The U.S. and National Sovereignty

Why can’t our politcal leaders just admit they don’t respect the idea of national soveirgnty?

I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong but they obviously don’t or we wouldn’t be having all these interventionist wars.

“Everybody” already knows it, why don’t they just admit it?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc[/youtube]

Why indeed. It’s called diplomacy, if you want war prefer for peace, by which I mean, make sure you are bringing democracy to the masses, whether they in fact want it or not. You gotta sell war to people, they have to believe its a win win situation for everyone except your enemy, which of course are in the axis of evil. Where as the US are in NATO, the doodad of righteous Justice. It’s all bullshit, but people still buy it.

Iran for example, a lot of big talk because they DON’T WANT THEM TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, now if they really respected national sovereignty they wouldn’t be threatining war.

I don’t want to go to war with Iran, and sense i’ll be joining the Army sometime in the future it’ll be my life on the line here (though I care about the lives of the Iranians and U.S. Soldiers as well).

What sucks is that for a large part even the people who understand this is a crock are also not too bright, they see everything in black and white, no shades of gray.

It may well be Iran does indeed not want nuclear weapons, after all it does genuinely need reactor fuel to stop it from burning its oil in energy plants. Oil being by far and a way more valuable than uranium, if you see what I mean. That may well change but the CIA currently does not believe Iran is building nukes and nor does MI6, they should know. If that changes then the political climate should change, but we need a smoking gun this time, not political rhetoric I think. The fact is if Iran is open to the IAEA, then it is perfectly within its rights to both build reactors and enrich uranium, but then Ahmadinejad never could pass up an opportunity to posture before the US, it keeps him popular, although popular in Iran is hardly democratic.

As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained to the Senate panel, the US military answers to the UN and Nato first and will try to keep Congress updated.

Iran wants nukes, cause it’s a symbolic victory for them, a display of national sovereignty. fuck national sovereignty, that’s exactly what leads to shit like nuclear war. Iran should be prevented from obtaining nukes and the US military SHOULD be answering to the UN and Nato.

fuck congress too.

That’s conjecture as it stands, whilst I may not disagree in the future atm, what Iran really really needs is high tech facilities that produce power. That may change, until it does though it’s useless to claim they want nukes as a prophecy. In fact if we keep posturing at them and they keep posturing at us it may well achieve what you are saying, a desire to build nukes just to thumb at the powers that be. It’s playground politics, but it is the usual. Think about it when you were a kid if someone told you not to play with matches, did that stop you playing with matches?

The US military answers to no one but itself, even NATO is a bit of a puppet and the UN is a paper tiger.

And fuck the powlice. :wink:

the fact that the US military answers only to itself is precisely the problem with it. and that the UN has so little sway over the US military’s actions is one of the basic reasons for it’s status as a paper tiger.

It all comes back to the military manufacturing companies, as always.

And of course no shortage of retards with their hands on the trigger finger. O:)

Quite, I never meant to claim I had a solution I was only pointing out the serious political problems. :slight_smile:

Whats that supposed to mean?

all too often the people with the guns are the insane, stupid, indescriminant, confused, bloodthirsty, etc . . .

That’s why Good men like me have to join up, make sure the soldiers are disciplined Warriors and not Barborous savages.

Though Bloodthirst isn’t inherintly bad…

perhaps, but there is a fine line. many is the barbarous savage that began as a disciplined warrior.

well i wouldn’t say anything is really INHERENTLY bad, but i have trouble imagining situations in which bloodlust might be called good. what specifically do you mean?

Not nearly disciplined enough then, to allow their weak emotions to overide their discipline, most war crimes are commited out of fear and/or anger and disciplined warriors should have little of either.

I would, then again i’m thinking of very specific things.

I’m not saying bloodthirst is good, but it’s better in battle than being to apprehensive to kill when others are trying to kill you and your fellow soldiers.

that may be true in theory - but even the most disciplined soldier is still human. and not all fear and anger are weak emotions.

what specific things?

Comon, SG, there’s only one reason for you to be called into the military other than enlistment–that’s if we’ve paid for your education. Doesn’t any kind of loan ask for a return on that loan? We’ve given you your education and you’ve promised us your service–during which time we’ll also pay for your further training, your food and shelter, and at least part of your clothing–including any protective gear you may need–as well as any weapons you may need–assuming you’re sent into combat. Are you now reneging on your part of our loan agreement?

It’s arguable whether or not NATO is worth diddly-squat, but at least it shows–or tries to–that the US isn’t the only country that questions the sovereignty of nations ruled by a despot. I don’t believe “democracy” should be forced down the throats of under-developed nations by developed nations–especially not when the under-developed nations don’t know what the hell democracy is all about. Even the so-called ‘developed, democratic’ nations have their own interpretations of ‘democracy.’

That isn’t the point, if what you’ve said is true. If what you said means that we’ve given–loaned–you your education, then we made pay-back on the loan a part of the deal.

I may be totally in error, but that’s how I interpret what you’ve said.

What everybody here needs to realize is that the United States is a dying empire.

What will follow eventually is civil war and chaos along with a possible NWO takeover.

Will it be televised is all I want to know…

The United States isn’t an Empire.

So you might hope and NWO is a very general temr that could mean a myriad of reasons other than the sinister ones people often use.