Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 127

Thread: Syria crisis: France raises use of force(edited)

  1. #101
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Al-Queda is absolutely fractured and beyond crippled. Has been for years. Never believe an Intel report that plays it safe. If the CIA reported how wrecked the Al-Queda network is and the next day an attack occurs somewhere in the world with individuals claiming Al-Queda influence, then people would get fired and the CIA got ridiculed in the media. These type reports released to the public are always inaccurate and will always play it safe. It's always better to predict failure and to be wrong then predict success and be wrong.
    Oh, while I don't consider any of it the gospel, I would be wary of being too confident, and not only for the reasons you note above. I would also add that actions other than the invasions likely hurt them more.


    Bush's rational was for the public because like so many other things, the public needs a simple answer to deal with a complex issue. Spreading Democracy creates an environment where issues like "terrorism" are more manageable. Nobody ever stated that all terrorism will end when people vote. This was always a false argument used by the Left because they didn't have the creativity to actually make arguments about the whole affair. And today we see Conservatives doing the same thing against Obama.
    Yes, it was for the public, thus less than truthful. A lie if you will.

    But I don't believe it makes in more manageable. In fact, the opposite. Freedom, freedom of movement, of association, privacy, all of that makes management more difficult and not less. So, I don't think freedom helps is in terms of terrorism. it may help in other areas, but not terrorism.

    As for think tanks, you're right. I noted myself that it wasn't the gospel. It just made more sense than the rationale given to the public. I was not arguing they had it down or had inside information.

    I also think words like necessary and last resort have actual meanings. Choice is a different word with a different meaning. To our favor, doesn't mean necessary. Just because something might work to our favor (or not as it too often turns out) cannot really be argued as necessary. War is serious business. Asking young men and women to die is serious. The standard for saying it is necessary should be high. There is something called just war theory, and that type of rationale, as a standard works better than ad hoc efforts. Having a standard, having core values, these help us when faced with more difficult choices. It also prevents us from trying to contort language into meanings the words don't mean, and unreasonable into reasonable.





    I don't know what I am.
    Well, I'm not one to judge for you. But I think too contorting is being done to twist anything into counting. I don't think anything in the constitution supports aggression or imperialism. I would be interested in either showing it to me in the constitution, or showing how our actions were not aggressive, and not imperialistic. After all, our interests does not mean those countries attacked us. The fact is we invaded and conquered two countries and neither attacked us.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #102
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,005

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Oh, while I don't consider any of it the gospel, I would be wary of being too confident, and not only for the reasons you note above. I would also add that actions other than the invasions likely hurt them more.
    Absolutely. The invasion was to wreck their host base. The real damage came from military and CIA work outside of Afghanistan and around the globe. But drama likes an invasion so that's what the media clings to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    Yes, it was for the public, thus less than truthful. A lie if you will.
    Sure. I'll give you that. But I accept lying if it allows our leaders to maneuver around this media hostile world in order to protect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    But I don't believe it makes in more manageable. In fact, the opposite. Freedom, freedom of movement, of association, privacy, all of that makes management more difficult and not less. So, I don't think freedom helps is in terms of terrorism. it may help in other areas, but not terrorism.
    I don't understand how you can't believe this. There is no coincidence that the only region on earth that hosts thousands of terrorist organizations throughout also lingers in oppression and dictatorship. On the other hand, while there are individual terrorists here and there in the West looking to be a douche, there are hardly any terrorist organizations rallying and preaching military reactions from the populations over fueled hatreds. he closest we have is a political Party preaching venom through a microphone that may or may not be elected. The grand difference is that one part of the world has a political outlet to air out grievances, while the other has no political outlet other than to coup, rebel, or terrorize. Throw God into the mix and you begin to breed Apocalyptic Terrorists and their organizations. And given the social and environmental troubles of this region (lack of education, lack of fresh water per capita, economic ruin, etc.) only democracy has proven in history to be able to deal with these matters. I believe a democracy allows for everything to be manageable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I also think words like necessary and last resort have actual meanings. Choice is a different word with a different meaning. To our favor, doesn't mean necessary. Just because something might work to our favor (or not as it too often turns out) cannot really be argued as necessary. War is serious business. Asking young men and women to die is serious. The standard for saying it is necessary should be high. There is something called just war theory, and that type of rationale, as a standard works better than ad hoc efforts. Having a standard, having core values, these help us when faced with more difficult choices. It also prevents us from trying to contort language into meanings the words don't mean, and unreasonable into reasonable.
    I think these terms merely allow politicians to convince the public that they are legitimate in their choices. "War as a last resort" isn't a resort. It's their failure. But like I have stated, we have engaged in combat with enemies, far more over economic security than as an act to physically defend America. How do you convince a public that conflict is necessary if you weren's attacked? Most can't seem to fathom how their local store gets stocked with food. It all needs resources that comes from all over the world. Imagine a war with China. Militarily we would be fine, but our two nations would be crippled because of the inability to protect economy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    Well, I'm not one to judge for you.
    You are an American citizen, trusting people to go forth and represent you without hacking the heads off of foriegners. I would say that gives you license to ask questions, express opinions, and demand professionalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But I think too contorting is being done to twist anything into counting. I don't think anything in the constitution supports aggression or imperialism. I would be interested in either showing it to me in the constitution, or showing how our actions were not aggressive, and not imperialistic. After all, our interests does not mean those countries attacked us. The fact is we invaded and conquered two countries and neither attacked us.
    Exactly my point. Without being physically attacked, Americans can't fathom the need to preserve global order. And we learned real fast in our history that the instability of foreign regions directly affects our way of life. It began with the Spanish~American War and has thus far taken us up to the invasion of Iraq. None of this is as simple as 1+1=2. And rememeber, nothing we have done in our history has been about a single country. It has always been about the region. You have to throw all kinds of curveballs, smiley faces, and division signs to identify how a foreign empire cracking down on a neighbor's ability to produce rubber affects coal miners in Western Virginia. Or going to war to invade Libya over pirates because our new nation can't afford to pay ransoms in order to get our goods through a sea zone. And I know you don't like it, but if our trades weren't being so adversely affected, Roosevelt would have had to use bigger words than "democracy and freedom" to get us into Europe.

    Oil, as I'm sure you would agree, is vastly important to the entire world. We know that Russians were a huge factor in defeating Germany, but many don't realize that it was the Brits that strangled Germany of their oil import. The inability to continue manufacturing their military was huge to the war effort. The Soviets immediately sought to control the oil fields in the Middle East after the World War. This began our Cold War dictator party in the region. Most of the Cold War was really about preventing the Soviet Union with the resources to produce vast miltaries. And our relationships with the leaders of the Middle East today absolutely had everyting to do with ridding them of their thorn in Iraq who proved that he was determined to be a belligerent well into his old age. We need the oil to flow. Our nation (and the world) runs on it. But if we can do it without the use of dictators then we should because that is what we are supposed to do as a nation that preaches democracy and higher moral authority. We fail everytime we have an opportunity to get rid of them. And we fail because people automatically fall back on "but, we weren't attacked."
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-01-12 at 06:30 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #103
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Absolutely. The invasion was to wreck their host base. The real damage came from military and CIA work outside of Afghanistan and around the globe. But drama likes an invasion so that's what the media clings to.
    Yes drama sells, but let's not forget cost. The invasion cost, a lot. Especially in Iraq where there really wasn't any such base.


    Sure. I'll give you that. But I accept lying if it allows our leaders to maneuver around this media hostile world in order to protect.
    You're one of the few.



    I don't understand how you can't believe this. There is no coincidence that the only region on earth that hosts thousands of terrorist organizations throughout also lingers in oppression and dictatorship. On the other hand, while there are individual terrorists here and there in the West looking to be a douche, there are hardly any terrorist organizations rallying and preaching military reactions from the populations over fueled hatreds. he closest we have is a political Party preaching venom through a microphone that may or may not be elected. The grand difference is that one part of the world has a political outlet to air out grievances, while the other has no political outlet other than to coup, rebel, or terrorize. Throw God into the mix and you begin to breed Apocalyptic Terrorists and their organizations. And given the social and environmental troubles of this region (lack of education, lack of fresh water per capita, economic ruin, etc.) only democracy has proven in history to be able to deal with these matters. I believe a democracy allows for everything to be manageable.
    The region house them even where there is democracy, even where we have allies. Iraq for example had them relatively under control. We've had a difficult time. And democracy in Brittian didn't slow terrorism. I think you're looking at the wrong factor for the problem. There is no proven history that shows democracy deals with this problem. This is one of the major misconcoptions people hold on this issue.

    I think these terms merely allow politicians to convince the public that they are legitimate in their choices. "War as a last resort" isn't a resort. It's their failure. But like I have stated, we have engaged in combat with enemies, far more over economic security than as an act to physically defend America. How do you convince a public that conflict is necessary if you weren's attacked? Most can't seem to fathom how their local store gets stocked with food. It all needs resources that comes from all over the world. Imagine a war with China. Militarily we would be fine, but our two nations would be crippled because of the inability to protect economy.
    I think we have always been wron to engage only over economic issues. And while I agree with what we need, we have to right to think of what others have as ours. No more than I can think what is at market here is mine, and thus go take it, we should not take from others what we don't negotiate.

    You are an American citizen, trusting people to go forth and represent you without hacking the heads off of foriegners. I would say that gives you license to ask questions, express opinions, and demand professionalism.
    I agree, but I think I meant that on a more personal level.

    Exactly my point. Without being physically attacked, Americans can't fathom the need to preserve global order. And we learned real fast in our history that the instability of foreign regions directly affects our way of life. It began with the Spanish~American War and has thus far taken us up to the invasion of Iraq. None of this is as simple as 1+1=2. And rememeber, nothing we have done in our history has been about a single country. It has always been about the region. You have to throw all kinds of curveballs, smiley faces, and division signs to identify how a foreign empire cracking down on a neighbor's ability to produce rubber affects coal miners in Western Virginia. Or going to war to invade Libya over pirates because our new nation can't afford to pay ransoms in order to get our goods through a sea zone. And I know you don't like it, but if our trades weren't being so adversely affected, Roosevelt would have had to use bigger words than "democracy and freedom" to get us into Europe.

    Oil, as I'm sure you would agree, is vastly important to the entire world. We know that Russians were a huge factor in defeating Germany, but many don't realize that it was the Brits that strangled Germany of their oil import. The inability to continue manufacturing their military was huge to the war effort. The Soviets immediately sought to control the oil fields in the Middle East after the World War. This began our Cold War dictator party in the region. Most of the Cold War was really about preventing the Soviet Union with the resources to produce vast miltaries. And our relationships with the leaders of the Middle East today absolutely had everyting to do with ridding them of their thorn in Iraq who proved that he was determined to be a belligerent well into his old age. We need the oil to flow. Our nation (and the world) runs on it. But if we can do it without the use of dictators then we should because that is what we are supposed to do as a nation that preaches democracy and higher moral authority. We fail everytime we have an opportunity to get rid of them. And we fail because people automatically fall back on "but, we weren't attacked."
    But that oil isn't ours. What feeds terrorism to a large degree is that we think it is. We behave like it is. So, while you may get a majority willing to forsake any moral notion of right and wrong, that only means they lack a moral center, and that as a nation, we lack one as well. I believe those countries need us and much as wee need them. There has to be a way other than war, and you are right, it is a failure if war is what we do.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #104
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Syria crisis: France raises use of force(edited)

    IMO, if France feels military intervention in Syria is in France's national interest, France can pursue that course. However, I do not believe the Security Council should authorize military intervention in a de facto civil war. Certainly, I don't believe the U.S. should be involved. No major U.S. interests are at stake and no neighboring U.S. allies have requested U.S. intervention.

    Right now, a cruel authoritarian regime is confronted by elements whose pursuit of power may well have much more to do with removing the minority Alawite regime from power than any of its claims toward liberal values. Regime change does not assure an immediate dawn of a democratic era. At the same time, it can impact the balance of power in a fashion that promotes regional instability.

  5. #105
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,005

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Yes drama sells, but let's not forget cost. The invasion cost, a lot. Especially in Iraq where there really wasn't any such base.
    That's because Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Queda and everything to do with the Middle East and the future. In the big picture, Al-Queda is only a symptom of a larger disease.



    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You're one of the few.
    I think I'm just more bold about my honesty out loud. Most people have a very high moral opinion of themselves and they project that outward. What they don't acknowledge is that much of that high moral code comes from convenience. I always feel like a liar or a hypocrit if I don't acknowledge that. It's easy to call the leader of the free world, with billions of people weighing on his shoulders, a liar. It makes the accusor feel larger. As long as the man's not "criminal" in his maneuvering I believe he is doing what is necessary.





    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The region house them even where there is democracy, even where we have allies. Iraq for example had them relatively under control. We've had a difficult time. And democracy in Brittian didn't slow terrorism. I think you're looking at the wrong factor for the problem. There is no proven history that shows democracy deals with this problem. This is one of the major misconcoptions people hold on this issue.
    No, history is the evidence. What are you talking about in Britian? The Irish were outside the British democracy and were more Revolutionaries than terrorists. Though the IRA conducted some terrorist acts, labeling them a terrorist organization came smoother out of the tongues of the British elite. You can carve the world out and see distinct behaviors among the societies and democracy is a very huge factor. The only other factor is a dictator that is good at his job. But how long does a dictator last? We can see from the Arab Spring that they only last until the people get fed up. Only people last and this is why a democracy can handle the dynamism that is needed to create prosperous and advancing civilizations. A democracy creates the environment for economic growth (Soviet Union failed), heathy religious competition (MENA is failing), healthy political change (choose any South American coup, humanitarian needs (choose any African model). This is why instead of fearing this Arab Spring we need to embrace it and support it how ever they stumble along the way. The Middle east continues to be the only region on earth that is unstable and former dictators only offerred a temorary solution. In the end they die, get ousted, or create an environment that breeds our enemies.

    This is all clear evidence. It's only in the West and in parts of Asia where people have healthy outlets to affect change in their destinies that we find societies working together and defining what we consider a "civilized" people. Hundreds of years have been spent by people around the globe defying monarchies and dictators. They have all chosen democracy as the other option. Those that chose communism couldn't fathom that Marxis't's dream was impractical until it was too late. Now even many of those have chosen democracy. This is because history provides plenty of proof that people can deal far better with the needs of a civilization than a single selfish ruler. There is no misconception here. This doesn't mean we have a right to force it anywhere. But if we take a dictator out, we have an obligation to provide the path of opportunity rather than propping in the next dictator as if the Cold War still exists. We just don't live in that world anywmore. The problem here, as I see it, is that our Washington leaders and all their constituents don't understand the historical eras.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think we have always been wrong to engage only over economic issues. And while I agree with what we need, we have to right to think of what others have as ours. No more than I can think what is at market here is mine, and thus go take it, we should not take from others what we don't negotiate.
    Resources flow all over the globe via business deals and government dealings. We pay the government of Saudi Arabia quite handsomly for oil. If that government decided to treat their people better then we wouldn't stop them because despote the criticism, we really don't get involved with soveriegn rules. It's just business in a world full of different perspectives and values. This world won't allow anybody to be pure. But at least we can have comfort in the fact that we don't rape. We do have a theme of higher moral code in our actions. We took out the Japanese and capped it with a couple atomic bombs...then we went on to develop them into such a modern prosperous state that the Yen was catching the Dollar in the 80s. We continued the war in Korea for almost two years over the subject of prisoner repatriation , which was the first time in recorded history because we were in a global power position that we could afford to seek the most out of our higher moral authority. We hung around Vietnam far longer than we should have because we felt obligated to protect the people of South Vietnam. "No War for Oil" was the protestor's cry over freeing Kuwait, but they seem to ignore that all of Kuwait was, indeed, freed. Republicans criticized President Clinton for his humanitarian projects in Bosnia and Kosovo, but not dealing with those had grave implications to European economy if gone unchecked for too long. And people have plenty of criticism about Afghanistan and Iraq (plenty understandable), but even that came with a theme of democratization and humane support.

    So I don't think we have ever really engaged over just economy. Though it is the basic motivator in even our history, we also see how our values, applied to foriegn regions, benefits us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    But that oil isn't ours. What feeds terrorism to a large degree is that we think it is. We behave like it is. So, while you may get a majority willing to forsake any moral notion of right and wrong, that only means they lack a moral center, and that as a nation, we lack one as well. I believe those countries need us and much as wee need them. There has to be a way other than war, and you are right, it is a failure if war is what we do.
    It's as much our oil as a Nike shoe made in South America is. It's all business and we pay for it. Were someone in that country not selling it we wouldn't be buying it. Did you know that the U.S. is producing more crude oil and, for the first time in decades, has become a net exporter of petroleum products? Is this because someone out there is buying what we are selling? This makes it there's.

    Sauds produce oil, barrel it, send it across the ocean through sea zones we protect, and cut a very sizable check. And the vast majority of all of this comes without war. It's called doing business with the governments that can't protect itself against other governments and against their own belligerants. But this is where we find that other moral flip of the coin. Business with a dictator? Support Hussein against Khomeini? Support Mubarak in Egypt? Ship goods in from China? People criticize us for our few dictator dealings as well. For this, we are supposed to not be allowed to talk about democracy in Iraq because somehow that makes us "hypocritical" in a world that demands hypocracy or a never ending state of war. Once again, I submit that we have very solid and good reasons to support democracy in the Middle East where our business ties must continue. And if this Arab Spring turns out stable enough, we will have even less dictators supported and we will have done it without war.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-02-12 at 10:59 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #106
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,005

    Re: Syria crisis: France raises use of force(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, if France feels military intervention in Syria is in France's national interest, France can pursue that course. However, I do not believe the Security Council should authorize military intervention in a de facto civil war. Certainly, I don't believe the U.S. should be involved. No major U.S. interests are at stake and no neighboring U.S. allies have requested U.S. intervention.

    Right now, a cruel authoritarian regime is confronted by elements whose pursuit of power may well have much more to do with removing the minority Alawite regime from power than any of its claims toward liberal values. Regime change does not assure an immediate dawn of a democratic era. At the same time, it can impact the balance of power in a fashion that promotes regional instability.
    I praise temporary instability in the MENA in order to correct the illusion provided from temporary stability.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #107
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    That's because Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Queda and everything to do with the Middle East and the future. In the big picture, Al-Queda is only a symptom of a larger disease.
    I think this is a case of missing diagnosing. Iraq as a country, with a dictator, as brutal as he was, was not the symptom of the terrorist disease. At least not in that if you treat the symptom you effect the disease. In medicine, we know that sometimes we treat a symptom and think it is the disease, only to later see the patient suffer or die due to the mistake. It is sometimes better to go past the symptom and attack the disease directly. In any case, no matter how we work this metaphor, nothing about invading Iraq treats the disease of terrorism.



    I think I'm just more bold about my honesty out loud. Most people have a very high moral opinion of themselves and they project that outward. What they don't acknowledge is that much of that high moral code comes from convenience. I always feel like a liar or a hypocrit if I don't acknowledge that. It's easy to call the leader of the free world, with billions of people weighing on his shoulders, a liar. It makes the accusor feel larger. As long as the man's not "criminal" in his maneuvering I believe he is doing what is necessary.
    There's some truth to that. Sure, people too often fall short. Which is one good reason to have clear standard to guide us.






    No, history is the evidence. What are you talking about in Britian? The Irish were outside the British democracy and were more Revolutionaries than terrorists. Though the IRA conducted some terrorist acts, labeling them a terrorist organization came smoother out of the tongues of the British elite. You can carve the world out and see distinct behaviors among the societies and democracy is a very huge factor. The only other factor is a dictator that is good at his job. But how long does a dictator last? We can see from the Arab Spring that they only last until the people get fed up. Only people last and this is why a democracy can handle the dynamism that is needed to create prosperous and advancing civilizations. A democracy creates the environment for economic growth (Soviet Union failed), heathy religious competition (MENA is failing), healthy political change (choose any South American coup, humanitarian needs (choose any African model). This is why instead of fearing this Arab Spring we need to embrace it and support it how ever they stumble along the way. The Middle east continues to be the only region on earth that is unstable and former dictators only offerred a temorary solution. In the end they die, get ousted, or create an environment that breeds our enemies.

    This is all clear evidence. It's only in the West and in parts of Asia where people have healthy outlets to affect change in their destinies that we find societies working together and defining what we consider a "civilized" people. Hundreds of years have been spent by people around the globe defying monarchies and dictators. They have all chosen democracy as the other option. Those that chose communism couldn't fathom that Marxis't's dream was impractical until it was too late. Now even many of those have chosen democracy. This is because history provides plenty of proof that people can deal far better with the needs of a civilization than a single selfish ruler. There is no misconception here. This doesn't mean we have a right to force it anywhere. But if we take a dictator out, we have an obligation to provide the path of opportunity rather than propping in the next dictator as if the Cold War still exists. We just don't live in that world anywmore. The problem here, as I see it, is that our Washington leaders and all their constituents don't understand the historical eras.
    I think by definition terrorist are outside. And that they consider themselves revolutionaries, so I see no real difference between the two.

    And that people get fed up with a dictator doesn't change what I've said. Terrorism is a different animal. We are seeing terrorism because people are fed up with dictators. We have people who fear their beliefs are being attacked, that their resources are being taken by others, depriving them of the benefits of those resources.

    However, you have to show as evidence that terrorism stopped Wherever there a democracy came in. There is no such evidence. Hell, we still can see terrorism here. Remember McVey? What about the KKK? You don't have to be a brutal dictator to find folks who will let hate dictate their actions. However, a free country does allow more freedom of movement and association, and makes combating them even harder. Freedom isn't cheap.



    So I don't think we have ever really engaged over just economy. Though it is the basic motivator in even our history, we also see how our values, applied to foriegn regions, benefits us.
    However that is the point of dispute. If there is a valid reason for conflict, that is another story. If it is economic, that isn't a valid rationale. If we accept that we don't need to be threatened, face aggression, and merely seek to make all nations fall into the line we desire, we become the evil empire.

    It's as much our oil as a Nike shoe made in South America is. It's all business and we pay for it. Were someone in that country not selling it we wouldn't be buying it. Did you know that the U.S. is producing more crude oil and, for the first time in decades, has become a net exporter of petroleum products? Is this because someone out there is buying what we are selling? This makes it there's.

    Sauds produce oil, barrel it, send it across the ocean through sea zones we protect, and cut a very sizable check. And the vast majority of all of this comes without war. It's called doing business with the governments that can't protect itself against other governments and against their own belligerants. But this is where we find that other moral flip of the coin. Business with a dictator? Support Hussein against Khomeini? Support Mubarak in Egypt? Ship goods in from China? People criticize us for our few dictator dealings as well. For this, we are supposed to not be allowed to talk about democracy in Iraq because somehow that makes us "hypocritical" in a world that demands hypocracy or a never ending state of war. Once again, I submit that we have very solid and good reasons to support democracy in the Middle East where our business ties must continue. And if this Arab Spring turns out stable enough, we will have even less dictators supported and we will have done it without war.
    Only when done in business, traded, sold, agreed up on. But to use force to take, or to put in people who will work with us, is a different equation all together. Yes, as we cannot run the world, we may have to do business with China. And in doing so, we can show our way is better, enter the market place of ideas (once a popular conservative phrase), and win the war of ideas. But we will not invade China, and we will stop trading with them, no matter what abuses they do, and that is where the hypocracy comes in, in that we'll use force in one place making the argument of threatening our economy (the same argument Saddam made concerning Kuwait BTW), but fold with China.

    The point is, it is wrong to invade with a country actually threatening to attack us, or actually attacking us.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-29-13 @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,106

    Re: Syria crisis: France raises use of force(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, if France feels military intervention in Syria is in France's national interest, France can pursue that course. However, I do not believe the Security Council should authorize military intervention in a de facto civil war. Certainly, I don't believe the U.S. should be involved. No major U.S. interests are at stake and no neighboring U.S. allies have requested U.S. intervention.

    Right now, a cruel authoritarian regime is confronted by elements whose pursuit of power may well have much more to do with removing the minority Alawite regime from power than any of its claims toward liberal values. Regime change does not assure an immediate dawn of a democratic era. At the same time, it can impact the balance of power in a fashion that promotes regional instability.
    Who requested our help in Libya, and what major US interests were there? Just curious.

  9. #109
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,005

    Re: France, suddenly has backbone

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think this is a case of missing diagnosing. Iraq as a country, with a dictator, as brutal as he was, was not the symptom of the terrorist disease.
    Stop looking at the man and the country. This is a region. The entire region is the disease and needs to change. Saddam Hussein wasn't secure from this because he had his people on proper lock down. But despite our UN rules that permitted this lock down, he still rushed his military to borders and flew his jets into allied air space provoking an ever escallating build up of our military to defend Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. This, in turn, gave Bin Laden and all the many different religious organizations throughout the region an excuse for terror. If the region was to change, it had to start with ousting "our" dictator. I don't think it is a misdiagnoses at all. What is impractical is the idea that the entire region could change, except for Saddam Hussein's terrority.

    There are so many ways to see this. Consider the Cold War. Did we face the Soviet Union by invading Moscow? No. We used a term called "rollback" and attacked communism at the fringes. It didn't work too well, but one thing was sure...there was no way to bruise the Soviet Union by marching on Moscow. Now look at the Middle East. People are fond of stating that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia or Egypt. This is, of course, true. It is also true that most of the extremist base come from writings and works that stem from the Saudi and Egyptian populations. However, it is also true that Al-Queda was just the orhcestrator of 9/11. Dealing with this problem means dealing with the hundreds of terrorist organizations that threaten allies constantly and serve to preserve the hate that so many Muslims are reminded of daily in that region just for their idea of Islam. But can we send our troops into Riyadh or Cairo? Hell no. But we can apply a sense of "rollback" to the fringes of Islam. Our attempts to bring instant democracy and peace to Iraq was highly impractical and it was never going to be easy, because of the population fractures that exists. But we did have to get rid of him and it did offer a source of pressure for surrounding governments, which is why they freely allowed their Sunni fighters to enter in order to disrupt as much progress as possible. But this Arab Spring that kicked off in North Africa and spread to the Middle East, was exactly what was needed in order to affect change. It's this pressure coming from the people that will force Saudi Arabia to bend. And after the peopple have taken control of their destinies and gotten past their fumbles, this "disease" that breeds religious fanatics by the legions will subside to a healthier place. It is a fact that no religious radical can thrive in a locale where the people have a choice. For the Middle East, the temporary immediate offering of support towards politically radical organizations should be understood, but this will pass fast enough. For evidence that lends credit to this theory, look to Turkey. Though it is not an Arab state, this is an Islami country that has experimented with democracy since the 1920s. They constantly have to deal with religious groups seeking religious rule, but in the end, how many terrorist organizations threaten anybody outside of Turkey? This is because Turks have accepted that blaming a "foriegn devil" doesn't work in a democracy where you have to look in the mirror. Right now, Arab nations have the convenience of shoving all their civilizational failures and responsibilies elsewhere. Hence..the disease that creates symptoms like Bin Laden.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And that people get fed up with a dictator doesn't change what I've said. Terrorism is a different animal. We are seeing terrorism because people are fed up with dictators. We have people who fear their beliefs are being attacked, that their resources are being taken by others, depriving them of the benefits of those resources.
    We are seeing religious terrorism because Islam, as an organizing tool, has failed in the modern age. Everything else is an excuse. For an example just re-read Osama Bin Laden's "justifications" for 9/11. He used the "children of Iraq" as one of the excuses. I guess he didn't care about the children in Sudan when he was a guest during the genocide that murdered non-Arab children. As for resources, it is Muslims that drill, barrel, and sell to the world. It is Muslims that oppress their own, with radical groups merely seeking to oppress in a different manner. With Bashir in Sudan, the Lebanese Civil War, Black September, the many Sunni that enetered Iraq to kill Shia, and the many terrorist organizationsaround the region that seek to murder either a Sunni or a Shia, it should be clear that instead of catering to the idea that a foreign devil is the source of their problems, they should be looking in a mirror. They will use any excuse they can to try to create a practical sense for their behaviors in order to help us relate to their plight, but the truth is that they simply can't cope with the failures that they have created for themselves. The tighter they cling to Islam the tighter the noose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    However, you have to show as evidence that terrorism stopped Wherever there a democracy came in.
    This is not true at all. You are still trying to use the argument that the War on Terror was and is about erasing terrorism completely. This was never the case. This was never stated by anybody and if it was, in a speech, then it was taken out of context. The goal is to deal with the out of control terror throughout the Middle East. There is a huge difference between McVeigh and the hundreds of terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And the huge difference between the KKK and any terrorist organization in the Middle East is that our government cracked them apart until they turned into an old man's social club. People do not stand for their governments behaving badly if they have the power to guide it. Currently, terrorist organizations are simply left alone as long as their terror gets exported. Governments that need the people to focus their hatreds and attentions elsewhere will and do accomodate the hatred that their religious organizations preach.

    Do you argue that a "War on Crime" is supposed to simply end crime? It is just a convenient name to call attention to a new found focus in order to make it more manageable. The War on Terror is generational and its aim is to deal with the Middle East expressly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Only when done in business, traded, sold, agreed up on. But to use force to take, or to put in people who will work with us, is a different equation all together.
    And where do we do this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The point is, it is wrong to invade with a country actually threatening to attack us, or actually attacking us.
    I disagree. I tend to believe in a first strike to prevent the attack. I also believe in correcting wrongs and preserving Hussein so that he could go back and murder, torture and starve his people for over a decade was wrong.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #110
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,005

    Re: Syria crisis: France raises use of force(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkles View Post
    Who requested our help in Libya, and what major US interests were there? Just curious.
    The MENA is a major US interest. Why do you people insist on disecting this region apart into borders? The "Islamic Community" sees man made borders only. There is a reason the 20th century shows us three distinct time frames where all Arab nations followed one after another into the same place.

    I have never understood this. We can appreaciae that France and Germany are two seperate nations, but we also accept that "EUROPE" is important and vital to our interests. Why then do we refuse the same truth about MENA?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •