Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

KILL IT WITH PRECISION LASER GUIDED MISSILES THAT ARE ACCURATE UP TO THE HALF KILOMETER AND CALL IT A SUCCESFUL STRIKE

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

This isn't the 1800s, isolationism doesn't work, and it won't work for a country like America. We depend on the rest of the world and if we want to keep living the good life we need to try and protect our interests. How we go about doing that is a different story.

People don't blame America for helping, they blame America when it only helps itself, when it's 'help' is counter to the will of the people, or when it does nothing for some clear problems (Rwanda, Darfur). The world isn't upset about our foreign aid, which does a lot of very good things for poor and struggling countries/areas (food, medicine, preventative care, shelter, I believe most of the help we give isn't financial).

Dvergar /
Quisling

I'm pretty sure we are capable of neutralizing a nuke long before it reaches American soil. That being said, my qualifying word was "ridiculous."

Gotta love them qualifiers!

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Allow me to clarify. I know in this information age, and age of a global economy we cannot totally isolate ourselves. I think we should isolate ourselves militarily. Still trade, do commerce, have embassies, etc. but not have our military spread out in bases all over the world...involving themselves in various conflicts.

I know that this can logically never happen. I just wish it would.

It can happen. It's how we did things for the first ~120 years. What you're referring to is non-interventionism.

you might want to check the Vice Guide.

they met someone who would sell them a small nuke.

consideirng our shit borders, a complete psychopath could easily get a nuke over there and bring it here for probably less than a million total dollars.

our illusion of safety is NOT the reason they haven't brought nukes here yet.

You are very wrong. A determined group of individuals would find it perhaps time-consuming but not rather difficult to detonate a nuke in a major US city. It wouldn't even have to be a major city, even a very small nuke going off anywhere in the contiguous 48 would have a devastating effect on the economy, even if it's physical damage was negligible.



Having our military spread in bases all over the world is most certainly a good thing. It fosters good relations with host countries (as long as they are welcomed and not the vestiges of recent US invasion), provides extra security in remote places of the world (both for the US and the host country), and allows for quick reaction and logistical support when we really need it. Our invasion of Afghanistan would have been significantly more difficult were it not for our overseas bases.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Then what is it, are they waiting for the most dramatic moment? If there were people that have the means and the will to blow us up and things are half as bad as you say they are, I don't understand what's stopping them.

Someone doesn't wait to kill someone in the middle of a psychotic rage, they just do it.


Didn't Italy open up their air base in Sicily so that we have a quick place to bomb Libya from?

It might has some plus sides, sure, but there's absolutely no reason to have bases in places like Germany 60 years after WWII. Instead of firing teachers and policemen, closing down 1940s relics that cost billions to upkeep and maintain would be a good way of cutting the budget (or we could just raise taxes, but that won't ever happen).

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Yes, that's definitely a more accurate word than isolationism.

Really, I don't understand why there isn't more of a push for this. The world's problems are not ours. The Libyan leader is an asshat who is killing his own people, but it's not our responsibility to go in and oust him. You know what's happening anyway? Libya keeps saying we are killing civilians, and once again, the blame will be squarely on the US' shoulders. We should have stayed out of Iraq, we should stay out of Libya and just mind our own damn business.

The worst thing about this, is the assholes who actually attacked us (Osama and his cronies) are still functioning just fine. Yet we decided to have a little Iraq interlude that had nothing to do with the people who actually killed Americans.

I'm all about kicking ass if someone messes with us, but things like The Korean War, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. are places that taxpayer dollars and American lives should never have been spent. We were fighting to either spread our ideologies (our version of Democracy), stop the spread of communism, secure oil interests, serve the egotistical goals of a contingent of politicians, and god knows what else.

It's why I never joined the military. I'd stand up and fight to defend this country any day of the week if she were under attack. However, if some politician told me I needed to go dodge bullets and put my life at risk to secure some oil fields or help some shit poor nation oust a dictator....screw that. And screw the government that wants to take my money out of this economy and put it into some scud missiles that we give to Israel as a gesture of good will (missiles that will inevitably kill some Palestinian civilians...and when they see "Made in the USA" on the side they'll think hard about joining a terrorist organization and put a Jihad on the asshole americans who killed their families).

Okay, now I'm in full blown rage mode. Gotta cool off.



This.

mayo, see mutually assured destruction.

I'm sure there's a similar deal worked out with various muslim nations to keep their shit sub-nuclear. If not, I have no idea why they haven't nuked us yet. it's certainly not because our borders are so tight that it prevents a smuggled nuclear weapon from getting into the country.

Sellers, technology, the inevitable US retaliation. Like I said, we couldn't stop a determined attack. Right now there are only so many portable devices, and those that have them might not want to traced back to them when it goes off. The buyers might not have the technology to correctly transport and detonate the nuke. Man-portable devices simply weren't made in more than a few cases. Nuclear powers didn't have much of a use for them, since they could just use missles or bombers and if you're going to nuke a country you needed to go all out. Even if more terroist-friendly countries developed nukes, they would think twice about just handing them off. What do you think would happen to Iran if the US was hit by one of their nukes and we traced it back?



Large-scale terrorism isn't about psychotic rage, it never was. We'd be better off if a terrorist in a psychotic rage tried to nuke us, they wouldn't take the time necessary to do it covertly and correctly and we would likely discover and stop them.



The same ones they're threatening to revoke if we don't do what they want. I agree that bases in Germany don't make a whole lot of sense, but there are many more in much more sensitive parts of the world that we would not want to close.

Dvergar /
Quisling

You could not be more wrong.

.

Kosovo was a genocide.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Kosovo was a genocide. just like rwanda and darfur, which we haven't fucked with at all.


still, I kinda see milosevic's point of view. imagine if the 1.5 million illegals we have that came in from mexico all decided they wanted to secede about half of texas and make their own nation of mexicans. seperate from mexico and the US.

We went to war to prevent secession once before, remember. I can't say our response to a similar problem would be very different.

We should have intervened in every one of them.



We didn't commit a genocide, we didn't indiscriminately and intentionally shell civilians in their homes. Getting involved in a civil war isn't the issue, and in any civil war the population will suffer and some will die. War crimes and genocide are the point where we should become involved. I'd rather we lose some American lives trying to make the world a better place than simply do nothing and watch tens of thousands die.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Sherman would like to talk with you