What next for the US abroad?

[I think not]

Three years after the start of the war in Iraq, the United States foreign policy is the subject of anguished debate.

Post 9/11 the US decided the only way to stop more terrorist attacks was to fight a pre-emptive war. That Bush doctrine is under increasing attack at home and abroad.

The historian Francis Fukuyama coined the phrase "the end of history" to describe the final victory of liberal democracy at the end of the Cold War. But he's changed his mind about using force to hasten the process.

What do you think? Should the US keep using its military power to spread democracy? Should it demilitarise and depend more on diplomacy? Would that work? Is liberal democracy what all the world wants?

 

[cortez]

yeah sure
go ahead

LET OPERATION GLOBAL FREEDOM BEGIN

june- massive airstrikes against iran
- a new fascist shah is put in power

july -surprise totall vaporisation of north korea
- before they respond with their own

august- nuke 2 thirds of china
- with neutron bombs
- 3 million western boots invade
china establish right wing pupette
goverment
- afgan opium production increased by a
factor of ten
- forced upon
the chineese people
- profits used to finance the ongoing war for global freedom

sept---cuba- lightning strike invasion
castro replaced by fascist dictator loyal only to US interests-- his name is Batista- no relation to the former dictator of the 50s

oct---central america is invaded by special forces and right wing death squads civil wars rage-- 500000 dead--- the central american republic swear to never again try to control the price of bananas

nov-- 1 masssive i year long carpet bombing campaign is begun against the communist country of vietnam-- sporadic uses napalm used for dramatic effect
project pheonix reinstated
vietneameese between the ages of 14-30 are rounded up and tortured to death over a 12 hour period- 100000 more dead


dec
the japaneese populace declares a non allegience with the western powers-- fearing retalliation from china-- still smoldering resistance there-- with many rogue nukes--- missing
the us pre-empts any move by the japaneese
might further make to scupper their plans-- by nuking hiroshima and nagasaki --again--

jan
as this is occurring argentina brazil and chile are desperately are trying to acquire nukes fearing an american attack
the pre-emptive device is invoked again by
the US-
chile argentina brazil are nuked pre-empting their nuclear ambitions

feb
refugeees pour in from the sourthern cone into columbia and venezuaela

massive invasion of columbia justied because ----destabilisation might increase norcotraficking-- see afganistan above for comparison---

march
massive invasion of venezuala justified because destabilisation there will threaten the US energy interests-- required for this global war for freedom

during all this the french refuse to participate
and are slandered as cowards

anyone voicing opposition is labbelled terrorist and pre-emptively incarcerated without trial or representation

after the confict is over
there a show trial of war criminals
these are
vietnameese
chineese
iranian
cuban
argentinain

one token american soldier is convicted of -- shooting an unarmed civilian during the invasion of venezuaela--
the american public is satisfied justice has been done--
the case is used by the media --
would THEY conviscte their own of a war crime -- o thats whats makes us a jsut society

the US and WESTERN populace is OUTRAGED at the atrocities that these SAVAGES have performed on americans - and other westerners

etc etc etc

i would support all of this
i really would but
i generally dont like to watch reruns

 

[cortez]

oh
hold on more thing
anyone raising these occurances in the future circa 2050--in critical way-- is called
--antiamerican
-- or antiwestern
-- or a member of the loonie left

Hey-- ITN
liberal democrocasy-- get some first

 

[Kreskin]

Once the US regime change occurs I'm confident some sanity will rise to the top.

 

[cortez]

no chance
all those outrages ie Viet to cuba etc
occurred with various regimes
it doesnt matter whose in power
there will always be an enemy
always

the warrior race always needs an enemy
always

 

[Toro]

RE: What next for the US

I'm holding you to those predictions, Cortez...

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: What next for the US abroad?

Once the US regime change occurs I'm confident some sanity will rise to the top.

Your joking right, there hasn't been a regime change in the US since WW11, there is a better chance of Christ materialising in my bum.
Why do you doubt the words of Cortez, he calls them like he sees them, his like has not been seen since Nostradamus.

 

[darkbeaver]

Three years after the start of the war in Iraq, the United States foreign policy is the subject of anguished debate.

Post 9/11 the US decided the only way to stop more terrorist attacks was to fight a pre-emptive war. That Bush doctrine is under increasing attack at home and abroad.

The historian Francis Fukuyama coined the phrase "the end of history" to describe the final victory of liberal democracy at the end of the Cold War. But he's changed his mind about using force to hasten the process.

What do you think? Should the US keep using its military power to spread democracy? Should it demilitarise and depend more on diplomacy? Would that work? Is liberal democracy what all the world wants?

If you lend any credence to the global warming warning thing and I do some arks would be prudent. There's directions for construction in the bible, good thing we saved that book it finally has a practicle application.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: What next for the US abroad?

oh
hold on more thing
anyone raising these occurances in the future circa 2050--in critical way-- is called
--antiamerican
-- or antiwestern
-- or a member of the loonie left

Hey-- ITN
liberal democrocasy-- get some first

or even ---revisionist...

lol cortez lol....

 

[mabudon]

RE: What next for the US

If you lend any credence to the global warming warning thing and I do some arks would be prudent. There's directions for construction in the bible, good thing we saved that book it finally has a practicle application.

DAMN that is funny for some reason man, it's too early for the high-grade yuks (off topic but that phrase HAD to be quoted)

 

[Jay]

Is liberal democracy what all the world wants?

For a safe secure world, this is our only option....how we go about it depends on the resistance to it.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[I think not]

Gee, Iran is looking pretty cute.

 

[twotoques]

Is liberal democracy what all the world wants?

For a safe secure world, this is our only option....how we go about it depends on the resistance to it.

How should we go about "giving" democracy to those people who don't want democracy in any form? For instance, those people who seem to prefer a theocracy? eg: Iraq, Afghanistan, Arkansas, Texas, etc.

It doesn't seem fair to bomb the crap out of some of them and not others.

off topic, but the other day, while having a discussion with a couple of born again Christians, one in New York and one in California, about freedom of speech and religion, they both agreed that, in America these days, there is too much freedom.

I was amazed. Absolutely. I didn't know what to say.

Is this what Christians believe? Reminds me of the mullahs.

By the way Cortez, I think you're a little nuts. And you're probably right.

 

[Machjo]

"quote="I think not"
What do you think? Should the US keep using its military power to spread democracy?"

Some countries don't want democracy. If the US won a war against china militarily, for the sake of argument, you'd then have to deal with the people, just like in Iraq!

"Should it demilitarise and depend more on diplomacy? "

That's a little exteme under the current circumstances. So many are currently faoming at the mouth for revenge against the US, it wouldn't be wise to demilitarize. On the other hand, maintaining your current military will bankrupt you. Thus a short-term solution I could see is reducing your military spending and building alliances (uh oh, this might mean some depomacy willbe needed). And a long-term solution might be to share a military force with any otehr willing nation, which again could save the US money while still being able to defend itself, but of couse loosing some of its military sovereignty in the process. But this, in combination with other measures, couldsave the economy in the long-run.

"Would that work? Is liberal democracy what all the world wants?"

Complete demilitarization would not work: the US would be attacked from all sides from all the enemies it's created for itself. As for liberal democracy, that's not what the whole world wants necessarily, so it might be wiser to focus on spreading culture first, and then see about liberal democracy. Any political system will make it or break it according to its underlying culture.

 

[cortez]

By the way Cortez, I think you're a little nuts.

why thats the nicest thing youve ever said to me... blush

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: What next for the US abroad?

the warrior race always needs an enemy
always

If their not on about classes their on about race. Boring!

 

[aeon]

Three years after the start of the war in Iraq, the United States foreign policy is the subject of anguished debate.

Post 9/11 the US decided the only way to stop more terrorist attacks was to fight a pre-emptive war. That Bush doctrine is under increasing attack at home and abroad.

The historian Francis Fukuyama coined the phrase "the end of history" to describe the final victory of liberal democracy at the end of the Cold War. But he's changed his mind about using force to hasten the process.

What do you think? Should the US keep using its military power to spread democracy? Should it demilitarise and depend more on diplomacy? Would that work? Is liberal democracy what all the world wants?

The US never used its military power to spread democracy, probably in fairy tail story yes, but not in reality.

Diplomacy yes, otherwise, what is the difference beetween this time and pre-historic??