zoony Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Why won't Japan, China and Russia help with this? It's their backyard. Why is it ALWAYS AND ONLY the US responsibilty to police the world? Japan and China certainly do help, to the extent that they can. Japan's constitution forbids a strong military. Mostly because the Japanase have proven throughout history that they cannot be trusted with one. But that's another discussion. Also, Japanese and Koreans HATE each other. North and South Koreans both. But diplomatically, Japan does what it can. What do you propose they do that they're not doing already... and is within the framework of their constitution? What about China? What do you propose they do that they are not doing already? The reason that the United States has interests is because South Korea is an enormous trading partner, and the Korean Peninsula is key to the stability of the greater Far East... which includes other countries such as Japan. I know, I know... it's a complicated situation. Much easier to say "We're taking our toys and going home". Paul's your man. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I am not down with building or having bases in other people's countries. You're free to have this opinion, its not necessarily a bad one in many instances. But not in Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Japan and China certainly do help, to the extent that they can.Japan's constitution forbids a strong military. Mostly because the Japanase have proven throughout history that they cannot be trusted with one. But that's another discussion. Also, Japanese and Koreans HATE each other. North and South Koreans both. But diplomatically, Japan does what it can. What do you propose they do that they're not doing already... and is within the framework of their constitution? What about China? What do you propose they do that they are not doing already? The reason that the United States has interests is because South Korea is an enormous trading partner, and the Korean Peninsula is key to the stability of the greater Far East... which includes other countries such as Japan. I know, I know... it's a complicated situation. Much easier to say "We're taking our toys and going home". Paul's your man. .... You totally miss the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 You totally miss the point. No, you do. I outlined several reasons why the United States might have an interest in the region, and an obligation to help. So you'll have to do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 You totally miss the point.That's because he wants to miss the point. You won't change his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Zguy his official stance is that IMMEDIATELY he would withdraw troops from S. Korea and bring home the Navy. Sounds pretty isolationist to me.If it was me, I'd close down EVERY overseas base. Our military would not be deployed overseas on a regular basis except in humanitarian aid roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 The only stances he's taken in my opinion that could be deemed isolationist is his opinion on the UN, NAFTA and the like. He is basically defending our sovereignty in these matters. Ronald Reagan himself proclaimed Paul as a leader in making sure America has a strong national defense. He has voted for military action when necessary, whether that be to defend another country from invasion (Gulf War) *only support in this matter as he was not in office* or to retaliate when we were attacked (Enduring Freedom). What he is against is setting up yet more governments that will eventually harm us down the road. We have yet to do this successfully. We support military dictatorships in Pakistan so preserving Democracy is not our only agenda. We supported military dictatorships in South Korea and Taiwan that grew into capitalist democracies, so I don't think it's fair to say that we "have yet to do this successfully." Pakistan may not be in great shape, but I think they're ahead of the curve in many ways in the Islamic world. I don't like to think of things in terms of "our" agenda because 2008 is around the corner, and we have an opportunity to decide what "our" agenda is going to be.I have no problem with being a super power. The problem I have is that I see a growing problem and want to neutralize it. We are spending beyond our means, and we have a belief that we are untouchable. History has shown this to be unwise. In order to continue being a super-power we must show some humility and realize we aren't invincible.I think there are many candidates in this race that agree with reigning in our superpower hubris ... on that I certainly agree with Paul, and with Obama and Hillary and others. Sure Paul has some different ideas. I don't go as far as some of you in condemning them because they are only ideas this country was founded upon.The fact is, we are in some financial trouble, our military is disenchanted, the world views us as an empire and we are now imposing our will on others by force. All the while we have disasters here at home that no one wants to fix. We can't continue this course IMO and that's why I'm so passionate about this particular election. I found a man that would shock the system if he wins. And I think that's exactly what the doctor has ordered. Dr. Paul has cured my apathy. I'm sorry if I come across over-zealous as I consider myself a pretty rational guy. I actually want to say that this is a great thing. :applause: Too many people are completely cynical about politics, and it is good to have candidates that inspire passion, whether it is Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or Howard Dean or Barack Obama. There are reasonable issues to be debated, and there is no better way to debate than to do so passionately (and hopefully, rationally :fingersx: ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 If it was me, I'd close down EVERY overseas base. Our military would not be deployed overseas on a regular basis except in humanitarian aid roles. That is short sighted thinking. We did that at the end of WWI and what happened? We ended up fighting WWII. I'll guarantee you that in terms of real cost and lives our engagement over the last 50 years is cheaper than fighting another WW. History repeatedly shows that disengagement by the US ends up in the long run costing the US then engagment would have. Even look at the first Gulf war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Can we get a Ron Paul leg humper in here to clarify this? :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I think there are many candidates in this race that agree with reigning in our superpower hubris ... on that I certainly agree with Paul, and with Obama and Hillary and others. Paul-clearly Obama-Wishy-Washy, just like with every damn issue ( remember the we should invade Pakistan bit) Clinton-Hell no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 That is short sighted thinking. We did that at the end of WWI and what happened? We ended up fighting WWII. I'll guarantee you that in terms of real cost and lives our engagement over the last 50 years is cheaper than fighting another WW.History repeatedly shows that disengagement by the US ends up in the long run costing the US then engagment would have. Even look at the first Gulf war. Call it what you want, but I'm sick of our men and women getting killed for a lot of people who could care less. Since WWII, the United States has increasingly played the undesirable role of an international policeman. Through our involvements abroad our country is being changed from a republic to a world empire in which our freedoms are being sacrificed on the altar of international involvement. The US is now committed by treaty (read: NATO) to defend foreign nations in all parts of the world. I would like to see our bases systematically shut down and troops brought home to our sovereign soil where they belong. I wasn't proposing do it overnight or all at once. But it wouldn't be too long of a process either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Through our involvements abroad our country is being changed from a republic to a world empire in which our freedoms are being sacrificed on the altar of international involvement. Amen brother. All of the folks that take for granted the freedom to express yourseld and act indepedently will see it slip away. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, and shall lose both. ~ Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 That is short sighted thinking. We did that at the end of WWI and what happened? We ended up fighting WWII. I'll guarantee you that in terms of real cost and lives our engagement over the last 50 years is cheaper than fighting another WW.History repeatedly shows that disengagement by the US ends up in the long run costing the US then engagment would have. Even look at the first Gulf war. I disagree, and let me tell you why. 1. We didn't have bases all over the world after WWI or before WWI. We had a national MONETARY crisis at home and we were not at that time a "super-power". What did World War I have to do with Japan? Why are we responsible for a country following a leader such as Hitler? The US is not responsible for WWII. 2. Our military is now the standard for MILITARY action, not peace keeping roles. Look what happened the last time we stopped a country from invading another. How much did that cost us? By continuing to modify our military agenda to fit the needs the UN should be filling is ludicrous. We are spending much more money in our overseas military deployment then we would to squash another countries military. It would take months, if not weeks. What history are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 The reason that the United States has interests is because South Korea is an enormous trading partner, and the Korean Peninsula is key to the stability of the greater Far East... which includes other countries such as Japan. I know, I know... it's a complicated situation. Much easier to say "We're taking our toys and going home". Paul's your man. .... Perfectly stated. The U.S. has trade and security interests in the Far East and yes, we also have friends there too. Paul and his supporters fail to grasp the world we live in today. They're stuck on early 20th century thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I disagree, and let me tell you why.1. We didn't have bases all over the world after WWI or before WWI. We had a national MONETARY crisis at home and we were not at that time a "super-power". What did World War I have to do with Japan? Why are we responsible for a country following a leader such as Hitler? The US is not responsible for WWII. I didn't say we were responsible, but you are crazy (and wrong), if you think that if we had stayed in Germany after WWI, helped them rebuild their economy, country, and goverment that the result would have been the same. 2. Our military is now the standard for MILITARY action, not peace keeping roles. Look what happened the last time we stopped a country from invading another. How much did that cost us? By continuing to modify our military agenda to fit the needs the UN should be filling is ludicrous. We are spending much more money in our overseas military deployment then we would to squash another countries military. It would take months, if not weeks. I don't understand what you are saying. What history are you talking about? Well, after WWI for one. The first Gulf War was at least part of the result of the Ambassador of the Bush I adminstration telling Saddam that we had no interest in the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Call it what you want, but I'm sick of our men and women getting killed for a lot of people who could care less. Since WWII, the United States has increasingly played the undesirable role of an international policeman. Through our involvements abroad our country is being changed from a republic to a world empire in which our freedoms are being sacrificed on the altar of international involvement. The US is now committed by treaty (read: NATO) to defend foreign nations in all parts of the world. NATO is 50 years old. Please, tell me what freedom you've given up for being part of NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Amen brother. All of the folks that take for granted the freedom to express yourseld and act indepedently will see it slip away. Please where as anybody said anything about freedom of expression or acting independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Please where as anybody said anything about freedom of expression or acting independently. Case in point. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 NATO is 50 years old. Please, tell me what freedom you've given up for being part of NATO. I'd be curious to know this one as well. Of course, any discussion of NATO should also include the extremely beneficial economic & political relationships that we've been able to establish with member countries that would otherwise not exist. BTW, they are sworn to protect us, too. ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 That is short sighted thinking. We did that at the end of WWI and what happened? We ended up fighting WWII. I'll guarantee you that in terms of real cost and lives our engagement over the last 50 years is cheaper than fighting another WW.History repeatedly shows that disengagement by the US ends up in the long run costing the US then engagment would have. Even look at the first Gulf war. Are you seriously suggesting that US involvement in WW2 was based on this?!?!?!?! Your correlation is way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Are you seriously suggesting that US involvement in WW2 was based on this?!?!?!?! Your correlation is way off. Not at all. Hitler's rise to power would not have occured in an economically prosperous and politically stable Germany. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Not at all. Hitler's rise to power would not have occured in an economically prosperous and politically stable Germany...... What does that have to do with retreating from our bases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 I didn't say we were responsible, but you are crazy (and wrong), if you think that if we had stayed in Germany after WWI, helped them rebuild their economy, country, and goverment that the result would have been the same. Sure, perhaps Hitler wouldn't have gotten to power. But then, we'd be over there unable to help Asia. Also, there was that little thing called the depression which kinda prohibited us from being over there. And that's sums up my ENTIRE argument. We were able to win the great war and become a world power. We couldn't prevent the great war because we had national crisis of our own. If we do not become more humble with our entire system, I fear this will happen again. I want to prevent it. Often times, it takes extreme approaches from the opposite side of the spectrum to reach true compromise. I don't understand what you are saying. You don't understand that it would be fairly easy for us to fight ANY conventional war and that it would also be cheaper to fight and keep a country in check then to continuously police the world? If we withdrew, the only fights we would have are conventional. Not this rogue sect of radicals blowing us up on our own land. Well, after WWI for one. The first Gulf War was at least part of the result of the Ambassador of the Bush I adminstration telling Saddam that we had no interest in the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. A border dispute is not an invasion. As for NATO, it does not override our sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Are you seriously suggesting that US involvement in WW2 was based on this?!?!?!?! Your correlation is way off. I'm not saying that is why we got involved in WWII. I'm saying that WWII, at least not in the context that we know of, wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 What does that have to do with retreating from our bases? If we had stayed and helped develop Germany and provided security, protection, infrastructure, etc... nevermind :doh: just google "MacArthur" and "Post War Japan"... a light bulb might go off. Or not. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.