|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 23, 2018 20:59:59 GMT -5
Vietnam? I’m just asking.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 23, 2018 21:03:00 GMT -5
It's a reasonable question. In Vietnam, though, we were assisting the existing government, until we winked when it was overthrown.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 23, 2018 21:08:16 GMT -5
I can understand that. I appreciate your answer.
|
|
|
Post by Phil N. Theblank on Mar 23, 2018 21:21:35 GMT -5
I heard that China has told NK that if the US strikes first they will defend NK, but if NK attacks the US first they will not help Nk. It's their way of stopping a war, they don't want.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 24, 2018 8:32:34 GMT -5
"AMONG THOSE MOST alarmed by President Donald Trump’s selection of John Bolton as his new national security adviser on Thursday were supporters of the Iran nuclear deal, the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a partial lifting of economic sanctions. Rob Malley, who coordinated Middle East policy in the Obama administration, observed that Bolton’s appointment, along with the nomination of Iran deal critic Mike Pompeo as secretary of state, seemed to signal that the agreement would most likely be “dead and buried” within months. Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council wrote on Twitter: “People, let this be very clear: The appointment of Bolton is essentially a declaration of war with Iran. With Pompeo and Bolton, Trump is assembling a WAR CABINET.”" Their alarm was understandable. Bolton, who made his name as a belligerent member of George W. Bush’s State Department and a Fox News contributor, has not only demanded that the Trump administration withdraw from the nuclear deal, he also previously advocated bombing Iran instead. Bolton has spent the better part of a decade calling for the United States to help overthrow the theocratic government in Tehran and hand power to a cult-like group of Iranian exiles with no real support inside the country. More at - theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 24, 2018 8:41:26 GMT -5
The libertarian position makes increasing sense to me. Stop all foreign involvement, bring all troops home, arm ourselves to the teeth and freely trade with everybody.
We could halvethe military budget and be better defended by far.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 24, 2018 10:44:57 GMT -5
The libertarian position makes increasing sense to me. Stop all foreign involvement, bring all troops home, arm ourselves to the teeth and freely trade with everybody. We could halvethe military budget and be better defended by far. The isolationist position. I have to admit it has its appeal after after 70 years of painfully unsuccessful interventionism.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 24, 2018 11:01:40 GMT -5
The libertarian position makes increasing sense to me. Stop all foreign involvement, bring all troops home, arm ourselves to the teeth and freely trade with everybody. I'm inclined to agree. It's what I've always thought. I will admit, though, that it's impossible to know what the world would look like today had we followed that course. Kinda like getting a flu shot and then concluding that it wasn't necessary because we never got the flu. It's also overlooking the probability that no country could survive without military alliances. And with those alliances come military actions that we didn't invite but are obligated to engage in. It's Pollyanna to think there won't be aggressors in the world. I'm also inclined to be fairly Dougian on the matter. Congress was supposed to have the say in whether or not we entered wars. It would have kept us out of most of them. Skating by our lack of adherence to the Constitution by fighting undeclared executive branch military actions for the past 70 years is fooling all the right people at all the right times.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 24, 2018 11:09:47 GMT -5
The North America Alliance. Its first deal will be to form a pact of mutual interest and free trade with the South American Alliance. Our nose will end where the water begins. We will do business, and only business, with whatever emerges on the other side.
The Risk board was prophetic.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Mar 24, 2018 11:26:54 GMT -5
You can also say that American isolationism is how we ended up with WWII. Maybe. You might end up with the Russians or Chinese knocking on your door in 20 to 30 years.
I’d sure be tempted to say to hell with it, though.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 24, 2018 11:38:52 GMT -5
Concerning the two Koreas, it wouldn't surprise me to wake up one day and see that blood has indeed turned thicker than water. Not only blood, but security. The two Koreas in a unified defense pact, if not now, then soon, would be a mouthful no country would want to try swallow.
We are convinced that we are the only reason North Korea has nukes. It could be we are the excuse, not the reason. (or at least, not the only and possibly future reason). China could wake up one day and discover that it not only has lost its leverage with the two Koreas, but that the North's nukes and the South's technology have made any military action to re-establish it more painful than it would be worth.
Hell, if we rubbed our eyes and looked at the Korea's in a different light, we might see a useful interest and not an enemy. Outside of an old grudge and now pointless habit, there is no tangible reason North Korea should be our enemy.
(tangible means something real that can be touched, like competition for food, water, and space. Ideology isn't tangible and is easily turned to bullshit.)
(ok, so tangible can be used to convey an intensity of emotion, but that is poetic license. Thoughts, feelings, and emotions aren't really tangible no matter how often they are described as such for effect)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 24, 2018 12:01:10 GMT -5
You can also say that American isolationism is how we ended up with WWII. Maybe. You might end up with the Russians or Chinese knocking on your door in 20 to 30 years. I’d sure be tempted to say to hell with it, though. Or you can say the decision to get involved in a European conflict (which came to be known as WWI, thanks to our involvement) created the conditions that lead to Hitler and WWII. (and if we had been properly concerned with developing North Dakota oil, we wouldn't have been messing with the Japanese over the resources in their neck of the woods)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 24, 2018 12:05:49 GMT -5
It's stunning how many of the world's problems can be solved in hindsight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 12:11:29 GMT -5
It's stunning how many of the world's problems can be solved in hindsight. Hindsight is one thing, but hiring the guy who advocated what turned out to be a disaster for another go could be seen as shortsighted.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 24, 2018 12:56:29 GMT -5
The libertarian position makes increasing sense to me. Stop all foreign involvement, bring all troops home, arm ourselves to the teeth and freely trade with everybody. I'm inclined to agree. It's what I've always thought. I will admit, though, that it's impossible to know what the world would look like today had we followed that course. Kinda like getting a flu shot and then concluding that it wasn't necessary because we never got the flu. It's also overlooking the probability that no country could survive without military alliances. And with those alliances come military actions that we didn't invite but are obligated to engage in. It's Pollyanna to think there won't be aggressors in the world. I'm also inclined to be fairly Dougian on the matter. Congress was supposed to have the say in whether or not we entered wars. It would have kept us out of most of them. Skating by our lack of adherence to the Constitution by fighting undeclared executive branch military actions for the past 70 years is fooling all the right people at all the right times. What John said.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 24, 2018 13:07:39 GMT -5
It's stunning how many of the world's problems can be solved in hindsight. Hindsight is one thing, but hiring the guy who advocated what turned out to be a disaster for another go could be seen as shortsighted. True my friend. And maybe Neville Chamberlain should have been given more of a shot.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 24, 2018 16:58:40 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree. It's what I've always thought. I will admit, though, that it's impossible to know what the world would look like today had we followed that course. Kinda like getting a flu shot and then concluding that it wasn't necessary because we never got the flu. It's also overlooking the probability that no country could survive without military alliances. And with those alliances come military actions that we didn't invite but are obligated to engage in. It's Pollyanna to think there won't be aggressors in the world. I'm also inclined to be fairly Dougian on the matter. Congress was supposed to have the say in whether or not we entered wars. It would have kept us out of most of them. Skating by our lack of adherence to the Constitution by fighting undeclared executive branch military actions for the past 70 years is fooling all the right people at all the right times. What John said. ...and what Oaul said.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 24, 2018 17:44:23 GMT -5
Without meaning to shoot any unicorns, from experience in security, if you do a good job nothing happens. Once nothing happens for awhile, you're no longer a justifiable expense and you're eliminated. Then when something does happen it's your fault. Good luck stopping violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 17:45:02 GMT -5
Hindsight is one thing, but hiring the guy who advocated what turned out to be a disaster for another go could be seen as shortsighted. True my friend. And maybe Neville Chamberlain should have been given more of a shot. There is a better choice somewhere between appeasement and recklessness. Hindsight had much less to do with Iraq than did hubris and the curious ability to ignore people who understood what an ungodly mess we were entering into if we invaded Iraq with well less than half the forces we used during Desert Storm. That was a war we were smart enough to walk away from. No wonder, when in 1996 or so, Schwartzkopf told a reporter that it would have been foolish to continue on to Baghdad. He grew up in the Middle East, and knew what he was talking about. Analogies are only helpful when they are accurate. We, the United States, loved to toss around the occupation of Germany after World War II as a signal that we "knew what we were doing, and rebuilding Iraq would be as fruitful." The problem with that analogy is that conditions in Germany after WWII and Iraq in 2003 were about as dissimilar as could be. Bolton's prints are all over that mess, and it has little to do with hindsight. We should have known better. (Well, OK, some of us did, but we didn't get a vote. We were just ordered to go over and try and unscrew the mess.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 24, 2018 20:54:11 GMT -5
True my friend. And maybe Neville Chamberlain should have been given more of a shot. There is a better choice somewhere between appeasement and recklessness. Hindsight had much less to do with Iraq than did hubris and the curious ability to ignore people who understood what an ungodly mess we were entering into if we invaded Iraq with well less than half the forces we used during Desert Storm. That was a war we were smart enough to walk away from. No wonder, when in 1996 or so, Schwartzkopf told a reporter that it would have been foolish to continue on to Baghdad. He grew up in the Middle East, and knew what he was talking about. Analogies are only helpful when they are accurate. We, the United States, loved to toss around the occupation of Germany after World War II as a signal that we "knew what we were doing, and rebuilding Iraq would be as fruitful." The problem with that analogy is that conditions in Germany after WWII and Iraq in 2003 were about as dissimilar as could be. Bolton's prints are all over that mess, and it has little to do with hindsight. We should have known better. (Well, OK, some of us did, but we didn't get a vote. We were just ordered to go over and try and unscrew the mess.) Dang it, Paul. You ruined the whole thread by being rational and believable. Dang it.
|
|