Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because you're the one who called the United States as the last and only beacon of freedom.

 

Correct.

Because at the moment the threat of military reponse for the US protects every free country on the planet fro,m forced MUCH less concerned with freedom.

 

Actually, many european nations do so as well.

Once again, you are stating the obvious but missing the point.  I don't have time to keep explaining this- please look up a list of nations by comparative military strength- maybe that will clarify things for you (somehow I doubt it). 

I do like how some Americans base their "facts" on so little or such poor information.
 

A lot of the problem is Hollywood's ability to re-write the history books, at best it's a travesty at worst it's utter disrespect for the "allies"

Also, all this bullshit about the US being the last bastion of democracy, this is the same country that re-elected Bush for a second term? Get some perspective people.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because you're the one who called the United States as the last and only beacon of freedom.

 

Correct.

Because at the moment the threat of military reponse for the US protects every free country on the planet fro,m forced MUCH less concerned with freedom.

 

Actually, many european nations do so as well.

 

Once again, you are stating the obvious but missing the point.  I don't have time to keep explaining this- please look up a list of nations by comparative military strength- maybe that will clarify things for you (somehow I doubt it). 

Your reasons for calling the US a beacon of hope are deeply flawed. You seem to consider it a beacon of hope simply because of it's military and even go as far to completely ignore other nations contributions to war.

I'm not missing the point, I'm again reminding you that you used the word ONLY. If Europe also defends its freedom and the freedom of other nations it can't be only.

It's blind patriotism at its finest.

Originally posted by efefia

I do like how some Americans base their "facts" on so little or such poor information.
 

A lot of the problem is Hollywood's ability to re-write the history books, at best it's a travesty at worst it's utter disrespect for the "allies"

Also, all this bullshit about the US being the last bastion of democracy, this is the same country that re-elected Bush for a second term? Get some perspective people.

Perhaps you should actually read the posts in a thread before you post?

I don't like UN, but drone attacks have been causing a lot of innocent casualties.  I know it sucks that taliban tend to blend into the general population, making it hard for us to target only the "bad guys".  But then caring about civilians is part of what separates us from the bad guys.

I do think we are too restrictive to the solders on the ground, especially when they're in a bad situation they often can't fire unless given the order to.  That imo needs to change.  But this drone attacks, you know they often can't confirm 100% who they are attacking right?   So there's some guess work involved, and they have to trust their intel which often come from people over there.  Everytime we kill civilians, Talibans gain strength and they use it to their advantage.  That's how they recruit, they tell others that "hey look americans are bombing innocent people".

Drone attacks need to be operated with caution.  The problem is who's making the calls and who's deciding wither to strike or not?

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because you're the one who called the United States as the last and only beacon of freedom.

 

Correct.

Because at the moment the threat of military reponse for the US protects every free country on the planet fro,m forced MUCH less concerned with freedom.

 

Actually, many european nations do so as well.

 

Once again, you are stating the obvious but missing the point.  I don't have time to keep explaining this- please look up a list of nations by comparative military strength- maybe that will clarify things for you (somehow I doubt it). 

Your reasons for calling the US a beacon of hope are deeply flawed. You seem to consider it a beacon of hope simply because of it's military and even go as far to completely ignore other nations contributions to war.

I'm not missing the point, I'm again reminding you that you used the word ONLY. If Europe also defends its freedom and the freedom of other nations it can't be only.

It's blind patriotism at its finest.

By all means please show me where I used the word "only." (you will see that I said "last best" indicating that there are others but that they are FAR from optimal)

I'm hoping there's a nice European out there who knows me and my post history well enough to know that I'm hardcore anti-Bush,  pro-Europe, liberal and I'm STILL logical enough to admit that U.S. nuclear deterrent policy has been protecting Europe and Scandanavia like an umbrella since the end of WW II.

If the U.S. didn't have huge carrier battlegroups and SSBN fleets out there protecting you, all of the nice HEALTHCARE and INFRASTRUCTURE that you spend your taxes on would actually have to share with a REAL military budget (if, for instance, the EU wanted to field an ACTUAL superpower-sized fighting force).  Because the U.S. spends a HUGE percentage of GDP on military upkeep, we have arguably the strongest military on the PLANET and out allies can depend on US instead of THEMSELVES.  Incidentally, this is largely the reason the US can't fund single-payer healthcare.

Sorry if the truth hurts, but there it is.  You want to call me wrong, you better bring NUMBERS and SHOW ME how Europe and Scandanavia would hold up if say.... ultranationalists in Russia decided to to bring back the "bad old days" and the United States wasn't there backing you up!!!

A lot of the countries out there right now have no idea what having to spend billions on defense spending does to your budget 

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia

I do like how some Americans base their "facts" on so little or such poor information.
 

A lot of the problem is Hollywood's ability to re-write the history books, at best it's a travesty at worst it's utter disrespect for the "allies"

Also, all this bullshit about the US being the last bastion of democracy, this is the same country that re-elected Bush for a second term? Get some perspective people.

 

Perhaps you should actually read the posts in a thread before you post?

LOL...

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because you're the one who called the United States as the last and only beacon of freedom.

 

Correct.

Because at the moment the threat of military reponse for the US protects every free country on the planet fro,m forced MUCH less concerned with freedom.

 

Actually, many european nations do so as well.

 

Once again, you are stating the obvious but missing the point.  I don't have time to keep explaining this- please look up a list of nations by comparative military strength- maybe that will clarify things for you (somehow I doubt it). 

Your reasons for calling the US a beacon of hope are deeply flawed. You seem to consider it a beacon of hope simply because of it's military and even go as far to completely ignore other nations contributions to war.

I'm not missing the point, I'm again reminding you that you used the word ONLY. If Europe also defends its freedom and the freedom of other nations it can't be only.

It's blind patriotism at its finest.

 

By all means please show me where I used the word "only." (you will see that I said "last best" indicating that there are others but that they are FAR from optimal)

I'm hoping there's a nice European out there who knows me and my post history well enough to know that I'm hardcore anti-Bush,  pro-Europe, liberal and I'm STILL logical enough to admit that U.S. nuclear deterrent policy has been protecting Europe and Scandanavia like an umbrella since the end of WW II.

If the U.S. didn't have huge carrier battlegroups and SSBN fleets out there protecting you, all of the nice HEALTHCARE and INFRASTRUCTURE that you spend your taxes on would actually have to share with a REAL military budget (if, for instance, the EU wanted to field an ACTUAL superpower-sized fighting force).  Because the U.S. spends a HUGE percentage of GDP on military upkeep, we have arguably the strongest military on the PLANET and out allies can depend on US instead of THEMSELVES.  Incidentally, this is largely the reason the US can't fund single-payer healthcare.

 

Sorry if the truth hurts, but there it is.  You want to call me wrong, you better bring NUMBERS and SHOW ME how Europe and Scandanavia would hold up if say.... ultranationalists in Russia decided to to bring back the "bad old days" and the United States wasn't there backing you up!!!

The last best in your context is saying that there are no other beacons of hope or freedom. Last can only be used as the only one left or in last place, and I doubt you meant to say it was in last place.

The US keeps spending so much money on the military is because it keeps picking fights with other nations, and it did that mostly to avoid communism from spreading. The US didn't create such a huge military to protect other nations, they did it to protect themselves. They don't give much about countries that aren't in the US's self interest.

The US isn't in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are oh so concerned about the freedom of their people, they are there because certain groups in the country posses a threat to the US.

We don't spend as much money on military because the US is "protecting", we just don't do it because we're not picking fights left and right.

You're using a hypothetical situation. Here, I got one too: If the Russians and Chinese decided they had enough of the US and want to wipe them off the face of the earth, guess on who's door you'll be knocking? and rightly so, that's what we're allies for.

Hypothetical situations like that say nothing.

Originally posted by Gameloading

The last best in your context is saying that there are no other beacons of hope or freedom. Last can only be used as the only one left or in last place, and I doubt you meant to say it was in last place.

last best = last of the truly viable hopes for defending democracy

The US keeps spending so much money on the military is because it keeps picking fights with other nations, and it did that mostly to avoid communism from spreading. The US didn't create such a huge military to protect other nations, they did it to protect themselves. They don't give much about countries that aren't in the US's self interest.

Our modern military spending patterns were developed during the cold war, where percieved technological or readiness shortfalls might represent a serious threat to the nation.

The US isn't in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are oh so concerned about the freedom of their people, they are there because certain groups in the country posses a threat to the US.

The war in Afghanistan was started because we had good intelligence that some of the people responsible for 9/11 were there.  The war in Iraq was started based on manufactured evidence and was ABSOLUTELY WRONG and IRRESPONSIBLE in my opinion.  Neither war was started out of concern for the people of those countries.  Manipulative US policies over the years have been largely responsible for creating anti-US sentiment in the area

We don't spend as much money on military because the US is "protecting", we just don't do it because we're not picking fights left and right.

PLEASE look at this list of comparative military spending.  THEN please go click on the deterrence link above.  The  U.S. spends more than double the combined total of the entire EU

You're using a hypothetical situation. Here, I got one too: If the Russians and Chinese decided they had enough of the US and want to wipe them off the face of the earth, guess on who's door you'll be knocking? and rightly so, that's what we're allies for.

If the Russians and Chinese decide to come after NATO the only thing standing in their way will be the US nuclear deterrent.

Hypothetical situations like that say nothing.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

The United States did not win world war 2 by itself. Get it through your skull.

 

I never said they did.  Why are you stating the obvious?

 

The point is that Nazi Germany would have certainly have taken all of Europe (if not the world) without U.S. involvement.  Once again you are failing to recognize basic causal relationships.

 

Because you're the one who called the United States as the last and only beacon of freedom.

Germany would have also conquered Europe much faster and easily if it wasn't for the Canadians, British, Australians, Russians and the many resistance fighters in each of the occupied countries.

Would you like to nominate the beacon of freedom in the world? 

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Because you're the one who called the United States as the last and only beacon of freedom.

 

Correct.

Because at the moment the threat of military reponse for the US protects every free country on the planet fro,m forced MUCH less concerned with freedom.

 

Actually, many european nations do so as well.

 

Once again, you are stating the obvious but missing the point.  I don't have time to keep explaining this- please look up a list of nations by comparative military strength- maybe that will clarify things for you (somehow I doubt it). 

Your reasons for calling the US a beacon of hope are deeply flawed. You seem to consider it a beacon of hope simply because of it's military and even go as far to completely ignore other nations contributions to war.

I'm not missing the point, I'm again reminding you that you used the word ONLY. If Europe also defends its freedom and the freedom of other nations it can't be only.

It's blind patriotism at its finest.

 

By all means please show me where I used the word "only." (you will see that I said "last best" indicating that there are others but that they are FAR from optimal)

I'm hoping there's a nice European out there who knows me and my post history well enough to know that I'm hardcore anti-Bush,  pro-Europe, liberal and I'm STILL logical enough to admit that U.S. nuclear deterrent policy has been protecting Europe and Scandanavia like an umbrella since the end of WW II.

If the U.S. didn't have huge carrier battlegroups and SSBN fleets out there protecting you, all of the nice HEALTHCARE and INFRASTRUCTURE that you spend your taxes on would actually have to share with a REAL military budget (if, for instance, the EU wanted to field an ACTUAL superpower-sized fighting force).  Because the U.S. spends a HUGE percentage of GDP on military upkeep, we have arguably the strongest military on the PLANET and out allies can depend on US instead of THEMSELVES.  Incidentally, this is largely the reason the US can't fund single-payer healthcare.

 

Sorry if the truth hurts, but there it is.  You want to call me wrong, you better bring NUMBERS and SHOW ME how Europe and Scandanavia would hold up if say.... ultranationalists in Russia decided to to bring back the "bad old days" and the United States wasn't there backing you up!!!

I'm sorry but, LOL.  You want real numbers to back up a fantasy argument.  LOL. 

Originally posted by Mardy

A lot of the countries out there right now have no idea what having to spend billions on defense spending does to your budget 

Or by people in the same government that does the spending. 

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Enkindu

By all means please show me where I used the word "only." (you will see that I said "last best" indicating that there are others but that they are FAR from optimal)

I'm hoping there's a nice European out there who knows me and my post history well enough to know that I'm hardcore anti-Bush,  pro-Europe, liberal and I'm STILL logical enough to admit that U.S. nuclear deterrent policy has been protecting Europe and Scandanavia like an umbrella since the end of WW II.

If the U.S. didn't have huge carrier battlegroups and SSBN fleets out there protecting you, all of the nice HEALTHCARE and INFRASTRUCTURE that you spend your taxes on would actually have to share with a REAL military budget (if, for instance, the EU wanted to field an ACTUAL superpower-sized fighting force).  Because the U.S. spends a HUGE percentage of GDP on military upkeep, we have arguably the strongest military on the PLANET and out allies can depend on US instead of THEMSELVES.  Incidentally, this is largely the reason the US can't fund single-payer healthcare.

 

Sorry if the truth hurts, but there it is.  You want to call me wrong, you better bring NUMBERS and SHOW ME how Europe and Scandanavia would hold up if say.... ultranationalists in Russia decided to to bring back the "bad old days" and the United States wasn't there backing you up!!!

I'm sorry but, LOL.  You want real numbers to back up a fantasy argument.  LOL. 

Yes, it's what you might call a thought experiment.

Can you figure out which real world numbers might be relevant in this case?

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Enkindu

By all means please show me where I used the word "only." (you will see that I said "last best" indicating that there are others but that they are FAR from optimal)

I'm hoping there's a nice European out there who knows me and my post history well enough to know that I'm hardcore anti-Bush,  pro-Europe, liberal and I'm STILL logical enough to admit that U.S. nuclear deterrent policy has been protecting Europe and Scandanavia like an umbrella since the end of WW II.

If the U.S. didn't have huge carrier battlegroups and SSBN fleets out there protecting you, all of the nice HEALTHCARE and INFRASTRUCTURE that you spend your taxes on would actually have to share with a REAL military budget (if, for instance, the EU wanted to field an ACTUAL superpower-sized fighting force).  Because the U.S. spends a HUGE percentage of GDP on military upkeep, we have arguably the strongest military on the PLANET and out allies can depend on US instead of THEMSELVES.  Incidentally, this is largely the reason the US can't fund single-payer healthcare.

 

Sorry if the truth hurts, but there it is.  You want to call me wrong, you better bring NUMBERS and SHOW ME how Europe and Scandanavia would hold up if say.... ultranationalists in Russia decided to to bring back the "bad old days" and the United States wasn't there backing you up!!!

I'm sorry but, LOL.  You want real numbers to back up a fantasy argument.  LOL. 

 

Yes, it's what you might call a thought experiment.

Can you figure out which real world numbers might be relevant in this case?

http://www.womenrussia.com

How many women want to GTFO of Russia every day? 

Originally posted by sepher 

That deserves some perspective. Case in point the killing of Baitullah Mehsud. He was killed along with a wife and father-in-law at the father-in-law's house. That could've been a situation where up to 9 "innocents" were jeopardized all for Baitullah and his bodyguards. Do you call that inefficiency?

Before this country pussed out it was called collateral damage and nothing else.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Also, just to remind you, the United Sates did not win World War 2 by itself.

That is true. But, and answer honestly, do you think the war would have turned out differently if we never entered? Would all of Europe be under the Nazi symbol?

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by sepher 

That deserves some perspective. Case in point the killing of Baitullah Mehsud. He was killed along with a wife and father-in-law at the father-in-law's house. That could've been a situation where up to 9 "innocents" were jeopardized all for Baitullah and his bodyguards. Do you call that inefficiency?

Before this country pussed out it was called collateral damage and nothing else.

When I see bullshit like this it's easier to understand why half of the planet hates our guts.

The best evidence for greatness is not indifference to human suffering, but rather compassion even for one's enemies.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by sepher 

That deserves some perspective. Case in point the killing of Baitullah Mehsud. He was killed along with a wife and father-in-law at the father-in-law's house. That could've been a situation where up to 9 "innocents" were jeopardized all for Baitullah and his bodyguards. Do you call that inefficiency?

Before this country pussed out it was called collateral damage and nothing else.

 

When I see bullshit like this it's easier to understand why half of the planet hates our guts.

The best evidence for greatness is not indifference to human suffering, but rather compassion even for one's enemies.

Sorry, but it is true. Do you think World War II would have turned out differently if we approached it the same way as we approach wars now?

War is ugly. Although innocent, those people are still involved whether they like it or not. Is that to say it is absolutely the right thing to do? No, but some must suffer so others may live.

It's rather ridiculous you state this is the reason why "half the planet hates our guts". Every major war throughout history consisted of innocent human casualties.

It seems you would rather let a war drag on and allow a few people to live rather than kill the individual whose death would stop the war and leaving a few innocent casualties while the rest of the country, region, or world benefits from the loss.

Originally posted by Dekron

Sorry, but it is true. Do you think World War II would have turned out differently if we approached it the same way as we approach wars now?

War is ugly. Although innocent, those people are still involved whether they like it or not. Is that to say it is absolutely the right thing to do? No, but some must suffer so others may live.

It's rather ridiculous you state this is the reason why "half the planet hates our guts". Every major war throughout history consisted of innocent human casualties.

It seems you would rather let a war drag on and allow a few people to live rather than kill the individual whose death would stop the war and leaving a few innocent casualties while the rest of the country, region, or world benefits from the loss.

You are barking up the wrong tree.  I support use of overwhelming force to end conflict.  I think dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do because it actually saves millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

Tactical weapons that do lots of collateral damage do not strengthen our position.  In a country where we are striving to create an allied self-sustaining force, evey time we demonstrate lack of concern for the well-being of non-combatants we are essentially recruiting for organizations like the Taliban.

I am all for the use of overwhelming force to end conflict.  I am opposed to careless and counterproductive use of force.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Dekron

Sorry, but it is true. Do you think World War II would have turned out differently if we approached it the same way as we approach wars now?

War is ugly. Although innocent, those people are still involved whether they like it or not. Is that to say it is absolutely the right thing to do? No, but some must suffer so others may live.

It's rather ridiculous you state this is the reason why "half the planet hates our guts". Every major war throughout history consisted of innocent human casualties.

It seems you would rather let a war drag on and allow a few people to live rather than kill the individual whose death would stop the war and leaving a few innocent casualties while the rest of the country, region, or world benefits from the loss.

 

You are barking up the wrong tree.  I support use of overwhelming force to end conflict.  I think dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do because it actually saves millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

Tactical weapons that do lots of collateral damage do not strengthen our position.  In a country where we are striving to create an allied self-sustaining force, evey time we demonstrate lack of concern for the well-being of non-combatants we are essentially recruiting for organizations like the Taliban.

I am all for the use of overwhelming force to end conflict.  I am opposed to careless and counterproductive use of force.

Then we are in agreement on your last point. However, tactical weapons are useful when it is known fact a high priority target will be destroyed with acceptable collateral damage.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Dekron

Sorry, but it is true. Do you think World War II would have turned out differently if we approached it the same way as we approach wars now?

War is ugly. Although innocent, those people are still involved whether they like it or not. Is that to say it is absolutely the right thing to do? No, but some must suffer so others may live.

It's rather ridiculous you state this is the reason why "half the planet hates our guts". Every major war throughout history consisted of innocent human casualties.

It seems you would rather let a war drag on and allow a few people to live rather than kill the individual whose death would stop the war and leaving a few innocent casualties while the rest of the country, region, or world benefits from the loss.

 

You are barking up the wrong tree.  I support use of overwhelming force to end conflict.  I think dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do because it actually saves millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

Tactical weapons that do lots of collateral damage do not strengthen our position.  In a country where we are striving to create an allied self-sustaining force, evey time we demonstrate lack of concern for the well-being of non-combatants we are essentially recruiting for organizations like the Taliban.

I am all for the use of overwhelming force to end conflict.  I am opposed to careless and counterproductive use of force.

Then we are in agreement on your last point. However, tactical weapons are useful when it is known fact a high priority target will be destroyed with acceptable collateral damage.

 

I agree with you to a limited extent here.  Occasionally collateral damage would be unavoidable when going after high-value targets.. but a policy that constantly employs means that wound and kill non-combatants is going to undermine the effectiveness of our fighting force in the long run.  Every person that loses a friend or relative to "collateral damage" becomes a new enemy.
 

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia

I do like how some Americans base their "facts" on so little or such poor information.
 

A lot of the problem is Hollywood's ability to re-write the history books, at best it's a travesty at worst it's utter disrespect for the "allies"

Also, all this bullshit about the US being the last bastion of democracy, this is the same country that re-elected Bush for a second term? Get some perspective people.

 

Perhaps you should actually read the posts in a thread before you post?

No, I just need to quote people so that dopey fucking idiots like you don't have to read all the posts in the thread?

It's so easy to say stuff about war when it's on the other side of the planet. Maybe we should bring back the draft to remind people what war is really like? if the "collateral damage" was hitting closer to home maybe people would think differently.

Originally posted by Briansho

It's so easy to say stuff about war when it's on the other side of the planet. Maybe we should bring back the draft to remind people what war is really like? if the "collateral damage" was hitting closer to home maybe people would think differently.

Too true, too true.