Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

1) Supported Afghanistan
2) Supported Iraq, because I was in 7th grade and didn't know jack and wuz like "**** yeah let's go kick Saddam's ass!" Later on I grew up and realized what a strategic blunder it was.
3) I'm not outright opposed to Libyan intervention, but I don't think it's the best idea in the world.

MSgt said:

They aren't exact comparisons, but they are all more alike than you want to see. Washington does this, hence 9/11 and the idea that killing a few terrorist is the answer. Before killing a few terrorist we assumed that supporting dictators would keep the problem penned down. So what do we do now with the knowledge that these terrorists have always come from all over the region and that democracy is finally the people's cry? Still pretend that Europe's bad border creation parties of the past have carved this regional problem into nice neat packages for us to pretend? Roll the dice and hope that the consequences of living under European colonialism and then Cold War prescription foir three centuries will simply not exist? People are fond of pointing out that no terrorists came from Iraq. They will be equally fond of pointing out that they didn't come from Libya too. Of course they will always criticize America's Cold War dictator support even though these individuals monsters were quite effective in killing off religious freedom and zealousy. So, with Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. being Cold War relics that have lived past their expiration dates and with the oppresed masses getting more and more radical towards us to explain away their civilizational woes...what is the answer?

The answer is to look at these situations are more alike than makes us comfortable and deal with them accordingly. Or does the common cry, throughout the region for democracy of late, make them oh so different also?

Click to expand...

What you speak of is a different issue. As for when to invade, doing so on a pretext, outside the UN, and occupying is different than stopping on going killing, within the UN, and not occupying.

The larger prolem cannot be effectively dealt with by either invading countries or ignoring the problem. There is risk in any action, but we must be true to values, and law. It is one thing when a people rise up and then we lend a hand, and another when we impose ourself on the country, as if we run the world.

Terrorism is a huge problem, but I would look more closely at how Brittian finally made progress, and did so by decreasing violence and not esculating it.

Mayor Snorkum said:

The Mayor's post was in response to some inane comment that the intrusion in Libya was about removing a dictator. The Mayor's contention is that if the US started wars with every country were there was a dictator we'd be fighting on a hundred fronts.

Click to expand...

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.

Boo Radley said:

What you speak of is a different issue. As for when to invade, doing so on a pretext, outside the UN, and occupying is different than stopping on going killing, within the UN, and not occupying.

The larger prolem cannot be effectively dealt with by either invading countries or ignoring the problem. There is risk in any action, but we must be true to values, and law. It is one thing when a people rise up and then we lend a hand, and another when we impose ourself on the country, as if we run the world.

Terrorism is a huge problem, but I would look more closely at how Brittian finally made progress, and did so by decreasing violence and not esculating it.

Click to expand...

Too many assumed that bombng out and ridding ourselves of Hussein (who's throne was preserved by the West and that wonderful peace loving UN) meant bombing out the rest of the region to affect change. I argued that this wasn't the case. You are witnessing this truth today. I don't know what your point is here.

Also, President Clinton, along with e French handled the slaughter in Kosovo even as the UN condemned it our actions and refused to approve intervention. I don't really care about what permission or illusions people get from having the UN approve of us. The UN is not going to fix this region. It's up to nations to assume responsibility of what it helped facilitate. The UN is a late comer (and our creation) and full of dictators who are more eager with preserving their own powers than weakening them by voting to oust another.

In the mean time, dictators are continuing to oppress and brutalize any political oppositions and thereby worsening the radical bases. Removing Saddam Hussein shouldhave shown how silent, but large the radical base was. The longer we sit by and pretend that it "isn't our business" the larger this base grows. The more they hate the West. And the more the explosion will be when the dictator finally does go away. Support ridding them now, or send your kid off to a more dangerous situation tomorrow.

Mayor Snorkum said:

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?The actual troop deployment has not happened and may never. So there is no true intervention...such as there was in Iraq.

Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan? I am anti-conservative, but not blind.,IMO.I am strongly anti-libertarian, another word for them is isolationists, a national problem before both international wars..

Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served....In a way, President Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq.

Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran. so am I, and this means ???

Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian. and I am but an opinionated old fool.

Click to expand...

Our nation must grow, must become more civilized.. When others are in danger of being murdered, we must step in..
Its the price one must pay if we are to be a true "world power".
Its in the world's and our interest that people not be repressed ,that we live in peace.

earthworm said:

Our nation must grow, must become more civilized.. When others are in danger of being murdered, we must step in..
Its the price one must pay if we are to be a true "world power".
Its in the world's and our interest that people not be repressed ,that we live in peace.

Click to expand...

Oh, but dictators bring stability. And stability is peace. Isn't that how it works? Good enough for the Cold War. Why not now? If we pay no attention to the festering masses underneath who gradually and exponentially turn towards God to liberate them then there is no problem, right? We can simply assume that there is no problem and that killing about 20 terrorists after they've murdered our people will help keep the illusion intact, right?

I just don't get how people have managed to convince themselves that ignorance and simplicity creates them wisdom. I guess Washington politicians had to have come from somewhere.

StillBallin75 said:

1) Supported Afghanistan
2) Supported Iraq, because I was in 7th grade and didn't know jack and wuz like "**** yeah let's go kick Saddam's ass!" Later on I grew up and realized what a strategic blunder it was.
3) I'm not outright opposed to Libyan intervention, but I don't think it's the best idea in the world.

Click to expand...

supported, but NOT NOW, afghanistan
DID NOT support araq
support libya as long as we don't put troops on the ground in any fighting capacity

My position is best summed up as: Stay the **** out of it, our education system needs money and more attention.

Megaprogman: "The fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq is that the Libyan population is in active revolt against the government and are agitating for a democracy. The citizens in Iraq were not and, I believe, were not ready to take that fundamental step towards self rule and the poor results (rampant corruption, continuing sectarian violence, continuing tribalism, etc) are the result of that premature liberation. Another major difference is that the people of Libya were asking for our help while there is no evidence I know of that the people in Iraq did the same."

I'm curious. If people in Iraq weren't in revolt then why was Hussein gassing the Kurds with non-existent mustard gas and killing Shiites in the South. My reason for supporting the invasion was simply that we had encouraged the revolt and then abandoned the people to Hussein.

Patrickt said:

Megaprogman: "The fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq is that the Libyan population is in active revolt against the government and are agitating for a democracy. The citizens in Iraq were not and, I believe, were not ready to take that fundamental step towards self rule and the poor results (rampant corruption, continuing sectarian violence, continuing tribalism, etc) are the result of that premature liberation. Another major difference is that the people of Libya were asking for our help while there is no evidence I know of that the people in Iraq did the same."

I'm curious. If people in Iraq weren't in revolt then why was Hussein gassing the Kurds with non-existent mustard gas and killing Shiites in the South. My reason for supporting the invasion was simply that we had encouraged the revolt and then abandoned the people to Hussein.

Click to expand...

yeah.....back in 1991.

Patrickt said:

I'm curious. If people in Iraq weren't in revolt then why was Hussein gassing the Kurds with non-existent mustard gas and killing Shiites in the South. My reason for supporting the invasion was simply that we had encouraged the revolt and then abandoned the people to Hussein.

Click to expand...

It's interesting, because the precise reason many people were/are against Iraq is precisely the same reason Cheney & co. decided not to finish the job back in '91.

Mayor Snorkum said:

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.

Click to expand...

Back in 2002 I was starting my senior year of High School and at the time I was supportive of the Iraq war but after I got out of High School and discovered Lew Rockwell's writings among others, I realized that I was wrong. Wars should only be fought in defense and only defense. I my positions on foreign policy, taxes, civil liberties, government, etc have been consistent. My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are military veterans.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

Click to expand...

In 2002 I was working overnight as a crane operator in an aluminum extrusion company. Awesome job. I was looking into collage and military, and enjoyed coming home every day to my 1 y/o son and wife.

Now in 2011, I'm a carpenter and soldier looking at a deployment while fighting the X wife to bring my sons back to SD as I haven't seen them since Sept'10. I'm looking forward to my new apartment next month, which will be the first time I've lived alone, seeing my kids and and pursuing a masters after deployment

MSgt said:

Too many assumed that bombng out and ridding ourselves of Hussein (who's throne was preserved by the West and that wonderful peace loving UN) meant bombing out the rest of the region to affect change. I argued that this wasn't the case. You are witnessing this truth today. I don't know what your point is here.

Also, President Clinton, along with e French handled the slaughter in Kosovo even as the UN condemned it our actions and refused to approve intervention. I don't really care about what permission or illusions people get from having the UN approve of us. The UN is not going to fix this region. It's up to nations to assume responsibility of what it helped facilitate. The UN is a late comer (and our creation) and full of dictators who are more eager with preserving their own powers than weakening them by voting to oust another.

In the mean time, dictators are continuing to oppress and brutalize any political oppositions and thereby worsening the radical bases. Removing Saddam Hussein shouldhave shown how silent, but large the radical base was. The longer we sit by and pretend that it "isn't our business" the larger this base grows. The more they hate the West. And the more the explosion will be when the dictator finally does go away. Support ridding them now, or send your kid off to a more dangerous situation tomorrow.

Click to expand...

I bought the argument on Kosovo that we were not the police of the world. So, bringing up Clinton is of little value here.

My point is a simple one, there is a difference, a real difference between invading a country that has not attacked you, is not killing his own at the time, is contained, on a pretext, outside the UN, and ocuupying than stopping ongoing killing, within the UN, and not occupying. This is even different than what Clinton did.

And yes, there have always been dictators. And they are almost always brutal. Bad for all concerned. But that does not give any other natiion to the right to invade and occupy. Doing so when a people have already stood up is also very different than doing so without them standing up and imposing ourselves on them. The difference is real and not to be dismissed.

Oh this thread is about Bush. Well now I'm totally disinterested.

Jerry said:

Oh this thread is about Bush. Well now I'm totally disinterested.

Click to expand...

No, it's about a false comparison.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma? .....Their people have yet to rebel, give them time
Zaire?......jumping in here ?, only a bigger mess will result...
Saudi Arabia? Why ?, they have a "kind despot" ( yes!, I know)...or a benenvolent momarchy...no revolution yet..Iran? not ready yet..
Cuba?
Venezuela?

Click to expand...

We are not a "superpower" !
We are not superman - this is so childish !
Our nation has limitations, this should be known,,,,.

MSgt said:

Oh, but dictators bring stability Thats a new one ! . And stability is peace. Isn't that how it works? Good enough for the Cold War. Why not now? If we pay no attention to the festering masses underneath who gradually and exponentially turn towards God to liberate them then there is no problem, right? We can simply assume that there is no problem and that killing about 20 terrorists after they've murdered our people will help keep the illusion intact, right?

I just don't get how people have managed to convince themselves that ignorance and simplicity creates them wisdom. I guess Washington politicians had to have come from somewhere.

Click to expand...

I guess you disagree with my position.
But what you are trying to say is fractured and lacks sense.

Patrickt said:

Megaprogman: "The fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq is that the Libyan population is in active revolt against the government and are agitating for a democracy. The citizens in Iraq were not and, I believe, were not ready to take that fundamental step towards self rule and the poor results (rampant corruption, continuing sectarian violence, continuing tribalism, etc) are the result of that premature liberation. Another major difference is that the people of Libya were asking for our help while there is no evidence I know of that the people in Iraq did the same."

I'm curious. If people in Iraq weren't in revolt then why was Hussein gassing the Kurds with non-existent mustard gas and killing Shiites in the South. My reason for supporting the invasion was simply that we had encouraged the revolt and then abandoned the people to Hussein.

Click to expand...

Poor choice of words I guess. By revolt I mean that they (kurds) were not agitating for democratic rule, but instead wanted to form their own country (combine kurdish regions from several adjascent countries into one big kurd country). However, I would have probably supported limited intervention in the north of Iraq like was done in Bosnia (however, this was not the situation presented in 2002) and a separation of the two lands into two countries.

Another distinction that was is in my mind, but I didn't explicitly mention is that the minority of Iraq (even though the ruling party was also a minority, as far as I can tell, most people were just trying to live their lives under bad conditions but were not actually revolting) while in Libya, you have a huge portion of the population willing to take up arms and fight their own military for democratic self rule.

There simply being a humanitarian crisis is not enough to convince me that the US should intervene on a military level. There has to be a real chance at substantial gains for the population as a whole. I see the situation in Libya as them trying to trade a dictator for a better form of government. That is worthy of military support. The ultimate principal is that the local population has to lead the way. If people are willing to die en mass for a better government, then there is every reason to support their dream.

However, in the end, the population has to be mature enough that they can support things like rule of law and other democratic institutions. They will have to be the ones to build the government as imposing an outside government on that region has a terrible track record, unless one is willing to rule by killing anyone who looks at them funny. Our country does not have this sort of attitude. In Iraq we are imposing a government on them while in Libya, I see us as supporting them creating their own government. Because of that Iraq is ultimately harmful while Libya, (I hope, but its very early in the game yet) is ultimately helpful.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Are you equally supportive of invading China?
Burma?
Zaire?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
Cuba?
Venezuela?

Click to expand...

Only when those who should be protecting their people start slaughtering them.
Not oppressing, not abusing, slaughtering.

I'm just one of those people that believe the strong should not prey upon the weak. Chivalry and all that obsolete nonsense.

And frankly, even if China started murdering its own people in mass we should probably stay out of that one.

And we only depose dictators when they outlive their usefulness to us. Up til then, they're the greatest thing since sex.

Further, we didn't lead the charge, guns blazing this time. We just joined the rest of the world dealing with a rattlesnake in the yard. VERY different.

I see your point, but in this case we're comparing apples to something fundamentally different from apples.

Mayor Snorkum said:

It's not subtle.

Stating what it is will earn the Mayor a warning, so it shall not be stated.

Click to expand...

Would you ask the Mayor why he speaks of himself in the third person?

I always find that behavior disturbing, as it indicates an overinflated ego, or schizophrenia. Unless alchohol and competition involving men is responsible, and you don't sound drunk.

theplaydrive said:

My position is best summed up as: Stay the **** out of it, our education system needs money and more attention.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Boo Radley said:

I bought the argument on Kosovo that we were not the police of the world. So, bringing up Clinton is of little value here.

Click to expand...

Of course it's of value. It proves that we have a history of telling the UN to suck it when they prefer stability at all costs over doing the right thing.

Boo Radley said:

My point is a simple one, there is a difference, a real difference between invading a country that has not attacked you, is not killing his own at the time, is contained, on a pretext, outside the UN, and ocuupying than stopping ongoing killing, within the UN, and not occupying. This is even different than what Clinton did.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter! That is my point. You are creating diferences because it makes you feel good to flip back and forth in your morality. But this is more than just moral. It is strategically necessary. And the only difference betwen Iraq and Libya is that we ignored the slaughter of uprising Iraqis for 12 years while refusing to ignore the ones in Libya. France decides to support the dictator of Tunisia throughout December by offerring security, but takes a stand over neighboring Libya?

This is a regional problem. Always has been and the UN is too full of selfish dip****s, who aren't affected by this region's waste, to care about it. Why do you thnk it takes the UN so long to declare any travesty? Maybe it's because Rwanda and Sudan taught them that if they only deliberate long enough that the offender will finish his slaughter campaign and thereby offer "peace"... er I mean stability. In 2003, we didn't have so much Arab support to deal with the prick in the desert and kick start democracy. Now that the people are uprising all over the place for democracy we pretend that we should "butt out" or "look away" or prove ourselves hypocrits? Bosnia and Kosovo are in Europe. Seeing how that is where two World Wars began I'd place that into its proper perspective. I would do the same for the MENA region considering that 95 percent of the world's religious terror is being bred there under the rule of dictators and religious theocracies. Something has to change. Supporting the people under our usual business partners is new. Maybe that's why the intellectual herd of sheep in the West can't fathom it and prefer that comfy "stability" game.

Boo Radley said:

And yes, there have always been dictators. And they are almost always brutal. Bad for all concerned. But that does not give any other natiion to the right to invade and occupy. Doing so when a people have already stood up is also very different than doing so without them standing up and imposing ourselves on them. The difference is real and not to be dismissed.

Click to expand...

Well, if we just wait long enough then his slaughter will be over. That way, like with Hussein, we can preach about it being too late, right? Dictator's of the world don't matter here. It's the MENA that does. It's the dictators in the MENA that oppress a religious civilization so badly that they have no choices left but to jihad. And who is that Great Satan scapegoat again? The ones that supported the dictators during the Cold War? The ones that empowered him aferwards with military surplus so as to keep the people in line? The ones that today wait until the people appear to be winning before we take a stand?

earthworm said:

I guess you disagree with my position.
But what you are trying to say is fractured and lacks sense.

Click to expand...

I was being facetious. More in line with our critics who preach about a future, but secretly demand the past.

MSgt said:

Of course it's of value. It proves that we have a history of telling the UN to suck it when they prefer stability at all costs over doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

Having a history is not equal to being right. Respect for rule of law should be one of our values.

It doesn't matter! That is my point. You are creating diferences because it makes you feel good to flip back and forth in your morality. But this is more than just moral. It is strategically necessary. And the only difference betwen Iraq and Libya is that we ignored the slaughter of uprising Iraqis for 12 years while refusing to ignore the ones in Libya. France decides to support the dictator of Tunisia throughout December by offerring security, but takes a stand over neighboring Libya?

This is a regional problem. Always has been and the UN is too full of selfish dip****s, who aren't affected by this region's waste, to care about it. Why do you thnk it takes the UN so long to declare any travesty? Maybe it's because Rwanda and Sudan taught them that if they only deliberate long enough that the offender will finish his slaughter campaign and thereby offer "peace"... er I mean stability. In 2003, we didn't have so much Arab support to deal with the prick in the desert and kick start democracy. Now that the people are uprising all over the place for democracy we pretend that we should "butt out" or "look away" or prove ourselves hypocrits? Bosnia and Kosovo are in Europe. Seeing how that is where two World Wars began I'd place that into its proper perspective. I would do the same for the MENA region considering that 95 percent of the world's religious terror is being bred there under the rule of dictators and religious theocracies. Something has to change. Supporting the people under our usual business partners is new. Maybe that's why the intellectual herd of sheep in the West can't fathom it and prefer that comfy "stability" game.

Click to expand...

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.

Well, if we just wait long enough then his slaughter will be over. That way, like with Hussein, we can preach about it being too late, right? Dictator's of the world don't matter here. It's the MENA that does. It's the dictators in the MENA that oppress a religious civilization so badly that they have no choices left but to jihad. And who is that Great Satan scapegoat again? The ones that supported the dictators during the Cold War? The ones that empowered him aferwards with military surplus so as to keep the people in line? The ones that today wait until the people appear to be winning before we take a stand?

Click to expand...

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.