Gipper
Well-Known Member
As long as China does not cause America harm, then it is not a concern. Should they cause harm, then obviously we must take action to stop the harm.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Syria: they're using chemical weapons...
- Thread starter cashmcall
- Start date
As long as China does not cause America harm, then it is not a concern. Should they cause harm, then obviously we must take action to stop the harm.
Werbung:
what's harm ? and how will we stop anything without people ? oh, and how will we even know without intel
Gipper
Well-Known Member
But if it impacts our trade, wouldn't that equate to having "caused harm"? And shouldn't we therefore take steps to correct this? I guess I don't disagree with your main point, but I view "harm" differently than you do. For example, I think a loss of credibility is quite harmful to the United States, and would therefore support action to maintain it.
all I have to go on are your words.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Depends on what the harm is. If the Chinese were to prevent American cargo from transiting through the canal, I would think that harmful and worthy of action of some sort. At any rate, can you name an incident in our history that would be analogous to the hypothetical scenario you describe? I can't think of one in recent times. Of course, the Barbary Pirates would apply and Jefferson did the right thing. He sent the Marines to fix the problem and left. He did not try to install democracy and keep thousands of our troops on foreign soil. So, your hypothetical situation is not really applicable.
And the credibility thing is a joke. America has none. So there is no need to worry about it. And secondly, young men dying and killing for the sake of American credibility, is immoral.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
ThirdTerm
Well-Known Member
The Obama administration is moving towards arming the rebels to prevent their irreversible losses and the US may use its air power against the Assad forces but it will stop short of imposing a no-fly zone. The UK is likely to coordinate military action in Syria with America but both Obama and Cameron have ruled out putting boots on the ground.
Closer to the Barbary Pirates times, but what about the impressment of American sailors for years and years, and then the severing of trade relations with France and England which (after a long time) finally led to the war of 1812? Should we not have reacted sooner?
How about Andrew Jackson basically seizing Florida from Spain in basically an undeclared war -- on orders from Madison I believe (maybe Monroe)? It was in our interest to do so...and we didn't leave.
I can agree to an extent about not staying and pretending that we can make the world into an American democracy, but if all we do is reestablish a zone for which those who want to do us harm can continue to operate, we have accomplished nothing.
Credibility is everything in international relations. If no one believes you will do what you say you will do, that is how large wars erupt. It is imperative that maintain (and if we have lost it then regain) credibility...because without it the world is a far more dangerous place, and far more people will ultimately die because of it.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
I do not want American military personnel killing and dying for your silly credibility. America has little credibility anyway and it is not worth fighting for. The only real credibility we have in the minds of foreign nations, is our military power.
Your treasured political credibility offered by corrupt and foolish politicians like BO & Friends, is not worth a shit and certainly not worth the lives of Americans.
That "silly" credibility is often the only thing standing between us and a war. Tell me, do you think the Soviets would have thought twice about unleashing their nuclear arsenal on us if they thought our will to respond (ie our credibility) was weak? How many lives would that cost?
How many lives will a war in China over Taiwan cost because they know we lack the resolve to respond. You want to save lives and prevent needless deaths, then you should make damn sure our credibility is unquestioned when it comes to protecting our interests. That is the often the only thing there is preventing devastating wars.
You seem content to let the world collapse around us and naively believe we won't be effecting. You also only want to get involved if we are directly harmed. But if no one believes our statements to be credible, what exactly is the point? If you are a bully are you going to pick on the kid you perceive as one that will fight back? No. You will pick on the one that you perceive is weak -- ie lacks credibility in their response.
I'm not overly interested in domestic credibility for our leaders, but on the international stage, we better damn well have it, and we better maintain it.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
America has little credibility. That is a proven historical FACT. We lost it long ago. And as I stated and you appear to agree, our only credibility is due to our superpower military status. This is why any nation that wishes us harm, does not take action against us.
The word of any American politician is the opposite of credible. Would you believe promises made by idiots like John F-ing Kerry, Mrs. BJ Bubba Clinton, or Big Ears? If so, you are deluding yourself. All are proven to be serial liars....and I do not think an R administration is much better.
After what we did in Vietnam, no nation would EVER believe promises we make to them. So please stop with your silly credibility argument.
Werbung:
if, as you say and rightly so, our strength is what those out there respect would they respect it if we were unwilling to use it ?
hussein didnt believe we would and so he invaded Kuwait. had we done nothing do you suppose others.would.follow suit ?
Similar threads
