[croughwell]

I don't find this post to be political in the least... IMO, if anyone calls it political, they are only try to stifle a different opinion as one side has become famous for.

[wamley]

That is hysterical.

[wamley]

I'd rather be judged by 12 then Carried by 6.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by dtennent

To me, the discussion is much more complex. For instance, the firepower we developed during World War II is what won the war. However, our reaching out to Germany, Italy, and Japan after the war and helping them rebuild dynamic economies, is what stopped the cycle of wars that had occurred over the previous decades. While there are certainly hostile countries, the larger battle is economic. China is currently winning this war. Even if we could destroy them militarily, another state equal to or worse than the current one would rise up in its place. Nor can we continue to cede our manufacturing and technology to them. Furthermore, they have bought and secured key mining interests around the world. IMO, we need to lead the world (and bring our European allies with us) in holding China accountable for their current practice of stealing technology, keeping prices low to drive out competition, and using workers as disposable items. To simply slap tariffs on products without detailed context of what they need to change doesn’t help our cause. However, a concerted and planned multinational effort could create the economic pain that would bring China around. It will take time as we cannot reverse the effects of the last 50 years overnight.

I guess this puts me into a third camp. Having the superior firing power but using diplomacy to achieve lasting changes. Instead of using the Glock, let’s use a taser to immobilize the fanatic no matter what his religious beliefs are.

Thanks for you post. You make some excellent points and I agree with many of them. When I started the thread I thought about a third camp but decided it was best to let that emerge in the discussion. Wanted to keep it simple to start off with.

Certainly agree with your comments about China too … there are multiple levels of warfare beyond the kinetic, and they are eating our lunch in that regard. Best left for a separate thread.

One area of disagreement, and harkening back to 767’s post, I would opt for the single “bang” vs a taser to immobilize.

[Car400]

This post is very political, as is most of the replies.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

It sounds like you might be somewhere between the two camps ... pragmatism kind of leans you into the firepower camp but that's just a guess. Good answer though.

Not really. I'm more in favor of the "let idiots be idiots" camp. If some idiot was coming at me with a DAGGER...and I was at a distance where shooting them with a gun would not end up with pieces of fat globules and brain matter on my own outfit...then I'd duck away. His dagger might end up in your chest, or it might end up in the tree behind me. Or it might end up with him trying to chase me, and giving up. Why? Because he's already pumped up and enraged. It's just a matter of time before all that adrenaline wears off, and mine only JUST started going into overdrive. I'll outlast him even if he chases me.

No need to shoot anyone, in this scenario.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Not really. I'm more in favor of the "let idiots be idiots" camp. If some idiot was coming at me with a DAGGER...and I was at a distance where shooting them with a gun would not end up with pieces of fat globules and brain matter on my own outfit...then I'd duck away. His dagger might end up in your chest, or it might end up in the tree behind me. Or it might end up with him trying to chase me, and giving up. Why? Because he's already pumped up and enraged. It's just a matter of time before all that adrenaline wears off, and mine only JUST started going into overdrive. I'll outlast him even if he chases me.

No need to shoot anyone, in this scenario.

You sound like a responsible supporter of the 2nd amendment. Concealed Weapons License holders know that, if you can avoid the fight, that's always the recommended course.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Car400

This post is very political, as is most of the replies.

If someone's opinion differs from yours on this topic, does that ipso facto make it "political?"

Instead, why not analyze and explain which course of action makes more sense to you. That's the discussion focus.

[NoVa_Jim]

Originally Posted by dtennent

To me, the discussion is much more complex. For instance, the firepower we developed during World War II is what won the war. However, our reaching out to Germany, Italy, and Japan after the war and helping them rebuild dynamic economies, is what stopped the cycle of wars that had occurred over the previous decades. While there are certainly hostile countries, the larger battle is economic. China is currently winning this war. Even if we could destroy them militarily, another state equal to or worse than the current one would rise up in its place. Nor can we continue to cede our manufacturing and technology to them. Furthermore, they have bought and secured key mining interests around the world. IMO, we need to lead the world (and bring our European allies with us) in holding China accountable for their current practice of stealing technology, keeping prices low to drive out competition, and using workers as disposable items. To simply slap tariffs on products without detailed context of what they need to change doesn’t help our cause. However, a concerted and planned multinational effort could create the economic pain that would bring China around. It will take time as we cannot reverse the effects of the last 50 years overnight.

I guess this puts me into a third camp. Having the superior firing power but using diplomacy to achieve lasting changes. Instead of using the Glock, let’s use a taser to immobilize the fanatic no matter what his religious beliefs are.

Thank you, dtennent. This was one of the best, most thoughtful comments I've seen on TOTV!

[bumpygreens]

The philosophical root of the question is: do you think all people are basically good, or do you think many people are basically evil. There is no third camp. Basically good people with superior firepower don't automatically obliterate people who oppose them. They will always, given the opportunity, try to rectify differences through negotiation and diplomacy. If they lack superior firepower, evil has no incentive to come to the table.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by dtennent

To me, the discussion is much more complex. For instance, the firepower we developed during World War II is what won the war. However, our reaching out to Germany, Italy, and Japan after the war and helping them rebuild dynamic economies, is what stopped the cycle of wars that had occurred over the previous decades. While there are certainly hostile countries, the larger battle is economic. China is currently winning this war. Even if we could destroy them militarily, another state equal to or worse than the current one would rise up in its place. Nor can we continue to cede our manufacturing and technology to them. Furthermore, they have bought and secured key mining interests around the world. IMO, we need to lead the world (and bring our European allies with us) in holding China accountable for their current practice of stealing technology, keeping prices low to drive out competition, and using workers as disposable items. To simply slap tariffs on products without detailed context of what they need to change doesn’t help our cause. However, a concerted and planned multinational effort could create the economic pain that would bring China around. It will take time as we cannot reverse the effects of the last 50 years overnight.

I guess this puts me into a third camp. Having the superior firing power but using diplomacy to achieve lasting changes. Instead of using the Glock, let’s use a taser to immobilize the fanatic no matter what his religious beliefs are.

Your understanding of the complexities of international relations is appreciated.

The simplicity thus far has been stunning, and reflects lack of understanding, but suppose some like to talk tough.

Thanks again.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Your understanding of the complexities of international relations is appreciated.

The simplicity thus far has been stunning, and reflects lack of understanding, but suppose some like to talk tough.

Thanks again.

I'm guessing many would be most interested, as in very, to hear you wax eloquent on this topic.

Here's your chance to make your case ...

[bumpygreens]

Maybe I haven't had enough experience in this world, but I've never encountered a good intent that came shrouded in complexity.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

I'm guessing many would be most interested, as in very, to hear you wax eloquent on this topic.

Here's your chance to make your case ...

I believe DTENNENT said it well in his.her post. No case to be made. The kind of action you are ranting on about has been happening for a lot of years by many countries. It is handled mostly without a show of manly words, as our Navy is well trained to do. A tweet as was given, sort of hogties our Naval leaders.

People know who has military power, and who doesn't...no need to brag in the playground about how strong you are. Our State Department has been watered down, but we still can handle this without braggadocio.

[ronvillages]

What about camp 0. That's the people who fit in camp 1 but became greedy and got rich with trading with China and sending our factories overseas and supporting conflicts around the world with no resolution. How many American lives were lost in Korea to Chinese bullets?