work on the economy in the next four years, or will they concentrate heavily in that area? Which issue should be more prominent in the moment? (Give reasons to justify which one you think is more prominent) Lastly, what do you think Obama's legacy will be after he leaves office in the issue of foreign policy?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will be taking a primarily conservative stance on most of these issues, and I am adding Afghanistan and Syria as controversial nations that should be contained/aided, sorry for not doing so previously.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:41:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:07:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
With controversial government officials being nominated (not anymore, now Kerry is in for sure), such as Chuck Hagel, Kerry, and previously Rice, what do you think foreign policy is going to be like for the next four years?

Kerry is "controversial"? Did you happen to catch his campaign for president? Kerry's biggest controversy is if he has a radio interview broadcast during rush hour, more accidents take place from all the drivers falling asleep.

How is Obama going to further assist the French in Mali, should the war heat up? What is he going to do in response to the Algerian Crisis? What is he going to do in Libya, to contain Iran?

It would be nice if we did nothing, but NATO kinda screws that all up. When the duties were split among that group, the French got to make the bread and wine, and we got to make the war. You're not blaming anyone in office for a 55 year old treaty, are you?

What should he do to assist or contain controversial nations such as Israel, Egypt, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela?

What, exactly, can anyone do to contain Russia and China?

Venezuela is the 3rd largest importer of oil to America after Canada and Mexico. Chavez "controversially" saved Argentina from the clutches of the IMF, and he routinely gives families in America free heating oil for the winter if they are unable to afford it.

Chavez didn't like Bush - if that's controversial, at the end of his presidency, 77% of us in America were embroiled in controversy.

With the recession starting to lift, but debt still an prominent issue, how much should Obama cut the defense budget, (or increase it, if you think this is appropriate for some reason or another)

1/2 of the non-salary based portion (i.e. no direct military job cuts while the civilian economy can't sustain employment for the people they got)

what is he going to do in North Korea, with their ever expanding weapons programs?

Same as every other president since Truman/Eisenhower - nothing.

How is Obama going to further extend a hand of friendship to our current Latin American and Western European allies?

Crepes with 7-layer dip?

Will the Republicans stay quiet on foreign policy to work on the economy in the next four years, or will they concentrate heavily in that area?

Whatever they choose, I'm sure they'll get distracted by their own hyperbole directed at anyone who opposes them.

Which issue should be more prominent in the moment? (Give reasons to justify which one you think is more prominent) Lastly, what do you think Obama's legacy will be after he leaves office in the issue of foreign policy?

1st black president
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:29:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:07:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
With controversial government officials being nominated (not anymore, now Kerry is in for sure), such as Chuck Hagel, Kerry, and previously Rice, what do you think foreign policy is going to be like for the next four years? How is Obama going to further assist the French in Mali, should the war heat up? What is he going to do in response to the Algerian Crisis? What is he going to do in Libya, to contain Iran? What should he do to assist or contain controversial nations such as Israel, Egypt, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela? With the recession starting to lift, but debt still an prominent issue, how much should Obama cut the defense budget, (or increase it, if you think this is appropriate for some reason or another) what is he going to do in North Korea, with their ever expanding weapons programs? How is Obama going to further extend a hand of friendship to our current Latin American and Western European allies? Will the Republicans stay quiet on foreign policy to work on the economy in the next four years, or will they concentrate heavily in that area? Which issue should be more prominent in the moment? (Give reasons to justify which one you think is more prominent) Lastly, what do you think Obama's legacy will be after he leaves office in the issue of foreign policy?

1) Prioritize engagement in the Middle East. Align these nations to the West. Do NOT risk war unless absolutely necessary. If we invade Iran, make it short, and clean, preferably under the guise of civil war a la Libya, Syria, to a lesser extent Egypt.

2) Consolidate oil interests before China does. We already lost the opportunity to align Russia in this regard.

3) North Korea is a cover for regional politics in that area, i.e. 6 party talks - Koreas, Russia, China, Japan, US. Engage, and contain.

4) Republicans need to condemn Bush to regain any semblance of legitimacy in foreign policy.

5) Defense budget is currently being cut due to the recession. IMHO whenever feasible, it should be dramatically expanded to account for cyber warfare.

6) On Obama's legacy, far too early to answer that question. Hillary's legacy will be the Arab Spring, a resounding success for American foreign policy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:24:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:41:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:07:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
With controversial government officials being nominated (not anymore, now Kerry is in for sure), such as Chuck Hagel, Kerry, and previously Rice, what do you think foreign policy is going to be like for the next four years?

Kerry is "controversial"? Did you happen to catch his campaign for president? Kerry's biggest controversy is if he has a radio interview broadcast during rush hour, more accidents take place from all the drivers falling asleep.

How is Obama going to further assist the French in Mali, should the war heat up? What is he going to do in response to the Algerian Crisis? What is he going to do in Libya, to contain Iran?

It would be nice if we did nothing, but NATO kinda screws that all up. When the duties were split among that group, the French got to make the bread and wine, and we got to make the war. You're not blaming anyone in office for a 55 year old treaty, are you?

What should he do to assist or contain controversial nations such as Israel, Egypt, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela?

What, exactly, can anyone do to contain Russia and China?

Venezuela is the 3rd largest importer of oil to America after Canada and Mexico. Chavez "controversially" saved Argentina from the clutches of the IMF, and he routinely gives families in America free heating oil for the winter if they are unable to afford it.

Chavez didn't like Bush - if that's controversial, at the end of his presidency, 77% of us in America were embroiled in controversy.

With the recession starting to lift, but debt still an prominent issue, how much should Obama cut the defense budget, (or increase it, if you think this is appropriate for some reason or another)

1/2 of the non-salary based portion (i.e. no direct military job cuts while the civilian economy can't sustain employment for the people they got)

what is he going to do in North Korea, with their ever expanding weapons programs?

Same as every other president since Truman/Eisenhower - nothing.

How is Obama going to further extend a hand of friendship to our current Latin American and Western European allies?

Crepes with 7-layer dip?

Will the Republicans stay quiet on foreign policy to work on the economy in the next four years, or will they concentrate heavily in that area?

Whatever they choose, I'm sure they'll get distracted by their own hyperbole directed at anyone who opposes them.

Which issue should be more prominent in the moment? (Give reasons to justify which one you think is more prominent) Lastly, what do you think Obama's legacy will be after he leaves office in the issue of foreign policy?

1st black president

I would like to start by saying that I can tell your heavy bias due to your defensiveness to my questions, that I did not believe were that biased.

Also, it is not logical to say that we should completely stay out of every conflict that is brewing in every region, this is contradictory to what all logical leaders (even liberals) have done since the post WWII era. Also, obviously you have a distaste for latin american and Western European nations, please tell me why in the next post. Chavez is controversial because he is technically a dictator, only roughly 17% of the population still supports him and he is giving himself terms as "president" without elections. Also, we are still technologically and monetarily superior to China and Russia by far, we have much more leverage over them than they have over us, considering we control 15% of China's economy (and our regional asian allies control another 20%), they would have no war capabilities without 35% of their economy, and Russia has everything to lose in Europe if they do not cooperate with us, considering they will no longer be the strongest EU country when they EU Union is established.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:28:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:29:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2013 7:07:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
With controversial government officials being nominated (not anymore, now Kerry is in for sure), such as Chuck Hagel, Kerry, and previously Rice, what do you think foreign policy is going to be like for the next four years? How is Obama going to further assist the French in Mali, should the war heat up? What is he going to do in response to the Algerian Crisis? What is he going to do in Libya, to contain Iran? What should he do to assist or contain controversial nations such as Israel, Egypt, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela? With the recession starting to lift, but debt still an prominent issue, how much should Obama cut the defense budget, (or increase it, if you think this is appropriate for some reason or another) what is he going to do in North Korea, with their ever expanding weapons programs? How is Obama going to further extend a hand of friendship to our current Latin American and Western European allies? Will the Republicans stay quiet on foreign policy to work on the economy in the next four years, or will they concentrate heavily in that area? Which issue should be more prominent in the moment? (Give reasons to justify which one you think is more prominent) Lastly, what do you think Obama's legacy will be after he leaves office in the issue of foreign policy?

1) Prioritize engagement in the Middle East. Align these nations to the West. Do NOT risk war unless absolutely necessary. If we invade Iran, make it short, and clean, preferably under the guise of civil war a la Libya, Syria, to a lesser extent Egypt.

2) Consolidate oil interests before China does. We already lost the opportunity to align Russia in this regard.

3) North Korea is a cover for regional politics in that area, i.e. 6 party talks - Koreas, Russia, China, Japan, US. Engage, and contain.

4) Republicans need to condemn Bush to regain any semblance of legitimacy in foreign policy.

5) Defense budget is currently being cut due to the recession. IMHO whenever feasible, it should be dramatically expanded to account for cyber warfare.

6) On Obama's legacy, far too early to answer that question. Hillary's legacy will be the Arab Spring, a resounding success for American foreign policy.

Agree with you, especially on the cyber warfare issue, considering nations such as Iran and China are expanding in this area.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:24:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:


I would like to start by saying that I can tell your heavy bias due to your defensiveness to my questions, that I did not believe were that biased.

I have a heavy bias against stupidity. What can I say?


Also, it is not logical to say that we should completely stay out of every conflict that is brewing in every region, this is contradictory to what all logical leaders (even liberals) have done since the post WWII era.

You're probably right. It's not logical. In my defense, though, it is constitutional.

Also, obviously you have a distaste for latin american and Western European nations, please tell me why in the next post. Chavez is controversial because he is technically a dictator, only roughly 17% of the population still supports him and he is giving himself terms as "president" without elections.

Huh? I love both those places, I really like what the countries are doing with their governments and constitutions (especially central/south america), and I have nothing against any of them. I have no idea where this "obvious" conclusion came from.

It would be nice if the kids in Brazil quit burning the Amazon Rain Forest,though.

Also, we are still technologically and monetarily superior to China and Russia by far, we have much more leverage over them than they have over us, considering we control 15% of China's economy (and our regional asian allies control another 20%), they would have no war capabilities without 35% of their economy, and Russia has everything to lose in Europe if they do not cooperate with us, considering they will no longer be the strongest EU country when they EU Union is established.

And yet, 50 million (1 billion...close enough) Elvis fans can't be wrong...or, we can't afford to be wrong about that when there are 1 billion screaming chinamen on the business end of our bad decisions in the region now.

Nixon did the right thing with china - laugh, play nice and then GTFO...then, appease them as much as possible so that they're not your enemy.

After the carpet bombing is over, as we learned in Iraq, war demands feet on the ground. No one has more feet, bound or otherwise, than china.

(PLUS - n. korea is basically China's problem now. We can really afford to GTFO of the DMZ now. China can't afford to let n. korea go berserk and n. korea listens to china, because unlike us, china will actually go in there and spank the sh!t out of Kim Jong Un)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing that I find annoying is that people like O'Reilly, Lindsey Graham, and many other conservative types especially from Fox News act like Benghazi was a major breach of national security.

The fact that 4 people died is itself a failure a security, and itself shows that we should have less of a presence overseas.

Pretty much most of the people who act like Benghazi was just absolutely horrible were the same people who supported the Iraqi War. Hypocrites.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:09:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:42:28 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:24:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:


I would like to start by saying that I can tell your heavy bias due to your defensiveness to my questions, that I did not believe were that biased.

I have a heavy bias against stupidity. What can I say?


Also, it is not logical to say that we should completely stay out of every conflict that is brewing in every region, this is contradictory to what all logical leaders (even liberals) have done since the post WWII era.

You're probably right. It's not logical. In my defense, though, it is constitutional.

Also, obviously you have a distaste for latin american and Western European nations, please tell me why in the next post. Chavez is controversial because he is technically a dictator, only roughly 17% of the population still supports him and he is giving himself terms as "president" without elections.

Huh? I love both those places, I really like what the countries are doing with their governments and constitutions (especially central/south america), and I have nothing against any of them. I have no idea where this "obvious" conclusion came from.

It would be nice if the kids in Brazil quit burning the Amazon Rain Forest,though.

Also, we are still technologically and monetarily superior to China and Russia by far, we have much more leverage over them than they have over us, considering we control 15% of China's economy (and our regional asian allies control another 20%), they would have no war capabilities without 35% of their economy, and Russia has everything to lose in Europe if they do not cooperate with us, considering they will no longer be the strongest EU country when they EU Union is established.

And yet, 50 million (1 billion...close enough) Elvis fans can't be wrong...or, we can't afford to be wrong about that when there are 1 billion screaming chinamen on the business end of our bad decisions in the region now.

Nixon did the right thing with china - laugh, play nice and then GTFO...then, appease them as much as possible so that they're not your enemy.

After the carpet bombing is over, as we learned in Iraq, war demands feet on the ground. No one has more feet, bound or otherwise, than china.

(PLUS - n. korea is basically China's problem now. We can really afford to GTFO of the DMZ now. China can't afford to let n. korea go berserk and n. korea listens to china, because unlike us, china will actually go in there and spank the sh!t out of Kim Jong Un)

First, if you are defining conservatism and intervention as stupidity, I respect your opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Also, how is it unconstitutional to practice intervention? We are allowed to allocate funds to other countries and even send a minimal amount of troops to those countries without declaring war.

The obvious conclusion of your distaste for the aforementioned regions came from your suggestion of how we assist this countries or fight them, that we should host a party, or something like that.

Lastly, 1 billion china men with rifles that have no bullets (if we and our Asian allies destroy their economy), is nothing to 300 million men with M4 Carbines, nukes, drone missiles, and thousands of tanks+bombers+subs.

Also, North Korea is still an ally of China and China has never directly called for action against N. Korea, I think N. Korea is just fighting China's proxy wars right now for them until China is ready to fully hegemonize.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:10:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM, Contra wrote:
The thing that I find annoying is that people like O'Reilly, Lindsey Graham, and many other conservative types especially from Fox News act like Benghazi was a major breach of national security.

The fact that 4 people died is itself a failure a security, and itself shows that we should have less of a presence overseas.

Pretty much most of the people who act like Benghazi was just absolutely horrible were the same people who supported the Iraqi War. Hypocrites.

I agree that Benghazi was capitalized on politically far too much, but it was symbolism, it symbolized our weak overseas state currently, so much so that we can't defend ourselves and appease a band of thugs that can't even afford their own weapons (they steal them from abandoned Gaddafi bases).
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:12:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also Malcolm, in response to your suggestion to use an appeasement policy in China, historically appeasement has never prevented any war, it has only emboldened the antagonist (WWI and WWII, Vietnam war when the French cowered to the commies, Bosnian War, Civil war when the northerners constantly tried to appease the southerners, etc)
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:17:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:12:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also Malcolm, in response to your suggestion to use an appeasement policy in China, historically appeasement has never prevented any war, it has only emboldened the antagonist (WWI and WWII, Vietnam war when the French cowered to the commies, Bosnian War, Civil war when the northerners constantly tried to appease the southerners, etc)

Historically, appeasement (as in not attacking and trying diplomacy) works f*cking marvellously. Hence then hundreds of countries not at war, even the half which don't like each other. They just aren't as arrogant as US foreign policy to be thinking they should be controlling every facet of the world.

Financial interests do not justify murder.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:19:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:17:03 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:12:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also Malcolm, in response to your suggestion to use an appeasement policy in China, historically appeasement has never prevented any war, it has only emboldened the antagonist (WWI and WWII, Vietnam war when the French cowered to the commies, Bosnian War, Civil war when the northerners constantly tried to appease the southerners, etc)

Historically, appeasement (as in not attacking and trying diplomacy) works f*cking marvellously. Hence then hundreds of countries not at war, even the half which don't like each other. They just aren't as arrogant as US foreign policy to be thinking they should be controlling every facet of the world.

Financial interests do not justify murder.

Appeasement does not always use diplomacy, sometimes it gives outright concessions or rewards to the aggressor, simply for being aggressive. This is the same as a bully roughing you up for your lunch money and you saying "I'll give it to you, as long as I don't have to tomorrow", and tomorrow comes and the bully wants more, this is how appeasement has worked historically, to be blunt.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Think about it, Hitler originally only wanted the Rhineland and Sudetenland,

Ho Chi originally only wanted North Vietnam

Originally the Soviets only wanted half of Korea.

Until we appeased them each time, then they wanted it all.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:27:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:19:28 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:17:03 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:12:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also Malcolm, in response to your suggestion to use an appeasement policy in China, historically appeasement has never prevented any war, it has only emboldened the antagonist (WWI and WWII, Vietnam war when the French cowered to the commies, Bosnian War, Civil war when the northerners constantly tried to appease the southerners, etc)

Historically, appeasement (as in not attacking and trying diplomacy) works f*cking marvellously. Hence then hundreds of countries not at war, even the half which don't like each other. They just aren't as arrogant as US foreign policy to be thinking they should be controlling every facet of the world.

Financial interests do not justify murder.

Appeasement does not always use diplomacy, sometimes it gives outright concessions or rewards to the aggressor, simply for being aggressive. This is the same as a bully roughing you up for your lunch money and you saying "I'll give it to you, as long as I don't have to tomorrow", and tomorrow comes and the bully wants more, this is how appeasement has worked historically, to be blunt.

OK, you can define appeasement like that too if you want. However, that definition now means we have a third option aside from appeasement and intervention.
You know, try not f*cking other people over?
Seriously any government which can cry a river over a school shooting whilst simultaneously bombing children in other countries is worthy contempt.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:28:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:27:42 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:19:28 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:17:03 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:12:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also Malcolm, in response to your suggestion to use an appeasement policy in China, historically appeasement has never prevented any war, it has only emboldened the antagonist (WWI and WWII, Vietnam war when the French cowered to the commies, Bosnian War, Civil war when the northerners constantly tried to appease the southerners, etc)

Historically, appeasement (as in not attacking and trying diplomacy) works f*cking marvellously. Hence then hundreds of countries not at war, even the half which don't like each other. They just aren't as arrogant as US foreign policy to be thinking they should be controlling every facet of the world.

Financial interests do not justify murder.

Appeasement does not always use diplomacy, sometimes it gives outright concessions or rewards to the aggressor, simply for being aggressive. This is the same as a bully roughing you up for your lunch money and you saying "I'll give it to you, as long as I don't have to tomorrow", and tomorrow comes and the bully wants more, this is how appeasement has worked historically, to be blunt.

OK, you can define appeasement like that too if you want. However, that definition now means we have a third option aside from appeasement and intervention.
You know, try not f*cking other people over?
Seriously any government which can cry a river over a school shooting whilst simultaneously bombing children in other countries is worthy of contempt.

fix'd
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:32:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:27:42 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:19:28 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:17:03 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:12:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also Malcolm, in response to your suggestion to use an appeasement policy in China, historically appeasement has never prevented any war, it has only emboldened the antagonist (WWI and WWII, Vietnam war when the French cowered to the commies, Bosnian War, Civil war when the northerners constantly tried to appease the southerners, etc)

Historically, appeasement (as in not attacking and trying diplomacy) works f*cking marvellously. Hence then hundreds of countries not at war, even the half which don't like each other. They just aren't as arrogant as US foreign policy to be thinking they should be controlling every facet of the world.

Financial interests do not justify murder.

Appeasement does not always use diplomacy, sometimes it gives outright concessions or rewards to the aggressor, simply for being aggressive. This is the same as a bully roughing you up for your lunch money and you saying "I'll give it to you, as long as I don't have to tomorrow", and tomorrow comes and the bully wants more, this is how appeasement has worked historically, to be blunt.

OK, you can define appeasement like that too if you want. However, that definition now means we have a third option aside from appeasement and intervention.
You know, try not f*cking other people over?
Seriously any government which can cry a river over a school shooting whilst simultaneously bombing children in other countries is worthy contempt.

The definition of appeasement is this "Appeasement is a diplomatic policy aimed at avoiding war by making concessions to an aggressor".

Also, I get your point, but the thousands 9/11 killed should not be avenged, but should be prevented from ever happening again, that is our primary goal in the middle east, we also help other nations in the middle east while defending our own interests. We have set up democracies in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:39:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:09:22 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:


First, if you are defining conservatism and intervention as stupidity, I respect your opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Actually, I'm defining it as illegal.

Also, how is it unconstitutional to practice intervention? We are allowed to allocate funds to other countries and even send a minimal amount of troops to those countries without declaring war.

The part of Article 1, section 8 of the constitution which gives Congress the power to raise armies (notice the plural there, it's not AN army for a reason) was put there by Madison (he gives up that he wrote that section of our formational document in Federalist 41) in order to PROHIBIT the federal government from forming a standing army, which he was of course opposed to because that, in the form of King George's Royal Army, is what he had just got done rebelling against.

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the country's founders. If you disagree with it, cool, but you also disagree with the entire idea of The United States of America, then.

The obvious conclusion of your distaste for the aforementioned regions came from your suggestion of how we assist this countries or fight them, that we should host a party, or something like that.

Or, that I care more for the welfare of my countrymen than I do for the dismembering of others countrymen...I can see how you may have gotten confused, though.

Lastly, 1 billion china men with rifles that have no bullets (if we and our Asian allies destroy their economy), is nothing to 300 million men with M4 Carbines, nukes, drone missiles, and thousands of tanks+bombers+subs.

Yeah...we can stop the production of armaments in a tightly controlled economy of nearly 2 billion people. Keep dreaming.

And, who are our allies in Asia? Japan? They're more tightly linked to China, economically, than anyone else in the world, mostly due to their shared debt positions in the US.

Destroying China's Economy would have more devistating effects on Japan and The US than it would on China.

Also, North Korea is still an ally of China and China has never directly called for action against N. Korea, I think N. Korea is just fighting China's proxy wars right now for them until China is ready to fully hegemonize.

China understands that the actual single greatest threat to their economic prosperity (relatively, and it's obviously growing) is Kim Jong Dipsh!t dragging them into war with the west. Thus, China has put the North Koreans in their place several times. They don't have to invade. That's the kind of juice they have now.

We can't bully our way back to economic superpowerdom, so yeah, in addition to the idea of intervention being illegal, it is also necessarily stupid.

Again, don't get all fired up at me about it. Talk to Jefferson.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:52:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:39:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:09:22 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:


First, if you are defining conservatism and intervention as stupidity, I respect your opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Actually, I'm defining it as illegal.

Also, how is it unconstitutional to practice intervention? We are allowed to allocate funds to other countries and even send a minimal amount of troops to those countries without declaring war.

The part of Article 1, section 8 of the constitution which gives Congress the power to raise armies (notice the plural there, it's not AN army for a reason) was put there by Madison (he gives up that he wrote that section of our formational document in Federalist 41) in order to PROHIBIT the federal government from forming a standing army, which he was of course opposed to because that, in the form of King George's Royal Army, is what he had just got done rebelling against.

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the country's founders. If you disagree with it, cool, but you also disagree with the entire idea of The United States of America, then.

The obvious conclusion of your distaste for the aforementioned regions came from your suggestion of how we assist this countries or fight them, that we should host a party, or something like that.

Or, that I care more for the welfare of my countrymen than I do for the dismembering of others countrymen...I can see how you may have gotten confused, though.

Lastly, 1 billion china men with rifles that have no bullets (if we and our Asian allies destroy their economy), is nothing to 300 million men with M4 Carbines, nukes, drone missiles, and thousands of tanks+bombers+subs.

Yeah...we can stop the production of armaments in a tightly controlled economy of nearly 2 billion people. Keep dreaming.

And, who are our allies in Asia? Japan? They're more tightly linked to China, economically, than anyone else in the world, mostly due to their shared debt positions in the US.

Destroying China's Economy would have more devastating effects on Japan and The US than it would on China.

Also, North Korea is still an ally of China and China has never directly called for action against N. Korea, I think N. Korea is just fighting China's proxy wars right now for them until China is ready to fully hegemonize.

China understands that the actual single greatest threat to their economic prosperity (relatively, and it's obviously growing) is Kim Jong Dipsh!t dragging them into war with the west. Thus, China has put the North Koreans in their place several times. They don't have to invade. That's the kind of juice they have now.

We can't bully our way back to economic superpowerdom, so yeah, in addition to the idea of intervention being illegal, it is also necessarily stupid.

Again, don't get all fired up at me about it. Talk to Jefferson.

The constitution is adaptable to modern times, so claiming that we shouldn't have a standing army, and should just have a group of idiots with shotguns to defend our country is absurd.

Also Japan is China's economic ally, but our political ally, we also have Taiwan, South Korea, Burma soon, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Australia, Malaysia, all Oceania nations, all China has is Russia (somewhat), North Korea, Vietnam and a few other third world nations that are really insignificant.

You do realize that our debt hinges on China, but our economic growth does not, and our GDP is 17 trillion, China's is 9 trillion, it's been interesting debating, but I have to go, I can refute your arguments again in a couple hours.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:55:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM, Contra wrote:
The thing that I find annoying is that people like O'Reilly, Lindsey Graham, and many other conservative types especially from Fox News act like Benghazi was a major breach of national security.

The fact that 4 people died is itself a failure a security, and itself shows that we should have less of a presence overseas.

The fact that four people died is a testament to the fact that Al Qaeda is not "on the run", as Obama has been trying to push. It is an even bigger testament to the extent at which this administration will go to and the lies they'll say to avoid responsibility for their failures.
Pretty much most of the people who act like Benghazi was just absolutely horrible were the same people who supported the Iraqi War. Hypocrites.
How the hell can you possibly compare the presence of a US consulate, which fosters trade and diplomatic relations with foreign countries, with the presence of an entire army?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why the f*ck would we want to harm china? They aren't harming us, and in the far foreseeable future neither party would benefit.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:10:36 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM, Contra wrote:
The thing that I find annoying is that people like O'Reilly, Lindsey Graham, and many other conservative types especially from Fox News act like Benghazi was a major breach of national security.

The fact that 4 people died is itself a failure a security, and itself shows that we should have less of a presence overseas.

Pretty much most of the people who act like Benghazi was just absolutely horrible were the same people who supported the Iraqi War. Hypocrites.

I agree that Benghazi was capitalized on politically far too much, but it was symbolism, it symbolized our weak overseas state currently, so much so that we can't defend ourselves and appease a band of thugs that can't even afford their own weapons (they steal them from abandoned Gaddafi bases).

I agree with Contra. I don't think it's a symbol of much of anything except that the Republicans are grasping at straws in regards to foreign policy. Obama has executed on a conservative foreign policy MUCH better than the ostensibly conservative party.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:20:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:58:38 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Why the f*ck would we want to harm china? They aren't harming us, and in the far foreseeable future neither party would benefit.

In international politics, you don't wait for someone to knife you in the back in order to take action. You simply act.

Benefit is relative. The moment China surpasses the US in GDP, I will guarantee you they will become far more aggressive in posture than they are today.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:24:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:55:59 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM, Contra wrote:

How the hell can you possibly compare the presence of a US consulate, which fosters trade and diplomatic relations with foreign countries, with the presence of an entire army?

That is the entire point, you can't compare the two. Iraq is a FAR GREATER FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER on an order of magnitude that makes Benghazi look like fresh, unspilled milk.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:24:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:55:59 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM, Contra wrote:

How the hell can you possibly compare the presence of a US consulate, which fosters trade and diplomatic relations with foreign countries, with the presence of an entire army?

That is the entire point, you can't compare the two. Iraq is a FAR GREATER FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER on an order of magnitude that makes Benghazi look like fresh, unspilled milk.
Then you admit bringing up Iraq is a red herring. There is a bug difference when troops are killed in the theater of war and when non-belligerent US citizens are murdered.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:48:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:39:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
We can't bully our way back to economic superpowerdom, so yeah, in addition to the idea of intervention being illegal, it is also necessarily stupid.

Again, don't get all fired up at me about it. Talk to Jefferson.

This. One idea being bantered around, going after Al-Qaeda in Africa, would be horrific. The Sahel and the Sahara are NOT Iraq and Afghanistan. It's one of the most hostile, expansive and desolate areas in the entire world. It isn't all shifting sand dunes either; mountains and twisting canyons punctuate the lawless expanse. It could involve fighting spread over ten different countries, some of which are now controlled by Sunni Islamic governments (Sudan and Egypt) while others have a history of violent internal disputes (Chad and Niger). It's not a tinderbox, it's a bonfire, and the fact that some people are willing to leap headfirst into it in the midst of a debt crisis is just astounding to me.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 6:00:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:52:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

The constitution is adaptable to modern times, so claiming that we shouldn't have a standing army, and should just have a group of idiots with shotguns to defend our country is absurd.

The constitution is NOT adaptable, but it is, like all other laws, amendable. If a standing army is necessary (which it isn't. The Navy and The Air Force are perfectly Constitutional, as is the Coast Guard, and I don' consider any of them "yokels with shotguns"), then amend the damn law and make it legal to have one.

Problem is, there's no justification for it, so instead, law gets subverted.

Also Japan is China's economic ally, but our political ally, we also have Taiwan, South Korea, Burma soon, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Australia, Malaysia, all Oceania nations, all China has is Russia (somewhat), North Korea, Vietnam and a few other third world nations that are really insignificant.

Watch how quickly political ties break in the face of economic ones. Just like Mexico and Canada are vital to our economic well being, so are the nations of Asia vital to one another's. Our presidential elections hinge almost perfectly on the economics at the time of the elections. The other countries of the world are no different in this respect.

You do realize that our debt hinges on China, but our economic growth does not, and our GDP is 17 trillion, China's is 9 trillion, it's been interesting debating, but I have to go, I can refute your arguments again in a couple hours.

And GDP growth in China has averaged what over the last 20 years? And that same growth in the US?

What has our GDP growth been the last 4 years, when, in a recovery from a recession, it should be at its highest?

Now, what is China's GDP growth over those same 4 years?

I realize we are the #1 economy in the world, but that ain't gonna be the case for the entirety of our lifetimes, especially if we use our economic strength to keep blowing sh!t up. It's wasteful and an anathema to economic prosperity, domestically, and the world over.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 6:54:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:33:25 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 5:24:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:55:59 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:01:15 PM, Contra wrote:

How the hell can you possibly compare the presence of a US consulate, which fosters trade and diplomatic relations with foreign countries, with the presence of an entire army?

That is the entire point, you can't compare the two. Iraq is a FAR GREATER FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER on an order of magnitude that makes Benghazi look like fresh, unspilled milk.
Then you admit bringing up Iraq is a red herring. There is a bug difference when troops are killed in the theater of war and when non-belligerent US citizens are murdered.

Never mind, I read Contra's statement again. I think he's way off the mark about troop levels - Benghazi IMHO has nothing to do with troop levels overseas. However, I think he's on the mark in that it shows a good deal of hypocrisy by the GOP.

The Republicans are finding anything they can to rebuke Obama on foreign policy, and that this is the best they can do shows how weak their case is.

When you say "red herring", if you mean it is insignificant vis a vis Iraq, then we are in agreement. If you think it represents some horrid atrocity that demonstrates total failure by the Obama administration in protecting overseas personnel, then I think you're delusional and have been drinking the GOP kool-aid a bit too much. Benghazi compared to Iraq is "fresh, unspilled milk".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:10:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:42:28 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:24:07 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, we are still technologically and monetarily superior to China and Russia by far, we have much more leverage over them than they have over us, considering we control 15% of China's economy (and our regional asian allies control another 20%), they would have no war capabilities without 35% of their economy, and Russia has everything to lose in Europe if they do not cooperate with us, considering they will no longer be the strongest EU country when they EU Union is established.

And yet, 50 million (1 billion...close enough) Elvis fans can't be wrong...or, we can't afford to be wrong about that when there are 1 billion screaming chinamen on the business end of our bad decisions in the region now.

Nixon did the right thing with china - laugh, play nice and then GTFO...then, appease them as much as possible so that they're not your enemy.

After the carpet bombing is over, as we learned in Iraq, war demands feet on the ground. No one has more feet, bound or otherwise, than china.

(PLUS - n. korea is basically China's problem now. We can really afford to GTFO of the DMZ now. China can't afford to let n. korea go berserk and n. korea listens to china, because unlike us, china will actually go in there and spank the sh!t out of Kim Jong Un)

In the long term, China will be to the US what Germany was to ancient Rome. If appeasement is the best we can do, we have already conceded defeat.

Regarding the DMZ, N. Korea is more like a wild card. If something happens there, it will be very interesting to see who benefits. Many parties are involved, it's just not China, and South Korea can get hit VERY hard by a north Korean strike, even if it lasts only a couple hours before we raze the country.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:15:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:10:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

In the long term, China will be to the US what Germany was to ancient Rome. If appeasement is the best we can do, we have already conceded defeat.

Peaceful coexistence isn't an option? We make our sh!t, they make theirs and may the man win?

We could even make a bunch of Terracotta M-1 Abrahams Tanks to really show 'em we're #1.

Unless we're scared we can't compete and destroying them is the only way we can come out ahead.

Regarding the DMZ, N. Korea is more like a wild card. If something happens there, it will be very interesting to see who benefits. Many parties are involved, it's just not China, and South Korea can get hit VERY hard by a north Korean strike, even if it lasts only a couple hours before we raze the country.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...