What If Your Country Becomes Islamic

[Woodrow LI]

I wouldn't classify all wars as the same. Perhaps we're looking at it differently. I can agree that if there were no war or threat thereof, we'd all be better off. But I speak from the perspective of a country which faces & has faced threats. The threats were/are real, & cannot be simply wished away. This leaves 2 choices: to defend oneself, or to capitulate to all aggressors. I believe in self defense. For those who disagree, I don't want to change this view, but I explain why I disagree.

Unfortunately every aggressor believes he is acting in defense. No nation has ever won a war, some have simply managed to not lose it. There are no winners in a war, future History Books arbitrarily pick a winner.

Having somehow managing to survive combat, I have come to the conclusion war is not a healthy past time. Sadly I can not think of an effective, workable, alternate method of stopping an aggressor.

 

[Bunyip]

You're arguing a straw man by citing the very atrocities I've listed today (before you did). I favor self defense, & being armed to serve that singular purpose. Again, you're arguing against a position I do not accept.

I favour total disarmament. Use politics, not explosives to prosecute your will. The World War ended 70 years ago - send the boys home.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is getting into a different area entirely. I favor being well armed for self defense....& only self defense. I very actively oppose nation building, foreign adventurism, & all the other evil deeds Americastan engages in. It's why I vote against war mongers like Obama, McCain, etc, etc.

What is it that you call "nation building" again? Weapons are completely useless for actual nation building, which the USA hardly ever attempts anyway. In that respect the UK is leaps and bounds better than the USA ever attempted to be.

It is not at all possible to build a nation without becoming a part of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I favour having barely any military force whatsoever in peacetime.
Thanks for the discussion on this, I know we have different views - great to be able to discuss them without angst.

I think those days are over, unless a country depends upon protection from a more powerful one. The lead time to develop competitive weapons has grown from years (early 1900s) to decades because of necessary complexity. Were the US disarmed, & a conflict flared up, the war would be over long before even a prototype fighter, missile, bomb or beam weapon could be designed.

 

[Bunyip]

What Australians (some) often do not see is that Europe united under Hitler would be a lot worse than Europe united as it is now.

They do not see that, because it is not knowable. Hitler would be dead by now anyway. Modern Germany is a very progressive and advanced nation. Great welfare and healthcare, strong economy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I favour total disarmament. Use politics, not explosives to prosecute your will. The World War ended 70 years ago - send the boys home.

Total disarmament sounds fine to me. The problem is getting everyone to go along. If even one enemy doesn't, that wrecks the whole approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

They do not see that, because it is not knowable. Hitler would be dead by now anyway. Modern Germany is a very progressive and advanced nation. Great welfare and healthcare, strong economy.

I say that modern Germany would be a very different place if Hitler were given free rein by the allies. He wouldn't have committed suicide. He would've affected the culture for the worse, & he would've prepared for succession. Germany today is what it is because of Hitler's defeat.

 

[Bunyip]

I think those days are over, unless a country depends upon protection from a more powerful one. The lead time to develop competitive weapons has grown from years (early 1900s) to decades because of necessary complexity. Were the US disarmed, & a conflict flared up, the war would be over long before even a prototype fighter, missile, bomb or beam weapon could be designed.

I guess it is just a matter of perspective. To Americans, having superior firepower is a good thing. To everyone else America having superior firepower to all other countries is less impressive.

I'm sure that being the toughest dude in school feels good if you are that dude - but do you really think that the other kids wouldn't prefer it if you were more their size?

 

[Bunyip]

I say that modern Germany would be a very different place if Hitler were given free rein by the allies. He wouldn't have committed suicide. He would've affected the culture for the worse, & he would've prepared for succession. Germany today is what it is because of Hitler's defeat.

It is an interesting field for idle speculation, but we have no crystal ball.
Hitler was increasingly unhinged and unstable towards the end of the war, his leadership would never have survived more than a few months more.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is it that you call "nation building" again? Weapons are completely useless for actual nation building, which the USA hardly ever attempts anyway. In that respect the UK is leaps and bounds better than the USA ever attempted to be.
It is not at all possible to build a nation without becoming a part of it.

I use "Nation building" in the political foreign policy sense, ie, a term which refers to intervening in a country's affairs, eg, the 1953 Iranian coup, making Iraq stable, toppling the Talliban in Afghanistan. As practiced by the US, "nation building" is oxymoronic.....as well as moronic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it is just a matter of perspective. To Americans, having superior firepower is a good thing. To everyone else America having superior firepower to all other countries is less impressive.
I'm sure that being the toughest dude in school feels good if you are that dude - but do you really think that the other kids wouldn't prefer it if you were more their size?

The little dogs fear the top dog. But that doesn't make the top dog "wrong". To be a toy poodle is just Australiastan's lot in life. But there are other big dogs out there, & they might attack. Have I stretched this analogy enuf yet?
Once again though, you're arguing against someone else. I don't want our foreign policy of hegemony. I simply favor self defense.

 

[Bunyip]

Total disarmament sounds fine to me. The problem is getting everyone to go along. If even one enemy doesn't, that wrecks the whole approach.

Sure, but it is a start. Start by disarming the biggest.

 

[Bunyip]

The little dogs fear the top dog. But that doesn't make the top dog "wrong". There are other big dogs out there. Have I stretched this analogy enuf yet?
Once again though, you're arguing against someone else. I don't want our foreign policy of hegemony. I simply favor self defense.

The little dogs fear the top dog. But that doesn't make the top dog "wrong". There are other big dogs out there. Have I stretched this analogy enuf yet?
Once again though, you're arguing against someone else. I don't want our foreign policy of hegemony. I simply favor self defense.

I'm not arguing with you at all - just expressing my opinion. I apologise if I have misread you - you want a large defence force for self defence only correct? I think that you do not need one.

In Australia the big dog would get torn to shredsby all of the little dogs. It is a cultural phenomenon called the 'tall poppy syndrome'.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately every aggressor believes he is acting in defense. No nation has ever won a war, some have simply managed to not lose it. There are no winners in a war, future History Books arbitrarily pick a winner.
Having somehow managing to survive combat, I have come to the conclusion war is not a healthy past time. Sadly I can not think of an effective, workable, alternate method of stopping an aggressor.

You can find much irony in each side thinking it's right. If this leads you to the practice of non-violence in the face of assault, then that's OK with me. But I prefer self defense to surrender.
Even if there are no winners, I prefer to be the non-loser.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not arguing with you at all - just expressing my opinion. I apologise if I have misread you - you want a large defence force for self defence only correct? I think that you do not need one.

Perhaps I made an incorrect inference by missing the change in subject matter.
(I'm rather slow & clueless.)
As for the size of a military needed for self defense.....that's a complicated topic. It would certainly be smaller than & different from what we have now.

In Australia the big dog would get torn to shredsby all of the little dogs. It is a cultural phenomenon called the 'tall poppy syndrome'.

It's why big dogs (US, GB) found allies in little dogs (Oz, CA).

 

[Bunyip]

You can find much irony in each side thinking it's right. If this leads you to the practice of non-violence in the face of assault, then that's OK with me. But I prefer self defense to surrender.
Even if there are no winners, I prefer to be the non-loser.

Defence against whom? Who are you guys scared of?

Europe is no threat to you, neither is China, Sth America - who are you guys so afraid of?
Ķ

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps I made an incorrect inference by missing the change in subject matter.
(I'm rather slow & clueless.)
As for the size of a military needed for self defense.....that's a complicated topic. It would certainly be smaller than & different from what we have now.

It's why big dogs (US, GB) found allies in little dogs (Oz, CA).

Yes, and being allies of the big dog turns out to be bad idea. Just ask the Timorese.

 

[Revoltingest]

Defence against whom? Who are you guys scared of?
Europe is no threat to you, neither is China, Sth America - who are you guys so afraid of?
Ķ

China, Russia, & terrorists loom as potential threats.
I watch development projects of the first two, & believe that we should exceed parity in capability. Of course, it pays handsomely to avoid conflict in the first place.....but s*** happens.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and being allies of the big dog turns out to be bad idea. Just ask the Timorese.

And had Japan won in the Pacific theater, just imagine how Oz would'a fared. As well as Manchuria & Nanjing, perhaps?

 

[Bunyip]

And had Japan won in the Pacific theater, just imagine how Oz would'a fared. As well as Manchuria & Nanjing, perhaps?

Who knows?