View Full Version : Appropriate military action by USA
Seamus Fermanagh
11-26-2005, 03:36
A second short poll, extending on another theme from the October poll.
Poll above: please feel free to extend on your answer below.
Strike For The South
11-26-2005, 03:42
Its our milatary and we can use it how we please.
Saying this if are trully commited to bringing freedom in the wrold there were probably more deserving countries than Iraq *cough* Genocide in Sudan *Cough* But I refuse to let some asians frogs and an african tell us how to run our country
Kaiser of Arabia
11-26-2005, 04:06
The USA should have free reign using its military in the WOT.
We should have free reign, but (and here's the important bit) only when military force is the appropriate tool. You don't go chasing flies with a sledgehammer. There's an international law-enforcement angle that has been severely neglected. Not to mention, follow the money, follow the money.
I'm pretty confident that we're doing everything that can be done in terms of wire intercepts, cyber-snooping, etc. I wish we were doing half so much with infiltration and suborning of members.
Kanamori
11-26-2005, 06:22
As a foreign country, I would not be very happy if another went around spying on all of my citizens, in my country, w/o speaking w/ me first. So, to me, the concept of "free reign" seems cloudy here. And w/ the NATO option it is unclear if we ought to work w/ NATO, or that we may only have "free reign" when in cooperation w/ NATO. I interpreted it as we should work internationally, rather than not cooperating at all abroad.
Kaiser of Arabia
11-26-2005, 06:34
More bombings less invasions though. There is nothing that can't be solved through the liberal use of explosives ~D
Like STFS said, it is our army, we should be able to use it as we please.
bmolsson
11-26-2005, 08:28
The question is a bit difficult since it can be seen from different angles. Out of an US perspective, it's their army and it's up to them. Out of an international perspective, why would there be any difference between US and any other country using their military in the foreign policy.
US insist that it's ok to use military force to spread freedom and democracy. Out of that perspective, China would argue the same thing to spread communism and we all know that bin Laden believe using violence and force is the way to spread his fundamentalistic islam. If US are right, why would the others be wrong.
It's all about creditability. UN and the international community on your side gives this creditability to US in case of military actions and I believe that is best for everybody, including US.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, we do have the ability (as does each sovereign nation) to use its military as our leaders see fit. We must, however, be prepared to deal with the consequences (internally and abroad) of our actions.
That said, I think we should invade Canada first.
ichi~:cheers:
mystic brew
11-26-2005, 12:06
of course the US should have the ability to use it's army as it sees fit.
However, the wisdom of using the army should always be questioned.
America's army is the most powerful instrument of power projection ever concieved (though perhaps Britain's royal navy was comparable back in the day) .
Robert McNamara, talking about Vietnam, said 'be prepared to re-examine your reasoning - if you can't persuade countries with comparable values to agree and support, re-examine your reasons with the idea that you could be wrong'.
Using an Army is the ultimate step. It is always contentious. But throwing the US army's weight around would be a mistake.
Of course it should be the US's decision - first and finally.
But be prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
Ianofsmeg16
11-26-2005, 12:08
Limited action outside US borders is permissible as a direct counter-attack only.
Seems fair to me, thats what all countries should have to do.
That said, I think we should invade Canada first.
ichi~:cheers:
You people... :laugh4:
You really think we've been your neighbours for 200 hundred years and not learned to have a few aces up our sleeves.
Go ahead. Anytime. Now would be good.
C'mon, we dares ya, we double dares ya!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/PFHHHHHHHT.bmp
m52nickerson
11-26-2005, 16:45
I think the US is done asking other if or how we should use our military. The UN is as useless as the Popes nuts. The UN kicked the US off the human rights board, but felt it was OK to leave China. I think we should give the UN there 30 day notice to get the hell out of New York, we no longer need that toothless organization.
Of course I may be a bit bitter.........
Rodion Romanovich
11-26-2005, 17:02
I would have voted the bottom option, but it's not formulated properly and can be interpreted as supporting the way WOT has been fought so far, i.e. by attacking entire countries from which a few, now dead, terrorists came. So I won't vote in this poll.
Restricting the use of the US Army would be insane in many ways. If there, in the future, would be a way in which usage of the US Army would actually prevent rather than create terrorism, I'd fully support the usage of US Army forces for that task. They shouldn't need to ask the UN for permission.
master of the puppets
11-26-2005, 19:03
the military is a tool for keeping the country safe, and how better to do that then to go to the enemies homes and grab um by the nuts, outr military should be weilded by a congress and senate of americans. how would WW2 gone if we were in a organisation like the UN, we would have entered the war immediatly when our military was still weak and the germans strong, we would have entered with no good reason in our eyes and no rally cry of Pearl Harbor. ui cannot predict how it would have went, but run it threw your head would it be better or worse if our military had had stock in another country.
Zalmoxis
11-26-2005, 19:11
I don't think the US should have the right to attack countries that it considers dangerous, and maybe falsifying their reasons for attacking harmless (or poor) countries *coughIraqcough* for reasons based on information that has not been confirmed.
Meneldil
11-26-2005, 19:19
I don't expect from the US anything else from the good old 'we do whatever we want, and we don't give a crap about your opinion'. But then it's up to them if they're hated for their action, and if they can't handle the mess they created.
Anyway, each country is IMO entitled to do whatever it wants with his army, as long as it's prepared to face the consequences.
_Martyr_
11-26-2005, 19:23
The US has the right to do whatever it will with its army, that pretty much defines what a sovereign nation is. However, in the civilised West, unhinged aggression with little planning, forsight, intelligence or strategy will get you very little international support. Something that comes in really handy when you completely mess up... Because of this it is in everyones best interest if the international community cooperates and works together, not maverick style - each country doing whatever the hell they want with literally no considerations of the consequences. The same logic that binds small communities together on a small scale - property planning laws, local councils, residence groups, police forces, etc... applies equally on the international stage.
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-26-2005, 20:53
As a sovereign nation, the US can do whatever it damn well pleases with it's army-I'm not arrogant enough to dispute that. However, I feel an aggressive foreign policy serves no-one, and a unilateral approach only isolates the US. It's certainly not very ethical either. So, I went with what I would hope the US would use its military for-namely, the direct counter attack option.
Geoffrey S
11-26-2005, 21:27
As has been said, the US as a sovereign nation can do whatever it liked with its armed forces; I'd prefer to see them put to better use though, and deployed more sensibly than has been the case in recent years. I'd prefer to see them used mainly for policing actions rather than as an attacker, but it's probably unrealistic to hope for that too much.
Kanamori
11-27-2005, 00:22
That we can do as we please is totally irrelevant to the poll though. The question asks, "What is appropriate?" It is stupid to fight a war on international terrorism alone, and thank God we aren't fighting it alone.
You people... :laugh4:
You really think we've been your neighbours for 200 hundred years and not learned to have a few aces up our sleeves.
Go ahead. Anytime. Now would be good.
C'mon, we dares ya, we double dares ya!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/PFHHHHHHHT.bmp
You know that if we timed our attack during the Stanley Cup, Canadian National Curling Championships, or any Saturday night that most Canadians would be too focused/comatose/drunk to organize an effective resistance.
We wouldn't even bother attacking Quebec, allowing us to focus our forces on the strategically essential province of Saskatchewn.
ichi~:cheers:
Forgot the link to a website
Attack Canada (http://invadecanada.us/)
This was my favorite
According to a World Health Organization report, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years versus 77.3 in the US.
The bad news is, they have to spend the extra 2 1/2 years living in Canada.
Strike For The South
11-27-2005, 07:26
This was my favorite
They don't play nicely with each other
There has been a secessionist movement for years. Quebec doesn't like (javascript:popC();) other Canadians, and the feeling is pretty much mutual. We don't have that in the U.S... you know, there aren't any (Texas) big states (Texas) that think that they're better (Texas) than the rest of the Union (Texas).
Franconicus
11-28-2005, 10:53
Are these Hitler quotes:
"Its our milatary and we can use it how we please."
"The USA should have free reign using its military in the WOT."
"We should have free reign, but (and here's the important bit) only when military force is the appropriate tool." ?
Military action outside US borders should only occur when UN-sanctioned. This is the right answer; for the US as for any other country.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.