[vyper]

Originally posted by Rictor

True dat. The empire is collapsing, and the nations of the world are more than happy to stand aside and watch it burn. Both the neolib Democrats and the Republican hawks have their own delusions about how to return to the glorious past when America was unopposed, the economy was soaring and the third world was ripe for the picking. Bush is betting that the solution is military, the Dems think that economic might backed by an iron fist in a very thin silk glove is the answer. Actually, there probably is no answer, the days of American hegemony are numbered. Now that they realize they're cornered, the only question is how much damage they'll do trying to find a way out.

In other words what we did at the end of the Empire.

[redsniper]

don't take my post about nuking everyone too seriously
However, now I am being a little more serious, consider this: In World War II we bombed both Germany and Japan to hell. We leveled cites. We nuked a couple. Many civilians died. It was terrible; it was a war. But then we helped them rebuild and now they're successful, industrialized nations. In Vietnam we tried to use our military (whose job is to kill and destroy) as a police force (like we're doing in Iraq). And we got our butts handed to us. So when it comes to war you should go all the way or don't go at all. We shouldn't have to resort to war, but if we do we should make it a good one.
and now it's dinner time.

[vyper]

The problem is both Japan and Germany were immediate and direct threats. You can't apply that to any of America's wars since.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by redsniper
Well this year my history class has been US History and I've learned that in the years after WW2 ended we would threaten other countries directly with nukes. North Korea, China, lots of people. and not the sissy threats like nowdays. "We've got nucular weapons!!!1" "Yeah, but you won't use 'em." "Oh yeah well, um, uh... we've got 'em." but back then it was "Yarr! Stop or we'll nuke ya!" "****, we saw what happened to Japan. We don't want that. Alright, we give." We need more of that.

That's cause no one else had the bomb, so there was no threat of mutually assured destruction. Even in the early days, when only the USSR had developed nuclear weapons (in  addition to the US) you could still threaten nuclear reprisal and make it sounds genuine. But these days, not only would it be political suicide, but pretty much anyone worth threatening has a nuclear power with a vested interest in protecting them, so it's not really an option.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redsniper
don't take my post about nuking everyone too seriously
However, now I am being a little more serious, consider this: In World War II we bombed both Germany and Japan to hell. We leveled cites. We nuked a couple. Many civilians died. It was terrible; it was a war. But then we helped them rebuild and now they're successful, industrialized nations. In Vietnam we tried to use our military (whose job is to kill and destroy) as a police force (like we're doing in Iraq). And we got our butts handed to us. So when it comes to war you should go all the way or don't go at all. We shouldn't have to resort to war, but if we do we should make it a good one.
and now it's dinner time.

Perhaps it's worth noting that in World War 2 the Axis started the war?  Moral imperitive and all that?

[redsniper]

true, true... I'm not trying to justify the Iraq war or anything. I'm just saying that if we don't intend to follow through and have a serious war we shouldn't go in the first place.

[Flipside]

Funny thing is, not one person has said that Sanchez should have been let off... so the Administration isn't just sticking it's finger up at the rest of the world...

[Rictor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4483949.stm

Truly, these stalwart defenders of freedom can do no wrong.

[Flipside]

Just goes to show how much bull**** the idea of 'Right' and 'Wrong' really is. It is, and always will be, in the eyes of the Judge.

For a country that just fought an election at least partly based around morals and what is 'Right' and 'Wrong', this seems an amazingly arrogant piece of administration.

[karajorma]

Just after the incident, in an interview with Sky Italia TV, she said it was possible the soldiers had targeted her because Washington opposed the policy of negotiating with kidnappers.

If she's willing to say stuff like this I'd say the bullet hit the wrong person

Regardless of whether or not the soldiers are guilty only a f**king idiot would think that Bush did it deliberately to discourage negotiations.