• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

question on u.s. policy

D

DaiShan

Diamond Member
I have a question for you that a buddy of mine posed to me, I gave him my answer, and I would like to hear your answers to get a wider perspective on the matter. here it is: Should the U.S. target leaders such as sadam hussein and countries like iraq and iran? Should the United states to "whatever is necessary" and if so, what do you think the consequences would be?
 
What do you mean by target? You mean send a missle to his house?

I don't think there is a problem with keeping track of leaders and what they are doing. I certainly wouldn't like to see another WWIII.
 
No, we should not. We should not do anything in or for other countries. It is that interventionist and ignorant approach to foreign affairs that is responsible for 3000 deaths on 9-11. The United States should cease it's murderous ways before more are killed.

Russ, NCNE
 
If done right, there will be no consequences. Done right meaning that the US is never linked to the incident. However, this is unlikely to happen, so I favor a constant watch on such leaders with the option of termination should the person being watched start doing something really bad.

ZV
 
In the past the U.S. has had an official policy of not assasinating people. Since 9-11 that policy has been sh!tcanned and everything goes. Saddam is sleeping very deep underground these days.

Yes, we should do whatever is necessary.

The ultimate consequence is going to be that terrorists and terrorist states are going to think twice about f^cking with the United States of America.

I think that spells it out fairly clearly.
 
It frustrates me when people say that any military action in the Middle East would destabilize the region when the region is already extremely destablized.

And I don't see the downside to removing Saddam from power since removing him would mean that the economic sanctions on Iraq could be lifted and that our troops could leave Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I think that in a perverse way some countries don't want the sanctions to be lifted so that they can forever complain that the United States is killing Iraqi children.
 
HappyPuppy,

It is exactly that kind of attitude that caused the slaughter of 3000 innocent people at the hands of the frustrated and oppressed. Violence never solves anything, and we become just as bad as the terrorists when we use it.

Russ, NCNE
 


<< I have a question for you that a buddy of mine posed to me, I gave him my answer, and I would like to hear your answers to get a wider perspective on the matter. here it is: Should the U.S. target leaders such as sadam hussein and countries like iraq and iran? Should the United states to "whatever is necessary" and if so, what do you think the consequences would be? >>


The assasination of a head of state is a risky thing. I am not sure that assasinating hussein, for example, will solve anything any more than bin laden being dead will stop terrorism. Hindsight being 20/20 however I don't think anyone would find fault with going back in time to assasinate Hitler in 1930, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc., but they did have same thinking lieutenants to take their place.
We must try to build coalitions whenever possible. I am satisfied with the way we handled Afghanistan. We told them what we wanted, we presented evidence and we waited. Only when it was clear that the response was unacceptable did we take action. However, we must be willing to go it alone. We should present evidence, make demands and wait. If the response is unacceptable then we should take action. If the rest of the world is with us, fine. If not, that's fine too. As long as our own Congress approves of the action, I don't think the President needs anyone elses permission. It would be better however to have an international consensus.
 


<< The United States should cease it's murderous ways before more are killed. >>


When did you become part of the "blame America first" crowd? 😕
 


<< It is exactly that kind of attitude that caused the slaughter of 3000 innocent people at the hands of the frustrated and oppressed. Violence never solves anything, and we become just as bad as the terrorists when we use it. >>



Russ, you are flat out wrong. If we had not removed the Taliban from power, Afganistan would have habored the Al Qaeda forever. Same goes for Germany during WWII. If we had not landed in France and counter attacked, then Europe probably would not have defeated Germany.

The main reason Bin Laden attacked the U.S. is because he is upset with the condtions in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi people dislike the royal family and american involvement in their country. If he attacked his own county it would not help gain supporters. By attacking a country that lots of Saudis dislike already it helped him gain some support. The U.S. is in Saudi Arabia to protect National Interests. In other words we are their to prevent oil prices from going through the roof, because that would damage our economy badly. Until our economy is not so heavliy based on foreign oil we are stuck in a dilemma. We are pissing other countrys off, but keeping our nation's economy stable. It is really the lesser of two evils.

Until we start drilling in Alaska and relying more on alternative fuels we do not have much of a choice.
 
My interpretation is that the US government has a duty to protect the interests of her citizens. But does that mean that we should disregard other countries? Of course not...

Here's the function for utility received from an action A:

f(A) = B1 + C2(B2) + C3(b3) ... CN(BN)

Where N is the number of countries in the world

The set of B's is the amount of benefit country N receives from the action.
- B1 is the amount of benefit the USA receives
- B2 ... BN are different countries

The set of C's is a fraction less than 1 that shows how happy we are for that country's benefit...For countries close to us like Canada and the UK, it would be pretty high...for countries that we have little to do with, it would be pretty low...For countries like the old Soviet Union, C might even be negative

So what does this say? Just that what happens to the US should be our top priority and each country's benefit (or detriment) does get factored in but to a lesser degree
 


<< No, we should not. We should not do anything in or for other countries. It is that interventionist and ignorant approach to foreign affairs that is responsible for 3000 deaths on 9-11. The United States should cease it's murderous ways before more are killed. >>


Who's logged in as Russ?
 
I believe that a lot of these countries in the middle east are built on a house of cards, take out the leader, and most of the rest will crumble, in a sense this brings about instability, but in my opinion it is necessary to effect change, I would also like to respectfully disagree with Russ, and I will tell you why. In many of the middle eastern countries they don't have freedom of the press, this breeds ignorance as the people are force fed the media as the government wants them to see it, this includes lies. We have the technology now to jam out satelite communications (most of middle east uses satellite television) I believe we should do this and attempt to spread the truth, If we don't take any form of defensive action they will strike again, this is what ignorance breeds. They believe they are oppressed because that is what the government tells them to believe. Now I also believe our media puts a huge spin on certain issues, and this effectively amounts to propaganda, but at least the base of it is true, that is more of a luxiury than the people in these nations are afforded. We must first and foremost defend ourselves, this includes military action, but also we must be proactive, we must get the information out there that we are not evil, I don't believe we can do this on our own though, I think we will need an intermediary to provide such a service, one that has credibility in the region.
 


<< Who's logged in as Russ? >>



Yes I was thinking he might have been hacked because the two responses he had in this thread are not typical Russ. WTF?
 


<<

<< Who's logged in as Russ? >>

Yes I was thinking he might have been hacked because the two responses he had in this thread are not typical Russ. WTF? >>


Yeah...that's what I was thinking too...
 
well I figure that for anyone to have as many posts as Russ they must have multiple people logging into the account in order to be around 24/7. I figure the reason Russ is offline now is becuase the original Russ is attempting to do damage control, and to re-train this "drone" Russ into acting and forming the same opinion as he does, he must be having problems with the chaos theory math, any math gurus out there, look for a russ thread on chaos theory soon...
 
<snicker> @ Russ 😉

"Should the U.S. target leaders such as sadam hussein and countries like iraq and iran?"

IMO, not till they openly threaten the US. Sadam is teetering on the edge, but once the whole world is aware if their intent, we ought to nip 'em in the bud as an example, as well as for our own safety.
 


<< Who's logged in as Russ? >>


You know what it was. Someone put one of those bodysnatcher pods under his computer desk and NOW THEY HAVE HIM! AAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
 
The problem is that we are a joke. We brag to high heavens that we are a country of Rule of Law, but whenever it suits us, we do whatever the fisk we want. I heard this described as narcicistic arrogance on the radio today, bending laws according to expedience and in accord with personal motivation, like pedofiles claiming the children actually enjoy it. If we are going to assasinate world leaders and overthrow foreign governments, lets do it, but lets drop the pretext that we believe in law. And lets not complain if somebody nukes us or assasinates our president. Intergity isn't convenient. What we learn from watching ourselves is that we really have no real faith or trust in what we stand for. It means we really don't stand for what we claim at all. It's all phoney pretence. What we really believe in is power, and like all who have power, we are corrupted by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top