Lawlz's birthday is April 30

[Socks]

I don't think there are a lot of other nations going around invading others to scare them away from invading.

You're not understanding and or purposely being too naive, the CONUS cannot be invaded or significantly attacked via conventional means, no one has that kind of logistical and military power. This is not about directly defending the US, but ensuring our interests, resources, both economical, political and military are protected and or expanded all over the world.

[me003]

CONUS

I was once in a conu on a lake.

[FAMY2]

Sure.

Me too please.

[Karel]

Me too please.

I would like it as well.

[wawi]

Hello



Edit:  Wrong Thread

[Gin]

what would you be willing to send

idk something in the general area of $35-$40.

[Daddy]

You're not understanding and or purposely being too naive, the CONUS cannot be invaded or significantly attacked via conventional means, no one has that kind of logistical and military power.

I figured it had something to do with the large bodies of water on either side of the continent.

This is not about directly defending the US, but ensuring our interests, resources, both economical, political and military are protected and or expanded all over the world.

Bullying?

[Socks]

Bullying?

What is this second grade? Do you want to live like modern, pampered, sheltered, privileged, civilized 21st Century American and enjoy endless benefits other can only dream of? If yes, which you are currently doing, then Imperialism and "bullying" is the way to go.

[Daddy]

What is this second grade? Do you want to live like modern, pampered, sheltered, privileged, civilized 21st Century American and enjoy endless benefits other can only dream of? If yes, which you are currently doing, then Imperialism and "bullying" is the way to go.

How is using your military's enforce your will civilized? 

One again, do you see countries like Sweden, Canada, or Switzerland using their militaries to gain standing in the world?  No.  I'd say, in some areas, they are more advanced than us.

[Socks]

How is using your military's enforce your will civilized? 

Umm... being civilized and advanced requires resources, economical wealth, political clout and a strong military, the latter ensures the other three. The US would not be able to have all three without a strong military. Our military enhances all the other categories, without it we would be subject to this "bullying" from other states which would seek to retake our position as the most powerful and influential nation in the world.

One again, do you see countries like Sweden, Canada, or Switzerland using their militaries to gain standing in the world?  No.  I'd say, in some areas, they are more advanced than us.

Sweden and Canada cannot be compared to the US, they do not have the same capability on the world stage, they cannot dictate international laws, cannot forcibly defeat any nation on earth, do not have our level of economical strength nor do they consume the level of raw resources that we do.

[Daddy]

Umm... being civilized and advanced requires resources, economical wealth, political clout and a strong military, the latter ensures the other three. The US would not be able to have all three without a strong military. Our military enhances all the other categories, without it we would be subject to this "bullying" from other states which would seek to retake our position as the most powerful and influential nation in the world.

Or they would leave us alone.  Of course a strong defense is needed, but it should only be used just for defense.  Invading other countries isn't defending yourself.   Invading Iraq doesn't seem to be helping us in any of those categories either.  We're wasting resources and oil prices are rising.  Our economy is down the shitter.  Our influence is diminishing and the fact that we meddle in things, which we later regret(supporting taliban to fight soviets, supporting drug cartels to fight communists in latin america) gives us problems like 9/11 and illegal immigration.

Sweden and Canada cannot be compared to the US, they do not have the same capability on the world stage,

You mean by invading third world countries?

they cannot dictate international laws,

Or get away with defying them

cannot forcibly defeat any nation on earth,

We couldn't beat the Viet Cong.

do not have our level of economical strength nor do they consume the level of raw resources that we do.

hello china, hello india.

[YPrrrr]

Sweden and Canada cannot be compared to the US, they do not have the same capability on the world stage, they cannot dictate international laws, cannot forcibly defeat any nation on earth, do not have our level of economical strength nor do they consume the level of raw resources that we do.

Since when did being wasteful consititute an advantage?

Also, Canada is currently beating us economically

[Nyerp]

hey guys i heard there was lawlz's birthday

wait nvm

[Socks]

Or they would leave us alone.  Of course a strong defense is needed, but it should only be used just for defense.  Invading other countries isn't defending yourself.

That is very naivete, the world has always had either one super power or several, if we step down someone else will replace us, no doubt about it. There is a high probability that if that were to happen then this nation would probably not be so friendly towards us nor be as benevolent. I'd rather we continue our reign and expanse as isolationism is no longer possible in the modern world. Also, invasion and attack is the last means of resort. The US military has ensures, in some way, global stability due to our military deterrent. We have been forced to invade and attack others because they have either attacked us first, or because they have not complied with our wishes and views. Don't even attempt to lecture on the morality of this, I could car less, I'm more concerned with actually keeping the status quo rather than some self defeating heroic moral stance.

Invading Iraq doesn't seem to be helping us in any of those categories either.  We're wasting resources and oil prices are rising.  Our economy is down the shitter.  Our influence is diminishing and the fact that we meddle in things, which we later regret(supporting taliban to fight soviets, supporting drug cartels to fight communists in latin america) gives us problems like 9/11 and illegal immigration.

Oil prices will inevitable rise, as will their demand, the Resource War's have already begun in the ME, Central Asia and more recently Africa with perhaps South America to follow. Hence US involvement in the ME, we have essentially a regional puppet government, backed up by the biggest foreign military presence and capability in the area. The US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, SA, Turkey, U.A.E., Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, etc... the US Fifth Fleet ensure the US is the dominant player, military, economically and politically wise, in this resource rich region for decades to come. It  is too early to notice the effects now and or appreciate the indirect rewards but trust me there are plenty.

As I mentioned the US has built bases and influence in Central Asia as well so that we may get a foothold for the oil boom expected to hit that area with a slew of pipelines under development.

The newly USAFRICOM, US African Command, was created as a response to growing Chinese involvement in oil and resource rich African countries. Western (US) interest was lacking the region and China took advantage, so we responded in kind. Future projections show a substantial portion of US oil and resources will come from Africa.

Latin America, there currently is strong and rising influence of oil rich Socialist/Leftist anti-US regimes and an ever increasing Russian influence in this traditionally dominant US sphere of influence. As such, the US recently re-activated the US 4th Fleet, after 55 years of being dormant, this will give more attention, leverage and military capability to the USPACOM, or US Souther Command.

As for the unintended consequences you cite, the CIA calls it "Blowback", and it is unavoidable. Our inherent position and requires an aggressive and expanding foreign policy in order to maintain such a position, isolationism cannot work for US if we still want to live with the same benefits and luxuries or if we still want to have the same clout or power in the world stage. As unfortunate as "Blowback" may be, it is a risk we must take, hopefully we can be more prudent and negate the severity of it when it does occur again.

You mean by invading third world countries?

Given MAD, and the cost of fighting a peer competitor head on for military, political, economical and material resources  proxy influence and wars are the only way to go. Instead of fighting China and Russia, we fight a potential supplier of theirs and turn them to fit our needs. We supply other states with weapons, finance and political clout to reduce the influence of other nations over them so that we may increase ours. This is the purpose that NATO fulfills, same goes for our alliance with Japan and Australia in the Pacific.

We couldn't beat the Viet Cong.

This is a false view, military speaking the US military won every strategic and almost all tactical engagements against the North Vietnamese. Statistically speaking we won, hands down, our military dominated. We failed miserably on the political and economical front however and that is why we lost. Our military was not allowed to conduce a gloves off full on sustained attack without constant political interference, restraint or mismanagement. Our military was so restrained that we never directly crippled or sustained an attack against North Vietnam, if we had, the results would have been different.

hello china, hello india.

[/quote]

Their rapid economical growth will eventually slow down, and they lack the political clout, the military might, and the developed internal infrastructure and government the US has. Without these they cannot compete with the US on the world stage for the above gains and things I have mentioned.

[Daddy]

Are you high again?