BF2S Forums Russia: the REAL Threat to the World

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You really think ditching our allies is a good idea.

Cutting ties at the next peaceful time would be 1000% good for this country.

How many ties do you suggest we cut?

...again, I'm not sure I'm getting through

All of them.

The reason you're not getting through is because your idea isn't realistic.  Us cutting all ties to the outside world would be like asking all of us to accept a massive drop in the standard of living, because that's what it would do.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Maybe we should be wondering why they aren't defending them? Georgia is a lot closer to their backyard.

I think we now know just how impotent the EU is against Russia.  Plenty of European posters have already pointed out how they are dependent on Russian energy.

That is a jacked up comparison. If we interrupt the EU energy they will dip more into our supplies. It's all connected.

FM do you think we should cut all trade?

Good point but...  This is why I now support more domestic drilling, building more refineries, and pushing for alternative energy full speed ahead.

Fuck the bureaucracy, we need more domestic oil, and we need it now.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think we now know just how impotent the EU is against Russia.  Plenty of European posters have already pointed out how they are dependent on Russian energy.

That is a jacked up comparison. If we interrupt the EU energy they will dip more into our supplies. It's all connected.

FM do you think we should cut all trade?

Good point but...  This is why I now support more domestic drilling, building more refineries, and pushing for alternative energy full speed ahead.

Fuck the bureaucracy, we need more domestic oil, and we need it now.

Our unwillingness to use our own resources has cost us many American Lives. And that's the bottom line for me.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That is a jacked up comparison. If we interrupt the EU energy they will dip more into our supplies. It's all connected.

FM do you think we should cut all trade?

Good point but...  This is why I now support more domestic drilling, building more refineries, and pushing for alternative energy full speed ahead.

Fuck the bureaucracy, we need more domestic oil, and we need it now.

Our unwillingness to use our own resources has cost us many American Lives. And that's the bottom line for me.

It is for me as well.  This shit Pelosi is pulling is enough to make me vote for Elizabeth Dole, and I can't stand that bitch either, but at least she's pro-domestic drilling.

I know Obama made a big energy speech a little while ago, but I never managed to listen to it.  What's his stance on domestic drilling?

Well, in the case of Britain, we kind of owe them at this point.  They stuck out their neck for us on Iraq, and we should do the same for them if Iran was stupid enough to attack them.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good point but...  This is why I now support more domestic drilling, building more refineries, and pushing for alternative energy full speed ahead.

Fuck the bureaucracy, we need more domestic oil, and we need it now.

Our unwillingness to use our own resources has cost us many American Lives. And that's the bottom line for me.

It is for me as well.  This shit Pelosi is pulling is enough to make me vote for Elizabeth Dole, and I can't stand that bitch either, but at least she's pro-domestic drilling.

I know Obama made a big energy speech a little while ago, but I never managed to listen to it.  What's his stance on domestic drilling?

He said something about supporting drilling and the GOP said he was flip flopping. They said he was flip flopping because he said "We can't drill ourself our way out of the problem". What he simply meant was we need a comprehensive plan that included more than one approach.

^^There is a lot of "he saids".. Hopefully that made sense.

Well, it's good to know that Obama understands the importance of domestic drilling.  Maybe he can convince that idiot Pelosi.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

sense, please make some

It wasn't obvious to you?

What happened the last time the US took an isolationist stance?

The U.S. has never taken an Isolationist stance. The few attempts were pitiful.

I'd consider our pre-WWII stance pretty close to or just about an Isolationist stance.

Poseidon wrote:

I'd consider our pre-WWII stance pretty close to or just about an Isolationist stance.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The few attempts were pitiful.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

FM do you think we should cut all trade?

No no no, you got the wrong idea. I don't want to abandon relations in tense times (like now), I don't want to screw anyone over, I want to cordially break restricting alliances. Our goal should be to maintain good relations with everyone, but we should never have to feel someone else has the ability to force our hand.

For example, what if Great Britain was attacked tomorrow, 9/11 style, and the attack came from a terrorist group in Iran? It's really not that much of an out-there situation. We would have to help them, or make a complete ass of ourselves. At the same time, militarily that would be a very bad position we would have put ourselves in.

This is not to say that we should keep unrestricted trade with everyone, especially when it leads to weakness. China for example has diplomatic and therefore tactical advantages over us because of the trade deficit. Our economy is important, but strategy on the global stage should always take precedence.

Oh, you mean non-intervention, not isolationism. More of a Ron Paul stance.


(to which I agree)

Okay guys, the U.S. government had zero isolationist tendancies pre-WWII, Pearl Harbor was practically an excuse for Roosevelt to enter the war. I've even seen documentaries that Pearl Harbor was set up by Roosevelt to get into the war, which I think is bullshit, but it just goes to show how obviously he was committed to war.

Isolationists would have gone to war only with Japan, clearly that was quite the fight in and of itself, especially since at the time we are talking about not winning against Japan looked like a real possibility. Before major turning points like Wake Island and Midway Island our navy in the Pacific was rocked so hard by Pearl Harbor that without the industrial capacity we had (partially from already gearing up for war) that the war in the Pacific would have been a coin toss. Even after those turning points without the invention of the nuclear bomb, which was luck at best, we would have needed Soviet help from the east to avoid taking massive casualties. It's a darn good thing we didn't need them as well because as Turq pointed out, they were busy raping Manchuria.

Take it a step further, why wasn't the U.S. on the side of Nazi Germany? Exactly what was happening to the Jews was unknown at the time, and we have supported or at least stood idly by regimes doing much worse than what we knew was going on. Germany was clearly the military powerhouse of Europe. Why were we so committed to France and primarily GB? Why were we doing absolutely everything we could to aid them, even before formally entering the conflict? Only because we had a history of being their side, particularly during WWI after breaking what I see as our most quintessential time of isolationism. Where did that involvement get us? On the wrong side of a severely pissed off Germany after forcing them to sign one of the worst treaties in history.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

FM do you think we should cut all trade?

No no no, you got the wrong idea. I don't want to abandon relations in tense times (like now), I don't want to screw anyone over, I want to cordially break restricting alliances. Our goal should be to maintain good relations with everyone, but we should never have to feel someone else has the ability to force our hand.

For example, what if Great Britain was attacked tomorrow, 9/11 style, and the attack came from a terrorist group in Iran? It's really not that much of an out-there situation. We would have to help them, or make a complete ass of ourselves. At the same time, militarily that would be a very bad position we would have put ourselves in.

This is not to say that we should keep unrestricted trade with everyone, especially when it leads to weakness. China for example has diplomatic and therefore tactical advantages over us because of the trade deficit. Our economy is important, but strategy on the global stage should always take precedence.

Oh, you mean non-intervention, not isolationism. More of a Ron Paul stance.

(to which I agree)

Nein, I mean isolationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism wrote:

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

   1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial   self-defense.
   2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all people.

edit: In my opinion, both candidates made themselves look like asses.