- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 28,852
- Reaction score
- 18,983
- Location
- SW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Proves Obama has cajones. That's of the utmost importance.What is the strategic value of a "limitted military action" in Syria?
Keeping Syria in a box so that its civil war doesn't cross the borders. We are also sending a message on chemical weapons, they are a no no. Slaughter is okay of course, as long as the oil still flows.What is the strategic value of a "limitted military action" in Syria?
All good reasons to decline the job, and not let anyone else do it either.
Our foreign and military posture is not the source of our financial and fiscal woes.
if we're to be global cop, there needs to be a global tax to pay for it.
The real reason that no action was taken in the congo would be a good start.
Proves Obama has cajones. That's of the utmost importance.
That matters as well. If you promise a spanking then you'd better deliver one, and I'm sure that we will.Proves Obama has cajones. That's of the utmost importance.
It's an enormous portion of it. The US military and Intel budgets are nearly a trillion annually. Iraq alone cost over a trillion. Adding a trillion a year plus ongoing interest to the debt certainly isn't fixing our debt problem. Ignoring the exorbitant cost of our oversized military isn't making an honest assessment of the source of our fiscal woes.
Further, if the law of the world is set by the US President and the US Congress, then everyone on Earth should have a vote in US elections. Otherwise, we're just a massive global oligarchy posing as a democracy.
I'll agree that the dollar cost incurred by our military exploits are far outweighed by entitlements and debt but what about all the lives we have most and all the men that have come home blown all to Hell? Not only that but half the time when we play world cop we do more harm than good. IMO if we are not directly threatened we should stay out of it.
He's in negotiations with Hillary over their whereabouts and what it may cost to ransom them.So far it only proves that Obama talks like he wishes he had them.
What is the strategic value of a "limitted military action" in Syria?
Keeping Syria in a box so that its civil war doesn't cross the borders. We are also sending a message on chemical weapons, they are a no no. Slaughter is okay of course, as long as the oil still flows.
Would that we could just erase Obama's remarks. Some lessons are learned the hard way, though. Most of us share the revulsion at events over there, but the president's remarks put us in a box. Had we taken action a good while back, this might have been avoided.That matters as well. If you promise a spanking then you'd better deliver one, and I'm sure that we will.
Tip the scales and make it easier for Assad to be ousted or at a minimum discourage future use of chemical munitions. On the other end, actually blow up the buying housing Assad.
Other implies a nation you did not list. NO ONE indicates a clear statement that no nation has the right to compel other nations to comply with whatever ideology the policeman feels like enforcing.
None of the above. We should act when our own vital national interests are at stake, and otherwise let the rest of the world take care of itself.
**** with us, we'll smash you to dust; leave us alone, we'll return the favor.
So assinating foreign head's of state is technically wrong but helping others to do so (think Libya) is cool.? Is it OK if China and Russia do this too, since they are "superpowers" as well?
No but again being realistic. I think there has been a history of America "coincidentally" dropping bombs near heads of state. If Assad is "accidentally" hit, I can't imagine that not resulting in an end to the bloodshed. In fact, I'm pretty much expecting Assad to either be killed in the US attack or his location damaged just enough to cause injury and be takes into custody by the opposition. Just watch.
Good points and not what I meant to imply.
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather not see America in this situation but I'm just being realistic in my opinion, with respect to our economy needing the maximum level of stability in the Middle East with the most friends due to the importance oil has over our way of life. If North Korea or the Congo killed 1300 of their own citizens with chemical bombs I'd be willing to be our involvement would be limited to voting for a UN resolution condemning the tyrants. Why? North Korea and the Congo don't have any oil nor are they in the neighborhood with other countries that have oil where instability could spread. This is what we have when we let one commodity own our economic viability and refuse to support getting other options to the place of viability.
1. It isn't a false dilemma because I was responding to a particular poster who made a statement for which my reply was entirely applicable.
2. I find non-interventionism to be fool hardy and morally distasteful.
3. If we only go to places that have "something we want" why did we go to Bosnia? Kosovo? Haiti? Somalia? Hell why Syria? Clearly we are not a kleptocratic leviathan or we'd surely select some better targets.
4. I disagree. I think we do have a corner on the proper form of government. I find that notion that others do not desire democracy to be more racist than claiming that Chinese or Iranian citizens are desirous of a more republican form of government.
5. False. Good ideas and people power do not bring down autocracies. All it would have taken to prevent the collapse of the Mubarak regime would have been a government as ruthless as the one in Tehran or Damascus. The ability to deploy violence and the willingness to do so can perpetuate these dictatorships ad nausum. The collapse of the Soviet Union was in large part brought about because of the pressures exerted by the United States and her allies across the globe, but even then the possibility that violence would have saved the regime was absolutely present. It is why a strong democratic power, the United States, is essential in bringing about a better world.
6. I find the Chinese and Russian system of government to be repugnant and their governments to be moreso. I am not a relativist, I do not care about the equivalence of what a Chinese authoritarian thinks vs. what I think. I'm in this to win.
I read the post you responded to before I made my comment about yours. You did create a false dilemma when you stated "Congo implausible, Syria plausible." Why not the Congo if Syria? What makes Syrian intervention more plausible? Neither situation justifies military intervention, however you just assert one has greater actual value than the other for whatever reasons.
Where do I advocate pure "non-interventionism?" I am willing to intervene militarily when one of our allies is attacked or threatened. That does not mean I support military intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation any more than I would allow another country to intervene militarily in OUR internal affairs.
I have yet to hear a proper justification for your idea that "What’s good for the goose is NOT good for the gander" when it comes to intervention. The argument always seems to be “we are strongest and hold the moral right, therefore we can intervene.” Yet unless you would be willing to allow a more powerful nation to intervene militarily in American internal affairs in support of their ideology, you are preaching hypocrisy.
We were never IN Bosnia. NATO supported two UN resolutions regarding maritime traffic and no fly zones. Our actions were under treaty obligations and consisted of air and naval units. Kosovo was also a NATO mission, the USA is a treaty member of NATO and we honor our treaty obligations. Haiti?? That was humanitarian disaster assistance, which I advocate and support. Somalia? We initially sent troops in to help with humanitarian relief for a population facing starvation caused by drought; the troops were there to protect American relief workers. Of course they were attacked and we got stuck in the mess.
Very noble, and very ethnocentric. In any case, if a people WANT something, they eventually get it. We don’t need to impose it on them.
Umm, I think not. I disagree with your opinion about the fall of the U.S.S.R. entirely. I think it was the EXAMPLE of the USA that eventually led to the popular fall of that government, not any "pressures" we brought to bear militarily. The same is true of Iran under the Shah, he was ruthless but he still fell to a popular rebellion.
It does not matter what you find, they exist in fact. The issue was, if THEY had the power and we did not, how would you feel about their interference. Apparently, you would not be happy or appreciate it. Again, it is utter hubris to think our lifestyle is automatically the best for every culture or society in the world. Still, if it is, they will come to it themselves eventually. People have to make the choice and the effort themselves. We cannot impose it from outside.
Excuse me, but where is the "NO ONE" option? In my opinion NO ONE has the right to be the "world's policeman." Since OTHER is a B/S choice, and none of the rest qualify, I did not vote.
Good afternoon, Sméagol. :2wave:
Didn't Clinton pass on Rwanda? I remember the pictures showing starving dying children, but I guess that's life. Maybe if oil is discovered in Rwanda, their importance to us will change? "Think of the children" doesn't always apply, does it? :bs:
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?