[AndyPharmc]

Yes, but some of the extremists living in these areas have been attacking Afghanis and running back across the Pakistan border for refuge.

This requires that we attack in response.

It's probably a perspective thing, but governments throughout the world have used a similar excuse.

Irish men and women were cut down for supposedly harboring IRA fugitives.

I don't think it's justifiable to cut down civilians in a bid to track down what the US labels a terrorist minority.

I also do not recall issues in the middle east being in such a state prior to the US arrival.

[megatrendsZ]

Obama did, in fact, advocate invading Pakistan - without their permission - to wage war on the terrorists:



Of course, that was Candidate Obama, and there's little evidence President Obama ever met him.....

We should have given Pakistan a choice of going after A.Q themselves, or we would cross the border and do it ourselves. Obama was right in what he said as canidate. Any nation that harbors our enemies, the guys who were involved in the 9-11 attacks should be treated as such.

Instead, we find ourselves still in Afganistan, a waste of lives and treasure. If you are not gonna go full out to defeat your enemies, stay the hell at home and keep young american boys and girls on top of the ground, instead of under it. These damn police actions are bankrupting this nation. If Congress does not have the balls to declare a war, we should take away that Presidential power to wage em. It's been a cluster fuck ever since Congress shirked its Constitutional duty.

[AutocadOemM]

It's probably a perspective thing, but governments throughout the world have used a similar excuse.

Irish men and women were cut down for supposedly harboring IRA fugitives.

I don't think it's justifiable to cut down civilians in a bid to track down what the US labels a terrorist minority.

I would agree that it's a perspective thing. Still, we would gladly let the Pakistani government handle this if it was capable of doing so, but they simply aren't.

I also do not recall issues in the middle east being in such a state prior to the US arrival.

Several things come to mind. First, Israel. The border disputes involved with them have occurred ever since 1948. That is a legacy of England's intervention. America didn't get that involved with Israel until much later down the road.

Second, the Crusades. There is a long history of conflict between the West and the Middle East. The USSR was also a factor for a while during the last century.

So, while our interventions have escalated certain situations, we're certainly not the originator of the chaos that seems to always be present in at least part of the Middle East and South Asia at any given time.

Also, Europeans drew up a lot of the borders that exist today.

[RobertLS]

They are trying to appease the populations in the ungoverned tribal regions. Who kill just as many Pakistanis in Pakistan as they do Afghans in Afghanistan.

They're trying to "appease" the civilians who are getting blown up by the drones?


Hmm.


Ya think?


S'pose Mexico started using drones to blow up safehouses and other infrastructure and individuals on this side of the border who are contributing directly to the drug cartels (and resultant slaughters) happening on their side of the border? S'pose our population might need a little "appeasing," especially when innocents died right alongside?

America's days of acting with impunity are long over.

[Viafdrear]

We should have given Pakistan a choice of going after A.Q themselves, or we would cross the border and do it ourselves. Obama was right in what he said as canidate. Any nation that harbors our enemies, the guys who were involved in the 9-11 attacks should be treated as such.

Instead, we find ourselves still in Afganistan, a waste of lives and treasure. If you are not gonna go full out to defeat your enemies, stay the hell at home and keep young american boys and girls on top of the ground, instead of under it. These damn police actions are bankrupting this nation. If Congress does not have the balls to declare a war, we should take away that Presidential power to wage em. It's been a cluster fuck ever since Congress shirked its Constitutional duty.

So, now we open a 4th front?

Fuck, why don't we just draft every man between 18 and 36 and just invade everyone and get it over with?


Or, maybe we can pull our collective head out and realize that we're not going to solve anything with bombs and bullets.

[ThekvandoVideo]

So, now we open a 4th front?

Fuck, why don't we just draft every man between 18 and 36 and just invade everyone and get it over with?


Or, maybe we can pull our collective head out and realize that we're not going to solve anything with bombs and bullets.

I would opt for the latter of course!

But if we are gonna keep being the world's police force, it is high time to bring back the draft, and force Congress into their proper role regarding waging war. So they have to answer for their actions, instead of letting a limited term Pres start wars. Hell, he can start em, and then his office term is limited.

But if we are to wage war, lets go full out, to win them. This half assed way just spends too much money and lives, with no wins at the end of it. Before we ever go, we should plan on winning, or stay the hell at home. We would fight very few wars if done in this manner. But the corporations that sell arms to the military would have a fucking fit! Afterall, if not for these incessant wars our Pres gets us into, those suppliers might not get so filthy rich. Do ya think those suppliers ever have a say in wars? Afterall it benefits them greatly.

[autolubitelone]

I would opt for the latter of course!

But if we are gonna keep being the world's police force, it is high time to bring back the draft, and force Congress into their proper role regarding waging war. So they have to answer for their actions, instead of letting a limited term Pres start wars. Hell, he can start em, and then his office term is limited.

But if we are to wage war, lets go full out, to win them. This half assed way just spends too much money and lives, with no wins at the end of it. Before we ever go, we should plan on winning, or stay the hell at home. We would fight very few wars if done in this manner. But the corporations that sell arms to the military would have a fucking fit! Afterall, if not for these incessant wars our Pres gets us into, those suppliers might not get so filthy rich. Do ya think those suppliers ever have a say in wars? Afterall it benefits them greatly.

Oh, surely you're not suggesting that these wars are fought at the behest of arms suppliers?




I mean, they wouldn't go fight, say, Libya as a way to show off their latest hardware or anything. Certainly not to get paid for hundreds of million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missiles. That would never happen, would it?

[Annewsded]

Oh, surely you're not suggesting that these wars are fought at the behest of arms suppliers?




I mean, they wouldn't go fight, say, Libya as a way to show off their latest hardware or anything. Certainly not to get paid for hundreds of million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missiles. That would never happen, would it?

I'd have to agree with Blue Doggy on some of his points.

Police actions, more often than not, eventually escalate into wars. Once the escalation occurs, you can't expect civilians to be spared.

That's probably the biggest problem that the civilian public has with regard to perceiving war. There is no military intervention that doesn't end up killing at least a few civilians.

So, when various people (on both the left and right) advocate interventionism, they really shouldn't be surprised when civilians die in the process. Even left-leaning publications like the Guardian had some columnists advocate our intervention in Libya, only to have several complaints of innocents dying a week or so later.

In short, the world needs to make up its mind about this stuff. Either stop requesting our intervention in anything, or deal with the collateral when it inevitably happens.

You can't have it both ways, and that unfortunately seems to be what some people expect out of foreign policy.

[derisgun]

I would agree that it's a perspective thing. Still, we would gladly let the Pakistani government handle this if it was capable of doing so, but they simply aren't.



Several things come to mind. First, Israel. The border disputes involved with them have occurred ever since 1948. That is a legacy of England's intervention. America didn't get that involved with Israel until much later down the road.

Second, the Crusades. There is a long history of conflict between the West and the Middle East. The USSR was also a factor for a while during the last century.

So, while our interventions have escalated certain situations, we're certainly not the originator of the chaos that seems to always be present in at least part of the Middle East and South Asia at any given time.

Also, Europeans drew up a lot of the borders that exist today.

It's not an accusation really. When I say US intervention I'm referring to the elite few who call the shots on whether or not to jeopardize the lives of millions for their own lust for money.

European and US elites combined have ruined the lives of millions, justifying it back home by whatever means they can.

As the conflict out there carries on, more people are becoming wise to these lies. I doubt you could find many individuals who believe that western intervention in the middle east is not based around the lucrative oil supply.

[neniajany]

It's not an accusation really. When I say US intervention I'm referring to the elite few who call the shots on whether or not to jeopardize the lives of millions for their own lust for money.

European and US elites combined have ruined the lives of millions, justifying it back home by whatever means they can.

As the conflict out there carries on, more people are becoming wise to these lies. I doubt you could find many individuals who believe that western intervention in the middle east is not based around the lucrative oil supply.

I agree with most of what you say, but am one of those individuals who thinks that US involvement in the Middle East has more to do with who buys US war materiels, and less to do with oil. As evidence I would offer that.


1. US companies buy a lot of oil from Venezuela although no one calls Venezuela or Hugo Chavez a US ally.

2. Iraq, despite its US occupation Vichy government, has reportedly signed its largest oil contracts with Russia.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

[karaburatoreror]

America's days of acting with impunity are long over.

Are they? Seems to be happening right now.

[Jambjanatan]

It's not an accusation really. When I say US intervention I'm referring to the elite few who call the shots on whether or not to jeopardize the lives of millions for their own lust for money.

European and US elites combined have ruined the lives of millions, justifying it back home by whatever means they can.

As the conflict out there carries on, more people are becoming wise to these lies. I doubt you could find many individuals who believe that western intervention in the middle east is not based around the lucrative oil supply.

Tom's points stand regarding oil.

Invading Iraq had plenty of ulterior motives, but I don't think oil itself was the reason for it. Our currency's connection to the oil trade probably did, but that's a different issue.

As for Afghanistan, there are a number of reasons we entered. A lot of them aren't particularly good reasons, but at the same time, Afghanistan is kind of the ass end of the world.

I think we should have negotiated with the Afghani government rather than attacking them, but it's hard to feel much sympathy for such a primitive area of the world.

If it wasn't us bombing the crap out of them, they'd simply be killing or oppressing each other via the Taliban. Removing Taliban rule probably has improved the lives of many Afghanis, but again, we're dealing with very primitive tribal cultures that don't exactly operate under the same logic as the developed world. Education is pretty bad in these areas, for example, so fanatical interpretations of Islam tend to warp their logic and values.

[ethigSmimbine]

Are they? Seems to be happening right now.

I'd disagree. We're being held accountable, and the movement against us is gaining strength. We're not able to just say "we're America, we'll do what we want" any more.

[SHUSIATULSE]

I'd disagree. We're being held accountable, and the movement against us is gaining strength. We're not able to just say "we're America, we'll do what we want" any more.

Well, the sad part is that, when we eventually lose primacy, someone else will just replace us.

There was a time when the U.K. was the biggest imperialist in the world. Eventually, it got too expensive, and they lost too much face.

Then, we took on that role.

Now, it looks like China might be the next power player.

There's room enough in the world for there always to be some new imperialist, but technology just slowly requires it to take more creative and subtle forms. China seems to be slowly mastering the art of purely economic imperialism. They're smart enough to mostly avoid military action, while still accomplishing most of the same results and profit.

[wCYvMKAc]

Well, the sad part is that, when we eventually lose primacy, someone else will just replace us.

There was a time when the U.K. was the biggest imperialist in the world. Eventually, it got too expensive, and they lost too much face.

Then, we took on that role.

Now, it looks like China might be the next power player.

There's room enough in the world for there always to be some new imperialist, but technology just slowly requires it to take more creative and subtle forms. China seems to be slowly mastering the art of purely economic imperialism. They're smart enough to mostly avoid military action, while still accomplishing most of the same results and profit.

Well, there was a time when we were balanced by another power - that would be ideal. 2 or 3 major powers that can call each other on one another's bullshit.

[Faigokilix]

Well, the sad part is that, when we eventually lose primacy, someone else will just replace us.

There was a time when the U.K. was the biggest imperialist in the world. Eventually, it got too expensive, and they lost too much face.

Then, we took on that role.

Now, it looks like China might be the next power player.

There's room enough in the world for there always to be some new imperialist, but technology just slowly requires it to take more creative and subtle forms. China seems to be slowly mastering the art of purely economic imperialism. They're smart enough to mostly avoid military action, while still accomplishing most of the same results and profit.

When Britain was the world's super power, monarchy was promoted, as the best form of government, and many, no doubt, installed.

When we took the world's super power role over, Democracy was promoted, and, no doubt, many were installed.

China is likely the next world super power, they government themselves via a Communism / capitalistic mixture, and now this'll be promoted and installed?

[cemDrymnVem]

Well, there was a time when we were balanced by another power - that would be ideal. 2 or 3 major powers that can call each other on one another's bullshit.

Sort of... In some ways, that was worse though. A lot of proxy wars were fought between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and that resulted in a lot of civilian deaths -- a lot more than the ones we cause as the sole superpower.

A Cold War can be stabilizing for the world overall, but it can be utterly devastating to the select countries determined to be "prime strategic targets."

[MyLeva]

When Britain was the world's super power, monarchy was promoted, as the best form of government, and many, no doubt, installed.

When we took the world's super power role over, Democracy was promoted, and, no doubt, many were installed.

China is likely the next world super power, they government themselves via a Communism / capitalistic mixture, and now this'll be promoted and installed?

Good point. That's a pretty disturbing thought.

[RLRWai4B]

Sort of... In some ways, that was worse though. A lot of proxy wars were fought between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and that resulted in a lot of civilian deaths -- a lot more than the ones we cause as the sole superpower.

A Cold War can be stabilizing for the world overall, but it can be utterly devastating to the select countries determined to be "prime strategic targets."

Agreed - the US/USSR thing was too antagonistic. But I would say that such antagonism doesn't have to be the case. Competition can be less than of such ferocity where the goal is to eliminate the other completely from the globe.

[accelieda]

Agreed - the US/USSR thing was too antagonistic. But I would say that such antagonism doesn't have to be the case. Competition can be less than of such ferocity where the goal is to eliminate the other completely from the globe.

I can agree with that. If the U.S., the EU, Russia, Brazil, India, and China became a sort of multilateral balancing act, that would probably be less antagonistic.