View Full Version : Corrected Poll: World's Police Officer?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2005, 02:05
Redux thread, hopefully with poll attached in time.
Seamus
Got it in. Have at it gents and ladies -- or however you classify yourself.
If you want to beat the 5 minute poll timer, use cut and paste. ~:)
edit: n/m, you beat the timer :P
When you say "continue the war on terror", do you mean to invade more countries?
Strike For The South
10-12-2005, 02:27
I voted the America is doing fine option although I do not wish to step the war up a I believe a few changes should be made. I believe America has a responsibility to be somewhat of a Wrold police officer. The UN is nothing without us and cannot project any real power. Islamic terrorism will not stop until America is dead or a shadow of its former self. Contra to what some would like you to think these men do hate America but not because of democracy but because we have the power and they want it plain and simple. They can use because or israel or democracy as a cover but those men are power hungry and we missent give into them. Saying that was easy going about it is the hard part.Was Iraq right? Should we be helping in Sudan? Should we send our boys to die for something that might unravel as soon as we leave? What should Americas priority be priority us or the weak. America has a responsibility to itself and the rest of the riled to root out evil and yes that means I believe we are the good guys. Does that mean we do everything right? No. But If Americas power was in Egypt the riled would be a very different place. Unfortunately we can not be everywhere at once and the UN has no spine so we must pick carefully what we are willing to risk American blood, safety and money on.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2005, 02:47
When you say "continue the war on terror", do you mean to invade more countries?
As and if necessary, yes. As stated in Bush's original speech declaring US intent, this should occur only if the state in question is supporting/assisting efforts at extra-national terrorism, but cannot be brought to cease and desist (e.g. Libya).
Seamus
Kekvit Irae
10-12-2005, 03:23
I chose the third option. We may have one of the most (if not THE most) advanced militaries in the world, but that doesnt mean we should snub (taking credit for) our allies from pitching in.
I definately think the war of terror should continue. This is 1850 anymore, isolationism is not the way to go. We also need to include our allies more effectively though. I mean, who likes to have no friends?
Franconicus
10-12-2005, 06:56
The US should finally start fighting terror.
Adrian II
10-12-2005, 09:14
The US should finally start fighting terror.Well put. :bow:
Sjakihata
10-12-2005, 10:38
The US should finally start fighting terror.
exactly, within the framework of the UN of course.
The US isn't fighting terror. Terrorist attacks haven't diminished at all - in fact they have increased. There hence must be some other explanation for what US policies are trying to acheive or an admission that the war on terror is a failiure.
Al Khalifah
10-12-2005, 13:49
The US isn't fighting terror. Terrorist attacks haven't diminished at all - in fact they have increased. There hence must be some other explanation for what US policies are trying to acheive or an admission that the war on terror is a failiure.
That's not entirely fair. It is perfectly concievable that the US can be fighting terrorism and the terrorist attacks would still be increasing. Arguably there could have been even more terrorist attacks if the US wasn't fighting its war on terror.
Their efforts can be considered insufficient but you cannot say for certain that they are ineffective or even counter-productive.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2005, 14:16
Al K:
Idaho and I disagree on some fundamental points, but, to be fair to Ida, support for the USA does increase your likelihood of being targeted. The transpo systems of London and Madrid testify to this. It is unlikely that either would have been targeted if Spain and the UK had refused to support US efforts in the Middle East.
As to the general theme of increasing terror strikes, I tend to view that as an inevitable consequence of success. For years to come, terrorist groups and home-spun fellow travellers will increase attacks in an effort to counter their slow -- and I believe inexorable -- defeat. To expect them to strike back less frequently is naive, they are not the RTW vanilla AI.
Seamus
Tribesman
10-12-2005, 19:32
It is unlikely that either would have been targeted if Spain and the UK had refused to support US efforts in the Middle East.
Why ?
BTW have you heard Blair ? the London bombings had nothing whatsoever to do with Britains support for the US . ~;)
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2005, 20:12
It is unlikely that either would have been targeted if Spain and the UK had refused to support US efforts in the Middle East.
Why ?
BTW have you heard Blair ? the London bombings had nothing whatsoever to do with Britains support for the US . ~;)
Salt: THE vital commodity when consuming political briefings.
As to why:
The Spanish attack was clearly timed and executed to further the anti-coalition agenda. It worked to a tee, with the new Spanish government withdrawing forces as quickly as could be managed while saving face. Else-wise, whay target Spain in preference to more staunch ally Britain or equal security defense Italy, or even easier targets like Bali or some cruise boat in the Carib.
Britain's attack now appears to have been home-grown, but I think you would be hard-pressed to claim that there was no link in motivation between British support for the USA in Iraq and the bombings. The UK is keeping all of the real info under wraps( understandably), at least for now, as criminal and intelligence efforts move forward. But despite Blair's protestations, when I hear hoofbeats my first thought is horses, not zebras.
Seamus
Tribesman
10-12-2005, 20:33
Salt: THE vital commodity when consuming political briefings.
Yes by the sackfull .
The Spanish attack was clearly timed and executed to further the anti-coalition agenda.
Yes , but they were there and active before the Iraq invasion , there are more issue at hand than just Iraq .
Britain's attack now appears to have been home-grown, but I think you would be hard-pressed to claim that there was no link in motivation between British support for the USA in Iraq and the bombings.
Hey I am not the one who states there is no link , that is Blair , who I consider to be just as much a muppet as your President (or my Taoiseach for that matter) . And as above there are other issues at hand and they were also there and active before the invasion , in fact if I recall correctly one of them was active in Afghanistan , Kashmir , Lebanon and Yugolslavia before the London atrocities , that goes back years before the invasion .
Kääpäkorven Konsuli
10-12-2005, 20:34
1st option. I think World would be much better place without "world's police"
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2005, 20:48
Tribe:
Don't worry, I will NEVER assume you and Blair are eye-to-eye on an issue unless you first confirm it.~:) I can't speak to your Tay-sock's stance, the affairs of the Dail are, shall we say, under-reported to the point of non-existence, in my local media.
Certainly, there are more issues involved than Iraq, that is merely the current prime focus of the war on terror (even if you are among those who believe it was not prior to the US invasion, it has become so). Britain has been involved since Afghanistan, and Spain was involved in some of those places as well, but none of the earlier efforts seems to have become anywhere near the cause celebre as Iraq.
Seamus
P.S.
I am likely to take the results of this poll and develop two new threads expanding on the positions in question. I find the international scope of this forum -- including a batch of folks who are into strategy/history more so than the average -- to be a good source of insight.
AggonyKing
10-12-2005, 20:54
The US should finally start fighting terror.*waits for Florida to be invaded*
Tribesman
10-12-2005, 20:58
but none of the earlier efforts seems to have become anywhere near the cause celebre as Iraq.
Yep , unfortunately the invasion has been a real propoganda and recruiting boost for the fundamentalist nutters , and , according to your governments military and intelligence , a perfect training ground for them to practice and perfect their rather nasty little habits .
I believe "increased sophistication and co-ordination of attacks applied with better intelligence" was one of the more recent opinions given to the Senate on the insurgents activities .:help:
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2005, 21:33
The USA should militarize and consolidate the globe under its benign rule.
Hmm.. this is closest to what I would like to see happen, but the military would be a last resort to get rogue nations under the US's control. Its very expensive and costly in other ways to invade and occupy of course.
It would be most beneficial to the US and to the rest of the world(although they dont like to admit it ;)) to control the globe through economic and other less interferring ways. Modern nations such as those in Europe would be almost entirely independent unless they got out of line, and third world nations would benefit greatly... the US couldnt do a worse job of dragging them into the 20th century than has already been done.
If all went well no nations but the US would feel the need to even have a strong military - like in Europe - and a Pax Americana would begin. Everyone would live happily and be able to focus on other matters besides defense as the US would ensure democracies militarily.
This will never happen of course... but im just answering what I think would be best for the US and the world. ~:cool:
Kagemusha
10-12-2005, 21:52
Sorry Panzer but do you really think US taxpayers wold be happy to pay for the protection of the rest of the world.Or should the rest of the world pay taxes to US for their security?
yesdachi
10-12-2005, 21:56
Sorry Panzer but do you really think US taxpayers wold be happy to pay for the protection of the rest of the world.Or should the rest of the world pay taxes to US for their security?
Nice banner./\
Everyone paying the US protection money sounds like the making of a great sopranos spin off.~;)
Kagemusha
10-12-2005, 22:02
Yeah Yesdachi.Thanks.Have seen the forum yet?~:) http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=92
Tribesman
10-12-2005, 22:32
Pax Americana would begin. Everyone would live happily and be able to focus on other matters besides defense as the US would ensure democracies militarily.
I though you werre generally opposed to big government , you can't get any bigger than what you put forward there .
Now would thse citizens have rights to weapons to "protect" themselves against the governmnet if they felt that their government was going the wrong way ? Or would they be second class citizens of Pax America .
Oh BTW its the 21st century you want to be dragging them into the 20th century is just soooo passe nowadays.~;)
Alexanderofmacedon
10-12-2005, 22:48
I voted the America is doing fine option
Why do you think they are doing fine? The war in Iraq has made them even more bitter, and it's killed some thousand allied soldiers while doing it...
I believe America has a responsibility to be somewhat of a Wrold police officer
That is total BS. Why do we need to but into everyone elses affairs? It's none of our friggin business...
The UN is nothing without us and cannot project any real power.
That's why many nations completely hate us. That arrogance is exactly why we're made fun of...
PanzerJaeger
10-12-2005, 23:08
Sorry Panzer but do you really think US taxpayers wold be happy to pay for the protection of the rest of the world.Or should the rest of the world pay taxes to US for their security?
That would be made up for in trade deals and such.
Now would thse citizens have rights to weapons to "protect" themselves against the governmnet if they felt that their government was going the wrong way ? Or would they be second class citizens of Pax America .
Second class citizens of course.
Oh BTW its the 21st century you want to be dragging them into the 20th century is just soooo passe nowadays.
No way.. they have to reach the 20th level of civilization to even have a shot at the 21st.
Kagemusha
10-12-2005, 23:23
Quote:
Sorry Panzer but do you really think US taxpayers wold be happy to pay for the protection of the rest of the world.Or should the rest of the world pay taxes to US for their security?
That would be made up for in trade deals and such.
So you would make world a one big colony for US? forget about it, even you guys cant pull that off.
AntiochusIII
10-12-2005, 23:24
That would be made up for in trade deals and such.Unlikely. Within the courses of history "pure" politics always take the backseat to an individual's ambition, or, more importantly, the economic concerns. It's the food on the table that pushes the masses, not the right to vote. And taxes are the closest thing the masses know about government. Trade deals for the masses are simply something very far away.
Second class citizens of course.Thus betraying the basic principles of democratic ideals...nice...
No way.. they have to reach the 20th level of civilization to even have a shot at the 21st.They are in the 21st century, Panzer. Simple as that. It's 2005 in the Common Era now across the globe. ~;)
Oh well, like it's going to happen anyway...
By the way, I voted that the US should fight terrorism within the context of UN agreement. That doesn't include invading countries because your dad failed to finish the job.
As and if necessary, yes. As stated in Bush's original speech declaring US intent, this should occur only if the state in question is supporting/assisting efforts at extra-national terrorism, but cannot be brought to cease and desist (e.g. Libya).
Seamus In that case, if the threat is real, then that's my vote.
The US isn't fighting terror. Terrorist attacks haven't diminished at all - in fact they have increased. There hence must be some other explanation for what US policies are trying to acheive or an admission that the war on terror is a failiure.
Doesnt 'fighting', by definition, imply more attacks by both sides? After Pearl Harbor, when we declared war on Japan, did their attacks decrease?
yesdachi
10-13-2005, 17:08
So you would make world a one big colony for US? forget about it, even you guys cant pull that off.
You are totally right but just for arguments sake I will interject that no one thought Germany could be a threat to the world either and the US is considerably larger with more resources. If our next president had a little tiny mustache and could speak with some charisma the world should watch out. ~;)
Kagemusha
10-13-2005, 18:13
Yesdachi.Thats my biggest fear.It would mean the end of the world,im afraid.You are right about the Germany before WWII the world just couldnt believe what the Nazis represented.Instead they lived in a falce hope.
Wise man hopes for the best and prepares for the worse.~:)
Franconicus
10-14-2005, 12:31
Hmm.. this is closest to what I would like to see happen, but the military would be a last resort to get rogue nations under the US's control. Its very expensive and costly in other ways to invade and occupy of course.
It would be most beneficial to the US and to the rest of the world(although they dont like to admit it ;)) to control the globe through economic and other less interferring ways. Modern nations such as those in Europe would be almost entirely independent unless they got out of line, and third world nations would benefit greatly... the US couldnt do a worse job of dragging them into the 20th century than has already been done.
If all went well no nations but the US would feel the need to even have a strong military - like in Europe - and a Pax Americana would begin. Everyone would live happily and be able to focus on other matters besides defense as the US would ensure democracies militarily.
This will never happen of course... but im just answering what I think would be best for the US and the world. ~:cool:
Panzer,
when I was a little boy I saw all the trouble in the world (Vietnam, Israel and so on). My idea was to conquer the world and make it a better and peaceful world. I had no doubt that I could handle that. Hey, this idiot from Austria had almost made it and I was much smarter then. Guess it was due to a DNA demage - I am German you know. A couple of months older and wiser I realized that there were two hurdles:
1) Obviously I could conquer the world. Problem was to keep it peaceful. A strong central foreign government would create lots of 'freedom' fighters. So I would be busy to kill them all the time. That did not match with my goals.
2) Nukes. Nukes are a reality. And to conquer the world I had to depopulate big parts of it.
So I realized that the whole plan just would not pay. And I started working on my scientific career.
I though you werre generally opposed to big government , you can't get any bigger than what you put forward there .
Very telling that the one point Panzer doesn't confront is the one that shows the fundamental inconsistency behind his views.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.