southgadawg 52 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Sorry Philadelphia but if you will go and read your history books (or at least research American involvement outside it's borders---since today's history books don't include as much real history as 50 or 100 years ago..more political correct spin in my opinion) then you will see that America has long taken a stand that it will not be beset by enemies even if they are on the other side of the world. That trend in American politics goes back to at least around 1800. (not just the last 40 years--you are way off on that one). I am NOT saying America should always be used to police the world by any and all means...what I am saying is that no matter where you when you pose a threat to America or it's people then it should be acted upon with due diligence and devastating consequences. Edited October 17, 2013 by southgadawg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted October 17, 2013 The United States was not actively invading and establishing puppet regimes that the locals did not want in 1800. This was an attitude that they developed with the Middle East post-WW2. The United States, also, did not carve out a chunk of Palestinian territory and give it to the Jewish nation without the consent of the inhabitants. There are plenty of attitudes that the US has had for centuries, but the only prior hostilities I can think of with the Middle East were the Barbary Wars. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
southgadawg 52 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Viking fan I will admit that I was alluding to the Barbary Pirates and also to such things as the Perdicaris Incident for examples of America reacting to threats to it's people. These did happen in the Mediterranean area against what turns out to be Muslim threats (and I want to say that I personally have known quite a few Muslims in my life that I was very good friends with. I think it is the radical element , that they themselves need to police more, instead of the actual religion of Islam that has been the issue). I didn't mention any "puppet" gov'ts (although many, and obviously you) are of the opinion that this is an issue. In fact as I alluded to earlier I am not a total fan of some of the things that the United States has done over there. I will say that imho the reasons for the terrorism (which was the basis for my response to Philadelphia) isn't primarily something different the American gov't itself has done with a change in policy....it is however as you alluded to a cumulation of several things which definitely include Israel becoming a nation (which many would say was initiated by the British and the United Nations...of which of course America is a part). Terrorism itself dates back in most accounts to the Middle East possibly starting with the Jewish Sicarii and then definitely with the Muslim Hashhashin. Not sure who was the first to start suicide bombing but certainly the practice of sending a "soldier" on a suicide mission in desperate times is probably a tactic as old as warfare itself (and in terrorist's minds they are at war). Religion has been one of the principal reasons for fighting wars for many centuries. Terrible sadistic things have been done in the name of religion on all sides. Sadly too often the "religious" reasons don't even "line-up" with that religion's basic teachings. At one time the Middle-East was one of the largest world wide centers of culture and knowledge...hopefully one day it can return to that state. Peacefully. Edited October 17, 2013 by southgadawg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted October 17, 2013 I don't really know how to respond to that post, because we essentially agree. I mean, we disagree on the impact of religion. Would this situation be different if the United States was a Muslim nation? I don't know, but I really don't think so. Islamic nations attack each other for stupid reasons. I firmly believe radical Islam's aggression towards the US is the result of US policy, but you may not think that way. Agree to disagree? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theMileHighGuy 656 Posted October 17, 2013 It's not going to really alter my life in any way, so I couldn't honestly care less about what our government does. The only thing I am against is the fact that I'm paying for it and it's not really going to help anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) It's not going to really alter my life in any way, so I couldn't honestly care less about what our government does. The only thing I am against is the fact that I'm paying for it and it's not really going to help anything. This type of response is frankly worse than agreeing with it. You can't just sit idly by and be okay "because its not going to affect you." First they came for the communists,and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. The same principle applies here. The argument, "it doesn't affect me" is not one that should make you ignore the situation. You have to think through the potential ramifications of these actions. Edited October 17, 2013 by Thanatos19 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted October 17, 2013 Apathy and indifference are two of the worst things when it comes to politics. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
