PDA

View Full Version : Interventionism



gator
12-03-2010, 04:23 PM
What are your views on Interventionism?

Although I don’t agree with him on other issues I tend to subscribe to the Ron Paul school of thought on this issue; the US would be better off minding its own business instead of fighting other countries wars for them. Even Donald Trump was saying this the other night in an interview.

I think that it is much better for an American to keep his or her money than to have a politician, influenced by a foreign lobby, take the money and give it to the foreign country, don’t you? This idea of paid off politicians articulating the security of a foreign country as somehow being vital to the security of the US has caused us a lot of trouble, don’t you think?

In another thread recently I discussed my views on South Korea. They should at least be paying us to protect them rather than us giving it away for free. The same way with most of the Far East countries. Talk about a sweetheart deal but Japan gets our protection for nothing.

It is really funny with Taiwan. We borrow money from the Chinese to pay for the military that protects Taiwan from the Chinese. How dumb is that?

We have pissed off a billion friggin Muslims by interfering in Middle East politics. For instance, why is it that Saudi Arabia has all this oil money but yet we guarantee their security for nothing when we get most of our imported oil from non Middle East countries? Why do we protect other rich Middle East countries? Is it because it is really in our best interest or is it because they have a strong lobby?

I know the hive mindset of CU is a little more Neoconish than my traditional Conservative views but I am interested in hearing how reasonable people justify interventionism at a time when we are going broke.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-03-2010, 04:29 PM
I have no problem if it is in OUR national interests. If it is merely to "fight someone else's war" then no.

Molon Labe
12-03-2010, 04:32 PM
This is why I lol, when people try to tell me we should be afraid of any other nations military. We could easily spend less than half of this and still be the most formidible nation in the world. They have no pot to piss in.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/graph5.gif

malloc
12-03-2010, 04:41 PM
I tend to agree with him in many cases, however each instance of intervention should be taken on a case on by case basis, and weighed against the national interests of the Country, and the Congress, not the President, should be the one to pull the trigger on the affair. All too often this does not happen, and the United States knee jerks it's way into getting involved in the affairs of foreign powers without a debate discussing our end of the deal ever taking place.

For instance, if North Korea gets uppity with South Korea, we should intervene. The South Korean Army isn't the Army that was overrun in the 1950's. The United States would spend very little keeping the North out of the South Korean peninsula with South Korean forces doing much of the fighting. Remember North Korea is a population of poor and starving masses, while South Korea is a pro-capitalism, unconditional ally of the U.S., with a thriving economy, which grants us unlimited force projection in that theater of the globe. China is the next biggest boy on the block, and I don't believe they would touch a Korean conflict with a 10 foot pole in this day and age. Even though China is the second biggest boy on the block, their economy is still a fraction of the size of the U.S., and they are trying to grow and modernize, and they are doing so by catering to the U.S. economy and U.S. technology. China needs the U.S. as a trading partner just as much as the U.S. needs China as a banker and exporter.

As far as having 700 military bases in 104 of the 109 or so recognized nations around the globe, that's a bit ridiculous. As far as gifting a missile defense system to Europe? Come on, that's ridiculous. Should we sell them one? Absolutely, that's what capitalists do. Should we tax our people to provide one for Europe? No way.

As far as the Middle East concerned, so long as our economy remains fossil fuel based, and that's not changing any time soon, stability in the Middle East is vital for our national interests. We should be moving towards tapping our own natural resources to reduce our dependence on the Middle East, and our policies of the last two decades have done everything but stabilize the Middle East. We need to be involved in Middle Eastern affairs because that's in our national interest. However, our involvement thus far has done as much harm as it has done good, so maybe the nature of our involvement needs to change. Perhaps we should be using more trade leverage and less force leverage.

NJCardFan
12-03-2010, 06:03 PM
The Cold War is over so there is no need for us to have armies in Europe. They all have their own military and is they should need us and they ask, we can help. Japan as well. They don't need our military there. Korea is another story. But where our military is needed is along our own southern border. Things are getting quite dicey on the border and I do believe that having our military strung from Texas to California will keep those cartels from doing something stupid. Mexico doesn't seem to have the stomach to deal with it but we sure as hell better before we start seeing El Paso looking like Juarez.



This is why I lol, when people try to tell me we should be afraid of any other nations military. We could easily spend less than half of this and still be the most formidible nation in the world. They have no pot to piss in.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/graph5.gif

I once heard that the 3rd largest fleet of airplanes is sitting unused in the Arizona desert. Is this true?

malloc
12-03-2010, 06:20 PM
I once heard that the 3rd largest fleet of airplanes is sitting unused in the Arizona desert. Is this true?

I'm not sure. We have MCAS Yuma, which is 3 attack squadrons, a logistics squadron and an air control squadron, and I know they actually use their birds down there. Then there is Luke AFB, which I think is a main training hub for the AF, but outside of the E club, I'm not entirely sure what they do over there. However, I do see them flying, so if they have idle planes over there I've never seen them. The Marines also have a detachment at Ft. Huachuca which is a Military Intelligence school, at least as far as I know, so I don't think they have planes over there. If there is a large fleet of planes down here somewhere, I haven't seen them.

John Marston
12-03-2010, 06:44 PM
Right with ya gator. I don't support America playing policeman with the rest of the world. If there is a verifiable threat to our national security, then start launching the missles. But other than that, I will never support military action against a foreign nation

djones520
12-03-2010, 06:51 PM
This is why I lol, when people try to tell me we should be afraid of any other nations military. We could easily spend less than half of this and still be the most formidible nation in the world. They have no pot to piss in.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/graph5.gif

China's spending has increased by more then 20% since that graph was created. Roughly $65 billion now.

And $65 billion will go a hell of a lot further in China then it will in the US.

gator
12-03-2010, 06:53 PM
I have no problem if it is in OUR national interests. If it is merely to "fight someone else's war" then no.

The problem CS is how the politicians spin the rhetoric on it being America’s interest.

For instance, according to Clinton and his minions it was vital to America’s intrest that we kill Christians in Bosnia in order to protect Muslims.

Before a President sends money or troops to a foreign land then he pretty well has mastered the spin of it being vital to America. There are numerous examples and they usually fall apart upon scrutiny. For instance, just look at how Bush got screwed up with trying to explain why it was vital to America to remove Saddam from power.

patriot45
12-03-2010, 06:54 PM
I read somewhere that if we just deployed our carrier groups around the world on a rotating basis we could basicaly conquer the world if we so wanted.
So I am with you on this, pull out of every place and put our assets in carriers and subs.

djones520
12-03-2010, 07:03 PM
I read somewhere that if we just deployed our carrier groups around the world on a rotating basis we could basicaly conquer the world if we so wanted.
So I am with you on this, pull out of every place and put our assets in carriers and subs.

Doubtful, as many grunts like to point out, you can't win with just air power. Gotta have boots on the ground.

patriot45
12-03-2010, 07:05 PM
Doubtful, as many grunts like to point out, you can't win with just air power. Gotta have boots on the ground.

Uh, a carrier group has just a wee bit more than air power. And I never said we need to set foot on the destroyed ground we would pound.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-03-2010, 07:05 PM
The problem CS is how the politicians spin the rhetoric on it being America’s interest.

For instance, according to Clinton and his minions it was vital to America’s intrest that we kill Christians in Bosnia in order to protect Muslims.

Before a President sends money or troops to a foreign land then he pretty well has mastered the spin of it being vital to America. There are numerous examples and they usually fall apart upon scrutiny. For instance, just look at how Bush got screwed up with trying to explain why it was vital to America to remove Saddam from power.


Point taken, but I still believe there is some justification for us going into Iraq. It certainly is not as strong as if they had active and huge stockpiles of weapons, but everything I know about the situation is that he ABSOLUTELY had intentions of giving WMD's to 3rd party groups (terrorists) who he implied would use it against US, and it would give him plausible deniability.

We had a tape of Saddam saying exactly this - and given the fact that we KNOW he had WMD's at one time and given the fact that 1000 TONS of VX gas is still unaccounted for, I'm not ready to condemn Bush for going in.

I WILL condemn him for not committing enough resources and for not planning well enough to get in do the job completely and then get out.

gator
12-03-2010, 07:44 PM
Point taken, but I still believe there is some justification for us going into Iraq. It certainly is not as strong as if they had active and huge stockpiles of weapons, but everything I know about the situation is that he ABSOLUTELY had intentions of giving WMD's to 3rd party groups (terrorists) who he implied would use it against US, and it would give him plausible deniability.

We had a tape of Saddam saying exactly this - and given the fact that we KNOW he had WMD's at one time and given the fact that 1000 TONS of VX gas is still unaccounted for, I'm not ready to condemn Bush for going in.

I WILL condemn him for not committing enough resources and for not planning well enough to get in do the job completely and then get out.

He committed 300,000 troops. How many more did he need?

I can think of no reason why it was vital for us to invade Iraqi in 2003. Saddam was no threat to us back then. Our war was in Afghanistan. Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but yet Bush did everything he could to convince the American people that the removal of Saddam was worth the cost of trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans.

This is a great example of what I am talking about. I suspect the real reason for the invasion had more to do with the lobbying of other countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait and others that felt threaten by Saddam than the interest of the US.

There is a possibility that over time Iraq could have been a haven for terrorists and funded by Saddam but that day was not in 2003 or the foreseeable future.

patriot45
12-03-2010, 07:51 PM
He committed 300,000 troops. How many more did he need?

I can think of no reason why it was vital for us to invade Iraqi in 2003. Saddam was no threat to us back then. Our war was in Afghanistan. Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but yet Bush did everything he could to convince the American people that the removal of Saddam was worth the cost of trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans.

This is a great example of what I am talking about. I suspect the real reason for the invasion had more to do with the lobbying of other countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait and others that felt threaten by Saddam than the interest of the US.

There is a possibility that over time Iraq could have been a haven for terrorists and funded by Saddam but that day was not in 2003 or the foreseeable future.

Ha! I say war is war! Not anything else. If we commit, just get it done, no winning the minds and hearts crap. We should be able to wipe out these third world places in 1 day! War over.

Our biggest mistake is that we need to fix the pricks that we demolish. Do the deed and outa there.

malloc
12-03-2010, 07:57 PM
There is a possibility that over time Iraq could have been a haven for terrorists and funded by Saddam but that day was not in 2003 or the foreseeable future.


This was never debated, never even discussed, and that, in my opinion, is 95% of the problem and is what creates these types of problems in the first place. There is no debate anymore, Americans, spineless do-nothing congressmen, and the media have just accepted that in military matters, the buck stops at the POTUS. The nation has begun to believe that the President of the United States can unilaterally make these kinds of decisions and deploy our troops into hostility without the consent of congress, who is supposed to be representing the governed. There should be actual discourse and an up or down vote before we invade a country, and anyone who doesn't see the logic in that is a half bubble out of plumb in my estimation.

djones520
12-03-2010, 07:57 PM
Ha! I say war is war! Not anything else. If we commit, just get it done, no winning the minds and hearts crap. We should be able to wipe out these third world places in 1 day! War over.

Our biggest mistake is that we need to fix the pricks that we demolish. Do the deed and outa there.

And then we'll be right back there a generation later.

Look at Germany. Destroyed the hell out of them in WW1 and walked away. 20 years later we were back there. Stayed and fixed the place up, and now it's a stable country that is a nominal ally.

If we are going to do it, then do it right. Make sure we don't have to come back.

patriot45
12-03-2010, 08:02 PM
And then we'll be right back there a generation later.

Look at Germany. Destroyed the hell out of them in WW1 and walked away. 20 years later we were back there. Stayed and fixed the place up, and now it's a stable country that is a nominal ally.

If we are going to do it, then do it right. Make sure we don't have to come back.

Not even close. Germany was and is an industrial nation, the third world countries we are at war with now we can destroy and walk away, we can destroy way better now.
Look we have to take the flak anyway wether we be nice or not, I say do the deed and forget about it. We will be villians no matter what.

djones520
12-03-2010, 08:05 PM
Not even close. Germany was and is an industrial nation, the third world countries we are at war with now we can destroy and walk away, we can destroy way better now.
Look we have to take the flak anyway wether we be nice or not, I say do the deed and forget about it. We will be villians no matter what.

And dropping daisy cutters all over the place won't do anything but create an entire generation of people that we are trying to fight right now.

Do you honestly think that using total war concepts and just walking away will not lead to bad things for us in the future?

patriot45
12-03-2010, 08:17 PM
And dropping daisy cutters all over the place won't do anything but create an entire generation of people that we are trying to fight right now.

Do you honestly think that using total war concepts and just walking away will not lead to bad things for us in the future?

well they say it will be breeding grounds for future terrorists. But I don't see how if we actually destroy them. If it turns into a breeding ground, destroy them again! What are they gonna do?

Now remember I said throw PC out the window and just win the war! Like I said we will be excoriated one way or the other.

djones520
12-03-2010, 08:22 PM
well they say it will be breeding grounds for future terrorists. But I don't see how if we actually destroy them. If it turns into a breeding ground, destroy them again! What are they gonna do?

Now remember I said throw PC out the window and just win the war! Like I said we will be excoriated one way or the other.

The only way you could do that is to kill the ones who would become the enemy in the future, and you'll find very few in the military who will buy into wholesale slaughter of children.

I'm going to stick to the tried and true process of bomb the enemy, and help the friend. Not lump them all together and create an even bigger mess.

patriot45
12-03-2010, 08:26 PM
The only way you could do that is to kill the ones who would become the enemy in the future, and you'll find very few in the military who will buy into wholesale slaughter of children.

I'm going to stick to the tried and true process of bomb the enemy, and help the friend. Not lump them all together and create an even bigger mess.

I don't know if this is a thread jack but yes I agree kill the ones who would be the enemy in the future! The world would be a better place if we just sat offshore and obliterated them. If they came back, do it again. It would be cheaper than how we do it now.

SarasotaRepub
12-03-2010, 08:30 PM
I read somewhere that if we just deployed our carrier groups around the world on a rotating basis we could basicaly conquer the world if we so wanted.
So I am with you on this, pull out of every place and put our assets in carriers and subs.

World Domination is a Good thing! ;):D

Rockntractor
12-03-2010, 08:33 PM
World Domination is a Good thing! ;):D

It's a shame we don't cart off the booty!:D

patriot45
12-03-2010, 08:35 PM
It's a shame we don't cart off the booty!:D

Lets go third world on them all!!!

gator
12-03-2010, 11:12 PM
It's a shame we don't cart off the booty!:D

Are you talking about all that free Iraqi oil that the lives of 4500 brave men and women bought for the US?

Oh wait, the Chinese got the oil. My bad.

Rockntractor
12-03-2010, 11:18 PM
Are you talking about all that free Iraqi oil that the lives of 4500 brave men and women bought for the US?

Oh wait, the Chinese got the oil. My bad.
That is one you've got right, and then we pay to rebuild their country!

Sonnabend
12-04-2010, 04:12 AM
Isolationism is self defeating. Pissing off allies is not in the US "best interests". As I have said once before, this isn't 1940 and the world has changed. The US cannot go it alone, nor can it hope to..a siege mentality is in itself, also self defeating.

I've commented on this before , and in my stated opinion Paul is a looney, and naive to the point of idiocy. Iraq was a threat, Saddam a threat, and his sponsorship of terrorism worldwide caused the deaths of thousands.

The US alone is a tempting target, and as Gator well knows, the allies he slags off at watch your backs, day in and day out. A nation who treats its friends as fools, will soon find they have none. In this day and age, that is tantamount to national suicide.

Terrorism is not new, nor is it restricted to the recent conflicts. terrorists have been killing Americans and others for decades. They need no reason to hate, they need no reason to kill...they do so because they can.

You cannot run and hide under the bed and hope the boogeyman will not come for you, sooner or later..because tha5t same enemy will now know you have no stomach to fight. The idea is good on paper...in practice? Is a recipe for chaos on a scale no one has ever seen.

You need your allies, you need them now, you will need them later.

Molon Labe
12-04-2010, 09:06 AM
Isolationism is self defeating..

no ones' talked about isolationism in this thread. Please know what you're talking about before you spout the isolationism meme.

If calling for common sense spending in defense compared with the rest of the world and not having 500 bases in dozens of podunk rat hole nations is what you consider isolationism, then you don't know what your talking about.

gator
12-04-2010, 09:08 AM
That is one you've got right, and then we pay to rebuild their country!

Now you are starting to see the problem.

Donald Trump of all people was talking about this the other day in an interview. The stupid politicians are always reluctant to speak the truth but as a businessman Trump laid it out.

He said he had no idea why we provide security for dozens of countries for free. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea, Japan and others paying us big bucks to protect them? Why are we are we like a stupid whore and give it away for free? Trump asked that question.

Our country is deep in debt now. Every time we give a dollar to a foreign country or spend the dollar providing providing for some foreigner's security we have to go out and borrow it from the Chinese and then pay interest on it. Isn’t that really stupid when you think of it?

For instance, we recently gave Israel 20 F-35s at a cost of 2.75 billion dollars. The funds came from the FMF (Foreign Military Fund) account. It is not a loan but free money. The government has cut back on the number of F-35s in the US inventory but yet we buy them with borrowed money and give them away to Middle East countries.

We don’t give F-35s away because it is in our security interest for a foreign country to have them instead of us. We give them away because of the lobbying efforts of the foreign country to our elected officials.

We really are stupid sometimes, aren’t we?

gator
12-04-2010, 09:17 AM
no ones' talked about isolationism in this thread. Please know what you're talking about before you spout the isolationism meme.

If calling for common sense spending in defense compared with the rest of the world and not having 500 bases in dozens of podunk rat hole nations is what you consider isolationism, then you don't know what your talking about.

He is a foreigner. The foreign mentality is to expect and even on occasion demand American welfare payments.

The US provides a lot of security in the Pacific Ocean and countries like Australia want that to continue. If the US cuts back then their defense spending would have to rise. They get a little bit of a free ride and they like it. They will always argue against it.

Australia is a good ally but at the end of the day we do subsidize some of their military expenditures. It is not a whole lot in the international scheme of things but it is part of the picture.

Kay
12-04-2010, 09:26 AM
Are you talking about all that free Iraqi oil
that the lives of 4500 brave men and women bought for the US?

Oh wait, the Chinese got the oil. My bad.

Now that is something I definitely agree with you on.
I can't believe we went in there and did all we did,
then let someone else have the oil contracts. That
pissed me off bad. I think W was so chastised over
the whole war being for oil and all that crap, that
he went overboard to try to show that it wasn't the
reason. Thereby letting the Chinese walk off with it. :mad:

NJCardFan
12-04-2010, 10:03 AM
Now that is something I definitely agree with you on.
I can't believe we went in there and did all we did,
then let someone else have the oil contracts. That
pissed me off bad. I think W was so chastised over
the whole war being for oil and all that crap, that
he went overboard to try to show that it wasn't the
reason. Thereby letting the Chinese walk off with it. :mad:

But...but....but.....NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!

Bleda
12-04-2010, 10:05 AM
no ones' talked about isolationism in this thread. Please know what you're talking about before you spout the isolationism meme.

If calling for common sense spending in defense compared with the rest of the world and not having 500 bases in dozens of podunk rat hole nations is what you consider isolationism, then you don't know what your talking about.

Don't play dumb, ML. You damn well know “non-interventionism” is a euphemism for isolationism. How are the “non-interventionists” and the [military] isolationists any different? It's much more acceptable to say you don't want to “meddle in other countries' business” than to say the truth: that you don't support military action unless D.C. is being burned to the ground by enemy infantry, if ever.

And this is a generic you, not you specifically, ML. :)

gator
12-04-2010, 10:30 AM
Don't play dumb, ML. You damn well know “non-interventionism” is a euphemism for isolationism. How are the “non-interventionists” and the [military] isolationists any different? It's much more acceptable to say you don't want to “meddle in other countries' business” than to say the truth: that you don't support military action unless D.C. is being burned to the ground by enemy infantry, if ever.

And this is a generic you, not you specifically, ML. :)

I started this thread and I don’t use Non Interventionism as a euphemism for Isolationism. Neither does Ron Paul when he discusses the issues. He has given a couple of speeches explaining the difference.

Non Interventionism is taking care of your own business first instead of providing welfare for some foreign country. It is doing the smart thing instead of the dumb thing like not pissing off a billion people because the foreign lobbyists have paid your elected officials to guarantee the security of some Middle East country.

For instance, it is doing things like assigning the mission of the 4th Squadron of the 7th Cavalry to guard the American border rather than the border of some faraway Asia country.

It is like buying 20 F-35s and putting the planes in the inventory of the American military rather than giving them to a foreign country.

Some people have a very hard time separating the interest of some foreign country from the interest of the US but I don’t.

Bleda
12-04-2010, 11:19 AM
I started this thread and I don’t use Non Interventionism as a euphemism for Isolationism. Neither does Ron Paul when he discusses the issues. He has given a couple of speeches explaining the difference.

I've heard the arguments; only use the military if America is attacked or its security is threatened, etc. But the “non-interventionists” never seem to be able to explain what that means. What do the “non-interventionists” think about Iran, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the war on terror in general? And how are their views any different than the isolationists'?


Non Interventionism is taking care of your own business first instead of providing welfare for some foreign country. It is doing the smart thing instead of the dumb thing like not pissing off a billion people because the foreign lobbyists have paid your elected officials to guarantee the security of some Middle East country.

For instance, it is doing things like assigning the mission of the 4th Squadron of the 7th Cavalry to guard the American border rather than the border of some faraway Asia country.

It is like buying 20 F-35s and putting the planes in the inventory of the American military rather than giving them to a foreign country.

Some people have a very hard time separating the interest of some foreign country from the interest of the US but I don’t.

Again, quite predictable of isolationists, vague, meaningless slogans and catchphrases. What do those things mean? Would you like to elaborate and be more specific?

gator
12-04-2010, 12:00 PM
I've heard the arguments; only use the military if America is attacked or its security is threatened, etc. But the “non-interventionists” never seem to be able to explain what that means. What do the “non-interventionists” think about Iran, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the war on terror in general? And how are their views any different than the isolationists'?



Again, quite predictable of isolationists, vague, meaningless slogans and catchphrases. What do those things mean? Would you like to elaborate and be more specific?

You can’t define a threat to security until it happens.

Sending troops to Bosnia to kill Christians to protect Muslims sure as hell had nothing to do with American security.

Sending troops to Somalia for a wheels on meals mission and then to fight the warlords had nothing to do with American security.

Keeping tens of thousands of troops in South Korea 20 years after the end of the Cold war sure has nothing to do with the security of the US.

Borrowing money from China to provide for the security of Taiwan sure as hell has nothing to do with the security of the US.

Having troops stationed in Europe almost 70 years after WWII has nothing to do with the security of the US.

Removing Saddam from power when he was no threat to us and when the people that attacked us no 911 were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses lived in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the security of the US.

Providing for the security of the Europeans for 30 years after WWII by sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Europe hardly had anything to do with protecting the US from being invaded by the Third Soviet Shock Army, did it?

Providing for the national defense of countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and a half dozen Middle East countries (most of them very rich) has nothing to do with the security of the US.

We got pulled into a mess in the Middle East by disregarding the advice of our Founding fathers to stay out on foreign entanglements 40 years ago. Instead we listened to the demands of foreign lobbyists and we have spent trillions of dollars and have had an attack on the shores of the US and lost thousands of our troops.

We may have to kick a little ass now and then and we need a strong military but intervening in every little conflict in the world and allowing our elected officials to be influenced by foreign lobbyists is a dumb way to run a country, don’t you agree? Especially at a time when our country is going bankrupt and our borders are being over run.

Now since I answered your question you answer my question. What the hell is wrong with looking after the interest of the US instead of the interest of other countries? Be specific. I don’t want you talk in generalities but tell me specifically where the US is being threatened other than the war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which by the way is a result of entanglements in the Middle East.

You do know that the US spends about tens times as much on defense as the next country, don’t you? In fact it spends more on defense than the next 50 countries combined.

Shouldn’t we be spending that enormous amount of money on our own security rather than the security of some filthy ass foreign country that likes the idea of being on American welfare?

Molon Labe
12-05-2010, 12:27 AM
I've heard the arguments; only use the military if America is attacked or its security is threatened, etc. But the “non-interventionists” never seem to be able to explain what that means. What do the “non-interventionists” think about Iran, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the war on terror in general? And how are their views any different than the isolationists'?

Again, quite predictable of isolationists, vague, meaningless slogans and catchphrases. What do those things mean? Would you like to elaborate and be more specific?

yeah...I understand what you mean catchphrases and meaningless name calling like I S O L A T I O N I S T. lol!

There is only one nation that can even be considered a close resemblance to an isolationist nation. And that is North Korea. Hardly any trade, and closed in on itself with very little transparency and closed negotiation with the world.

That's not what Non intervention is. Why don't you go and read for yourself what some of them believe. They are quite prepared to defend this nation. They just aren't scared of little podunks like you seem to be.
Michael Scheuer has his own website on this and he's no pacifist. Check it out sometime, you might get a better understanding of the differences because words mean things. Just because you may not be familiar with the terminology doesn't mean it's code for something else.

Bleda
12-05-2010, 05:51 AM
You can’t define a threat to security until it happens.

Sending troops to Bosnia to kill Christians to protect Muslims sure as hell had nothing to do with American security.

Sending troops to Somalia for a wheels on meals mission and then to fight the warlords had nothing to do with American security.

Probably not.


Keeping tens of thousands of troops in South Korea 20 years after the end of the Cold war sure has nothing to do with the security of the US.

What does the Cold War have to do with the Korean conflict? We're there to protect our allies, who are very beneficial to us. We're there to protect US interests, in other words.


Borrowing money from China to provide for the security of Taiwan sure as hell has nothing to do with the security of the US.

Why would we borrow money from China? Do you think it's somehow impossible to pay for our military without borrowing money from foreign nations?


Removing Saddam from power when he was no threat to us and when the people that attacked us no 911 were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses lived in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the security of the US.

One could easily argue Saddam, who committed numerous acts of war against the US, was a threat.

What does 9/11 have to do with the Iraq war?


Providing for the security of the Europeans for 30 years after WWII by sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Europe hardly had anything to do with protecting the US from being invaded by the Third Soviet Shock Army, did it?

Do you honestly believe if Europe fell to the USSR, the US wouldn't be affected? Your mentality of “America only, to hell with everyone else” would inevitably give us a world in which America is surrounded by enemies and nuclear missiles are aimed at it from all directions.


Providing for the national defense of countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and a half dozen Middle East countries (most of them very rich) has nothing to do with the security of the US.

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? As for the Middle East, that's not quite the same as Japan. We have a security interest in protecting our Middle Eastern allies.


We got pulled into a mess in the Middle East by disregarding the advice of our Founding fathers to stay out on foreign entanglements 40 years ago. Instead we listened to the demands of foreign lobbyists and we have spent trillions of dollars and have had an attack on the shores of the US and lost thousands of our troops.

Why don't you define “foreign entanglements” to me? I hear a lot of isolationists repeat the “advice of our Founding fathers to stay out on foreign entanglements” meme, apparently believing the Founders would rather treat Islamist terrorism as a criminal matter instead of a war, or let all our allies be taken over by countries like Russia, China and Iran.


We may have to kick a little ass now and then and we need a strong military but intervening in every little conflict in the world and allowing our elected officials to be influenced by foreign lobbyists is a dumb way to run a country, don’t you agree?

What foreign lobbyists have influenced our national security decisions? I hope you're not one of those “Zionist lobby” people.

Can you provide proof that we've intervened in every little conflict in the world? Or was that simply an exaggeration to make some sort of point?


Especially at a time when our country is going bankrupt and our borders are being over run.

And what does this have to do with defense spending, which is about 5% of GDP and 20% of the federal budget? If you're worried about going bankrupt, I suggest you focus on the entitlements.


Now since I answered your question you answer my question. What the hell is wrong with looking after the interest of the US instead of the interest of other countries? Be specific.

When did I say there was anything wrong with that? I certainly hope, and demand, the US government puts the interests of the US above those of other countries. What you don't seem to realize is that it's quite beneficial to us to make sure our allies are protected.


I don’t want you talk in generalities but tell me specifically where the US is being threatened other than the war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which by the way is a result of entanglements in the Middle East.

Iran? for one.


You do know that the US spends about tens times as much on defense as the next country, don’t you? In fact it spends more on defense than the next 50 countries combined.

Again, 5% of GDP and 20% of the federal budget. I don't really care how much Switzerland spends on its military.


Shouldn’t we be spending that enormous amount of money on our own security rather than the security of some filthy ass foreign country that likes the idea of being on American welfare?

We rarely do anything if it's not beneficial to us. The US military 'aid' to Israel, for instance (a pet peeve of yours, I'm sure) is actually bad for Israel and good for us. It's mostly a subsidy for the US arms industry.


yeah...I understand what you mean catchphrases and meaningless name calling like I S O L A T I O N I S T. lol!

There is only one nation that can even be considered a close resemblance to an isolationist nation. And that is North Korea. Hardly any trade, and closed in on itself with very little transparency and closed negotiation with the world.

That's not what Non intervention is. Why don't you go and read for yourself what some of them believe. They are quite prepared to defend this nation. They just aren't scared of little podunks like you seem to be.
Michael Scheuer has his own website on this and he's no pacifist. Check it out sometime, you might get a better understanding of the differences because words mean things. Just because you may not be familiar with the terminology doesn't mean it's code for something else.

Let me guess. The “non-interventionist's” plan is “Pull back the troops, hunker down, hope no-one attacks, and if they do, attack and retreat. Repeat if necessary”? Sure, it might work against a rational, materialistic enemy, but not against Islamists.

Sonnabend
12-05-2010, 08:06 AM
He is a foreigner. The foreign mentality is to expect and even on occasion demand American welfare payments.

Excuse me?

Since when is the massive expenditure WE make towards YOUR security "welfare"?


The US provides a lot of security in the Pacific Ocean and countries like Australia want that to continue. If the US cuts back then their defense spending would have to rise. They get a little bit of a free ride and they like it. They will always argue against it.

On the contrary, Gator, WE watch YOUR backs and I hate to be the one to tell you this , but in this part of the world, a breeding ground for jihadis, we're the ones with boots on the ground. A "free ride"? So not content with slagging off our military, insulting a commissioned officer (Odysseus) and calling me a coward, you worthless asshole, you now start slagging US allies off?


Australia is a good ally but at the end of the day we do subsidize some of their military expenditures. It is not a whole lot in the international scheme of things but it is part of the picture.

And we pay a shitload to keep you up and running. Want an estimate on the costs training your troops, provisioning and looking after your servicemen when they come here?

If you like, Gator, it could get to the point that your sailors and airmen in this part of the world were not welcome in any port city. No liberty for your troops. No training for your soldiers. No support for your ships and planes. No accommodation for your people..they can stay aboard ship the whole time. Your ships would get no fuel, no food, no supplies, no water, no ammo, what do you think would happen if your aircraft were refused overflight privileges in that part of the world?

And don't forget. Gator, that we are part of our own alliance, ANZUS as well as ASEAN and many others. our way would see your people unwelcome in a large number of Pacific ports.

But then again,l. I am not worried because it will never come to that. Loonies like you are great on your own soapbox, but those who do know are far better informed than you will ever be...you're alone and filled with self righteous hate..

You're a bigot and an anti semite, , your account, and you, should have had its ass banned along time ago.

Pathetic.

Sonnabend
12-05-2010, 08:09 AM
What foreign lobbyists have influenced our national security decisions? I hope you're not one of those “Zionist lobby” people.Yes, he is.

He's also an anti semite who questioned the loyalty of a US military officer, stating that "as a Jew his first loyalty is to Israel". Why he is still here, is a question a lot of people ask, seeing as how others have been permbanned for far less.

Edit: almost forgot..he kicks and screams about "spying", yet talks of his "NSA" brothers"..last I checked the NSA was a spy agency.

Add hypocrite to the list.

gator
12-05-2010, 10:15 AM
Probably not.

Good. Then we can agree that fighting wars for the benefit of other people or meals on wheels military intervention is not in the security interest of the US.




What does the Cold War have to do with the Korean conflict? We're there to protect our allies, who are very beneficial to us. We're there to protect US interests, in other words.

You really read need to read up on your history. The US intervened in Korea in 1950 because North Korea was a client state of the Soviet Union. The excuse Truman used was a “dominion effect” for the region. North Korea invaded with Soviet tanks and weapons. The Soviets supported North Korean until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US involvement in South Korea has always been a battle of the Cold War. The Cold War is over now and has been for like 20 years.

My contention is that South Korea has one of the strongest economies and best militaries in the world nowadays. It is time for them to be off American welfare and take responsibility for their own security. I have faith in them and think they can handle it without American help.




Why would we borrow money from China? Do you think it's somehow impossible to pay for our military without borrowing money from foreign nations?

Tell that to the big spenders in Congress that spend a whole lot more money than is taken in. Like it or not the reality of the situation is nowadays in order to provide military protection for Taiwan then we must borrow money from China. Since we are protecting Taiwan from China then the situation becomes almost ridiculous.

Where we get the money from is not as relevant to the discussion as to why in the hell we are guaranteeing the security of Taiwan in the first place. What business is it of our?



One could easily argue Saddam, who committed numerous acts of war against the US, was a threat.

Wow! You really do subscribe to the Neocon school of paranoidism, don’t you?

The only thing that Saddam ever did to the US was invade Kuwait, which temporarily threaten the stability of the worldwide price of oil. We kicked his ass for that.

Saddam was never a threat to the US. He was a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel but hardly a threat to the US. Those countries all have a ton of money. Let them take care of their own security.

If the US would get its head out of its ass and do a few smart things in energy we wouldn’t have to worry about the oil in the Middle East. However, since the Environmental Wackos have commandeered our energy policy we are suffering the consequences of being stupid.



What does 9/11 have to do with the Iraq war?

That is the question I asked. Why did we invade Iraq when the people that attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses lived in Afghanistan?

Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 911 but yet we sent a 300,000 man army to invade his country. In doing so we took the eye off the ball in Afghanistan and that has a lot to do with the fact that we are still there 10 years later and getting our asses kicked.

Bush’s reason for invading fell apart. He won’t come clean on it but I suspect the real reason he invaded was because of the pressure from the Neocons and foreign lobbyists to remove Saddam as a threat to other counties like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of course in doing so he enabled Iran and that is another example of the unintended consequences of interventionism.


Do you honestly believe if Europe fell to the USSR, the US wouldn't be affected? Your mentality of “America only, to hell with everyone else” would inevitably give us a world in which America is surrounded by enemies and nuclear missiles are aimed at it from all directions.

I served on the Fulda Gap in 1967. I was there with about 200,000 other American troops. We were there to protect Europe not the US. Our presence was all part of a post WWII welfare program of rebuilding and protecting Europe.

The Soviet land forces in Europe were never a threat to the US.

There is just as strong an argument that what we considered to be invading Soviet forces was really there to protect the Soviets from the West. After all the Soviets had been invaded.

This standoff with the Soviets in Europe is a great example of the consequences of interventionism.




Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? As for the Middle East, that's not quite the same as Japan. We have a security interest in protecting our Middle Eastern allies.

What security interest? I have asked you to tell me what. I asked you to be specific. Lets hear it.

Our only interest in the Middle East is make sure the rich Saudis don’t drive up the price of oil on us. If we were smart with our own energy policy that wouldn’t be an issue.




Why don't you define “foreign entanglements” to me? I hear a lot of isolationists repeat the “advice of our Founding fathers to stay out on foreign entanglements” meme, apparently believing the Founders would rather treat Islamist terrorism as a criminal matter instead of a war, or let all our allies be taken over by countries like Russia, China and Iran.

You really miss the boat with that statement.

Tell me why we are fighting Islam terrorists. I want to hear your Neocon explanation of that.

After you tell me your BS about the 12th Inman or whatever BS you are going to spew then we can get down to the brass tacks of why a billion people hate the US. I’ll get you a hint ahead of time. It has to do with our interventionism.




What foreign lobbyists have influenced our national security decisions? I hope you're not one of those “Zionist lobby” people.

I don’t believe in a Zionist conspiracy but the lobbying efforts of the Israelis, Saudi Arabians South Koreans and dozens of other countries around the world greatly influences our foreign policy. Other countries love to get American welfare and are not bashful about asking for it. Many of them have a great scam going. They give millions to our elected officials and get billions in return. Israel is the best at it but other countries have also learned how to do it.




Can you provide proof that we've intervened in every little conflict in the world? Or was that simply an exaggeration to make some sort of point?

The literary term is called hyperbole.




And what does this have to do with defense spending, which is about 5% of GDP and 20% of the federal budget? If you're worried about going bankrupt, I suggest you focus on the entitlements.

We are going broke for many reasons. While entitlements are the bulk the contribution 60 years of post WWII interventionism and several wars have also contributed.



When did I say there was anything wrong with that? I certainly hope, and demand, the US government puts the interests of the US above those of other countries. What you don't seem to realize is that it's quite beneficial to us to make sure our allies are protected.

I asked you to give me examples of why it is important for the US to provide for the security of other countries. I asked you to be specific and all you are doing is talking in generalities.

Show me examples of the importance of interventionism.

You don’t get to ask all the questions and answer none.



Iran? for one.

How is Iran a threat to the US? Be specific.




Again, 5% of GDP and 20% of the federal budget. I don't really care how much Switzerland spends on its military.

I guess you didn’t understand the point the point I made. According to CIA stats the US spends 10 times as much money for defense than either China or the Russian, which are number two and three on the list.

The reason is that the US is fixated on interventionism and that is the driving force for us to be so out of whack with the rest of the world.

Why couldn’t we provide for the security of the US with spending say five times as much as the next guy? The reason is that we are providing welfare for a whole lot more countries than the US.




We rarely do anything if it's not beneficial to us. The US military 'aid' to Israel, for instance (a pet peeve of yours, I'm sure) is actually bad for Israel and good for us. It's mostly a subsidy for the US arms industry.

Yea, right. It really helps the US to build weapons and then give them away. Especially when giving them away results in a billion people being pissed at us.




Let me guess. The “non-interventionist's” plan is “Pull back the troops, hunker down, hope no-one attacks, and if they do, attack and retreat. Repeat if necessary”? Sure, it might work against a rational, materialistic enemy, but not against Islamists.

Maybe if we would stay out of Middle East affairs that have nothing to do with real American interest then we wouldn’t be fighting the goddamn Muslims.

Non interventionism is to define real American interest without the influence of foreign lobbyists money and act accordingly. For instance, we could use US troops to guard the Mexican border rather than guarding the Korean border

Bleda
12-05-2010, 12:31 PM
Good. Then we can agree that fighting wars for the benefit of other people or meals on wheels military intervention is not in the security interest of the US.

That's not exactly what I said. Sometimes “fighting wars for the benefit of other people” is also in the benefit of the US, such as when we defend valuable allies.


You really read need to read up on your history. The US intervened in Korea in 1950 because North Korea was a client state of the Soviet Union. The excuse Truman used was a “dominion effect” for the region. North Korea invaded with Soviet tanks and weapons. The Soviets supported North Korean until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US involvement in South Korea has always been a battle of the Cold War. The Cold War is over now and has been for like 20 years.

Where is the Soviet Union now? And why is the Korean conflict ongoing? Clearly it's not about the USSR. As far as I know, the enemy here is North Korea (and China, to an extent), not the USSR.


My contention is that South Korea has one of the strongest economies and best militaries in the world nowadays. It is time for them to be off American welfare and take responsibility for their own security. I have faith in them and think they can handle it without American help.

I think South Korea and Japan can handle North Korea on their own, too, but we don't know for sure, and even if they managed to win the war against the Norks, it would be at a considerable cost to them.

What about China? That's the real issue here. Without the US, Japan and South Korea don't stand a chance.


Tell that to the big spenders in Congress that spend a whole lot more money than is taken in. Like it or not the reality of the situation is nowadays in order to provide military protection for Taiwan then we must borrow money from China. Since we are protecting Taiwan from China then the situation becomes almost ridiculous.

Sounds like your problem is with the big spenders in Congress, not military spending itself.


Where we get the money from is not as relevant to the discussion as to why in the hell we are guaranteeing the security of Taiwan in the first place. What business is it of our?

To be honest with you, I'm not quite the expert on Taiwan, so you're better off asking someone else.


Wow! You really do subscribe to the Neocon school of paranoidism, don’t you?

The only thing that Saddam ever did to the US was invade Kuwait, which temporarily threaten the stability of the worldwide price of oil. We kicked his ass for that.

Saddam was never a threat to the US. He was a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel but hardly a threat to the US. Those countries all have a ton of money. Let them take care of their own security.

Again, the isolationists' mentality is to let the problem grow and fester until it's too big to ignore, and too big to destroy quickly and easily. Saddam wanted regional hegemony and to control the Middle East's oil supplies, which would've given him immense financial and military power and affected the Western world, including America, even if we didn't get any of our oil from the Middle East.


If the US would get its head out of its ass and do a few smart things in energy we wouldn’t have to worry about the oil in the Middle East. However, since the Environmental Wackos have commandeered our energy policy we are suffering the consequences of being stupid.

Well put. Unfortunately, Islamism, not oil, is why I favor staying in the Middle East.


That is the question I asked. Why did we invade Iraq when the people that attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses lived in Afghanistan?

Likely because the Iraq war and the retaliation for the 9/11 attacks weren't related? Many people seem to be confused about this. A quick read of the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq will show you 9/11 was not listed as a reason for the war.


Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 911 but yet we sent a 300,000 man army to invade his country. In doing so we took the eye off the ball in Afghanistan and that has a lot to do with the fact that we are still there 10 years later and getting our asses kicked.

How do you suggest we handle the Afghanistan war? You subscribe to the “attack them ruthlessly and then retreat” school of thought, not the nation-building one. Hard to take your eye off the ball when your military strategy is to retaliate and retreat.


Bush’s reason for invading fell apart. He won’t come clean on it but I suspect the real reason he invaded was because of the pressure from the Neocons and foreign lobbyists to remove Saddam as a threat to other counties like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of course in doing so he enabled Iran and that is another example of the unintended consequences of interventionism.

Yes, you 'suspect', I'm sure. Thank you for sharing your opinion.


I served on the Fulda Gap in 1967. I was there with about 200,000 other American troops. We were there to protect Europe not the US. Our presence was all part of a post WWII welfare program of rebuilding and protecting Europe.

And as I keep saying, it's in the interest of the US to keep our close allies safe and protected. We're protecting them because it's in our interest to do so.


The Soviet land forces in Europe were never a threat to the US.

There is just as strong an argument that what we considered to be invading Soviet forces was really there to protect the Soviets from the West. After all the Soviets had been invaded.

This standoff with the Soviets in Europe is a great example of the consequences of interventionism.

The Soviets wanted to spread Communism throughout the world and hated America with a passion. Of course they were a threat. If we were isolationists/'non-interventionists' during the Cold War, the Soviets would've surrounded America by Communist enemies, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. As the Cuba incident showed, the Soviets had no problem with that. In any case, not all countries are inherently friendly. Some countries have fundamentally different, opposing goals.


What security interest? I have asked you to tell me what. I asked you to be specific. Lets hear it.

Our only interest in the Middle East is make sure the rich Saudis don’t drive up the price of oil on us. If we were smart with our own energy policy that wouldn’t be an issue.

Islamism. Would you rather have relatively sane and pro-American regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and elsewhere, or do you want them all to fall to Islamist fanatics who would then use their power to wage war on the rest of the world, including America?


You really miss the boat with that statement.

Tell me why we are fighting Islam terrorists. I want to hear your Neocon explanation of that.

After you tell me your BS about the 12th Inman or whatever BS you are going to spew then we can get down to the brass tacks of why a billion people hate the US. I’ll get you a hint ahead of time. It has to do with our interventionism.

It's fairly simple. Their holy prophet, the perfect follower of Allah, the best of mankind, ordered them to subjugate or kill all non-Muslims. Why do Islamists (including al-Qaeda) keep mentioning “Al Andalus”? I thought they were only attacking us because of US/Western(?) 'intervention' in the Middle East? Why do they hate us because European land that they once invaded was finally liberated? Why did a Nigerian rich kid try to bomb a US plane when the US, contrary to what Ron Paul tells us, isn't occupying Nigeria? Why did a Canadian kid (Khadr), son of an Egyptian-Canadian and Palestinian-Canadian, go to Afghanistan to kill US troops?

Could it be because this is a religious, not secular, conflict?


I don’t believe in a Zionist conspiracy but the lobbying efforts of the Israelis, Saudi Arabians South Koreans and dozens of other countries around the world greatly influences our foreign policy. Other countries love to get American welfare and are not bashful about asking for it. Many of them have a great scam going. They give millions to our elected officials and get billions in return. Israel is the best at it but other countries have also learned how to do it.

Of course, no evidence, only claims.


The literary term is called hyperbole.

Yes, thank you. Glad you admit we don't get involved in every conflict.


We are going broke for many reasons. While entitlements are the bulk the contribution 60 years of post WWII interventionism and several wars have also contributed.

Defense spending, maybe during the height of the Cold War, but right now we spend peanuts on defense, relatively speaking. 5% of GDP and 20% of the budget. Hardly bankrupting us.


I asked you to give me examples of why it is important for the US to provide for the security of other countries. I asked you to be specific and all you are doing is talking in generalities.

You don't think it's beneficial to have allies? What about intelligence sharing? Do we not need anything from our allies?


Show me examples of the importance of interventionism.

No one but the isolationists even knows what you people mean when you say 'interventionism.' Do you mean attacking a country that attacked us? Overthrowing a tyrant in Africa? Foreign aid? What? They're not the same thing.


How is Iran a threat to the US? Be specific.

Put bluntly and simply, they are evil fanatics motivated by Islam who want to kill or subjugate us and will do continue to do so unless we kill or disable them.

Bleda
12-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Yea, right. It really helps the US to build weapons and then give them away. Especially when giving them away results in a billion people being pissed at us.

It's called a subsidy. And who are these billion people you keep talking about? The Muslims? But I thought Middle Easterners (who are far from a billion people) only hated us because of our interventionism. Why would a Muslim in Canada hate America for being allied with Israel? Are you saying they're religiously-motivated in their hatred for us? Gasp!


Maybe if we would stay out of Middle East affairs that have nothing to do with real American interest then we wouldn’t be fighting the goddamn Muslims.

Notice how you keep using the term 'Muslim' instead of 'Middle Easterner' or other victim of US occupation. Not even you believe they're not religiously-motivated.


Non interventionism is to define real American interest without the influence of foreign lobbyists money and act accordingly. For instance, we could use US troops to guard the Mexican border rather than guarding the Korean border

According to Wikipedia, 75% of US active-duty personnel are in the US. Use some of them to guard the border if you want. You speak as if the US has 300,000 troops and 250,000 of them are in Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan.


I guess you didn’t understand the point the point I made. According to CIA stats the US spends 10 times as much money for defense than either China or the Russian, which are number two and three on the list.

The reason is that the US is fixated on interventionism and that is the driving force for us to be so out of whack with the rest of the world.

Why couldn’t we provide for the security of the US with spending say five times as much as the next guy? The reason is that we are providing welfare for a whole lot more countries than the US.

If the rest of the world spent $100 million on their militaries, combined, would you still stand by that argument? As you can see, that's not an objective way of determining whether the amount of money we spend on the military is obscene.

-------

This discussion is starting to get off track, to the point I have to cut a response in two parts in order for the forum to accept it... Why don't we get back on topic and stick to 'non-interventionism' instead of discussing every little conflict America's been in?

Molon Labe
12-05-2010, 01:44 PM
Let me guess. The “non-interventionist's” plan is “Pull back the troops, hunker down, hope no-one attacks, and if they do, attack and retreat. Repeat if necessary”? Sure, it might work against a rational, materialistic enemy, but not against Islamists.

Short answer. No. And sorry you are so scared of the Islamists.

You sure know how to build the strawman argument. When you want to rationally discuss the magnitude of us nearing almost a 800 military bases worldwide and a defense budget 12 times larger than the next largest nation, then let me know.

Bleda
12-05-2010, 01:51 PM
Short answer. No. And sorry you are so scared of the Islamists.

You sure know how to build the strawman argument. When you want to rationally discuss the magnitude of us nearing almost a 800 military bases worldwide and a defense budget 12 times larger than the next largest nation, then let me know.

And is that supposed to be a rational response? You've never actually addressed any of my points or explained yours. All you did was say I was misrepresenting the non-interventionists' argument and that I should look it up or some such.

malloc
12-06-2010, 07:49 PM
I think some of the people taking the "interventionist" side of this argument just aren't "getting it". None of you, from the posts that I've read, have addressed the fact that the U.S. spends borrowed money on 800 military bases in almost every country in the world, and why that is significant. How can this be justified when the only other nation in the world to have a military base on foreign soil is Britain, and it's "military base" in India is actually a museum and tourist trap. Can anyone on the interventionist side of this argument please offer the justification for this practice by the U.S.? Wouldn't citizens of the U.S. consider it an affront if the U.K., Australia, or Japan had sovereign military installations in the U.S.? Can any interventionist articulate exactly why this level of foreign deployment is critical, or even conducive to, the security of the U.S?

The second point interventionists won't address is the total amount per capita spent on defense by the American taxpayers, versus the amounts spent by our allies, and countries which have U.S. military installations protecting them. Why hasn't someone articulated a rebuttal, without resorting to the extremes of claiming we non-interventionists want to "screw over our allies" and "we can't go it alone"? I'm not interested in the argument that, "our allies will suffer if we don't spend $1 trillion a year", because America is suffering precisely because we do spend $1 trillion a year. I'm not interested in the argument that America, "can't go it alone", because America won't need to go it alone, even if we cut the defense budget in half. We'll still spend 10x more than our next top competitor, and we won't lose any strongholds in strategic areas. We did it with a half-trillion adjusted F.Y. 2000 dollars, and we could we do it again tomorrow if we had the political will.

Thirdly the isolationism claim is far from fact based. Isolationism is defined as:



a policy of non-participation in international economic and political relations


Therefore, if we continue to participate in international politics and economic activities, but decline to jump in every time some central-African warlord wants to duke it out with another central-African warlord, then we are not in an isolationist nation, just a non-interventionist one.

I'm not necessarily opposed to intervention in the Middle East. Oil is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy, and until the U.S. finally implements a more sane energy policy, it is in the best interests of the U.S. to keep the middle eastern region stable. However, the removal of Saddam and the Ba'ath party from power hasn't exactly had the stabilizing effects we'd hoped for has it? It's been almost, 8 years now, and we still don't have a stable Iraqi government, capable of defending itself and maintaining order in the region yet. If the war was over Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to inspect his WMD plants, or even if he had WMD's, then why was it necessary to remove the Ba'ath party from power and institute a democratic government to our liking? Was it the proper place of the U.S. to do this? After the war, the U.S. could have put a much more amicable Ba'ath party back into power with a new figurehead to take the place of the removed Saddam. Even if we had to do it two or three times until we found a Ba'thist regime which would cooperate, it would have been a much cheaper and more effective option. When Iraq refused to play to the tune of the U.S., it needed a tune up, not a replacement.

m00
12-06-2010, 09:05 PM
Why are we are we like a stupid whore and give it away for free?

Well, the answer should be obvious. The people giving the money away for free (Politicians) are not the same as the people whose money it is (taxpayers).

And there are a lot of perks that come with being a Politician in the world's foremost distributor of welfare.

gator
12-07-2010, 08:54 AM
Put bluntly and simply, they are evil fanatics motivated by Islam who want to kill or subjugate us and will do continue to do so unless we kill or disable them.



I knew you were going to spout that BS. You have so many other things wrong I knew it was just a maater of time when you posted that ignorance.

First of all you need to really to understand the Neocon talking points because you are off message. Both Bush and Cheney and all the other people that engineered the invasion of Iraq said we were not at war with Islam. They said it many times. You need to get on message because your reason is BS.

Let me educate you on the Neocon’s excuse for invading Iraq. It was the famous “Weapon of Mass Destruction” excuse. You need to get on the Neocon talking points if you are going to defend the invasion of Iraq. Of course we know that was bullshit but that is all you have.

Let me tell you why we are in conflict in the Middle East because obviously you don’t have a clue.

I don’t know how old you are. I don’t know if you have been aware of what the US was doing in the Middle East for the last 40 years or so. However, I will explain it to you.

Back in the old days the US actually had an even handed policy towards the Middle East. Our real interest was to stop the Soviets from gaining too much influence. Back then the oil was not a deal breaker for us.

That all changed in 1967. When the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty LBJ made the decision that the support of the pro Israel lobby was worth more to him and the Democrat Party than being somewhat neutral in the Arab-Israel conflict. He changed the Americans neutrality to one of intervention on the side of the Israelis.

The Arabs didn’t like us taking the side of the Israelis and arming their enemy. They bitched and complained but the pro Israel lobby in the US was a much more influential force.

The Arabs finally decided to get our attention. They boycotted oil in the 1970s. They told us big time it was because we were supporting Israel. I remember sitting in line for hours to get three gallons of gas and reading Time Magazine and reading about the Arabs telling us to mind our own business. It really hurt our economy but we were too stupid to listen to them. Maybe the more accurate thing to say is that our elected officials were too corrupt and too interested in getting the block votes and money from the pro Israel supporters than they were interested in doing the right thing for the USA.

Over the years the pressure from the Arabs stepped up with attacks overseas against American interest as our support of Israel and other interventionism in the Middle East. Fighting the Americans became just as important to the Arabs as fighting the Israelis. The religious leaders used the hate against the US and Israel to gain power. If you were around you may remember the crowd condemning the US for siding with Israel during the takeover of our Iranian Embassy.

The US continued to arm the Israelis and intervene and the Arabs became more militant. We got our asses kicked really bad in Beirut and Kolbart Towers. Terrorist attacks against the US became more common and more vicious cumulating in the 911 attack. Every time the Arabs kicked our ass they told us it was because we supported Israel. Everything from the bin Laden tapes to the letters of the 911 hijackers.

911 was the direct consequence of our interventionism in the Middle East. We pissed off a billion people and they fought back and thousands of our people died on our own soil.

Now I don’t know about you. You may have different values than me. My moral clarity says that the lives of Americans are more valuable than the lives of Middle Easterners. If we are going to go to war it needs to be for a damn good reason. The reason of making sure that Israel lives well or to make sure our elected representative receive nice block votes and rich campaign donations don’t meet that threshold. Not even close.

Rockntractor
12-07-2010, 08:58 AM
I knew you were going to spout that BS. You have so many other things wrong I knew it was just a maater of time when you posted that ignorance.

First of all you need to really to understand the Neocon talking points because you are off message. Both Bush and Cheney and all the other people that engineered the invasion of Iraq said we were not at war with Islam. They said it many times. You need to get on message because your reason is BS.

Let me educate you on the Neocon’s excuse for invading Iraq. It was the famous “Weapon of Mass Destruction” excuse. You need to get on the Neocon talking points if you are going to defend the invasion of Iraq. Of course we know that was bullshit but that is all you have.

Let me tell you why we are in conflict in the Middle East because obviously you don’t have a clue.

I don’t know how old you are. I don’t know if you have been aware of what the US was doing in the Middle East for the last 40 years or so. However, I will explain it to you.

Back in the old days the US actually had an even handed policy towards the Middle East. Our real interest was to stop the Soviets from gaining too much influence. Back then the oil was not a deal breaker for us.

That all changed in 1967. When the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty LBJ made the decision that the support of the pro Israel lobby was worth more to him and the Democrat Party than being somewhat neutral in the Arab-Israel conflict. He changed the Americans neutrality to one of intervention on the side of the Israelis.

The Arabs didn’t like us taking the side of the Israelis and arming their enemy. They bitched and complained but the pro Israel lobby in the US was a much more influential force.

The Arabs finally decided to get our attention. They boycotted oil in the 1970s. They told us big time it was because we were supporting Israel. I remember sitting in line for hours to get three gallons of gas and reading Time Magazine and reading about the Arabs telling us to mind our own business. It really hurt our economy but we were too stupid to listen to them. Maybe the more accurate thing to say is that our elected officials were too corrupt and too interested in getting the block votes and money from the pro Israel supporters than they were interested in doing the right thing for the USA.

Over the years the pressure from the Arabs stepped up with attacks overseas against American interest as our support of Israel and other interventionism in the Middle East. Fighting the Americans became just as important to the Arabs as fighting the Israelis. The religious leaders used the hate against the US and Israel to gain power. If you were around you may remember the crowd condemning the US for siding with Israel during the takeover of our Iranian Embassy.

The US continued to arm the Israelis and intervene and the Arabs became more militant. We got our asses kicked really bad in Beirut and Kolbart Towers. Terrorist attacks against the US became more common and more vicious cumulating in the 911 attack. Every time the Arabs kicked our ass they told us it was because we supported Israel. Everything from the bin Laden tapes to the letters of the 911 hijackers.

911 was the direct consequence of our interventionism in the Middle East. We pissed off a billion people and they fought back and thousands of our people died on our own soil.

Now I don’t know about you. You may have different values than me. My moral clarity says that the lives of Americans are more valuable than the lives of Middle Easterners. If we are going to go to war it needs to be for a damn good reason. The reason of making sure that Israel lives well or to make sure our elected representative receive nice block votes and rich campaign donations don’t meet that threshold. Not even close.

So much for your promise to hamps that you wouldn't dredge up the Liberty again!

gator
12-07-2010, 09:07 AM
What about China? That's the real issue here. Without the US, Japan and South Korea don't stand a chance.






Talk about spouting stupid opinions without any backup but you take the cake.

Show me the proof. What about China? You tell me.

Why do we have to provide security for Japan and Korea for free like we do now?

They are both rich countries. South Korea has one of the best militaries in the world.

I don’t think we should be handing out military welfare payments to rich countries like Japan and South Korea, especially since we are going broke.

The idea of borrowing money from China to provide security for rich countries that are afraid of China is the epitome of stupidity, isn’t it?

We don't need to be doing anything but at a minimum don’t you think Japan and South Korea should be paying us hundreds of billions of dollars to provide for their security?

If China is the great threat you claim why aren't these countries stepping up to the plate for their own defense? If it is so important why are they putting their security into the hands of the American welfare system?

gator
12-07-2010, 09:19 AM
Islamism. Would you rather have relatively sane and pro-American regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and elsewhere, or do you want them all to fall to Islamist fanatics who would then use their power to wage war on the rest of the world, including America?





I honestly don’t give a shit. I could care less about those bozos.

The only real interest the US has in the Middle East is to stabilize the cost of oil and that is only because we are too dumb to provide for our own energy.

Everything beyond oil is interventionism.

Instead of spending money for wars in the Middle East and to protect some sleazeball regimes I would rather spend our money on building nuclear power plants and developing shale oil and other drilling for more oil.

Just simply doing something reasonable like reducing the Federal permitting requirements for nuclear power plants will go a long way to make us energy independent.

That way we can stay out of Middle East entanglements. In the long run we would be much better off.

If we get out of the business of pissing a billion people off and if they continued to terrorize us then at least we would then have a good reason to fight them instead of the BS reasons we have nowadays.

gator
12-07-2010, 11:25 AM
So much for your promise to hamps that you wouldn't dredge up the Liberty again!

I didn’t make any promises on anything.

I am sorry but you can't discuss interventionism in the Middle East without establishing a starting point. That incident had nothing to do with interventionism in itself but that was the time that Lyndon Johnson made the decision to change from a somewhat neutral position in the Middle East to a pro Israel position. During the deliberations of whether to counter attack Israel for the attack on the Liberty Johnson realized how valuable and powerful the pro Israel lobby was to the Democrats and his administration. He called them his “little buddies”. Look at the memos written by Adm Tomas Moorer if you need a full explanation. There is quite a bit of documentation on this. I have posted that documentation on other threads at other times.

We can ignore history and we can spin it all we want but the facts are the facts.

Molon Labe
12-07-2010, 12:23 PM
And is that supposed to be a rational response? You've never actually addressed any of my points or explained yours. All you did was say I was misrepresenting the non-interventionists' argument and that I should look it up or some such.

It never really appeared you were serious about a "conversation" when you started the bullet coments" about "isolationism" being the "reality" of what non interventionism means. But since you seem sincere, it doesn't mean to close up the gates and have no trade and no strong defense or a military that can't project itself in the event the nation is attacked.
But....Do you think just maybe the U.S. could do with, let's say, about 50 foreign military installations outside the CONUS instead of over 800?
I don't understand the mindset that can't see that as intervention overkill. Do you think it's too much to ask that we could stop giving away foreign welfare, when spending on all government programs is driving us to bankruptcy and maybe layout clear war aims to ensure they don't go on endlessly?

There is no nation on earth that compares the old USSR and it's power. Not Iran, or China, or the Norks. We balanced the USSR for 50 years. We have 13 carrier groups that are unmatched. The greatest most modern Airforce ever and a standing Army of the highest calibre.

You need to read Scheuer's site. He studied and was the premier expert on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and he discovered through those studies how we have made things totally worse for us because of intervention abroad.


My primary interest, then, in starting this website, is to discuss the almost totally negative impact of Washington’s bipartisan lust to intervene abroad, as well as to talk about how interventionism
undermines U.S. security, the nation’s economy, and our country’s social cohesion. I also think it is appropriate to discuss here how far we have strayed from the Founding Fathers’ vision of what America
and Americans should be at home and how the republic should conduct itself in the wider world.


I am not fully committed to an unyielding anti-war position. I certainly do
believe that we are engaged in far too many wars; that most of them are unnecessary; and that almost all of them are the consequence of Washington’s rabid post-1945 interventionism. To the extent that
Washington — under both Democrats and Republicans — stops intervening in overseas affairs that are of neither genuine concern to the United States nor threats to U.S. interests, we will find ourselves in far fewer wars. And I might add, in passing, that if Americans begin to aggressively insist that all wars in which their country becomes engaged must — per the Constitution — be formally declared by the vote of Congress, we would likewise have far fewer wars



Today, Americans are rightly suspicious of calling our struggle with the Islamists a war because they — again rightly — cannot believe that people would wage a nearly 14-year war and gladly die in the
conflict because American women go to university, there are early primaries in Iowa every four years, and many of us have a beer or two after work. The consistent lies of our last four presidents, leading
generals, much of the media, and nearly all of the academy — “They hate our freedoms, not what we do” — have misled and blinded Americans to the very real threat the Islamists pose to domestic
security in the United States and some of our interests overseas.


Neocons discredit him with ad hominems and name calling in 3...2...1....

Bleda
12-08-2010, 03:16 PM
I'll try to make some time to reply to you soon. I've just been busy lately.

gator
12-08-2010, 07:00 PM
I'll try to make some time to reply to you soon. I've just been busy lately.

If all you are going to do spout ignorant NeoCon talking points don't waste your time.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 09:53 PM
Nah, I'll reply.

gator
12-08-2010, 10:25 PM
Nah, I'll reply.

Which one of these NeoCon talking points are you going to use?

4500 American soldiers died in Iraq so America can be free.

The reason for removing Saddam is because Americans were going to be killed by his weapons of mass destruction.

Americans should proudly die for everybody else’s freedom.

Israel is our friend.

Unless America kills everybody in the world we will never be safe.

It is worth going in debt and burying American warriors to make sure that ________ (fill in the country of your choice) lives securely.

The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

Saddam attacked the US on 9/11/01.

America is the Savior of the world.

Every American soldier in the military should be proud to die for any foreigner. (especially the ones that are good at handing out lobbyist’s money to our elected officials)

No amount of foreign aid or foreign military assistance is enough. More is better and too much is just right.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 10:27 PM
Which one of these NeoCon talking points are you going to use?

4500 American soldiers died in Iraq so America can be free.

The reason for removing Saddam is because Americans were going to be killed by his weapons of mass destruction.

Americans should proudly die for everybody else’s freedom.

Israel is our friend.

Unless America kills everybody in the world we will never be safe.

It is worth going in debt and burying American warriors to make sure that ________ (fill in the country of your choice) lives securely.

The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

Saddam attacked the US on 9/11/01.

America is the Savior of the world.

Every American soldier in the military should be proud to die for any foreigner. (especially the ones that are good at handing out lobbyist’s money to our elected officials)

No amount of foreign aid or foreign military assistance is enough. More is better and too much is just right.

None of those, if you're serious.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 10:58 PM
I think some of the people taking the "interventionist" side of this argument just aren't "getting it". None of you, from the posts that I've read, have addressed the fact that the U.S. spends borrowed money on 800 military bases in almost every country in the world, and why that is significant.

I don't know why each US base exists, so I'm not going to justify the existence of each one. But I do agree that, as far as I know, there's no need for that many bases. But you're arguing against the number of foreign bases, not the existence of foreign bases. So I take it you have no problem with the latter?


How can this be justified when the only other nation in the world to have a military base on foreign soil is Britain, and it's "military base" in India is actually a museum and tourist trap. Can anyone on the interventionist side of this argument please offer the justification for this practice by the U.S.? Wouldn't citizens of the U.S. consider it an affront if the U.K., Australia, or Japan had sovereign military installations in the U.S.?

Why should it matter whether some other nation has foreign bases? This argument is just as illogical as the “we spend more on the military than Indonesia, Russia and Peru, therefore it's bad” or “most other countries have this health care system and we don't, therefore we're wrong” arguments.


The second point interventionists won't address is the total amount per capita spent on defense by the American taxpayers, versus the amounts spent by our allies, and countries which have U.S. military installations protecting them. Why hasn't someone articulated a rebuttal, without resorting to the extremes of claiming we non-interventionists want to "screw over our allies" and "we can't go it alone"?

Again, we don't protect them for no reason, or because they have lobbyists bribing us; we do it because it's beneficial to us. Do you see us protecting some insignificant, useless nation in Africa?


I'm not necessarily opposed to intervention in the Middle East. Oil is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy, and until the U.S. finally implements a more sane energy policy, it is in the best interests of the U.S. to keep the middle eastern region stable.

And how do you think that could be accomplished other than through 'interventionism'? Are you arguing for or against non-interventionism?


However, the removal of Saddam and the Ba'ath party from power hasn't exactly had the stabilizing effects we'd hoped for has it? It's been almost, 8 years now, and we still don't have a stable Iraqi government, capable of defending itself and maintaining order in the region yet. If the war was over Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to inspect his WMD plants, or even if he had WMD's, then why was it necessary to remove the Ba'ath party from power and institute a democratic government to our liking? Was it the proper place of the U.S. to do this? After the war, the U.S. could have put a much more amicable Ba'ath party back into power with a new figurehead to take the place of the removed Saddam. Even if we had to do it two or three times until we found a Ba'thist regime which would cooperate, it would have been a much cheaper and more effective option. When Iraq refused to play to the tune of the U.S., it needed a tune up, not a replacement.

Why would this have been better?


Thirdly the isolationism claim is far from fact based. Isolationism is defined as:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dictionary
a policy of non-participation in international economic and political relations
Therefore, if we continue to participate in international politics and economic activities, but decline to jump in every time some central-African warlord wants to duke it out with another central-African warlord, then we are not in an isolationist nation, just a non-interventionist one.


It never really appeared you were serious about a "conversation" when you started the bullet coments" about "isolationism" being the "reality" of what non interventionism means. But since you seem sincere, it doesn't mean to close up the gates and have no trade and no strong defense or a military that can't project itself in the event the nation is attacked.

I never said otherwise. I'm talking about military and political isolationism.


There is no nation on earth that compares the old USSR and it's power. Not Iran, or China, or the Norks. We balanced the USSR for 50 years. We have 13 carrier groups that are unmatched. The greatest most modern Airforce ever and a standing Army of the highest calibre.

Are you serious, ML? This is comparing apples to oranges. The USSR was big and powerful, yes, but it was led by sane people. MAD doesn't work against mad men.


Washington — under both Democrats and Republicans — stops intervening in overseas affairs that are of neither genuine concern to the United States nor threats to U.S. interests, we will find ourselves in far fewer wars.

Pretty much no one disagrees with this. We just disagree on whether the wars, operations and other military-related matters are in the best interests of the US.


And I might add, in passing, that if Americans begin to aggressively insist that all wars in which their country becomes engaged must — per the Constitution — be formally declared by the vote of Congress, we would likewise have far fewer wars

What difference does it make? What's the tangible difference between a formal declaration of war and a resolution authorizing war? Besides, the war we're currently fighting is more of a campaign, spanning countless countries and different continents. It's not the same as WW2, where you simply declare war against a nation-state.


Today, Americans are rightly suspicious of calling our struggle with the Islamists a war

They are? Says who? Last I checked, the American people considered this a war and not a criminal matter. Take their position on criminal trials for terrorists, for instance.


cannot believe that people would wage a nearly 14-year war and gladly die in the
conflict because American women go to university, there are early primaries in Iowa every four years, and many of us have a beer or two after work.

Why not? This man is projecting his Western rationalism, secularism and materialism. He doesn't realize that not everyone shares his mentality. Most 'radical Muslims' are brainwashed from birth into believing that their goal is Jihad and that a reward awaits them in the afterlife. Heaven is far more important to them than some petty earthly existence.

gator
12-09-2010, 08:33 AM
None of those, if you're serious.

You have already used a couple of them in you previous post. At least a slight variation.

Molon Labe
12-09-2010, 09:29 AM
Are you serious, ML? This is comparing apples to oranges. The USSR was big and powerful, yes, but it was led by sane people. MAD doesn't work against mad men.


No it's not. It's suggesting that American ingenuity and military strength are such that we can handle a few rogue thugs when we handled a rogue superpower......without invading and occupying and nation building every thug nation in the ME for some leftist vision of making the world safe for "Democracy". Pure Wilsonian left wing Bull crap.

To put it plainly with a quote from a famous movie


You would use a bulldozer to find a china cup - Rene Belloq

Sonnabend
12-14-2010, 05:14 AM
Now I don’t know about you. You may have different values than me. My moral clarity says that the lives of Americans are more valuable than the lives of Middle Easterners.

You and Obama have a lot in common, You'd throw anyone under the bus to suit your own agenda. I'd imagine that in any terrorist attack, you'd only give a shit if Americans were involved or hurt.

Get help.

Bleda
12-23-2010, 10:52 PM
First of all you need to really to understand the Neocon talking points because you are off message. Both Bush and Cheney and all the other people that engineered the invasion of Iraq said we were not at war with Islam. They said it many times. You need to get on message because your reason is BS.

I remember Bush saying such things, but this is pure PR talk. The President of the United States is not going to admit that we're fighting Islam. Regardless of whether the leader of the country believes we're at war with Islam, it's true.


Let me educate you on the Neocon’s excuse for invading Iraq. It was the famous “Weapon of Mass Destruction” excuse. You need to get on the Neocon talking points if you are going to defend the invasion of Iraq. Of course we know that was bullshit but that is all you have.

It was one of the reasons, but by no means the only one.


Let me tell you why we are in conflict in the Middle East because obviously you don’t have a clue.

I don’t know how old you are. I don’t know if you have been aware of what the US was doing in the Middle East for the last 40 years or so. However, I will explain it to you.

Back in the old days the US actually had an even handed policy towards the Middle East. Our real interest was to stop the Soviets from gaining too much influence. Back then the oil was not a deal breaker for us.

That all changed in 1967. When the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty LBJ made the decision that the support of the pro Israel lobby was worth more to him and the Democrat Party than being somewhat neutral in the Arab-Israel conflict. He changed the Americans neutrality to one of intervention on the side of the Israelis.

The Arabs didn’t like us taking the side of the Israelis and arming their enemy. They bitched and complained but the pro Israel lobby in the US was a much more influential force.

The Arabs finally decided to get our attention. They boycotted oil in the 1970s. They told us big time it was because we were supporting Israel. I remember sitting in line for hours to get three gallons of gas and reading Time Magazine and reading about the Arabs telling us to mind our own business. It really hurt our economy but we were too stupid to listen to them. Maybe the more accurate thing to say is that our elected officials were too corrupt and too interested in getting the block votes and money from the pro Israel supporters than they were interested in doing the right thing for the USA.

Over the years the pressure from the Arabs stepped up with attacks overseas against American interest as our support of Israel and other interventionism in the Middle East. Fighting the Americans became just as important to the Arabs as fighting the Israelis. The religious leaders used the hate against the US and Israel to gain power. If you were around you may remember the crowd condemning the US for siding with Israel during the takeover of our Iranian Embassy.

Who are these "Arabs"? Not all Arabs are the same. If you're talking about the Arab countries, most of them are close US allies who aren't attacking us. If you mean Arab terrorist groups, what's your point? If an enemy states they don't like something we're doing and attack us for it, we should immediately surrender and stop doing whatever that's pissing them off?


The US continued to arm the Israelis and intervene and the Arabs became more militant. We got our asses kicked really bad in Beirut and Kolbart Towers. Terrorist attacks against the US became more common and more vicious cumulating in the 911 attack. Every time the Arabs kicked our ass they told us it was because we supported Israel. Everything from the bin Laden tapes to the letters of the 911 hijackers.

They did? Let's take a look at al-Qaeda's demands, via Hot Air:

– withdrawal of all U.S. troops from all Muslim lands;
– cessation of all aid, in whatever form, to the “56 apostate regimes of the Muslim world,”;
– cessation of all aid, in whatever form, to Israel as well as imposition of a travel ban to “occupied Palestine”;
– neither interference in, nor a single word of criticism of, Al Qaeda’s establishment of an Islamic caliphate;
– cessation of all “broadcasts” to the Middle East;
– and the release of all Muslim prisoners being held by America, for whatever reason and whether or not duly convicted.

Does this translate to "We only exist because you support Israel, and would gladly love you if you stopped supporting them" to you?


911 was the direct consequence of our interventionism in the Middle East. We pissed off a billion people and they fought back and thousands of our people died on our own soil.

"Arabs" are about 300 million, not a billion. I assume you're speaking of Muslims (who are actually 1.5 billion), which contradicts your argument that we're not at war with Islam and Islam isn't at war with us. Which is it, pal?


Now I don’t know about you. You may have different values than me. My moral clarity says that the lives of Americans are more valuable than the lives of Middle Easterners. If we are going to go to war it needs to be for a damn good reason. The reason of making sure that Israel lives well or to make sure our elected representative receive nice block votes and rich campaign donations don’t meet that threshold. Not even close.

As I said, we wouldn't be helping Israel if it wasn't beneficial to us.


Talk about spouting stupid opinions without any backup but you take the cake.

Show me the proof. What about China? You tell me.

Why do we have to provide security for Japan and Korea for free like we do now?

They are both rich countries. South Korea has one of the best militaries in the world.

I don’t think we should be handing out military welfare payments to rich countries like Japan and South Korea, especially since we are going broke.

The idea of borrowing money from China to provide security for rich countries that are afraid of China is the epitome of stupidity, isn’t it?

We don't need to be doing anything but at a minimum don’t you think Japan and South Korea should be paying us hundreds of billions of dollars to provide for their security?

If China is the great threat you claim why aren't these countries stepping up to the plate for their own defense? If it is so important why are they putting their security into the hands of the American welfare system?

Way to contradict yourself.

SK and Japan can take care of North Korea. China is the real threat. The mere existence of US troops in SK and Japan keeps China and even North Korea from doing anything [major], just as the presence of US troops in bases throughout the world keeps those regions safe and sound, which is in the best interests of our country, and isn't bankrupting us.

Bleda
12-23-2010, 10:54 PM
No it's not. It's suggesting that American ingenuity and military strength are such that we can handle a few rogue thugs when we handled a rogue superpower......without invading and occupying and nation building every thug nation in the ME for some leftist vision of making the world safe for "Democracy". Pure Wilsonian left wing Bull crap.

To put it plainly with a quote from a famous movie

I didn't say anything about democracy or nation-building. America is pretty powerful, but not as powerful as nuclear weapons. We wouldn't be able to stop every nuclear weapon Iran sends our way.

m00
12-23-2010, 11:58 PM
I didn't say anything about democracy or nation-building. America is pretty powerful, but not as powerful as nuclear weapons. We wouldn't be able to stop every nuclear weapon Iran sends our way.

Not without a missile defense shield... which we could have had by now, had we continued investing in it. But anyway, Iran can't hit us unless it is allowed to get missile silos in Venezuela. Now there is a rogue state.

Bleda
12-24-2010, 12:01 AM
You don't need a missile to smuggle a nuke into a country.

m00
12-24-2010, 12:06 AM
You don't need a missile to smuggle a nuke into a country.

Well, like any sane country we need to close our borders. Half the work is done for us, we're bordered by ocean on two sides. Build a fence on the south, and work with Canada on the north. Do you have any idea how hard it is to smuggle a nuke anywhere?

Bleda
12-24-2010, 01:00 AM
Well, like any sane country we need to close our borders. Half the work is done for us, we're bordered by ocean on two sides. Build a fence on the south, and work with Canada on the north. Do you have any idea how hard it is to smuggle a nuke anywhere?

It's hard, but possible. The smaller the nuke, the easier to smuggle, correct? And I don't trust the governments of the world to keep me safe and foil every single smuggling attempt.