• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America Is 'Less Safe' Than 2 Years Ago, Intelligence Committee Chairs Say

ttwtt78640 said:
Return to the pre-9/11 plan and hope for the best?
Click to expand...

No, we were heavily invested in the region before 9/11. I'm talking about quitting the global cop stuff and going back to being a country.
 
Helix said:
No, we were heavily invested in the region before 9/11. I'm talking about quitting the global cop stuff and going back to being a country.
Click to expand...

But we have to pay a steep ransom (bribe?) to keep many nations from wiping out Israel. We pay make nice money all over the place to keep "free" trade going as the corporate bosses command in exchange for campaign cash. We must also use our military, in some fashion, to prevent massive cuts in defense pork from happening. Things are complicated, because many depend on having a crisis, of some sort, to keep the gov't money flowing "correctly".
 
Something from an actual IC agency would be more compelling that the noise coming from politicians. Not that what politicians say is automatically wrong, but it is more suspect than the reports from the IC.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But we have to pay a steep ransom (bribe?) to keep many nations from wiping out Israel. We pay make nice money all over the place to keep "free" trade going as the corporate bosses command in exchange for campaign cash. We must also use our military, in some fashion, to prevent massive cuts in defense pork from happening. Things are complicated, because many depend on having a crisis, of some sort, to keep the gov't money flowing "correctly".
Click to expand...

we would let it be known that an invasion of Israel would result in a large scale war. the rest of it is on SA as the regional hegemon.

we aren't the world's army. the world does not pay a tax for the service, and it also doesn't get a vote in our elections. global police missions are no more our responsibility than they are Switzerland's. it's way past time that we accept this and start scaling back and bringing people home. i think you'll be surprised at how much of a less appealing target we will become. then we can spend the money on more important things, like figuring out a way to replace gasoline with something domestic that we don't have to defend our access to militarily.
 
Helix said:
we would let it be known that an invasion of Israel would result in a large scale war. the rest of it is on SA as the regional hegemon.

we aren't the world's army. the world does not pay a tax for the service, and it also doesn't get a vote in our elections. global police missions are no more our responsibility than they are Switzerland's. it's way past time that we accept this and start scaling back and bringing people home. i think you'll be surprised at how much of a less appealing target we will become. then we can spend the money on more important things, like figuring out a way to replace gasoline with something domestic that we don't have to defend our access to militarily.
Click to expand...

It seems that the two bolded statements above conflict. We are not the world's army but we are the Israeli army? Are there any other nations that we "must" both permanently aid and defend?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems that the two bolded statements above conflict. We are not the world's army but we are the Israeli army? Are there any other nations that we "must" both permanently aid and defend?
Click to expand...

the relationship with Israel has to continue in some form. that situation is unique, because if we were to completely abandon all commitments, it's likely that somebody would make a move. Israel is a nuclear power, and would probably use those weapons as a last resort. we'd surely get sucked in if that happened, so we have to keep ties.

we should minimize the commitment, though. i'd be pretty satisfied with what i proposed in the previous post. basically, limit it to preventing an invasion. everything else should be handled by regional players.
 
Helix said:
the relationship with Israel has to continue in some form. that situation is unique, because if we were to completely abandon all commitments, it's likely that somebody would make a move. Israel is a nuclear power, and would probably use those weapons as a last resort. we'd surely get sucked in if that happened, so we have to keep ties.

we should minimize the commitment, though. i'd be pretty satisfied with what i proposed in the previous post. basically, limit it to preventing an invasion. everything else should be handled by regional players.
Click to expand...

I am also sure that little, if anything, will change. As I stated, or tried to state, the powers that be depend on keeping massive amounts of gov't spending coming their way.
 
Helix said:
that situation is unique, because if we were to completely abandon all commitments, it's likely that somebody would make a move. Israel is a nuclear power, and would probably use those weapons as a last resort.
Click to expand...
Because whupping all your neighbors at once in six days is a sure sign that a country is a weakling just waiting to be bullied?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Because whupping all your neighbors at once in six days is a sure sign that a country is a weakling just waiting to be bullied?
Click to expand...

i didn't make this claim.
 
Helix said:
i didn't make this claim.
Click to expand...
You said it was likely that Israel would be attacked if the US wasn't backing it. I am asking if the outcome of the six-day war helped you reach your conclusion that Israel is suspended over a precarious precipice by the thread of US backing.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You said it was likely that Israel would be attacked if the US wasn't backing it. I am asking if the outcome of the six-day war helped you reach your conclusion that Israel is suspended over a precarious precipice by the thread of US backing.
Click to expand...

yeah, i'd say without our backing, Israel is more likely to be attacked. i didn't say obliterated.

i'd be happy to see us get out of all interventionism, honestly. however, we'd end up getting dragged in to an Israeli regional war anyway, so i'm fine with us saying that we will prevent an invasion if it comes to that.
 
Helix said:
yeah, i'd say without our backing, Israel is more likely to be attacked. i didn't say obliterated.
Click to expand...
Because Israel's neighbor's think starting a war they would lose is a good idea? Or what exactly?

We're backing Israel because they are the big dog on the block and we want influence on that block.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Because Israel's neighbor's think starting a war they would lose is a good idea? Or what exactly?

We're backing Israel because they are the big dog on the block and we want influence on that block.
Click to expand...

the outcome of a theoretical war in the complete absence of US help is not quite as guaranteed as you are presenting it, and if it went nuclear, we'd get sucked in. as for influence on the block, i could give a ****. we need to take care of our own country first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom