Page 63 of 66 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 657

Thread: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

  1. #621
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You keep confusing Saddam and Iraq with the entire Middle East. Recall that the terrorists came form the Middle East, the 'caliphate' is now in the Middle East, international terrorism has its roots in the Middle East. You can forget about the geographical lines imposed by the 'imperialists' and think about the area in its entirety.
    Which is the only way you can possibly justify having attacked a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #622
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Which is the only way you can possibly justify having attacked a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad.
    Errr...that's why it happened.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  3. #623
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Errr...that's why it happened.
    That's why the invasion happened? Or the Islamic Jihad?

    The US didn't invade the Middle East. We invaded Iraq. The reason had nothing really to do with the attack on the WTC, or on Saddam Hussain's intransigence, or on the fear of WMD. No one in power really expected to be able to establish a western democracy in Iraq. The Neocons expected to be able to have a military presence in the Middle East indefinitely and to be able to impose a Pax Americana (their word, not mine) on the area. Unfortunately, the people of this country weren't on board with their plans, their philosophy, their goals. Had they been up front with the voters, no one would have been ready to go to war in the Middle East. Instead, they intimated that we were waging a war against the people who had attacked the US and were going to eliminate a threat in the form of WMD in the hands of a dictator.

    Now, the Neocons are gone, but their war is still being waged and will be for the foreseeable future.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #624
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    That's why the invasion happened? Or the Islamic Jihad?

    The US didn't invade the Middle East. We invaded Iraq. The reason had nothing really to do with the attack on the WTC, or on Saddam Hussain's intransigence, or on the fear of WMD. No one in power really expected to be able to establish a western democracy in Iraq. The Neocons expected to be able to have a military presence in the Middle East indefinitely and to be able to impose a Pax Americana (their word, not mine) on the area. Unfortunately, the people of this country weren't on board with their plans, their philosophy, their goals. Had they been up front with the voters, no one would have been ready to go to war in the Middle East. Instead, they intimated that we were waging a war against the people who had attacked the US and were going to eliminate a threat in the form of WMD in the hands of a dictator.

    Now, the Neocons are gone, but their war is still being waged and will be for the foreseeable future.
    I just told you why in my last few posts. This is neorealism on an international relations-level. It has nothing really to do with "neocons" or anything like that. What you're talking about is the cassus belli that was given to voters. Of course that's gonna be "rah rah threat" and "blah blah he could attack", because the average voter either isn't intelligent enough to understand complex geopolitics or doesn't bother to.

    I told you why the invasion occurred. It wasn't because of lolwmds nor was it because anyone thought Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda any more than that governments like Saddam's had made it so organizations like al Qaeda were the only viable outlet for enfranchisement via revolutionary change. If you understand that, what do you think "Pax Americana" means? It was chess, not checkers, and the problem with democracy in general is that there's far too many checkers players to begin with.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  5. #625
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    I just told you why in my last few posts. This is neorealism on an international relations-level. It has nothing really to do with "neocons" or anything like that. What you're talking about is the cassus belli that was given to voters. Of course that's gonna be "rah rah threat" and "blah blah he could attack", because the average voter either isn't intelligent enough to understand complex geopolitics or doesn't bother to.

    I told you why the invasion occurred. It wasn't because of lolwmds nor was it because anyone thought Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda any more than that governments like Saddam's had made it so organizations like al Qaeda were the only viable outlet for enfranchisement via revolutionary change. If you understand that, what do you think "Pax Americana" means? It was chess, not checkers, and the problem with democracy in general is that there's far too many checkers players to begin with.
    It had everything to do with Neocons and the now defunct Project for a New American Century (PNAC) of which Cheney,
    Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were members. They're the ones who were calling for a Pax Americana, meaning that the US would impose order on the world through force or threat of force.

    The PNAC is now on the dustbin of history, but the war lives on.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #626
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    It had everything to do with Neocons and the now defunct Project for a New American Century (PNAC) of which Cheney,
    Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were members. They're the ones who were calling for a Pax Americana, meaning that the US would impose order on the world through force or threat of force.
    That was just an offshoot of neorealism, which is basically the only thing foreign relations folks the world over adhere to.

    The PNAC is now on the dustbin of history, but the war lives on.
    That's great, but neorealism continues. The war was undertaken for all the reasons I've given you repeatedly in this thread. It might've failed, it might've not, but a bunch of anti-war/anti-imperialist folks at home all but assured it was useless as soon as they waged their public relations campaign. They're idealists and that's nice but it's- by definition- not practical.

    ...yet they keep trying to affect policy. It's depressing, really.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  7. #627
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    That was just an offshoot of neorealism, which is basically the only thing foreign relations folks the world over adhere to.



    That's great, but neorealism continues. The war was undertaken for all the reasons I've given you repeatedly in this thread. It might've failed, it might've not, but a bunch of anti-war/anti-imperialist folks at home all but assured it was useless as soon as they waged their public relations campaign. They're idealists and that's nice but it's- by definition- not practical.

    ...yet they keep trying to affect policy. It's depressing, really.

    Neorealism was a new term for me, so I looked it up. I found an interesting essay on the subject here:

    American international leadership and that such leadership would depend on the power of our military, the dynamism of our economy, and the courage of our convictions. This strategic vision -- because it was based on fundamental realities and fundamental American values -- informed the policies not only of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower but also of every president, Democratic or Republican, for two generations.

    America is a great nation that knows how to defend itself. But its greatness is built on foundations more solid than self-absorption. We defend ourselves best when we lead others, and the key to our history of effective leadership has been our willingness to seek and find common ground, to blend our interests with the interests of others. Truman and Eisenhower understood that defending Europe and America from the Soviets required a strong military, but they also understood that we could not lead our allies if they did not wish to follow.

    These and subsequent American presidents knew the importance of moral leadership. While our remarkable military and prosperous economy gave us the power to lead, our commitment to human dignity -- including our willingness to struggle against our own prejudices -- inspired others to follow. If America is to lead again, we need to remember this history and to rebuild our overextended military, revive our alliances, and restore our reputation as a nation that respects international law, human rights, and civil liberties.

    It sounds quite a lot different from the goals of the PNAC.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #628
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Neorealism is power politics, for the most part, and not worrying about idealism. That's where the name comes from (well, realism, which is a very simplistic construct itself): opposition to idealism. That article isn't really about neorealism. However, it's self-aware enough to try to hitch itself to the neorealist wagon, because neorealism is so all-encompassing that it has subsumed basically everything other than Marxist IR, which...isn't practiced by any nation state anyway.

    The point is the invasion of Iraq had to do with remaking all of the Middle East. It could've been extremely effective, except it was executed improperly from the beginning and then later the Shia in Iraq and the antiwar folks in the US all but sabotaged it.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  9. #629
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Neorealism is power politics, for the most part, and not worrying about idealism. That's where the name comes from (well, realism, which is a very simplistic construct itself): opposition to idealism. That article isn't really about neorealism. However, it's self-aware enough to try to hitch itself to the neorealist wagon, because neorealism is so all-encompassing that it has subsumed basically everything other than Marxist IR, which...isn't practiced by any nation state anyway.

    The point is the invasion of Iraq had to do with remaking all of the Middle East. It could've been extremely effective, except it was executed improperly from the beginning and then later the Shia in Iraq and the antiwar folks in the US all but sabotaged it.
    When you say that the invasion of Iraq could have been extremely effective, effective in accomplishing what? Had the invasion been carried out correctly, had it been supported by people at home and abroad (which it was, at first), what would have been accomplished? How would it have been an effective use of the resources it took to do it? It seems to me that the goals of the invasion were pretty fuzzy.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #630
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    When you say that the invasion of Iraq could have been extremely effective, effective in accomplishing what? Had the invasion been carried out correctly, had it been supported by people at home and abroad (which it was, at first), what would have been accomplished? How would it have been an effective use of the resources it took to do it? It seems to me that the goals of the invasion were pretty fuzzy.
    In a sentence: by opening up a means in which voices can be heard in an actual political setting in the Arab Middle East, in a secure environment that is friendly to American policies. It could then slowly spread. As opposed to just...doing nothing and hoping for the best.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

Page 63 of 66 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... 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
  •