Iraq War (for instance)


PDA






neoncowboy
December 24, 2005, 11:09 PM
I inadvertantly stirred up a hornets nest over in the general forum regarding military service and whether it squares with one's personal views of American foreign policy.

I am finding myself in a transition toward libertariansim here lately, mostly due to seeing the republicans more or less abandon me...and after all, if you ignore gay marriage and abortion, they pretty much look just like democrats. At best, the republicans aren't in the business of smaller government and bigger personal liberties.

Now, about this war: We were attacked by Islamic Terrorists. I am pretty sure that the motive for this attack was not 'they hate our freedom and American way of life' as much as 'they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars'. I mean, lets be honest, we've made enemies and it's our enemies who want us dead.

So, a foreign policy of leaving the people of the globe alone to sort out their own affairs...while we sort out ours at home, it just makes more sense. It's a LOT cheaper in $$ and American blood. It makes us no enemies around the globe. People may say, 'what about safeguarding world energy supplies?'. Well, won't the free market take care of that?

I have always been real pro military and proud of our nation standing up for the little guy...but I'm a little disenfranchised here. I'm not seeing the point. All it really ever does is get us killed and make people hate us. A quick survey of the world reveals no less evil than there ever was: people around the globe are still facing oppression and brutality at the hands of bad men. No amount of American intervention is ever going to change that.

I never thought I'd say it, but 'support our troops: bring them home' is making a lot more sense to me today. At this stage in this particular conflict, we're pretty well comitted to securing Iraq for as long as they need us. I am proud of the progress the Iraqis are making and hope they succeed at freedom. After that, I really want to see a foreign policy shift in America that includes:

bringing troops home from all around the globe
withdrawing foreign aid and diplomatic support from pretty much everyone
minding our own damn business
retooling/retraining the military to serve as a defensive force
letting the world know we aren't in the business of bailing everyone out or taking sides in their fights


Is this somehow unpatriotic? I love America. I want the America of John Adams back:
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

If you enjoyed reading about "Iraq War (for instance)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The-Fly
December 25, 2005, 12:29 AM
the only problem with your idea is that corporate america, and their lackeys, the democratic and republican parties, NEED to intervene and control the world. Just think back to the banana republics of yesterday. Why do you think Bush wants so many illegals in the country? Because they drive down the cost of labor, helping his corporate masters earn even greater profits.

Personally, I think the republican and democratic parties want to turn the US into the next Mexico. Republicans love the idea of a huge labor pool of poorly educated people that will believe whatever lies they pedal to the masses, while the Democrats want a massive welfare state, and you need a lot of poor people for that level of political support.

Khornet
December 25, 2005, 07:55 AM
I'm afraid your post disqualifies you from serious discussion. As you will see below, there is room for honest, rational disagreement about our involvement in the ME. But paranoid rants about the big corporations, Bush's masters, etc. are not debate.

Neon, you make a fair point in your second paragraph.

Unfortunately, America can't isolate herself anymore, though in some cases I'd love to see her withdraw: Europe, for example. Let those ungrateful jerks carry their own defense.

The seeds of the present conflict were planted before America's birth, planted by the Prophet himself. Let us not forget that the Crusades were a COUNTERATTACK in response to Islam's invasions of the west. The second world war hastened our involvement in the ME, and the Cold War did too.

No, I don't believe we brought this on ourselves by making enemies. You can follow that trail all the way back to Cain and Abel. The sorry fact is that there is no race, no nation on earth which did not displace or conquer someone else. And therefore there is no people, race, nation, or faith who can justify doing what the Islamists do today.

And wherever the guilt lies in the present conflict, I really believe that we have a stark choice between a world dominated by democracy (however imperfect) and one dominated by Sharia. Could you really prefer the latter?

Apologies to Derek: I know there's a difference between folks like you and the ones we're fighting now.

Firethorn
December 25, 2005, 08:31 AM
Now, about this war: We were attacked by Islamic Terrorists. I am pretty sure that the motive for this attack was not 'they hate our freedom and American way of life' as much as 'they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars'. I mean, lets be honest, we've made enemies and it's our enemies who want us dead.


Actually, if you think about it, 'taking sides in their religious wars' is automatic. We're not a muslim theocracy. Therefore we're automatically the enemy. We're high on their list as we're a successful secular society.

On the other hand, maybe we wouldn't be as high on their list if we hadn't taken the actions we did. In many ways I feel that we're cleaning up the mess of the cold war. For example, we might have been able to avoid the whole Osama thing if we'd stayed and supported Afghanistan after they successfully pushed back the USSR, instead of leaving them to collapse into Anarchy. That would have robbed Osama of much of his support. We'd have a large, successful, friendly country in the middleast. The USA's reputation would have been better.

I'll agree that it's ugly. We're yelled at, hated, and called imperialists when we intervene, but we're also yelled at, hated, and called cold hearted when we don't intervene.

Monetary aid, even food aid for anything but the most temporary of situations doesn't work. The fact that people are starving is more of a symptom than a problem. The problem is the drought, or more often the area's government suppressing the farmers. Fix that, and the starvation goes away.

So, a foreign policy of leaving the people of the globe alone to sort out their own affairs...while we sort out ours at home, it just makes more sense. It's a LOT cheaper in $$ and American blood. It makes us no enemies around the globe. People may say, 'what about safeguarding world energy supplies?'. Well, won't the free market take care of that?

I also view it in terms of WWII and the Cold War. We need to nip certain behaviors in the bud, and is, though tragic, worth american lives to prevent. Genocide is one of them. Of course, I feel that airdropping weapons and supplies to the victims can be a good solution. Makes genocide alot more expensive to the killers.

CAnnoneer
December 25, 2005, 08:46 AM
+1 The-Fly

The more Americans see the stark truth about their ruling class, the more they will be able to resist their manipulation and vote in politicians who are servants, not masters to the electorate.

Bottom line is both major parties are undermining our liberties and the American way of life, albeit in different ways and for different reasons. That is why ideologies like "the lesser of two evils" are ultimately so ruinous to the country and beneficial to the wreckers.

bearmgc
December 25, 2005, 09:22 AM
Actually, if you think about it, 'taking sides in their religious wars' is automatic. We're not a muslim theocracy. Therefore we're automatically the enemy. We're high on their list as we're a successful secular society.

On the other hand, maybe we wouldn't be as high on their list if we hadn't taken the actions we did. In many ways I feel that we're cleaning up the mess of the cold war. For example, we might have been able to avoid the whole Osama thing if we'd stayed and supported Afghanistan after they successfully pushed back the USSR, instead of leaving them to collapse into Anarchy. That would have robbed Osama of much of his support. We'd have a large, successful, friendly country in the middleast. The USA's reputation would have been better.

I'll agree that it's ugly. We're yelled at, hated, and called imperialists when we intervene, but we're also yelled at, hated, and called cold hearted when we don't intervene.

Monetary aid, even food aid for anything but the most temporary of situations doesn't work. The fact that people are starving is more of a symptom than a problem. The problem is the drought, or more often the area's government suppressing the farmers. Fix that, and the starvation goes away.



I also view it in terms of WWII and the Cold War. We need to nip certain behaviors in the bud, and is, though tragic, worth american lives to prevent. Genocide is one of them. Of course, I feel that airdropping weapons and supplies to the victims can be a good solution. Makes genocide alot more expensive to the killers.

+1
We are automatically enemies even, without involvement. We would have been targeted anyways. We had to respond. And Europe, by not maintaining an adequate defense, will certainly drop their responsibility on our doorstep.

jdkelly
December 25, 2005, 09:26 AM
Is this somehow unpatriotic? I love America. I want the America of John Adams back:---neoncowboy
If I remember correctly, during the American Revolution Mr. Adams served as an American diplomat to Holland and France, requesting both financial and MILITARY assistance? Obviously Mr. Adams believed in direct military assistance.

Remember, the American Revolution might have ended badly for we rebels, had not the French fleet arrived in the Americas.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

GoRon
December 25, 2005, 09:57 AM
he more they will be able to resist their manipulation and vote in politicians who are servants, not masters to the electorate.

I don't want my representative to be the servant of the paranoid tinfoil hat wearer crowd.

Khornet
December 25, 2005, 10:06 AM
Those cold-hearted greedy corporations had it much easier when there was no war in the ME. Whatever you may think of "Big Oil", it was sure cheaper in 1989 to get oil out of the region than it is now. Why fight for oil when you can just buy it? Why would a preisdent get himself into the present mess for money, when he and his friends already have plenty? Makes absolutely no sense.

If we leave now, they will still hate us. They will still carry on their terror program.

Khornet
December 25, 2005, 10:07 AM
don't you mean you stirred up a KHORNET's nest?

cowboybobb693
December 25, 2005, 10:19 AM
You are starting to sound like Jane Fonda !!!!
By any chance did you see the interview that BaBa WaWa did with the guy that was trying to blow himself and a buttload of other folks up, only his bomb "misfired". He stated that ANYONE that does not follow the Muslum faith should die and when we do, we will all be sent to Hell.
These are the type of fanatics that we are trying to stop.
Who do you think should run the economy besides "Big Business" Can you see Mom and Pop oil companies processing oil for gasoline,diesel fuel,heating oil, beef processing, steel manufacturing etc... Get a grip, big business employs people, pays retirement, medical etc.... If you think that our way of doing things is so bad go live on an island because the ENTIRE world is controlled by big business/rich people and it has always been that way and will never change.
Geez you whiny people give me a headache

georgeduz
December 25, 2005, 10:53 AM
cold-hearted greedy corporations suppy large amounts of good paying jobs,thats a good thing,jobs are good not bad,helping others is good.having power around the globe is good for us.and u jane fondas have the right to stay out of the military,we dont want ur kind anyway,

Desertdog
December 25, 2005, 11:18 AM
'they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars'.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
If you do not worship Allah,you are an infidel and need to be removed from this world.

Old Dog
December 25, 2005, 11:47 AM
Neoncowboy, I believe this statement of yours was what go everyone stirred up:And to, maybe you see it differently and drink the whole 'we're-morally-superior-and-owe-it-to-the-world-to-straighten-everybody-else-out' Kool-Aid. If so, the military will be a really good fit.Some of us in the military, or former miitary, rightly took this an as insult ... If you knew any better, you'd have known that's not why people join the armed forces.

I am pretty sure that the motive for this attack was not 'they hate our freedom and American way of life' as much as 'they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars'. You would be wrong. Dead wrong. They DO hate our freedom and our way of life. Recommend you do some research and familiarize yourself with some of the statements (even the tamer ones) of the Islamic jihadists.

joab
December 25, 2005, 11:55 AM
they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars The majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis as is Bin Laden.
I don't think we had been medling in any of their conflicts or religious wars, other than the desired anihilation of Isreal.

The position Neon is taking is an isolationist position shared by many during WWII and even before
Many of the framers favored isolation.

The world is too small now for total isolation
As a nation we could no more do that than individual states could
Even China sees that now.

I do agree that the nation should reevaluate what foreign issues actually involve us and that a third party is becoming more and more a likely outcome of the present parties losing touch with average American values

shermacman
December 25, 2005, 12:18 PM
the only problem with your idea is that corporate america, and their lackeys, the democratic and republican parties, NEED to intervene and control the world.

Uh, dude, you are the corporation, not George Bush. Your internet connection, your computer, the heat in your house, the electricity, the lights, your Christmas tree, the food you ate last night.

These aren't George Bush's corporations, they are your corporations. And thank God for them or you would be writing with the burnt end of a stick on a rock in a cave while your children froze to death.

GoRon
December 25, 2005, 12:25 PM
Uh, dude, you are the corporation

+1

The anti corporation rhetoric makes me laugh. As if they are some alien entity.

We are corporate America, almost all of us work for corporations and we all prosper due to the efficiency of our corporations.

cz75bdneos22
December 25, 2005, 12:42 PM
I inadvertantly stirred up a hornets nest over in the general forum regarding military service and whether it squares with one's personal views of American foreign policy.

I am finding myself in a transition toward libertariansim here lately, mostly due to seeing the republicans more or less abandon me...and after all, if you ignore gay marriage and abortion, they pretty much look just like democrats. At best, the republicans aren't in the business of smaller government and bigger personal liberties.

Now, about this war: We were attacked by Islamic Terrorists. I am pretty sure that the motive for this attack was not 'they hate our freedom and American way of life' as much as 'they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars'. I mean, lets be honest, we've made enemies and it's our enemies who want us dead.

So, a foreign policy of leaving the people of the globe alone to sort out their own affairs...while we sort out ours at home, it just makes more sense. It's a LOT cheaper in $$ and American blood. It makes us no enemies around the globe. People may say, 'what about safeguarding world energy supplies?'. Well, won't the free market take care of that?

I have always been real pro military and proud of our nation standing up for the little guy...but I'm a little disenfranchised here. I'm not seeing the point. All it really ever does is get us killed and make people hate us. A quick survey of the world reveals no less evil than there ever was: people around the globe are still facing oppression and brutality at the hands of bad men. No amount of American intervention is ever going to change that.

I never thought I'd say it, but 'support our troops: bring them home' is making a lot more sense to me today. At this stage in this particular conflict, we're pretty well comitted to securing Iraq for as long as they need us. I am proud of the progress the Iraqis are making and hope they succeed at freedom. After that, I really want to see a foreign policy shift in America that includes:

bringing troops home from all around the globe
withdrawing foreign aid and diplomatic support from pretty much everyone
minding our own damn business
retooling/retraining the military to serve as a defensive force
letting the world know we aren't in the business of bailing everyone out or taking sides in their fights


Is this somehow unpatriotic? I love America. I want the America of John Adams back:


i support bringing home my brothers from overseas conflict...i too love the USA but would not be overthere fighting/dying over this "nonsense"...i feel for those that have/will lose loved ones in this "war"../i have people there as we speak, there isn't a day that goes by, that i don't ask for theur safe return to our families. Stop the madness.! protect those that are in need right now overthere, they are doing what they have been told to do...regretfully, it could have been otherwise...Live and Learn...:(

cz75bdneos22
December 25, 2005, 12:50 PM
Neoncowboy, I believe this statement of yours was what go everyone stirred up:Some of us in the military, or former miitary, rightly took this an as insult ... If you knew any better, you'd have known that's not why people join the armed forces.

You would be wrong. Dead wrong. They DO hate our freedom and our way of life. Recommend you do some research and familiarize yourself with some of the statements (even the tamer ones) of the Islamic jihadists.


No they don't:banghead: ...as far as "they" are concerned, we can keep our "freedoms" and way of life and as the saying goes" STWTSDS" This country of our is only 230 years old folks...people all over the world have been living/born into cultures going back 4000-5000 years...i liken it to city folk going to our ranch and telling us what's "best" for the ranch ...if only they were running the show...Yeah, Right! when you get your own ranch, then do as you will, cuz i know what i'm gonnsa did...YMMV

cz75bdneos22
December 25, 2005, 12:56 PM
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
If you do not worship Allah,you are an infidel and need to be removed from this world.

would that somehow be similar to the Catholic/Christian Inquisitors and the conquistadors that "tamed" the New World?

Dogs come in all colors...i have yet to read/hear/see any group corner the market on evil doings...if you would like to disagee, please share that i like to know...;)

Kaylee
December 25, 2005, 12:59 PM
cowboy.. you seem to miss the fact that we are presently there. You can't unring a bell.

No less the Osama himself has pointed to our running from Somalia as proof that if you keep biting at American's' heels long enough, we'll turn tail and run. He used that withdrawal to gather support for the attacks on 9/11.

If we do as you suggest, then we invite more and bigger attacks in the future. We ARE THERE NOW. No amout of whining about "lies" "bad intelligence" or anything else will change that. No amout of Congressional finger pointing or media posturing will undo what has been done. All it accomplishes is to weaken resolve at home and embolden those who attack us.

Once you've grabbed the tiger's tail, you can't let go without gettin' bit. You gotta take down the tiger.

Stoney
December 25, 2005, 01:04 PM
Cowboybobb693
Well said, my feelings exactly.

GoRon
December 25, 2005, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dog
Neoncowboy, I believe this statement of yours was what go everyone stirred up:Some of us in the military, or former miitary, rightly took this an as insult ... If you knew any better, you'd have known that's not why people join the armed forces.

You would be wrong. Dead wrong. They DO hate our freedom and our way of life. Recommend you do some research and familiarize yourself with some of the statements (even the tamer ones) of the Islamic jihadists.


No they don't ...as far as "they" are concerned, we can keep our "freedoms" and way of life and as the saying goes" STWTSDS" This country of our is only 230 years old folks...people all over the world have been living/born into cultures going back 4000-5000 years...

Fine piece of cultural relativism there cz :barf:

would that somehow be similar to the Catholic/Christian crusaders and the conquistadors that "tamed" the New World?

Dogs come in all colors...i have yet to read/hear/see any group corner the market on evil doings...if you would like to disagee, please share that i like to know...

The only "dog" I see is the strawman of an argument you posted. We cannot have the moral high ground in our present conflict with Islamic extremists because of the Crusades?:rolleyes:

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 01:07 PM
The statements I've read from Osama all indicate that 9/11 was retaliation for:
1. our troops stationed all over saudi arabia
2. embargoes of Iraq
3. unconditional support of Israel
You can call it 'hating western values' and pit Muslim against Christian...but then you'd have to explain why Switzerland isn't a terrorist target.

They DO hate our freedom and our way of life.

This may be true...but without our blatant interference all over the middle east and our taking such an active role in trying to shape their political processes and policies, their oil production and sales practices and their social values...would they have any (much less crucial) support from the Arab/Muslim people at large? Without that support, would they really be able to wage a war/jihad against us? I don't think so.

Geez you whiny people give me a headache

This is an unfortunate and very sad side-effect of the way the party system has shaped the American political landscape. We've created this separatism between American values to the point where even if a conservative, patriotic, gun-owning, liberty espousing American begins to even question modern foreign policy...we are labeled 'whiny'.

cowboybobb693: I'm not a whiner, I want to examine the role of US foreign policy in developing our present (and future) enemies. You know why? Because without those enemies, we don't have a war on terror...and without a war on terror, we don't have statists in Washington with a reason to try to take my liberties away.

Lupinus
December 25, 2005, 01:23 PM
would that somehow be similar to the Catholic/Christian crusaders
Please try actually picking up a history book and reading it. The Crusades were to regain lands that Islamic armies TOOK. The first stages of the crusades were to take back the Iberian peninsula, modern day Spain and Portugal, also it was to take back Sicily. It was then called on for Christian kingdoms to RETAKE, not take, RETAKE lands which had been lost to Islamic armies in the past. Was it religiously charged? Sure but that was the times much of your life was controlled by the church and your religious values. Modern day Israeli and Syria were chosen because that is where their religious history was, it also had strategic and trade value. It belonged to Christians before it belonged to Islam. Crusades were to get back land of value (value beyond simply religious at that) that had been taken. But it was not "Lets go kill them, they don't worship Christ" it was "They are taking our lands it is time to get them back." The this is payback mentality for the Crusades argument is laughable at best and perpetuated by those who have little understanding of history.

EDIT- Also last time I checked the US didn't have a thing to do with the Crusades even if they had been a factor beyond snowballing. The three main countries involved were France (yes there was a time they didn't just wave the white flag and had some balls) and England with Germany and Italian city states in lesser roles. Also major players were orders of knights such as the Knights Templar and the Hospitaller Knights of St. John both huge military orders that played major roles in Crusader held lands, there were countless smaller orders as well. So if that is the reason tlet them attack France and England, last I checked they haven't attacked France and only attacked England in a relativly small attack after close support of the US in a modern war.

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 01:26 PM
cowboy.. you seem to miss the fact that we are presently there. You can't unring a bell.

No, I acknowledged that:
At this stage in this particular conflict, we're pretty well comitted to securing Iraq for as long as they need us. I am proud of the progress the Iraqis are making and hope they succeed at freedom. After that, I really want to see a foreign policy shift in America that includes:

Actually, if you think about it, 'taking sides in their religious wars' is automatic. We're not a muslim theocracy. Therefore we're automatically the enemy. We're high on their list as we're a successful secular society.

I disagree. I believe that if we were merely a successful secular society we wouldnt' attract nearly the amount of attention from the muslim terrorists that we have. Again, Switzerland is a typical example of a non-intervening, successful (as all get out) secular/Christian society. Nobody messes with the Swiss and I don't think that has anything to do with their 'citizen army' defense force.

Instead, we use our success to blatantly, forcefully try to shape the entire world in our own image. It goes all the way back to the Spanish-American War...but since then:

what were we involved in WW1 for?
How many Jews did we save in WWII and what happened to Poland?
What, besides killing a bunch of American kids and testing out new fighter planes, did we accomplish in Korea in the 50s?
Who benefitted from the Cold War?
60,000 American lives later, is Vietnam more free or less free? Is America more free or less free as a result of our involvement in Vietnam?
Grenada? ***?
The Balkans? What do the Balkans have to do with preserving freedom?
The Gulf War? What's it to us? (By this time, we pretty well staged that whole war by arming Saddam and baiting him into invading Iraq...but still, why do we need to be involved there?)
Gulf War 2? The 'liberation' of Iraq. It's great to have the despot deposed, but frankly, the terrorist have a way stronger will for posessing the middle east than we're ever going to have. We will withdraw from that land eventually, and it will be ruled by Islamic dictators. In case we haven't noticed, that's the form of government the people of that region are most comfortable with.


I just don't see the point of being always involved in all this crap. Have we done some good, sure we have...but is any of it worth what we've invested and worth the trouble we have undeniably brought upon ourselves?

I don't like the trend and I don't like the results of American interventionism all around the globe. We aren't really fixing anything...just shifting global problems around and making enemies in the process.

I think we'd make a much stronger case for the cause of freedom and liberty by staying home and preserving freedom and liberty here and encouraging those around the globe to be free...through trade and our example. If they want to be free, let them bleed for iit like we did. It's not worth our blood, honor and treasure to go advancing freedom upon people who don't want it badly enough to bleed for it themselves.

I'm very proud of the Iraqis and hope their cause succeeds and that they play a role in reshaping the middle east. Likewise, I am terrified of Iran and hope that the Israelis act decisively and preemptively to neutralize the threat. It may be too late for us to become uninvolved before smashing every last one of the Islamic terrorist sponsoring nations...but I don't see Americans having the guts for that mission. So where does that leave us?

cz75bdneos22
December 25, 2005, 01:39 PM
Fine piece of cultural relativism there cz :barf:



The only "dog" I see is the strawman of an argument you posted. We cannot have the moral high ground in our present conflict with Islamic extremists because of the Crusades?:rolleyes:


:neener: Sir, you've made your mind up, fine...i don't take it lightly that someone chooses to believe otherwise...that's your choice...but, if what you believe has worked for you so far, who am i to disagree. if you want to sticky your thinghy into others affairs...then, you in for a wake up call, Sir..it is not going to go away quietly into the good night...get ready for a licking...as we have regretably found out in the present struggle to control Iraq...that is a fact...like a wise man once told me, the worst kind of blind man is He that will not see...YMMV

C. Rabbit
December 25, 2005, 01:42 PM
would that somehow be similar to the Catholic/Christian crusaders

No. The Crusades were a response to centuries of Islamic expansion, and attacks by the Turks on the Byzantines.


and the conquistadors that "tamed" the New World?

Closer, but the Spanish did try to convert the inhabitants, and they didn't try to conquer the New World because of their religion.

You can call it 'hating western values' and pit Muslim against Christian...but then you'd have to explain why Switzerland isn't a terrorist target.

And you'd have to explain why France is.

This may be true...but without our blatant interference all over the middle east and our taking such an active role in trying to shape their political processes and policies, their oil production and sales practices and their social values...would they have any (much less crucial) support from the Arab/Muslim people at large? Without that support, would they really be able to wage a war/jihad against us? I don't think so.

So now diplomacy is an excuse for terrorism? Was Clinton trying to change their 'social values' when they attacked us in 1993, 1998, and 2000?
The reality is that this cannot be explained by such mundane reasons as interference in their affairs. The people are oppressed and the news censored. Do you think the average Joe over there wakes up and, upon reading his paper, proclaims 'Those dastardly Americans are using diplomacy again! I wish Osama would bomb them.'? Nor did the terrorist need public support from Arab countries to plan attacks in Afghanistan.

Our enemies have not been developed, our realization that they exist and won't go away by Bill Clinton biting his lip on TV has. Our enemies don't care about American foreign policy (though it provides a convenient excuse to dupe people), they are motivated by religious fanaticism, the belief that the infidels, and their way of life, must be destroyed. Remember how terrorists in Iraq recently said 'democracy is a tool of satan' or some such thing? Look at conflicts around the globe and observe how many involve Muslims on one side or the other. Sudan, Chechnya, Indonesia-by the way, how does your theory of 'people hate our diplomacy so much they'll blow themselves up to kill us' fit in with terrorists attacking the most populated Muslim country in the world?-Israel, Iraq, Balkans, French Riots, Australian riots, etc., etc.

CR

cropcirclewalker
December 25, 2005, 02:02 PM
Yo, Mr. Neoncowboy, +1

You have a tough row to hoe here though.

As much as we like to espouse, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" I yam sorry, Superman was a comic.

We are a warlike nation. We might as well be a bunch of Vikings in our longships or some Huns sweeping down across the Steppes.

One guy said way up string, No, I don't believe we brought this on ourselves by making enemies. You can follow that trail all the way back to Cain and Abel. The sorry fact is that there is no race, no nation on earth which did not displace or conquer someone else. And therefore there is no people, race, nation, or faith who can justify doing what the Islamists do today. which, if read faithfully, means the complete opposite of what he was trying to say.

If there is no race or nation that did not displace then why would Islam be any different? I call doublespeak.

Then later, he said, War is not good for business.
Those cold-hearted greedy corporations had it much easier when there was no war in the ME. Whatever you may think of "Big Oil", it was sure cheaper in 1989 to get oil out of the region than it is now. Why fight for oil when you can just buy it? Why would a preisdent get himself into the present mess for money, when he and his friends already have plenty? Makes absolutely no sense. I call BS here.

War is GOOD for business. WWII created the middle class and enrichified many many.

Why did Eisenhower warn us of the Military Industrial Complex? To keep us safe from video games?

I will post arguments against more of the inanities presented above at a later time.

Merry Christmas.

Crosshair
December 25, 2005, 02:48 PM
Unfortunately, America can't isolate herself anymore, though in some cases I'd love to see her withdraw: Europe, for example. Let those ungrateful jerks carry their own defense.

The seeds of the present conflict were planted before America's birth, planted by the Prophet himself. Let us not forget that the Crusades were a COUNTERATTACK in response to Islam's invasions of the west.

Yes, get our people out of Europe, they are big boys now and can take care of themselves. You are also correct about the Crusades, remember Christopher Columbus got the funding for his trip after the Spanish had repelled a muslim invasion of Spain.

cropcirclewalker
December 25, 2005, 03:06 PM
So, now we are supposed to believe that Cortez went to Mexico to bring them Christianity. :scrutiny:

The good ol' USofA was almost isolationist prior to WWI.

Wilson just HADDA make the world safe for Democracy. (a classic PR misnomer)

We were the powerhouse in WWII because were almost self sufficient (another way of saying isolationist). We were a manufacturing giant. We created the war materials for almost all the Allies. (That was good for business)

WWII created the middle class with discretionary spending abilities out the wazoo. (a huge market)

High paid workers are good for markets, but not conducive to high profit margins. Manufacturers had to figure out how to make more, make more.

Thus we export the labor to a third world country and import the goods.

So there you have it. Make it out of the country and figger out a way to avoid import tariffs. Nafta, Gatt, Gafta, Crafta, Crapta ad nauseum. In order to control the profits, we gotta mess with foreign countries.

There may be no cure for it. China is doing now, what we were doing in and post WWII. American business leaders are losing control of their cheap labor pools. Now the money is leaving the country and the cheap dvd players are coming in. Soon the dvd players will be at the dump and the money will all be in China.

We are eating our seed corn.

We think we can maintain superiority by shuffling papers and electrons. High tech is moving offshore too.

The end is near, repent.

Khornet
December 25, 2005, 04:07 PM
but in spite of what the Jefferson Airplane said, war is most definitely not good business. It complicates things like exchange of funds, shipping of products, etc. Stability is what big business needs, and they don't care what kind of stability it is. Big business would cetainly have preferred that the current war was never started. They can make the big bucks easier in peacetime.

You have to understand that business is apolitical. It has no ideology. Its only guiding principle is fidelity to the stockholders. That is neither admirable nor reprehensible. If you insist on assigning some nefarious geopolitical ideology upon it, you are being a simpleton.

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 04:25 PM
So now diplomacy is an excuse for terrorism?

No! We aren't talking about excuses...there is no 'excuse' for terrorism or unprovoked violence upon innocents. That's not what I'm talking about.

I am just postulating that maybe America's LONG STANDING foreing policies of:

unconditional support for Israel
promoting democracy and western values (in other words: pissing on islamic theocracies) in the middle east
supporting the warlord/dictator of the month in whatever pissant nation in the middle east

Might be contributing factors to why they hate us enough to blow themselves up. Especially the Israel thing...we've pretty well aligned ourselves with the whol Arab world's most bitter, hated enemy. It's not an excuse, but it doesn't take a genius to see how they would identify us as their enemy.

cowboybobb693
December 25, 2005, 04:50 PM
No! We aren't talking about excuses...there is no 'excuse' for terrorism or unprovoked violence upon innocents. That's not what I'm talking about.

I am just postulating that maybe America's LONG STANDING foreing policies of:

unconditional support for Israel
promoting democracy and western values (in other words: pissing on islamic theocracies) in the middle east
supporting the warlord/dictator of the month in whatever pissant nation in the middle east

Might be contributing factors to why they hate us enough to blow themselves up. Especially the Israel thing...we've pretty well aligned ourselves with the whol Arab world's most bitter, hated enemy. It's not an excuse, but it doesn't take a genius to see how they would identify us as their enemy.

So Neon are you saying that we SHOULD NOT be supporting Israel ???
Let me see, who is the democratic nation in that area of the world that wholly supports us ??? Who despite being bombed/rocket attacked during the 1st Gulf war listened to reason and did not NUKE the crap outta Iraq ??? Who has had more citizens killed by psyco bombers in that region ???
Oh and by the way, I'm Jewish, so I do take your comments to heart.

shermacman
December 25, 2005, 05:15 PM
Yup, it is all about Israel.
If we abandoned Israel the entire Islamic world would suddenly stop behaving like a Stone Age death cult. Once again, Islam would become the freedom loving, peaceful bastion of Democracy and Love that it was until 1948.
Truth and justice would reign over the entire Middle East!
Honest!

cowboybobb693
December 25, 2005, 05:18 PM
Yup, it is all about Israel.
If we abandoned Israel the entire Islamic world would suddenly stop behaving like a Stone Age death cult. Once again, Islam would become the freedom loving, peaceful bastion of Democracy and Love that it was until 1948.
Truth and justice would reign over the entire Middle East!
Honest!
Good One !!!
thanks for the chuckle

cropcirclewalker
December 25, 2005, 05:22 PM
You have to understand that business is apolitical. It has no ideology. Its only guiding principle is fidelity to the stockholders. That is neither admirable nor reprehensible. If you insist on assigning some nefarious geopolitical ideology upon it, you are being a simpleton. I don't remember what the Jefferson Airplane said, but I do remember some words in an old song by Bobby Dylan, back in the folk music days when I was a dumb a$$ed sailor.

"I'm an old time travelin' man, And I know just what to do.

Yes, I'm an old time travelin' man, and I know just what to do.

I sell rifles to the Arabs.............

I sell tennis shoes to the Jews."

As much as I hold him in low regard, FDR manipulated us into WWII to cure us of our depression.

Please do not say that war is not good for business.

Some say that Kennedy was assinated because he was going to bring us home from Viet Nam.

You have to understand that business is apolitical. It has no ideology. Its only guiding principle is fidelity to the stockholders. Your own words above are just a further argument in my favor. It's almost as if you are doing that on purpose. Is this satire?

I would never stoop to calling you a simpleton, since I prefer to drive you crazy by consistently responding to your inanities in a calmly logical fashion which does not include name-calling, a procedure I learned from Pax. :neener:

Air,Land&Sea
December 25, 2005, 05:29 PM
There was no link between Pearl Harbor and Hitler just as there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam, but we took the necessary decisive action each time. Said another way: The war in Iraq, specifically, is our only option. The web of global terrorism wants you and I dead and it is growing. They seek to blame our freedom for the failed policies of their oppressive forms of governance.
The current strategy is dangerous, risky, divisive and brilliant. I say "divisive" because self serving legislators who have a track record of putting politics over people are using the same tactics that got us all into this mess in the first place.
In it's simplest discussion: Terrorism diminishes as freedom increases. People are less likely to become terrorists when they're free and therefore have better options available. Or: The choice is war or terror - take your pick.
So, yes; it's my opinion that it's unpatriotic to be against this war and it's treasonous for Congressmen and Senators to undermine our President at every opportunity, during time of war, for (perceived) political gain.

gc70
December 25, 2005, 06:09 PM
The statements I've read from Osama all indicate that 9/11 was retaliation for:
1. our troops stationed all over saudi arabia
2. embargoes of Iraq
3. unconditional support of Israel
And why was it a problem for American troops to be invited by the government of Suadia Arabia to use facilities in that country? Could it be because the troops were infidels who had the audacity to even set foot on the soil of that most holy of Islamic countries? That was bin Laden's first complaint.

Complaints about the embargoes of Iraq and unconditional support of Israel were simply PR bones tossed out to play on the popular reactions of the Muslim masses. Blue-blooded Saudi Sunnis like bin Laden could care less about a majority-Shiite country like Iraq or about Palestinians - except for their propaganda value.

JerryM
December 25, 2005, 06:39 PM
Terorists attacked us because they desire to take over the world for Islam. They hate Israel and because we are committed to the security of Israel they hate us for that.

We are embarked upon the correct course for ourselves and the world in general. The notion that we should just come home and all will be well, plus thinking that "big oil" is the reason for the high prices of gasoline, is nonsense.

The more I see of Libertarianism the more it looks like anarchy, and on the moral side Democrats.
Jerry

cropcirclewalker
December 25, 2005, 06:51 PM
I harken back to the fifties. I was just a kid but I can still remember my grandfather (born 1874) and his absolute belief that TV rassling was real.

O'course, he would have been in his late 70's then and maybe senility was setting in.

It was beyond his comprehension that the rulers of the networks would stoop so low as to lie to us.

When I hear the repetition of the spins here it just makes me think of him. The utter suspension of logic and reason in the belief that our rulers would not do bad stuff. :o

Khornet
December 25, 2005, 08:17 PM
"War is good business, invest your son. And I'd rather have my country die for me.." Jefferson Airplane

If you don't think business is apolitical and amoral, tehn you don't understand business. In which case, your therory about big busines being behind the decisions of nations is quite ill-informed, no?

shermacman
December 25, 2005, 08:18 PM
Yo, lost in the Crop Circle:
As much as I hold him in low regard, FDR manipulated us into WWII to cure us of our depression.

Wow.

Just plain wow.

No Japs, No Hitler, No Moose-a-leanie.

Wow.

Does any one else know this? I mean, dude, this is revolutionary! Or are you the only one who knows this?

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 08:46 PM
No Japs, No Hitler, No Moose-a-leanie.

Wow.

Why do you think the japanese attacked pearl harbor?

Hitler had been terrorizing Europe for awhile before we saw fit to intervene. What exactly was our purpose there? Protecting 'American freedom' somehow? What did we do in Europe in WWII...I mean, aside from helping to give birth to the USSR. We didn't save Poland from anything. We didn't save the lives of 6 million jews/gypsies. I guess we saved the French from the Nazis...but what good did that really do in the long run?

The way you say it, it sounds like the rise of evil dictators in Europe is such an obvious reason for America to send it's sons and daughters off to die...but I don't see it. I don't understand why we have to act as the arbiter of justice all over the world, especially in nations where the people themselves aren't willing/able to fight and repel that evil that threatens them.

Hitler was more or less a European problem. What did it have to do with us?

Not that there's anything wrong with fighting evil...just that it doesn't really do any ultimate good. The world remains plagued with evil and we spill our blood more or less in vain. Our involvement in Europe may have temporarily saved some people from suffering under some tyrant...but only to give way to some other people suffering (for years) under some other, much worse tyrant.

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 08:52 PM
Terorists attacked us because they desire to take over the world for Islam.

How did attacking us advance that cause? I mean, I can grant you that they would love an Islamic world and enjoy the delusion of grandeur seeing themselves as rulers of the world...but come on, they know that's a fantasy.

How was 9/11 a good move tactically if the strategy is world domination?

All they did was to piss us off and turn more or less the whole rest of the world against them. Much the same as sawing off heads in Fallujah a few years later.

These people are fanatics and tactical buffoons.

Yes, they hate us. But you have to acknowledge that we've been really generous handing them reasons to hate us.

shermacman
December 25, 2005, 08:57 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with fighting evil...just that it doesn't really do any ultimate good.

OK, I quit. You win. The sun will go cold, the universe will expand into entropic decay. Nothing matters anyway.

Have a nice day!

:)

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 09:00 PM
So Neon are you saying that we SHOULD NOT be supporting Israel ???
Let me see, who is the democratic nation in that area of the world that wholly supports us ??? Who despite being bombed/rocket attacked during the 1st Gulf war listened to reason and did not NUKE the crap outta Iraq ??? Who has had more citizens killed by psyco bombers in that region ???

No, I'm saying that our foreign policy of support for Israel has been primarily the reason why we have so many enemies in the middle east.

I would think that a little more indifference toward Israel would be a good thing. It's not as if Israel needs our arms...they can get plenty of arms both internally and from the Russians. They don't need our money, there's plenty of money in the world earmarked for Israel. They don't need our military, for it's size, the Israeli army is the most dengerous in the world!

I would think Israel, if ever freed of all the strings attached to the foreign aid/arms support it receives from the US, would finally be able to take the gloves off the kick the crap out of her enemies that surround her.

The US state dept. demanding restraint from Israel is not really doing anything good for the Israeli people. Don't you think?

I'd love more than anything to see Israel level the Iranian nuclear facilities, sieze the temple mount, kill that psycopath the Iranians have as a leader and draw a line in the sand, daring the Syrians, Lebanese or anyone else to make a move.

That's a fight between Israel and her enemies though. I don't think it really has anything to do with the US.

cropcirclewalker
December 25, 2005, 09:02 PM
If you don't think business is apolitical and amoral, tehn you don't understand business. In which case, your therory about big busines being behind the decisions of nations is quite ill-informed, no? You are just too clever by half. You say something that bolsters my argument and then, somehow, you reverse it to mean that the opposite of what you say is relevant.

I will type r..e..a..l s..l..o..w.... I do think business is apolitical and amoral. Business owes its alegiance to the bottom line, not the nation. That is what I have been trying to say. It's gotta be satire. I am a fool.

I know you are, but what am I? :p

neoncowboy
December 25, 2005, 09:07 PM
OK, I quit. You win. The sun will go cold, the universe will expand into entropic decay. Nothing matters anyway.

Have a nice day!


lol.

OK, maybe that went a little too far. I'm not really that fatalistic, I'm just trying to make sense of a complicated world.

I guess I just don't see how one sovereign nation can legitimately claim to have the moral authority to take sides in another sovereign nations conflicts. We make plenty of enemies doing that and anyone we ever take sides with is going to be 'the bad guy' to some degree or another.

Case in point: in WWII we sided with Russia to defeat the Nazis. Great, where did that leave us? We sided with the Chinese to defeat the Japs, where did that leave us? Net gain in either case? Zero. Cost? Incredible.

We can't depose all of the evil in the world, there's simply too much of it. Anymore, our own morality is so decayed that it's sort of a joke for America to come rushing to anybody's aid as the 'enforcer of morality' and all that.

I guess I just don't see what would be so bad about withdrawing a little bit, or maybe quite a lot, and letting the people of the world sort out their own conflicts for awhile.

RealGun
December 26, 2005, 10:41 AM
No, I'm saying that our foreign policy of support for Israel has been primarily the reason why we have so many enemies in the middle east.

I would think that a little more indifference toward Israel would be a good thing. It's not as if Israel needs our arms...they can get plenty of arms both internally and from the Russians. They don't need our money, there's plenty of money in the world earmarked for Israel. They don't need our military, for it's size, the Israeli army is the most dengerous in the world!

I would think Israel, if ever freed of all the strings attached to the foreign aid/arms support it receives from the US, would finally be able to take the gloves off the kick the crap out of her enemies that surround her.

The US state dept. demanding restraint from Israel is not really doing anything good for the Israeli people. Don't you think?

I'd love more than anything to see Israel level the Iranian nuclear facilities, sieze the temple mount, kill that psycopath the Iranians have as a leader and draw a line in the sand, daring the Syrians, Lebanese or anyone else to make a move.

That's a fight between Israel and her enemies though. I don't think it really has anything to do with the US.

Israel is under agreement not to use US military equipment for offensive purposes. Preemptive wars would be highly controversial. Restraint is always expected. They violated that in Lebanon. Whatever they do should probably include consulting with US policy officials. Based upon this agreement, they get higher tech stuff than most countries do. That may be most apparent in the electronic capabilities of their fighter planes and in the missile technology.

gc70
December 26, 2005, 11:07 AM
Lest anyone think that the US is totally altruistic, Israel has been a major beta-test site for US military technology for decades.

Art Eatman
December 26, 2005, 04:28 PM
"I am pretty sure that the motive for this attack was not 'they hate our freedom and American way of life' as much as 'they hate us for screwing around in their conflicts and taking sides in their religious wars'."

Going back to 1980, the Iranis verbalized that we were the Great Satan because our women don't wear veils. They show their legs and arms in public. We make evil, badnasty movies. Our music is salacious and immoral. Note that many other Islamics hold this same view.

Now, we regard all these "evils" as part of our freedoms. We're as free to be hedonistic as we are to be thrifty churchy types. They publicly decry the American way of life as evil; we like to think it's not their business how we live and that we're free to live as we choose.

Long before the Iranian takeover of our embassy in Teheran, there was a general movement within the Islamic world to move more toward Sharia. That's part of the "why" of the very long-term problems in such places as Chad, for instance. The severity started in later in places like Indonesia and the southern Philippines, among other places. There is apparently a worldwide rebirth of Islamic expansionism among the more "fundamentalist" types.

The history of all this predates such things as Gulf War I or the WTC 1 event of 1993. You at the very least have to go back to the religious emotion buildup which led to the fall of the Shah of Iran, among other tidbits of history...

Art

neoncowboy
December 26, 2005, 05:18 PM
Yes, yes...good point.

I even believe that in spite of their stated reasons for attacking us, it probably has a lot to do with cultural envy.

I'm pro defense (duh, I carry a pistol and train with it) obviously. I think our foreign policy has gone way, way farther than defense of ourselves and our allies though. We've become a global social engineer, using foreign aid and our military as the tools.

Hm, having sort of a hard time with this one having read the positions of others. I can see validity to both sides.

On the one hand, I bet we'd have fewer enemies and less national debt and fewer war widows if we were more isolationist...but at the same time, withdrawing too much could hinder our ability to defend ourselves.

It's a tough road I guess.

One thing I am very thankful for is that I'm not a cabinet member or the president or anything. It's way easier to sit here at my computer and ponder it all than it would be to have to take responsibility for the whole thing.

longeyes
December 26, 2005, 05:44 PM
No they don't ...as far as "they" are concerned, we can keep our "freedoms" and way of life and as the saying goes" STWTSDS" This country of our is only 230 years old folks...people all over the world have been living/born into cultures going back 4000-5000 years...i liken it to city folk going to our ranch and telling us what's "best" for the ranch ...if only they were running the show...Yeah, Right! when you get your own ranch, then do as you will, cuz i know what i'm gonnsa did...YMMV

The "meddling" started in the 7th century in Arabia.

cz75bdneos22
December 26, 2005, 05:53 PM
Terorists attacked us because they desire to take over the world for Islam. They hate Israel and because we are committed to the security of Israel they hate us for that.

We are embarked upon the correct course for ourselves and the world in general. The notion that we should just come home and all will be well, plus thinking that "big oil" is the reason for the high prices of gasoline, is nonsense.

The more I see of Libertarianism the more it looks like anarchy, and on the moral side Democrats.
Jerry

NO..NO..NO..por favor, :banghead:

RealGun
December 26, 2005, 06:56 PM
We've become a global social engineer, using foreign aid and our military as the tools.

It makes more sense if you accept that dependence upon imports, more recently referred to as "free trade", requires stability in economically important areas or any segment of international commerce. We are indeed engineering the world and have many allies in that effort. We no longer freely support dictators merely for the sake of stability.

Our tradeoff in proposing isolationism would be massive inflation and severe shortages of commodities and natural resources. We have sourced many skill sets out of the country and may have a hard time making stuff for ourselves. In the end it is all about keeping the economic jugernaut rolling. It seems to be working, if using the stock market as a measure.

White Horseradish
December 26, 2005, 07:28 PM
What did we do in Europe in WWII...I mean, aside from helping to give birth to the USSR.

Huh? And just what state did occupy the territory if the USSR between 1917 and 1940?

I find your grasp of history to be a bit tenuous.

neoncowboy
December 26, 2005, 07:36 PM
Our tradeoff in proposing isolationism would be massive inflation and severe shortages of commodities and natural resources. We have sourced many skill sets out of the country and may have a hard time making stuff for ourselves. In the end it is all about keeping the economic jugernaut rolling. It seems to be working, if using the stock market as a measure.

I guess I assumed the free market laws of supply and demand would work these issues out for us.

Our energy really ought to come from home sources, but even if it doesn't it comes from enough diverse sources that if one of them tried to 'cut us off' or artificially inflate prices through tarriffs or whatever, that we could make up the difference through another source.

A policy of increased isolationism would necessitate more independence, encouraging more Americans to produce more of our own consumer goods. I am guessing that would have positive impact all over the place (more better jobs, higher quality, perhaps higher prices)

Anyway, we're pretty lousy social engineers. What we're doing abroad doesn't seem to be working, I'd be interested in the results of a different strategy...one that included not squandering our national treasure and blood all over the world for the benefit of others who make tentative allies.

neoncowboy
December 26, 2005, 07:43 PM
Huh? And just what state did occupy the territory if the USSR between 1917 and 1940?

I find your grasp of history to be a bit tenuous.

Yeah, that's all right...I'm not a history scholar, but I'm always interested in learning more.

I was under the impression that Russia was an enemy of Germany since at least WW1. In WW2, we intervened to protect our allies from the Germans.

What did we accomplish? Poland, which had been invaded by Hitler, became a subject of the USSRs tyranny. Saving Poland was one of our reasons for intervening. How many Jews did we keep from being murdered by the Nazis? What did we gain from liberating France?

Wasn't it MacArthur who wanted to keep on rolling right through Russia and conquer them too? It looks like one of the problems is that we never really finish the job...we have a tendency to half-ass solutions and then leave things worse off than they were when we found them. (Europe in WW1 & 2, Vietnam, The Persian Gulf)

Lupinus
December 26, 2005, 08:29 PM
The "meddling" started in the 7th century in Arabia.
And that was...how exactly?

White Horseradish
December 26, 2005, 08:41 PM
Yeah, that's all right...I'm not a history scholar, but I'm always interested in learning more.

I was under the impression that Russia was an enemy of Germany since at least WW1. In WW2, we intervened to protect our allies from the Germans.

What did we accomplish? Poland, which had been invaded by Hitler, became a subject of the USSRs tyranny. Saving Poland was one of our reasons for intervening. How many Jews did we keep from being murdered by the Nazis? What did we gain from liberating France?

Wasn't it MacArthur who wanted to keep on rolling right through Russia and conquer them too? It looks like one of the problems is that we never really finish the job...we have a tendency to half-ass solutions and then leave things worse off than they were when we found them. (Europe in WW1 & 2, Vietnam, The Persian Gulf)Yes, Russia was an enemy of Germany. However, the USSR came into being in 1917 with the Socialist Revolution, not after WWII. Whether US had anything to do with that one is subject to some debate. There was some investment by private entities from US, that's for sure.

I kinda doubt that saving Poland was a major motive in the US entering WWII, seeing how it was long overrun by that time.

It was Patton that wanted to attack Russia. Good thing he didn't, because that would have ended extemely badly for the US. By 1945 USSR had most of its adult male population in the army which had learned to fight quite well, the industry was going full-tilt having recovered from the evacuation and the supply lines were functional and incomparably shorter than the American ones. Having a really nice rifle would not have been enough.

IMO, US going into WWII had a lot more to do with controlling the expansion of the Soviet Bloc than actual liberation of anyone.

gc70
December 26, 2005, 08:50 PM
IMO, US going into WWII had a lot more to do with controlling the expansion of the Soviet Bloc than actual liberation of anyone.There was no Soviet Bloc until after WWII - only the USSR. The generally accepted rationale is that the US entered WWII to stop the rapid expansion of the Axis countries. When the US entered WWII, Germany had already gobbled up most of Europe, Japan was continuing devouring Southeast Asia, and even Italy was having some success in North Africa.

Khornet
December 26, 2005, 09:18 PM
Lupinus, I think that would be when Islam embarked on its invasion of the west.

White Horseradish
December 26, 2005, 09:47 PM
There was no Soviet Bloc until after WWII - only the USSR. The generally accepted rationale is that the US entered WWII to stop the rapid expansion of the Axis countries. When the US entered WWII, Germany had already gobbled up most of Europe, Japan was continuing devouring Southeast Asia, and even Italy was having some success in North Africa.OK, replace "bloc" with "sphere of influence". It really would not have taken any clairvoyance to see what Russia intended.

Lupinus
December 26, 2005, 10:14 PM
Lupinus, I think that would be when Islam embarked on its invasion of the west.
Sorry hought it had to do with saying that is when we (the west) began mucking with Arabia.

gc70
December 26, 2005, 10:49 PM
OK, replace "bloc" with "sphere of influence". It really would not have taken any clairvoyance to see what Russia intended.Clairvoyance would have only been required if one could not have heard or read. Marx, Lenin, and their successors had been preaching communist world domination for decades. Given the dismal state of the Soviet economy in the inter-war years, that rhetoric was too-casually dismissed by most observers of the period. At the time, the clearer and more immediate danger was from the Axis powers.

MikeB
December 27, 2005, 06:00 AM
# The Gulf War? What's it to us? (By this time, we pretty well staged that whole war by arming Saddam and baiting him into invading Iraq...but still, why do we need to be involved there?)

I just have to correct this statement. The United States DID NOT arm Saddam. Europe and Russia did.

Here is the list of all arms transferred to Saddam beginning in 1970. The only items on that list from the US are a few helicopters, the only military ones being ASW. I would hardly call that Arming Saddam.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf

He also didn't invade Iraq, but I'll assume that's a typo for Kuwait.

neoncowboy
December 27, 2005, 07:47 AM
I just have to correct this statement. The United States DID NOT arm Saddam. Europe and Russia did.

Here is the list of all arms transferred to Saddam beginning in 1970. The only items on that list from the US are a few helicopters, the only military ones being ASW. I would hardly call that Arming Saddam.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf

He also didn't invade Iraq, but I'll assume that's a typo for Kuwait.

It was a typo for Kuwait.

I've read that US firms sent precursor chemicals for chemical weapons, as well as chem weapon production facility plans and drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.

Weapons of mass destruction? Uh, yeah. We tried to help Saddam develop those when he was fighting with Iran.

That Iraq Weapons Report from Dec. 2002 even suggests that Iraqi nuclear scientists received training and non-fissile material from their American counterparts at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore!

MikeB
December 27, 2005, 08:08 AM
I've read that US firms sent precursor chemicals for chemical weapons, as well as chem weapon production facility plans and drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.

Yes the US and the rest of the world sold Saddam materials that could have been used to make chemical/biological weapons. Problem is it's a little hard to tell if a test tube or beaker is going to be used to make a weapon or a vaccine. Iraq in the '80's had a quite well educated population of research scientists for both weapons and civilian uses. You also might recall it was quite a surprise to much of the world when the size of Saddams Chemical, Biological, and other weapons programs came out. Remember all the hoopla over Saddams giant gun in the late '80's. They shut that down when England realized what the tubes were being used for. That began the whole landslide of knowledge as to the extent of Saddams weapons programs.

Weapons of mass destruction? Uh, yeah. We tried to help Saddam develop those when he was fighting with Iran.

Proof of this statement would be?

That Iraq Weapons Report from Dec. 2002 even suggests that Iraqi nuclear scientists received training and non-fissile material from their American counterparts at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore!

Got a link for the relevent sections of this report?

So far I've debated this on many websites and have never seen any proof that the US knowingly sold Saddam any weapons. Even the people who created that report I linked to earlier don't have any evidence of this and they are one of the groups that track such stuff and not a particular friend of the US.

RealGun
December 27, 2005, 08:25 AM
Anyway, we're pretty lousy social engineers.

That would require some historical perspective to really judge. I think the usual argument is to present Europe and Japan recovering after WWII...Marshall plan and all that. The additional problem we have now is misplaced religious fervor, making it somewhat of a "crusade". Internally, the religious factions cannot even coexist, let alone accept the "infidels". An example is the post-election bickering in Iraq. It wasn't enough to make Islam the official State religion. They still want to kill each other over doctrine and tribal dominance.

Art Eatman
December 27, 2005, 11:42 AM
to sorta stop bad-mouthing Administrations and the Congress: I imagine there is a certain amount of sentiment there to see that our population continues to have "The Good Life". Part of that good life has been cheap energy.

Whatever energy policy we ever have had has been involved in a constant, reliable supply. Doesn't matter if it's electricity or transportation: This nation owes its present material wealth to cheap energy.

Our negotiations on behalf of those who supply the oil have always had that in mind. Further, we can only negotiate with "duly consitituted governments", no matter how unwholesome those governments may be. Isolationism is doomed to failure. When you're in competition with the rest of the world for a vital resource, you can't stay home.

Hindsight can show us many errors in past policy, but at the time for many of those choices, there wasn't really a choice. One of the better examples, IMO, is that of Iran: The CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh in favor of the Shah. That did two things: It reduced the sway of the USSR in that area, given its desire for a warm-water port; and assured a friendly regime insofar as a military balance of power in the region as well as a secure source of oil.

And so it goes...

Art

Art Eatman
December 27, 2005, 11:53 AM
Re the earlier post about following Patton's desires: Lotsa what-if stuff. We could have gone on into Berlin ahead of the Russians. And, we could have gone on and kicked the Russians out of what became Iron Curtain countries. I doubt we could have succeeded in whipping Russia within its own borders--a lack of desire being part of the deal.

First off, we're back to oil. Part of our aid to Russia was shipments of transportation fuels to Murmansk. Russia's internal oil supplies probably couldn't have supported a lengthy resistance in the outer countries. Then you add in all the stuff about air superiority and all that.

The Iron Curtain stuff surprised a lot of folks, except for perceptive people like Churchill. Other western leaders and their populations were fed up with war. Only guys like Stalin were quite willing to see their own people get killed if need be in the territorial expansion that became the USSR. He had help from the local Communist establishment, of course. One notable facet of Communism is that the leaders care not how many people die in their move toward power.

Russia's post-WW II development depended greatly on stolen materiel and kidnapped/captive non-Russians. Trainloads of such items as lathes and milling machines were shipped into Russia from Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc. Thousands of scientists and engineers from the captive countries were forced into research and production/development in Russia.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Iraq War (for instance)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!