pmoney25;1406572 wrote:Since when does the UN have any authority over the United States or any country for that matter?

majorspark;1406606 wrote:Congress has about as big of balls to cut funding for military actions the president may order as it would cutting domestic so called "entitlements". Cutting funding to troops that the president has ordered into battle would be seen as surrendering to the enemy....

majorspark;1406606 wrote:...No one on this thread is arguing this.

Con_Alma;1406635 wrote:...and yet administration after administration regardless of political party continues to side with me. That's really all that matters an it isn't going to change anytime soon.

Con_Alma;1406637 wrote:Who said the UN had any authority over anyone?

pmoney25;1406643 wrote:So your defense is that both parties continue to make the same mistakes? Both parties have kept adding to the social programs you speak of and increase the debt as well regardless of what administration, so that makes it ok?...

pmoney25;1406643 wrote:...You realize how that sounds? It's no different than the biggest Liberal on here saying, hey all the adminstrations the last 100 years have agreed with me on spending more money and creating all these entitlement programs, So it must be the right thing to do.

pmoney25;1406644 wrote:You said we go into these situations with the approval and acceptance of the UN like that means anything ...

pmoney25;1406643 wrote:...and we go in to enforce UN resolutions like we work for them.

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:In the case of most of the U.S. presence abroad case it's done with the understanding, approval and acceptance of the United Nations. Many time it is done to enforce UN resolutions.

So as long as the UN approves, a nation's autonomy goes out the window? Why does/should approval from the UN matter? Moreover, why are we so keen on going places that we get to the point of seeking it anyway?

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote: ...and our presence lends to ensuring that it remains a non-threat.

I could do the same with my dog. I could watch him sleep to make sure he doesn't wake up and kill my family. Doesn't make it a fruitful endeavor.

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:Blowback has and will exist as it relates to our activities abroad. It doesn't mean more or even greater security issues havn't be squelched because we have and will realize blowback.

This is a fallacious argument. You can suggest that it doesn't mean we haven't squelched greater security issues elsewhere. I will suggest that it doesn't mean we have, either. And given the motivation for some of the most serious attacks on the US, I'd contend that history demonstrates that blowback is indeed something we ought to minimize instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Oh well. It's always going to be there as long as we're unwelcomely involved in other nations' affairs."

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:They are indeed two different things. I'll choose to relay upon the decision of many administrations who have detremined that the intentions of those with capabilities give us concern. To assume that those intentions weren't genuinely defined based on history and intelligence gathering is something you'll have to live with. I am comfortable with such decisions.

Given examples like Castro and Bin Laden, leaders who we originally backed in more than just word and eventually propped up, perhaps I'm not quite so willing to follow along without justifiable reason. We hardly have an acceptable record of knowing who will continue to be our ally and who will not, it seems.

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:Geographic fruitfulness is hardly the concern. Smothering emerging threat capabilities associated with poor histories combined with gathered intelligence is.

If this were the case, I daresay our need to be so densely populated in the same damn place for years on end wouldn't make sense. Our potential threats are appearing to be far more mobile than we are deciding to be. Instead, we just seem like we're trying to occupy "everywhere," so that nobody can go anywhere we are not. Not only is that unsustainable, but again, it completely disregards the autonomy of other nations.

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:Absolutely. The risk of not doing so can be significant.

It can? You know this how? Or are you guessing based on a foregone conclusion that if the people in charge are doing it, it must be a good idea.

And again, if we're doing the former under the guise of squelching possible threats to our own people, tell me why we couldn't manage the same in order to protect one of our own people from a threat we were going to initiate.

Con_Alma;1406455 wrote:We have such mobility and in some cases we are shunned as a bad cop. IN others, we are not. Being viewed as a bad cop only leads me to believe even more that's a place we need to be. That's not an area we should withdraw from.

And how does that logic go? People who don't trust us are plotting something against us? It doesn't occur to you that they might just be afraid of us and feel better about the idea of us leaving for their own safety?

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...
So as long as the UN approves, a nation's autonomy goes out the window? Why does/should approval from the UN matter? Moreover, why are we so keen on going places that we get to the point of seeking it anyway? ...

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...I could do the same with my dog. I could watch him sleep to make sure he doesn't wake up and kill my family. Doesn't make it a fruitful endeavor....

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...This is a fallacious argument. You can suggest that it doesn't mean we haven't squelched greater security issues elsewhere. I will suggest that it doesn't mean we have, either. And given the motivation for some of the most serious attacks on the US, I'd contend that history demonstrates that blowback is indeed something we ought to minimize instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Oh well. It's always going to be there as long as we're unwelcomely involved in other nations' affairs."...

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...Given examples like Castro and Bin Laden, leaders who we originally backed in more than just word and eventually propped up, perhaps I'm not quite so willing to follow along without justifiable reason. We hardly have an acceptable record of knowing who will continue to be our ally and who will not, it seems....

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...If this were the case, I daresay our need to be so densely populated in the same damn place for years on end wouldn't make sense. Our potential threats are appearing to be far more mobile than we are deciding to be. Instead, we just seem like we're trying to occupy "everywhere," so that nobody can go anywhere we are not. Not only is that unsustainable, but again, it completely disregards the autonomy of other nations....

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...It can? You know this how? Or are you guessing based on a foregone conclusion that if the people in charge are doing it, it must be a good idea....

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...And again, if we're doing the former under the guise of squelching possible threats to our own people, tell me why we couldn't manage the same in order to protect one of our own people from a threat we were going to initiate....

O-Trap;1407191 wrote:...And how does that logic go? People who don't trust us are plotting something against us? It doesn't occur to you that they might just be afraid of us and feel better about the idea of us leaving for their own safety?