america should only do shit for itself.. but even being humanitarian has an advantage because it makes us look good. so doing shit the benifits us can also benifit others..
i would be against military conflict if .. A- there is no humanitarian benifit. B- there is no strategic benifit.. C- there is no economic benifit and D - if we dont intend to stick in it till victory is achieved.. E it makes us look bad and hurts us diplomaticly

these factors should be applicable.. and to me it must be applicable in all situations of international dealings. as you see there are some that apply to today.. but unfortuantly damage has already been done and i believe that if we fail.. it will make us look even worse..

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

i want you to consider this as a theory, that we must be willing to do questionable things.. you know.. cia style in order to achieve something greater.. things like 'questionable interrogation methods' against suspected terrorists. espionage.. whatever is necessary if you were trying to say.. capture an islamist warlord in somalia.. or whatever... while i probably would have supported the tactics we used in coldwar against communist countries i would not now.. unless they were trying to see weapons to islamic groups.. you know.,. try to hurt us somehow..

i am curious to see how you would argue against the theory i am presenting.. instead of just simply writing it off as immoral.. i mean other then pointing out the exceptions that things went horribly wrong.. such as the bay of pigs.. or vietnam.. how we i guess.. say wasted away the soviets till they could no longer economically feesibly hold thier empire.. and many states broke away and people are now living in freedom.. and we are not under such a dire threat from nuclear anhilation.

People talk about how russia could come back .. honestly i dont think so.. i talk to russians they know everything we know and vice versa.. i dont think the state can controll them anymore and i believe that true freedom of information will prevent people from going to war with one another...
because we can see how we are no different.. i think anyways.. truely free democratic states dont go to war with one another.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

Well... you cant really go into a war knowing if you'll win. Pledging to stay in until victory is achieved is a very faulty strategy, that would mean completely ignoring the cost in lives and in money.
But what I want to know is what you would want the American "empire" you envision to do once (and if) it conquers the entire world. What CAN you do? If worldwide civil wars don't cause you to collapse in a few months, there's really nowhere to go from there. But thats assuming we got there... which noone has done. All empires trying to take over the world have failed - Persians, Greeks, Romans, Mongols... Even Nazi Germany and the USSR could be put in this category. Why add America to the list?

__________________

i dont want to conquer the world i want an end to facism terrorism islamism communism .. whatever that abuses civilians.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

Then why do you support propping up fascist states, and subverting the democratic process?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Fascism is basically dead, so is Communism. Communism is for the people unless bad leaders (Stalin, Mao..) choose to abuse it for their own interests. Terrorism is such a widespread and underground movement it would be almost impossible to end completely, but I agree it is a bad thing. But what's wrong with Islam? It's no more bullcrap than Christianity or any other religion, and most Muslims aren't like the crazy Anti-American suicide bombers on the news... I'm pretty sure terrorism goes against Islamic code. It's never really good to discriminate based on religion. Anyways I think you have good intentions, but your ideas are just different than mine.

__________________

i dont.. unless i have to .

if saudi arabia has something i need... oil.. land for military bases.. and i need to use them to get something else.. military bases oil.. to get at another country.. iraq afganistan... or they are willing to work with us sharing intell etc.. then i do the path of least resitance.. instead of trying to pick a fight with everyone in the planet.. i will use one against another for my own benifit. and to slowly diminish the power of my enemies.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

communism is shit dont get me started on that man.. its how you take money from the wealthy and make everyone equally poor.. its never worked and it never will. and frankly id rather be in a society where i dont have to be told what kinda job i have to do.

about islam i meant islamic fundamentalism..I know for a fact it is against the islamic religion.. (mostly anyways) depends how you read into the koran and the hadiths really.. my interpretation was that its wrong according to islam. but then again i can see how it can be misinterpreted. again you are making alot of off topic points here.. '
well atleast you understand my point of view.. thanks..

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

Yeah, I get what you mean about communism.. it could work but only if the country had a lot of money so everyone wasn't poor and a non corrupt leader. And yeah, fundamentalism of any religion is retarded, i get you there too.

__________________

ya i also was wondering.. in communism in order for it to work.. you need to surrender all of everything.. all possessions all wealth all businesses to the power of a central authority for purposes of redistribution.. and businesses will be run by the government of course and prices set by arbitrary numbers the government sets up and wages are paid by arbitrary numbers and set at an equal rate to all peoples.. a scientist and a doctor would end up making perhaps a few thousand dollars more then a mc donalds employee.. which prolly would be renamed 'the workers burger'
'comrads place' loll.. i mean this is so set up in such away that it can be easily abused.. essentially i think it is more dangerous then facism.. because it looks all appealing and actually gives government.. truly absolute control over every fucking thing in our lives.. and then after this initial phase somehow we are supposed to trust the government to what? after the initiall siezing and redistribution phase... i havent read any of the pamphlets or and communist lingo or anything i am just thinking in my head how it would work...
i dunno man.. its scary to me. it would first off destroy economy and be rampantly inefficient and corrupt.. i believe that for every 100 dollars you take from the wealthy you would probably be in so much waste with all the programs designed to regulate everything.. perhaps 20 dollars would end up being distributed among the rest of the people..

off topic but i have been thinking about it since you mentioned it.

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

So basically you're saying it's ok to use whatever means necessary, torture, terrorism, indiscriminate violence, subversion of democracy, assassination, etc. to beat our enemies?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

i would say it depends on the enemies. if they are dangerous enough, then yes. That framework would be continuous with human history.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

So we did it in the past and that makes it ok now?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

How true, they don’t dance with the one that brought them.

Backstabbers!


Nice analogy, i agree.

The very umbrella of freedom and trade that this country brought them is un-recognized and unappreciated.

Man, I LOVE satire!!!!

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson