Fun fact about US military spending

[juansavage1]

Equally smart people can disagree on interventions or whether to intervene at all. It has to do with goals and values. Earlier, we heard the opinion that the US messes up the world. That's one reason to oppose a strong military. Another reason, which needn't conflict with the first, is that some people sympathize more with those opposed to the US. Many, many Americans admire Fidel Castro and admired Ho Chi Min, for example.

 

I'm glad we can all come to some understanding of each other, even if we still disagree on whether the US should have and/or use power to further its interests or a particular world view

[Brandon]

Bakunin is Bak!

 

Weird. He posts under his regular name in the meat locker.

 

Logging in and out often or trying to remember what account does what must be a bitch.

[wopphil]

many of the libs here flip out over things fox news does, the one conservative news organization that's out there. juan savage is getting treated the same way.

this is fun to watch.

What blows my mind is how unbelievably obsessed the left is with Fox news. Do they actually watch it, or do they just recite the talking points they hear about it? If the former, why do they watch something they hate so much? And if the latter, why are they so critical of something of which they aren't knowledgeable?

[TobiasFunke]

I'll go on record to say that I admire Ho Chi Minh

[mtangelsfan]

As do I.

 

I think a lot of these folks have many admirable qualities.   We aren't talking about Pol Pot, Mao or Stalin.

[juansavage1]

Doesn't it make sense that if you don't see somebody or a movement as a threat or you sympathize with that person or movement, you wouldn't want to fight them or feel the need to defend yourself against them? If you thought MInh or Castro or other anti-Americans had a point, you would want to hear what they say and not just consider them enemies.

 

Some of you think Fox News is evil and that we should attack it at every opportunity or at least defend against its lies. If you just thought it was a news outlet with a different, but legitimate point of view, you wouldn't feel the need to surf Media Matters every day.

[arch stanton]

The whole idea of intervening to come to the aid of the innocents goes farther out the window every day that drug gangs slaughter people just a few miles to the south. I've never heard anyone talk about helping them in any way, shape, or form.

[mtangelsfan]

The whole idea of intervening to come to the aid of the innocents goes farther out the window every day that drug gangs slaughter people just a few miles to the south. I've never heard anyone talk about helping them in any way, shape, or form.

 

That argument can be taken all the way down the rabbit hole.  One is not exclusionary of the other.  I don't value someone living in this country over people living in other countries.  Why should I?

[arch stanton]

That argument can be taken all the way down the rabbit hole.  One is not exclusionary of the other.  I don't value someone living in this country over people living in other countries.  Why should I?

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to value. Just pointing out that there must be something more to our current foreign policy than coming to the aid of innocents in peril.

[juansavage1]

I see that we've had a couple of honest, thoughtful and non-insulting posts in a row talking about their philosophy of defense and intervention so I can leave right after adding to my previously stated intervention and defense stance: I do feel that all people are brothers and should help each other, while maintaining a preference for the legitimate groups I belong to. Nationality is a legitimate interest group, for example, while race is not.

 

Woops, one more thing. If you're against intervention in principle, that means no Korea or WWII after we eliminated the threat to ourselves, which occurred somewhere in 1943-44. No anti-Soviet effort that kept Western Europe free.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

You do know that ISIS didn't originate in Iraq, and that they invaded areas they knew that they could overrun, right?

[mtangelsfan]

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to value. Just pointing out that there must be something more to our current foreign policy than coming to the aid of innocents in peril.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that it should.

 

It could be part of a foreign policy though, don't you think?

[HaloMagic]

My opinion, not arch's: No. The Constitution doesn't allow for it.

[mtangelsfan]

My opinion, not arch's: No. The Constitution doesn't allow for it.

 

I'm not trying to argue.  Where in the Constitution do you see that?  I'm honestly curious. 

 

This is all for naught though because I doubt the U.S. could ever just be benevolent.

[HaloMagic]

I don't see it. That's the point. The Constitution gives the government rights. This is not listed among them.

[juansavage1]

The constitution is whoever's sitting on the court. It evolves.

[HaloMagic]

Then you should have no problem with liberal politics ruling the day.

[arch stanton]

I don't think anyone has argued that it should.

 

It could be part of a foreign policy though, don't you think?

I'll clarify what I meant. I'm not saying it should or should not be based in any part on humanitarianism. I'm saying there's a much greater driving force behind the decisions made on who to invade or defend. I doubt it has anything to do with any Constitutional principles or any religious belief. My opinion is that it's based on the short term agenda of whomever is the driving force at the time. Oil industry? Defense industry? NSA? Russia haters?

 

I'm not seeing any common thread to hang my hat on and that's why i bailed the military when I did. I jined when the enemy was the Soviet Union. Once they disappeared we had Desert Storm then Kosovo and talk of going to South America to fight the cartels. I wasn't up for that. I could sure use a retirement check and some TriCare benefits about now but I refused to donate those last 9 years to the cause.

[mtangelsfan]

I agree with you. 

[TobiasFunke]

MT and I both admire Uncle Ho?

 

I feel like we're becoming brothers every day on here MT!

[mtangelsfan]

Clearly not his politics per se, but I certainly admire his tenacity and his desire to be free from western influence.

[juansavage1]

Question #1: If your country could be under Western influence or Communist influence (China and/or Russia), which would you choose?

 

Question #2: Aid to some countries in Africa are tied to certain ideas about environment and human sexuality. Should those countries resist the West?

[mtangelsfan]

Question #1: If your country could be under Western influence or Communist influence (China and/or Russia), which would you choose?

 

Question #2: Aid to some countries in Africa are tied to certain ideas about environment and human sexuality. Should those countries resist the West?

 

1.  I would choose what I have.  That doesn't mean it is right for all people everywhere.

2.  Could you clarify that question?  I've already stated that if there was a completely benevolent motive for change I would support it but I've never seen one from the U.S. in my lifetime.

[juansavage1]

I'm responding to admiring Minh, who is responsible for millions of deaths and the advancement of an evil system. Tenacity, hard work, and loyalty can be good qualities, but should we really admire people who use those qualities for evil? It's like admiring a serial killer's ability to plan meticulously.

 

The second question is really meant to gauge whether you think all Western influence should be resisted equally. I think there are objectively good and bad ideas that are universal, and some that are neutral. We all agree that systematic rape, like what the Soviet Union perpetrated on Eastern Germany and ISIS is doing now and genocide are things that all nations should oppose. People disagree on other things.

[mtangelsfan]

I'm responding to admiring Minh, who is responsible for millions of deaths and the advancement of an evil system. Tenacity, hard work, and loyalty can be good qualities, but should we really admire people who use those qualities for evil? It's like admiring a serial killer's ability to plan meticulously.

 

The second question is really meant to gauge whether you think all Western influence should be resisted equally. I think there are objectively good and bad ideas that are universal, and some that are neutral. We all agree that systematic rape, like what the Soviet Union perpetrated on Eastern Germany and ISIS is doing now and genocide are things that all nations should oppose. People disagree on other things.

Would it be the French, Americans and Vietnamese in general who would be responsible for all of those deaths?  I might also point out that it was the VietNamese who ended Pol Pot's reign after the U.S. abandoned Cambodia.  (Except for all of those unexploded ordinances they left behind).

 

What I admire is the strength to kick off the shackles of those who are trying to rule you when they really have no right to do so.  Imperialism was/is a failed foreign policy.

 

People who live in different cultures have different ways of viewing things.  However basic needs and wants are all the same.  Most people just want to be able to feed themselves and their families, have a little bit of fun and be left alone.