Muammar Gaddafi Dead

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I think it was important to "lead from behind" because we have used force in Iraq, we threaten Iran daily (they threaten back), we have used force in afghanistan, we are 'in bed' with the saudi's, we are 'in bed' with israel, etc etc.

One of the reasons they hate the US is our over involvement in their affairs and governments. If we put Libya on the list like the rest its simply even more ammo for terrorism groups for recruiting.

You're almost sounding like Ron Paul there Dos. (Just kidding.) On a serious note, my left-wing friends always bring up and lump in Afghanistan into the mess of our overseas engagements as though it was unjustified somehow. Is that just my misreading your statement, or is that the correct impression I am supposed to draw from such comments, ie, that Afghanistan was an unjustified war?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

You're almost sounding like Ron Paul there Dos. (Just kidding.) On a serious note, my left-wing friends always bring up and lump in Afghanistan into the mess of our overseas engagements as though it was unjustified somehow. Is that just my misreading your statement, or is that the correct impression I am supposed to draw from such comments, ie, that Afghanistan was an unjustified war?

No, i totally support the idea of going to afghanistan.

The natives don't neccessarily know why we are in afghanistan since they have no modern communication and the stuff that is communicated was usually through a taliban/al qaeda filter. Combine that with some insane amount of people who can't read, and/or never even attended school to be educated... and most of the population is young... they dont know why we are justified to be there. They just know we occupy the place and blow shit up.

So you combine all of it together.. it really creates a potential shit storm. And fwiw i am totally on board with Ron Paul's foreign strategy. Almost every word of it.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Yeah, I did mention that when I remarked that the jury was still out on our people in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I just feel there is a better chance at getting someone not committed to further bloodshed and tyranny if US troops occupy every street corner.



Indeed he was. So are many other dictators in the area. Last I checked the left went apeshit when we used that excuse to help topple a foreign government, but then again, that was done by a Republican president.



Well, that's a fair point, but the old adage "it can always get worse" doesn't come from nowhere.



Apples and oranges. No one is saying Libyans shouldn't have revolted, or that oppressed peoples should not rise up against their oppressors; the question is whether the United States should get involved in overseas revolutions. To make your comparison more apt, you should have suggested perhaps it was a bad idea for France to intervene on our behalf because of the possibility the new US government would be more hostile to France than King George was. Again, I just find it interesting that now that a Democrat is president, the left has no problem adopting a neoconservative foreign policy regarding assistance in overthrowing foreign tyrants.



Perhaps that part of the world is viewed as such because that part of the world has never given anyone a reason to view it differently. Let us hope that they take the chance you believe they should be afforded and do right by it. If they do, I think it will go a long way toward solving many problems in that area of the world.

One thing you keep mentioning is "Democrat vs Republican" and you're off base. It isn't WHAT we're doing it's HOW. We are SUPPORTING these homegrown (I hope) movements with minimal military activities...or activities with WIDESPREAD support...such as NATO. We aren't making up shit and unilaterally invading countries and occupying them. There's a real difference.

Normally I am against all interference...but this region is a problem because we OPENLY support Israel....so it only helps us with the new regimes to support them too from the beginning. That takes their attention off of us and Israel.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

No, i totally support the idea of going to afghanistan. The natives don't neccessarily know why we are in afghanistan since they have no modern communication and the stuff that is communicated was usually through a taliban/al qaeda filter. Combine that with some insane amount of people who can't read, and/or never even attended school to be educated... and most of the population is young... they dont know why we are justified to be there. They just know we occupy the place and blow shit up. So you combine all of it together.. it really creates a potential shit storm.

Oh, alright. I'm with ya.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

And fwiw i am totally on board with Ron Paul's foreign strategy. Almost every word of it.

Well, it is attractive. I was obviously for Afghanistan, and I supported Iraq (although my support was tempered by a lack of weapons of mass destruction being found and a haphazard post-war occupation plan). But a long decade of hard learned lessons regarding invading and occupying foreign states forced me to reevaluate my positions and views concerning American power abroad. So on the one hand, I am supportive of Paul's desire to reduce our foreign footprint abroad (at least militarily, not diplomatically), close bases, bring troops home, etc. I still think we should have our Navy patrol the seas though. On the other hand, though, I wonder who will fill the power vacuum that will result when/if American power retreats from Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. To be perfectly honest, sometimes I think the only reason our leaders maintain the status quo year after year is because they wonder and are afraid of the very same thing.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

One thing you keep mentioning is "Democrat vs Republican" and you're off base. It isn't WHAT we're doing it's HOW. We are SUPPORTING these homegrown (I hope) movements with minimal military activities...or activities with WIDESPREAD support...such as NATO. We aren't making up shit and unilaterally invading countries and occupying them. There's a real difference.

Perhaps this is true, but I think it is disingenuous to say that the political party of the president does not have a lot to do with why certain people support/oppose policies, especially when it comes to the last decade and George W. Bush. Liberals hated him from the moment he won Bush v. Gore, regardless of the fact that even the Times' recount found that Bush won. Your point is well taken; there are differences in approach. But Bush would not have gotten the support of the Left for Iraq even if he did use the Libya approach, or even if there were WMD's for that matter (personal opinion, but I think it's well founded considering the visceral hatred the Left has for the man). Had Bush been correct but done nothing, and Saddam used the weapons (against anyone), then the story would be how Bush "did nothing" (much like he is maligned for supposedly ignoring the al-Qaeda threat he was told about in August, a month before the attack, even though there was nothing in the memo that was actionable or that could have prevented 9/11). You know that no matter what he did or said, your side was going to lampoon him for it, just like you always accuse people of blasting Obama with "hate" for no reason. So you know it happens; don't pretend like your side doesn't do it too.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Normally I am against all interference...but this region is a problem because we OPENLY support Israel....so it only helps us with the new regimes to support them too from the beginning. That takes their attention off of us and Israel.

I think supporting the only true democracy in the region (well, before we made one in Iraq) is in the United States' best interests. That isn't to say Israel makes it easy on us. (And it is certainly not as though the Arab states in the area do a lot to convince us to change sides, either.)

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Oh, alright. I'm with ya.



Well, it is attractive. I was obviously for Afghanistan, and I supported Iraq (although my support was tempered by a lack of weapons of mass destruction being found and a haphazard post-war occupation plan). But a long decade of hard learned lessons regarding invading and occupying foreign states forced me to reevaluate my positions and views concerning American power abroad. So on the one hand, I am supportive of Paul's desire to reduce our foreign footprint abroad (at least militarily, not diplomatically), close bases, bring troops home, etc. I still think we should have our Navy patrol the seas though. On the other hand, though, I wonder who will fill the power vacuum that will result when/if American power retreats from Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. To be perfectly honest, sometimes I think the only reason our leaders maintain the status quo year after year is because they wonder and are afraid of the very same thing.

Leaving europe... i am not sure much changes.

Leaving others like South Korea... i can see the north getting wood.

I think we should leave assets in the area of Iraq/afghanistan just in case but no where near enough to cost billions a month.

Now that OBL is dead, i'd fast track leaving there since he was the main man to go after. Though based on hillary's comments on pakistan... not sure we are leaving that area any time soon.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Perhaps this is true, but I think it is disingenuous to say that the political party of the president does not have a lot to do with why certain people support/oppose policies, especially when it comes to the last decade and George W. Bush. Liberals hated him from the moment he won Bush v. Gore, regardless of the fact that even the Times' recount found that Bush won. Your point is well taken; there are differences in approach. But Bush would not have gotten the support of the Left for Iraq even if he did use the Libya approach, or even if there were WMD's for that matter (personal opinion, but I think it's well founded considering the visceral hatred the Left has for the man). Had Bush been correct but done nothing, and Saddam used the weapons (against anyone), then the story would be how Bush "did nothing" (much like he is maligned for supposedly ignoring the al-Qaeda threat he was told about in August, a month before the attack, even though there was nothing in the memo that was actionable or that could have prevented 9/11). You know that no matter what he did or said, your side was going to lampoon him for it, just like you always accuse people of blasting Obama with "hate" for no reason. So you know it happens; don't pretend like your side doesn't do it too.

You keep saying me and whatever...but I voted for Bush against Gore...voted for Bush again against Kerry. What he did in Iraq was wrong...on many MANY fronts. Let's just keep the reasons at two. 1: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the job in Afghanistan was far from finished. 2: They had to manufacture "WMDs" as a reason to justify it.

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

I think supporting the only true democracy in the region (well, before we made one in Iraq) is in the United States' best interests. That isn't to say Israel makes it easy on us. (And it is certainly not as though the Arab states in the area do a lot to convince us to change sides, either.)

Regardless of Israel's form of government, we all know that the Jewish lobby get the support of the US because they are Jewish. It's not because they are a democracy. If they were a Monarchy they'd be supported the same way.