U.S. intervention in another Islamic country?

I think every country should always have ideas about possible military action for some unknown threat to protect themselves. However, I DON'T think the U.S. should continue to think about fixing the world's "problems" (as the U.S. govt defines them) by "regime change". Sure, let's just start a war in any country and toss out the despot making way for "democracy". Certainly Zimbabwe would be far better off without Mugabe. I'm pretty sure the North Koreans could use a new leader. I can think of a country or two in the Western hemisphere as well

"Iraq has WMDs and is going to attack someone" becomes "The people of Iraq need to be saved of a tyranical leader". The Cold War was about the Soviets making the world safe for Communism and the U.S. making it safe for democracy. We 'won' because we happened to have more money to keep our economy going while feeding the military build up.

The foreign policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has to go.

 

No, I didn't support going into Iraq, and I don't support invading other Middle East countries to form the "New American Empire". What we did in Afghanistan seemed necessary, although long before the job was finished there, our Federal government had its eye on Iraq. After somehow connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, which defied rationality, they went for it. Now we have two countries where we've intervened and not finished the job, both are a mess. We just can't afford it, we have to find other ways of dealing with our problems. We've already saddled our children with giant national and state (at least in California) debt, and in addition middle class children come out of college with a lot of educational loan debt these days.

While the Bushies continue to piddle away any U.S. international good will and bring on armageddon in their Evangelical way, jobs go to India, China, etc., the middle class gets smaller, and so it goes. The Middle East is just another place to spend the money we're borrowing from the future.

I guess that's kind of a dark view of things, but I personally believe its going to take a long time to undo the damage that the Bushies have managed to do in the last 5 years, and still a couple to go. The fact that our children are dying in Bush's war is really tragic. And it'll be interesting to see where the Supreme Court stands when all that settles out as well.

-Roger

 

It looks to me like Bush is learning his lessons, just take Iran for example, we're letting our opinions known as we should as the most powerful nation in the world but we are also letting the European nations run with this which I think is a great idea.

Overall I think the world is a much better place without Hussein and from everything I've seen (yes, on the media) the people in Iraq seem to be much better off just look at the exponentional growth of plastic surgeries for example :blink:

We have some serious issues going on in the world right now. China is anti American for the most part obviously so is N. Korea plus we have the mid east speaking with China and Russia so to be perfectly honest I'm a little bit nervous.

World Wars take a long time to develop. I was born in 69 so I can't really relate but I keep wondering if 9/11 will be considered the beginning of WW3 which may actually be underway in a strategic level as we speak.

Either way I support Bush and voted for him in both elections. The first one was obvious the second election was much more difficult. Bush did screw up in the "War in Iraq" for his reasons as we all know but Kerry didn't seem qualified to run anything more than a Mc Donald's (let the flaming begin).

 

We should plan for every eventuality, but only interfere in another nation's affairs for a clear and compelling American interest. For instance, if we are attacked, or they cut off something vital to our economic livlihood, forcing our people to starve.

I think we had that in Afghanistan with their support of the terroist training camps and refusal to turn over the Al Quieda folks, but not so much in Iraq. Its not that I like any of these countries, or think that their people don't deserve freedom, but our "job" is to take care of ourselves. If we try to use military force for altruistic reasons, it will fail in the end.

"nation building" should be for true coalitions, or completely vanquished nations if we go it alone. It worked after WWII because we completely, totally defeated Germany and Japan. They were in ruins. And we were pretty ruthless during the occupation of Germany ... flattening entire buildings when a sniper shot from one.

We are not ruthless enough to do that now. We wouldn't want to see carpet bombing, or nuclear bombs, etc. But in the absence of that kind of total defeat, an occupying army will have a very hard time, and take a lot of that time, to accomplish its goals. I think Iraq will take another 5 years to get settled, if we stay. If we leave sooner than that, it will be a much worse mess (for us) than it was with Saddam.

 

The U.S. announced to the world back in the Jimmy Carter era that it would initiate military action to ensure that a steady supply of oil flows into our country. Richard Nixon had contingency plans to invade Saudia Arabia during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The reason for the first Gulf War was to secure the Kuwait oil fields after they were taken over by Iraq. Anyone who thinks the current invasion of Iraq was not related to the fact that they have the second greatest known conventional oil reserves in the world is fooling themselves. The U.S. did not invade Iraq to "steal" their oil, only to ensure that we have free-market access to the same. There will be future resource wars in our lifetime, until we no longer are addicted to petroleum.

 

As my nephew waited outside the walls of Baghdad in early Spring, 2003, his father and I debated the limits to American military power. My brother (a former artillery airborne Staff Sgt. in Vietnam) thought he had the numbers all worked out. He said that between Army regs and the Reserves, we had enough men to cover Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, our bases around the world, and still send units to cover "hot spots" as needed.

The million or so refugees that might be generated during protracted fighting in Baghdad would have to mind their own butts.

He crowed when the city fell with hardly a whimper.

When then Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki declared that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure the occupation of Iraq, my brother's paper army fell apart.

Conventional warfare will fail in this "war on terrorism". Of course, we will always need a standing fighting force and there will always be battlefields. But the real struggles will take place out of sight of the war correspondents. Young minds will be molded in mosques and madrassas, diplomats spar using words in banquet and meeting halls, criminals face the international courts, arms and weapons shipped past corrupt or negligent or non-existent customs officials. The combatants will be amalgams of both military and civilian efforts.

Interesting sources: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/sites.html

 

soboy-
Supported the overthrowing of the Taliban in Afghanistan as it seemed clear they were supporting terrorists like Al Queda*.

Didn't think things were so clear-cut for Uncle Saddam so I joined in a peace march in DC. This was before we invaded Iraq. Boarded a school bus and bounced 5 hours to and from, marched alongside some 50,000 other folks. Teenagers, retirees, young families, Vietnam Vets Against the War, the (damned noisy) Socialist Whatever Party, etc. Waved at the police on horses and motorcycles (they were very nice and waved back), ate disgusting dryed-out sandwiches, and got dehydrated. Checked the toilet for blood for two days after I got home.

Some of the signs read No Blood For Oil and Not in My Name.

Guess I was hoping to send some sort of mesage to our Senators and the President, that perhaps they were not backed by 100% of the US. Not for the reasons as stated.

If Bush would have explained that this was really about "sweet crude" and the imports from Iraq and Saudi Arabia were crucial, critical, downright necessary to our economy, then I would have been okay with that. Really, I'm a pragmatist and a cold hearted b***h when it comes to foreign policy. If we don't keep the black stuff flowing at high enough levels, the economy suffers. I can see gritting our teeth and sending in troops to make certain we protect our intrests. Then the commanders could draw up realistic missions and battle plans. Minimal BS and blood letting, maximum Roman-style square chin-ness. Sure, we lose a bit of our national soul but who was going to claim we've had much of that? Certainly not since we became a super power. :blink:

It'll be interesting to watch China's first strong-arming of a smaller country in order to steal their petroleum and gas. I wonder how long it will take us (the US) to cry foul?


*Besides, they blew up those very cool Buddhas. I don't think Buddha would have cared. Matter of fact, he might have applauded as he never wanted to be deified but what the heck. They were art.

 

THE CARTER DOCTRINE

That says it all.

 

When this way of life..ie its benefits and conforts (compared to the rest of the world) are gone...and when many US citizens (in the 10's of thousands) are "casualties", when women are relegated back to their arabic roles, will you free thinkers then complain..or will you just accept the destiny you desired??

Do you think the Radical views of Islam have room for anyone not of their faith? Will such views stop just in the Arab world?......

This is much more then just simple nationalistic goals, and if this country is to remain as a free-er society (compared to the rest of the world), this issue needs to be continually addressed, no matter what the costs. Other generations have "paid" for our freedooms.., do we pass it on to our children or lose it all?

 

We're passing on a lot to our children right now, financially of course.

And talk about freedoms passed onto our children? ...I it funny that you talk about freedom like it's this thing we've fought for for generations, but fail to mention that in the past few years, we've been asked (and sometime that step was even skipped) to give up our freedoms in the name of the "war on terror". Some freedom. Now the government watches what I read in the library, especially if I have a funny name.

And back to the topic, everything you said is all well and good (rhetoric)... but the bottom line is, do you believe that conventional military action (old school military) is the end all to the war on terror?

I believe that terrorism needs to be addressed of course, but it's no "war" like we've ever been used to, and the administrations failing so far in Afghanistan and Iraq have been because they tried to approach it like we're fighting WWII again... it's DIFFERENT now... the enemies aren't nations, they are an ideology... striking directly at a nation misses the target completely, and only fuels the fire.

 

This particular forum ("Fred's House of Pancakes") is devoted to off-topic posts,with the explanatory text below it on the menu "Anything unrelated to the Prius. Come chat. First Amendment is your friend in here." It helps keep the regular forums on topic by giving a place for people who have become "acquainted" to discuss other issues.

As to your comments, I don't think we had a compelling American interest in Iraq, and should have waited to take any military action. We had no oil supplies from them (still don't), as most of their oil was sold to European countries. The regime there was still shooting at our aircraft and defying the UN resolutions, of course. But we could have, and should have waited. That's hindsight, of course, but it turned out about the way I thought it would, and I suspect American and British forces will have to be there for another 5 years at least.

No, Vietnam was a different lesson entirely, even though there are similarities. For one, most of the rest of the western world supported American involvement, including the "colonial" French who had just left a relatively short time before. And the danger to Vietnam was very, very real ... in fact, the prediction came true. It became, and still is, a communist country. Communism is much less of a danger now, though. Vietnam was winnable, but again, we are not the right people to try and win that kind of war.

Didn't mean to insult any of the other allies, especially in the case of Germany. That was truly a joint effort. But as Churchill recognized, without American support, the war in Europe would probably not have been won by the Allied nations. Poland and France were defeated, and can't be in the list as "winning". They lost to overwhelming force. Australia, Canada, Britain and especially the USSR were certainly a great part of the team. Quick, which country was not part of a commonwealth that was attacked, or was not a country directly attacked by Hitler? Did America have a compelling interest in entering the European war? There was not a really compelling American interest in stopping Hitler except for the unsubstantiated rumors that he was planning to attack America (later confirmed, but they had much less evidence than the WMD in Iraq.)

Hey, we're doing fine on the social front. Even our poor people are fat. We have a very high standard of living, and compared to how most of the world lives, we do just fine. We should keep our money and our troops at home more often, that's true. And my personal opinion is that we need to be MORE selfish and not less, because the American people accept sacrifice ... like our involvement in Iraq ... when it is presented in altruistic terms. "Compelling American interest" means just that ... not stopping genocide, not protecting Europe from WMD, n not stopping nuclear development in Iran when we know they can't get a missle over here, not (government) assisting tsumni or earthquake victims, etc. Our government has no business doing those things ... Americans do just fine with the charitable projects on their own, giving far more than other citizens in other countries, and our military should only be used to protect us. That's why France, England, Italy, etc. have their own militaries.

 

Thank you for clarifying your points. There is not much I can find fault with. And I appreciate your stance as to the fact that the U.S. has no business in meddling in the internal affairs of other nations as it is so fond of doing. You might make different comments about doing fine on the social front though, if you had actually visited and/or lived in European countries. Surely you don't want to compare the States with a poor developing African or Asian nation. I can see that **some** of your poor people are fat. Which is a great irony to the multitude of those who are not.
And as to giving to charitable projects, on the international level, unfortunately, the United States of America are close to the bottom of the list.
I do concede however that the figures are confusing and difficult to interpret.
Finally, Bush may curry support at home by speeches about 'Islamic Empires' like Reagan had his about 'Evil Empires', but predictably this won't sit well with the nations he is thinking about. A little more respect, understanding and appreciation for the nations who support the excessive lifestyles of Americans, including the fat poor, might be in order and forestall the need for forceful intervention.

 

We do have business meddling, provided there is a "compelling American interest". I think where we agree is that there is rarely such an interest; certainly it is not as frequent as our "meddling".

Actually, I have visited one European country, Ireland. The standard of living there is far below ours, and Ireland is reportedly one of the "good" places to live in Europe. Young people delay marraige until the thirties, and most still live at home until then. And, you're simply wrong, most of our poor people are fat. Hunger simply doesn't exist here anymore, unless it is due to the criminal negligence of the parents. Once we make the poor people fat, how much more do we need to spend on social needs? Perhaps we need to provide free gastric bypass surgeries?

One thing I've noticed about those who criticize "ignorant Americans" is that they are totally ignorant of America. You would be wise to follow your own advice visit here for an extended period of time.

The figures are confusing, because most stats give you only the government's contributions as a share of the gross national product. But our system is different. We encouarge private giving through our tax laws, and in turn, don't confiscate as much in taxes from our citizens. That charitable giving by individuals is not counted in the calculations you see. But our tax agency, the IRS, says that in 2003 Americans gave 241 billion dollars in charity. On a per person basis, that's far more than any other country in private giving. Presumeably, the other citizens of the world are content having their government confiscate their money and give it to efforts the government supports, rather than choosing the place their charity goes themselves. That's fine, but at least be fair about how you report the numbers.

The charitable giving stats also don't always include transportation, etc. by American military or private organizations. And not all charitable giving is deductible, so the figures don't even include the type of giving that forms about 40% of my charity giving (although it is focused in my local community). It would be nice to see all forms of charitable giving counted before Americans are slammed.

I'm not sure how any nation supports our "excessive lifestyles". Unless you're among those who feel that if we buy something from someone, and they take our money, that we are engaged in some kind of exploitation of them.

I think we should respect people enough that when they say they want to kill us, we believe them. And then we should kill them first.

 

For genocide, only in concert with other nations. This type of action should be the purview of organizations like the UN and the neighboring countries, and we should take part in it, but certainly not "go it alone".

But see my other post about how our system differs from other governments in regards to charitable giving; Americans already give more than any other citizen in the world (mainly because we can afford to, and our tax system encourages it).

No, we spent money rebuilding Europe after we helped destroy it. That's appropriate, just as the money we're spending in Iraq is now necessary (and should not be abandoned.) To paraphrase Colin Powell, "if you break it, you bought it."

I live in a predominately Hispanic area with poor people. They are fat. Their cousins across the border are Mexican poor people, and they are skinny. In Mexico, they have no health care system, no welfare, and they are coming here because being poor and fat is better than being poor and skinny.

The same can be said of any group ... historically the definition of being poor was that you didn't have enough to eat. Now, being poor means that you earn less than about $9,000 a year (government benefits are not counted in that figure). For a family of four, the figure is about $19,000. Government benefits are given out based on a percentage of that, so that you get free lunches in any public school in the nation if you are at or below 125% of those figures, or get food stamps if you are at another level, etc. (the range is 125 - 185% according to HHS.) We don't count the value of aid in the "poor" calculations.

Periodically, we raise the level at which a person is "poor", so that in a few years, those levels will be higher. That's appropriate in a rich country, but we should be cognizant of the fact that what we call "poor" is not what it was even 40 years ago, when people were actually starving in Applachia. We also now proudly proclaim that "hunger" and "obesity" co-exist ... that fat people are "hungry" because they don't get the RIGHT KIND of nutrients. By changing the meaning of the terms "poor" and "hunger", we continue to spend the money, but it confuses our friends across the seas. They still use the traditional meaning of the words.

Why? Is Brazil? They had more slaves than the US. How about Cuba? How about the British or the Spanish ... they profited from the slave trade and spread the practice across the world. We even mention it in our Declaration of Independence. Are the French dealing with it?

It might be time to declare the civil war over and get on with our lives.

 

100% agree.