Not using google but iirc it was George W to invade Iraq.
Which to me was a colossal mistake and next to nothing good has come from it.
I argue we use our military way to fluidly I'm for use of military power in direct defense of our nation. The last time we had a reason to go to war and went to war was in ww2 just about every conflict since then has been our policing policy it doesn't work.
Quote:Not using google but iirc it was George W to invade Iraq.
Which to me was a colossal mistake and next to nothing good has come from it.
I argue we use our military way to fluidly I'm for use of military power in direct defense of our nation. The last time we had a reason to go to war and went to war was in ww2 just about every conflict since then has been our policing policy it doesn't work.
I commend you for not using google to come up with the answer that you gave, even though the answer is incorrect. The correct answer is WWII. Our country has not "officially declared war" under the rules of our Constitution since WWII.
Contrary to what you believe and what the media tells you these days, going into Iraq was a proper thing and was not a "failure". Contrary to what the media says, going into Iraq and eliminating the regime (Saddam Hussein and his sons) was a good thing. The "direct defense of our nation" is not really clear to most people. The argument most brought up is the finding or not finding the "weapons of mass destruction". There is evidence that said weapons not only existed, but they were used on the very people within the country.
Conflicts since WWII were not in fact a "policing" policy.
What started the Korean War and why did America get involved? It certainly was not because of our "policing policy", it was more along the lines of atrocities being done by the North Korean regime towards it's own people (not much difference between that and what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people).
I had to cut my last post short because of storms/power outage possibilities.
this is where we disagree jagbelieve i don't view atrocities regardless how horrible they may be as a reason alone for use to get involved in foreign conflicts.
Maybe we didn't declare war in Iraq but when you send in that amount of troops spend that kind of money and then occupy them for a decade you went to war even if we didn't call it a war.
Unless you advocate us permanently staying in the Middle East Iraq should perfectly illustrate the point of non-intervention. We came we conquered we established a democracy we built infrastructure we trained an army we armed an army what happend to all of that when we left? Would it have mattered if Obama left some guys behind sure it would prolonged the inevitable a decade but when we left in a decade id wager it would all end up the same.
Now we're going to end up back in the Middle East because we armed another group of rebels to take on Assad who is on our bad guy list only those rebels ended up being worse. Damn it how about we just stay out of it? Saves us money. And lives.
Quote:I never said that we need to protect China, so please don't put words into my mouth. While we do a vast amount of commerce with them, the products that we get and consume from them are essentially "non-essential" or "un-important" (unless you are an iphone fanboy).
However, I keep presenting South Korea as an example for a couple of reasons. To get back to why this debate started, we have a base in and do protect South Korea. However, that base also includes our protecting Japan (both countries that we import many goods from). It's a major threat for North Korea to gain nuclear weapons. If that happened, it would be a threat to the world economy as we know it. Even if they didn't gain the nukes, what would happen if we "brought our boys home" from there as Eric eluded to earlier. What would North Korea do in the region and how would it affect us?
Between china, South Korea and Japan (who right now enjoys the luxury of using our military for free) there's enough countries with interest to keep North Korea in check.
And if North Korea invaded South Korea so what? I fail to see why that's our problem? Call me when Mexico marched on California or Texas.
Quote:I commend you for not using google to come up with the answer that you gave, even though the answer is incorrect. The correct answer is WWII. Our country has not "officially declared war" under the rules of our Constitution since WWII.
Contrary to what you believe and what the media tells you these days, going into Iraq was a proper thing and was not a "failure". Contrary to what the media says, going into Iraq and eliminating the regime (Saddam Hussein and his sons) was a good thing. The "direct defense of our nation" is not really clear to most people. The argument most brought up is the finding or not finding the "weapons of mass destruction". There is evidence that said weapons not only existed, but they were used on the very people within the country.
Conflicts since WWII were not in fact a "policing" policy.
What started the Korean War and why did America get involved? It certainly was not because of our "policing policy", it was more along the lines of atrocities being done by the North Korean regime towards it's own people (not much difference between that and what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people).
Whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq is beside the point. Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, and most certainly was not an imminent threat to the US. They could not even fly military aircraft in their own airspace. The billions spent waging the war in Iraq, the thousands of women and men we lost, the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis, the lack of planning for a postwar Iraq and last, but certainly not least, the current mess in Iraq all point to the fact that the war in Iraq was very much a failure.
Quote:
<div>
I don't think waiting 13 years, having to pay back taxes, learn english and having to keep out of jail is really all that much of a 'leg up'
I used to be pretty far right. Back then I'd have probably gotten along with everyone here a lot better except probably boudreaux. I thought we should send all the illegals packing.
The problem is... we say "Come here legally!" except... many of them can't. It's not like they think "I don't want to go to the US legally, because I can avoid paying taxes if I just go there illegally and live off the American's dime!" They want to provide a better life for themselves. They see America as an opportunity, and if they could come here legally they certainly would. Their options are incredibly limited. They either stay in poverty, or come to America to try to get out of it. A path to citizenship with those caveats listed above is, imo, totally fair. And I don't see why anyone would think otherwise.
</div>
I am most definitely not French! There is no X there!!!!!! Don't you put that evil on me
Quote:Whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq is beside the point. Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, and most certainly was not an imminent threat to the US. They could not even fly military aircraft in their own airspace. The billions spent waging the war in Iraq, the thousands of women and men we lost, the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis, the lack of planning for a postwar Iraq and last, but certainly not least, the current mess in Iraq all point to the fact that the war in Iraq was very much a failure.
Not to mention destabilizing the entire region. Is Libya better off now? Egypt? Nothing is stable there.
I'm with Eric. Let the Saudis protect themselves. Fear of ISIS? Let Turkey, Iran, Saudis,et al handle it.
To say the invasion was the best thing to do for our country after all the facts have presented themselves is shooting from the hip with a blindfold on. By that logic, we should already have invaded N.Korea.
Quote:Not to mention destabilizing the entire region. Is Libya better off now? Egypt? Nothing is stable there.
I'm with Eric. Let the Saudis protect themselves. Fear of ISIS? Let Turkey, Iran, Saudis,et al handle it.
To say the invasion was the best thing to do for our country after all the facts have presented themselves is shooting from the hip with a blindfold on. By that logic, we should already have invaded N.Korea.
Careful he might actually agree with that
I think the whole "damn reality, it was the right thing to do because I'm saying it was" argument is kind of silly, mainly because this is the only reality we have. We have no idea what that region would look like today if another course was taken, but even using this reality, I think you'll find the general consensus is that it was a mistake.
Quote:Between china, South Korea and Japan (who right now enjoys the luxury of using our military for free) there's enough countries with interest to keep North Korea in check.
And if North Korea invaded South Korea so what? I fail to see why that's our problem? Call me when Mexico marched on California or Texas.
First of all, South Korea and Japan do not "enjoy the luxury of using our military for free".
Also, under treaties that we have signed with the countries involved does in fact "make it our problem" should North Korea decide to attack and/or invade either country.
Quote:Whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq is beside the point. Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, and most certainly was not an imminent threat to the US. They could not even fly military aircraft in their own airspace. The billions spent waging the war in Iraq, the thousands of women and men we lost, the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis, the lack of planning for a postwar Iraq and last, but certainly not least, the current mess in Iraq all point to the fact that the war in Iraq was very much a failure.
Nobody said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for what happened on 9/11. Here are the facts.
1. Saddam Hussein was using WMD on his own people and committing genocide. The genocide thing is the same thing that Kim Jong Il was doing to his own people in Korea. Were we wrong to get involved in that conflict?
2. Saddam Hussein had previously invaded another country, thus destabilizing the region and threatening not only our supply of oil, but supplies to the rest of the world.
3. The current mess in Iraq is a result of not following plans in the country once Saddam Hussein was removed. The "bring our boys home" crowd along with the change of Presidency is what has caused the results that we see now in that country.
I guess my point of view is different than most people because a) I served during the first "Gulf War" and have spent most of my post-military career working closely with the military, and am privy to some stuff that the average person isn't. I can't and wont go into detail, but let's just say that I understand why we do certain things with our military in this and other regions.
Quote:Nobody said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for what happened on 9/11. Here are the facts.
1. Saddam Hussein was using WMD on his own people and committing genocide. The genocide thing is the same thing that Kim Jong Il was doing to his own people in Korea. Were we wrong to get involved in that conflict?
2. Saddam Hussein had previously invaded another country, thus destabilizing the region and threatening not only our supply of oil, but supplies to the rest of the world.
3. The current mess in Iraq is a result of not following plans in the country once Saddam Hussein was removed. The "bring our boys home" crowd along with the change of Presidency is what has caused the results that we see now in that country.
I guess my point of view is different than most people because a) I served during the first "Gulf War" and have spent most of my post-military career working closely with the military, and am privy to some stuff that the average person isn't. I can't and wont go into detail, but let's just say that I understand why we do certain things with our military in this and other regions.
I know plenty of people that have served some over an entire career that disagree we shouldn't be involved in theses regional conflicts abroad.
You claim it was being our boys home that lead to the mess in modern day Iraq but I ask at what point would it have been acceptable to come home? Should we have occupied for two decades, three, maybe more? Who's to say the region wouldn't be destabilized when we left in some future time frame all the evidence suggest that's exactly what would've happened. That region has been unstable for centuries do you not see the arrogance in assuming we can change that? Or that we should change that?
As for the oil yes you are correct that was a huge reason for what happened which is why I'm all for drilling here at home while researching alternative energy until we become energy independent we will be involved abroad.
It doesn't matter how many different ways we try and rewrite the reason for invading Iraq the mess where in now illustrates perfectly why non-intervention should be our foreign policy.
Quote:Nobody said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for what happened on 9/11. Here are the facts.
1. Saddam Hussein was using WMD on his own people and committing genocide. The genocide thing is the same thing that Kim Jong Il was doing to his own people in Korea. Were we wrong to get involved in that conflict?
Like 15-20 years before we invaded Iraq?
Quote:Not to mention destabilizing the entire region. Is Libya better off now? Egypt? Nothing is stable there.
I'm with Eric. Let the Saudis protect themselves. Fear of ISIS? Let Turkey, Iran, Saudis,et al handle it.
To say the invasion was the best thing to do for our country after all the facts have presented themselves is shooting from the hip with a blindfold on. By that logic, we should already have invaded N.Korea.
The destabilization in Libya and Egypt is a result of the
Arab Spring (which our current President praised). How has non-intervention worked out in that case? The current President said that "Al Qaeda is on their heels" and that they were "on the run". The current President called the terrorists the "JV team". The "JV team" is pretty much ISIS right now.
As far as going into North Korea, it won't happen under current circumstances for a few reasons. Communism, China and Russia.
Quote:First of all, South Korea and Japan do not "enjoy the luxury of using our military for free".
Also, under treaties that we have signed with the countries involved does in fact "make it our problem" should North Korea decide to attack and/or invade either country.
Japan essentially doesn't have a military because the treaty Pretty much guarantees we will act in there defense in just about every situation. Which might have something to do with why they've made exponential leaps in technology, quality of life and infrastructure after ww2. When nations are not busing fixing the rest of the world they have this amazing ability to address and better there own homeland go figure?
Quote:Like 15-20 years before we invaded Iraq?
Using WMD against people, yes it might have been 15 years prior or so. However, the "ethnic cleansing" and atrocities continued into the 90's.
Quote:Japan essentially doesn't have a military because the treaty Pretty much guarantees we will act in there defense in just about every situation. Which might have something to do with why they've made exponential leaps in technology, quality of life and infrastructure after ww2. When nations are not busing fixing the rest of the world they have this amazing ability to address and better there own homeland go figure?
Ever think that the possibility of making "exponential leaps in technology" might have something to do with their culture? The same might be said of their quality of life and infrastructure. Hmm... I think that we managed to make "exponential leaps in technology" ourselves since WWII. Just off the top of my head, putting man on the moon, modern computers and cell phones, the C programming language, and the internet immediately come to mind. What about stealth technology and modern aviation?
Quote:The destabilization in Libya and Egypt is a result of the Arab Spring (which our current President praised). How has non-intervention worked out in that case? The current President said that "Al Qaeda is on their heels" and that they were "on the run". The current President called the terrorists the "JV team". The "JV team" is pretty much ISIS right now.
As far as going into North Korea, it won't happen under current circumstances for a few reasons. Communism, China and Russia.
We funded a big part of the Arab Spring, we armed the Syrian rebels directly and there was calls for us to do even more, that is the exact opposite of non-intervention?
