U.S. troops pull out of Baghdad, Iraqis rejoice

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

… while letting Iran & North Korea assemble nuclear weapons will cost alot more lives in the furure.

If you were a decision-maker, what would you propose the US do w/r/t Iran and DPRK differently than what is currently being done?

What is your desired end-state? How do you plan to achieve that end-state? What specific actions would you pursue and by what means? E.g., by what methods & means are securing access to the nuclear facilities, and what consequences are you willing to accept for your decisions? How will you deal with China w/r/t DPRK? How will you deal with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran limiting transit through or closing the Straits of Hormuz? It is tempting and easy to toss out one-liners. I look forward to hearing your specific plans.

And to show that I’m not asking of others anymore than I am willing to do myself, I provided some of my own detailed proposals on ends, ways, and means w/r/t US foreign policy toward Iran in this thread (posts 1, 47, 49, 50-53, 56, 59, 63, 64, 69, 72).

And, as is true in the real world, things change all the time, how do you also plan to deal with the indications that the DPRK is (trying to) exporting missile technology to Burma, aka Myanmar?

There have been allegations of Myanmar's Gen Thura Shwe Mann -- the oppressive military regime’s #3 -- and Shwe Mann -- Chief of Staff of military -- making secret visits to DPRK in late 2008 to discuss procuring medium range missiles and anti-aircraft and radar systems.

There also have been, for years, low-level and low-confidence suspicions regarding desire by Burma’s oppressive military junta for nuclear capabilities.

Who cares the most about Burma having advanced military capabilities? (It’s not us.) I.e., who is/perceives Burma as its biggest military and stability threat? How will you deal with potential foreign policy ramifications and concerns of that long-time, key MNNA (major non-NATO ally) in Southeast Asia?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Is the failed support for Iraqi insurgency in 1996 to which you were referring "when Clinton left them hanging in 96"?

yup

Okay, so how do you reconcile that with the actions that Pres Clinton did take, e.g., the Sept 1996 airstrikes? (Going back through the thread, i.e., the post to which you replied.) As I see it that poster's comments & characterizations are largely a-historic. Military action was used in support of the foreign policy goals of the adminstration, which largely looked like the one before. (One may disagree with an administrations' foreign policy goals, but they are what they are ... and "containment" has been a widely bi-partisan goal across adminstrations of the 2nd half of the 20th Century.)

As I recall, the goal in 1996 was containment, which was largely an extension of Pres GHW Bush's policy and goal w/r/t Iraq. It's also a more traditionally conservative foreign policy goal. (As opposed to regime change and Wilsonian idealism.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

In Chicago Obama is now known as the MOP.


Master of the Pullout.






The guys down at the VA told me that one, they are black BTW and not a fan of Obama by any means.

I like seeing my fellow Vets down there, we all may have our differences but almost everyone is tired of hearing people say they know what fellow Americans think according to racial and economic demographics.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'm seeing more coverage here on DZ than in the press.

It was on the front page of the NY Times, WSJ, and USA Today yesterday.

Today, I'm more interested to be honest in the launch of major operations in southern Afghanistan.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is the failed support for Iraqi insurgency in 1996 to which you were referring "when Clinton left them hanging in 96"?

yup

Okay, so how do you reconcile that with the actions that Pres Clinton did take, e.g., the Sept 1996 airstrikes? (Going back through the thread, i.e., the post to which you replied.) As I see it that poster's comments & characterizations are largely a-historic. Military action was used in support of the foreign policy goals of the adminstration, which largely looked like the one before. (One may disagree with an administrations' foreign policy goals, but they are what they are ... and "containment" has been a widely bi-partisan goal across adminstrations of the 2nd half of the 20th Century.)

As I recall, the goal in 1996 was containment, which was largely an extension of Pres GHW Bush's policy and goal w/r/t Iraq. It's also a more traditionally conservative foreign policy goal. (As opposed to regime change and Wilsonian idealism.)

/Marg

I don't think lobbing missiles in an attempt to clean up a mess we created is anything close to being support.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is the failed support for Iraqi insurgency in 1996 to which you were referring "when Clinton left them hanging in 96"?

yup

Okay, so how do you reconcile that with the actions that Pres Clinton did take, e.g., the Sept 1996 airstrikes? (Going back through the thread, i.e., the post to which you replied.) As I see it that poster's comments & characterizations are largely a-historic. Military action was used in support of the foreign policy goals of the adminstration, which largely looked like the one before. (One may disagree with an administrations' foreign policy goals, but they are what they are ... and "containment" has been a widely bi-partisan goal across adminstrations of the 2nd half of the 20th Century.)

As I recall, the goal in 1996 was containment, which was largely an extension of Pres GHW Bush's policy and goal w/r/t Iraq. It's also a more traditionally conservative foreign policy goal. (As opposed to regime change and Wilsonian idealism.)

I don't think lobbing missiles in an attempt to clean up a mess we created is anything close to being support.

What were the foreign policy goals of the time?

Did or did not the military actions approved by the then-President accomplish the US foreign policy goal? Goals that largely resembled those of the previous administration.


Containment, yes. Very hard to make a case otherwise.

Back to my original question in response to your comment, to which I don't off the top of my head know the answer. After the 1996 airstrikes (that were in response to his actions in Erbil), what was Hussayn's general stance toward the Kurds? Did Hussayn expand his operations against the Kurds?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

Don't know what the policy was at the time nor do I know what Saddam's policy/stance was toward the Kurds.

However, from Baer's account we encouraged an uprising, promised support, and failed to deliver resulting in more deaths and a loss of credibility. Granted Baer is only one man (I have no reason not to believe him) so any insight would be appreciated.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>Obama standing in the white house with his thunb up his but while letting
>Iran & North Korea assemble nuclear weapons will cost alot more lives in
>the furure.

I'd prefer a guy who stands with his "thunb" up his "but" than one who kills thousands of innocent people. But that's just me.

So then Neville Chamberlain would be a hero of yours. Churchill recognized the threat early on and tried to get the rest of Europe to stop it before it became powerful. It could have been stopped early on, but nooo, most wanted to pursue diplomatic solutions, after all, people would die if it had been confronted early on.


Why do you conclude America's involvement in WWII was justified, just because we were attacked, because of a formal declaration of war? That is pretty slim grounds, why not just pursue containment? Why does a declaration of war change your desire for soldiers to not get killed?

Not only should Britain, France and European powers have declared war on Germany sooner, but most people I think recognize that WWII would have been much shorter, with a much better result (fewer people dead, Soviets would have controlled less of Eastern Europe if America had not waited to get involved. Do you disagree? Perhaps you agree but still think it was right to wait until Japan attacked us/Germany declared war. Japan had been conquering parts of China and islands in the Pacific, but it seems you might think it was right to not do anything to stop it until they actually attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

If you're going to be advocate containment, defending our own territory, not being the world police, judging that 4000 soldiers weren't worth the removal of Saddam and the freedom of Iraq, why should that stop just because of a declaration of war, or some small attack on home territory? Even WWII was not "necessary". We could have concentrated on defending our own territory. We could have decided to not care about Europe or what was happening in the Pacific. Of course Britain would have fallen, but why should that matter? That was happening to others, not us.

Thankfully, Germany and Japan made the mistake of actually attacking us and declaring war. That overcame the inertia of the "peace at any cost/anti-war mongers" of the time. That real cost of this peace at any cost was huge. Thankfully, America got in before the fall of Britain, it would have been very different to liberate Europe without Britain, probably would not have been possible.

That you say America was justified to participate in WWII because of the attacks on our territory/ships and the declarations of war shows absolutely that you don't understand the lessons to be learned from that war. We should have been involved much sooner. Diplomacy often does not work, containment often does not work. The use of military force is often still needed.

But what the heck, Churchill was responsible for so many deaths, and you compliment Chamberlain for his thumb up the butt diplomatic zeal.

Also, I think it is quite true that in effect Iraq did attack us, and they did declare war on us.

Quote

We're not the world's police, and should not kill people to install governments for political reasons.

That you characterize the reasons as "political" shows the depth of your misunderstanding.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,990]

>Why do you conclude America's involvement in WWII was justified,
>just because we were attacked . . .

Because we have a military to defend our country from enemies who would attack it.

>If you're going to be advocate containment, defending our own territory,
>not being the world police, judging that 4000 soldiers weren't worth the
>removal of Saddam and the freedom of Iraq, why should that stop just
>because of a declaration of war, or some small attack on home territory?

Because that's the purpose of the military. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . . provide for the common defense." Our constitution recognized the need for a consolidated federal military to defend our country when we are attacked.

>Also, I think it is quite true that in effect Iraq did attack us, and they did
>declare war on us.

I must have missed the bombings, then.

>That you characterize the reasons as "political" shows the depth of your
>misunderstanding.

If you really think the US was attacked by Saddam Hussein on 9/11, or that he attacked the USA, then we are not living in the same reality.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>Why do you conclude America's involvement in WWII was justified,
>just because we were attacked . . .

Because we have a military to defend our country from enemies who would attack it.

There is a big difference between defense and offense. We could have defended ourselves from our adversaries in WWII without invading/conquering them. A lot fewer people (at least Americans) would have died, and that is so important as you've stated.

Quote

>If you're going to be advocate containment, defending our own territory,
>not being the world police, judging that 4000 soldiers weren't worth the
>removal of Saddam and the freedom of Iraq, why should that stop just
>because of a declaration of war, or some small attack on home territory?

Because that's the purpose of the military. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union . . . provide for the common defense." Our constitution recognized the need for a consolidated federal military to defend our country when we are attacked.

Again, "defense". Quite different than invading/conquering others, even after being attacked. I think a president Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan. I think he would have sent in some cruise missiles and some airstrikes for a while (maybe quite a long while), and called it contained, but no invasion. Oh, and there would have been diplomatic efforts to find out why they don't like us and try to make it better. What do you think a president Gore would have done?

Quote

>Also, I think it is quite true that in effect Iraq did attack us, and they did
>declare war on us.

I must have missed the bombings, then.

I know you are aware of their attacking our guys while they were involved with enforcing/monitoring the cease-fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. Perhaps you think that doesn't matter. Perhaps you think enforcing the cease fire agreement was optional, that we should have had a conference with diplomats to ask them to please stop doing that, and the other things for which they did not comply. Perhaps it was because Bush was asking, SH might have been buddies with a president Gore.

There is also the matter of Iraq admitting to sponsoring attacks on a key ally of ours - Israel. But of course that doesn't matter to many.

Quote

>That you characterize the reasons as "political" shows the depth of your
>misunderstanding.

If you really think the US was attacked by Saddam Hussein on 9/11, or that he attacked the USA, then we are not living in the same reality.

I never claimed SH was responsible for 9/11. I did explain that he did attack us and our allies, but of course as you've declared about WWII, it isn't worth it for us to get involved just because allies are attacked.

Do you think the first gulf war was justified? Iraq didn't attack us, just a country that wasn't even a close ally. Why should defending Kuwait have been worth the possibility of so many Americans dieing? Why not let them defend/fail at defending themselves?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,990]

>There is a big difference between defense and offense. We could have
>defended ourselves from our adversaries in WWII without
>invading/conquering them.

Agreed. And if we could have fought them to a truce with less loss of life, it may have been worth it. From what I have read about the war, that was not the case.

>Again, "defense". Quite different than invading/conquering others, even
>after being attacked. I think a president Gore would not have invaded
>Afghanistan.

Gore was the biggest hawk in the Clinton administration; I have little doubt he would have done so. However, I strongly suspect he would not have invaded Iraq.

>I know you are aware of their attacking our guys while they were involved
>with enforcing/monitoring the cease-fire agreement that ended the first
>gulf war.

Definitely. They shot at our aircraft while we were flying over their country. That's not the same as attacking the USA.

>SH might have been buddies with a president Gore.

I doubt that. We do know for certain he was friends with Rumsfeld and Reagan, though.

>Why not let them defend/fail at defending themselves?

I think this quote applies very well here:

"America . . . well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own . . . she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assure the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. . . . The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . . . . She might become dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."
(John Quincy Adams)

It is worth avoiding that fate, IMO.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>There is a big difference between defense and offense. We could have
>defended ourselves from our adversaries in WWII without
>invading/conquering them.

Agreed. And if we could have fought them to a truce with less loss of life, it may have been worth it. From what I have read about the war, that was not the case.

If America had wanted to remain isolationist, I see no reason to say that we could not have defended our territory. What makes you say that was not the case. It would only mean that we would have to not care about the Britain. We would not have had to do much "fighting" to get a "stalemate".

I am absolutely firm in my belief that we should have involved in the war earlier. Had European powers been involved much earlier, American involvement would not have been an issue. You seem to not agree. I think that is a HUGE difference.

Quote

>Again, "defense". Quite different than invading/conquering others, even
>after being attacked. I think a president Gore would not have invaded
>Afghanistan.

Gore was the biggest hawk in the Clinton administration; I have little doubt he would have done so. However, I strongly suspect he would not have invaded Iraq.

But if it would have been better to not be involved in WWII, why would it be right to invade Afghanistan? Besides, war causes a lot of greenhouse gas to be released, so that would have kept Gore from invading.

Quote

>I know you are aware of their attacking our guys while they were involved
>with enforcing/monitoring the cease-fire agreement that ended the first
>gulf war.

Definitely. They shot at our aircraft while we were flying over their country. That's not the same as attacking the USA.

By winning the first war, we got to decide, and revise at will the terms of the cease-fire that allowed SH to remain in power. Those terms included flying above their country. Apparently you think that doesn't matter.

You haven't answered whether you think the first gulf war was justified. It was a full-on effort organized through the UN.

Quote

>SH might have been buddies with a president Gore.

I doubt that. We do know for certain he was friends with Rumsfeld and Reagan, though.

That cozy relationship shouldn't have been, and it didn't last. The cozy relationship with Stalin shouldn't have been, and it didn't last. Hardly a new thing, that enemy of my enemy thing, don't you know, but it doesn't change the issue at hand, it is just useless nanner-nanner stuff.

Quote

>Why not let them defend/fail at defending themselves?

I think this quote applies very well here:

"America . . . well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own . . . she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assure the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. . . . The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . . . . She might become dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."
(John Quincy Adams)

It is worth avoiding that fate, IMO.

Over 200 years ago it was very easy to be an isolationist. Not so easy now. You seem to be unsure if that was the right position to take in WWII, but why not take that position with Afghanistan? At least to the point that we shouldn't try to invade/conquer. Of course a lot of people die even without an invasion, so maybe it is better to just recognize our adversary, in this case Afghanistan, and do our best to protect ourselves. Please let us know when you decide if you're an isolationist or not.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Coincidently.....

FBI Interviews: Saddam Bluffed About WMD Out of Fear of Iran
In interviews with the FBI before his death, the former Iraqi dictator said he was more afraid of Iran than the U.S. and denounced Usama bin Laden as "a zealot."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-hussein-lied-wmd-fear-iran/?test=latestnews

Thanks for the link … followed it to the National Security Archive and the primary documents …
>

W/r/t WMDs, there are a lot of interesting statements. Perhaps the most interesting to me w/r/t WMDs are three “Casual Conversations” summaries. To be explicit, I think all the statements should be read with a healthy does of skepticism. As the FBI interrogator records from their exchanges, what he is recording will affect history. He invokes a "miitary-industrial complex" explanation as part of why the US invaded Iraq. Also some more comments from the FBI Speacial Agent on effectiveness of traditional interrogation techniques are noted in the methods summary.

Thanks again for the heads’ up on the release of the documents!
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Over 200 years ago it was very easy to be an isolationist. Not so easy now.

To be Isolationist? No.

Non-Interventionist? Yes.

Convincing politicians is the hard part.

[billvon 2,990]

>If America had wanted to remain isolationist, I see no reason to say that we
>could not have defended our territory. What makes you say that was not the
>case.

Isolationist? No, that's never a good idea. We _should_ be out there lobbying for what we want. If someone pisses us off, by all means, discourage them. If someone attacks us, then we destroy them. Not because they 'deserve' to be destroyed, but because they've demonstrated they will try to destroy us - and actions always speak louder than words.

Destroying someone to further our political goals, however, is a bad idea.

>I am absolutely firm in my belief that we should have involved in the war earlier.

Do you think the war turned out poorly?

>But if it would have been better to not be involved in WWII, why would it be
>?right to invade Afghanistan?

Because Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, attacked us and killed 3000 US citizens on US soil. Again, it's not "right." Afghanistan doesn't "deserve" it. We do it because we destroy those who attack us.

>it is just useless nanner-nanner stuff.

As is the "buddies with Gore" stuff.

>Over 200 years ago it was very easy to be an isolationist. Not so easy now.

That's one of those assumptions that everyone makes, but I don't think it's valid. "Oh, sure, the Second Amendment meant something back in the 1800's, but there's no way the Founding Fathers could have forseen AK-47's!" I think they did.

But in any case, I am not advocating being an isolationist. We cannot isolate ourselves from the world, and indeed we should be out there in the world as much as we can, making agreements, dealing with problems, using our economic power to get what we want.

But I am very much in favor of not "enlisting under other banners than her own." In other words, I am a non-interventionist. We defend ourselves, and no others.

>You seem to be unsure if that was the right position to take in WWII, but why
>not take that position with Afghanistan? At least to the point that we
>shouldn't try to invade/conquer.

Once we destroy Al Qaeda and its supporters, I will agree with you 100%. We should get out and let them run their own country.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>I am absolutely firm in my belief that we should have involved in the war earlier.

Do you think the war turned out poorly?

In respect to how many people died compared to how few would have had there been the courage to declare war much sooner...it could have been much, much better. Victory in WWII was not at all such a sure thing. At many points it could have turned out VERY differently. Another way that it turned out poorly was that Soviet influence increased greatly. If Germany had been put down much earlier, the Soviets wouldn't have been involved at all, so much would have been different in Eastern Europe. That is the point you don't seem to grasp - the war should have started much sooner, so much would have been averted. Some had the vision and wisdom to see the "Gathering Storm", others would not concede until their survival was in doubt. You don't seem to get that lesson - Do you think WWII should have started before Poland was invaded (putting yourself in the shoes of the French/British)? Do you think we should have joined the effort in Europe before Germany declared war on us? A non-interventionist policy as you advocate would have left Britain to be conquered. If Japan had not attacked us and Germany declared war at the same time, Britain most likely would have fell in the next summer.

Do you think the first gulf war was justified?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am