Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
What does "mess with the US" mean in exact terms?
I'd take it to be an attack either on US soil or against US interests elsewhere and I mean actions that can be directly linked to the actions/sponsorship of another government. i.e. We don't invade/occupy a country over the actions of a terrorist group known to operate in more than 40 countries.
I'd take it to be an attack either on US soil or against US interests elsewhere and I mean actions that can be directly linked to the actions/sponsorship of another government. i.e. We don't invade/occupy a country over the actions of a terrorist group known to operate in more than 40 countries.
I would agree, but the "US interests" vauge terminology is what gets us in trouble. People will say a commie free S. Vietnam or S. Korea was/is in our best interest or a Muslim free Middle East, or a secure Israel. I'd elaborate further and say if it isn't on US soil, it's none of our concern.
Saddam Hussein was a huge stabilizing presence in the Middle East, and removing him from power has lead to untold chaos and instability in the region on an unimaginable scale, resulting in massive human suffering, a refugee crisis with no end in sight, has lead to the creation of ISIS, etc. This is just the beginning of the nightmare, compliments of American foreign policy. You're welcome.
I agree to an extent. You know that gambling saying about knowing when to hold them.......; America, under George W. Bush, got that all wrong. His father was smart and pulled off the 'perfect' war (as if any war can be perfect). But his father knew when to quit. George W. wasn't that smart. We had the problem contained and we fabricated 'evidence' to go after Hussein. Hussein hated the Iranians; which helped keep that problem 'contained'.
Of course this is looking back in hindsight. There are many variables and anything could have happened; even WWIII.
I agree to an extent. You know that gambling saying about knowing when to hold them.......; America, under George W. Bush, got that all wrong. His father was smart and pulled off the 'perfect' war (as if any war can be perfect). but his father knew when to quit. George W. wasn't that smart. We had the problem contained and we fabricated 'evidence' to go after Hussein. Hussein hated the Iranians; which helped keep that problem 'contained'.
Of course this is looking back in hindsight. There are many variables and anything could have happened; even WWIII.
If George H. was so smart we he wouldn't have committed US taxpayer funds and troops to defending Kuwait (after green lighting Sadaam to invade it no less)
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
I would agree, but the "US interests" vauge terminology is what gets us in trouble. People will say a commie free S. Vietnam or S. Korea was/is in our best interest or a Muslim free Middle East, or a secure Israel. I'd elaborate further and say if it isn't on US soil, it's none of our concern.
By US interests I meant something like the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, not our 'interests' in lame attempts to make other countries over to our liking or sponsoring coups in places we have no business sticking our nose in the first place.
Personally, I'd like to see the CIA restricted to a purely intelligence gathering agency and the DoD reminded that the second D is D-E-F-E-N-S-E, not Dumb attempts at nation -building.
If George H. was so smart we he wouldn't have committed US taxpayer funds and troops to defending Kuwait (after green lighting Sadaam to invade it no less)
George H. was smart enough to let his general fight the war. General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. did a great job and we, as a Nation, instilled fear and respect. We had only a few casualties, we drove out Hussein, and then we got the heck out of Dodge.
Yes, you can question our reasons why we defended Kuwait. But we walked out of there with our heads up high - mission accomplished. You cannot say the same about subsequent wars.
By US interests I meant something like the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, not our 'interests' in lame attempts to make other countries over to our liking or sponsoring coups in places we have no business sticking our nose in the first place.
Personally, I'd like to see the CIA restricted to a purely intelligence gathering agency and the DoD reminded that the second D is D-E-F-E-N-S-E, not Dumb attempts at nation -building.
In every book I've read about the CIA, it's been mentioned that "purely an Intel gathering apparatus" is EXACTLY what their mandate is, and nothing more. Truman, Ike and Kennedy all believed this too, yet consistently failed to reign the CIA in even when they were displeased with their results. The CIA always had powerful allies in Congress, and they were always able to convince the Congress that they needed more money and a larger mandate to keep the country safe.
The truth is, when their history is harshly researched with a fine tooth comb, they're a failed organization that has gotten little right in their existence. Somehow, despite constant failure and a huge (and secret) budget, they survive intact....and they're a shadow government in and of themselves.
Frankly, they never should've been created in the first place. They've become exactly what Truman feared they'd be.
Saddam Hussein was a huge stabilizing presence in the Middle East, and removing him from power has lead to untold chaos and instability in the region on an unimaginable scale, resulting in massive human suffering, a refugee crisis with no end in sight, has lead to the creation of ISIS, etc. This is just the beginning of the nightmare, compliments of American foreign policy. You're welcome.
Really? Stabilizing presence?
Let's see: Unprovoked war against Iran, unprovoked war against Kuwait, murdering of thousands with chemical weapons, supporting palestinian terrorists.
It's does not looks to me as "stabilizing".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
