gbear Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Riggo-toni, 2 clear reasons come to mind: 1) we have been asked to come to Liberia by both the UN and the current government. Thus, we would both improve our image and be able to share costs. 2) the resources it would take are another reason. We are being asked for 2000 troops, though the last I saw we were talking about 1000 troops as part of a UN mission. How many of our troops would it take for the Congo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 The UN is irrelavent. That their current GOvt has asked for help has merit. But the UN ignored our requests for help on purely political basis. Their requests for our help now should fall on deaf ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Yeah but wouldn't it be nice to only be responsible for a fraction of the troops used? IN that sense, the UN has some merit. There's also the factor of UN recognized force goes along way towards legitmising troop presence in the eyes o fmany including those in the places where the troops are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 We need to keep a low profile in the world. This perspective was outdated a century ago. I'm curious: how does the world's only superpower, with the biggest military and economy in the world, "keep a low profile"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Back to the Krauthammer piece for a moment. I think one of his main points in that article is worth noting vis the Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, etc. There IMHO has to be a national interest involved in our intervention. Lack of national interest of some kind beyond "peace on earth and goodwill towards men" makes it that much more difficult to determine what we should do when we get there and how long we should remain. It was part of the problem IMHO even in Vietnam, where opposing communism's spread under the so-called "domino theory" was even still too generalized of a goal. The UN is a human rights organization; the US Military is not. While the military certainly can support a human rights effort, it needs more than that to act and act competently. For that reason, we should always ask "what's in it for us" and not be ashamed for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Redman (or should I say, "well-read man"), the voice of reason :respect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Because they were a threat to our security for one. Add OIL, human rights, strategic base, ignoring ceasefire agreements. The list goes on and on. Other than being a human rights violator, what else has Taylor done to warrant our intervention (that's not saying HR isnt enough on it's own). No they were not an imminent threat to our security! Not true, not true, not true. The rest of your reasons to not provide enough reason for invasion and occupation! That's why I'm not for military action in Liberia either. The Bush administration knew they needed the "security" issue to jusitify the I & O of Iraq, so they made it up. It's really that simple! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog Jack....the reason I have trouble taking you seriously on any of these foreign policy threads is because you can't for a second remove your political hat and analyze a topic with even a shred of fairness or objectivity....you are so predictable it hurts. Even us right wing idealogues (and at least I can 'come clean' and admit my bias up front) acknowledge some self-doubt about the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD's..... I do have some doubts and it concerns me (to a point) that we seem to be somewhat clumsy in our handling of post-conflict Iraq. What I NEVER hear from you is any kind of objectivity related to the Bush Administration and our foreign policy. We know you hate Bush. Great. Wonderful. But how about some substance in place of the pithy one-liners. Had Bush never gone to Africa, you'd be bleating about his lack of concern for non oil-producing countries and how the Republican Party isn't a big tent party afterall. Thats a ridiculous charge, and irrelevant. Its not always about politics....really.... Oh god you used the word "pithy". Hmm I wonder where you got that one? Let me tell you something about Bush. If I thought he had any intention of following through on the monies to Africa, I would give him props. It's not enough to talk the talk. For the record I just said I wasn't for military action in Liberia. If you want me to be more "objective" maybe you can lead the way my friend! This attempt by Chuckie and other right wingers to change the subject to some sort of issue about why the left is for one war and not another is smoke and mirrors and you and others are falling for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Yes they were, Yes they were, yes they were. Why do you think we invaded Iraq then? Oil? If so, where is it? I want my share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by redman Back to the Krauthammer piece for a moment. The UN is a human rights organization; the US Military is not. While the military certainly can support a human rights effort, it needs more than that to act and act competently. For that reason, we should always ask "what's in it for us" and not be ashamed for doing so. And it would be nice if when our government answered the "what's in it for us?" we could trust they were telling the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 So your argument is that we were better off with Saddam in power, eh? Do explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by redman So your argument is that we were better off with Saddam in power, eh? Do explain. Sadly this may be true from an American perspective. Each day as the number of dead Americans increases and the amount of money is wasted trying to force democracy on people who don't want it. Tell me again why we did this? Right now I think it's because Dubya told him to get out of town by sundown and by gosh he ment it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Oh god you used the word "pithy". Hmm I wonder where you got that one? Hey, I've got to throw you a bone once in a while, don't I? Btw...I know you want to pigeonhole me, but I don't watch O'Reilly (don't even particularly like him).... Actually, I'm in agreement that we have no business in Liberia. I don't think 'national interest' is enough. You can argue just about anything is in our national interest (peace worldwide is generally better for our security than is civil war/conflict). But I also think you have to have a plan (with a reasonable chance of success) for what occurs after the @ss-whooping is over....What makes this different from Kosovo is that in Africa the usual alternative once an oppressive regime is removed is either chaos, or another corrupt repressive regime. We might do temporary good in removing a regime, but if it just results in a different evil moving into a vacuum, its not worth American lives just to do 'the right thing'. If we can't succeed in our endeavor to establish a freer, more democratic, and stable alternative regime in post-war Iraq, I'll be right there with you to call it a failure and waste of American lives. But I'm also going to be realistic and give them 2-3 years before I call it a quagmire and failure. PS- thanks for the response....you finally took me off the 'ignore' list? Glad you don't hold a grudge Jack as I always find your takes interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Tarhog, You and I are not too far off. I apply the fears you have for postwar Liberia to Iraq. Both are/would be big mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 but wouldn't this be a great opportunity to get back into the good graces of the UN and world opinion? I thought those were the drivers for foreign policY???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Jack- For the first 200 days after the Nazi surrender in May 1945, we lost on average one soldier per day in Germany due to incidents similar to the things we're now seeing in Iraq. Because the Nazi regime surrendered didn't mean that the fanatics were ready to beat their proverbial swords into plowshares. We spent billions (in 1940's dollars I might add) to rebuild that nation over years. Yet the post-war rebuilding effort in West Germany is considered one of history's greatest and most successful such efforts. I'm curious whether you agree rebuilding Germany was worth it, and also, if so, how you distinguish the present effort in Iraq which you clearly oppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 but wouldn't this be a great opportunity to get back into the good graces of the UN and world opinion? I thought those were the drivers for foreign policY???? No the drivers are the cast of cowboys in the whitehouse. I dare you to cross that line. Go ahead make my day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by redman Jack- For the first 200 days after the Nazi surrender in May 1945, we lost on average one soldier per day in Germany due to incidents similar to the things we're now seeing in Iraq. Because the Nazi regime surrendered didn't mean that the fanatics were ready to beat their proverbial swords into plowshares. We spent billions (in 1940's dollars I might add) to rebuild that nation over years. Yet the post-war rebuilding effort in West Germany is considered one of history's greatest and most successful such efforts. I'm curious whether you agree rebuilding Germany was worth it, and also, if so, how you distinguish the present effort in Iraq which you clearly oppose. I'm for the rebuilding of Iraq now. We don't really have a choice do we. I couldn't tell you if rebuilding Germany was worth it or not. I don't know what would have happened if we didn't. The continued attempt to compare Iraq to Nazi Germany is absurd. I know it's on the GOP talking points but come on. I wonder how many people we lost early on in Vietnam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I at least have a good foundation for comparing Iraq to the Nazi's. And BTW, that you don't know whether the effort to rebuild Germany after WWII was worth it speaks volumes about the limited resources you have to analyze current events. But right back atcha: I love how the left always invokes Vietnam. It's an erroneous comparison, thank God! We invaded Iraq with the specific goal to take out a regime. Vietnam wasn't an invasion. We were welcomed into the South to defend it from the spread of communism. That we were stupid enough to tie our own hands such that we couldn't even bomb the critical sites in the North, much less invade it, was our undoing and led to a military morass that lasted the better part of a decade. The comparison to Nazi Germany makes perfect sense. The Baath party is the Arab world's version of fascism, and Arab nationalist socialism. It's as fanatical and brutal, although thankfully they haven't recreated the Holocaust even taking the mass graves into account. Right now we're fighting people who are fanatically invested in Baathism (which is founded upon extreme anti-Western sentiment) and Iraq's Baath regime. They have nothing to lose, so they come at us. Like Bush said, bring 'em on! It'll allow us to more rapidly stabilize the country if we kill them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 not from where you sit!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.