13 years of ''nation building'' has left The Mid-East in ruins and chaos..

[HeulenHund2]

Starting with Our invasion of Iraq and continuing through ''Arab Spring'' U.S. policy of both a Republican and now a Democrat administration has destroyed every country We've interfered with. I'm not including Afghanistan, it's a mess but We had to go in after 9-11 when their leaders refused to stop harboring those who planned the attacks. Ask an average Iraqi, Syrian or Libyan if they would go back to before the invasions and uprising if given the chance, I'm certain most would do so.
Then there is the cost in blood and treasure to America, the violence and chaos released unto the broader region, the immigration issues in Europe and the irony that We might have actually weakened our long term security.
Sorry folks, my pessimism is at a high point this morning, but I mean every word I'm posting.

Please post your ideas and feelings on this subject.

 

[CobbDawg51]

Starting with Our invasion of Iraq and continuing through ''Arab Spring'' U.S. policy of both a Republican and now a Democrat administration has destroyed every country We've interfered with. I'm not including Afghanistan, it's a mess but We had to go in after 9-11 when their leaders refused to stop harboring those who planned the attacks. Ask an average Iraqi, Syrian or Libyan if they would go back to before the invasions and uprising if given the chance, I'm certain most would do so.
Then there is the cost in blood and treasure to America, the violence and chaos released unto the broader region, the immigration issues in Europe and the irony that We might have actually weakened our long term security.
Sorry folks, my pessimism is at a high point this morning, but I mean every word I'm posting.

Please post your ideas and feelings on this subject.

Well, we are taking the exact opposite approach of appeasment with Iran. Let's see how you like it when Iran has nukes! The wars did not work because we pussy footed around. We will fight there again or in your neighborhood in the future. You can take that to the bank.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Well, we are taking the exact opposite approach of appeasment with Iran. Let's see how you like it when Iran has nukes! The wars did not work because we pussy footed around. We will fight there again or in your neighborhood in the future. You can take that to the bank.

I couldn't disagree with your conclusions more. When you've created a mile high pile of chit, shoveling on more usually doesn't decrease the size of the pile. What some people can't seem to accept is, there are often no ideal options in matters related to international negotiations. The other side ALWAYS has an interest. It would be insane to go to war with Iran, just bat chit crazy. We made a deal that many or even most retired military and statesmen think was better than just posturing or going into yet another misguided war.

 

[shonuff253]

Starting with Our invasion of Iraq and continuing through ''Arab Spring'' U.S. policy of both a Republican and now a Democrat administration has destroyed every country We've interfered with. I'm not including Afghanistan, it's a mess but We had to go in after 9-11 when their leaders refused to stop harboring those who planned the attacks. Ask an average Iraqi, Syrian or Libyan if they would go back to before the invasions and uprising if given the chance, I'm certain most would do so.
Then there is the cost in blood and treasure to America, the violence and chaos released unto the broader region, the immigration issues in Europe and the irony that We might have actually weakened our long term security.
Sorry folks, my pessimism is at a high point this morning, but I mean every word I'm posting.

Please post your ideas and feelings on this subject.

I completely agree with you. And lets not forget that we're the reason for a fanatical Iran. We deposed the democratically elected Mosaddegh in 1953 for oil and installed the Shah to be our puppet. Thanks to his abuse of power and torture of the innocent, he laid the ground work for the Iran that we see today. We continually shoot ourselves in the foot when we meddle in that region of the world

 

[FeralDawg]

I actually agree about the US interventions. And whenever I post against involvement I get accused of isolationism.
I'm a Libertarian that is actually registered as a Republican but I really oppose our involvement
in all this Middle East crap. Had a Marine buddy of mine get blown up by a suicide bomber there in 83
and lost any desire for that type of warfare and desperation. He was a hoot and a fearless scrapper.
He's listed as John Blocker here:
http://diplopundit.net/2013/10/23/30-years-ago-today-1983-u-s-marine-corps-barracks-bombing/

 

[HeulenHund2]

I actually agree about the US interventions. And whenever I post against involvement I get accused of isolationism.
I'm a Libertarian that is actually registered as a Republican but I really oppose our involvement
in all this Middle East crap. Had a Marine buddy of mine get blown up by a suicide bomber there in 83
and lost any desire for that type of warfare and desperation. He was a hoot and a fearless scrapper.
He's listed as John Blocker here:
http://diplopundit.net/2013/10/23/30-years-ago-today-1983-u-s-marine-corps-barracks-bombing/

My brother had mustered out of The Marines the year before the attack on The Marine Barracks, He was furious and devastated. Rick ( my Brother) had spent a year in The region, He loved many of the people, but He hated the politics.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

I couldn't disagree with your conclusions more. When you've created a mile high pile of chit, shoveling on more usually doesn't decrease the size of the pile. What some people can't seem to accept is, there are often no ideal options in matters related to international negotiations. The other side ALWAYS has an interest. It would be insane to go to war with Iran, just bat chit crazy. We made a deal that many or even most retired military and statesmen think was better than just posturing or going into yet another misguided war.

That was no deal. That was a concession to our "allies" in Europe, who have their own economic issues and would prefer not to deal with Putin's sabre rattling. This "deal" is certain proof to any of us who care to think, that we do not want to go head to head with either China (world economic considerations) or Russia (Europe's stability), both of whom continued "doing business" with Iran all along. And our incursion/invasion/war into/with Iraq and Afghanistan did not start this chaotic cycle in the Middle East. They have been in chaos and marveling at their ruins for centuries upon centuries. The reality in all of this is that with all of Western Civilization's efforts, NOTHING has changed "politically" (or functionally) over there since "Lawrence of Arabia's" time. They (including the "12 Tribes") are all about their religious sect, their immediate family and their particular tribe. They have no real sense of nationalism, a democratic process or community spirit. We continue to be foolishly amazed when they change sides in every national level conflict like we change our minds about what to have for dinner.

That region is the consummate "tar baby" of all time, literally and figuratively. Some of us want to blame their religion, others their culture. But it is really in their DNA to be the way they are and always have been. Some few leave that area and manage to assimilate into "Western/capitalistic culture," due primarily to the almost excessive freedoms we have to offer to anyone who "gets it" enough to get in. A few others manage to carve a purpose for themselves negotiating business deals between their "homeland" and various nations and corporations around the world. But, most (at least 90% of them, rough guess) want only to be left alone and to be allowed to live like they did thousands of years ago. Some of us would romanticize that idea same as we do about our own "Native Americans'" musings of riding the plains and living off the land in nomadic style again.

The helplessness of it all really boils down to two kinds of people in every culture, "the dreamers" and "the doers." Both sides "say" they are willing to seek some level of functional tolerance between the two in any culture. But, the frailties that define human beings force us instead to obsess over and to hate our differences (though they may be few), while ignoring all the things and thoughts we have in common (in spite of how many there are). We humans pretty much suck!

 

[HeulenHund2]

That was no deal. That was a concession to our "allies" in Europe, who have their own economic issues and would prefer not to deal with Putin's sabre rattling. This "deal" is certain proof to any of us who care to think, that we do not want to go head to head with either China (world economic considerations) or Russia (Europe's stability), both of whom continued "doing business" with Iran all along. And our incursion/invasion/war into/with Iraq and Afghanistan did not start this chaotic cycle in the Middle East. They have been in chaos and marveling at their ruins for centuries upon centuries. The reality in all of this is that with all of Western Civilization's efforts, NOTHING has changed "politically" (or functionally) over there since "Lawrence of Arabia's" time. They (including the "12 Tribes") are all about their religious sect, their immediate family and their particular tribe. They have no real sense of nationalism, a democratic process or community spirit. We continue to be foolishly amazed when they change sides in every national level conflict like we change our minds about what to have for dinner.

That region is the consummate "tar baby" of all time, literally and figuratively. Some of us want to blame their religion, others their culture. But it is really in their DNA to be the way they are and always have been. Some few leave that area and manage to assimilate into "Western/capitalistic culture," due primarily to the almost excessive freedoms we have to offer to anyone who "gets it" enough to get in. A few others manage to carve a purpose for themselves negotiating business deals between their "homeland" and various nations and corporations around the world. But, most (at least 90% of them, rough guess) want only to be left alone and to be allowed to live like they did thousands of years ago. Some of us would romanticize that idea same as we do about our own "Native Americans'" musings of riding the plains and living off the land in nomadic style again.

The helplessness of it all really boils down to two kinds of people in every culture, "the dreamers" and "the doers." Both sides "say" they are willing to seek some level of functional tolerance between the two in any culture. But, the frailties that define human beings force us instead to obsess over and to hate our differences (though they may be few), while ignoring all the things and thoughts we have in common (in spite of how many there are). We humans pretty much suck!

It's true Our hand was weakened by the clear fact European nations were dropping sanctions with or without a treaty.
That is just the hand We were dealt, We still had to play it as best We could. Doing nothing was a worse option, going to war was a FAR worse option.
We have to deal with The World as it is, We can't just dictate terms anymore.
As for the state of the region. We deposed stable regimes in nations whose citizens were not fighting us and left them in chaos, ruins, and wanting to kill Americans, that is damn sure not progress.

 

[whitepug6]

Starting with Our invasion of Iraq and continuing through ''Arab Spring'' U.S. policy of both a Republican and now a Democrat administration has destroyed every country We've interfered with. I'm not including Afghanistan, it's a mess but We had to go in after 9-11 when their leaders refused to stop harboring those who planned the attacks. Ask an average Iraqi, Syrian or Libyan if they would go back to before the invasions and uprising if given the chance, I'm certain most would do so.
Then there is the cost in blood and treasure to America, the violence and chaos released unto the broader region, the immigration issues in Europe and the irony that We might have actually weakened our long term security.
Sorry folks, my pessimism is at a high point this morning, but I mean every word I'm posting.

Please post your ideas and feelings on this subject.

I am reminded of President George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796. He was of course referring to Great Britain and France, but it sure seems like he could see into the future and our relationships with Israel and the Arab world. Has the US government become a "slave" to Israel through corrupting foreign influence?

...nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.


As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.


Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

 

[HeulenHund2]

I am reminded of President George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796. He was of course referring to Great Britain and France, but it sure seems like he could see into the future and our relationships with Israel and the Arab world. Has the US government become a "slave" to Israel through corrupting foreign influence?

...nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.


As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.


Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

Excellent catch Pug, I knew Washington's opinions on neutrality but if I've read his address before it slips my mind. It fits today as well as it did then, perhaps better.

 

[FeralDawg]

I can read that in a few ways. It would seem our President through Jarrett is a slave to certain foreign insidious interests.

 

[whitepug6]

I can read that in a few ways. It would seem our President through Jarrett is a slave to certain foreign insidious interests.

Care to name the country? I'm willing to state that members of both the Republican and Democratic parties have a slavish devotion to Israel.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Care to name the country? I'm willing to state that members of both the Republican and Democratic parties have a slavish devotion to Israel.

I expect he was referring more to a religion than a country. The old secret Muslim bit. I could be wrong of course.

 

[FeralDawg]

Whitepug,
Did you see the race to the Nazi bit? Same dog, new collar.
I see your interests are blaming Israel, though. Pot? Kettle?
If curious though, Vallery Jarrett is from Iran. That's my concern.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Whitepug,
Did you see the race to the Nazi bit? Same dog, new collar.
I see your interests are blaming Israel, though. Pot? Kettle?
If curious though, Vallery Jarrett is from Iran. That's my concern.

A segment of Israeli interest had quite an influence in the neocon push for ''nation building'' in The Mideast, that is fact. We were led down a garden path that did not serve OUR country's interest nearly as much as that of some in Israel's. Half the citizens in Israel oppose the Netanyahu led liars and sneaks yet We're considered anti-Jewish for expressing the same opinions shared by millions of Israelis.

 

[dieharddawg62]

That was no deal. That was a concession to our "allies" in Europe, who have their own economic issues and would prefer not to deal with Putin's sabre rattling. This "deal" is certain proof to any of us who care to think, that we do not want to go head to head with either China (world economic considerations) or Russia (Europe's stability), both of whom continued "doing business" with Iran all along. And our incursion/invasion/war into/with Iraq and Afghanistan did not start this chaotic cycle in the Middle East. They have been in chaos and marveling at their ruins for centuries upon centuries. The reality in all of this is that with all of Western Civilization's efforts, NOTHING has changed "politically" (or functionally) over there since "Lawrence of Arabia's" time. They (including the "12 Tribes") are all about their religious sect, their immediate family and their particular tribe. They have no real sense of nationalism, a democratic process or community spirit. We continue to be foolishly amazed when they change sides in every national level conflict like we change our minds about what to have for dinner.

That region is the consummate "tar baby" of all time, literally and figuratively. Some of us want to blame their religion, others their culture. But it is really in their DNA to be the way they are and always have been. Some few leave that area and manage to assimilate into "Western/capitalistic culture," due primarily to the almost excessive freedoms we have to offer to anyone who "gets it" enough to get in. A few others manage to carve a purpose for themselves negotiating business deals between their "homeland" and various nations and corporations around the world. But, most (at least 90% of them, rough guess) want only to be left alone and to be allowed to live like they did thousands of years ago. Some of us would romanticize that idea same as we do about our own "Native Americans'" musings of riding the plains and living off the land in nomadic style again.

The helplessness of it all really boils down to two kinds of people in every culture, "the dreamers" and "the doers." Both sides "say" they are willing to seek some level of functional tolerance between the two in any culture. But, the frailties that define human beings force us instead to obsess over and to hate our differences (though they may be few), while ignoring all the things and thoughts we have in common (in spite of how many there are). We humans pretty much suck!

It's a family feud that has been going on for 1000's of years. The children of Ishmael still hold a resentment against their step brother Isaac. It's been passed down from generation to generation...kind of like black and whites in this country.

It's ridiculous.

 

[HeulenHund2]

After re-reading the excerpts from Washington's farewell address posted above, it should be read and understood by all of us. It is as concise and brilliant as anything I've ever read on the dangers of unexamined favoritism toward a foreign nation.

 

[dieharddawg62]

After re-reading the excerpts from Washington's farewell address posted above, it should be read and understood by all of us. It is as concise and brilliant as anything I've ever read on the dangers of unexamined favoritism toward a foreign nation.

That's heavy...man!

 

[HeulenHund2]

That's heavy...man!

Yeah Dude.

 

[FeralDawg]

After re-reading the excerpts from Washington's farewell address posted above, it should be read and understood by all of us. It is as concise and brilliant as anything I've ever read on the dangers of unexamined favoritism toward a foreign nation.

I completely agree. That and ONLY that is the reason I see it cutting both ways.
The sad thing is we have Iran PROMISING they will obliterate Israel and chanting Death to USA! in the streets and high offices of their country and we still don't seem to hear it. I don't know the answer but lifting sanctions
and offering to practically build them nuclear reactors and turning a blind eye when they say "We found more enriched Uranium under a rock just now" seems naive.
But historically that place is NOT where I want to do business as a country. Ask yourself, would you live there?

 

[HeulenHund2]

I completely agree. That and ONLY that is the reason I see it cutting both ways.
The sad thing is we have Iran PROMISING they will obliterate Israel and chanting Death to USA! in the streets and high offices of their country and we still don't seem to hear it. I don't know the answer but lifting sanctions
and offering to practically build them nuclear reactors and turning a blind eye when they say "We found more enriched Uranium under a rock just now" seems naive.
But historically that place is NOT where I want to do business as a country. Ask yourself, would you live there?

That's a lot of things to encapsulate. I probably would live in Iran for a limited period. They have next to zero street crime and most everybody who has spent time there says it's a moderate social climate. They are far more western like in everyday life than most of the region.
As for the best approach AVAILABLE to us, I don't see a better one than what we're doing.

 

[whitepug6]

Whitepug,
Did you see the race to the Nazi bit? Same dog, new collar.
I see your interests are blaming Israel, though. Pot? Kettle?
If curious though, Vallery Jarrett is from Iran. That's my concern.

Good Lord, you conservatives are afraid of your own shadow! Valerie Jarrett is American. She was born to two American parents in Shiraz, Iran, where her father ran a children's hospital. She only lived in Iran for five years before her family moved to London.

 

[ugafish]

The wars did not work because we pussy footed around. .

What does this have to do with the de-stabilization that was caused by our meddling?

 

[FeralDawg]

Good Lord, you conservatives are afraid of your own shadow! Valerie Jarrett is American. She was born to two American parents in Shiraz, Iran, where her father ran a children's hospital. She only lived in Iran for five years before her family moved to London.

I'm not afraid of anything but what her 'guidance' is causing.
You may want to look into her Communist dad since it's 'just shadows'.
I'm sure in your pot clouded mind you think she's the best thing to happen to this country since Jimmy Carter since you seem to think it's all fun and games whenever anyone hands over more weapons/money to an Iran or other crazy country. I didn't like it when Bush did it and I damn sure don't like it when Valery guides our 'toom tabard' in office to hand out money and weapons to that hot mess of a country. It's like handing power and prestige to another Idi Amin. War is building and I don't want to say we are helping it.

 

[HeulenHund2]

I'm not afraid of anything but what her 'guidance' is causing.
You may want to look into her Communist dad since it's 'just shadows'.
I'm sure in your pot clouded mind you think she's the best thing to happen to this country since Jimmy Carter since you seem to think it's all fun and games whenever anyone hands over more weapons/money to an Iran or other crazy country. I didn't like it when Bush did it and I damn sure don't like it when Valery guides our 'toom tabard' in office to hand out money and weapons to that hot mess of a country. It's like handing power and prestige to another Idi Amin. War is building and I don't want to say we are helping it.

You and others keep thinking we had the alternative of stopping money flow to Iran, we had very little control. Europe, Russia and others were going to end sanctions with or without this agreement.
The choices were, do nothing and be left out of the process, go to war or make an agreement while we still had Europe at the table.
We made the best choice available to us. Those who wanted yet another costly and destabilizing war are apparently very slow learners.

 

[jenkinscreekdawg]

You and others keep thinking we had the alternative of stopping money flow to Iran, we had very little control. Europe, Russia and others were going to end sanctions with or without this agreement.
The choices were, do nothing and be left out of the process, go to war or make an agreement while we still had Europe at the table.
We made the best choice available to us. Those who wanted yet another costly and destabilizing war are apparently very slow learners.

i don't think russia was honoring the sanctions anyway, no surprise there . europe wanted to do business with iran, but would have stayed with the sanctions if this " dangerous agreement " wasn't going to happen . the sanctions were working , we probably should have tightened the sanctions instead of handing over $billions to a country who hates all civilized ( christian,jewish) countries . i won't be surprised when israel puts a bomb up there arse .

 

[FeralDawg]

I do think we have an alternative to handing over bundles of cash to the villains in this play I've seen over and over. The best way to win this dinner-party argument is to walk out, and steal the silverware on the way to the door. Not hand them our wallets. I keep hearing about being 'left out of the process'. So what?
What process do we need to be getting into in Iran? It's a country constantly in crisis that WE keep helping to cause. Why do we have this need to be involved? It's refreshing to see the 'liberals' have such an innate desire to be 'involved' in all this havoc. They were the first to chant 'no blood for oil' for earlier American follies in the ME.
You have to be naive or in collusion not to think these people screaming "death to America" "death to Israel"
and frothing at the mouth are NOT going to act on it. That proves that we are in the grip of people who- as Washington stated- are allowing sentiment to guide them into decisions that are not good for OUR nation.
If Russia wants to get into that quagmire of crazy, that will surely end in shit as well. Maybe Moscow will get their own 9/11 for meddling in that vacuum of common sense. This is not left versus right or conservative versus liberal. It's just repetitious folly.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

I do think we have an alternative to handing over bundles of cash to the villains in this play I've seen over and over. The best way to win this dinner-party argument is to walk out, and steal the silverware on the way to the door. Not hand them our wallets. I keep hearing about being 'left out of the process'. So what?
What process do we need to be getting into in Iran? It's a country constantly in crisis that WE keep helping to cause. Why do we have this need to be involved? It's refreshing to see the 'liberals' have such an innate desire to be 'involved' in all this havoc. They were the first to chant 'no blood for oil' for earlier American follies in the ME.
You have to be naive or in collusion not to think these people screaming "death to America" "death to Israel"
and frothing at the mouth are NOT going to act on it. That proves that we are in the grip of people who- as Washington stated- are allowing sentiment to guide them into decisions that are not good for OUR nation.
If Russia wants to get into that quagmire of crazy, that will surely end in shit as well. Maybe Moscow will get their own 9/11 for meddling in that vacuum of common sense. This is not left versus right or conservative versus liberal. It's just repetitious folly.

Russia has already toyed with the "tar baby" and has learned from their painful lesson in Afghanistan. Their only involvement now is as dictator puppeteer and supplier to those idiocracies of the month club in that region.

 

[HeulenHund2]

i don't think russia was honoring the sanctions anyway, no surprise there . europe wanted to do business with iran, but would have stayed with the sanctions if this " dangerous agreement " wasn't going to happen . the sanctions were working , we probably should have tightened the sanctions instead of handing over $billions to a country who hates all civilized ( christian,jewish) countries . i won't be surprised when israel puts a bomb up there arse .

Europe was not going to continue abiding by the sanctions, France among others had intimated as much. Those facts were part of the reasoning in pushing for an agreement while we still had Europe and Russia at the table.

 

[NavyDawg22]

What I find amazing is that people can always find the contradictions but never have any good answers. The reality is that alliances and commitments don't always fit neatly together and compromises have to be made. Also, just like taking things out of context we want to take one piece of history or excerpt that will define our narrative. Going into Iraq was a mistake but then giving back the country and pulling out was an even bigger one. We should not have gone in but to leave like we did was to define the narrative that we had no other choice. I will note that we still have bases in Japan and Korea. We had bases in the Philippines for a very long time. Also, Germany. Nation building takes decades and we should have stayed in power there and set up our empire as we did in Japan and Germany. Then we would not have the vacuum we have now. Also, when we decide to go to war let's top trying to be PC about it. Just level the country and start over from scratch. That's what real empires do. We need to stop trying to be friends with everyone when it comes to international politics. No one respects that weakness.

 

[HeulenHund2]

What I find amazing is that people can always find the contradictions but never have any good answers. The reality is that alliances and commitments don't always fit neatly together and compromises have to be made. Also, just like taking things out of context we want to take one piece of history or excerpt that will define our narrative. Going into Iraq was a mistake but then giving back the country and pulling out was an even bigger one. We should not have gone in but to leave like we did was to define the narrative that we had no other choice. I will note that we still have bases in Japan and Korea. We had bases in the Philippines for a very long time. Also, Germany. Nation building takes decades and we should have stayed in power there and set up our empire as we did in Japan and Germany. Then we would not have the vacuum we have now. Also, when we decide to go to war let's top trying to be PC about it. Just level the country and start over from scratch. That's what real empires do. We need to stop trying to be friends with everyone when it comes to international politics. No one respects that weakness.

The situation after WWII was very different than what we faced in Iraq. We would have never had peace occupying Iraq surrounded by Muslim nations. The idea we can maintain an ''empire'' in the 21st century is just wrong in my opinion. We couldn't even occupy a relatively small country like Iraq without having our capabilities depleted to critical levels. There's also the fact we would have won NOTHING of any real value to the people of this country. Did we face a single attack from Germans or Japanese during our long occupations ? I don't think so. Again, there is no valid comparison to what we would have faced trying to occupy Iraq indefinitely.

 

[NavyDawg22]

The situation after WWII was very different than what we faced in Iraq. We would have never had peace occupying Iraq surrounded by Muslim nations. The idea we can maintain an ''empire'' in the 21st century is just wrong in my opinion. We couldn't even occupy a relatively small country like Iraq without having our capabilities depleted to critical levels. There's also the fact we would have won NOTHING of any real value to the people of this country. Did we face a single attack from Germans or Japanese during our long occupations ? I don't think so. Again, there is no valid comparison to what we would have faced trying to occupy Iraq indefinitely.

Our approach was too PC and that does not work. When we conquered Japan and Germany the countries were completely helpless and we were starting from scratch. We left most of the infrastructure in place in Iraq. You have to completely destroy the country first. Doesn't matter that it is Muslim. The Japanese were much more ferocious IMO. First you eviscerate them then you build them up over time. I firmly believe that would've worked. It is the ancient Roman model and has been proven to work very well throughout history.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Our approach was too PC and that does not work. When we conquered Japan and Germany the countries were completely helpless and we were starting from scratch. We left most of the infrastructure in place in Iraq. You have to completely destroy the country first. Doesn't matter that it is Muslim. The Japanese were much more ferocious IMO. First you eviscerate them then you build them up over time. I firmly believe that would've worked. It is the ancient Roman model and has been proven to work very well throughout history.

If we behaved like Ancient Rome, I wouldn't care for being an American. We're supposed to represent more than real estate.
Not that Roman tactics would work now anyway.

 

[NavyDawg22]

If we behaved like Ancient Rome, I wouldn't care for being an American. We're supposed to represent more than real estate.
Not that Roman tactics would work now anyway.

Do you think the fire bombings of Germany and Japan were anti-American? We destroyed those countries with no mercy. Pick up some real history books and stop reading the revisionist propaganda stuff they teach in school.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Do you think the fire bombings of Germany and Japan were anti-American? We destroyed those countries with no mercy. Pick up some real history books and stop reading the revisionist propaganda stuff they teach in school.

I'm as familiar with WWII history as most anybody. Would I have supported the fire bombings ? no. But the situation we were in was infinitely closer to total war than we need be in The Mideast. Also dealing with Iraq in such a harsh manner would only create more hate and chaos in surrounding Islamic nations. Would you advocate provoking war with 100s of millions Islamist ? Also, what would we gain by committing so much blood and treasure ? blowing up a region isn't a constructive goal.

 

[NavyDawg22]

Once the decision was made to go in we needed a 50 year commitment to stay IMO. We had our own blood and treasure on the line so we absolutely should not have given the country back or pulled out. Both immeasurable mistakes. To your earlier point we have created a fantastic mess. When looking at these situations there are no easy answers. An America that is not heavily involved in world affairs is not an option anymore. It is unfortunate but we don't live in the same times as Washington. I have many Libertarian ideals as well but to leave an immoral and unethical world to the leadership of the Chinese and Russians is equally if not more an irresponsibility on our part. To act in hindsight like you have the answers is comical and simple-minded. The US and the hope it provides to many is still alive though diminishing. That does not mean nor has it ever meant that the US has been or is a just country in all shapes and forms. It absolutely is not that nor has it ever been so. If you want to know the real history of the United States read "A People's History of the United States." That book will open your eyes. Regardless, self-loathing and emasculation is not going to help us or anyone else. We are far from perfect but better than most other countries that rival us. Certainly you don't advocate for an isolationist America leaving the Russians and Chinese in charge? If so I would question your understanding of world history and other countries motives.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Once the decision was made to go in we needed a 50 year commitment to stay IMO. We had our own blood and treasure on the line so we absolutely should not have given the country back or pulled out. Both immeasurable mistakes. To your earlier point we have created a fantastic mess. When looking at these situations there are no easy answers. An America that is not heavily involved in world affairs is not an option anymore. It is unfortunate but we don't live in the same times as Washington. I have many Libertarian ideals as well but to leave an immoral and unethical world to the leadership of the Chinese and Russians is equally if not more an irresponsibility on our part. To act in hindsight like you have the answers is comical and simple-minded. The US and the hope it provides to many is still alive though diminishing. That does not mean nor has it ever meant that the US has been or is a just country in all shapes and forms. It absolutely is not that nor has it ever been so. If you want to know the real history of the United States read "A People's History of the United States." That book will open your eyes. Regardless, self-loathing and emasculation is not going to help us or anyone else. We are far from perfect but better than most other countries that rival us. Certainly you don't advocate for an isolationist America leaving the Russians and Chinese in charge? If so I would question your understanding of world history and other countries motives.

You mention giving ''hope'' to millions, while advocating mass destruction, for what ? We would gain nothing but near eternal strife and obligation if we tried to maintain an army big enough to suppress the Mideast, which is what would be needed to avoid constant attacks against our occupation force.
Your way makes no moral sense to me and would also be too costly and impractical, while gaining US Citizens nothing.

 

[NavyDawg22]

You mention giving ''hope'' to millions, while advocating mass destruction, for what ? We would gain nothing but near eternal strife and obligation if we tried to maintain an army big enough to suppress the Mideast, which is what would be needed to avoid constant attacks against our occupation force.
Your way makes no moral sense to me and would also be too costly and impractical, while gaining US Citizens nothing.

I never said we were giving hope to those in the Middle East. I just said that if we are serious about being a superpower than we need to change our approach. I like the WWII and Roman Empire models. By the way we are still in Japan and Germany and it has worked pretty well for us. How can you deny that?

 

[HeulenHund2]

I never said we were giving hope to those in the Middle East. I just said that if we are serious about being a superpower than we need to change our approach. I like the WWII and Roman Empire models. By the way we are still in Japan and Germany and it has worked pretty well for us. How can you deny that?

Who is interested in being a superpower ? In today's world it serves no purpose other than to feed the defense industry. It's not an obtainable goal even if we wanted to play slum lord to the world, which I don't.
Our interest should be quality of life oriented, not some ego trip about who has the bigger stick.

 

[NavyDawg22]

Who is interested in being a superpower ? In today's world it serves no purpose other than to feed the defense industry. It's not an obtainable goal even if we wanted to play slum lord to the world, which I don't.
Our interest should be quality of life oriented, not some ego trip about who has the bigger stick.

I'd rather us do it then let the Chinese do it to us. Better to be strong then conquered.