Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Where is our place in the World? Are we to defend the weak, look the other way, mind our own business, tell others what to do, etc? Are we Team America (F YA!)? Interested to see what others think.

Me, I believe in a strong military and believe the World with as much as they complain, will expect our military to "save" them if needed...and we will. While I am not happy about Iraq, I support the decision. So yes, I believe in using our military to push out shitty leaders unfriendly to our country. I talk a big game because I hope our troops are only sent into a war because it was REALLY necessary.

SeattleGriz wrote:Where is our place in the World? Are we to defend the weak, look the other way, mind our own business, tell others what to do, etc? Are we Team America (F YA!)? Interested to see what others think.

Me, I believe in a strong military and believe the World with as much as they complain, will expect our military to "save" them if needed...and we will. While I am not happy about Iraq, I support the decision. So yes, I believe in using our military to push out shitty leaders unfriendly to our country. I talk a big game because I hope our troops are only sent into a war because it was REALLY necessary.

Outstanding post, SeaGriz!

However, there are limits to what is possible. GW overplayed his hand and got in over his head in Iraq. He also did little things that created unnecessary hate and discontent. His swagger, for example, was inappropriate. He would have been better served to follow TR's advice to "speak softly and carry a big stick."

Although I actually agree that it was appropriate for Obama to take a less aggressive stance and attempt to assuage some of the feelings hurt by Bush, his World Apology Tour has been way over the top. Like Bush, he has (already!) overplayed his hand, except worse.

Obama has gone so far as to abandon what used to be the consensus bipartisan centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, the idea of American exceptionalism, supported by Republican and Democrat administration right through the Clinto presidency.

The problem with any kind of activist foreign policy is that there is no longer a domestic consensus for it. Something more than isolationism and less than policeman of the world would be more appropriate. The only time we should put large numbers combat troops on the ground in an aggessive combat role is when Americans and American interests are directly threatened. To this end US foreign policvy might be better served with a strong maritime military to guarantee free trade, rescue American citizens, and swiftly punish aggressors when appropriate.

America is in a unique position in the world... we are far and away the world's economic powerhouse (CA would have the worlds 4th largest economy on its own)... moreover, we are fairly unique in that we are a composite nation, made up of people from every other nation on earth - this is quite frankly both a blessing and a curse.

it means that whether we like it our not, our country has connections to every corner of the world, both economically, and culturally. it means that with the great power and blessings our nation possesses, we have a certain amount of responsibility to act as a leader on the world stage.

while i object to the notion that America needs to be the worlds policeman... quite frankly... leadership is a hard task, and sometimes when nobody else will step up and do what needs to be done... that's the definition of a leader - and that's what America has done since 1941 (and many times before that, but it became our policy after 41)

i favor the approach that says we have a leadership role to play - there are times we overplay it, but frankly speaking... it's either us, or someone else... and in that equation, a country comprised of the citizens of the world would seem a logical choice to step up and lead. while i think the true best role would be to foster more leadership among all countries... we're not there yet, and political leadership isn't there in many countries yet and frankly there needs to be someone minding the damn store... not ideal, but better than the alternative

If I can agree wholeheartedly with your entire post, why is it so hard for us to acheieve a domestic political consensus on foreign policy?

And how does it appear to be so easy for both Bush and Obama to miss the mark? I give Bush a little bit of leeway for overreacting because of 9/11, but he overreacted nonetheless. Obama just jumped over the cliff.

Not just Obama, but the entire Democratic foreign polciy apparatus have abruptly abandoned American "exceptionalism," the idea that we are special. Even Madeline Albright, an outspoken exceptionalist as Secretary of State, is now explicitly denouncing exceptionlism - the same kind of exceptionalism required to "mind the store" and be the leader you suggest.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:America is in a unique position in the world... we are far and away the world's economic powerhouse (CA would have the worlds 4th largest economy on its own)... moreover, we are fairly unique in that we are a composite nation, made up of people from every other nation on earth - this is quite frankly both a blessing and a curse.

it means that whether we like it our not, our country has connections to every corner of the world, both economically, and culturally. it means that with the great power and blessings our nation possesses, we have a certain amount of responsibility to act as a leader on the world stage.

while i object to the notion that America needs to be the worlds policeman... quite frankly... leadership is a hard task, and sometimes when nobody else will step up and do what needs to be done... that's the definition of a leader - and that's what America has done since 1941 (and many times before that, but it became our policy after 41)

i favor the approach that says we have a leadership role to play - there are times we overplay it, but frankly speaking... it's either us, or someone else... and in that equation, a country comprised of the citizens of the world would seem a logical choice to step up and lead. while i think the true best role would be to foster more leadership among all countries... we're not there yet, and political leadership isn't there in many countries yet and frankly there needs to be someone minding the damn store... not ideal, but better than the alternative

SeattleGriz wrote:Where is our place in the World? Are we to defend the weak, look the other way, mind our own business, tell others what to do, etc? Are we Team America (F YA!)? Interested to see what others think.

Me, I believe in a strong military and believe the World with as much as they complain, will expect our military to "save" them if needed...and we will. While I am not happy about Iraq, I support the decision. So yes, I believe in using our military to push out shitty leaders unfriendly to our country. I talk a big game because I hope our troops are only sent into a war because it was REALLY necessary.

I agree that the US has the burden of policing the world. But if we are going to do it then we need ot do a better job of picking our battles. Iraq was a poor decision and I'll never support it. I;'l support troops but not the concept of the war. I feel oil and revenge were the main factors in that war.

But if we are supposed to be policing the worst of the world the way the hell aren't we in Darfur? It seems like we fight where we have something to gain from it. Which in a way makes sense or we'd have to be everywhere. But what drives me crazy is the govt says we are in places like Iraq to liberate the people. Well if thats the true reason there are countries where citizens suffer much more then Iraq.

However, we must be careful not to step on the feet of other countries. Yeah yeah people say we shouldn't care what other countries think but in reality we should. If we really are the police then we must listen as well or we are no better then the worst. Plus the current world is so tightly bound economically and culturally that all opinions matter now.

The US must not become a bully in its role. Nobody likes a douchebag and I'd hate for the US to become more of one.

History shows us:
There will always be tens of thousands of American boys willing to die at the drop of a hat - spurred on by patriotic words and nationalistic jingo - whipped up to a fever pitch...

History shows us:
There can always be - no matter the reality - a situation distorted into a war chant - grave consequences if we do not act now and crush our enemy...

It's hard for me not to be completely cynical and say: Who cares if the reason is pure concoction or not - America isn't at war, the Marines are at war, America is at the mall...

Who cares...

It has ZERO effect on my day-to-day life - even though the "tough talkers" would have me believe my freedom is in peril moment by moment - we've had way too many wars over nothing - and War for Profit in the last 50 years for me to bother trying to decide if this one is real or just another bullsh!t financial endeavor... you can only cry freedom like 20 times before I catch on...

Cleets Part 2 wrote:It has ZERO effect on my day-to-day life - even though the "tough talkers" would have me believe my freedom is in peril moment by moment - we've had way too many wars over nothing - and War for Profit in the last 50 years for me to bother trying to decide if this one is real or just another bullsh!t financial endeavor... you can only cry freedom like 20 times before I catch on...

Do you think the people of New York still feel this way, Cleets?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:It has ZERO effect on my day-to-day life - even though the "tough talkers" would have me believe my freedom is in peril moment by moment - we've had way too many wars over nothing - and War for Profit in the last 50 years for me to bother trying to decide if this one is real or just another bullsh!t financial endeavor... you can only cry freedom like 20 times before I catch on...

Do you think the people of New York still feel this way, Cleets?

I don't give a fuck about New York... where's Bin Laden..? Who cares about him..?

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Do you think the people of New York still feel this way, Cleets?

I don't give a fuck about New York... where's Bin Laden..? Who cares about him..?

Well, thanks for sharing. But I feel it's a fair question. The whole "America is at the mall" mentality is what's wrong with this country and why we won't ever win another war in the conventional sense.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
I don't give a fuck about New York... where's Bin Laden..? Who cares about him..?

Well, thanks for sharing. But I feel it's a fair question. The whole "America is at the mall" mentality is what's wrong with this country and why we won't ever win another war in the conventional sense.

No it's not at all what's wrong...
we're a rampant consumerist society (deal with it) It's our Congress that's keeping us from winning wars

and my point (although a bit sarcastic) is NY is almost 10 year old news
and what have we accomplished since then..?
what were our goals / and what are they today..?

sad... pathetic is actually the proper word

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:America is in a unique position in the world... we are far and away the world's economic powerhouse (CA would have the worlds 4th largest economy on its own)... moreover, we are fairly unique in that we are a composite nation, made up of people from every other nation on earth - this is quite frankly both a blessing and a curse.

it means that whether we like it our not, our country has connections to every corner of the world, both economically, and culturally. it means that with the great power and blessings our nation possesses, we have a certain amount of responsibility to act as a leader on the world stage.

while i object to the notion that America needs to be the worlds policeman... quite frankly... leadership is a hard task, and sometimes when nobody else will step up and do what needs to be done... that's the definition of a leader - and that's what America has done since 1941 (and many times before that, but it became our policy after 41)

i favor the approach that says we have a leadership role to play - there are times we overplay it, but frankly speaking... it's either us, or someone else... and in that equation, a country comprised of the citizens of the world would seem a logical choice to step up and lead. while i think the true best role would be to foster more leadership among all countries... we're not there yet, and political leadership isn't there in many countries yet and frankly there needs to be someone minding the damn store... not ideal, but better than the alternative

Not bad for someone without a H.S. diploma.

I would add to our obligation that we consume an inordinate amount of the world's energy resources and have been doing so for eons. We owe the world and we need to be better examples by changing our wasteful and embarrassing lifestyles.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
I don't give a fuck about New York... where's Bin Laden..? Who cares about him..?

Well, thanks for sharing. But I feel it's a fair question. The whole "America is at the mall" mentality is what's wrong with this country and why we won't ever win another war in the conventional sense.

The same mentality also gets us into wars, that we cannot win.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, thanks for sharing. But I feel it's a fair question. The whole "America is at the mall" mentality is what's wrong with this country and why we won't ever win another war in the conventional sense.

No it's not at all what's wrong...
we're a rampant consumerist society (deal with it) It's our Congress that's keeping us from winning wars

and my point (although a bit sarcastic) is NY is almost 10 year old news
and what have we accomplished since then..?
what were our goals / and what are they today..?

sad... pathetic is actually the proper word

But, using your logic, unless a terrorist attack affects YOU individually, you are in no way affected by terrorism. And you're right, Congress IS what keeps us from winning wars....that and America's lack of staying power.

native wrote:If I can agree wholeheartedly with your entire post, why is it so hard for us to acheieve a domestic political consensus on foreign policy?

And how does it appear to be so easy for both Bush and Obama to miss the mark? I give Bush a little bit of leeway for overreacting because of 9/11, but he overreacted nonetheless. Obama just jumped over the cliff.

Not just Obama, but the entire Democratic foreign polciy apparatus have abruptly abandoned American "exceptionalism," the idea that we are special. Even Madeline Albright, an outspoken exceptionalist as Secretary of State, is now explicitly denouncing exceptionlism - the same kind of exceptionalism required to "mind the store" and be the leader you suggest.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:America is in a unique position in the world... we are far and away the world's economic powerhouse (CA would have the worlds 4th largest economy on its own)... moreover, we are fairly unique in that we are a composite nation, made up of people from every other nation on earth - this is quite frankly both a blessing and a curse.

it means that whether we like it our not, our country has connections to every corner of the world, both economically, and culturally. it means that with the great power and blessings our nation possesses, we have a certain amount of responsibility to act as a leader on the world stage.

while i object to the notion that America needs to be the worlds policeman... quite frankly... leadership is a hard task, and sometimes when nobody else will step up and do what needs to be done... that's the definition of a leader - and that's what America has done since 1941 (and many times before that, but it became our policy after 41)

i favor the approach that says we have a leadership role to play - there are times we overplay it, but frankly speaking... it's either us, or someone else... and in that equation, a country comprised of the citizens of the world would seem a logical choice to step up and lead. while i think the true best role would be to foster more leadership among all countries... we're not there yet, and political leadership isn't there in many countries yet and frankly there needs to be someone minding the damn store... not ideal, but better than the alternative

I have no problem with the idea of exceptionalism, I have a problem with the way the Bush admin. abused that idea to pursue their neo-con agenda.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
No it's not at all what's wrong...
we're a rampant consumerist society (deal with it) It's our Congress that's keeping us from winning wars

and my point (although a bit sarcastic) is NY is almost 10 year old news
and what have we accomplished since then..?
what were our goals / and what are they today..?

sad... pathetic is actually the proper word

But, using your logic, unless a terrorist attack affects YOU individually, you are in no way affected by terrorism. And you're right, Congress IS what keeps us from winning wars....that and America's lack of staying power.

AZ,
There is not MORE terrorism in the world today than there was 20 years ago or 50 years ago... don;t get too excited about "the terror" - Yeah, we got a black eye - and what did we do...
We promptly used it as motivation to fight IRAQ..?

Seriously fucking IRAQ..? what a JOKE...

I have not been able to understand the U.S. Military agenda in my lifetime
I couldn't make sense of it in the 70's 80's or 90's and it sure doesn't make sense now...

WHAT"S OUR ROLL in the world today... Who knows... we sure don't
and pretending that we're accomplishing something - making progress towards some greater goal... not a chance - and Iraq proves that in BIG BOLD letters

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:If I can agree wholeheartedly with your entire post, why is it so hard for us to acheieve a domestic political consensus on foreign policy?

And how does it appear to be so easy for both Bush and Obama to miss the mark? I give Bush a little bit of leeway for overreacting because of 9/11, but he overreacted nonetheless. Obama just jumped over the cliff.

Not just Obama, but the entire Democratic foreign polciy apparatus have abruptly abandoned American "exceptionalism," the idea that we are special. Even Madeline Albright, an outspoken exceptionalist as Secretary of State, is now explicitly denouncing exceptionlism - the same kind of exceptionalism required to "mind the store" and be the leader you suggest.

I have no problem with the idea of exceptionalism, I have a problem with the way the Bush admin. abused that idea to pursue their neo-con agenda.

would agree 100% - took the idea of exceptionalism and made it frankly imperialistic in a very tangible way.
drawing up war plans from some think tank in DC to attack countries that had not provoked it to "spread democracy" flies in the face of everything we are supposed to be about. (not just talking Iraq either, in the late 90's the neocons drafted plans for something like half a dozen countries... the only people who should be doing that are in the Pentagon or at one of our service academies as an exercise or "plan for everything" contingency)

Cleets Part 2 wrote: AZ,
There is not MORE terrorism in the world today than there was 20 years ago or 50 years ago... don;t get too excited about "the terror" -

Really? Even with all the left's blathering on and on about how we were creating 10 more terrorists for every one we killed? This has been a talking point on dailykos and DU since the beginning of the Iraq war---the creation of MORE terror because of our actions.

So, is it true, or are you right?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote: AZ,
There is not MORE terrorism in the world today than there was 20 years ago or 50 years ago... don;t get too excited about "the terror" -

Really? Even with all the left's blathering on and on about how we were creating 10 more terrorists for every one we killed? This has been a talking point on dailykos and DU since the beginning of the Iraq war---the creation of MORE terror because of our actions.

So, is it true, or are you right?

I don't completely buy that argument from the left...
I understand the point that you now have millions of homeless potential angry easily led children - but obviously you can't bomb terrorism away like Cheney would have us believe...

but there will always be a closer easier target than the USA (called Israel)

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Really? Even with all the left's blathering on and on about how we were creating 10 more terrorists for every one we killed? This has been a talking point on dailykos and DU since the beginning of the Iraq war---the creation of MORE terror because of our actions.

So, is it true, or are you right?

I don't completely buy that argument from the left...
I understand the point that you now have millions of homeless potential angry easily led children - but obviously you can't bomb terrorism away like Cheney would have us believe...

but there will always be a closer easier target than the USA (called Israel)

just wanted to clarify that you diverged from that talking point.

When the Chinese, then the Russians, then the Muslims take over, I just hope they leave our best-in-the-world pornography business alone.

D1B wrote: Not bad for someone without a H.S. diploma.

I would add to our obligation that we consume an inordinate amount of the world's energy resources and have been doing so for eons. We owe the world and we need to be better examples by changing our wasteful and embarrassing lifestyles.

Condoms are made using petroleum and latex, both of which carry economic and ecological impacts. Are you reusing your condoms or merely rawdawging? Both of which make financial and eco-sense.

Cap'n Cat wrote:When the Chinese, then the Russians, then the Muslims take over, I just hope they leave our best-in-the-world pornography business alone.

Your own expansive collection of Russian porn belies your statement, Senor Gato.