If investments are tied to using our military to defend other countries, those investors will have to look elsewhere. Security is more important.

Security is great, but a gun in the hand does nothing unless you have business to keep food on the table.

Security is exactly what investors look for, just not the kind of security you are speaking of. Investors and companies look to put their money in places that will be able to do international business and that trade routes to other countries will always remain open and stable. It is specifically because of the security that the US brings to itself and its partners that people and companies put their money here -- they feel comfortable that things are not likely to change so drastically at a moment's notice.

I also don't see out opting out of treaties that promise the use of our military as a sign of instability. I think it would make America MORE stable, and offer more incentive to invest.

Again, not the kind of stability you are thinking of. In today's environment, the ability to do business internationally is the most critical aspect. If you have no one to do business with overseas on a constant, secure, and stable level, then there are no expansion or investment opportnities for you. Your own stability comes first, but quickly behind it comes the stability of your trading partners and the US has succeeded in this specifically because the US helps keep its partners secure.

You seem to support a "one world government" and that is a nightmare of unimaginable proportions to me.

I do not support a "one world government" and that is not what I'm talking about -- I'm just stating what the current state of international business is: a collection of governments that all back one another and, through their collective strength, have come to dominate and succeed through their agreements.

While we are in one world, that world is made up of different cultures and countries and it's best this way. Keeping power divided prevents tyrrany. I can't even imagine the tyrrany of a single world government with unlimited powers.

Diversity in the world is a good thing, but there has been a single dominating factor in international business for the more than the past one hundred years: the almighty US dollar. That dollar doesn't hold its stength in gold backing or the ability of this country to freely trade -- that dollar is accepted practically everywhere in this world because the US has the power it does, it exerts the power it does, and there is an incredible stability between the US and all of its allies across the globe. People see the US and our allies as an incredible, powerful business trading empire. Why? Because everyone knows that business will go about uninterrupted between all of our partners and investments will remain stable and secure. If the US were to back down on all of the agreements it has with other countries and essentially become a defensive island that welcomes free trade, you would see the value of the dollar hit rock bottom -- the trust in it and all it represents to the international community would fail, just as the security and trust of other countries would flounder.

And the business would still be there at the same level, if not more so.

Investing is gambling. If you invest in a foreign country, you deal with their government, their security, and their laws. The US Military is NOT here to defend trade routes, or investments made in other countries. Those are not within the scope of our military or in my opinion, anyone else's either.

Those are the chances you take as an investor. It's not reasonable to expect the government to defend your foreign investments. If you want to do business internationally, you should choose who you do business with wisely and don't make such unreasonable demands of government. Also if investors find less opportunity internationally, they'll invest more domestically.

International business has been done by each country providing their own security in their own country. It's not up to America to defend other countries, and it's unrealistic to expect them to protect America in case of a war. They handle their end and we handle ours. It's called personal responsibility. We trade internationally by trading freely with all countries and honoring contracts with them. If they don't honor ours, we stop trading with them. Those who want our money, will quicky learn to make sure investments from America are secure.

I've got news for you, the US dollar is worthless. It has nothing to back it up and it's not even made by the government. Other country's currency has been moving up against the dollar for decades.

If you're asserting that the dollar has value due to our military interventionism, you're not only not in the same ball park, you're not even in the same sport. That claim has no validity what-so-ever.

Bullshit.

If America stopped sticking our noses into the affairs of other nations, we'd do MORE business and have more stability in the business world. People would know we'd have less enemies, and trade wouldn't be restricted or hampered by wars. People trade with America because we're the wealthiest nation on earth and that has everything to do with capitalism and nothing to do with treaties that promise to use the American military to defend other nations. We're not wealthy because of our military interventionism or because of the government's screwing around with the markets. We're wealthy in spite of it. And we would be even more wealthy, powerful, and stable if we pulled out of any treaty that promises to use our military to defend any other nation.

Actually, Radar, one of the traditional jobs of a Navy _IS_ to defend trade routes.

It's to defend American ships (including those carrying goods) against pirates, and foreign attackers. But not to defend foreign ships or lands.

I wonder how many pirates with cannons and cutlasses it would take to commandeer something like an aircraft carrier. That would make for a fun movie. A whole fuckload of pirate ships come out of the triangle or something hokey and try and take it over.

It's an interesting thought. Assuming they started close enough to have a chance (can't scramble all the aircraft and blow them away 500 miles out), it'd be interesting to see.

How's that for a thread hijack?

Quzah.

EXCUSE ME?? One of my best friends who is in the National Guard is over there getting shot at. He doesn't want to be there. He does not believe they should be there in the first place. And yet you lump him in with Bush? Don't even fucking go there.

And tell my co-worker whose youngest son is over there that her baby is a traiter and a "hired killer". I dare you.

I have no issues with your other points. Attack the politics of the situation all you want until you are blue in the face. It does not matter to me.

But don't you dare suggest that most of the men and women that are over there right now missing holiday's with their families want to be over there so they can be "thugs and hired killers."

Your friend could refuse the order to go there because the order to go there is unconstitutional. If you honor your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution you are under no obligation to follow unconstitutional ones. I served in the Navy and I would have refused a direct order to go on the grounds that the order to go is unconstitutional.

Nobody said those who went wanted to be there, but they chose to follow an unconstitutional order knowing it was wrong (most think invading Iraq was a great idea). They violated their oath to god and the American people and are endangering America rather than defending it.

I do dare say it. That's exactly what they've become thanks to Bush. They may not want to be hired killers and thugs, but they are none-the-less. They are traitors because they are following unconstitutional orders. And I'll tell anyone in any armed service who invaded Iraq that they're a traitor right to their face.

Then I think you should start wearin your ass as a hat because if they come home and you do say it to their face - just being an asshat will be better than what they will do to you.

Radar wrote:
I doubt it.

:D

Radar - I think your attitude to the military people on the ground in Iraq is wrong .. just as the anti-war peoples attitude to us as returning Vets from Vietnam was wrong .. throwing blood on us and calling us "murderers!!", only engendered hatred of the anti-war peoples aims .. which were basically idealistic.

I think you will find, that a lot of military people on the ground in Iraq, don't really want to be there .. and they are only following orders .. but more importantly .. they THINK they are doing the right thing by the Iraqi and American people.

I think your beef should really be with the U.S. military machine .. not with individual soldiers who do not deserve calls of ''traitor'' .. when they think they are doing the right thing.

The U.S. military machine .. and by that, I mean the ENTIRE industry, from soldiering to military manufacturing .. on which so much of America relies for income and security, is where the major distortion is, in America today ..

Prior to WW2, the military .. and the industry behind it, were but a blip in the economy .. no members of the current, ruling, baby-boomer generation can recall America without a massive military industry .. something that needs to be righted, before America can be put back on an even keel ..

America today resembles one of those body building freaks, with massively enlarged muscles in one area, while the rest of the body is out of proportion .. if the body is not restored to a proper proportion, problems will develop in your great nation that will inevitably lead to its decline.


Interesting reading in this gentlemans, following lecture links ....

The lecturer, Owen Harries is a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, and Editor Emeritus of The National Interest, a leading Washington-based foreign policy quarterly ..

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyers/stories/s987423.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyers/stories/s987503.htm

I personally believe that the ''vision'' and "greatness" of America in world affairs, articulated as a quote from Tom Pain, in the second lecture, is one that is being formed .. wrongly .. by the excessive use of the U.S. military machine .. rather than one of leadership, and ''good works'' (educative works) in those foreign countries America wishes to see improved.

One-track - thank you. This is exactly what I mean. Blame the heads of the military and lord knows we all blame Bush. Don't blame the little soldiers that are doing this because they didn't feel like going to jail for being awol.

This week's Heroes & Goats from the Philadelphia Weekly

One-track, being a forigner, may have less emotional involvement, giving him a better perspectve than we in the middle of it.
The only sure way to stop the military/industrial complex that Ike warned us about, is getting involved and voting.
If all the soldiers followed Radar's que and refused to follow an "unconstitutional order" in a Ghandi-like protest, we'd be building a jail....or a cemetary, the size of a state.

Perhaps Bruce...but had a significant number of soldiers become CO's, it may have forced the Bush administration to rethink their plan.

That maybe true, but those that did would pay a heavy price. Doesn't matter how many there were, "Military Justice" would roll on. A dishonorable or even general discharge haunts you forever and that's after jail time.

Just few questions here;

1) Does anyone have any idea where the fuck I am? and

2) Will someone smuggle me in a fruitcake with a saw or a handgun inside, just for old times' sake?

Much like the Grinch, I feel my heart growing on this holiest of Christian holidays. Until and unless I escape, that is. Then I'll be the same ol' Saddam I used to be.


Clean Shaven and Showered,

Saddam

Marines are pussies. I'll tell that to any 5, 10, or 20 of them.

Those in the military are under no obligation to follow unconstitutional orders. In fact they are not fulfilling their duty if they do follow those orders. I would win in court and would not get the dishonorable discharge.

Wrong, I've pointed out that their job is to protect us from enemies foreign and they are failing in that duty. They are endangering America rather than defending it, and they are following the orders of domestic enemies rather than protecting us from them.

My ideas are perfect in the real world that we actually live in right now.

And this is based on...?

The hundreds I've known in the Navy. And they're not the brightest bulbs on the x-mas tree either.

No one ever said they had to be bright to kick your ass.

"They talk a mean fight, but fight like hoes..."

They'll have to be smarter, faster, and stronger, which isn't likely. I'll put my money on the smarter, and better experienced fighter over one who may be younger or bigger. Size has never been an obstacle for me. Ass kicking doesn't discriminate based on size.

I'd put my money on a randomly selected Marine.

(Hell, I'd put my money on a randomly-selected Cellar member)

Oooh ooh!!! Pick me randomly, pick me!!!

Now, now, children. Public brawling never solved anything that stealth in the night couldn't solve.;)