Iran: Hyperinflation is taking hold (SHTF)

[Coffee]

Yes, they would come out on top.

- They finance and arm Hezbollah.
- They finance, arm and prop up the government (or a big part of it) in Lebanon
- They finance, arm and prop up the murderous regime of Syria.
- They finance, arm and support terrorist movements that target women and children in Iraq.
- They interfere and influence Afghanistan.
- They routinely threaten to wipe other countries off the map and make a sport of calling for the slaughter of Jews, worldwide.

I could go on and on.

If we go to war with Iran, what happens to the price of oil.  What happens when we leave?  When will we leave?  Who fights and who pays?  

Since I am "The King of America" and my crystal ball is just warming up, I will bless you with answers to those questions, my son: 
- Price of oil: It spikes, then it comes back down.  What happens to the price of oil if we sit on our hands and allow Iran to ultimately swallow Saudi Arabia?
When we leave: Pro-western influences take over.  International commerce booms.  Their economy starts creating massive jobs. But we can't tuck-tail and leave, Obama-style.
When will we leave? My crystal ball says: October 19th.
Who fights? Coalition, led by US.  Who pays if we let Iran take over the Middle East and monopolize oil?

Don't the Saudis do a lot of financing, arming, and propping?

Yup.  And I think we need to start leaning on them to stop funding the Madrassahs and the other factions that are not in our interest.  And we need to help them get rid of the anti-Western factions within their own Kingdom.  But instead, our Commander in Chief is running over and bowing to them.  Big problem.

 Didn't we finance, arm, and prop up the Shah of Iran?

Yup.  Big mistake.  Like I said: Nobody bats 1000.  But weight-for-weight, we've done pretty darn well over the past 60 years, the Shah not withstanding.

Didn't we finance, arm, and prop up Saddam?

Yes we did.  Until we didn't.  What's your point? That we should continue propping up people when they no longer reflect our interests. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is your friend. 

Until they're not. 

That's a basic tenant of War.  Ignore it at your own national peril.

  Haven't U.S. actions resulted in the deaths of women and children in Iraq and Aghanistan?

Are you implying that was our intent?  Because I'd like to think that you can tell the difference between a military who's intent and policy is to kill innocent civilians (Iran) vs. our military's.

The turning point for me in my view of the U.S. foreign policy was Pat Tillman.  The U.S. Army lied about his death and tried to use it as propaganda.  If they were not caught in their lie, they would have let it continue.  Talk about moral rot, made me think what else is propaganda....

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/16/t ... lman-story

Agreed.  Deplorable.  But when you have a military, this kind of stuff will happen.  It happens to every military. The difference is: With America, it eventually comes to light.  And the whistleblowers don't get sent to a gulag.

[moda0306]

If Harry Browne and Ron Paul are unelectable because of foreign policy (very legit statement), it's hardly because the public is actually making an informed decisions... it's because they're nationalistic and afraid.

I've seen those that support the military with the most fervor, and they are simply victims of jingoistic groupthink.  I don't want these people in charge of our military, but unfortunately they're the first ones to apply for the job.

The middle east wouldn't give us any more of a dirty look than they give Switzerland if we'd simply kept to ourselves all these years.  Our "alliance" with Israel is a trap if I've ever seen one.  What do we get for it, other than 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?  Land disputes are dirty, dirty things, as there's no clear-cut way to view property that's been around for centuries.... and we shouldn't get involved with this one.

Coffee,

Problem is we were allied with Iraq when they were committing their worst atrocities... it's hard to come back later and use the atrocities we ignored as a reason to justify removing their leader.

[moda0306]

Coffee,

If we KNOW these horrible things are going to happen before invading a country, and it's perfectly natural for a populace to react very unfavorably to these events, then assuming occupations will work well at the outset is the first mistake.  This is why war should be a last resort.  Nothing is more disrespectful of all of the things free people value than war.  Occupational wars try to combine police & social services with war and that doesn't usually work well for what shouldbe obvious reasons.

[Coffee]

Coffee wrote:

10 years in Iraq: Hindsight is 20/20.  Still, not a bad outcome.  We got rid of Hussein in Iraq, young girls are now allowed to go to school and women can drive. We have more of a central influence in the Middle East to thwart Iran and protect our oil interests.  Hussein is no longer funding and harboring terrorism.  Afghanistan: Combined with Iraq, we now had Iran flanked.  Taliban was driven out.  Al Queda crushed.  The only real argument that our actions in Iraq have benefited Iran more than the US is because the Democrats undermine our war efforts at every turn.  Iraq was starting to calm down and stand on it's own feet, until Obama started pulling the troops out.  

Other people's kids Dead-end argument.  If there was a draft, you'd argue that there should be a volunteer army so that people's "kids" can choose to go or not.

Neo-con chicken hawk argument:  Your argument suggests that only we should be governed (at least on issues of war) by a super-citizen, or citizen-soldier.  That only those who have served some how have a right to say whether we go to war.  Of course, then you'll make the argument that it's the war hungry generals and military establishment making the decisions.  So again... you've set up another false argument.

Expansionist military Last time I checked: The military was run by a civilian commander-in-chief.  The military does not set it's own agenda.  If they did, they'd probably get more funding rather than the cuts Obama is making.

Dick Cheney change of position So, in your opinion, leaders should be inflexible and recalcitrant?  They should always stick with a position even when current intelligence suggest that would be imprudent?

I did not say that Dick Cheney cannot change his position.  You are saying that hindsight is 20/20.  The hindsight you are talking about was stated by Dick Cheney (very eloquently and presciently) in 1994.  

I'm not understanding you position here.  It sounds like you're comparing what he said about the first Iraq war with our later invasion of Iraq?  If so, then they are (in my opinion) two different sets of variables.

Question: Was Iraq a mistake?  How many Iraqi civilians (including women and children) died for a central influence.   

The "Women and Children" argument?

Be still my beating heart.  Were you as concerned about the Iraqi civilian women and children when Hussein was sending them to the front line to fight in the 11 year war against Iran? Or are they only important to you when you can use them as a political jab, to make America look like the villain? Because that's what is seems like to me.  Correct me if I'm wrong?

What you call a not bad outcome resulting in a central base and flanking of Iraq, I call a quagmire.  Are we permanently in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the Taliban gone?  I thought we were negotiating with them.   

Don't blame me for that.  I didn't vote for Obama and I don't agree with his pacifist foreign policy.  Which looks -- coincidentally-- very much like Ron Paul's.

The other people's kids, neo-conservative, and chicken hawk is not a dead end argument just because you ignore it.    I did not make a false argument - you are making arguments for me and then stating that I am setting up a false argument.  It is very interesting that the neo-conservative movement is filled with folks that avoided Vietnam in their youth and became hawks in their old age.  

Just looks to me that you're cherry-picking neo-cons that fit your argument.  And the crux of your argument (by throwing this out) still suggests that you think only people who've served should be allowed to write foreign policy?

If you don't think that the military is an expansionist bureaucracy, then we just view things differently.  

How can they be, when you have non-military civilian leaders deciding where to engage?

[stone]

Coffee, I don't buy the argument that civilian war deaths are OK if they are unintentional. If you decide to go to war you are commiting to inevitably causing colateral damage. You have the responsibility for having caused that just as much as if that was the intention IMO. Don't they say 90000 people were killed in Iraq? For what? It only created more hatred IMO.

[stone]

Coffee, I think the civilian politicians might get swept along by the "experts" both from the military/arms industry and from the finance system.

[stone]

Several people have remarked to me what a wonderful pleasant surprise they found it when they actually visited the USA. The US foreign policy creates so much pointless ill feelling in much of the world (the UK is as bad but on a midget scale). I've often thought that if some of the money the US spent on defense was instead spent on sponsoring education exchanges (or just vacations to America ), then the defense wouldn't be needed.

[brick-house]

Coffee -

I am not making any political point.  I don't really see a big difference between Republicans and Democrats on Foreign Policy. I don't really care for Republicans or Democrats.  IMHO, Both parties are for Warfare and Welfare, they just fight for control of the spending apparatus...

I do not think that U.S. intentionally harmed or killed innocent women and children.  However, it is naive to think that lots of women and children will not be killed in war with lots of aerial bombing.   

I do not look at America as a villain.  I am very blessed to be able to raise a family in this country.  I happily work hard, pay my taxes, and raise my kids.  I even belong to the V.F.W.  However, I believe the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were a mistake.  I believe going to war with Iran would compound that mistake.  I believe that the military is an expansionist bureaucracy.  I appreciate your opinion and respect your passion, but we disagree...

[stone]

i wouldn't classify Ron Paul's foreign policy as pacifist, more non interventionist/constitutionalists if i understand it correctly, he would go to war if congress declares one...

personally i believe in "peace through strength", if we spent all the money and effort we are now spending on messing around with policing the world, on developing even better military equipment and tactics, while at the same time not interfering in the sovereign affairs of other country's, we could easily have a "destroy anybody anywhere anytime" "shield us from any attack any time" military,
- if we had that no enemy would want to commit suicide by attacking us
- and if we weren't messing in their affairs they would have little or no reason to want to..

sure some political systems and religions have a "take over the world kill non believers ideology" but tyranny doesn't work, economically or internally.. none of them can even begin to keep up with a free country's ability to develop the means necessary to remain the undisputed strongest.

i find it is difficult to envision a sound national defense strategy in a few sentences.... we are now caught up in an asymmetrical war with un-uniformed enemy's, some of them will continue to attack us no matter what we do, being in a perpetual war doesn't seem to be solving that problem and likely only makes it worse...

the problem my above idea that we should be a country that "carry's a big stick " is we have a history of not "walking softly", the world (other than our allies) would be frightened by us having a better big stick than everybody else, and given our recent history probably rightfully so...
i wonder how the world would react to Switzerland having a missile defense shield and a "destroy anybody anywhere anytime " military???

i suspect if we tried to build one we will be in another cold war or face preemptive attacks to keep us from getting one....
... its a complex situation...

Simon, I think the USA does already have an overwhelming military superiority.The only people who would ever attack the USA would do so as a suicide mission. I agree that the key point is to not create the ill feeling that leads people to make such a suicide mission. I think your home defense strategy would mean that no one would have any reason to want to harm the USA.

[Reub]

"Our "alliance" with Israel is a trap if I've ever seen one.  What do we get for it, other than 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?"

As I recall, Al Qaeda used the pretense that we were "desecrating" Saudi Arabia with our presence there as the reason for 9/11. So then, are you blaming Israel for 9/11? 

[moda0306]

Reub,

No.  I blame the terrorists for 9/11, first and foremost.  Like most issues, though, it's less about blame and more about identifying the things we CAN control and using them to better our outcome.  An immature individual is one who constantly wallows in fingerpointing and blame.  A mature one finds solutions based on what they can control.  Ironically, as I say this, I can't control our gov't so maybe I'm being hypocritical  :).

I think it's our job to figure out how (and whether) to interact with the world to achieve our goal of safety.  We've allowed ourselves to get in the middle of a very dirty land dispute that is feeding us tons of negative dividends.  It's one of the major reasons terrorists aim their sights at us.

[moda0306]

Simon, I think the USA does already have an overwhelming military superiority.The only people who would ever attack the USA would do so as a suicide mission. I agree that the key point is to not create the ill feeling that leads people to make such a suicide mission. I think your home defense strategy would mean that no one would have any reason to want to harm the USA.

mostly overwhelming not completely... and as spread out and involved in conflicts as they are, not as much of deterrent as they should be, nor anywhere near what they could be..

i tend to think we are at a point where it is going to take quite a bit of time for the world to believe we are truly committed to being non interventionist (if we take that route, i am not even sure we can even convince our people and government we should be), i don't see this as being easy, even if i think it would be better... which leaves "the reason they would attack us" is they believe we are building the biggest stick... to hit them over the head with it... we seem to have a bit of a catch 22 situation arising from our foreign policy history..

I think the power of our military has to be looked at in different ways depending on what our goals are.

If our goal is to be in a position to destroy enough of a country that they are too afraid to attack us, we've got more than enough military right now.

If our goal is to be in a position to occupy a country, or several countries, with boots on the ground, especially while trying to maintain some sort of social order, then we could very well need a bigger military.

Since I think #2 is a very bad idea most of the time, and often makes us less safe, then I would say our military is definitely large enough.

In the old days, you needed boots on the ground to have any deterrent effect, because bombs weren't big enough.  Now that we have enough nukes to destroy the entire world a few times over, we simply don't need that big of a military in terms of occupational potential.

[MediumTex]

I'm going to lock this thread.

I know some of you may have more to say on this topic, but we are starting to talk past one another.