Why we dont invade poor nations?

[dreamingwolf]

My opinion is that poor nations that have little to no worth for whatever reason in the global market do not get our attention not cause we dont care, but cause the backlash of political opposition is too great to garner the worth of intervention. We have become a culture that is so heated by our political dependancies that we can not operate a war excercise without tremendous justifications.

I know all the far leftists will stand up and cheer me saying we should intervene in poor african, south american and asian countries but the truth is if Bush dared to actually do anything there you would hang him as you do in Iraq. The right does the same to the left. This is our problem, and it might be by design. Charge the people to choose a side, make them both believe they are the only correct idea and leave them powerless.

I used to tell my dad political partys are monopolies of the peoples vote, God rest his soul, and I think he agreed with me. I hear things like Republicans are knuckle draggers and Democrats are Pinko commies, well thats true but only of a few of them. Proven by the guy who started a thread about how he is a black man and a Repub and people give him crap about it, all the lefties on the board basically said your only fault is being Repub. This is a problem that is exploited. What happends is a battle ground is created where you hate the other side, and it paralizes the state on doing things that should be done cause they can be raked against the coals by the opposition for things they should have done but can exploited cause there is a hate atmosphere.

If we didnt have this combative political culture our military would be crushing evil souls arround the world whenever they showed their face. However, we insist on picking teams. Saddam and his kin had proved they were not fit to rule and needed to be unseated, please prove me wrong. What did him in was it was worth it to do him in to free up that nation to continue doing business vs the political fall out from doing it. Now do that equation with some african country, it becomes not worth dropping in the polls. Even a democrat president, who generally gets an easier time of things with war lesser protests(post vietnam) and a softer media handling cant engage non return targets.

Comming to the aide of the Albanian annexation of Kosovo, required a direction to our NATO treaty cause it could cause destabilization of our NATO allies. Cant pull that trick in Rwanda or Liberia. We want to help people who are being wronged but we cant without a damn good reason, cause here in America your political opponent will find a way to slaughter you over it.

I think this is why poor nations never see our help, cause we are too greedy with our love of our parties. Parties arent willing to suffer for something that has no strategic value, cause the other party is going to slaughter them either way.

[Fergasun]

So which side do we stop? The world is not as black & white as it was during World War II.

I have a Serbian co-worker who is pissed that American intervened in that war... because both sides were bent on genocide.

[dreamingwolf]

So which side do we stop? The world is not as black & white as it was during World War II.

I have a Serbian co-worker who is pissed that American intervened in that war... because both sides were bent on genocide.

Of course that is the big question. The answer in my opinion if we were able as a Nation to stand as one, is to freeze nations as they are. What is and will be, theres no more annexation theres no more expanding boarders. You have what you have and you work with it.

I had problems with kosovo, taking the UCK or as it was known to those who support the effort the KLA off the terror watch list so we could help them really pissed me off. When we jumped into it though, I said lets get it done.

Problems of genocide is a tough cookie to handle, I contend if we were unified as a Nation then we would settle uprising much faster. They know we are weak willed as a voting group(I was really suprised by Bush winning a second time), and they exploit it. We could sit on a nation that was trying to use genocide and stop it where its at, if we had no appealable side.

I know I know it sounds like Empire, but what Im trying to get across is that if the enemy doesnt have the enemy of the enemys ear we can be more effective.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Is Afghanistan poor?

[Ancalagon the Black]

Dude, you are all over the place with that post.

Why don't we invade poor nations? Here are some reasons:

1. National sovereignty

2. International political backlash

3. Cost-benefit analysis

4. The Constitution

[Prosperity]

My opinion is that poor nations that have little to no worth for whatever reason in the global market do not get our attention not cause we dont care

Wrong. We don't invade those countries not because of a backlash but because we would gain little and likely not solve any fundamental problems. Just like money can't sovle many problem in every Africa, military actions aren't going to solve many problems elsewhere. Somethings are deep seeded and will only heal over time and culutral growth.

Take a look at Iraq, a Muslim, oil producing, middle eastern country, without any current genocide. You would think invading that would have a much greater backlash than invading... say the Sudan... where we would only have a serious backlash from the Saudis, no one else would rally care. Also, in general American foreign policy is not based on doing good, but either maintaining or expanding American influence. To believe anything other than that is naive. I suppose you can say that it we were still riding the sympathy we got from the world because of 9/11, but everyone should have had enough forsight to see the current situation, however you judge it to be, to be what it is now.

This isn't Lord of the Rings things are not so black and white, the Serbs weren't genocidal monsters. The Bosnian Muslims weren't mujahadin terrorist baby killers. There are VERY FEW instances were you can pick one side as being completely just and completely "good." Those instances are usually instances were nations/people are actually invaded/attacked without cause, and even there you can wonder about the causes behind it all. Instead of trying to figure out who is more evil or who is more good, why don't we just do the simplest thing and not committ any evil acts ourselves?

Also, this isn't the Roman Empire, countries today have more sophisticated ways of influencing or outright controlling others thant the simple minded border expansion that certain political groups would like. I think these people are really obsessed with the Roman Empire type of deall where they can actually look at the borders of their country and judge it on that incredibly narrow minded sort of way. I have no respect for this type of thinking. I am not saying this is what you think, but if this thread heads that way, you'll know what my position is on that.

AtB also mentioned really good points, legally and cost benefit.

I am not willing to pay taxes through my nose for wars and nation building all over the place. I also would not be willing to risk our soldiers' lives for that. They pretty much sign away most of their rights to join and they get compensated relatively poorly at that. Anything other than a defensive war would be an insult imo.

[Shallow1]

Is Afghanistan poor?

Shh......don't mention Afghanistan......it ruins the whole "its all about the oil" arguement for everyone......and we can't have that.

[Destino]

This is an interesting thread though I do agree that you did go all over the place. You covered everything from geo-political considerations to so-called liberal bias in the media. I really don’t feel like getting into all of that nonsense but the concept of failed states and what more successful states should do in regards to them intrigues me.

Let me start off with a simple question. Would Haiti be better off if Mexico conquered them?

Haiti is a great example IMO of a failed state. Its government has consistently failed to alleviate poverty and the political unrest turns routinely violent. Mexico is a corrupt state that struggles with poverty, yet it’s government is organized enough and democratic enough to provide some form of order. So then what would ultimately be better for the people of Haiti, the continued clinging to national sovereignty for little more then sovereignty’s sake – or the humiliation of becoming a territory to a larger nation that won’t shower them with economic success but could most likely establish order?

This is purely for discussion – I do not hold the opinion that larger states are justified in bringing back imperialism and conquering all they can.

[Slateman]

What do you mean we don't invade poor nations?!?

Nations invaded by the US in the past 25 years

Lebanon

Grenada

Panama

Saudi Arabia

Kuwait

The Balkans (I can never figure out whats what in that region)

Somalia

Afghanistan

Iraq

So lets see, thats 6 out of 9 countries invaded that are "poor" And to be fair, Iraq was never really rich.

[NattyLight]

Probably the same reason we supply arms to them: to turn a profit in resources, power, or money.

[Thanos]

This is an interesting thread though I do agree that you did go all over the

Let me start off with a simple question. Would Haiti be better off if Mexico conquered them?

Haiti is a great example IMO of a failed state. Its government has consistently failed to alleviate poverty and the political unrest turns routinely violent. Mexico is a corrupt state that struggles with poverty, yet it’s government is organized enough and democratic enough to provide some form of order. So then what would ultimately be better for the people of Haiti, the continued clinging to national sovereignty for little more then sovereignty’s sake – or the humiliation of becoming a territory to a larger nation that won’t shower them with economic success but could most likely establish order?

This is purely for discussion – I do not hold the opinion that larger states are justified in bringing back imperialism and conquering all they can.

Haiti was choked off by America and the west to be a failed state.Can't have the onlly Black run nation in the Americas propering do we? Haiti was set up to fail and every time it takes a step forward its kicked in the teeth by the "powers that be".

Look at the policy of Haitian and Cuban refugees for analysis.

[Leonard Washington]

you lost me on the first sentence

[Thanos]

Examine US foreign policy in regards to Haiti.

[Air Force Cane]

Dreaming Wolf- some of your points are extremely valid. Especially about the fact that our military would be so much stronger if we had real support for them on the left and in the Democratic party. Having Murtha and Dean say literally, "we can not win this war" does not exactly help our military.

on the other hand, in 1993 we did invade the poorest nation in the world: Somalia. Remember?

we invaded Lebanon in 1958 and 1983. not exactly a rich place. South Korea in 1950 not exactly wealthy. Vietnam in the 1960's not exactly wealthy. Grenada 1983, Panama 1989? Bosnia 1996?

Not sure what you are talking about when you say we only invade rich countries. Even Iraq was and still is a THIRD WORLD NATION..

[Ancalagon the Black]

Dreaming Wolf- some of your points are extremely valid. Especially about the fact that our military would be so much stronger if we had real support for them on the left and in the Democratic party.

Give me a break. When Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, Congressional Republicans were screaming about "wagging the dog" and "a cover-up war." This is not a clear right v. left issue.

[Ghost of]

I'm sorry, Somalia was? Granted you could claim that it was a failed state that you are not technically "invading" but you get the point.

The US goes where it's interests and sometimes where outcry has grown and costs are not too high.

Only reason the US didn't get involved in Rwanda was because of some of the negative events in Somalia (some of them being battles that we now realize were part of our war against Islamist terrorism.)

[#98QBKiller]

Give me a break. When Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, Congressional Republicans were screaming about "wagging the dog" and "a cover-up war." This is not a clear right v. left issue.

Exactly. Plus look at the wars of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ all entered the US into war and they all happened to be Democrats. Well maybe not LBJ since Vietnam was just a "conflict." But the point here is that the perception that the left is not in tune with the military is something of a recent label and is not entirely true.

[dreamingwolf]

on the other hand, in 1993 we did invade the poorest nation in the world: Somalia. Remember?

we invaded Lebanon in 1958 and 1983. not exactly a rich place. South Korea in 1950 not exactly wealthy. Vietnam in the 1960's not exactly wealthy. Grenada 1983, Panama 1989? Bosnia 1996?

Not sure what you are talking about when you say we only invade rich countries. Even Iraq was and still is a THIRD WORLD NATION..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/cron.html

To me all of those engagements either fall under fufilling NATO obligations, normal oversight of UN peace programs or protecting global economic interests with the exception of Grenada but thats a special case. Grenada came on the heels of some bad press trying to do a good thing with all the political heat from the other side to match, and Grenada looked like easy pickens and rescuing a bunch of college kids is all good pr.

[dreamingwolf]

Give me a break. When Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, Congressional Republicans were screaming about "wagging the dog" and "a cover-up war." This is not a clear right v. left issue.

while I do agree with you that the Right will use a dem administrations war actions against him, they dont do it quite like the left does. The left has anti-war protest if its a Repub admin you have to admit this, durring clintons forrays if there was an anti-war protest in dc traffic wouldnt be bothered at all.

However, you are right in saying the right is guilty of it too as I also said in my initial post. I think this the reason that unless going to war with a nation has economic or treaty necessities its really not worth the political heat, cause regardless of what you achieve the other side is going to crucify you for it politicaly. So when poor countrys that have nothing of interest are suffering, its just political suicide to help them cause of the way us voters are.

[Seabee1973]

Shh......don't mention Afghanistan......it ruins the whole "its all about the oil" arguement for everyone......and we can't have that.

There are soime that think afghanistan was about oil

[Seabee1973]

What do you mean we don't invade poor nations?!?

Nations invaded by the US in the past 25 years

Lebanon

Grenada

Panama

Saudi Arabia

Kuwait

The Balkans (I can never figure out whats what in that region)

Somalia

Afghanistan

Iraq

So lets see, thats 6 out of 9 countries invaded that are "poor" And to be fair, Iraq was never really rich.

when did we invade sauidi arabia?

[Seabee1973]

I'm sorry, Somalia was? Granted you could claim that it was a failed state that you are not technically "invading" but you get the point.

The US goes where it's interests and sometimes where outcry has grown and costs are not too high.

Only reason the US didn't get involved in Rwanda was because of some of the negative events in Somalia (some of them being battles that we now realize were part of our war against Islamist terrorism.)

Somalia was supposed to be a joint operatioin with the united nations that went way afoul

[dreamingwolf]

Somalia was supposed to be a joint operatioin with the united nations that went way afoul

somalia was a pizza delivery gone awry, we should have gone in there and fixed the war lords from the start.

[Ancalagon the Black]

The left has anti-war protest if its a Repub admin you have to admit this, durring clintons forrays if there was an anti-war protest in dc traffic wouldnt be bothered at all.

There's a contingent on the left that is anti-war no matter what, and a contingent on the right that is pro-war no matter what. I think this explains the difference a bit.

As an interesting aside, check out some tidbits on this anti-war site: http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/yugdemos.htm#CA

Excerpt:

Madeleine Albright: Wanted for War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Colombia. and more....Dear Friends, Madeleine Albright has been invited to speak at UC Berkeley's Senior Convocation on Wednesday, May 10. Join us Weds., May 10 to Denounce the Appearance of US War Criminal Madeleine Albright at this event.

[twist]

Here is your pragmatic guide to the United States foreign policy for the past 50 years or so.

Poor nations have nothing we want. :laugh:

The cost of a literal empire is extraordinary, and it is unsustainable, as the locals usually chafe under foreign leadership (see Brittan).

If they do have something we want, a more efficient way to get it is to mess with them economically, by say loaning them "development money" and thus owning and influencing the resources in sed country. It is much more efficient, and doesn’t generally make anyone mad but the people who were going to be mad anyway. We also mess with poor countries politically by say, propping up dictators, and leaders that are, for the most part, friendly to our foreign interests, and can keep the resources flowing.

It’s the difference between the bank loaning you money and having you pay them back, and then using their influence to get you to do what they want (in a quazi mafia sort of way) rather than hiring armed guards to storm your house and take it.

Invasion is a very costly last resort, and usually takes some sort of justification. And, when everything is said and done, it is simply most often times cheaper to buy the resource you wanted in the first place.