Jump to content
The Political Lounge

US Intervention Poll

vcczar

By vcczar
in Political Forum

 Share

US Intervention Poll  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. In which cases should the US most likely intervene with "boots on the ground?"

    • Russia invades Ukraine
      11
    • China invades Taiwan
      11
    • North Korea invades South Korea
      14
    • Syrian Civil War
      0
    • Afghanistan Civil War
      2
    • War on Terror (various locations)
      6
    • Civil War in Iraq
      2
    • A US state or territory is invaded
      19
    • Any US national interest is at threat because of an invasion
      9
    • An invasion includes concrete efforts at genocide
      16
    • An invasion is opposed by nearly all of US allies who have joined a coalition together and are requesting the US to join in.
      8
    • US should never intervene with "boots on the ground."
      0

  2. 2. If you are generally non-interventionist, but believe an invasion or war has begun in bad faith and is an unjust war, what method of help would you most likely use as an alternate to "boots on the ground."

    • There is no alternate to "boots on the ground" when opposing an unjust war.
      2
    • Financial aid
      0
    • Send advisors
      1
    • Allow volunteers to fly over there and help.
      3
    • Send arms, ammunition, and other equipment, etc.
      7
    • Send the navy, drones, missiles, etc., but not "boots on the ground."
      5
    • Rhetoric only
      1
    • I would stay completely neutral, passing no judgment on either nation or entity.
      0

  3. 3. What is your stance on national building?

    • The US should not be involved in nation building at any level.
      4
    • The US should offer aid, possibly some advisors and experts, but nothing more to national building.
      11
    • The US and allies should play some sort of significant role in nation building, so that a democratic or at least Western-friendly government is in place.
      6
    • The US should be clearly in charge of nation building, so as to create a US-friendly government that also caters to US interests.
      3

  4. 4. In what condition would you drop a nuclear weapon that would--not only destroy an entire city and it's citizens, but possibly lead to a retaliatory attack with nukes?

    • I would never launch a weapon capable of destroying an entire civilian population in a city or more.
      6
    • I would launch such a weapon only if they launch one first.
      11
    • I would launch such a weapon only if it is the only means to victory.
      5
    • I would launch such a weapon if the war is taking too long to resolve.
      0
    • I would launch the weapon immediately to quickly win the war and to prevent anyone else from misbehaving by this example.
      1
    • I would only use such a weapon against a nation that can't use one back.
      1
    • I would have no problem carpet nuking an entire nation from their border to the center of their nation until it's uninhabitable and every citizen has been vaporized.
      1

  5. 5. Should the US get rid of all of their nukes that are capable of destroying a city or worse?

    • No. We should proliferate them.
      2
    • No. Keep what we have.
      6
    • We should reduce them, but maintain enough to prevent others from using theirs.
      11
    • We should only get rid of those capable of destroying the entire planet.
      1
    • We should get rid of all nukes that are capable of destroying a city or worse, even if other nations will not do the same.
      0
    • We should get rid of all nukes. Period!
      3

  6. 6. Is it necessary that we have planet-destroying weapons in the event of an alien invasion, assuming they arrive in some sort of super ship, or if a larger comet or meteor is headed this way?

  7. 7. Should we reduce the defense budget?

    • Yes, because our spending is out of control
      4
    • Yes, but so we can use that money on domestic issues, such as education, infrastructure, healthcare, and or other.
      8
    • No. Keep it about the same.
      6
    • We need to increase defense spending!
      1

  8. 8. Who/what is the greatest threat to US national security out of these options?

    • China
      10
    • Russia
      3
    • The United Nations
      0
    • Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist
      3
    • MAGA, such as Trump, MGT, Boebert, etc.
      3
    • Democratic Socialists, such as AOC and Omar Ilhan
      0
    • Tech/Social Media industries led by people like Musk, Zuckerberg, and etc.
      0

Recommended Posts

Hestia

Hestia

Posted
Posted

I answered, but I thought about not because there is a lot of vagueness and other things that go into "boots on the ground". I thought of it as literal boots on the ground as in the Army. If Taiwan were invaded by China, I could see aid with the air force or something, but not necessarily the army. I treated "War on Terror" as going after Bin Laden and other similar circumstances since Afghanistan and Iraq were listed separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ConservativeElector2

ConservativeElector2

Posted
Posted

I consider attacks on Taiwan, South Korea or Japan the most pressing conflicts to intervene immediately. China (together with North Korea) is definitely the greatest threat to world peace, even greater than Russia. Russia is already in a pretty bad condition, so I don't think they would have the capabilities to pose a greater threat after a lengthy conflict with Ukraine. So if there is only one country to be countered it must be China and their ally North Korea. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't take action against a Russian invasion of course.

I don't know if intervening in the Civil Wars in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would bring the US any advantage. The War on Terror should be fought anyway at the same time. Unless taking action in a civil war seems really advantageous a full operation should be avoided I guess. Why fighting there when the true threat is in another country? Likewise 'just' because other countries request the US to join a war, it shouldn't be done unless US interests are at the stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vcczar

vcczar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I answered, but I thought about not because there is a lot of vagueness and other things that go into "boots on the ground". I thought of it as literal boots on the ground as in the Army. If Taiwan were invaded by China, I could see aid with the air force or something, but not necessarily the army. I treated "War on Terror" as going after Bin Laden and other similar circumstances since Afghanistan and Iraq were listed separately.

By "boots on the ground," I mean a physical army. Infantry, tanks, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jvikings1

jvikings1

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I consider attacks on Taiwan, South Korea or Japan the most pressing conflicts to intervene immediately. China (together with North Korea) is definitely the greatest threat to world peace, even greater than Russia. Russia is already in a pretty bad condition, so I don't think they would have the capabilities to pose a greater threat after a lengthy conflict with Ukraine. So if there is only one country to be countered it must be China and their ally North Korea. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't take action against a Russian invasion of course.

I don't know if intervening in the Civil Wars in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would bring the US any advantage. The War on Terror should be fought anyway at the same time. Unless taking action in a civil war seems really advantageous a full operation should be avoided I guess. Why fighting there when the true threat is in another country? Likewise 'just' because other countries request the US to join a war, it shouldn't be done unless US interests are at the stake.

Agreed. Chinese aggression would signal to threat of a large scale, global conflict. They are the biggest threat to the US (and parts of Europe as well).

Putin is smart enough to know his limits.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hestia

Hestia

Posted
Posted
Just now, jvikings1 said:

Agreed. Chinese aggression would signal to threat of a large scale, global conflict. They are the biggest threat to the US (and parts of Europe as well).

Putin is smart enough to know his limits.

I honestly think this is kind of the other way around. China is much more cautious and careful about the steps they take. They haven't caused conflicts much in the past - of course, past action doesn't actually signal future intent. Plus everything going on with Taiwan and the South China Sea, there's plenty there. I think Russia has shown more concrete steps at taking action at violence, which is why I chose them. But I agree with what you're saying overall definitely. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vcczar

vcczar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

And, @vcczar, could you please the term, "IslamIC Terrorism," to, "IslamIST Terrorism?" You may consider it to be pedatry, but it's more important than that. Saying, "IslamIC," states they're actually following their religion properly and making a montrous mockery of it for politicized reasons, where, "IslamIST," gives the correct impression that they are no more properly properly practicing Muslims than the Evangelical Churches who preach hate, oppression, division, and theocracy or theonymy are Christian or Meir Kahane and the several groups he was involved in are actually Jewish.

What would be your replacement term for Christian Terrorism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rezi

Rezi

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Patine said:

"Christian," Terrorism is usually far-right-wing, White Supremacist, ultra-nationalist cloaked in disingenuous uses of Christian rhetoric taken completely - and deliberately - out of context. Properly, CHRISTIAN terrorism doesn't exist, by Christian doctrine.

I would argue the same of Islamist terrorism as well. Although taking in mind that religious terrorism can be left-wing economically.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vcczar

vcczar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Patine don't forget to take the poll. And that president poll I created a month ago that you said you'd take. Honestly, I wish I could program my poll threads to only allow respondents to respond. Not taking a poll and commenting on everyone's response is the forum version of "backseat driving." If you have issues with a poll just don't take the poll or comment. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jvikings1

jvikings1

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Hestia said:

I honestly think this is kind of the other way around. China is much more cautious and careful about the steps they take. They haven't caused conflicts much in the past - of course, past action doesn't actually signal future intent. Plus everything going on with Taiwan and the South China Sea, there's plenty there. I think Russia has shown more concrete steps at taking action at violence, which is why I chose them. But I agree with what you're saying overall definitely. 

Very true that Russia has been much more aggressive. However, I don't believe Putin is going to push it outside of the immediate Russian sphere (mostly former Soviet states). And even then, I doubt he'd try anything as aggressive as going after a country like Poland.

China would be more difficult to stop if they started patterns of aggression due to their economic and growing military power (and expanding nuclear arsenal), which is why I would support intervention to stop Chinese aggression in the Pacific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...