So Eyesys ...

[Oh Shoot]

My position will always be consistent. The question I ask is this, what right do we have to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation?

 

Should be not have entered into WWI or WWII? If either of those is yes, what's the criterion? When does internal become "external"?

 

A nation usurping another? (ISIS has declared itself a nation, and is usurping parts of Syria and Iraq). Attack on American interests or Americans themselves? (ISIS has threatened our embassies,  oil fields with US joint operation, and executed non-combatant Americans).

 

At what point should the US ever fight abroad? Humanitarian reasons, perhaps only those that approach genocide?  In defense of certain pacts, like NATO? Or like, never, simple as that? Maybe we shouldn't have embassies anywhere at all either?

 

Meaning, I agree about Dubya's invasion, but then again, his Dad's action was because Sadaam went into Kuwait. Is there a difference?

 

Difficult for me to make a flat blanket statement about all involvement abroad.

 

 

- OS

Edited September 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

My position will always be consistent. The question I ask is this, what right do we have to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation?

+1,000

 

It was a matter of revenge or securing resources because there have been other countries that have done far worse and we have not gotten involved. As awful as Saddam was he did keep his country, and the region, stable. When we entered Iraq we pretty much had every other Muslim nation in the region declare us as the enemy for killing fellow Muslims.

 

We will be mired down in the middle east for at least a generation now because those Muslims being born today are going to be taught that the US is the enemy and must be defeated. The only way for us to get out is to defeat, and kill, every Muslim on the planet but that is not going to happen so our "War on Terror" is going to be perpetual from now on. We will never again live in peace as a nation and the government will use every threat as a means to take away a few more freedoms until we are living like those Iraqis we were trying to free from an oppressive regime. The Muslims are not going to give up until they have defeated us. They will not tire of war, they will not quit and they will continue to fight because they are fighting for their God.

 

Personally Iraq should have been treated exactly how we are treating North Korea now. That is because their capabilities are similar. Neither could actually attack the US and neither are not stupid enough to try.

[TMF]

My position will always be consistent. The question I ask is this, what right do we have to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation?

Repeated murder of kidnapped Americans by that government? Is that not good enough?

The Islamic State is a country. While I agree that putting boots there will solve nothing if their intention is to hold land, nonetheless, other countries should be held accountable when they commit extrajudicial killings of Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited September 6, 2014 by TMF

[Ugly]

"We"? Please elaborate.

Those posting various points of view here. We are as about together as a here of cats. The dems stick together no matter what, right or wrong and add voting "irregularities" and they stay in control.

We have become what they wanted us to become, divided.

[TMF]

Im just reading all the responses. It was such a funny shift from lets go and fight them, to we should have left saddam in place. I will remain neutral and watch the show. I will say this tho, there are some good points.

It is easy to say that if we had left Saddam in power the region would be more stable, but that is to believe we can predict the future. Saddam had invaded two of his neighbors in the 80s. He had two psychopathic sons who were lining up to make daddy look like a saint. The history of Iraq's leaders in the past 70 years is a tale of multiple coups and murder. If folks think that country would have remained stable if Saddam remained indefinitely they either don't know the history, political and ethnic makeup of that country or they're just being disingenuous.

Saddam wasn't going to live forever, and the only reason he was able to hold that country together is due to ruthless tactics and a genius system of checks and balances amongst his military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He had them constantly spying on one another to detect potential coups and political threats. If one armed service came after him he had 5 more at his disposal.

Once Saddam died or became to old to hang onto office (think Ghaddafi) the country would have split apart much the way it is now. There would be a civil war between the Sunni and Shia Arabs, and the Kurds would have held what they could in the north.

But yeah, Iraq was full of rivers of chocolate, rainbows and gumdrop smiles before we invaded (to quote my favorite actor).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

Should be not have entered into WWI or WWII? If either of those is yes, what's the criterion? When does internal become "external"?

 

A nation usurping another? (ISIS has declared itself a nation, and is usurping parts of Syria and Iraq). Attack on American interests or Americans themselves? (ISIS has threatened our embassies,  oil fields with US joint operation, and executed non-combatant Americans).

 

At what point should the US ever fight abroad? Humanitarian reasons, perhaps only those that approach genocide?  In defense of certain pacts, like NATO? Or like, never, simple as that? Maybe we shouldn't have embassies anywhere at all either?

 

Meaning, I agree about Dubya's invasion, but then again, his Dad's action was because Sadaam went into Kuwait. Is there a difference?

 

Difficult for me to make a flat blanket statement about all involvement abroad.

 

 

- OS

Basically, this is my view. If there isn't an attack on US soil, we need to keep our asses home. Embassies are fine as conduits for trade, but we need to shutter our military bases worldwide. Why the hell are we still underwriting the defense of half of Europe almost 70 years after the end of WWII? I am not an isolationist, but I am absolutely a non-interventionist. As far as the reporters beheaded by ISIS, the world is a dangerous place. When you go traipsing into war zones, shit happens.

[Chucktshoes]

Repeated murder of kidnapped Americans by that government? Is that not good enough?

The Islamic State is a country. While I agree that putting boots there will solve nothing if they're intention is to hold land, nonetheless, other countries should be held accountable when they commit extrajudicial killings of Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we should send thousands of folks to die because a couple of reporters got themselves captured and killed in an active war zone? Yeah..ummm...Nope.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Chucktshoes]

Those posting various points of view here. We are as about together as a here of cats. The dems stick together no matter what, right or wrong and add voting "irregularities" and they stay in control.

We have become what they wanted us to become, divided.

The reason I asked what you meant by "we" is that it seemed very binary in its perspective. There are more than Democrats and Republicans. I personally find the Republican platform as repulsive as that of the Democrats. So, if the Republicans are the "we" then count me out.

[Omega]

Basically, this is my view. If there isn't an attack on US soil, we need to keep our asses home. Embassies are fine as conduits for trade, but we need to shutter our military bases worldwide. Why the hell are we still underwriting the defense of half of Europe almost 70 years after the end of WWII? I am not an isolationist, but I am absolutely a non-interventionist. As far as the reporters beheaded by ISIS, the world is a dangerous place. When you go traipsing into war zones, #### happens.

Nah, annihilate them before they step one foot on US soil; better if its done outside 12 nautical miles to keep the trash in international waters. The way I think is that we obliterate any terrorist organization that declares they want to do us harm, that will give the next ones pause before they declare that publicly. In Iraq, as they announced a new leader we would target him, after a few replacements they stopped announcing new leaders. A bit slow but they learn.

[Chucktshoes]

Nah, annihilate them before they step one foot on US soil; better if its done outside 12 nautical miles to keep the trash in international waters. The way I think is that we obliterate any terrorist organization that declares they want to do us harm, that will give the next ones pause before they declare that publicly. In Iraq, as they announced a new leader we would target him, after a few replacements they stopped announcing new leaders. A bit slow but they learn.

Considering the penchant our government has for engaging in violence against other countries, how would you feel if they had the means to engage in that sort of preemptive behavior towards us? A Senator says that we are going to force regime change in X country and so they launch a couple of cruise missiles at us. That's fair, right? Self defense is fine, but self defense requires more justification than a threat. Especially when the ones making the threat don't have the real means to carry out that threat. 

Edited September 6, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Fourtyfive]

The Islamic State is NOT A COUNTRY , it is a large band of murderous hooligans that are afraid to have their throats cut or be shot in the back of the head if they don't jump on the bandwagon. It is the whole theory of terrorism , hence the name. Only another bandwagon of militants will stop them on their own turf. I prefer we fund the brave of their own land to do that , none of our boots on the ground. I will gladly send a case of ammo myself , or provide as much jet fuel as I can afford to drop some more of our tax dollars in the form of explosives.

[Omega]

Considering the penchant our government has for engaging in violence against other countries, how would you feel if they had the means to engage in that sort of preemptive behavior towards us? A Senator says that we are going to force regime change in X country and so they launch a couple of cruise missiles at us. That's fair, right? Self defense is fine, but self defense requires more justification than a threat. Especially when the ones making the threat don't have the real means to carry out that threat.

No means? Thousands in the towers would beg to differ. The point is, we dont declare that x country needs to be erased off the map and everyone converted or dead.

[Fourtyfive]

Once again I have started a thread that is tearing the very seam of unity within this crowd. Save you differences for the sake of this country , do not fight amongst yourselves , this was not the intent of my aggression.

[Omega]

Once again I have started a thread that is tearing the very seam of unity within this crowd. Save you differences for the sake of this country , do not fight amongst yourselves , this was not the intent of my aggression.

Nah, its like when you argue with your brother/sister. Only you are allowed to argue with them, any outsiders will be punished!

[Chucktshoes]

No means? Thousands in the towers would beg to differ. The point is, we dont declare that x country needs to be erased off the map and everyone converted or dead.

So what exactly did the actions of a bunch of Saudis operating out of Afghanistan have to do with Iraq? :shrug:  It's been 13 years and the people who were responsible for those 3k deaths are all dead themselves now (along with thousands of allied troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan) so 9/11 has lost its luster as a rallying cry. I was against the invasion of Iraq the first time, I will be against it the second time. We have been meddling in the M/E for damn near a century and it has brought us nothing but heartache and corpses. How about we give them what they want, what we need, and leave them to their own devices and mind our own damn business for a change. It's not our circus, not our monkeys. Time to act accordingly.

[Chucktshoes]

Once again I have started a thread that is tearing the very seam of unity within this crowd. Save you differences for the sake of this country , do not fight amongst yourselves , this was not the intent of my aggression.

Ha! It's what we do. I know everyone would have found something else to debate had you not posted this topic.  :rofl:

[Wingshooter]

Basically, this is my view. If there isn't an attack on US soil, we need to keep our asses home. Embassies are fine as conduits for trade, but we need to shutter our military bases worldwide. Why the hell are we still underwriting the defense of half of Europe almost 70 years after the end of WWII? I am not an isolationist, but I am absolutely a non-interventionist. As far as the reporters beheaded by ISIS, the world is a dangerous place. When you go traipsing into war zones, #### happens.

You do realize that dangerous world you speak of has stated it intends to come here and kill you and me? ISIS is not some far away threat that is only a danger to reporters sneaking around in the desert. These jokers want to kill me and my family right here in the USA. They are raising money faster than ever right here within our borders, and they have evil plans. A non-intervention in this case may very well result in an attack on American soil. BHO would probably like to apologize to them for the way America has treated their fragile little feelings, but I say strike them down hard and fast on their soil not ours.

[Wingshooter]

So what exactly did the actions of a bunch of Saudis operating out of Afghanistan have to do with Iraq? :shrug:  It's been 13 years and the people who were responsible for those 3k deaths are all dead themselves now (along with thousands of allied troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan) so 9/11 has lost its luster as a rallying cry. I was against the invasion of Iraq the first time, I will be against it the second time. We have been meddling in the M/E for damn near a century and it has brought us nothing but heartache and corpses. How about we give them what they want, what we need, and leave them to their own devices and mind our own damn business for a change. It's not our circus, not our monkeys. Time to act accordingly.

9/11... NEVER FORGET!!!!

As far as our meddling in the ME... It's not possible to know what might have become of that century otherwise. I will never say that our soldiers lives were lost for nothing but heartache and corpses.

[Omega]

So what exactly did the actions of a bunch of Saudis operating out of Afghanistan have to do with Iraq? :shrug:  It's been 13 years and the people who were responsible for those 3k deaths are all dead themselves now (along with thousands of allied troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan) so 9/11 has lost its luster as a rallying cry. I was against the invasion of Iraq the first time, I will be against it the second time. We have been meddling in the M/E for damn near a century and it has brought us nothing but heartache and corpses. How about we give them what they want, what we need, and leave them to their own devices and mind our own damn business for a change. It's not our circus, not our monkeys. Time to act accordingly.

Not all of them are dead, and not all reside in Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. What those who planned and executed 911 have to do with Iraq is the mentality. If we could guarantee that they would stay in their own borders I may be inclined to agree with you. But they won't, sooner or later they will plan and execute another attack. Boston, DC, LA, NY, who knows but I would rather take them out before we find out. Though it is flesh and blood we destroy, its the mentality of those people that needs to be defeated for that is what may ultimately succeed in making that attack in the US.

[TMF]

So we should send thousands of folks to die because a couple of reporters got themselves captured and killed in an active war zone? Yeah..ummm...Nope.

Yes. I would risk my life and the lives of all those I served with to avenge or rescue even one American held captive or murdered by a rogue regime.

You try to measure this by amounts of lives and ignore the intangibles. The murder of Americans by foreign governments and extremists going unanswered only makes us look weak and invites that behavior from other regimes. The bully on the playground doesn't stop when he senses weakness; he is only emboldened by it.

Plus, as a matter if honor, an attack on an American simply for being an American is an attack on all of us. You may not see it that way, but know that if it were you being held and awaiting slaughter, I would absolutely risk death to come liberate you.

This isn't something measured in lives. If that were so we would look at everything from that perspective.

Why go after Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor? They only killed 3,000 Americans. How many Americans did we lose fighting them in the pacific? Lot more than 3,000. Why send hundreds of police officers to risk their lives for one hostage being held by a bad guy? After all, it's only one person; no need to put so many other lives at risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

The Islamic State is NOT A COUNTRY.

It most certainly is. They have land, taxes, borders, a military and government. They will continue to be a country for quite a while too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

So we should send thousands of folks to die because a couple of reporters got themselves captured and killed in an active war zone? Yeah..ummm...Nope.

And might I add, there are folks, maybe a couple here on this site, who absolutely risked their lives by flying into enemy held territory in Syria to rescue those captured reporters. You think that wasn't an extreme risk? You think they all got back without a scratch? You think a single one of them wouldn't do it again for one American?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited September 6, 2014 by TMF

[Chucktshoes]

Yes. I would risk my life and the lives of all those I served with to avenge or rescue even one American held captive or murdered by a rogue regime.

You try to measure this by amounts of lives and ignore the intangibles. The murder of Americans by foreign governments and extremists going unanswered only makes us look weak and invites that behavior from other regimes. The bully on the playground doesn't stop when he senses weakness; he is only emboldened by it.

Plus, as a matter if honor, an attack on an American simply for being an American is an attack on all of us. You may not see it that way, but know that if it were you being held and awaiting slaughter, I would absolutely risk death to come liberate you.

This isn't something measured in lives. If that were so we would look at everything from that perspective.

Why go after Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor? They only killed 3,000 Americans. How many Americans did we lose fighting them in the pacific? Lot more than 3,000. Why send hundreds of police officers to risk their lives for one hostage being held by a bad guy? After all, it's only one person; no need to put so many other lives at risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not ignoring the intangibles you bring up, I just don't view them the way you do. Your measurements of strength and weakness are built on an idea of interventionism in other's affairs. If you are attempting to tell others how to run their business, you have to appear strong enough to force them to bend to your will if disobeyed. If we let others be, that posturing would be unnecessary. 

 

You also bring up Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, focusing on the actual attack and not the actions taken by the Roosevelt administration to provoke it in an effort to change public opinion and bring us into WWII. The administration froze Japanes assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy. It has been pretty well documented that Roosevelt knew about the attack prior to it actually happening. It could have been avoided and intentionally wasn't.

 

All of that is to make one simple point. If we stop meddling in other folks' affairs, we wouldn't have to spend so much blood and treasure abroad. I won't say the lives of those lost in the Iraq/Afghanistan were wasted, but they weren't necessary.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[TMF]

I'm not ignoring the intangibles you bring up, I just don't view them the way you do. Your measurements of strength and weakness are built on an idea of interventionism in other's affairs. If you are attempting to tell others how to run their business, you have to appear strong enough to force them to bend to your will if disobeyed. If we let others be, that posturing would be unnecessary.

You also bring up Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, focusing on the actual attack and not the actions taken by the Roosevelt administration to provoke it in an effort to change public opinion and bring us into WWII. The administration froze Japanes assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy. It has been pretty well documented that Roosevelt knew about the attack prior to it actually happening. It could have been avoided and intentionally wasn't.

All of that is to make one simple point. If we stop meddling in other folks' affairs, we wouldn't have to spend so much blood and treasure abroad. I won't say the lives of those lost in the Iraq/Afghanistan were wasted, but they weren't necessary.

You are excusing attacks from foreign governments due to policy decisions which "provoke" them. We fundamentally disagree there.

We also disagree on your concept of isolationism. We cannot be total isolationists and expect that we will continue our standard of living or won't be invaded and overrun. Our isolationism allowed for evil to murder its way across Europe and Asia in the 30s and 40s. You think they would have stopped there? Are you kidding? If we button up like we did before, it would absolutely allow evil to flourish. We are the only country in the world with the power and moral fabric to stand in the way of evil. There is an inherent responsibility that comes with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="TMF" post="1186816" timestamp="1410011647"]You are excusing attacks from foreign governments due to policy decisions which "provoke" them. We fundamentally disagree there. We also disagree on your concept of isolationism. We cannot be total isolationists and expect that we will continue our standard of living or won't be invaded and overrun. Our isolationism allowed for evil to murder its way across Europe and Asia in the 30s and 40s. You think they would have stopped there? Are you kidding? If we button up like we did before, it would absolutely allow evil to flourish. [b]We are the only country in the world with the power and moral fabric to stand in the way of evil. [/b]There is an inherent responsibility that comes with that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] I'm not excusing the attack, only explaining the reasons why it happened and stating that it was intentionally provoked so we could enter the war. Our national policies don't exist in a vacuum of consequence. Much like you have stated in the past here that sometimes someone's freedom of speech invites a punch in the mouth, we invited that particular punch as a pretext for getting into the fight while claiming "he hit me first!" As far as the bolded portion goes, when an honest look is taken at our foreign policy over the last century, who says we haven't become the very evil we sought to fight? Edited September 6, 2014 by Chucktshoes