War. Conflict. I don't know what you people are arguing about but it isn't Health

[Kay [Old]]

FirestormEdit: This used to be in the Health Care topic but was derailing it so much that even the little actual "discussion" that goes on in those threads was thrown off. Argue here instead. Oh, and calm down before posting. Take a few deep breaths.

LOL @ David Frum. David Frum is irrelevant, his opinion is worth less than the bandwidth it eats up.

Only response is ad homeniem about the writer? The point still stands, as the GOP has gone utterly over a cliff since Obama got elected, and the result is we've lost badly and yet another government entitlement (and Ancien, you are incorrect. Doesn't matter what the states do anymore - federal government, as you've ascertained, will just go LOL COMMERCE CLAUSE and do whatever it wants.)on our hands. When the economy inevitably picks up to some degree, as it will, and the media trumpets their boy, the Democrats are going to go rampaging over us because you Tea Party nutjobs had to go crazy. Really, I blame Obama first for this debacle, and then McCain - because if he wasn't fucking stupidly obsessed with his fucking bullshit maverick shit, he wouldn't have picked Palin, which almost singlehandedly caused the bullshit the GOP has become.

Why is the rest of the world allowing us to keep them? Because we will destroy them if they don't. Our supposed diplomacy is based off of nothing more than other countries fears of us. I just simply don't get how you can justify a war based off of a (Muslim) country owning weapons that were even considered shit a decade ago, when we have stockpiles so immense that we could destroy the world if we so wished. Not only that, we have a much greater History of violence than Iraq can ever hope to achieve!

I was interested in this part, and frankly most of the people who responded to Deck Knight piqued my interest as they said similar things when talking about Iraq and stuff. To which I ask a simple question:

So we have a history of violence. So we can rule through fear and can destroy our enemies utterly if we wished. So we maybe aren't as moral as we claim to be, and perhaps aren't even the greatest force of good in the world.

So what? Why should we care?
I'll freely admit as an IS major why American citizens are so obsessed with bringing democracy and some ridiculous set of morals to a field like foreign relations is something that I don't get. The way I see it, the goal of America in foreign relations should be the spread of our dominance and hegemony, through whatever means we feel necessary. If we can do it by spreading democracy, good. If not, oh well.
This isn't to say that I supported the Iraqi War - I think it was an incredibly stupid move when one looks at geopolitical realities and our growing budgetary deficit. But talk over what actions we did in the past and whether it was "criminal" or not is something that just strikes me as pointless.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

I was interested in this part, and frankly most of the people who responded to Deck Knight piqued my interest as they said similar things when talking about Iraq and stuff. To which I ask a simple question:

So we have a history of violence. So we can rule through fear and can destroy our enemies utterly if we wished. So we maybe aren't as moral as we claim to be, and perhaps aren't even the greatest force of good in the world.

So what? Why should we care?
I'll freely admit as an IS major why American citizens are so obsessed with bringing democracy and some ridiculous set of morals to a field like foreign relations is something that I don't get. The way I see it, the goal of America in foreign relations should be the spread of our dominance and hegemony, through whatever means we feel necessary. If we can do it by spreading democracy, good. If not, oh well.
This isn't to say that I supported the Iraqi War - I think it was an incredibly stupid move when one looks at geopolitical realities and our growing budgetary deficit. But talk over what actions we did in the past and whether it was "criminal" or not is something that just strikes me as pointless.

Finally, a person who follows realist philosophy. This makes me happy. Have you read any of John Mearsheimer's work?

And as an question, how does Iraq not have a worse history of violence then the US? The United States is only a couple hundred years old, there have been wars in the fertile crescent ever since agriculture. Not to say I agree with the Iraq war, which I didn't, but the whole they have less of a history of violence is bull.

yet America is the ONLY FUCKING COUNTRY to have used nuclear weapons

Actually, if you count the use of depleted uranium, which can cause worse radiation after effects, then pretty much everyone uses nuclear weapons.

 

[Eraddd]

I was interested in this part, and frankly most of the people who responded to Deck Knight piqued my interest as they said similar things when talking about Iraq and stuff. To which I ask a simple question:

So we have a history of violence. So we can rule through fear and can destroy our enemies utterly if we wished. So we maybe aren't as moral as we claim to be, and perhaps aren't even the greatest force of good in the world.

So what? Why should we care?
I'll freely admit as an IS major why American citizens are so obsessed with bringing democracy and some ridiculous set of morals to a field like foreign relations is something that I don't get. The way I see it, the goal of America in foreign relations should be the spread of our dominance and hegemony, through whatever means we feel necessary. If we can do it by spreading democracy, good. If not, oh well.
This isn't to say that I supported the Iraqi War - I think it was an incredibly stupid move when one looks at geopolitical realities and our growing budgetary deficit. But talk over what actions we did in the past and whether it was "criminal" or not is something that just strikes me as pointless.

Hey, I'm just going to enter your home, and enforce my fucking beliefs of Christianity/Islam/Judaism/other religion/philosophy etc etc on you. Fuck your own free will, you're following mine now. Oh and I have the biggest and baddest weapons, so you can't do shit now. I'm going to rape your wife, kill your children and make you my slave essentially. Oh and I'm going to leech all the resources out of your bank accounts and whatever investments you have too and fuck your whole finances over! Wouldn't that be fun?

Get my drift kid? It is essentially immoral to just walk in with what YOU think is "righteous" and force it upon others with force (just as America and to an extent, the USSR have been doing the entire second half of the century).

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Hey, I'm just going to enter your home, and enforce my fucking beliefs of Christianity/Islam/Judaism/other religion/philosophy etc etc on you. Fuck your own free will, you're following mine now. Oh and I have the biggest and baddest weapons, so you can't do shit now. I'm going to rape your wife, kill your children and make you my slave essentially. Oh and I'm going to leech all the resources out of your bank accounts and whatever investments you have too and fuck your whole finances over! Wouldn't that be fun?

Get my drift kid? It is essentially immoral to just walk in with what YOU think is "righteous" and force it upon others with force (just as America and to an extent, the USSR have been doing the entire second half of the century).

I believe that his entire point was ends justify the means to keeping American hegemony. There are a couple of reasons why the current American hyperpower status is highly desirable, both for America, and the world. It could be worse, America might screw over people some of the time, but it doesn't do it all the time.

 

[Eraddd]

I believe that his entire point was ends justify the means to keeping American hegemony. There are a couple of reasons why the current American hyperpower status is highly desirable, both for America, and the world. It could be worse, America might screw over people some of the time, but it doesn't do it all the time.

Tell me why is America quite desirable? I know they did safeguard lots of nations but the fact that they played quite a huge role in the economic recession, invading Iraq, and continuing to screw relations with the Middle East, further pushing hard feelings doesn't really help the world. I'm not saying everything that America has done was wrong; the fact that they have the impunity to enter which ever nation they desire if they perceive any sight of wrong doing, to me, seems like an abuse of power.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Tell me why is America quite desirable? I know they did safeguard lots of nations but the fact that they played quite a huge role in the economic recession, invading Iraq, and continuing to screw relations with the Middle East, further pushing hard feelings doesn't really help the world. I'm not saying everything that America has done was wrong; the fact that they have the impunity to enter which ever nation they desire if they perceive any sight of wrong doing, to me, seems like an abuse of power.

It's not America that's desirable, it's the unipolar power structure that has benefits. In the nuclear age, uni-polarity is beneficial over multi-polarity.
1) Historical evidence:
a. The cold war.
b. With the increased ability of transportation, the entire world is at each others boarders, to my knowledge, there has never been a situation were two or more near equal powers did not eventually end up at war.
2) Global power is zero-sum, if America loses influence, then others gain it, this makes America's multilateral actions less influential, and does not change it's unpopular unilateral actions.
3) What's the alternative? Do you think that there is a chance that America will ever just instantly withdraw from the world (or even down to manageable levels)? It took the barbarians to break Rome, do we actually want another period of chaos?
4) Better then the alternatives. If America doesn't take the role of a global hegemon, then the world system will inevitably break up in to a system of regional hegemons, rife with the same problems, but less able to remedy them.

 

[Eraddd]

It's not America that's desirable, it's the unipolar power structure that has benefits. In the nuclear age, uni-polarity is beneficial over multi-polarity.
1) Historical evidence:
a. The cold war.
b. With the increased ability of transportation, the entire world is at each others boarders, to my knowledge, there has never been a situation were two or more near equal powers did not eventually end up at war.
2) Global power is zero-sum, if America loses influence, then others gain it, this makes America's multilateral actions less influential, and does not change it's unpopular unilateral actions.
3) What's the alternative? Do you think that there is a chance that America will ever just instantly withdraw from the world (or even down to manageable levels)? It took the barbarians to break Rome, do we actually want another period of chaos?
4) Better then the alternatives. If America doesn't take the role of a global hegemon, then the world system will inevitably break up in to a system of regional hegemons, rife with the same problems, but less able to remedy them.

You're basing your premises on the fact that if America's power suddenly collapsed, the world would also suddenly collapse. America's powers have diminished over the years. They are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their economy is in dire straits. I believe that America will not collapse like Rome did. Rather, I believe they will fade away from the World's Stage, like the UK did after the WWII. Although the world did go down a craphole, it wasn't the fault of the UK that it happened.

What are these alternatives are you talking about? The menacing powers of Communism? Dictatorship? Radical islamic militants? You throw around these scenarios and give dooms day theories as if America held the balance of the world.

 

[Ancien Régime]

this could have been spent on the poor too, oddish

but it's okay for the government to have extravagant lifestyles right? right.

The only difference between the governments greed and the private sectors greed is this; They want out votes, and thus must act unlike the terrible people that they are to get them.

the private sector wants our money. how do you think they're suppose to get it? unless they're LOBBYING (i.e asking for government handouts), the only way to get it is to make the people not hate them, i.e., be somewhat accountable.

Now, there are structural issues that make the private sector less accountable to the populace than it should be. Guess where those issues originate from? Hint - they involve guys with guns.

But really, you are fucking naive to think that a VOTE makes politicians more accountable than even the most corrupt businessman. And guess what - the corporation at its worst can't hand out free money - at worst, it can offer low prices through...questionable...labor practices and uh, well, steal people's land to do it (but this is stuff government allows it to do - try opening a sweatshop in your basement and then taking a chunk out of your next-door neighbor's land - it'll be a riot). The government can go "hurr durr new defense contract giving 100k jobs" and get 35% support immediately.

During my time there, I ask them all sorts of questions like, "How do you like your health care system?" and "Do you really have to wait in lines for months?"

Government-run health care is good at providing basic to intermediate care, as well as prescription drugs because of greater negotiating power. It is high-end, high-cost care that is the problem, and which creates wait times. It is important to note that Canada has 2.2 physicians per 1000 people (compare with Sweden, Japan, and France, all over 3.5), which I think is the lowest in the developed world. Lack of supply + high demand = lines.

My #1 preference for America is a radically deregulated and decentralized system with an emphasis on small providers, individual choice, and first-party payment, with money directed toward the poor who truly can't pay. This would in theory drastically reduce price inflation, break the nationwide insurance cartels, and bring prices within a range where most people can afford it, with some subsidization (preferably on the local and state level) for the poor.

My #2 (and it is a VERY distant #2 because it does involve some federal intervention) preference would be a two-tier system - a single-payer federal system where the total operating budget may not exceed 1 trillion dollars, operating alongside, well, what I described in #1. Costs in the federal system would be distributed progressively, with fees increasing as income increases. Both solutions would seek to provide as much private initative and freedom as possible, and be as unrestrictive on the populace as possible while still providing universal coverage.\

also lol neocons. Your philosophy is utterly bankrupt, and you have no moral or intellectual credibility. If you hold views even resembling those of neoconservatives, you should fucking kill yourself. Interventionism has proven again and again throughout history to be the path towards societal decline, if not societal ruin. I may not like national health care (actually i hate it) but that is a far less dangerous idea than AMERICA WORLD POLICE GLOBAL DOMINATION FUCK YEAH.

No really. I hate neoconservatives, I hate everything they stand for, I class it with National Socialism and Communism (in fact, it IS a form of Communism hello Leon Trotsky) as one of the most evil ideologies in the world.

 

[cantab]

Actually, if you count the use of depleted uranium, which can cause worse radiation after effects, then pretty much everyone uses nuclear weapons.

DU doesn't count. The effects are rather less than actual nuclear weapons. You're probably at more risk from radiation if you live in Cornwall. And DU can't (when used in present production weapons) kill tens of thousands of people in a second.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

You're basing your premises on the fact that if America's power suddenly collapsed, the world would also suddenly collapse. America's powers have diminished over the years. They are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their economy is in dire straits. I believe that America will not collapse like Rome did. Rather, I believe they will fade away from the World's Stage, like the UK did after the WWII. Although the world did go down a craphole, it wasn't the fault of the UK that it happened.

What are these alternatives are you talking about? The menacing powers of Communism? Dictatorship? Radical islamic militants? You throw around these scenarios and give dooms day theories as if America held the balance of the world.

Are you just going to ignore my arguments about the change to world power relations due to the changes in transportation and methods of warfare. These are two good reasons why America won't just fade away from the world's stage, do you have any reason why America will do that? Furthermore, China as the alternate hyperpower will prompt more hardline American action as they don't share 'American ideas.' The current military projects put the US as stronger then China for quite a while still, as such a hardline military response would be disastrous for the entire world.

The alternatives are more regional violence with the decline of American power. It doesn't matter the form of government, I'm not going to claim 'better dead then red' or anything like that. It's simply that a unipolar power system creates an enforced stability in the world. Without the threat of America crushing people, there would be more war. The United States doesn't make a great, or even a competent global policeman, but it's better then not having one.

DU doesn't count. The effects are rather less than actual nuclear weapons. You're probably at more risk from radiation if you live in Cornwall. And DU can't (when used in present production weapons) kill tens of thousands of people in a second.

You're right, the studies that I was thinking about have apparently been disproved. I was just reading the WHO article on it, and I'm pretty sure you're right. It does have some health effects, but much less so then what I had read a while ago.

 

[Kay [Old]]

Hey, I'm just going to enter your home, and enforce my fucking beliefs of Christianity/Islam/Judaism/other religion/philosophy etc etc on you. Fuck your own free will, you're following mine now. Oh and I have the biggest and baddest weapons, so you can't do shit now. I'm going to rape your wife, kill your children and make you my slave essentially. Oh and I'm going to leech all the resources out of your bank accounts and whatever investments you have too and fuck your whole finances over! Wouldn't that be fun?

Get my drift kid? It is essentially immoral to just walk in with what YOU think is "righteous" and force it upon others with force (just as America and to an extent, the USSR have been doing the entire second half of the century).

And I say morals have no place in the field of international relations. A realist perspective is not "America goes out and kills everyone and kicks babies for the evulz", it is eliminating any and all threats to our security. If that means coercion at times, so be it, but it can also mean negotiation, like Nixon did with China.

Tell me why is America quite desirable? I know they did safeguard lots of nations but the fact that they played quite a huge role in the economic recession, invading Iraq, and continuing to screw relations with the Middle East, further pushing hard feelings doesn't really help the world. I'm not saying everything that America has done was wrong; the fact that they have the impunity to enter which ever nation they desire if they perceive any sight of wrong doing, to me, seems like an abuse of power.

The simple answer? I'm an American. I want what's best for America. And keeping our position of power is best for us, though I do believe an American hegemony is better for the globe than a Chinese or Russian-run world in the ways that Ferrous has mentioned.

As for Ferrous: I have not read his works, but looked him up. I'll give him a look.

 

[Ancien Régime]

is there a doh smiley

seriously fuck off with your retarded neo-con AMURICUH FIRST shit

fuck dammit i'm foaming at the mouth because of this "it's okay to kill people for what the american government says is our interests"

hey, let's have china or russia open some bases on our soil. wat do?

i know i'm incoherent as fuck with this post but i'm less incoherent than neoconservatism, which is basically a justification for global Roman-style imperialism led by a powerful elite. The ancient Romans and the British Empire made the exact same arguments - we need to be AMERICA WORLD POLICE for the security of the world, etc.

jesus fuck

morals have a place in all segments of life. especially since "international relations" affect the lives of millions, if not hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. but that's alright with you if you can wave a little flag and go AMERICA FUCK YEAH

 

[Ferrouswheel]

is there a doh smiley

seriously fuck off with your retarded neo-con AMURICUH FIRST shit

fuck dammit i'm foaming at the mouth because of this "it's okay to kill people for what the american government says is our interests"

hey, let's have china or russia open some bases on our soil. wat do?

i know i'm incoherent as fuck with this post but i'm less incoherent than neoconservatism, which is basically a justification for global Roman-style imperialism led by a powerful elite. The ancient Romans and the British Empire made the exact same arguments - we need to be AMERICA WORLD POLICE for the security of the world, etc.

jesus fuck

morals have a place in all segments of life. especially since "international relations" affect the lives of millions, if not hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. but that's alright with you if you can wave a little flag and go AMERICA FUCK YEAH

There is a significant difference between Neo-conservatism, which I agree is a stupid and morally bankrupt philosophy, and offensive realism. It operates under a utilitarian moral framework, something which you have neither critiqued or posed a viable alternative. Do you contest the idea that there are times when violence is the most efficient answer to a problem? WWII would not have ended without the military. If you believe that it was a bad thing to kill people to stop Japan and Germany from destroying US interests, then more power to you, but I'll have to disagree.

Essentially, if there were Russian or Chinese bases on our soil, instead of the US having bases every where, then as long as they operated by realist principles, then it would end up being net beneficial. I admit that personally I would have misgivings with bases on American soil, but I don't doubt that many countries have the same misgivings, and completely legitimate grievances against American bases.

You also ignored my argument about the historical evidence, and the changes to modern power relations necessitate a global power. I honestly wish that this was not the case, but I believe that it is.

In short, what is your alternative to "global Roman-style imperialism?" And please provide some reasoning as to why it would work in the status quo.

 

[Kay [Old]]

is there a doh smiley

seriously fuck off with your retarded neo-con AMURICUH FIRST shit

fuck dammit i'm foaming at the mouth because of this "it's okay to kill people for what the american government says is our interests"

hey, let's have china or russia open some bases on our soil. wat do?

i know i'm incoherent as fuck with this post but i'm less incoherent than neoconservatism, which is basically a justification for global Roman-style imperialism led by a powerful elite. The ancient Romans and the British Empire made the exact same arguments - we need to be AMERICA WORLD POLICE for the security of the world, etc.

jesus fuck

morals have a place in all segments of life. especially since "international relations" affect the lives of millions, if not hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. but that's alright with you if you can wave a little flag and go AMERICA FUCK YEAH

I'll admit I used to adhere to the non-intervention which I know you like, but Ferrous's point is largely my own. Neoconservatism is not realism in the slightest - I have explicitly stated in my posts that the Iraqi war, among other foreign policy ventures, was stupid as shit. That is corrupt and stupid doctrine that says "LOL Let's kill everyone for democracy which will succeed in the Middle East" and is the natural descendent and logical consequence of Wilsonianism, which is pretty much the exact opposite thing of realism.

Sometimes realism will be violent, sometimes it can be diplomatic to a degree that neoconservatives aren't, which is why I explicitly stated Nixon-China as an example - note that neoconservatives first started appearing around this time as they were all pissed off with THE COMMIES ARE EVIL HOW DARE HE NEGOTIATE WITH THEM.

Essentially, if there were Russian or Chinese bases on our soil, instead of the US having bases every where, then as long as they operated by realist principles, then it would end up being net beneficial. I admit that personally I would have misgivings with bases on American soil, but I don't doubt that many countries have the same misgivings, and completely legitimate grievances against American bases.

I'll disagree here slightly. I can't think of a scenario where having Russian Chinese bases on our soil would actually be a good thing, regardless of what principles they operated on. However, if having them on our soil actually was a net benefit somehow, then I could accept them being there, though with a ton of persuasion.

 

[Firestorm]

What the hell are you two going on about?

Firstly, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Secondly, you're trying to argue American imperialism as a vehicle for world peace when in fact there are conflicts going on ALL over the world. Just because your country isn't the one being attacked doesn't mean there are dozens upon dozens of wars being fought right now.

Oh, and as soon as your country runs out of water or oil, I'm pretty fucking sure your government will be making any excuse to get into another country and take their's. Nobody feels safe because of America being a hyperpower aside from Americans themselves. Don't kid yourself. Any safety we feel is in the short-term and short-term only.

Now, may I ask what this has to do with health care aside from some members thinking that invasions of random countries is more important than the welfare of the people and somehow classified as "National Defense"?

 

[Ancien Régime]

If you believe that it was a bad thing to kill people to stop Japan and Germany from destroying US interests, then more power to you, but I'll have to disagree.

maybe they wouldn't want to if we hadn't helped wreck their economy and society (granted, Wilson was opposed to the way the French raped the Germans)

Also, Nazi Germany was never a military threat to North America. It was never a military threat to Great Britain - Nazi strategist invaded Russia because they decided they couldn't actually overrun the British Isles. And of course, there's the matter of the rest of the empire to deal with - even while in decline, the British Empire still spanned half the globe.

And you could disband the entire army today and America would be impregnable militarily. Or you think it's EASY to conduct a trans-continental invasion with no pre-established beachhead? D-Day was as much luck as skill, and it was conducted across the English Channel - now, try the Atlantic Ocean.

You also ignored my argument about the historical evidence, and the changes to modern power relations necessitate a global power. I honestly wish that this was not the case, but I believe that it is.

1: Actually, it is the massive amount of wealth expended in the maintainance of world hegemony that brings down empires. Rome ultimately fell because of the same factors currently at work today - an inflationary welfare-warfare state that sought to extend control over the world while putting people on unsustainable welfare schemes to disguise the fact that they were getting poorer.

2: Nuclear weapons, bad as they are, provide a strong incentive NOT to go to war. Sure it's been only 60 years, but notice how no two nuclear armed powers have ever gone to war?

3: What hegemons? Europe has basically forsook war forevermore. Russia? Basket case on every level. Putin talks loudly and carries a small stick. China? Maybe. And why would regional powers have the same problems?

In short, what is your alternative to "global Roman-style imperialism?" And please provide some reasoning as to why it would work in the status quo.

Non-intervention. Why? Because it's not our role to police the world, and the building resentment towards us by our assumption of that role will come back to bite us in the end. Also, we're broke - we don't have the money.

Granted, it would be nice if all nations stopped the power politics sham, but well, we'd have to abolish the nation-state for that to happen! Who's with me?

 

[cantab]

It was never a military threat to Great Britain

Now that's just nonsense. Germany posed a very credible threat to Great Britain. They never invaded because they wanted to eliminate the RAF so they'd have air superiority, but the RAF won the Battle of Britain, at considerable effort, expense, and loss of life. The German invasion of Russia was due to Hitler's ideology; had Germany retained peace with Russia while putting all its efforts into invading Britain, Germany could well have been successful in doing so.
Not to mention if Germany had actually managed their program properly, they could well have built a nuke.

And you could disband the entire army today and America would be impregnable militarily.

Canada? Mexico? Russia across the Bering Straits? The Carribean nations?

 

[akuchi]

The only reason Nazi Germany went to war with Britain so quickly is because we gave a diplomatic promise to a country that was known for it's reckless approach to foreign affairs (oh hi, Poland). The original idea was for Britain (initially) to retain her interests elsewhere and navally whilst Germany dominated Europe. Germany did not pose the threat she could have done as her war economy was geared towards Blitzkrieg; this was remedied by Speer, but it was too late by that point.

The idea that Germany did not pose a credible threat to Britain is slightly ridiculous.

Oh, and offtopic but; your use of the word rape was somewhat off-colour.

 

[Ancien Régime]

akuchi, what do you think happens in war? here's a fun research project - look into common military jargon that has been around since like forever, starting with "penetrate".

Also, nearly all military historians agree - Operation Sea Lion could never actually have worked. The Luftwaffe was overestimated badly by the RAF. The Kriegsmarine was a mess due to the Norway campaign. The Germans has NO amphibious landing craft. Even if the Luftwaffe had somehow won the Battle for Britain (and the RAF was better in nearly every respect, and had radar to boot, so that wasn't happening), they weren't mounting a land invasion, period.

D-Day was the largest invasion in the history of mankind to date, had years of planning, total air and naval supremacy, was liberating an occupied country, was the product of a and had a lot of luck to boot, and there was still a huge possibility of failure.

There was no chance Sea Lion could have worked, and it would have been a debacle for the ages. At least the Nazis actually came close in Russia.


Also, cantab, the United States Military - possibly a more powerful military force than every other in history PUT TOGETHER - took 8 years to even begin to get Iraq under control, a situation where a small minority of Iraqis actively opposed. Do you honestly think that a single country, or even a solid coalition of countries, could successfully subdue a heavily armed populace, who in some parts of the country outgun local police, with many, many local and state organizing bodies, (i'm going to also assume the federal government disappears entirely), with a strong militia tradition, with unforgiving terrain in many parts of the country, not to mention that it's LITERALLY A FUCKING CONTINENT?

If poor Iraqis can make explosives that can destroy tanks, what do you think rich Americans can do in the same situations?

America is logistically, strategically, and tactically impregnable. That is a fact.

Now, how does this relate to something like healthcare? Only to show that most wars are completely unnecessary (the whole history lesson was to refute the concept that the Germans or the Japanese could have threatened North America in any way), and if the government must spend money, it can spend it on productive ventures (though if you ever see domestic spending be spent as freely as military spending, there's a problem) like helping people.

We could slash 80% of the defense budget and we'd never have to worry about poverty ever again, and you could have a large across the board tax cut to boot. But this means money is redistributed from wealth destroyers (the military) to wealth creators (the people - even the laziest welfare leech is more productive than jarheads blowing up shit overseas.)

 

[cantab]

Also, cantab, the United States Military - possibly a more powerful military force than every other in history PUT TOGETHER - took 8 years to even begin to get Iraq under control, a situation where a small minority of Iraqis actively opposed. Do you honestly think that a single country, or even a solid coalition of countries, could successfully subdue a heavily armed populace, who in some parts of the country outgun local police, with many, many local and state organizing bodies, (i'm going to also assume the federal government disappears entirely),

Who says the aggressor would behave like the US military. Who says they would seek to merely 'subdue' the populace. What about a well organised, modern army setting out to simply massacre US civilians indiscriminately? An armed, but disorganised populace would suffer terrible casualties attempting to resist an organised army set on genocide. And if the population becomes well-organised, then it becomes the de facto army.
Of course, no current nation is even remotely both capable of and willing to do that. The examples I gave were admiteddly probably invalid. (Also, the coastguard and the navy are not the army, so I'm not sure if you intended to include them - they should be able to defend the USA against threats by sea). But who knows what things will be like decades from now. An alliance between China and either Mexico or Canada would give the world's current largest military the means to attack the USA - and all it takes for such an alliance is suitable political changes in both countries.

You are right in that if the US disbanded its army no-one could invade tomorrow. But an attack in a few decades time is possible - and by the time it became clear such an attack was imminent, it could be too late to remilitarise.

We could slash 80% of the defense budget and we'd never have to worry about poverty ever again, and you could have a large across the board tax cut to boot.

You may be right on that. Though I would add the minor caveat that military cost-cutting could increase the risk of a nuclear accident. (And if you decommission the entire nuclear arsenal, then the USA becomes vulnerable to any nation with nuclear weapons. Plus decommissioning is itself costly, though I don't know how the cost compares to maintenance or to military expenditure as a whole).

 

[Eraddd]

It's not America that's desirable, it's the unipolar power structure that has benefits. In the nuclear age, uni-polarity is beneficial over multi-polarity.
1) Historical evidence:
a. The cold war.
b. With the increased ability of transportation, the entire world is at each others boarders, to my knowledge, there has never been a situation were two or more near equal powers did not eventually end up at war.

So you're telling me the fact that the world is at peace is because there are two superpowers at neck with each other? The only REASON why the Cold War started was because of them. The world wasn't dominated by two sides the entire time, quite the opposite. I think I'm not reading you correctly here. Elaborate please.

Are you just going to ignore my arguments about the change to world power relations due to the changes in transportation and methods of warfare. These are two good reasons why America won't just fade away from the world's stage, do you have any reason why America will do that? Furthermore, China as the alternate hyperpower will prompt more hardline American action as they don't share 'American ideas.' The current military projects put the US as stronger then China for quite a while still, as such a hardline military response would be disastrous for the entire world.

Unfortuantely, American "hardline" action won't prevail. You're up against a billion chinese, breeding like RABBITS, actively building their war technology, and their army, creating technology never seen before, and made sure that without them, America is fucked economically. Plus America owes them billions of dollars. What makes you think America will be able to do anything about this? It's not a question of how America falls, it's a question of when, and I see China becoming the next Superpower, with the USA under its shadow. THe US may be stronger militarily yes, but China outstrips the resource that America has; the only reason why the USSR lost the Cold War was because they could not fund their nuclear technology in the arms race and lost subsequently after. America is in the same hole. With much of its spendings going towards the military, domestically, it's getting fucked one by one, just like the Soviet Union.

The alternatives are more regional violence with the decline of American power. It doesn't matter the form of government, I'm not going to claim 'better dead then red' or anything like that. It's simply that a unipolar power system creates an enforced stability in the world. Without the threat of America crushing people, there would be more war. The United States doesn't make a great, or even a competent global policeman, but it's better then not having one.

Unipolar creates stability? Cold War? What? Cold War was STABLE? Again I don't think we're seeing eye to eye. And you keep talking about this alternative. What makes you think that suddenly, as America falls, 2012 will come to pass? UK fell = nothing happened due to it. Napoleonic France fell = not that great of a power struggle. The other nations took France's land and left. The problem here is you inflate America's role in politics; this isn't 2000 son. It's 2010, and I think you got to see reality.

And as for Kay, I'm just gonna say "lol gg qq"

 

[Firestorm]

Canada has no reason to ever invade the United States of America unless it was attacked first. This is of course if we had an alliance with the Chinese as Canada is not stupid enough to fight a nation of 300 million with a nation of 30 million. Canada is the one with the natural resources so I'd assume it would be the US who would want to attack the country with some of the largest water and oil reserves in the world.

God we are soooo fucked in the future.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Lol at the topic change

What the hell are you two going on about?
Firstly, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Secondly, you're trying to argue American imperialism as a vehicle for world peace when in fact there are conflicts going on ALL over the world. Just because your country isn't the one being attacked doesn't mean there are dozens upon dozens of wars being fought right now.
Oh, and as soon as your country runs out of water or oil, I'm pretty fucking sure your government will be making any excuse to get into another country and take their's. Nobody feels safe because of America being a hyperpower aside from Americans themselves. Don't kid yourself. Any safety we feel is in the short-term and short-term only.

I don't believe that American hyperpower is the best system, I simply believe that it is the most realistic system, and that the system breaking down would be worse. Think of it as if you're on Death Row, would you rather have lethal injection, or have your heart pried out with a wooden spoon.

Stuff about threats to the Continental United States
1: Actually, it is the massive amount of wealth expended in the maintainance of world hegemony that brings down empires. Rome ultimately fell because of the same factors currently at work today - an inflationary welfare-warfare state that sought to extend control over the world while putting people on unsustainable welfare schemes to disguise the fact that they were getting poorer.
2: Nuclear weapons, bad as they are, provide a strong incentive NOT to go to war. Sure it's been only 60 years, but notice how no two nuclear armed powers have ever gone to war?
3: What hegemons? Europe has basically forsook war forevermore. Russia? Basket case on every level. Putin talks loudly and carries a small stick. China? Maybe. And why would regional powers have the same problems?

I had said threats to American interests, a nice vague term that encompasses more then just the territory of the United States. I admit that short of measures that aren't considered legal nowadays it would be impossible to conquer the United States.

1. I have never said that the American Empire will last forever, (I would be extremely surprised if it lasts another 100 years, like flying monkeys surprised) I simply believe that it should be maintained as long as it can be.
2. I honestly hope that no nuclear nations will ever go to war with each other, but I don't count it out. I also believe there is a chance that America could become the rogue state it dreads and use nuclear weapons again.
3. Look at China's actions in it's ignoring the Law of the Sea, something which it (unlike the US) is a signatory. Look at Pakistan and India's actions over Kashmir, look at Israel-Palestine, and tell me that those wouldn't be more threatening to each other without the threat of global action.

We could slash 80% of the defense budget and we'd never have to worry about poverty ever again, and you could have a large across the board tax cut to boot. But this means money is redistributed from wealth destroyers (the military) to wealth creators (the people - even the laziest welfare leech is more productive than jarheads blowing up shit overseas.)

We spend about 4 times more on health care then the military. If we manage to reform health care to the levels of most other countries, we'd save about double what we would from completely removing the military.

Plus, military does a whole bunch more then go kill people over seas. Research, disaster relief, police work, and all kinds of things.

So you're telling me the fact that the world is at peace is because there are two superpowers at neck with each other? The only REASON why the Cold War started was because of them. The world wasn't dominated by two sides the entire time, quite the opposite. I think I'm not reading you correctly here. Elaborate please.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you here. My argument is that the Cold War happened because there wasn't a single power, and that if we had a multi-polar power system there would be more conflict between the powers.

On China, actually, the United States is miles ahead of China militarily, and they are slowing their spending. I don't doubt that they will pass the US eventually, but they are currently focusing on economic strength over military. And a hardline response would be the US using force multipliers like MOABs, and what not. The United States wouldn't have to conquer China to remove it's ability to become a global power, it could just do what it's done in Iraq. I do not endorse this idea, I merely post it as a possibility that could come about if America decided that it didn't want to be passed up by China.

 

[Eraddd]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you here. My argument is that the Cold War happened because there wasn't a single power, and that if we had a multi-polar power system there would be more conflict between the powers.

Right, with America out of the system, I'm not sure who are these "multi powers" you're talking about. The only one I can see is China, and maybe a recovered Russia and Japan. The Middle East is a bed full of disorganized fools, even divided on the smallest religious issues. No competition there.

On China, actually, the United States is miles ahead of China militarily, and they are slowing their spending. I don't doubt that they will pass the US eventually, but they are currently focusing on economic strength over military. And a hardline response would be the US using force multipliers like MOABs, and what not. The United States wouldn't have to conquer China to remove it's ability to become a global power, it could just do what it's done in Iraq. I do not endorse this idea, I merely post it as a possibility that could come about if America decided that it didn't want to be passed up by China.
Let's look at this realistically. NO ONE is ahead militarily. Both nations have nuclear weapons to wipe the shit out of each other. In terms of ability to destroy, they're both equal. In terms of a more subtle warfare, aka economically, screwing nations over from the inside, China has the edge. They have leverage over imports (America RELIES on China, don't deny this fact) and America owes them alot of cash. Now, how is China weaker than America, with America's armies tied up "in the war of terrorism" and their economy draining slowly? Much like the arms race, China has the leverage here.

And I'm sorry, but Iraq =/= China. China would definitely put up more than a good fight, and also, push the nations to the brink of nuclear war. Iraq, while still fucking Ameria up its ass, wasn't that great of a threat in the beginning. Just think of the mess they're going into hypothetically.

Bolded.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Right, with America out of the system, I'm not sure who are these "multi powers" you're talking about. The only one I can see is China, and maybe a recovered Russia and Japan. The Middle East is a bed full of disorganized fools, even divided on the smallest religious issues. No competition there.

By multiple powers, I don't mean countries ending up equaling the United States, I just mean a more equal power relationship, think pre-WWI Europe, but without the alliance entanglement.

Let's look at this realistically. NO ONE is ahead militarily. Both nations have nuclear weapons to wipe the shit out of each other. In terms of ability to destroy, they're both equal. In terms of a more subtle warfare, aka economically, screwing nations over from the inside, China has the edge. They have leverage over imports (America RELIES on China, don't deny this fact) and America owes them alot of cash. Now, how is China weaker than America, with America's armies tied up "in the war of terrorism" and their economy draining slowly? Much like the arms race, China has the leverage here.

And I'm sorry, but Iraq =/= China. China would definitely put up more than a good fight, and also, push the nations to the brink of nuclear war. Iraq, while still fucking Ameria up its ass, wasn't that great of a threat in the beginning. Just think of the mess they're going into hypothetically.

"NO ONE is ahead militarily." This is the main point I disagree with, namely we are ahead technologically. Our air force, nuclear submarines, other navy, troop coordination with other resources, rods of God, etc.

I don't say that we'd win. I just am saying that if America decided to go to war with China rather then peacefully pass the power, then both countries (and the whole world) gets tremendously fucked up. I just pose it as a possibility. After all the freaking neocons went into Iraq, I wouldn't put China past them.