Why we dont invade poor nations?

[dreamingwolf]

we both know there are cabals that always want US leaders imprisoned for whatever. One thing is clear though that you artfully dodge, the democrats who are pacifists under Republican administrations were quite durring Clintons wars and for good reason, they are only anti-war when its not their America fighting it. They will defend their quite with well Bush lied or Iraq was not a danger, but hell the same can be said about kosovo. Clinton took a terror group off the books to help them in their annexation of kosovo, but i supported the effort cause really our NATO allies needed something to be done slobo was dumping albainians on all our NATO allies and it was just gonna lead to a big mess.

There was no threat, we were on the wrong side of an ugly fight, but we had to intervene for the wrong team. given those parameters matched to Iraq, Iraq is way on the positive side of a good reason to do something. yet the left marched along with their lives waving their flags, but as soon as a Republican America goes to war they are up in arms at every corner. This is my point.

I wish I could find the words of some pacifist professor who I found that had a page up all about how distraught he was he wasnt able to find people to protest the war in kosovo. Your right, people find it convient to be against war when it fits their political agenda like the site you linked. I doubt they are ever in favor of any US war cause they thats how they make their money, protesting. They must not spend it well though check out their home page http://www.iacenter.org/ that is abysimal. You would think some artists would help them but I guess they are too far out there for even the artists.

Groups like that arent what Im talking about, Im talking about core party members here in the states who oppose an action purely cause its not their party doing it. I can understand zoning, road work all kinds of other domestic crap, but when it comes to a fight being waged thats what prevents us from doing things we are either forced to do by treaty obligation or one that even though it might hurt you politically its worth it. The good samaritian law doesnt apply in the political arena and thats why we cant make war solely to be a good samaritian. Sounds like an oxy moron, make war to be a good samaritian but when your dealing with warlords hacking the limbs off people it makes sense.

[Slateman]

when did we invade sauidi arabia?

Operation Desert Shield. Coalition forces were stationed there to deter any further advancement of Iraqi forces. Ok, technically its not an "invasion"

[Ancalagon the Black]

One thing is clear though that you artfully dodge, the democrats who are pacifists under Republican administrations were quite durring Clintons wars and for good reason, they are only anti-war when its not their America fighting it.

I don't think I am dodging it. I am agreeing with your point that most people support wars that are convenient for their side politically. I was trying to explain the apparent disparity in the protests between Clinton's war and Bush's war. If Bush came out tomorrow and said "We will not invade or attack Iran," people like chomerics would be off the wall while nelms' brain would probably explode.

[dreamingwolf]

ok I think what your saying on both sides theres small groups when it comes to war, theres anything America does is bad on the left and nationalists on the right. I think thats fair, and like you said agreeing with my point. Atleast your acknowledging that democrats only come out against war when its their political rivals war.

[TradeTheBeal!]

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

Afghanistan will be pipeline territory. This is no secret.

[Shallow1]

Afghanistan will be pipeline territory. This is no secret.

Yea,yea,....thats a long way off if it ever can happen safely...and they will not become a "Rich" nation beacuse of a pipeline.

[Prosperity]

I don't think I am dodging it. I am agreeing with your point that most people support wars that are convenient for their side politically. I was trying to explain the apparent disparity in the protests between Clinton's war and Bush's war. If Bush came out tomorrow and said "We will not invade or attack Iran," people like chomerics would be off the wall while nelms' brain would probably explode.

:laugh: good stuff

[chomerics]

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.

That is because we didn't send 100,000 troops to Kosovo or Somalia, and neither was a "war". If either was, you bet your behind the right wouold have been screaming bloody murder about it, they were using the SAME EXACT talking points about Kosovo, yet they are a LOT more valid now, and they say nothing.

The left does the same, but to come out and say that the right is "better" (which is what you implied) is incorrect.

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.

And if your premise was correct, it would keep us out of wars right? I mean if the other side would use it as "ammunition" (pun intended) to unseat the party in power, then it wouldn't make much sense for war would it? Why then do we constantly find ourselves fighting battles overseas?

The Military Industrial Coomplex is a machine that needs to be fed, and in a simplistic version, that is why we have wars.

[Darth Tater]

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.

The default position of the ideological right was generally anti-war until WW2 and even to some extent until the current administration though in the late 50s, many on the right fell for the red scare so you saw a growth in the pro-war right-wing crowd; again in the late 60s another large growth in the pro-war crowd on the right when a lot of what is now called the neo-cons left the Democrats and again in the 80s when even more of those who planted the neo-con ideology left the Dems.

[chomerics]

I don't think I am dodging it. I am agreeing with your point that most people support wars that are convenient for their side politically. I was trying to explain the apparent disparity in the protests between Clinton's war and Bush's war. If Bush came out tomorrow and said "We will not invade or attack Iran," people like chomerics would be off the wall while nelms' brain would probably explode.

Sorry Ancal, but if Bush came out tomorrow and said he was not going to invade or attack Iran, I would applaude him, I would not be off the wall. If he does something right, I do agree with him. Hey, it is not my fault he constantly choses the wrong action and or policy.

[Air Force Cane]

so let me get this straight.

the premise is that we never invade poor countries. Then when I list at least 6 poor countries we invaded in the last 55 years- you claim that we only did it for "other reasons"?!!

why don't you list the RICH countries we have invaded, then compare it to the poor nations?

should we be going to war against France then instead of North Korea? Maybe the fact that tyrranical dictatorships are usually poor whereas western oriented democracies are rich have something to do with it?

[Shallow1]

so let me get this straight.

the premise is that we never invade poor countries. Then when I list at least 6 poor countries we invaded in the last 55 years- you claim that we only did it for "other reasons"?!!

why don't you list the RICH countries we have invaded, then compare it to the poor nations?

should we be going to war against France then instead of North Korea? Maybe the fact that tyrranical dictatorships are usually poor whereas western oriented democracies are rich have something to do with it?

"other reasons",......come on AFC you know the men in Afgahnistan should have been allowed to contuinually beat there wives and keep women from having any value, rights or a vote in society, oh and the whole pipeline angle too, the Libs are right on this one. I hear all the piles of $$$ that Afghanistan used to have laying around in used Old Navy bags that used to go to poor nations and fund aids reseach in Africa is all gone now due to the US invasion

[Baculus]

We used to invade poor countries more often in the early part of the 20th century - these were the so-called "Banana Wars." These are some of the wars that Smedley Butler wrote about in "War is a Racket."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banana_Wars

I suppose we can break down the U.S., and its involvement with smaller nations, into perhaps several recent phases, something such as:

Pre-World War I power; regional power-->World War I; expanded sphere of influence as a developing world power-->World Power; World War II-->Cold War; "brush fire" wars-->Post Soviet World Power--->Post 9-11, "War on Terrorism."