luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060717-124948-7563r.htm Someone please tell me this isn't going to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Sounds about right. That's quick compared to other wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 That's quick compared to other wars. Wha.............? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 We're still in----- Japan Germany Korea Italy etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Wha.............? We are still in Korea, Germany, Japan, UK, Guam.... More recently, we are still represented in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Hungary. The article said some level of US forces, not the entire force structure that is there now. Why wouldn't we want to stay as advisors to ensure their military is properly trained to prevent an overthrow by religious zealots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 We're still in-----Japan Germany Korea Italy etc etc etc Too fast for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 We're still in-----Japan Germany Korea Italy etc etc etc Tis true and we shouldn't be there. I am sure you disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 yeah, I think the title should be "Military Exit on all levels by 2016" That seems quick. Even though, if we're expecting to be fighting until then. Well, that stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Damn cut and run policy. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Tis true and we shouldn't be there. I am sure you disagree Lets look back at history and see where isolationism got us: Pearl Harbor. And did we not learn that to respond to global threats we need global outposts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Damn cut and run policy. . . Insurgents are going to just wait 10 years until we're gone to make their move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Damn cut and run policy. . . That was a cheap shot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lets look back at history and see where isolationism got us: Pearl Harbor. And did we not learn that to respond to global threats we need global outposts? The United States has never truly been an isolationist country. We have a rich history of intervention that goes way before WW2. There is a reason why Karl Rove wrote a glowingly account of Theodore Roosevelt in Time and considers Bush another Theodore Roosevelt. Sadly, many conservatives have come to embrace a liberal and leftist foreign policy (domestic policy is not all that different). I really don't want to sidetrack this thread, but intervention has led to some devastating consequences that have come back to haunt us ( our support for thuggish governments in South America, the Middle East, and certain terrorists elements that were once were labeled freedom fighters). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The United States has never truly been an isolationist country. We have a rich history of intervention that goes way before WW2. There is a reason why Karl Rove wrote a glowingly account of Theodore Roosevelt in Time and considers Bush another Theodore Roosevelt. Sadly, many conservatives have come to embrace a liberal and leftist foreign policy (domestic policy is not all that different). I really don't want to sidetrack this thread, but intervention has led to some devastating consequences that have come back to haunt us ( our support for thuggish governments in South America, the Middle East, and certain terrorists elements that were once were labeled freedom fighters). Certainly, intervention will always lead to some devastating consequences. Some of the tyranical states we have supported to further our own interests are certainly not something we will want to be remembered for. On the other hand, the national interests of the world's great powers will always influence the internal workings of other states. And certainly the world is better off from our interventions, taken as a whole, than it would be if we had remained complacent. We'd either be speaking German or Russian at this point; and certainly our ideals of human self worth and individual liberty are better than the other great powers of the past century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The United States has never truly been an isolationist country. We have a rich history of intervention that goes way before WW2. There is a reason why Karl Rove wrote a glowing account of Theodore Roosevelt in Time and considers Bush another Theodore Roosevelt. Sadly, many conservatives have come to embrace a liberal and leftist foreign policy (domestic policy is not all that different). I am assuming by this you mean that the US has never truly been isolatioinist because we provided economic aid to countries being attacked by Germany and Japan? If so, what you suggest (physical and financial isolation) would halt American advances in so many fields. We would be vulnerable to many different attacks. And who woul prevent massive offensive moves by countries around the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I thought they were going to build some military bases with 99 year leases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 And certainly the world is better off from our interventions, taken as a whole, than it would be if we had remained complacent. We'd either be speaking German or Russian at this point; and certainly our ideals of human self worth and individual liberty are better than the other great powers of the past century. And many interventions have made the world worse off. I am not completely opposed to intervention (it has to meet certain criteria, for me at least----just war doctrine). The simple truth is we have a horrible track record when it comes to intervention. Even where intervention has led to success, there was some history of democracy and liberalism in those nations ( the same can not be said of the Middle East). I am on the Jefferson bandwagon, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Sadly, seems like Hamilton won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 And many interventions have made the world worse off. I am not completely opposed to intervention (it has to meet certain criteria, for me at least----just war doctrine). The simple truth is we have a horrible track record when it comes to intervention. Even where intervention has led to success, there was some history of democracy and liberalism in those nations ( the same can not be said of the Middle East).I am on the Jefferson bandwagon, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Sadly, seems like Hamilton won. I do agree with you that democracy is certainly the most successful when it is a self-determined democracy. If it is an externally imposed democracy, it simply will not remain a democracy for very long. The powerful will install the form of government which suits their needs best. Of course, Japan is a notable outlier to this concept. :shrugs: We imposed the heck out of that -- and they are a successful democracy. Don't get me wrong; I think it'd be great if all nations of people were able to determine their own destiny based out of what is best for their own collective self-interest. That's the ideal. The present reality is a great bit less than the ideal. Powerful nations control the destinies of weaker nations. If the US is not the major interventionist force, someone else with lesser ideals will fill that void: be it the EU, Russia, China, India, or the Islamic Awakening. Someone will see it as an opportunity for promoting their nation's interests. At this point, at least the US generally tries to instill something approaching its ideals within its interventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I do agree with you that democracy is certainly the most successful when it is a self-determined democracy. If it is an externally imposed democracy, it simply will not remain a democracy for very long. The powerful will install the form of government which suits their needs best. Of course, Japan is a notable outlier to this concept. :shrugs: We imposed the heck out of that -- and they are a successful democracy. Remember that Japan actually had a democratic government in the 1920's before it fell victim to the Depression. There was much less "imposing" required in Japan because of the significant Western influence over the preceding century.The better examples in that region would be South Korea and Taiwan, which took a good 40-50 years to achieve stable democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Remember that Japan actually had a democratic government in the 1920's before it fell victim to the Depression. There was much less "imposing" required in Japan because of the significant Western influence over the preceding century.The better examples in that region would be South Korea and Taiwan, which took a good 40-50 years to achieve stable democracy. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 I just want to add I believe trade is the most effective and ideal way to go when it comes to spreading liberalism. We should work to end all trade barriers. Trade means peace (prosperity as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I agree. And to an additional dimension to that, I'd argue that while economic trade is important ($$$ afterall does make the world go round), it's the intellectual trade that really is essential to promoting liberalism. That's probably the biggest ding I see against containment policies (Cuba, N. Korea). Our ideals will win if they are granted access to a society. However, if we isolate the society, and are inable to export our ideals -- that's simply not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I just want to addI believe trade is the most effective and ideal way to go when it comes to spreading liberalism. We should work to end all trade barriers. Trade means peace (prosperity as well) I will agree with you on this point You can look at some cases in asia such as Vietnam. As trade barriers fall, so will totalitarian regimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 Our ideals will win if they are granted access to a society. However, if we isolate the society, and are inable to export our ideals -- that's simply not going to happen. absolutely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnjudy Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I would rather kill terrorists in Afganistan or Iraq then here in the U.S. Were do you want to kill terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.