Poverty equals terrorist breeding ground. No two ways about that. Terrorists prey on the poor because the poor have nowhere else to turn. That is why we have continually poured money into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, etc because we think the better the population lives, the less likely they are to accept the quick money terrorists offer.I'm not sure I follow, you are saying the isolation of Saddam Hussein and the sanctions created a breeding ground for terrorism? Possibly, and I'm not supporter of the kind of sanctions we put on Saddam, it only ends up hurting the lower classes and orders of society, for the most part at least. Which is why military intervention is preferable. But lets accept the premise anyways. Even if what we did incited Osama bin Laden to attack the US, or our intervention in Kuwait did, or our positioning of troops in the Gulf did-- I don't care. Because I judge a foreign policy decision on its merits, not on whether a fundamentalist crusader thinks it is immoral. I'm not going to let OBL and his affiliates dictate US policy.
Democracy cannot be forced my friend. No matter how bad we want it to spread, people have to want it. That is why our country has been so successful and others have not. We wanted what we have. Afghani people could care less about a central gov't, fire/police services, or voting. They just want to be left alone to farm. Iraqi people don't want it. They could care less. They just want the economy of a free nation. Their politicians want it because they get rich. Further, you base your entire theory of "advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability" off of the US engaging in further intervention operations. I submit they we should pull back more and not be so quick to invade another country simply because we don't like what they do. What if China didn't like what we do? What if they didn't like that we allow people to have children at their whim? What if they invaded us so that they could erradicate "useless" children to lower the global population? That may seem right to them. Not to us.Secondly yes we do have the right and the interest to intervene in other countries internal affairs, and we should do so aggressively. It allows for the creation of much more advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability by assisting the spread of democracy where possible. Furthermore you refuse a moral foreign policy objective with an absolutist one. We act when it is possible for us to do so, and in the most advantageous way possible. It does not make sense for example to invade Saudi Arabia, when the better option available to us for a variety of reasons is to work through the al-Saud as means for effecting reform and securing regional stability through strong allies.
If they did care, we'd be there already. We'd have been there a long time ago. In addition, if you think a lot of people care about Syria or it's people, take a look at this poll I started awhile back.I also disagree that no politicians care about dead kids in Syria. Just because you don't care doesn't make it the norm.
President Threatens Military Response Against Against Any Use of the Banned Arms
'WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama threatened military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if his forces attempt to use chemical or biological weapons, the strongest indication yet Mr. Obama would consider intervening in the grinding conflict.
The president's message appeared aimed at signaling to Mr. Assad that an American military option is open, but U.S. officials hoped the threat would be enough to dissuade the Syrian leader from using such weapons.'
Obama Warns Syria on Chemical Weapons - WSJ.com
Poverty equals terrorist breeding ground. No two ways about that. Terrorists prey on the poor because the poor have nowhere else to turn. That is why we have continually poured money into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, etc because we think the better the population lives, the less likely they are to accept the quick money terrorists offer.
Military intervention solves nothing. We are not trained to do that crap. We are trained to kill people, take objectives, etc. Not negotiate public works contracts, status of forces agreements, etc. It is the equivalent of putting an assembly line worker on an IT project. Thats why you see guys peeing on people and throwing Qurans out. We get tired of helping people out that decide to blow us up the next time we come around to check on how that new well we put in for them is working. Those people are like that slut girlfriend you can't get enough of. She gives up what you want so you will buy her more crap. Then, she does the same thing for some other guy. But for some reason, even though you know that, you still keep going back. Unfortunately, in our case, we are made to keep going back instead of choosing to.
That fundamentalist crusader you speak of fought on OUR side during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Complete with American funding. We screwed him over when we cut off funding we had promised to him. Further, we shoved he and his freedom fighters out of the way so that we could fight the Iraqi's during Desert Storm. A fight we should have left to him seeing as he is Saudi himself. That's what intervention gets you. We make "friends" with the Saudi's but gain thousands of enemies.
Democracy cannot be forced my friend. No matter how bad we want it to spread, people have to want it. That is why our country has been so successful and others have not. We wanted what we have. Afghani people could care less about a central gov't, fire/police services, or voting. They just want to be left alone to farm. Iraqi people don't want it. They could care less. They just want the economy of a free nation. Their politicians want it because they get rich. Further, you base your entire theory of "advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability" off of the US engaging in further intervention operations. I submit they we should pull back more and not be so quick to invade another country simply because we don't like what they do. What if China didn't like what we do? What if they didn't like that we allow people to have children at their whim? What if they invaded us so that they could erradicate "useless" children to lower the global population? That may seem right to them. Not to us.
If they did care, we'd be there already. We'd have been there a long time ago. In addition, if you think a lot of people care about Syria or it's people, take a look at this poll I started awhile back.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/124231-should-america-deploy-troops-syria.html
Who do you think makes up the majority of terrorist groups? The wealthy may lead them, but they do not make up the majority of them. Further, there are much more "fighters and gunmen" than there are suicide bombers. I would love to see where you pull these beliefs from. Despite popular belief, ideology only goes so far. You are not going to get a lot of rich guys to blow themselves up simply because they believe in something. They have something to live for. If you are speaking of an international, intricate plan like 9/11, sure those guys are middle class and educated. A poor imbecile couldn't pull that off. But how many of those attacks occur? Not many. If we are speaking of the local attacks on troops, in the Phillipines, or in Iraq now they are almost always poor.1. Terrorism is an extremely complex thing, and reducing it to poverty is a simplification. For example the bulk of those who join international terrorist groups tend to be middle class or wealthy, while those who join indigenous ones are more diverse in their socioeconomic background. Even amongst those groups however, suicide bombers tend to come from decently educated and wealthy backgrounds, while fighters and gunmen tend to be poorer.
And we did not nation build in any of those countries, Bosnia and Kosovo are still terrorist havens, and Libya is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood and local militias.Moving beyond that point of course military intervention can solve things, and it has solved numerous things in the past. We were successful in Bosnia, Libya, and Kosovo just to name a few recent examples.
These are very different theaters than the ones you name above. In fact, polar opposite theaters. Further, we never put hundreds of thousands of troops in the above 3 countries for years on end. Afghanistan is a lost cause. It's not happening. No country has ever been able to turn them away from their ways and we won't either. Iraq could be good, but they will choose not to be.We have the potential to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan if we choose to.
Bin Laden was anything if thankful for us funding fellow mujahideen groups. Then, we decided we were done with those people and left them hanging on empty promises. He may not have gotten a lot of funding from us, but it didn't matter because we cut it off to everyone fighting with him effectively ending his campaign.Furthermore you are wrong when you say Bin Laden was on 'our' side or that we funded him. We had no contact with Bin Laden, most of his funds came from Arab donors not ISI conduits, and he did not lash out because his funding was caught off.
And we still could have bought it. So what? No major oil provider, to include the US hating Iranians or Venezuelans, is going to cut off their best customer just because they don't like them. Money talks louder than ideology.More to the point **** Bin Laden, I don't give a damn if he thinks it was terrible that he wasn't given the opportunity to fight Saddam on his own, it was delusional and would have meant that more than 1/4th of the worlds crude and gas production would have been brought under Saddam's heel.
They don't desire it! If they did, they would fight for it like we did. That's the point. Your belief is the equivalent to me walking up to someone who has never had ice cream and making them eat ice cream. I know it's good but they don't because they've never had it. As good as it is, they will still never like it because all they see is me holding them down on the floor and shoving ice cream down their throat. Afghani's just want to be left alone and so do Iraqi's. You can fall for the picture of the woman with ink on her fingers all you want. Iraqi's want money, technology, and western culture and they will give up freedom to get those things.2. Which is why I disagree with your premise. I do not believe we are forcing democracy, we are enabling those who desire democracy to have it.
And yet they have the old method. As soon as we left the country Al-Maliki started rounding up all of politicians who opposed him and putting them in jail. Sounds familiar. No uproar over that.Despite the violence in Iraq for example massive majorities support their new democracy and abhor a return to the old method of governance.
LOL! What strong majority? Where is this mystical strong majority you speak of? Iraq had a majority that wanted Al Qaeda out. I saw that firsthand. Afghanistan? They side with whoever they think will win that day.Likewise in Afghanistan strong majorities oppose the Taliban and support democratic rule.
You believe your approach is superior and more moral? Who are you that you think that not only is your approach superior and more moral, but that you also have the right to shove down anyone else's throat you see fit?I'm sure China could imagine that it doesn't like some aspect of our policy. I believe my approach is superior and more moral, if they want to fight about that (and they do) we can have that fight. It does nothing to diminish my perspective.
Geo-strategic importance only applies if you are attempting to colonize the world or set up an empire. If you are speaking of a global oil market, see my comment above about us being the #1 customer.Moreover the geo-strategic importance of the Caucuses, Central Asia, the Middle East, etc is undeniable, and our activities will better support our aspirations in the future.
People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.3. I don't really care what an internet forum poll says. Aside from being completely unscientific, with certain demographics massively over-represented, it doesn't come close to addressing the point I made.
Who do you think makes up the majority of terrorist groups? The wealthy may lead them, but they do not make up the majority of them. Further, there are much more "fighters and gunmen" than there are suicide bombers. I would love to see where you pull these beliefs from. Despite popular belief, ideology only goes so far. You are not going to get a lot of rich guys to blow themselves up simply because they believe in something. They have something to live for. If you are speaking of an international, intricate plan like 9/11, sure those guys are middle class and educated. A poor imbecile couldn't pull that off. But how many of those attacks occur? Not many. If we are speaking of the local attacks on troops, in the Phillipines, or in Iraq now they are almost always poor.
And we did not nation build in any of those countries, Bosnia and Kosovo are still terrorist havens, and Libya is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood and local militias.
These are very different theaters than the ones you name above. In fact, polar opposite theaters. Further, we never put hundreds of thousands of troops in the above 3 countries for years on end. Afghanistan is a lost cause. It's not happening. No country has ever been able to turn them away from their ways and we won't either. Iraq could be good, but they will choose not to be.
Bin Laden was anything if thankful for us funding fellow mujahideen groups. Then, we decided we were done with those people and left them hanging on empty promises. He may not have gotten a lot of funding from us, but it didn't matter because we cut it off to everyone fighting with him effectively ending his campaign.
And we still could have bought it. So what? No major oil provider, to include the US hating Iranians or Venezuelans, is going to cut off their best customer just because they don't like them. Money talks louder than ideology.
They don't desire it! If they did, they would fight for it like we did. That's the point. Your belief is the equivalent to me walking up to someone who has never had ice cream and making them eat ice cream. I know it's good but they don't because they've never had it. As good as it is, they will still never like it because all they see is me holding them down on the floor and shoving ice cream down their throat. Afghani's just want to be left alone and so do Iraqi's. You can fall for the picture of the woman with ink on her fingers all you want. Iraqi's want money, technology, and western culture and they will give up freedom to get those things.
And yet they have the old method. As soon as we left the country Al-Maliki started rounding up all of politicians who opposed him and putting them in jail. Sounds familiar. No uproar over that.
LOL! What strong majority? Where is this mystical strong majority you speak of? Iraq had a majority that wanted Al Qaeda out. I saw that firsthand. Afghanistan? They side with whoever they think will win that day.
You believe your approach is superior and more moral? Who are you that you think that not only is your approach superior and more moral, but that you also have the right to shove down anyone else's throat you see fit?
Geo-strategic importance only applies if you are attempting to colonize the world or set up an empire. If you are speaking of a global oil market, see my comment above about us being the #1 customer.
People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.
8. I do think it is superior and moral, and I'm a rational individual using my arguments and my pulpit as an American citizen to advocate it. Yes I'm willing to spread it by force and topple regimes that oppose it.
Outstanding reply, imo.
Geo-strategic importance only applies if you are attempting to colonize the world or set up an empire. If you are speaking of a global oil market, see my comment above about us being the #1 customer.
People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.
At what price?
How many innocent Syrian civilians are you willing to kill in collateral damage to topple Assad? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice?
And if you are willing to have Americans die to spread your moral superiority - are you willing to give your life to topple Assad?
People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.
Obama said if Syria (Assad) uses chemical weapons he would pay the price. Is that OK with you if Obama then go in and takes out the Assad regime?
Rather than saying people don't care, we know Obama don't care, there is no oil in Syria. Obama did go into Libya only because of oil.
Iran is fixing to dump Syria because the writing is on the wall... Assad is on his way out.. and the issue has been largely a joint effort of Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I am glad Obama didn't jump in... It has to be MORE important to the players than it is to the US.
Meanwhile, the Secular Liberals in Libya beat out the Muslim Brotherhood in July elections.
I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion. The Iranian government has been doing anything but reversing its support of Assad, and has in fact begun to send actual troops and advisers openly for the first time in an effort to beat back the rebels. I'd also seriously contest that the Gulf States or their Turkish interlocutors have done all that much (as yet) for the FSA, and that it centers around US unwillingness.
Rather than saying people don't care, we know Obama don't care, there is no oil in Syria. Obama did go into Libya only because of oil.
In the ME, the power brokers rarely talk.. but as of today Iran is looking for a way to disengage from Syria because Assad is a lost cause.
In the past 3 weeks Adahminejah visited with King Abdullaah in Arabia and the Deputy Foreign Minister from Arabia is in Iran as we speak.
Lots of phone calls and I have NO doubt they are talking with Obama.
I'm familiar, but it would be wrong to say this was positive for Iran. In fact most analysis has been that this was utterly disastrous. First you had the embarrassment at the NAM meeting in Tehran where Mursi openly declared his support for the Syrian opposition and castigated Iran, all while Saudi and Qatari delegates watch with glee and proceeded to issue a joint statement. The Iranian diplomatic ventures have not been an attempt to engage Washington, they have been an attempt to try and show the West that Iran is not diplomatically isolated.
The invitation to Ahmadinejad may be a final effort in the highly personal sphere of Saudi internal politics to convince them to withdraw their support for Assad and relent on their nuclear program---I highly doubt it. It is more likely an effort of public conciliation, before the deluge of the coming fall campaigns in Syria which will require more support from the Gulf states and hopefully the US. After the November elections in America, they will be looking aggressively to deliver some heavy blows. Bringing Iranian envoys to Riyadh now makes a bit of sense.
Obama said if Syria (Assad) uses chemical weapons he would pay the price. Is that OK with you if Obama then go in and takes out the Assad regime?
No, it's not.
Syria's civil war is no one's business but Syria's.
Just as the U.S. civil war was no one's business but America's.
Hey, solid point Kane. Great substance to your counterpoint.You could not be more wrong about the wars. Your friend Sherman is way off as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?