It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by boncho
I have one question for the Generals:
If the US pulls out of international politics. Who is left to take their place?
Originally posted by The_Phantom
Originally posted by boncho
I have one question for the Generals:
If the US pulls out of international politics. Who is left to take their place?
I don't believe the Generals were suggesting that the US pull out of international politics.
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by The_Phantom
Originally posted by boncho
I have one question for the Generals:
If the US pulls out of international politics. Who is left to take their place?
I don't believe the Generals were suggesting that the US pull out of international politics.
Unfortunately, international politics is tied in with the US military presence around the world. That includes the use of, or at least the threat of such force. And US interest seems to run in line with a number of other countries in that region.
Iran VS the USA is not really, Iran VS the USA.
In short.
They didn't even suggest that the US shouldn't have military presence around the world. They just said you shouldn't go around attacking people until you use all other options. If people in office held the belief that international politics meant bombing the crap out of every nation that 'could be a threat' we would have to bomb every nation on earth. These Generals are right, we shouldn't rush into war.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by The_Phantom
They didn't even suggest that the US shouldn't have military presence around the world. They just said you shouldn't go around attacking people until you use all other options. If people in office held the belief that international politics meant bombing the crap out of every nation that 'could be a threat' we would have to bomb every nation on earth. These Generals are right, we shouldn't rush into war.
Who says it's being rushed into? There has been plenty of going ons behind the curtain on the world stage. The real question is, why can't they just tell people the real reason they want to go in, and do it anyways.
Unless we or an ally is attacked, war should be an option of last resort.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If we follow Israel, what happens in 20yrs time when they try to force us into a war with Russia, or China so someone we 'cant' hit...
If we follow Israel, what happens in 20yrs time when they try to force us into a war with Russia, or China so someone we 'cant' hit...
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Agit8dChop
If we follow Israel, what happens in 20yrs time when they try to force us into a war with Russia, or China so someone we 'cant' hit...
The US already fought two wars against Russia in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It had nothing to do with Israel.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
We didnt fight a war against Russia, we did what we are doing now and thats aid an opposition in afghanistan, and vietnam turned out to be us fighting the vietnamese (watch fog of war)
But that was then, back in old school 'drop bombs and send in the troops' days..
im talking about now..
what happens in the next 2 decades when russia tries to force us to openly hit russia, or china.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by boncho
?
I think we' are totally on different wavelengths here dude.