I’m an American and I’m sad.

[Father Heathen]

Of course it can.

Simply stating that you disagree is not particularly useful.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

How do you address the mindset that they will force the world to become Muslim or die?

That is a radical few.

Much fewer than the radicals in Christianity who want to force their version of how everyone should live. (christian sharia?)

Anyway, imo, we would all be better off under Islam than evangelical christianity. imo

I spent quite a few years in evangelicalism, and it took a long time to recover from the mental trauma and mind control I experienced.


Btw, I have travelled throughout much of the middle east.
No one ever tried to convert me to Islam during those many years there.
I feel less safe in the US today than I ever did there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is a radical few.

Much fewer than the radicals in Christianity who want to force their version of how everyone should live. (christian sharia?)

Anyway, imo, we would all be better off under Islam than evangelical christianity. imo

I spent quite a few years in evangelicalism, and it took a long time to recover from the mental trauma and mind control I experienced.


Btw, I have travelled throughout much of the middle east.
No one ever tried to convert me to Islam during those many years there.
I feel less safe in the US today than I ever did there.

I doubt a 'few' is accurate.

A few don't have the power to topple an entire government.

It's more than a few.

 

[Kooky]

Remember how airport security was pre 9/11 vs. post 9/11?

Remember how those measures were supposed to be temporary?
Yea, I, too, laughed at the time. Just imagine people actually believing that any increase in restrictions and surveillance would ever be a merely temporary measure!

Fortunately, no terrorism has happened since those measures were put into place.

 

[Valjean]

No. We haven't lost the war. We won. Same as Vietnam. It's the political stupids in charge giving the green light for them to come out of hiding.

How, exactly, did we win, unless our victory lay in war profits for the military-industrial complex?

Any attacks on American soil since 9/11?

That's your metric? Without our military adventurism and economic exploitation there would have been no 9/11.
The best strategy is not to pi** anyone off.

They know what will happen to them if they ever try that again.

So the threat of terrorism and reprisal should be our foreign policy? Make people fear us?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I doubt a 'few' is accurate.

A few don't have the power to topple an entire government.

It's more than a few.

you’re right

 

[Friend of Mara]

Were we the good guys?

America has arguably never been the "good guy" in the sense that we ever fought a war out of moral reasoning. Every military action taken in the last 80 years has been almost purely to further American business interests. This can be either directly or indirectly. The only war in our history that we could claim to be the good guys would be WWII but even then our motivations were dubious at best.

 

[Valjean]

America has arguably never been the "good guy" in the sense that we ever fought a war out of moral reasoning. Every military action taken in the last 80 years has been almost purely to further American business interests. This can be either directly or indirectly. The only war in our history that we could claim to be the good guys would be WWII but even then our motivations were dubious at best.

Good points. We're not so altruistic as we claim to be. We usually put political or economic self interest above anything else.

William Blum, in Rogue State, breaks down American foreign policy into three imperatives:

1. "The care and feeding of American corporations: making the world open and hospitable for Neo-liberal globalization; enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors who have contributed generously to members of Congress and residents of the White House.
2. preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model.
3. expanding the empire: establishing political, economic and military hegemony over as much of the globe as possible to facilitate the first two imperatives, and to prevent the ascendancy of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy."

Pay particular attention to #2.
Conservatives are fond of pointing out that "socialist" movements and societies never work. They neglect to point out that the US has been actively undermining liberal, democratically elected governments for well over a century, particularly in South and Central America. We overthrow democracies and support authoritarian puppets, who will play ball with American interests and make sure resources are not overly redistributed to the people.

 

[oldbadger]

No. We haven't lost the war. We won. Same as Vietnam.

Really? So why were Vietnam veterans treated so casually on and after their return?
All countries that sent forces to Vietnam or Afghanistan should treat their soldiers with great respect.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Good points. We're not so altruistic as we claim to be. We usually put political or economic self interest above anything else.

William Blum, in Rogue State, breaks down American foreign policy into three imperatives:

1. "The care and feeding of American corporations: making the world open and hospitable for Neo-liberal globalization; enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors who have contributed generously to members of Congress and residents of the White House.
2. preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model.
3. expanding the empire: establishing political, economic and military hegemony over as much of the globe as possible to facilitate the first two imperatives, and to prevent the ascendancy of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy."

Pay particular attention to #2.
Conservatives are fond of pointing out that "socialist" movements and societies never work. They neglect to point out that the US has been actively undermining liberal, democratically elected governments for well over a century, particularly in South and Central America. We overthrow democracies and support authoritarian puppets, who will play ball with American interests and make sure resources are not overly redistributed to the people.

Henry A. Wallace who was the vice president to FDR his first three terms was a pretty avid social democrat by todays standards. He was the mastermind behind much of the "New Deal" and was literally replaced via subterfuge to put in Truman because the capitalists of the day feared his growing influence. Wallace's strategy when dealing with the problem of communism was basically 'lets do what you say capitalism should...compete'. He said that if capitalism was in fact the superior system then it would win out over the communist system. But after his removal we spent the next three decades attempting to squash every attempt at communism on 4 different continents using military might. Its not an exaggeration to say that the nukes dropped on Japan was merely a posturing power move against the soviets. In fact if the soviets hadn't gained nuclear technology when they did its very possible the US would have just started nuking places like Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba.

I mean we've interfered militarily in South America over 40 times. I mean a SA CIA coup is basically an overused troupe at this point.

Edit: Just to look up the numbers to make sure I was right we have a staggering 81 instances of either covertly or overtly influencing political outcomes in foreign nations in just the timeframe from WWII to 2016. Thats at least one every 10 months on average.

 

[Valjean]

Really? So why were Vietnam veterans treated so casually on and after their return?
All countries that sent forces to Vietnam or Afghanistan should treat their soldiers with great respect.

Why? They did evil. They killed perfect strangers. They broke things and destroyed lives. They abdicated personal morality and responsibility for their actions, to blindly follow orders.

How is this respectable? If someone did any of this in your own town he'd be labeled a mad dog, but, apparently, the ideas of right and wrong we're raised with only apply to our own tribe, and change at national borders. Apparently one's captain can take one's sins upon himself, and absolve you.

It always struck me as odd that both sides of a conflict had God on their side, and were doing what was right and honorable.

A soldier from X country shoots a soldier from Y country, and his action is right and proper. Another soldier from Y shoots someone from X, and his action is right and proper, too. Whoever shot whom, all sides agree it was the proper, honorable thing to do -- and God smiled upon them. The only wrong, immoral thing to do would be for someone -- it matters not who -- not to shoot someone else. Such a person would be considered dishonorable by both sides, and, apparently, detested of God.

 

[oldbadger]

Why? They did evil. They killed perfect strangers. They broke things and destroyed lives. They abdicated personal morality and responsibility for their actions, to blindly follow orders.

How is this respectable? If someone did any of this in your own town he'd be labeled a mad dog, but, apparently, the ideas of right and wrong we're raised with only apply to our own tribe, and change at national borders. Apparently one's captain can take one's sins upon himself, and absolve you.

It always struck me as odd that both sides of a conflict had God on their side, and were doing what was right and honorable.

A soldier from X country shoots a soldier from Y country, and his action is right and proper. Another soldier from Y shoots someone from X, and his action is right and proper, too. Whoever shot whom, all sides agree it was the proper, honorable thing to do -- and God smiled upon them. The only wrong, immoral thing to do would be for someone -- it matters not who -- not to shoot someone else. Such a person would be considered dishonorable by both sides, and, apparently, detested of God.

Oh no, Valjean. I just can't agree...... Soldiers have to follow orders, and the majority if not all our soldiers served as intended and required.
Where a soldier murders or destroys lives then they should be convicted and punished.
Where I live we do not follow God, we follow the government that our majority voted for.

 

[Stevicus]

So you mean America lost the "Battle"
However the "War" is not going America's way either.

In this case, it seems we won the military objectives, but lost on the political objectives. One thing I've noticed is that none of our enemies in the Middle East have dazzled us with their military prowess. The Iraqi army under Saddam folded up and surrendered pretty quickly, both in 1991 and 2003. The Taliban also folded up pretty fast and went into hiding when the US showed up in 2002.

In a battle, if your enemy runs away and hides in caves, it's a likely indication that they are much weaker and on the losing side.

One thing that war hawks sometimes bring up in such discussions is that, in most military engagements since WW2, America hasn't even tried to win a war. It's not that we're physically incapable of winning; the problem is that the political leaders tie the hands of the military and don't let them win. That was the complaint regarding Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq - and now Afghanistan. Even after WW2, Patton wanted to attack the Red Army, but the government was afraid to and ended up removing Patton from his post. Same thing happened to MacArthur in Korea.

In contrast, liberals have tended to oppose the hawkish ultra-militarism of the right, although the militarists believe that they're bleeding hearts who weaken America's overall position by advocating softer policies.

But then who is actually the enemy?

Officially, there really is no "enemy." In order for there to be an enemy, there has to be a war - but not a covert or underground war. It would have to be an officially declared war by act of Congress. The Cold War era produced a political culture of secrecy, proxy wars, and other intrigue, so much so that they've forgotten how to do things according to Hoyle.

However, in practice, the US government apparently deems anyone an "enemy" if they don't play ball with US business interests. The usual pretexts of "freedom" and "democracy" are obviously bogus - and most everyone can see through it nowadays (as opposed to the 1950s when the world was far more naive and idealistic about such things). That might also explain why the US military tends to fight more like businessmen (aka "mafia thugs") as opposed to military generals who believe in total war (such as Sherman, Patton, MacArthur).

Is it Islam or just some Islamic countries?

No, it's obviously not Islam, since we have alliances with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and other Muslim-majority countries. We also interceded on behalf of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia and against Christian Serbians. If anyone believes that America is anti-Islamic, then they must be on glue. That's not to say there aren't Americans who would like us to consider all Islamic countries to be an enemy, but they're a minority. Even Trump never went that far.

Is it China Or Russia.?

China and Russia have greater military capabilities than anything we've seen coming from the Muslim world. I don't believe them to be enemies of America, and in fact, we were allies with both of those countries during WW2. We had the basis for a cooperative and friendly relationship with them, but because of the arrogant and egotistical mafiosi in America's ruling class, that didn't happen.

I think the most sensible solution to deal with China and Russia is to share the hegemony. We don't need to control everything. I've seen some ideas about setting up a regional power system, where the major powers in a given region would keep the small fry and the rogue nations in line, while the major powers pledge cooperation and adherence to international law. This could lead to a more stable world, at least inasmuch as there would be fewer "wild cards" like NK or Iran or the Taliban.

Why does America have so many enemies?

That is a puzzler. America has done some pretty horrible things in its history, especially during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. But I would note that, back in those times, China and Russia were not our enemies. Iran, Afghanistan, and Korea (North or South) were not our enemies. We did have a tiff with those Barbary pirates early on, but overall, neither the Middle East nor Islam were considered any real issue at all, let alone "enemies." There was no ISIS or Al Qaeda, and in any case, no one in that part of the world had any cause to go to war with America.

A major turning point happened around World War 2 and the onset of the Cold War. That's when we started moving into areas of the world where we had never been before and had little experience with. Our problems in Korea are the result of decisions made at Yalta and Potsdam, by men who had never even been to Korea or knew that much about it. The problems in Vietnam started with the French, but then the Japanese complicated things, and by the time we got there, it was already quite a mess.

In the Middle East and Africa, all the countries we got involved in had European footprints all over them. With the European colonial empires falling apart, the US feared a power vacuum in some countries which could lead to a communist takeover, and that was the main impetus which has driven US foreign policy ever since.

Ultimately, I would suggest that it was the obsessive fear of communism which caused the US to become far more aggressively interventionist and hegemonic in its approach to geopolitics. Not surprisingly, the people living in the countries where we exerted such hegemony have not responded positively, and as a result, they consider America to be their enemy.

Does it need to be at war with the world to justify itself?

It depends on who you ask. Conservatives and American patriots might argue that it's not really America's fault for what happens in the world, even as we're called upon to do something about whatever crises there might be in the world. I would attribute this to a certain sense of national regret over our previous isolationist ways. It is commonly believed that if we had been better prepared militarily and gotten involved in World War 2 sooner, we could have ended it sooner and saved more lives overall.

Trouble is, we went too far in the other direction. Instead of staying in the background, detached and neutral, we suddenly decided we had to get involved in everything all over the world. They would see it as fighting smaller wars in order to prevent a much bigger war, which came with much higher stakes in the nuclear world.

In a world where we have the collective firepower to wipe out all life on the planet in less than 30 minutes, it seems to create some kind of "mentality" which I don't know how to describe. I don't know if there's an actual name for it, but it's affected us for generations.

Trump's take was was America First and everyone else nowhere.

I'm not sure if Trump was sincere in that, although the "America First" idea does chime with a lot of Americans, particularly those Americans at the lower end of the scale who think they might get a better deal. A lot of Americans on the right think that our government is "too nice" to the rest of the world, while thinking very little about the plight of working class Americans. Part of that is rooted in patriotic and decidedly pro-American and quasi-xenophobic perceptions and propaganda put forth by politicians and media all through the Cold War and has continued to the present. Our government portrayed America as the "good guys," but some might actually believe that and think that it's impractical, as if we're being "too good" for our own good.

Biden must have some sort of List. based on his own prejudices. but seems little better.

It's hard to say what Biden has at this point. I think America has to seriously rethink its entire foreign policy and overall strategy. We don't have to become isolationist or turn it into "Fortress America," but we could certainly tone down much of the puffed up patriotism, nationalism, and xenophobia. We should stop deluding ourselves with this notion that we are the "good guys," like some kind of comic book superheroes. We are a country, just like any other country, and it's natural that we would seek to protect our nation and advocate for our own national interests. But there are certain lines we should not cross.

 

[Valjean]

oldbadger said: ↑
Oh no, Valjean. I just can't agree...... Soldiers have to follow orders, and the majority if not all our soldiers served as intended and required.
Where a soldier murders or destroys lives then they should be convicted and punished.
Where I live we do not follow God, we follow the government that our majority voted for.

Soldiers do not have to follow orders. What claim of authority does the state have?
Soldiers are morally obligated to do the right thing. Freedom of conscience trumps military regulations.
Noöne has the right to command another to do evil. We are not tools of The State, or in any way obligated to it. The state does not own us.

and the majority if not all our soldiers served as intended and required.

"Served?" Whom did they serve? -- certainly not The People. The military usually serves the interests of the Military-Industrial complex. They're corporate muscle, and they're actions usually harm The People.

Where a soldier murders or destroys lives then they should be convicted and punished.

A soldier's primary raison d'être is to kill and destroy, and they're almost never prosecuted.

Morality does not change with borders. If, at home, I toss a bomb into a block of flats, or detonate a truck-bomb in front of a Federal building, I'd be prosecuted. If I dropped a planeful of bombs over an entire, 'enemy' city, killing thousands of innocents, I'd be honored. I don't see a difference.

Where I live we do not follow God, we follow the government that our majority voted for.

Government is a mercurial, human contrivance. Laws are suggestions. One has a duty to disobey unjust laws. Conscience trumps law.
Remember the poster from the sixties: "What if the.y gave a war, and noöne came?"

Everyone has the right of freedom of conscience, and being born in a certain location does not obligate you to support or follow orders from whatever gang claims that turf at the time.[/quote]
oldbadger said: ↑
Oh no, Valjean. I just can't agree...... Soldiers have to follow orders, and the majority if not all our soldiers served as intended and required.
Where a soldier murders or destroys lives then they should be convicted and punished.
Where I live we do not follow God, we follow the government that our majority voted for.

 

[oldbadger]

Soldiers do not have to follow orders. What claim of authority does the state have?
Soldiers are morally obligated to do the right thing. Freedom of conscience trumps military regulations.
Noöne has the right to command another to do evil. We are not tools of The State, or in any way obligated to it. The state does not own us.
"Served?" Whom did they serve? -- certainly not The People. The military usually serves the interests of the Military-Industrial complex. They're corporate muscle, and they're actions usually harm The People.
A soldier's primary raison d'être is to kill and destroy, and they're almost never prosecuted.

Morality does not change with borders. If, at home, I toss a bomb into a block of flats, or detonate a truck-bomb in front of a Federal building, I'd be prosecuted. If I dropped a planeful of bombs over an entire, 'enemy' city, killing thousands of innocents, I'd be honored. I don't see a difference.
Government is a mercurial, human contrivance. Laws are suggestions. One has a duty to disobey unjust laws. Conscience trumps law.
Remember the poster from the sixties: "What if the.y gave a war, and noöne came?"

Everyone has the right of freedom of conscience, and being born in a certain location does not obligate you to support or follow orders from whatever gang claims that turf at the time..

I acknowledge your opinions and beliefs, Valjean, I do....... but if your opinions ruled there could not be any Navies, Armies, Air Forces, or even Police Forces.

Are you an Anarchist?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you address the mindset that they will force the world to become Muslim or die?

Have a strong national defense.
This is better than attacking potential enemies, particularly when there's no will to utterly crush them.
To leave them alive, & with abandoned weapons is to enhance rather than mitigate the problem.

 

[Kooky]

How do you address the mindset that they will force the world to become Muslim or die?

People manage to cope with Christian evangelical zealots and White supremacists in the US, right?

So how do you do it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really? So why were Vietnam veterans treated so casually on and after their return?
All countries that sent forces to Vietnam or Afghanistan should treat their soldiers with great respect.

Yes they should have.

At least we are doing that now.

 

[Kooky]

Yes they should have.

At least we are doing that now.

Sacrificing people to armed conflicts and then ignoring their obvious psychological and physical scars when they do come back, and replacing any concern for them as human beings with veneration as living symbols of armed glory isn't "respect" in my book, it's a deranged form of worship for an imperialist war cult.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sacrificing people to armed conflicts and then ignoring their obvious psychological and physical scars when they do come back, and replacing any concern for them as human beings with veneration as living symbols of armed glory isn't "respect" in my book, it's a deranged form of worship for an imperialist war cult.

Really?

Then all those vets with the plates , vfw membership, and flags are obviously deranged.

Let me know when you start to see things more realistically here.

There are many fine programs for those suffering from shell shock and disability.

VFW free health services for life.

Wounded Warriors, a stellar organization taking care of our disabled vets with dignity and respect.