View Poll Results: What Best Describes Your Positions?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • I supported the invasion of Iraq and I support the Libyan Intervention

    18 29.51%
  • I opposed the Invasion of Iraq, I support the Libyan Intervention

    16 26.23%
  • I supported the Invasion of Iraq, I oppose the Libyan Intervention

    9 14.75%
  • I opposed both.

    18 29.51%
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 103

Thread: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

  1. #51
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Having a history is not equal to being right. Respect for rule of law should be one of our values.
    Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders. The "Rule of Law" is an excuse used too often by immmoral nations and people. Tell me, how many Rwandans or Sudanes respect us because we adhered to international law? When the Shia or the Kurd was being slaughtered in Iraq by Hussein, how many of them appreciated the high and mighty positions of people who follow the international law? I suppose if the UN simply stated no (as they did with Kosovo and pulled the "moral" support for Somalia) then they would have effectively told us the law? That dead Libyans owuld have died correctly in accordance to the law? I have no respect for laws that were made centuries ago to protect kings and kaisers against each other. It's a dictator's law meant to protect their own. And free nations, who represent everything there is about every level of prosperity and the future, are too concreted in this fantasy of soveriegnty that we are powerless to act on our good morality? It's like insisting that your surgeon operate with the tools fancied by doctors of the 18th century.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You're wrong, it does matter. It matters a great deal.

    regardless of the UN, no nation should go around invading countries without justiifcation. Real justification. You can act to stop heavy killing. You can act to stop a imminent threat. But you can act on maybes and what ifs. I've listed the differences, and they matter. It has nothing to do with me feeling better, especially since I don't at all feel better. These things are costly on a number of levels, and no one should feel better when they happen.
    Get used to the 21st century. The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things. We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen. Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s. And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change. It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows. Iraqis had no chance. And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We were wrong to support dictators, and we're wrong when we invade on a pretense and occupy a country. We're not the world police and we can't remake the world in our image without a real and serious cost. You're last sentence is a bit wrong. Again, it is one thing when a people stand up for themselves, and we help. It's another thing when we're so arrogant as to think we can impose ourselves on them, tellling them what is worth what. It is important to recognize differences.
    It's important to recognize a lot of things here. We aren't imposing anything on anybody and "democracy" does not equal "America." You may not like it, but we can and we do lean on these governments all the time. Call it arrogance, but the fact is that we can do what others cannot. We should not belittle ourselves just to appease weaker nations who feel shunned by our fast paced power. Just because you don't see Marines charging into foriegn cities on television doesn't mean Washington isn't busy at work pressuring them constantly. We haven't invaded Iran, yet we have the entire world pissing all over Iran. We haven't invaded North Korea, yet we have the entire world ****ting on North Korea. When it came to Iraq, we spent 12 years appeasing the world's need to keep Iraq stable at all cost. We merely handled a problem denied us in 1991 by the same fools who planned 2003 and the same critics who would rather us be chained to the UN's will.

    And "World Police" is such a cliche. A complete World Police? No. But at some level we are the World Police and we have done a damned fine job at it as well. Far better than European colonial powers and far better than the Soviet Union. What the hell do you think the Cold War was about? Why do you think we have Marine Expiditionary Units Special Operations Capable (MEUSOC) strategically located all over the world at any given time? It's to protect American interests (embassies, trade routes, allies from bad governments, etc.) whether the average American understands that interest or not. But despite popular bumper sticker protests, we have never injected our military haphazardly around the world and forced anybody to behave in any way other than what they already produced within their own culture. And when it comes to occupation, we have never occupied with the object of conquering and we have never sought to add another star to our flag. We are done with Iraq. We disposed of our thorn and settled in a suitable replacement type of government we can sleep over. We will be done with Afghanistan as soon as they can deliver on securing their future without Taliban oppression and radicalism. Unlike the Soviet Union who sought to Russianize the world, we have no interest in Americanizing anybody. If people associate modernism with Westernism it's because modernism happened in the West first. It has never been about Americanizing or Westernizing anybody in the MENA region. It's about finally allowing them to have modernist opportunity by assisting them at removing our Cold War legacies.

    It's always been about our long term security. The dictator was always about our short term security at a time when we were able to get away with it. The future is past here.

    And as far as imposing democracy upon people, we aren't imposing anything of the kind. They were wanting democracy at the beginning of European colonialism. They were denied. They wanted democracy after World War II and during the "Age of Independence." They were denied. And they are screaming for it now. Along the way, the radical base has gathered more and more sheep to the desperate crusade of seeking vengeance for God until most of them are completely hopeless. What exactly are we imposing? By not dealing with our Cold War remedies for tribal conflicts throughout the region, we are continuing to hamper what they already want. Iraq was a must since we effectively killed the people's chances for 12 years. The rest of the Middle East merely needed a Tunisia (Arch Duke Ferdinand) to spark it off. For something we are supposedly imposing, the entire Middle East seems more than eager to adopt what we got and have been trying to sell since 2003.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #52
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    [QUOTE=MSgt;1059362653]
    Our value should be the rule of the correct law. There is nothing correct about a law that protects the soveriegnty of dictators who murder safely behind their borders. The "Rule of Law" is an excuse used too often by immmoral nations and people. Tell me, how many Rwandans or Sudanes respect us because we adhered to international law? When the Shia or the Kurd was being slaughtered in Iraq by Hussein, how many of them appreciated the high and mighty positions of people who follow the international law? I suppose if the UN simply stated no (as they did with Kosovo and pulled the "moral" support for Somalia) then they would have effectively told us the law? That dead Libyans owuld have died correctly in accordance to the law? I have no respect for laws that were made centuries ago to protect kings and kaisers against each other. It's a dictator's law meant to protect their own. And free nations, who represent everything there is about every level of prosperity and the future, are too concreted in this fantasy of soveriegnty that we are powerless to act on our good morality? It's like insisting that your surgeon operate with the tools fancied by doctors of the 18th century.
    There's a difference, yes another one, between protecting and not invading. If nations ran around invading evey country they believed was not behaving as they thought they should, we'd have a lot of war. And that might well be worse.


    Get used to the 21st century. The "evil" of this world is going to force you to change your mind on a few things. We no longer war against our rival Western gentlemen. Real justification is anything that will prevent 9/11s. And this means forcing the very region that breeds these instruments of God to change. It means assisting the rebelling people, who chant for democracy, against our former Cold War fellows. Iraqis had no chance. And because of this, we were forever stuck with that damned UN mission, which meant forever giving the Bin Ladens their excuses. The rest of the MENA is finally voicing out and removing their oppressors on their own. We have an obligation to help. It's in our best interest to deal with democracies (or at least "freed" people) for our oil.
    It might if core values are only things we have when it is convient to have them. Reckless war is not likely to prevent another 9/11. it is more likely to cause another one than anything else. Remember, 9/11 wasn't committed by any country. No wmds were used. No nation sanctioned it. Instead, a group of individuals took advantage of a lax in security. If another group sees another lax, there will be another one. Things like iraq won't change that. Nor will Afghanistan or Libya. There may be reasons for accassional use of force, but it won't prevent another 9/11.


    It's important to recognize a lot of things here. . . .
    No, it is not about security. It never was. Our aggressive actions have not helped with security. There is nothing about invading any country that will do anything to prevent small groups of individuals frmo forming and acting when they see an opening. Bush and his adminsitration ahd is all wrong, and some still do.

    And no, Iraq was not a must in any sense of the word. Would could have and did stop support. But freedom is best born from withon and not imposed from without, no matter how they got where they are.

    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.

  3. #53
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?

    Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?

    Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?

    Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served.

    Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran.

    Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian.
    Are you related to The Drake?
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #54
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,647

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    No "unsure" positions?
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    This one's easy.

    I opposed the Iraq war because we went into it under false pretenses. Besides, how long had Saddem been murdering his own people? Clearly, his brutality didn't happen over night; it had been going on for years. But did we interven for humanitarian reasons? No. Ours was for "national security"...or so they say.

    As for Libya, I felt the U.S. needed to stay out of what amounts to a civil war unless two things happened:

    1) the Libyan people (civilians or the leader(s) of the rebellion) asked for help from the world-at-large, or;

    2) they were able to establish a coalition of U.N. member states to provide humanitarian aid and/or provide a protect shield (no-fly zone) over Libya to protect civilians and give the rebel forces a chance at a fair fight.

    Both happened. Moreover, members of the Arab League supported the U.N. resolution for a no-fly zone. Of course, there are some who disagree, but it's these same folks who say it's an American's constitutional right to bear arms in defense against a brutal and tyrannical government. Well, isn't that the case w/Libya? Egypt? Iran? Saudia Arabia?

    Sidenote: Questions are now arising that the U.N. coalition forces have gone too far in implementing the no-fly zone over Libya by "targetting" Ghadeffi's "presidential palace" and bombing land forces and/or surface combat vehicles (i.e., tanks, surface-to-air missle silos), etc. On the one-hand, I would agree. I haven't read the U.N. resolution on the matter, but as I understand it the no-fly zone was suppose to only target aircraft, airstripes/airfields, surface-to-air radar and fixed or mobile surface-to-air missle launchers. Everything else was suppose to be off the table. So, if the U.S. is targetting sites such as manufacturing plants and the like, IMO, we've overstepped the U.N. mandate (if it doesn't call for destroying such facilities). But on the other hand, how long as this maniac been torturing his people? (It's the same argument used to partially justify invading Iraq.) Bottom line is this: I would have been okay with liberating the Iraqi people if that were the primary reason we went there AND we were able to establish a U.N. coalition to do so. That's not exactly what happened. It's for that reason I disapproved of invading Iraq, but can agree with establishing a no-fly zone over Libya. Both countries had similar problems, but in the case of Iraq the justification for going to war was false. That in itself made being their wrong.

  6. #56
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    We did stay out of it. Right up to 9/11. Shall we go through another round of staying out of it until the next historical date of infamy?

    Of course, there is a more truthful way to look at it. When we were supporting dictators and twisted regimes during the Cold War and helping to facilitate the blundering failure that is the MENA region, we were hardly staying out of it. When we rushed to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we were hardly staying out of it. When we aided the UN in starving out Iraq fr 12 years we were hardly staying out of it. And everytime we place sanctions upon another country for their insolence we are hardly staying out of it. And soveriegnty? The law that allows anybody to murder as many people as possible within their own borders without reprise from greater nations? How do UN sanctions and "no-fly" zones honor anybody's soveriegnty? How does influencing the allegiance of character nations honor his soveriegnty?
    When considering foreign policy grand strategy I usually ask two questions:
    1. Does it advance our interests?
    2. Are those foreign interests worth more than domestic interests?

    For Iraq and Libya my answer to 1 is "yes" to both and to 2 is "no" for both.
    1. Iraq - it advances our interests because it enables us to influence the new government and build democracy. Since influence and democracy usually help us, this is a good thing. However, because we went in on false pretenses and because it distracted us from our primary goal (getting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan), it hurt our interests, foreign and domestic.
    2. Libya - it advances our interests for the same reasons as Iraq - we get influence and maybe liberal democracy. However, when our economy is ****ed and we have many domestic issues (including education) to fix, I don't see the rationale for going in.


    I'm of the mindset that you shouldn't spread yourself all over the world if you haven't taken care of your own citizens already. The United States is risking military and economic overstretch. I also refuse to let people tell me that this is all about protecting Libyans from being systemically murdered. They are rising up and taking control of their government and if they do want help, other countries that free ride all over our military have the ability to give it. I do not believe that U.S. should have the responsibility to be the world's police, particularly when it's own home is messed up.

    Our education system always needs attention. The military is the scapegoat of the ignorant, because your politicians would rather you believe the absurd rather than looking into where they squander money into their own pet projects and corporate pay offs. You really think our education system would be better had we not taken out the taliban and Saddam Hussein? You think money spent on rockets over Libya is why your kid's text book is crap? Our education system suffers because we have a country full of bad teachers and equally bad parents. In the mean time, the ignorant blame the military campaigns in the wake of exacting their petty 9/11 revenge.
    You just made so many assumptions about me in this part based on one sentence. No need to be so aggressive right at the start dude.
    1. I'm not scapegoating the military. I believe in a more conservative foreign policy - offshore balancing or selective engagement to be exact; our foreign policy is bordering on primacy.
    2. I also believe that military should primarily be used to protect immediate threats to our security (i.e. I supported going into Afghanistan after al-Qaeda), not to advance interests that may help us if executed property (i.e. toppling dictators and spreading democracy).
    3. I think we should focus our attention on fixing domestic problems including, but not limited to, education.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 03-21-11 at 08:16 PM.

  7. #57
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    I answered that I opposed both. But to qualify, my position on Iraq has softened. I see that removal of Saddam Hussein was going to need to happen eventually, but I still question the timing of the invasion considering our involvement in Afghanistan. I also question the justifications given, and I still question why anybody thought a democracy was going to flower overnight.

    I don't favor involvement in Libya. Getting involved in someone else's civil war just seems like a bad idea. Look how well it worked in Somalia!

  8. #58
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,068

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Afghanistan isn't relevant to the thread. Afghanistan attacked us first.

    One is consistent by stating what US interest is served by the actions you support, and what US interests are served by the actions you wish were not done.

    The US interest served in staying out of Iraq were thousands of not dead US servicemen, a trillion dollars saved. Which is exactly what Mayor Snorkum said in 2002.

    The US interst served in staying out of Libya are that there's no interest served by going in. So we could save money and not put US servicemen at risk there when our troops are already overstretched in two other ongoing conflicts.
    ... I missed that attac k on the US by Afghanistan. Anyone else have a memory of it? I thought we attacked Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.

    I supported our going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but I did not support us staying there. We should have been out of there in a couple of weeks.

    I was strongly against Iraq. It was obvious to me at the time that Iraq was a classic "never let a good crisis (9/11) go to waste" and we asserted Iraq as the enemy because it was convenient (Iraq and 9/11 were constantly used in the same sentances). The whole WMD thing was a ruse. I would have felt differently about Iraq had there been a real international outrage and coalition, but there wasn't. GWB and his cronies just wanted to do Iraq. One of the stupidest things ever done by America.

    I am generally against intervention in Libya. Its there civil war, not ours. We just can't afford to do these types of things politically, morally or economically. I do take some comfort in the fact that this is more of an internationaly coalition and we are not taking the lead. For this reason, I was also ok with Gulf War I.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well, the Mayor is a simple fellow who seems to refuse to acknowledge this wider effort. The US doesn't start wars against dictatirs as a matter of policy. What the US does do since 9/11 is promote democracy and social change throughout a very specific region which happens to be full of dictators. Perhaps the Mayor should point this out instead of jumping and dismissing the effort for the sake of arguing what isn't even the issue. Bringing up China or Cuba or any other country, far removed from the theme of our current and future troubles, is pointless unless the point is to avoid the issue entirely.
    Right.

    So the US stands on the sidelines while Tunisia trembles, Egypt erupts, and when Bahrain burps, but when Gadhaffy grumbles, well, we just GOTTA promote democracy.

    Have you people figured out that the US Constitution is not an export?

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    The actual troop deployment has not happened and may never. So there is no true intervention...such as there was in Iraq.
    Bombs are falling, people are dying, just because it's Obama doesn't mean it's not an intervention.


    IMO.I am strongly anti-libertarian, another word for them is isolationists, a national problem before both international wars..
    You mean both world wars. Since, however, the United States had no reason to get involved in the First World War, we should have stayed out. Wilson's eagerness to get Americans killed so he could play "Look at me" was not sufficient cause....and no, neither the sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman Letter was justification, either. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the results of the US involvement in that nonsense in Europe was that the French didn't learn their lesson, the Germans didn't learn their lesson, and the British didn't learn their lesson, either. In consequence, there was a SECOND War, worse than the first one, caused by the unequal and unjust demands of the victors, notably the French and British, at Versailles, demands they would not have felt able to make if the United States wasn't standing behind them.

    That's why isolationism is usually the correct thing to do. Let the children fight their battles, it's how the pecking order is determined and once that is established the strife on the schoolyard declines.

    Again, no US interest is being served by it's very real intervention in Libya.

    In a way, President Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq.
    Yes. We learned definitively that Iraq had no WMD's. That was worth four thousand dead Americans, right?

    Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran. so am I, and this means ???
    That one of us is unwilling to put his former shipmates in harm's way just because no interests will be served but the President has to look like a leader between tee-times.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •