Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32
  1. #31  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Intermittently and with a great deal of trouble and overhead expenses. Historically prosperity comes with the order provided by a strong and strategically placed military.
    Turn your eyes from Rome and the ancient world for a minute and look at 16th century to 19th century pre-industrialization trade. Britain, France and Spain, basically individual members of the "West", including eventually the Americas took their turn on checking the power of the others. There wasn't really a dominant world power except individual members of, or conglomerates of Western Ideology. During this time period, despite the wars and bickering, trade flourished. From the Caribbean, to the North East U.S. From Eastern Seaboard cotton to Bristol Tea. From Spain and Portugal to the Cape of Good Hope and South America, trade was alive, profitable and improving the human condition by specializing the division of labor. With the slave trade and westward expansionist movements, this era may not have been the crowning achievement of Western Ideology, but it laid the footings for the Magna Carta, which gave way to the Declaration of Independence, and eventually the U.S. Constitution, quite possibly the epitome of the ideal of self ownership. These revelations, probably the finest advancements in all of human kind, were accomplished without the presence of a omnipotent, world policeman at the helm.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Rome did not protect herself my placing all her armies in Italy - she defended herself for thousands of years by keeping forces on the frontier and in strategically placed locations where they could quickly intervene in any trouble. Hell - the ONLY reason why Rome even bothered with middle east was because the bickering there upset trade. The prosperity we have is in large part because of the stability brought by our military presence in the world.
    I don't know what kind of kid-glove PC family friendly history books you have been reading, but the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean-rim, including most of the Middle East and North Africa is well documented and not founded in "friendliness" at all. If you want to study this era, outside the scope of the Bible, which I'm not begrudging you, then you should look into studying the grain trade from Egypt, the expansionist necessity of the Roman Economy, and the riches in both material and slaves the Middle East brought to Rome. The real brass tacks of Roman policy and politics is much more unfriendly than Romanticized versions of the history would have you believe. Furthermore, before you see the words Egypt or Syria in a text, please look at the regions these nations controlled. Egypt extended from southern Syria, to Nubia, to Cyrene under Ptolemy I.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    I agree with you in part. But boots on the ground are a much greater deterrent than planes in the air. AND when it comes to china - you cannot forget that they do not think the same way we do - and they have different motivations - honour is much more important to them than economics. I have no doubt that they would cut off their nose to spite their face for the sake of honour. Half the point for china in this recent economic drive has been to get foreign investment to build infrastructure for them so that they would be able to be self sufficient should the need for economic isolationism arise.
    Perhaps in 1940, or 1950 you would be right with your boots on the ground statement. You are forgetting though, that we face an enemy adept at evading boots on the ground, and very adept at hiding behind political boundaries. Just like Britain was able to overcome submission from the skies, our enemies are learning how to avoid, deflect, and capitalize upon our boots on the ground. Do you think for a second that Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders didn't study the Vietcong, or how to spin the plight of the "Communist Vietnamese" as a victim? Do you think they didn't improve upon this ideal? The NVA and Vietcong defeated America via removing the American will to fight, not the means. American forces bested the NVA and Vietcong at every strategic turn, yet we still gave up the fight first. You might think that is a problem with the American psyche, but when greater than 100 million people fall into that belief that is not a problem with the psyche, that is a successful tactic which must be countered.

    As for your other comment about the Chinese and honor, the Chinese are capitalizing while the rest of Europe falls into socialism. Allowing private ownership of an enterprise so long as it serves a state purpose is a step toward fascism for the Chinese, but it is also a step towards individualism. I don't trust China, as an economist, I trust the Chinese to act within their newly granted purview of self interest.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Perhaps you're right - but the problem is that the Ba'ath party is fascist and radical with dreams of empire. So was it really wrong to outlaw them? Personally I think the mistake was totally dismantling the existing power structure. They could have kept the low level Ba'athists in place and still outlawed the party.
    Finally some neutral perspective. By eliminating the power structure of the Ba'ath party, the U.S. effectively brought anarchy, for quite some time, to Iraq. I remember many nights filled with SALUTE reports from our LP/OP's, not of enemy on friendly engagement, but of freelance engagement without any rhyme, reason or anyway to sort friend from foe. This anarchy was advertised to every player interested in fighting Americans in Iraq. If we had removed Saddam and his family, and turned the country to the Ba'ath party we could have removed any threat from Saddam, while maintaining the status quo, and thus order in Iraq. The U.S. let ideology get ahead of diplomacy and national self interest, and that was a mistake.


    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Invading Pakistan would create a cascading destabilization of the whole region and that's why we're avoiding it. Plus as is generally the case - in the next election, things will change.
    I agree. We cannot fight them the same way we've fought armies in the past. We need to take lessons from our own war for independence.
    We need a new way of fighting these parasites.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    As I have said - you trust China much more than I do.
    I don't trust China, as I have said. I trust the more and more capitalistic Chinese to follow their self interest, and finally realize the benefits of individualism. I think this will happen if the Chinese continue their monetary policy which positively affects their export numbers, but negatively affects the standard of living for the Chinese laborer. In the next 10 to 20 years, we will see a U.S. post WWII industrialization effect take place among the Chinese. I think by 2020 the Chinese will be more capitalistic American than America. The Chinese aren't working their butts off for nothing and despite the great firewall, they are starting to figure it out. Personally, I wish them the best of luck.
    Last edited by malloc; 12-09-2010 at 05:14 AM.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Then make your case for what is non-intervention without it being isolationism. I do not see any way to have one without the other.

    *snip*.
    I'm sorry you don't understand them. I've provided links about this for those who wish to understand it. I can't make you read them.

    You're the one making the accusation that non intervention is inferior. You're the one laying the ad hominems, and platitudes about it.

    What I'm basically saying in that long rant above is that see if you can get out of the cellar of the heirarchy of disagreement and make your case instead of schlepping out the "conspiracy" tripe, the meme about "isolationsim" and the ever popular refute of................"nuh uh"

    Malloc shows you how to do this above.

    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •