- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is the Poli Boards view of when the U.S. SHOULD enter/engage/support war?
Posted on 12/18/24 at 8:58 am
Posted on 12/18/24 at 8:58 am
I see a lot of "it's not our war to fight" here and while I largely agree...I'm curious when IT IS "our war to fight."
Does it have to be on US soil for the Poli Board to think we should engage?
If not on US soil, Is there any ally we should support in war or should they all just fend for themselves?
Does it have to be on US soil for the Poli Board to think we should engage?
If not on US soil, Is there any ally we should support in war or should they all just fend for themselves?
30
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:00 am to sidewalkside
How many American Servicemen are you willing to sacrifice in whatever war you're talking about?
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:01 am to sidewalkside
If we engaged in better foreign policy and didn't have Marxist in our highest offices making an international laughing stock out of us, there would be very very few reasons for war.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:03 am to sidewalkside
When Trump says we should instead of someone else saying it.
And it will likely happen over the next 4 years. Maybe not full scale war, but some military action. He engaged in multiple military actions his first term, there's no reason to believe that he won't the second time around.
And it will be fine with them. As long as he says we should.
And it will likely happen over the next 4 years. Maybe not full scale war, but some military action. He engaged in multiple military actions his first term, there's no reason to believe that he won't the second time around.
And it will be fine with them. As long as he says we should.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:03 am to sidewalkside
Are you former 11bravo?
If not keep your mouth shut
If not keep your mouth shut
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:03 am to sidewalkside
IF someone attacks us on our soil, destroy. Outside of that, stay out of other people's shite.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:04 am to sidewalkside
I’m fine with us attacking anyone who deserves it, without putting mass troops on the ground.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:07 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
IF someone attacks us on our soil, destroy. Outside of that, stay out of other people's shite.
So we should never have and or support an ally? Is there no other country in the world that we should defend if they are attacked?
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:08 am to sidewalkside
Pretty simple for me. When someone invades our territory and/or kills Americans, then it's time to start fricking shite up. The "smart" people have complicated the US's situation for the last 100 years by sticking their greedy noses in parts of the world that don't matter to most Americans. It's time to get back to basics.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:08 am to Proximo
quote:
Proximo
quote:
11bravo?
You watch Bravo??? It's all making sense now. Nice to see you this morning...my biggest fan!
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:09 am to lake chuck fan
Western Hemisphere: We aggressively fight and decisively win anytime our financial, or security interests are threatened.
Eastern Hemisphere: We completely destroy any nation that attacks us or our interests in the West. But we fight a war of destruction where we destroy all buildings, food, water, bridges, roads etc.. And then we leave and go back to our half of the World. We don’t rebuild another Nation.
We don’t get involved in conflicts in the East unless we are attacked. We will have to be attacked in the West because all of our Military bases are coming back to this side of the Globe.
Eastern Hemisphere: We completely destroy any nation that attacks us or our interests in the West. But we fight a war of destruction where we destroy all buildings, food, water, bridges, roads etc.. And then we leave and go back to our half of the World. We don’t rebuild another Nation.
We don’t get involved in conflicts in the East unless we are attacked. We will have to be attacked in the West because all of our Military bases are coming back to this side of the Globe.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:09 am to sidewalkside
At what point would you be willing to join the fight?
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:10 am to sidewalkside
Self defense.
To save American lives under imminent threat.
Very specific alliance issues
Very specific humanitarian issues.
To save American lives under imminent threat.
Very specific alliance issues
Very specific humanitarian issues.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:10 am to sidewalkside
1) if US territory is attacked/invaded
2) if obligated by treaty
3) if US economic or national security interests are DIRECTLY threated (e.g
, closure of South China Sea, Panama Canal, Straits of Hormuz)
2) if obligated by treaty
3) if US economic or national security interests are DIRECTLY threated (e.g
, closure of South China Sea, Panama Canal, Straits of Hormuz)
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:11 am to sidewalkside
When we are attacked on US soil and Congress votes to approve the war.
War should be funded by war bills bought by the public.
War should be funded by war bills bought by the public.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:11 am to sidewalkside
Should ONLY depend on if the US has real interests. So that is very broad and general, granted. But that position needs to be stated to the American people.
And it's war or nothing. Long has been the principle of the US military of striking hard and winning as fast as possible to save lives. No toe in the water. No billions and some advisors. Do it or not. If you can't win it outright and aren't committed enough or willing to risk that- then I say the level of interests requirement hasn't been met so stay the frick out of it. If you can't win it outright we don't need to be involved at all.
Now that's not to say we don't do any force projection. Show the flag. But arming Ukraine, for example - there are many, is no different than what Iran does with the Houthis. Either in and out. An "in" requires a serving an interest to the American people, not its leaders.
And it's war or nothing. Long has been the principle of the US military of striking hard and winning as fast as possible to save lives. No toe in the water. No billions and some advisors. Do it or not. If you can't win it outright and aren't committed enough or willing to risk that- then I say the level of interests requirement hasn't been met so stay the frick out of it. If you can't win it outright we don't need to be involved at all.
Now that's not to say we don't do any force projection. Show the flag. But arming Ukraine, for example - there are many, is no different than what Iran does with the Houthis. Either in and out. An "in" requires a serving an interest to the American people, not its leaders.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:12 am to Proximo
quote:
Are you former 11bravo?
Does 18-Alpha count?
For the record, I don't believe the United States should be involved in any war that does not directly affect our sovereignty or our national security. Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Hamas, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia. . . None of these warranted US intervention or prolonged military involvement. Same for pretty much ANY military action in which we've been involved since the end of WWII.
As long as our nation is not attacked or directly threatened abroad we should keep our military held in check.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:17 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
IF someone attacks us on our soil, destroy. Outside of that, stay out of other people's shite.
I get your point but if we had done that during WW2 what do you think Europe would look like now? Remember, it took two major powers, the U.S. and Russia, fighting together to bring down an evil regime that's half the size of Texas.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:17 am to sidewalkside
quote:
So we should never have and or support an ally? Is there no other country in the world that we should defend if they are attacked?
The problem is that the groupie mentality currently is isolationism, so they will pretend that an attack on someone like Mexico, Canada, or the EU shouldn't affect us, and this is proof that we should be more independent. That's where the conversation is going to drift.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 9:25 am to sidewalkside
When Congress declares it would be a nice start.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News