[Coleman]

Originally Posted by Machette

Yes because you guys have done such a mighty fine job! I take a realist approach in my foreign policy not this neo con go get em policy. The only persons "policing" the world should be the U.N (after intense reform) They have the obligation not the U.S.

yeah I do think America has done a good job in comparing it to what it would be if Canada or some other rinky dink country patrolled.

[Machette]

For the love of god stop bringing up this comparitive nonsene..One country "policing" the world is highly problematic and for you to say you have done a good job makes your argument even more laughable. The CIA has released reports stating that your so called war on terror isn't doing much good. But if you think the U.S is doing a good job, that's great I guess. rolleyes:

If the U.S. was policing the world properly the rest of the world wouldn't hate you. And don't even start with the "well if any other country was doing it, it would be worse" The U.N should have that role, not the U.S.

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by Machette

For the love of god stop bringing up this comparitive nonsene..One country "policing" the world is highly problematic and for you to say you have done a good job makes your argument even more laughable. The CIA has released reports stating that your so called war on terror isn't doing much good. But if you think the U.S is doing a good job, that's great I guess. rolleyes:

If the U.S. was policing the world properly the rest of the world wouldn't hate you. And don't even start with the "well if any other country was doing it, it would be worse" The U.N should have that role, not the U.S.

I said the US is doing a good job compared to what it could be like if another country did our same work. Don't put words in my mouth. The world is one huge-ass place. The US can't be everywhere. I would love to pull out of the UN and just see everyone shit their pants.

[TGB!]

[quote:5c713]did the USSR not hate America? [/quote:5c713]

The USSR had no choice BUT to negotiate with America. Anti-socialism (which only resulted in the political elite in the USSR getting fatter while everyone else. . .died) movements forced the USSR into a position where it could no longer maintain its hold on so many fronts. . .

[quote:5c713]You could have probably negotiated before Iraq[/quote:5c713]

They did try diplomacy - for over a decade. Diplomatic negotiations dont just reset themselves once a new president comes in.

[quote:5c713]Yes because you guys have done such a mighty fine job![/quote:5c713]

Broke Englands imperialistic hold on the world - Check
Stopped Nazi's from taking over Europe - Check
Prevented Japanese imperialistic expansion - Check
Broke up Soviet death grip on Eastern Europe - Check
Removed brutal ME government in Afghanistan - Check
Removed brutal dictator from posiiton of power in ME - Check

Have their been cock-ups. Sure - but without the US some of you folks bleating about our "police state", probably wouldnt be doing so.

As Coleman said - whos going to do the job - you folks in CANADA? Without the American threat - this world would be RIGHT FUCKED. PERIOD.

[quote:5c713]The U.N should have that role, not the U.S.[/quote:5c713]

The UN's role isnt to police the world either. The UN is a world body whos primary and most effective weapon is diplomacy and sanctions - NOT military power, which at the end of the day is the ONLY way to remove some of the cancerous regimes operating today.

[Machette]

I said after "intense reform" the U.N should be the policing force. As of now it holds a somewhat deformed position. And if the U.S were to pull out, well that's another debate.

[c312]

Originally Posted by Machette

I said after "intense reform" the U.N should be the policing force. As of now it holds a somewhat deformed position. And if the U.S were to pull out, well that's another debate.

ok, so should we just tell everyone not to do anything controversial until the UN gets to a point where it can attempt to do it's job? "Hey, Iran, it's really not a good time...can we reschedule all this for 2020?, thanks, that'd be great."

[Machette]

Are you saying that the U.N is to small to tackle this issue?

[c312]

I'm saying it's weak, it's worthless the way it is now.

[Machette]

Did you not see that I wrote "after intense reform"

I know it's late though...pretty tired myself.

[c312]

yes, i did see that. We both agree that it needs intense reform, but look at what I wrote, I'm saying that there are things going on right now that can't wait until reforms are made but need to be dealt witih.

[Machette]

Another thing of interest: http://bloggingheads.tv/

I would advise you to watch the whole thing to see what Fukuyama says. I don't agree with every thing he says, especially on Hamas and Iran. But it is very interesting.

[Tripper]

This thread wreaks of arrogance....

[Machette]

From which side? eek: biggrin:

[c312]

Machette, I watched our friend Tom on a news program last week. He said he thinks we should do what we did in the Cold War and hold our nuclear dominance as a deterrent to Iran, basically saying that we should just make sure they know, if they use nukes, we will "obliterate" (and I'm almost positive that was the word he used) them. He said he would rather use this policy instead of letting "our incompetent administration" start a military invasion.

I think it would be nice if we could do that, but I don't think that Iran can be equated with the Soviet Union, they are different. The fact that Iran ended their announcement of their nuclear development with "Death to America" makes me hesitant to beleive that they will use logic and insight like the Soviets did.

What do you think?

[Machette]

Tom, tom who?

I remember writing about that a few weeks ago. It's based on the MAD theory and I personally feel it could work.

Originally Posted by Machette

Just because the prime minister said some nasty things right? Well let's look at history using the MAD theory. China in the 60's got it's first nuclear bomb. Mao was crazy, he even said he wished to control the world. And did the world end. No it did not. And many states were furious that China got a nuclear weapon, and now it seems as if the world is still in tact. When Pakistan built a nuclear bomb, every state voiced a opinion, fearing that nuclear war would happen between India and Pakistan. Let's see, nothing happened. Some specialist at think tanks even think that allowing Iran to build a bomb would only be another step in the MAD theory, in the middle east, that would allow a bridge to peace.

http://www.groundforce1.com/forums/view ... sc&start=0