"Protecting our freedom overseas"

Now there's a phrease I never understood. It, of course, refers to US troops in whichever country is currently under occupation.

How exactly are the freedoms of US citizens — or as I've seen in some debates, of even everyone in the western world — under threat if US troops aren't over there somewhere?Hell, even if we're talking about threats to security, I would remind you that Osama wasn't caught by bombing the infrastructure of Pakistan and issuing a military occupation in Islamabad.

the statement above is false

It sounds like something noble, but if you simplfy it to its core nobody would actually follow it.
I find it that simple.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

Its basically tripe politicians use as an excuse to guilt people into accepting war.

If a foreign power decides to invade you, pretty sure you're not going to be free much longer; that's why we have to get them first.

I agree that it seems to make little sense. But Kino has a point. Even if the threat is external, you still have to take meassures to defend against it, which can include going out and eliminating it. that's not the only measure you can take, but it's valid in certain conditions.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Unfortunetly, pre-emptive war is illegal.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

@OP: That's the short version; i'll fill you in later.

@Joe: Yeah....we and the Israelis never got that memo.

edited 13th May '11 11:18:22 AM by Kino

Attacking someone preemptively carries significant risks, yes. In a tactical scenario (opposing forces that are squared off against one another, and already at war with one another), it's quite valid. As a matter of grand strategy... not so much.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

You don't turn your guns on people unless those people turn their guns on someone else first. Period. That is immoral.

Doesn't matter if they're threatening blue murder; unless they're planning a nuclear strike you don't have the right to start a war over sabre rattling.

Actually being attacked like 9/11? Different matter. And then there are cases where the people who the guns have been turned on are the citizens of the country doing the shooting. In which case things get more complicated.

Its different if the country has clearly already mobilised. Then you're basically at war. But you can't just go around attacking people on the off chance they might attack you later!

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Morality and pragmatism hardly go hand in hand.

You do know Red Dawn was fiction, right? And that the Iraqi and Afghan militaries were about as likely to try invade the US as Botswana is likely to ivade Moldova.

the statement above is false

So you're saying the US will never be invaded?

Its the largest industrial and military power on the planet. It has more allies and (still) goodwill than any other power of equivalent size on the planet. It hardly needs to worry about strikes on its sovereign soil! Or even its possessions! Allies like Israel and Japan might be more vulnerable, but still, you'd have to be pretty foolhardy to attack the US in any form.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Well there's no shortage of stupidity in the world.

Yes. And when that stupidity raises its ugly head, you will curbstomp it. And if you aren't strong enough then you'll probably have half the world on your side saving your ass if you were to look like going down at any point.

Americans seem to always forget just how strong a position their nation is actually in.

edited 13th May '11 11:27:57 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Well, I'm no psychic, but the magic 8-ball says "outcome is unlikely". Sure, I don't know what China might get up to if they get pissed off, but Iraq, Afghanistan or Grenada (or Nicaragua, etc. watch out for those evil land reforms and social pprograms!) are not exactly poised to attack.

And, you know, most countries are ready to defend on their own soil. I'm pretty sure the US could easily take any invading force on their home ground.

edited 13th May '11 11:29:28 AM by JethroQWalrustitty

the statement above is false

The US could thwart any invasion simply by decapitating the invader.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

^They could, but the diplomatic fallout... hell, that could even provoke a few wars, assuming everyone isn't cowering in terror.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Then again, the US hasn't had a war on its soil since the time y'all just killed eachother for the lack of better targets. The only real taste of war you've had in recent history was 9/11. Many of the large powers in the world have been in ground war in recent history, and some are still rebuilding from the last time. They have perspective on these things.

the statement above is false

Well see the problem is that while you can raise any number of crazy hypothetical scenarios of USA being invaded but in the end they're hypothetical. A place like Iraq can't ever even physically reach the USA. If you're worried about militant groups or international terrorism, the US marines can't do anything about it. You have to use intelligence agencies combined with special forces. It's how Osama was taken down and it's how any other terrorist organisation will go down.

Why did Al Qaeda get defeated? Because brave American soldiers fought in totally pointless wars? No. The middle east and the Muslim population is basically completely fed up after 10 years of violent garbage being spewed by Al Qaeda. They don't want more death or violence and they don't respect that use of force. Revolutions are sweeping through the region because the people are frustrated with the lack of freedoms, the lack of progress from their governments and they rise up peacefully. It's obvious they don't respect use of force.

So you want to protect yourselves from enemies you have to do the right thing; morality is around for a reason.

edited 13th May '11 11:38:17 AM by breadloaf

Fuck that "pre-emptive war is illegal" shit. Fuck it with a rusty ramrod. In reality there's no such thing. You either attack first, or be attacked.

Iraq was a mistake and a lie. We went in under a fabricated pretense, and I'm pretty pissed off about that.

Afghanistan was legit, hwoever. We should've stayed focused on helping Afghanistan rather than getting side-tracked in Iraq and letting it go to back-burner status.

I'm imagining what the outcome in Iraq would've been today, if we hadn't gone over there, in light of all the other protests and crap going down. Saddam getting kicked out of his palace, rebels asking the UN for help, stuff like that. And we would've jumped at the chance to help.

Sometimes I wish the world had Restore Points you could go back to.

^ Preemptive strikes- Japan did it to us. Germany did it against Poland. Look where that got us?

edited 13th May '11 12:14:27 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Thats appropriate, Tom, if you are a small country surrounded by larger empires who might just fall to a quick punch. Its not appropriate behaviour for a 1st world behemoth who can easily smash anyone stupid enough to raise a fist against them. Just what are the proponents of first-strike afraid of?

Rome had reason to adopt a first strike policy. America, as a superpower, does not. Because it does not have the same fears Rome had. I make the Rome comparison because Rome is often compared to America, and also had a first-strike policy, and they also abused it; case in point, Carthage and the 3rd Punic War.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

There's a reason for that rule to exist. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are wars that don't actually involve the united states. The rule that the first agressor gets the blame might have prevented several dozen wars, as neither governemtn wanted to take the blame.

Of course, you don't have to do away with the law in order for US to do what they want. They just veto the shit out of any objection in the UN like the global bully they are.

the statement above is false

Or you could keep to yourself and not bother or be bothered by anyone else, as Switzerland have done successfully for something like 1500 years.

edited 13th May '11 12:33:18 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.