[besson3c]

I find it illogical that there seems to be a contradiction in American pride and our actions. This is not only with regards to our foreign policy, but with our prevailing attitudes in general.

Specifically, how is it that our Democracy can be so strong and righteous yet so fragile at the same time? Why is it that our values of freedom and liberty are so great, but we must make sure that other countries value the same and emulate us? Why is it that we have more military power than all other countries of the world combined yet we seem so threatened by everything?

Why is it that this country is constantly at war? When will we be able to sit back, keep to ourselves without us being a part of foreign wars constantly? I realize that there is an argument that *because* of our strength and power that we should be making the world a better place, and I also recognize the long-term obligation argument of "we broke it, we should fix it", but doesn't it seem like this is sort of like being addicted to crack?

When will it stop? We have done some great in the world and some bad as well (arguably more of the latter), but it's times like this that I feel that all in all, we'd be better off to just focus on our own problems (especially now) and strive towards peace without our own borders and abstaining from foreign wars rather than exporting our ideology - especially not in a "war of terrorism" which I feel cannot be won by invading nations.

This is not a "give peace a chance" emotional plea like I'm sure it will be interpreted as, but being completely and utterly practical about all of this, when will peace be a symbol of our strength? Will we ever reach a point where we are simply tired of war, or realize its futility and how it seems to lead to more war and more problems?

Think about how much good we can do with our financial resources by pulling out of all foreign wars, reducing our defense budget, and continuing to allow private charities to make the world a better place? I realize that war is good for our economy too, but it's just depressing considering what the money put into defense contracts and research and stuff could be used for instead...

War is depressing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that our values of freedom and liberty are so great, but we must make sure that other countries value the same and emulate us?

It's not that we "must," but it is more advantageous for us (and for them, most likely) if they do, in a game theory sort of way.

but doesn't it seem like this is sort of like being addicted to crack?

For most countries this simile would be appropriate; the destruction of war is a big drag on prosperity, in general. But we are in the favorable position of being geographically isolated from our enemies. Because we don't have to host any wars, we really don't suffer the downsides, we only experience the positives of war (again, game theory). This is something we learned early in our history, hosting a war sucks big time, so we find a way to not do that. Once that is off the table, war is actually beneficial to us, speaking purely strategically. Sometimes it's easier to knock the other guys down than it is to build yourself up.

Will we ever reach a point where we are simply tired of war, or realize its futility and how it seems to lead to more war and more problems?

Again game theory. This only works if every player agrees. If there is one bad apple it will spoil this strategy for all the others. And even if all players were to somehow call a truce, the first one to break it gains an advantage if they catch the others on their heels. It's an unstable equilibrium.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I find it illogical that there seems to be a contradiction in American pride and our actions. This is not only with regards to our foreign policy, but with our prevailing attitudes in general.

Specifically, how is it that our Democracy can be so strong and righteous yet so fragile at the same time? Why is it that our values of freedom and liberty are so great, but we must make sure that other countries value the same and emulate us? Why is it that we have more military power than all other countries of the world combined yet we seem so threatened by everything?

Why is it that this country is constantly at war? When will we be able to sit back, keep to ourselves without us being a part of foreign wars constantly? I realize that there is an argument that *because* of our strength and power that we should be making the world a better place, and I also recognize the long-term obligation argument of "we broke it, we should fix it", but doesn't it seem like this is sort of like being addicted to crack?

When will it stop? We have done some great in the world and some bad as well (arguably more of the latter), but it's times like this that I feel that all in all, we'd be better off to just focus on our own problems (especially now) and strive towards peace without our own borders and abstaining from foreign wars rather than exporting our ideology - especially not in a "war of terrorism" which I feel cannot be won by invading nations.

This is not a "give peace a chance" emotional plea like I'm sure it will be interpreted as, but being completely and utterly practical about all of this, when will peace be a symbol of our strength? Will we ever reach a point where we are simply tired of war, or realize its futility and how it seems to lead to more war and more problems?

Think about how much good we can do with our financial resources by pulling out of all foreign wars, reducing our defense budget, and continuing to allow private charities to make the world a better place? I realize that war is good for our economy too, but it's just depressing considering what the money put into defense contracts and research and stuff could be used for instead...

War is depressing.

As soon as there are no more people who want to kill us, we will have peace.

Until that time, I prefer a strong military and the will to use it against those who would destroy our way of life and culture.

Yes it sucks that war is a fact of life but I'm not about to let some a**holes force their way of life on me.

[chabig]

April 1, 2037.

[Big Mac]

besson, like I told you before, I really think you should go home. You hate this country because it's not Socialist or wimpy enough for you. You're so extreme you can't even figure out if America has been more of a force for good or for evil in the world. You'd be happier back in the land of the seal clubbers where you can get all the Socialist medicine you want (although not so much given rationing). Canadians can afford to dislike war because they enjoy the protective umbrella of the US, so it's not all that surprising. And when you go home, please take as many of your Socialist buddies with you. Please, I beg you, your kind is killing my country.

[Dork.]

This thread is now about reasons why besson3c Hates America. Let me try....

He hates the fact that the crappy exchange rate means that his American dollars buy less Socialist Poutine whenever he goes back to Canada for Socialist Thanksgiving.


... How'd I do?

[Big Mac]

A+ to you, Dork.

[screener]

Amazing how many aren't embarrassed by their ignorance.

[Dork.]

No, A+ to America! (F*ck Yeah!)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

As soon as there are no more people who want to kill us, we will have peace.

Until that time, I prefer a strong military and the will to use it against those who would destroy our way of life and culture.

Yes it sucks that war is a fact of life but I'm not about to let some a**holes force their way of life on me.

Do you mean that rhetorically, or that we actually have nations now that should concern us that want to destroy our way of life and culture?

I say nations because as of now it seems the strategic strikes on terrorist cells approach seems to be containing that threat.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

besson, like I told you before, I really think you should go home. You hate this country because it's not Socialist or wimpy enough for you. You're so extreme you can't even figure out if America has been more of a force for good or for evil in the world. You'd be happier back in the land of the seal clubbers where you can get all the Socialist medicine you want (although not so much given rationing). Canadians can afford to dislike war because they enjoy the protective umbrella of the US, so it's not all that surprising. And when you go home, please take as many of your Socialist buddies with you. Please, I beg you, your kind is killing my country.

This is probably the dictionary definition of misdirected, but I've pretty much given up on reasonable conversation with you, so yeah, I love to club socialist wimpy seals.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

This thread is now about reasons why besson3c Hates America. Let me try....

He hates the fact that the crappy exchange rate means that his American dollars buy less Socialist Poutine whenever he goes back to Canada for Socialist Thanksgiving.


... How'd I do?

Did you get in Socialism? Hmmm.. yeah, you did, but only twice. I'm not sure if I'd go along with that A+, but I'd say that Big Mac's response earned maybe a B or B+ on the batshit crazy scale.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did you get in Socialism? Hmmm.. yeah, you did, but only twice. I'm not sure if I'd go along with that A+, but I'd say that Big Mac's response earned maybe a B or B+ on the batshit crazy scale.

No, I think Big Mac's post was a bit too predictable, the really good stuff is from way out in left field. I'd say that on the Batshit Crazy scale (from 1 to Michelle Bachmann), that post was only a 5 or 6.

(That's why I added the poutine, too. Gotta keep 'em guessing.)

[besson3c]

The poutine was brilliant, I bet Big Mac doesn't even know what it is!

Suggestions for next time:

- Our national igloo (I'm surprised you didn't even mention it, we are very proud of it!)
- Hockey
- Meece (plural of "moose")

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

No, I think Big Mac's post was a bit too predictable, the really good stuff is from way out in left field. I'd say that on the Batshit Crazy scale (from 1 to Michelle Bachmann), that post was only a 5 or 6.

(That's why I added the poutine, too. Gotta keep 'em guessing.)

Just for you!

The person most exemplary of batsh*t crazy - MacNN Forums

[Dork.]

Speaking of poutine....

Bacon, Hot Dogs, French Fries, Cheese, Gravy, French Toast And Maple Syrup Combine In 'Angry French Canadian' - The Consumerist

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm pretty sure that mostly everyone dislikes war in an absolute sense. It's just not always better than the alternatives. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, Besson.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm pretty sure that mostly everyone dislikes war in an absolute sense. It's just not always better than the alternatives. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, Besson.

It isn't, but at times it seems like a crutch too - something that we get ourselves into with conventional thinking that perhaps is no longer suitable, or perhaps overlooks possible side effects.

For instance, I think that fighting terrorism requires completely new paradigms than WWII style fighting did. As another example, the consequences of our Iraq invasion seemed to blindside us. Perhaps in spite of this the best solution to some of these conflicts might actually be to abstain and not get involved? Nothing is more frustrating than thinking going into a war that we will "be treated as liberators" only to find out that we are actually doing the exact opposite of what we set out to do in actually making diplomacy more strained and causing other logistical problems in the process.

Make more sense?

[Chongo]

Nice sig pic, but it's over the size limit (200px × 50)


As to your question, after the Messiah comes.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nothing is more frustrating than thinking going into a war that we will "be treated as liberators" only to find out that we are actually doing the exact opposite of what we set out to do in actually making diplomacy more strained and causing other logistical problems in the process.

Make more sense?

The whole structure of war, invasion and "peacekeeping" seems to me to be built on one underlying mistake. That they people we are bombing, invading or keeping the peace for are in some way less than us. For example, the bombing of Iraq. The whole point was to shock and demoralise the country. Just like Germany tried during WWII to London and just like the destruction of the World Trade Centre. The difference? When it's done to us, we know we will show resolve, pull together, not be cowed. It's out nature. It's the blitz spirirt. When we pull the same trick on our enemies we expect them to be different, to be cowed and to fold up.

If an enemy invaded the US or the UK in order to help us overthrow our leaders and introduce a new way of life you would expect us to fight back, to get organised, to resist by any means, yet again when we pull this trick we are shocked when we are not treated as liberators. Yes the analogy is not 100% here but it's basically true. We expect one level of behaviour from ourselves and another baser level from our enemies.

Every time, the west makes the same mistake. To go back to Bess's original thought, until we get a world view together that really means we treat other countries as equals then world peace is a non starter. At the moment the biggest problem is that western liberators essentially see the countries they are trying to help as either markets or resources. It's hard to bring the population online if they have a nagging feeling that all you really want is their oil or to help them make cheap trainers for you.

[Sealobo]

The US has done nothing good to the rest of the world. There is simply no incentive to do so. What's so difficult for you all to understand? There are only winners and losers and the US had been winning for decades.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

The whole structure of war, invasion and "peacekeeping" seems to me to be built on one underlying mistake. That they people we are bombing, invading or keeping the peace for are in some way less than us. For example, the bombing of Iraq. The whole point was to shock and demoralise the country. Just like Germany tried during WWII to London and just like the destruction of the World Trade Centre. The difference? When it's done to us, we know we will show resolve, pull together, not be cowed. It's out nature. It's the blitz spirirt. When we pull the same trick on our enemies we expect them to be different, to be cowed and to fold up.

FWIU, the point wasn't to shock and demoralize the country. It was, as is usually the case, to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. Our priority was destroying their command and control structure, and that's what we did. What was notable about "Shock and Awe" was its speed and precision, not its intensity. There is no real comparison between the thousands of GPS guided cruise missiles we placed within two meters of their targets and the random terror bombing of London in WWII.

Likewise, we were greeted as liberators. For about two weeks. After that, people understandably began to resent the fact that they have no electricity to run the air conditioner, and how only sand comes out when you turn on a faucet.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by subego 

FWIU, the point wasn't to shock and demoralize the country. It was, as is usually the case, to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. Our priority was destroying their command and control structure, and that's what we did.

Exactly right!

[Hawkeye_a]

When will peace be a sign of political strength?

When the economics of making peace are better than going to war or loosing finite resources(land,oil, people, whatever).

While it's great to be an idealist, when you start to realize that economics usually dictates most micro and macro decisions, you will probably realize why wars happen. In the end...there are finite resources, with an exponentially rising human population.... guess what happens.

I assume, you are in your early-mid 20s ?

Cheers

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As to your question, after the Messiah comes.

Agreed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Specifically, how is it that our Democracy can be so strong and righteous yet so fragile at the same time?

You don't live in a democracy.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that our values of freedom and liberty are so great, but we must make sure that other countries value the same and emulate us?

You don't have freedom and liberty. Move to a 0% tax haven and stop paying your federal tithe and see how much freedom and liberty you have.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that we have more military power than all other countries of the world combined yet we seem so threatened by everything?

Because it's all a lie. For starters, you don't have more military power than all the other countries in the world combined (India has twice the troops you do. Russia has ten times the amount. Both are nuke capable). That you believe so is the root of your problems.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that this country is constantly at war?

Because the M1 Abrams is the only thing keeping your economy afloat. Your dollar is backed by military strength, nothing else.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When will we be able to sit back, keep to ourselves without us being a part of foreign wars constantly?

When you vote for people like Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Think about how much good we can do with our financial resources by pulling out of all foreign wars, reducing our defense budget, and continuing to allow private charities to make the world a better place?

This was exactly Ron Paul's stance. Yet you didn't vote for him. So there's your problem: intellectual laziness and the hypocrisy which stems from it.

[sek929]

Even in the Utopian future of Star Trek the Federation still flies around in one of the most powerful warships ever created.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You don't live in a democracy.

No, I don't live in a pure democracy.

Because it's all a lie. For starters, you don't have more military power than all the other countries in the world combined (India has twice the troops you do. Russia has ten times the amount. Both are nuke capable). That you believe so is the root of your problems.

I don't know what our military power is, but we spend more than many other countries combined. The return-on-investment variable is an interesting one, but one that I don't have an opinion on.

When you vote for people like Ron Paul.

This was exactly Ron Paul's stance. Yet you didn't vote for him. So there's your problem: intellectual laziness and the hypocrisy which stems from it.

When it comes to foreign policy, my viewpoints have definitely been trending towards more of a libertarian one. However, I think I'm in the minority.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When it comes to foreign policy, my viewpoints have definitely been trending towards more of a libertarian one. However, I think I'm in the minority.

Why do you think that is ? I'd wager the cost/benefit/risk/etc of that point-of-view has something to do with it.

Also, i think you seem to assume that if the U.S. withdraws from the international stage, that every other potential super-power nation (China, Russia, India, Iran, etc) would not fill that void, and how would that effect domestic society (income, jobs, etc).

I think if it's not the U.S. it'll be some other country(if they could coordinate such a strategic movie and back it up with sound economics and military power).... but IMHO, given the alternatives, i'd rather the U.S. retain it's role on the international stage (especially when the alternatives include China, Iran and Russia).

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because the M1 Abrams is the only thing keeping your economy afloat. Your dollar is backed by military strength, nothing else.

this is sad, but true.

[Wiskedjak]

Peace can only be a sign of political strength when there is no profit in war.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

As soon as there are no more people who want to kill us, we will have peace.

Until that time, I prefer a strong military and the will to use it against those who would destroy our way of life and culture.

Paradoxically, as long as any nation has a strong military, there will always be people who will want to destroy that nations way of life.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Paradoxically, as long as any nation has a strong military, there will always be people who will want to destroy that nations way of life.

This doesn't ring true.

Throughout history, militaries have only gotten stronger, but the result has been less war.

Until the 20th century, really until halfway through the 20th century, war was Europe's primary industry.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

This doesn't ring true.

Throughout history, militaries have only gotten stronger, but the result has been less war.

Until the 20th century, really until halfway through the 20th century, war was Europe's primary industry.

True, for past, when nations had to protect themselves from conquest. But, conquest is no longer a motivator. What nation in their right mind would want to take over another country by military force anymore? The cost of doing so is insane with no real return.

Today, most of the origins of conflict seem to come from a sense of "leave us alone".

[Snow-i]

To answer your question is a short summary:

When societies' resources far outweigh their needs. Until then, those without will always want to fight those with under a number of justifications.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Today, most of the origins of conflict seem to come from a sense of "leave us alone".

Interesting way to put it, but I can't seem to think of a better way to say it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

When societies' resources far outweigh their needs

Unfortunately "need" is relative to what you have

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Unfortunately "need" is relative to what you have

Which is why we won't see that day. Its a long ways off.

[Kerrigan]