Ignorance is Bliss

[marharth]

I am seriously tired of the whole "they defend your right to freedom" thing. Currently the military is defending nothing but foreign countries. At a later date they might be defending your rights, but not right now. While I do support the troops, don't pretend they are defending anything but a base overseas.

 

You should be against the wars, and you should be against pointless deployments. You should not be against people who join the military for a good purpose.

 

That's pretty darned insulting, marharth, considering that it's the season of remembrance (well it is over here) at the moment. Sometimes troops have to be put on foreign soil in order to defend your rights to freedom and put a stop to the spread of extremist ideals. I need only mention World War II in that context.

 

Do you really think foreigners don't matter then? Well it's a good job from my point of view that Franklin D Roosevelt didn't think that way.

Nazi Germany and modern terrorist groups are nowhere near the same. Hitler was a threat. A terror attack that kills 5000 people in eleven years is nowhere near the millions of people that died due to Nazi Germany.

 

Troops only need to be put on foreign soil if there is a real threat. Terror groups are not a real threat, and even if they were there are more effective methods to deal with them then sending in mass number of troops.

 

Foreign countries should have their own military and should not rely on US troops.

 

I don't see out military defending our rights at the moment. I don't blame the troops for that, I blame politics.

Edited November 14, 2011 by marharth

[hoofhearted4]

I don't blame the troops for that, I blame politics.

 

which is what that girl doesnt understand

[ginnyfizz]

Please don't patronise. Marharth quite clearly stated that he didn't approve of "The military defending nothing but foreign countries". That's his own words. Which he then had to somewhat qualify.

 

It may sometimes be in the strategic interests of the USA to have a finger in the pie, and boots on the ground, particularly in the Middle East. This girl understands only too well that there are probably a lot of things that we don't get told that lead governments to make such decisions. Whether or not the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were the right decisions either strategically or otherwise will always be debatable. We all know that Tony Blair lied to "sell" the Iraq war to the public here in Britain. I say not that current theatres are actually achieving anything. But to blanket dismiss the idea of defending foreigners, is seriously bizarre. The term "Allies", anyone?

 

After all there is another thread about USA boots on the ground in Australia, where they are obviously not fighting a war(since Oz is an ally...)but placing themselves strategically close enough to keep any eye on the might of China.

[marharth]

If China starts a war we are not getting out of it. Extra troops in Australia will not change that even slightly.

 

The military is not the same thing as the troops. When I say the military I mean the entirety of it, including the political side of it.

 

Having troops in multiple countries will give advantage, but a war with China can't be solved with just troops. There is no way such a war would end with a complete invasion and surrender.

[BlackRampage]

Nazi Germany and modern terrorist groups are nowhere near the same. Hitler was a threat. A terror attack that kills 5000 people in eleven years is nowhere near the millions of people that died due to Nazi Germany.

Err. You do realize that 3000 of those died in a single day, right? That's nothing short of mass murder. Hitler would have been proud.

How many need to die in a certain timespan in order to justify an intervention according to you? Do I even need to mention just how wrong it is to make such a comparison?

And how many more terrorists acts would have been carried out if it were not for the US intervening?

 

If China starts a war we are not getting out of it. Extra troops in Australia will not change that even slightly.

Of course not. I don't see the US fighting a war with China anytime soon. They rely far too much upon each other for now.

 

The effect of the troops is psychological, not strategical I would say. Partially because the US realizes just how powerful China is becoming.

[marharth]

Nazi Germany and modern terrorist groups are nowhere near the same. Hitler was a threat. A terror attack that kills 5000 people in eleven years is nowhere near the millions of people that died due to Nazi Germany.

Err. You do realize that 3000 of those died in a single day, right? That's nothing short of mass murder. Hitler would have been proud.

How many need to die in a certain timespan in order to justify an intervention according to you? Do I even need to mention just how wrong it is to make such a comparison?

And how many more terrorists acts would have been carried out if it were not for the US intervening?

I said 5000 in eleven years. Not sure how accurate that is, but quite a few first responders and people near the crash got ill due to the debris.

 

Nothing would have happened either way. It took us ten years to get rid of Al Qeuda leadership. They should of been able to attack us again in that time.

 

We need to intervene if there is a threat that can hurt us continuously.

 

Either way invading random middle eastern countries is not the most effective method of capturing terrorists.

[BlackRampage]

Nothing would have happened either way. It took us ten years to get rid of Al Qaeda leadership. They should of been able to attack us again in that time.

 

We need to intervene if there is a threat that can hurt us continuously.

Maybe it's exactly because the US intervened that they were unable to hurt the US continuously? Isn't that the whole point of intervening? Isn't that the number 1 reason why they invaded Afghanistan?

 

Either way invading random middle eastern countries is not the most effective method of capturing terrorists.

Then what is? I wouldn't say it was all that random. And what if a country is found harboring those terrorists?

[marharth]

Nothing would have happened either way. It took us ten years to get rid of Al Qaeda leadership. They should of been able to attack us again in that time.

 

We need to intervene if there is a threat that can hurt us continuously.

Maybe it's exactly because the US intervened that they were unable to hurt the US continuously? Isn't that the whole point of intervening? Isn't that the number 1 reason why they invaded Afghanistan?

 

Either way invading random middle eastern countries is not the most effective method of capturing terrorists.

Then what is? I wouldn't say it was all that random. And what if a country is found harboring those terrorists?

Pakistan is almost certainly harboring terrorists. Doesn't mean we should go invade them.

 

As said before, small highly trained squads are more effective.

 

Iraq pretty much was random.

 

Most of Al Qeuda isn't in Afghanistan. They are in other countries and have been for a while. They should of been able to plan and launch an attack from another country.

[ffa1mf]

I actually listened to the whole video (gee, am I bored or what?).

 

What I find truely amazing is that anyone anywhere would take anything this individual said seriously or engage in a debate about it. She is obviously a troll looking for attention and really, people, she could barely string 8 words together coherently or keep 3 simple points straight, even with notes in front of her.

 

And to answer the question, No, I didn't feel like yelling at her, she isn't worth the effort or energy.

[grannywils]

@ffa 1 mf, since I think you are the only one of us so far who has admitted to taking the time to listen to the whole video, you may be the only one with a legitimate right to respond. And I think you are probably correct.... she is not worth the effort or the energy... There are more important fish to fry and fires to put out :D