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.
Most of our wars have not been in self defense but wars for protecting the WELFARE of other countries.
How come other countries are entitled to US tax dollar for their WELFARE but when it comes our country and the peoples WELFARE brings up people foaming at the mouth?
First question is whether the United States has involved itself militarily only for the sake of "the WELFARE" of other countries. I think the evidence tends to suggest we do what we do with our military primarily to protect and/or serve our national interests which can also include the well being of our allies and trading partners (for obvious reasons). That and/or to thwart the progress of our enemies.
the intelligence about iraqi WMD programs was not just ours alone, but various intelligence agencies around the world, including saudi arabia, the european union, russia, various african nations, and china among others. this was not just the CIA or other US alphabet agencies saying this.
and monday morning quarterbacking is always perfect. but realize that saddam had plenty of time to move his WMD programs out of the country before, and during, the invasion.
Doesn't matter how well the evidence is laid out, by who or by how many. Poor intelligence is poor intelligence, again as Colin Powell makes clear (and who better should know). To dismiss what we can learn from history as "Monday morning quarterbacking" is simply head-in-sand mentality if you ask me. Of course we know better looking backward on what emerges as truth compared to looking forward into the unknown. So what? We aren't supposed to learn as we go from our successes and our failures? From our mistakes? Isn't that how we humans have generally managed to evolve and progress from our cave man days? And what's this about moving Saddam's WMD? To where? You're still under the impression the intelligence was accurate? That there were WMD in the first place? It's believing in whatever you want to believe despite the overwhelming evidence that also points to a rather "selective" way of looking at things...
Again, I've not got the time to read all in your link, and I'm not sure I need to since I lived through all the news and developments on a daily basis about the Iraq invasion going back to 9/11 that somehow turned into a drum beat to invade Iraq instead of continuing the focus on Al Qaeda specifically, and your link is pretty much all the "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to the Iraq invasion. What specifically are you wanting me to read?
This?
Rationale based on faulty evidence[edit]
The central U.S. justification for launching the war was that Saddam Hussein's alleged development of nuclear and biological weapons and purported ties to al-Qaeda made his regime a "grave and growing"[263] threat to the United States and the world community.[264] During the lead-up to the war and the aftermath of the invasion, critics cast doubt on the evidence supporting this rationale. Concerning Iraq's weapons programs, prominent critics included Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector who argued in 2002 that inspections had eliminated the nuclear and chemical weapons programs, and that evidence of their reconstitution would "have been eminently detectable by intelligence services ..." Although it is popularly believed[citation needed] that Saddam Hussein had forced the IAEA weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, they were in fact withdrawn at the request of the US, in advance of Operation Desert Fox, the 1998 American bombing campaign. After the build-up of U.S. troops in neighboring states, Saddam welcomed them back and promised complete cooperation with their demands. Experienced IAEA inspection teams were already back in Iraq and had made some interim reports on its search for various forms of WMD.[265][266][267][268][269] American diplomat Joseph C. Wilson investigated the contention that Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons in Niger and reported that the contention had no substance.[270][271]
Similarly, alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were called into question during the lead-up to the war, and were discredited by a 21 October 2004 report from U.S. Senator Carl Levin, which was later corroborated by an April 2006 report from the Defense Department's inspector general.[272] These reports further alleged that Bush Administration officials, particularly former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith, manipulated evidence to support links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.[273]
We should wait until Trump actually proposes going to war before denouncing him as a war-monger. I doubt that he will ever try to go to war with Iran. One of the three planks of Steve Bannon, his 'chief strategist' was 'stay out of pointless foreign wars.' (the other two planks were addressing of immigration and bringing back manufacturing).
My guess is that if anything, Trump will opt for the single strike, similar to what Reagan did in Libya, or Obama did regarding Bin Laden. There is also the option of using the CIA, as Ike did in Iran, but that option seems to have fallen out of favor.
Wait till he actually does something, or at least proposes something, before raising a screaming howl.
Either you are not following along in this thread or you're not following the news, but the issue is not really waiting until war is actually declared but addressing the developments that increase the chances of either that or some other form of armed conflict. Developments beginning at least as far back as our unilateral [Trump] withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran and our other signatories.
To wait until the "pot boils over" is not how most experienced and intelligent maître d's manage the kitchen...
Either you are not following along in this thread or you're not following the news, but the issue is not really waiting until war is actually declared but addressing the developments that increase the chances of either that or some other form of armed conflict. Developments beginning at least as far back as our unilateral [Trump] withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran and our other signatories.
To wait until the "pot boils over" is not how most experienced and intelligent maître d's manage the kitchen...
It will just be another failed war like we had both Bush 1 and 2. Break some more countries and make them worse and kill our own people over nothing. I just say gas and kill everyone in that part of the world and take over the oil fields.
Just curious, because if you do, you know, consider yourself intelligent, then you should be able to follow along easily.
In fact, anyone with an IQ of 100+ should be able to follow along.
There's something called Geo-Political Strategy. Not every State has one, because they are costly, not only in terms of actual money needed to implement and maintain the strategy, but also in terms of resources and manpower needed to carry it out.
Norway does not have one. Norway only has 5 Million people, a little less than Cook County, Illinois. Norway just doesn't have the money, manpower or resources to maintain global reconnaissance assets like spy satellites and planes, or intelligence agencies to collect and analyze Millions of pieces of electronic and human intelligence and Norway has no means of projecting power.
You can project power in different ways. Economically, politically or through currency or aircraft carriers and blue-water navies to name but a few.
As you would expect, only the US, Russia and China are the real players in Geo-Strategy. Britain and France could, and to a lesser extent, Australia, Spain, Italy, Brasil and Japan potentially could, but those States focus more on regional strategy instead of a global strategy.
The purpose of a Geo-Strategy is to envision the near- and far-Future, about 25-35 years from now, and then take the actions necessary to shape the World to fit the vision you have created.
For that reason, Presidents have no control over Geo-Strategy. That's strictly the purview of the Bureaucrats. You can't be changing Geo-Strategy every 4-8 years, because that would cost $TRILLIONs, leave you with no cogent strategy and weak, unprotected and vulnerable, not to mention being totally reactive instead of proactive.
Yeah, it's exactly like a chess match. Once you make that opening move, you're stuck to the bitter end, win, lose or draw.
You had a strategy, the Pacific Rim Strategy, but after many decades, it became painfully obvious that this strategy was going to be a massive failure, and further expenditure of monies, manpower and resources was fruitless. So, in the late 1960s, you abandoned that and shifted to your current strategy.
To date, your current Geo-Strategy has been 100% successful.
You've accomplished all of your goals thus far.
If you seriously believe Iraq and Afghanistan are failures, it's because you're totally clueless and don't understand.
You're there, aren't you?
Yeah, well, that's the whole freaking point. Get it?
Because you are there, you're ready to intervene politically and military in an instant for any reason or no reason at all.
It's QB-KB4.
That's exactly what you've done. The Queen's Bishop is sitting there ready to pounce in an instant. And you'll be there as long as you need to be, seeing how no one is going to drive you out.
The US has driven the Russians out of the Mediterranean thanks to Clinton, George H and Obama.
Syria isn't really an issue. The US would prefer to have control of Syria, but it's not absolutely essential. That could change though. If the Russians moved certain missile systems to Syria, that might be a game-changer and force the US to gain control of Syria.
Aside from that, Iran is the next piece of the puzzle. The US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the Five Central Asian States.
A conglomerate of Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron and UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) acquired the rights to 75% of the petroleum, metal ores and non-metallic minerals there. Since then, Amoco bought BP and Chevron bought UNOCAL so it's just a consortium of Amoco and Chevron. Total (French), Gazprom (Russia) and a Chinese company own the rights to the other 25%.
You don't need to have your hands on it, you just need to control, because you don't at this time.
Once you control Iran, you can push your hegemony on Central Asia, and then from there attack the eastern Russian republics. It's very easy to smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies to the "pro-democracy" groups you'll be channeling money to through various entities. It'll be like "Arab Spring" except this will be "Indigenous People's Spring" since it's mostly indigenous peoples who live there.
Note that I don't personally support this, I'm just explaining the "How & Why" of it all, so you can understand.
You should also understand that if you fail in this strategy, your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
On the other hand, if you're successful, you'll be on easy street for the rest of this century and into the next one.
Your government knows that, and it would prefer to deal with happy shiny Americans instead of dismal dreary Americans rioting every 5 minutes and that's quite clear here:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I suppose the real question is, "What have you done?" My guess is you're living larger than you were 16+ years ago when those things happened and what that tells me is deep down, you're all for it, even though you might not like it.
The preamble of your comment leading up to taking control of Iran really didn't need explaining if you ask me. All pretty much understood generally speaking...
I don't know how smart I am or how smart anyone needs to be to understand any of that but no doubt it gets a little trickier to see how your version of things after that is necessarily true or sound. Not sure how your theories compare to the Department of Defense Strategy you seem to think supports your narrative, but I'm not seeing much along the same lines as you seem to believe. What does the DOD strategy specifically state that actually supports your version of the United States "Geo-strategy?" Where is the plan to "control Iran?"
I read more that is a bit easier to understand and agree with, like the following:
The Department of Defense’s enduring mission is to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our nation.
Reinforcing America’s traditional tools of diplomacy, the Department provides military options to ensure the President and our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength.
Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
For decades the United States has enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain. We could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how we wanted. Today, every domain is contested—air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace.
In support of the National Security Strategy, the Department of Defense will be prepared to defend the
homeland, remain the preeminent military power in the world, ensure the balances of power remain
in our favor, and advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity.
By working together with allies and partners we amass the greatest possible strength for the long-term
advancement of our interests, maintaining favorable balances of power that deter aggression and
support the stability that generates economic growth.
If you can better connect the dots between all you seem to think is proof-positive about all you project is the goal of the United States in these respects, and/or if you can explain what background, expertise or information you have that lends credence to your claims, I'd be interested to know what they are. For example, I spent the better part of my career working in headquarters for one of the major energy companies you note as part of that "conglomerate." You?
For that reason, Presidents have no control over Geo-Strategy. That's strictly the purview of the Bureaucrats. You can't be changing Geo-Strategy every 4-8 years, because that would cost $TRILLIONs, leave you with no cogent strategy and weak, unprotected and vulnerable, not to mention being totally reactive instead of proactive.
Yeah, it's exactly like a chess match. Once you make that opening move, you're stuck to the bitter end, win, lose or draw.
You had a strategy, the Pacific Rim Strategy, but after many decades, it became painfully obvious that this strategy was going to be a massive failure, and further expenditure of monies, manpower and resources was fruitless. So, in the late 1960s, you abandoned that and shifted to your current strategy.
To date, your current Geo-Strategy has been 100% successful.
You've accomplished all of your goals thus far.
If you seriously believe Iraq and Afghanistan are failures, it's because you're totally clueless and don't understand.
You're there, aren't you?
Yeah, well, that's the whole freaking point. Get it?
Because you are there, you're ready to intervene politically and military in an instant for any reason or no reason at all.
It's QB-KB4.
That's exactly what you've done. The Queen's Bishop is sitting there ready to pounce in an instant. And you'll be there as long as you need to be, seeing how no one is going to drive you out.
The US has driven the Russians out of the Mediterranean thanks to Clinton, George H and Obama.
Syria isn't really an issue. The US would prefer to have control of Syria, but it's not absolutely essential. That could change though. If the Russians moved certain missile systems to Syria, that might be a game-changer and force the US to gain control of Syria.
Aside from that, Iran is the next piece of the puzzle. The US needs control of Iran so that it has unfettered air, sea, rail and highway access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean to the Five Central Asian States.
A conglomerate of Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron and UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) acquired the rights to 75% of the petroleum, metal ores and non-metallic minerals there. Since then, Amoco bought BP and Chevron bought UNOCAL so it's just a consortium of Amoco and Chevron. Total (French), Gazprom (Russia) and a Chinese company own the rights to the other 25%.
You don't need to have your hands on it, you just need to control, because you don't at this time.
Once you control Iran, you can push your hegemony on Central Asia, and then from there attack the eastern Russian republics. It's very easy to smuggle weapons, equipment and supplies to the "pro-democracy" groups you'll be channeling money to through various entities. It'll be like "Arab Spring" except this will be "Indigenous People's Spring" since it's mostly indigenous peoples who live there.
Note that I don't personally support this, I'm just explaining the "How & Why" of it all, so you can understand.
You should also understand that if you fail in this strategy, your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell.
On the other hand, if you're successful, you'll be on easy street for the rest of this century and into the next one.
Your government knows that, and it would prefer to deal with happy shiny Americans instead of dismal dreary Americans rioting every 5 minutes and that's quite clear here:
The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living.
I suppose the real question is, "What have you done?" My guess is you're living larger than you were 16+ years ago when those things happened and what that tells me is deep down, you're all for it, even though you might not like it.
You are probably onto other threads to nowhere, never to return here, but as promised I invested some time reconsidering all you write because I am interested in what is going on now with Trump at the helm, and because I have more time to waste this morning. Just about anyone can debate much you go on about above...
Your chess analogy, for example, is really bad. In chess (which I very much enjoy playing), once you loose a piece there's typically no getting it back. Resource are limited and set, unlike the real world scenario in which not only can more resources be produced and brought to bear, but they are changing/advancing all the time (as the DOD also properly notes). There are only two players and there is essentially only one target or way of winning chess in terms of the end goal. There are strategies and moves that are clearly better than others such that a computer can be programmed to play accordingly, until of course there will be a certain end to any game of chess. Also of course, there are observed respected rules adhered to when the game of chess is played...
There are no such comparisons in any of these respects and more when it comes to the never-ending geopolitical seas we navigate as a country along with all the other countries trying to do the same one way or another, to more or less an extent. The circumstances, challenges and resources forever changing as we all do our best to; protect sovereign interests, expand economic opportunity, improve per-capita standard of living, and all the rest also mentioned in the DOD strategy summary, including the ongoing goal to access markets that will prevent the "decline in our prosperity and standard of living." Duh...
With just about every military conflict we have been a part, also however, there is nothing easily argued as "100 percent successful" given all invested to prosecute these wars and the varied outcomes we might hope to accomplish, most certainly including whatever we can do to avoid the loss of our "finest." How does one even begin to accurately measure the degree of success given the costs? That may be a little over my pay grade and yours too if we're honest with one another.
What history has taught us, should teach us anyway (if we have half the brain you seem to think you have), there are countless ways to foster a better world order in terms of promoting peace and greater prosperity for all concerned while also defending against counter forces that are TRULY intending to retard those goals. Whether Iran, for example, has the ultimate goal of retarding prosperity beyond it's borders rather than defending itself against what Iran sees as attacks against her independence and prosperity is the same debate so common in all these scenarios where determining who is the aggressor tends to be a matter of perspective.
Something I always think about when it comes to the countries in the ME and our interaction with them. Always seems to be the history has been us in their sandbox. Not the other way around...
Always prefer peace, but if Iran instigates violence they will pay a great price. In my opinion Trump will not start an intervention
Not sure anyone prefers war. Just because Trump says the same sort of thing doesn't mean he is innocent of drawing America in the direction of war however.
The big question is who is instigating what?
Since too many Americans seem to think Trump is beyond question in this regard EVEN THOUGH TRUMP UNILATERALLY PULLED US OUT OF THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL, we're somehow supposed to expect good behavior on the part of Iran?
This is the sort of rationale on the part of Trump and his supporters that really makes it seem America has lost it's way...
I suppose we could just send up a white flag and isolate ourselves until some country launches a nuclear weapon at a major US city. Listening to democrats tells us America has never been that great anyway there's nothing really worth protecting, I suppose !!! Democrats open border stance to replace citizens that won't vote for them is consistent with reasons not to defend ourselves or anyone else who is threated with violence.
Yes, I suppose we can just give up and throw the last 200 plus years on the trash heap and admit the experiment was a failure. I suppose...….. or we could fight for our way of life against those who would defeat and enslave us !!! Now there is a novel concept !!!
Fixed, and I agree with the rest.
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.
