Obama: War President?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by funkerdoink, Aug 14, 2008.

  1. [​IMG]

    Obama has said he will do anything in defense of Israel.
  2. And also he has said he will do anything in defense of the U.S. I guess all we have to worry about is a U.S. v. Israel situation...?
  3. When he said this about Israel, this is when there were heated words between Israel and Iran, I would not be suprised if we went to war with Iran under Obamas watch as president.
  4. Or (as you obviously missed the point) Israel vs any other country (which happens to be a pretty common occurrence )
  5. The funny thing is you blame the U.S. for what is actually the result of the U.N. The U.S. would violate international law if it just invaded countries unilaterally (e.g. Israel), and trampling on international law both sells (as conspiracy theory and "hysterinoia") and creates chaos by setting a precedent of violating international law.

    I would be, but you never know. :)
  6. Seriously? You think Obama is going to be the first president since George Washington to not engage the United States in military conflict? Here's to hope. :wave:

    War is what America does. It's called jingoism and it's why we win... better learn the dance.

  7. Well, the US do not always win. But besides that, you are entirely correct. When it comes right down to it, the greatest moment in US war history (besides the civil one), was the just war against Japan in the PTO during WW2. And their contribution to the ETO in the same war. But even then, the US was fighting nations smaller than themselves in any respect, and most importantly, in industrial capacity.

    Industry makes weapons remember. And unless one go nuclear, industrial might is not to be underestimated. As the war against Japan proved rather graphically.

    Which is why right now the US is unfortunately at a disadvantage. The industry have by and large been exported. Outsourced. Not a great position national-security wize. But it do fill the pockets of the global corporations. Just a shame that such corporations don't really give a rats ass about nation states, just profit.

    The chinese on the other hand, have long since surpassed the US in industrial output... Time to raise some toll-barriers again perhaps? It might piss off the chinese and global corporations, but I am sure american industrial workers, engineers, IT professionals and just about anyone not working in the service industry will love it.

  8. Yea, even though the civil war was the bloodiest war in our history, and the rest of the Western world ridded slavery through peaceful means, and even though the government would have saved money by buying off all the slaves from the south, it was definitely just.

    I mean, I don't know anybody that died so what's it to me? We are a free country now!
  9. you obviously forgot about this great moment of victory!

  10. The only war we ever lost was the war agianst ourselves, the civil war. Other than that we lost one conflict, the vietnam conflict, the US congress never actually declared war.
  11. Oh but we didn't win Iraq. Didn't you listen to Harry Reid when he said the Iraq war is "lost".

    Harry Reid knows all!


  12. From my understanding the civil war was not fought over slavery, but Abraham Lincoln used it as a way to piss off the south.

    Am I wrong here?
  13. #14 Perpetual Burn, Aug 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2008
    Show me a Country the US has invaded that doesn't have a Coca-Cola billboard. ;)

    Got any in Norway? They don't have to use guns.

    If by "great" regarding the Civil War you mean depressingly shameful, sure. :p

    Industry mostly counts before a war starts. You need to be well-equipped before a war starts. With that in mind, remember the US accounts for 46% of the entire planet's military spending. Once war has begun, especially if you're fighting against the United States, most of your industrial might will quickly be turned into rubble. The United States is the only nation that could really fathom having functional industry while fighting an all-out war because it would be nearly impossible to mount an effective attack on US soil because...

    What's much more important than industry is geography. 760 foreign military bases in 135 countries. They've got China surrounded... they've got the whole world surrounded, they're everywhere. The fact that they've outsourced production is kind of irrelevant considering they can deploy forces anywhere in the world in a matter of hours.

    I wouldn't say he did it to "piss off" the South... but rather to cripple them financially, indebt, and prevent future rebellions. Which, of course, had the very predictable result of pissing them off. :p
  14. That just proves that your multi-national companies (and capitalist culture) are better at public relations than your military. Not a surprise as such, goverments usually suck at PR, unless they dabble in propaganda. Which they can get really good at given enough totalitarianism :)

    As for the rest of your post, yes, the US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. We know that. Not the point. The point is that the major powers of the world can easily counter that hegemony by simply cutting off the US credit line.

    If you haven't noticed, the US is running at a deficit that results in a current national debt that is higher than the rest of the worlds debtors combined. If the US start annoying some of those that give the US credit, the US cannot, overnight, afford its military. And those bases, they are in foreign countries with precarious supply lines and a whole lot of local forces surrounding them.

    The US hegemony as per today exist on goodwill, that is a very fleeting commodity.

    Ofcourse, nobody have designs on the US mainland. But then again, a lot of nations have designs on where the US have extended their influence. Indeed, their empire.

    And the basic fact is, the US do not have the resources to keep that empire.

    "It is the economy stupid!" as Clinton had on a plaque in the oval-office. Bush basically ruined your economy. From a record profit and in 8 years to a record deficit. Way to go! Shit. I don't like that, and neither should any of you americans.
  15. You really think the South would have let that happen? Just throw some money in their face and say "pleasure doing business with ya"? Not a chance in hell... the Civil War was basically unavoidable. It turned from an issue of slavery to an issue of states' rights before the first shots were ever fired.
  16. One of the main reasons I'm voting for Obama. Look up P.A.Y.G.O.
  17. Slavery, a practice that has been around for thousands of years, ended peacefully in every other Western nation within a relatively short period of time. The movement was clearly growing, and at an accelerating rate.

    Your point about states rights proves my point. Slaves were only political pawns in the largest power grab in American political history. And was the civil war a success for the slaves? Short term, yea, slaves were freed. But into a society that carried the guilt and anger of the war, leading to persecution for another 100+ years.

    If the Cold War had resulted in nuclear attacks, and ended 10 or 20 years earlier at the expense of 4 million people, would you call that an unavoidable success? We waited it out, and due to lack of international support, the system collapsed.

    Slavery was going to end, the government could have bought off as many slaves as possible to speed it up, and other pressures could have been used. Many historians have built their life's work around praising the civil war and Lincoln, it must be hard to think of alternatives.

    How long do you really think slavery would have lasted if we didn't all kill each other for Washington?
  18. No, but I wouldn't call the Civil War a "success" either. I guess you could say it was a success in the sense that the U.S. didn't permanently separate into two nations, but nothing beyond that. Doesn't have anything to do with it being an unavoidable situation.
    But see, there was nothing to "wait out". It all started because the South seceded. They were formally declaring their independence from the rest of the country... which was a direct response to Lincoln being elected.

    It's not like the North came and tried to take their slaves away at the barrel of a gun. The South reacted before that could ever happen. It wasn't even a sure thing that Lincoln was going to make slavery illegal. In fact, he claimed that he would have done whatever it took to keep the Union together... and he did.

  19. I believe secession is healthy, and we were wrong to kill all those people to avoid it. It was an unjust war. It created the monster.

Share This Page