Indeed, which is why we should be hunting down Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda, not getting bogged down in entirely unrelated business in Iraq and say, Africa.
Well we should be doing something about the genocide but as long as Sudans government won't even admit that it's occuring we can't help, and we do need to help out Liberia as they are part of our responsibility.

There is a (not entirely unsubstantiated) belief that the concept of the United Nations infringes on sovereignity with its only real excuse for doing so being some form of international consensous... Which is arguably a fairly weak excuse, if straight up consensous was always in force the Enlightenment would be dead.

But the ONLY countries (and citizens therof) that ever complain about the UN are the USA and those countries that get sanctioned for human rights abuse. I never hear citizens of any other western country complaining about loosing soveriegnty to the UN, or gloating any time the UN fails.

Consensus is never easy, and especially not between nation states with all their associated conflicts of interest. But i don't think that TRYING to get a consensus... or at least just having somewhere where people have a forum to try and talk.. is a particularly bad thing.

I can't think of a single time the UN has infringed on US sovereignty... but then i suppose the US does tend to just ignore them anyway.

To those who think we should just mind our own business let me say this: we were doing that, and what happened? The fight was brought to us.
In what reality? In the modern world every action a state takes impacts on others around the world, and a state as big and powerful as the USA is bound to cause ripples that affect many outside it's borders.

And that would be even if the USA was the sort of country to mind it's own business - which it has never been. Almost as many dictatorships have been armed and supported by the USA in the fight against communism as resulted from the colapse of the british empire. Numerous elected governments have been pressured or even toppled by the CIA. Many people all around the world have had their lives affected by US policy - whether directly or indirectly.

Heck, Al Quaida was mostly trained by the CIA. The taliban (or at least what became the taliban) was supported by the USA. US support to both iran and iraq lead to a lot of conflict in the region. US support of israel leads to probably the biggest cause of tension in the world today. And Al Quaida was created with the aim of getting the US military out of Saudi Arabia where it was supporting an unelected leadership that lived in palaces while much of the population lived in poverty.

TK-8252: Not because we lack the strength or willpower to aid other countries.

Our administration just blows.

edit - good lord. smells like red herring in here. :p

I'm constantly confused by the way the US/US citizens keep gloating about any UN failures.... does it somehow make people feel better about the US?
No, it's just that it's the truth. Let it sink in...

No, it's just that it's the truth. Let it sink in...


Reading through here I've seen that this topic has turned to a discussion on the merits of United States foreign policy in general.

To the subject at hand...


The US Military Is Impotent

I did a search for the definition of 'impotent' on google just a moment ago. Eight out of 9 listings were to deal with erectile dysfunction though I did come across one that might suite the title of this thread.

Regardless, your use of the word 'impotent' to describe your oppinion shows that you clearly hold a bias of some kind. Just my oppinion...


"lacking power or ability;" <---- wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


IMO The US Army is simply stretched. Is it without it's might? No.

There are thousands of combat ready troops stationed in Korea and Japan, with a few withdrawing from Bosnia.

NATO is taking over most of the responsibility in Afganistan and Iraq has made the US ground force more powerful than ever because it is a force that is battle hardened to the core.

The US is slowly withdrawing from Korea and the South Korean army is capable of handling the North Korean threat especially with the blessing of US air power.

Furthermore the strength of the US Military does not lie in troop numbers. If this were the case then China would have been pushing it's weight around a long time ago.

If this were the case I could agree, in principle, with the author of this thread.


Why do I disagree?


The US Military’s technological advantage and advanced weapon systems would have the Chinese invading force of Taiwan burnt to a crisp, along with the coast line of China.

There is simply no country that can come close to American technological war machine. I guess some can come close but the US knows all their secrets and the US has plans for every possible scenario in the world. Cute huh?

The Pentagon is more than prepared and I'm sure that the war juntas would like nothing more than some some state to challenge us. Something new to kill.

Impotent only if you think those rumors about saltpetre in the food are real

Note:Saltpetre is a compound that is "supposably" a anaaphrodiasiac, many people think that the US military puts this into the food at Basic and Tech schools, they are also dead wrong, Saltpetre has never shone any evidence of causing induced impotency(but it has the funniest affect when mixed into someones gas tank along with sugar).

Felt like relating the title to some worthless trivia

Good Sir Knight: I think Skin meant incompetent?

I highly doubt it. Impotent is the appropriate word in the context of this thread.

I spose... though I still feel incompetent is a legit adjective in this context also.

Anyway, why we playing semantics? :p

The United States Military is very competent. Indeed, it is the finest in the world, bar none. Having said that, I meant what I said: impotent.

Having served a large portion of my adult life in the U.S. Army, leaving as a Staff Sergeant, I know full well the technological capabilities of the military. I was part of the generation that not only implemented some of the technology, but had some input (albeit minor in my case) on how it was implemented. I was a section chief for a Multiple Launch Rocket Systems crew when I wasn't filling in as Platoon Sergeant.

I'm here to tell you that the technology and innovation is good, and not to be dismissed lightly. But that still doesn't eliminate the assertion that the current regime of the U.S. government has effectively rendered the U.S. military impotent with regard to its ability to deal with other threats. The one exception might be Iran, and I'll get to why in a second.

We cannot effectively mobilize against North Korea, a major threat. We wouldn't be able to effectively mobilize even in our own side of the globe such as with Latin or South America. This is because of our deployment strategies with regard to the South West Asian Theater. Logistically and strategically, our assets are tied up in a direction that takes them away from other potential theaters.

The exception, is Iran. Ironically, the exit strategy that Democrats and Progressives keep calling for the Iraq deployment may come with the re-deployment and redirection of logistical supply lines to an Iranian theater. Iran is surrounded on all sides by U.S. military assets. Its as if this wasn't by accident.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might be tempted to point out that the mid-term elections could be strongly influenced by the one thing that is guaranteed to maintain status quo in government: a perceived military threat. If I were so bold, or kooky, to make such a conspiracy connection, I might suggest that this were the plan all along to use Iraq as a stepping stone to Iran. And I would predict a steadily increased bit of doom-saying from the current U.S. regime as it spins the Iranian threat.

Alas, this is just talk. I don't think our government capable of such deception and desire to put our honored soldiers at continued risk for a war about oil and I certainly wouldn't expect them to start hawking about "mushroom clouds." They're simply not that conniving and surely they don't think that little of us that we'd buy into such rhetoric and deception.