How Foolish Is This Administration?

[Pointedstick]

And herein lies the problem with your "Fortress America" foreign policy approach: It naively assumes that if we mind our own business, everybody will leave us alone. 

Just like the Japanese left China alone, right?  And then the Filipines.  And then Hawaii.  And then California. 

Maybe you're right. Maybe it would only work if you happened to be the most powerful country in the entire world.

It also suggests that we should leave our friends to drift in the wind the minute they are in trouble.  Could you imagine the Chinese invading the Western Coast of Canada and raping and killing 300,000 Canadian citizens... and we not doing anything???  Huh???

That's a more convincing argument to me. I might be tempted to say that this is the reason why we should avoid alliances but that's like advocating that a person not make any friends to avoid the drawbacks of human social relationships. Just not realistic. I think your assessment is correct, and as I mentioned, once Japan attacked us I think we had every right to blow the stuffing out of them.

If we can keep both Iran and Iraq fighting each other rather than invading Saudi Arabia and cutting off our oil supply, then so be it.  Better they fight each other than our boys have to do it.  And if that doesn't work, better to fight them in Iraq and put a stop to it, before they roll into Saudi Arabia and cut off our supply lines.  (Or those of our allies.)

Isn't that a great argument in favor of increased domestic energy production? If the goal is to protect our energy, wouldn't becoming more independent make more sense than defending the barbaric, morally contemptible entity we're dependent on through destructive proxy wars?

You're being hyper-selective.  It's like backtesting an investment strategy and choosing your start dates.  I can list all kind of interventions that turned out favorably. 

Please do! I love to have my view on this subject challenged in a realistic way the way you're doing. Who knows, maybe you'll turn me into an interventionist.

[Reub]

"No, in the game of chess-- you don't wait until your opponent has her Queen and her Rook and her Knight all gathered around your King.  You engage and put your opponent on the defense by setting things up so that their Queen, etc.. can't corner your King.  You adopt a pre-emptive strategy because it meets your needs.  If you don't, you opponent surely will-- because that's the way you win the game."

Checkmate!

[Ad Orientem]

I must admit to being somewhat disturbed by the suggestion in some of the posts of a global religious war. It's as though some believe we are at war with the entire Islamic world.

[Benko]

I must admit to being somewhat disturbed by the suggestion in some of the posts of a global religious war. It's as though some believe we are at war with the entire Islamic world.

The Fort Hood shootings occured because we are in denial, criminal, insane denial that many muslims are at war with us.  There were warnings, but it is PC to ignore them.

[Ad Orientem]

I must admit to being somewhat disturbed by the suggestion in some of the posts of a global religious war. It's as though some believe we are at war with the entire Islamic world.

So you consider the actions of a handful of religious fanatics as evidence that we are at war with the entire Islamic world? That would be akin to Roman Catholics declaring war on Protestantism based on the actions of Ku Klux Klan.

The Fort Hood shootings occured because we are in denial, criminal, insane denial that many muslims are at war with us.  There were warnings, but it is PC to ignore them.

[Benko]

I presently work with a moslem who is the worlds nicest guy.  But the fact that many/most followers of islam are peaceful has nothing to do with what islam says (or does not).  islam is the religion of peace=SUBMISSION. 

NB: we think of Islam as a religion and imagine it is the same way the people view their religion here.  it is nothing of the sort.  Islam is a religion but also a total way of life.  Perhaps a more apt analogy would be liberalism: what to believe, what to eat/not eat, how to behave, a total philosophy of life (yes I'm stretchinga point about liberalism).  There are apparently multiple revisions to the k  or an so that it is easy to omit/deny incriminating parts.

"So you consider the actions of a handful of religious fanatics as evidence that we are at war with the entire Islamic world"

You keep turning the phrase around.  ***We*** are at war.....    Their holy book says certain things.  we don't enter into it (except when they blow things up).  They are at war...

This denial is why they couldn't listen to warnings and prevent the Ft hood guy from killing people. 

[Coffee]

Benko is exactly right.

We are in denial.  The fact that you seem to want to believe that it is "just a few radicals" completely ignores realty:

- The Government of Iran
- The Defacto Government of Lebanon
- Half of the Government of Saudi Arabia
- Up until a few months ago, the Government of Egypt.
- The Government of Pakistan.
- A large contingent in Iraq
- A large contingent in Afghanistan
- Indonesia (although less politicized)
- Segments of the Philiphines
Etc...

You cannot equate these to the KKK vs Catholicism and say that Islamism is a fringe group.  Islamism is the leadership of a majority of Muslim countries in the world.  And while most Muslims are preoccupied with their day to day business and are not part of the political or military machine... they are more active participants of Islamism through Islam than they are victims.

There is a tipping point in any society that allows the growth of Islamism that creates this type of activism:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1368 ... TcdQmTb.01

[Coffee]

And herein lies the problem with your "Fortress America" foreign policy approach: It naively assumes that if we mind our own business, everybody will leave us alone. 

Just like the Japanese left China alone, right?  And then the Filipines.  And then Hawaii.  And then California. 

Maybe you're right. Maybe it would only work if you happened to be the most powerful country in the entire world.

Why?  There are plenty of countries that have  taken pre-emptive action in the face of a looming threat and succeeded.  For reasons I don't understand, it's only the U.S. (and perhaps a few of our allies) who get lambasted for it.  Nobody seems to give a shit when there is a bloody border dispute between Turkey and Kurdistan.

[Pointedstick]

NB: we think of Islam as a religion and imagine it is the same way the people view their religion here.  it is nothing of the sort.  Islam is a religion but also a total way of life.

Isn't Judaism a total way of life as well if you actually follow what the old testament says? Have you ever spent any time around any Orthodox Jews? It's all-consuming. It touches every facet of their lives.

It's a dangerous game to go judging religions for their dictates. Most of them have some pretty nasty stuff in there if you take it literally or interpret it to mean that you should violently oppress your religion's enemies. We don't have slaves today or take multiple wives, even though those are things explicitly allowed and encouraged in the Judeo-Christian holy books.

What we're dealing with here is not an inherently violent, conquest-oriented religion but a bunch of barbarians who are using their religion as a justification for violence, same as every religion has had. I mean, 1000 years ago it was the Christians!

[Coffee]

Apologies--- I don't know how to grab multiple quotes without it becoming a bloody mess.

P.S. wrote: "Isn't that a great argument in favor of increased domestic energy production? If the goal is to protect our energy, wouldn't becoming more independent make more sense than defending the barbaric, morally contemptible entity we're dependent on through destructive proxy wars?"

Probably.  In a lot of cases, anyway.  Not in all though.  We'd also need to find a technology that would allow us to supply our allies, too.  But then you're going to end up getting sucked into foreign conflicts, anyway.  "The US is supplying our sworn enemies, but not us... therefore... you are our enemies, too!"

For example: We develop domestic energy sources (which I am in favor of... absolutely!) and then start supplying Colombia.  Which means that we divest from Venezuela, too. 

Now guess who's pissed at us?  Maduro.  And who does Maduro then blame for his country's economic floudering?  You guessed it... the USA.  Why? Because scapegoating is a tactic that has worked since biblical days.  It's always easier to blame somebody else, over there.

It's hard to make that work in open, free societies where the exchange of free information is widely available.  But in poorly educated countries with limited media?  Have at it!!

So, even developing domestic energy, while a step in the right direction, will not fix everything.

[Pointedstick]

For example: We develop domestic energy sources (which I am in favor of... absolutely!) and then start supplying Colombia.  Which means that we divest from Venezuela, too. 

Now guess who's pissed at us?  Maduro.  And who does Maduro then blame for his country's economic floudering?  You guessed it... the USA.  Why? Because scapegoating is a tactic that has worked since biblical days.  It's always easier to blame somebody else, over there.

Okay… so what? What's Venezuela gonna do to us? Why is it an issue if an impoverished petro-kleptocratic banana republic is pissed at the most powerful nation in the world? If they make any trouble, can't we smash them to splinters then?

[Coffee]

PS wrote: "Please do! I love to have my view on this subject challenged in a realistic way the way you're doing. Who knows, maybe you'll turn me into an interventionist. "

I'm not an interventionist.  I don't think we should be the world's policeman.  For example: I don't think we have any national interest in getting involved with Syria.  (And I think it's the ultimate hypocracy for the Left to be banging the drums of war).  But I do think it's okay to intervene in places where it serves our national interest.  And we don't have to apologize for that, since free, open societies don't typically go to war with each other.

[Coffee]

For example: We develop domestic energy sources (which I am in favor of... absolutely!) and then start supplying Colombia.  Which means that we divest from Venezuela, too. 

Now guess who's pissed at us?  Maduro.  And who does Maduro then blame for his country's economic floudering?  You guessed it... the USA.  Why? Because scapegoating is a tactic that has worked since biblical days.  It's always easier to blame somebody else, over there.

Okay… so what? What's Venezuela gonna do to us? Why is it an issue if an impoverished petro-kleptocratic banana republic is pissed at the most powerful nation in the world? If they make any trouble, can't we smash them to splinters then?

Yes, I'm fine with that.  If they do something to threaten our national interest... absolutely.  But considering that 19 dipshits from the Saudi Penninsula were able to fly 3+1 planes into our national infrastructure with little more than box cutters... the big question is: Do you think they have box cutters in Venezuela, and could they smuggle those box cutters into the U.S.?

Do I want to wait and let them build up their will to do something like that?  No.  I'd rather have our Company boys keep Maduro occupied on his own soil.

[Coffee]

NB: we think of Islam as a religion and imagine it is the same way the people view their religion here.  it is nothing of the sort.  Islam is a religion but also a total way of life.

Isn't Judaism a total way of life as well if you actually follow what the old testament says? Have you ever spent any time around any Orthodox Jews? It's all-consuming. It touches every facet of their lives.

It's a dangerous game to go judging religions for their dictates. Most of them have some pretty nasty stuff in there if you take it literally or interpret it to mean that you should violently oppress your religion's enemies. We don't have slaves today or take multiple wives, even though those are things explicitly allowed and encouraged in the Judeo-Christian holy books.

What we're dealing with here is not an inherently violent, conquest-oriented religion but a bunch of barbarians who are using their religion as a justification for violence, same as every religion has had. I mean, 1000 years ago it was the Christians!

How many Jews would you guess live today who still own slaves?
How many Muslims?

(If you don't know the answer to that, I can help you: Zero Jews.  Thousands upon thousands of Muslims).  Although I can attest that being married to a Jewish woman was akin to being a slave. 

[Mdraf]

Benko is exactly right.

We are in denial.  The fact that you seem to want to believe that it is "just a few radicals" completely ignores realty:

- The Government of Iran
- The Defacto Government of Lebanon
- Half of the Government of Saudi Arabia
- Up until a few months ago, the Government of Egypt.
- The Government of Pakistan.
- A large contingent in Iraq
- A large contingent in Afghanistan
- Indonesia (although less politicized)
- Segments of the Philiphines
Etc...

You cannot equate these to the KKK vs Catholicism and say that Islamism is a fringe group.  Islamism is the leadership of a majority of Muslim countries in the world.  And while most Muslims are preoccupied with their day to day business and are not part of the political or military machine... they are more active participants of Islamism through Islam than they are victims.

There is a tipping point in any society that allows the growth of Islamism that creates this type of activism:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1368 ... TcdQmTb.01

+1

[Coffee]

I guess what kind of bothers me is that you can't seem to differentiate between how practitioners of Judaism and Christianity have evolved over the past 2000 years, while the Islamists have not.  You're judging Jews and Christians of the biblical era by today's standards and giving a pass to Islamists who are living today but still acting like they're in the biblical era.

[Pointedstick]

Yes, I'm fine with that.  If they do something to threaten our national interest... absolutely.  But considering that 19 dipshits from the Saudi Penninsula were able to fly 3+1 planes into our national infrastructure with little more than box cutters... the big question is: Do you think they have box cutters in Venezuela, and could they smuggle those box cutters into the U.S.?

Do I want to wait and let them build up their will to do something like that?  No.  I'd rather have our Company boys keep Maduro occupied on his own soil.

Sure, I can agree with that. If we know for a fact that their government is training terrorists or something, then that's basically an act of war. Let's bomb the presidential palace into the stone age.

The problem with this is that it gets really complicated if you have too many "national interests". As you mentioned, it was mostly Saudis who brought down the twin towers. So let's smash Saudi Arabia! But oops, we get a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia. So, uh… let's smash Iraq and/or Iran to protect Saudi Arabia? Or something. It gets really confused as to who we should be attacking and for what reason when you don't have well-defined "bad guys" or those who would otherwise be "bad guys" happen to be vital suppliers of strategic resources.

[Pointedstick]

I guess what kind of bothers me is that you can't seem to differentiate between how practitioners of Judaism and Christianity have evolved over the past 2000 years, while the Islamists have not.  You're judging Jews and Christians of the biblical era by today's standards and giving a pass to Islamists who are living today but still acting like they're in the biblical era.

No, I actually agree with this. I think the Muslim world is in a kind of dark age like the one the Christian world had 1000 years ago. I think it's a barbaric, backwards place. I guess the only thing I'd say is that I don't think it's a fault of the religion itself, any more than the crusades illustrated an inherent fault with christianity. But I will totally agree with you that most of the Muslim world is a backwards and barbaric place.

Interestingly, the muslim world had their golden age during the medieval dark ages, so I don't think it's about them not advancing so mush as as it is them regressing. Global warming, the crusades, tribal warlords, and then the Ottoman empire basically destroyed their civilizations and then they were under the thumb of ethnic Turks for more than 600 years. I think they forgot how to act civilized, and when the Ottoman empire was disbanded so abruptly (after the disastrous WWI armistice agreement, ahem ), they kind of didn't have any transition period. It's like a kid denied ice cream for years who suddenly finds himself in an ice cream store without his parents when the owner is out running an errand.

[Coffee]

Sure, I can agree with that. If we know for a fact that their government is training terrorists or something, then that's basically an act of war. Let's bomb the presidential palace into the stone age.

The problem with this is that it gets really complicated if you have too many "national interests". As you mentioned, it was mostly Saudis who brought down the twin towers. So let's smash Saudi Arabia! But oops, we get a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia. So, uh… let's smash Iraq and/or Iran to protect Saudi Arabia? Or something. It gets really confused as to who we should be attacking and for what reason when you don't have well-defined "bad guys" or those who would otherwise be "bad guys" happen to be vital suppliers of strategic resources.

It's not that difficult to understand, if you scratch below the surface:

The House of Saud is divided.  Part is pro-Western because they enjoy selling us oil.  The other half are basically Al-Queda. 

We can't invade Saudi Arabia because SA is the birthplace of Islam.  It would too inflame the entire Muslim world, because we are "infidels" who are not pure enough to be on Islamic soil-- even though everybody hates the Saudis anyway.  Still, we can't do it.  Way too much blowback.

So, we have to play in the inside con; The inside game: Support the pro-Western elements and get them to help us fight the anti-Western elements.  Sure, the pro-Western Saudis are sleezy, but what's the alternative?  There is none.

Going into Iraq was killing two or three birds with one stone:

1.  Establish a large base of operations in the middle of the area.  This was designed to put pressure on Iran (who are nuttier than nutter-butter and we do not want to have nukes).  Despite your assertions that all countries should be equal, I don't believe all countries should be equal with nukes.  Allowing them to have nukes gives them an unfair advantage in the region and they've already demonstrated their willingness to interfere with the affairs of their neighbors.  Being in Iraq also prevents regional players from thinking they can threaten the Saudi Gov. and allows us to be nearby if something internally happens.

2.  It got rid of a guy who was plotting to kill one of our Presidents and was threatening our allies in the region.  Not to mention... he was just an overall bad dude.

3.  It relieves some pressure that Israel feels.  It also prevents Israel from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran. 

That being said-- there were tactical errors in the way we played Iraq, plus the media was hell bent on portraying it as another Vietnam.  So, internal division and poor planning made the Iraq gambit less successful than it could have been.

[RuralEngineer]

I think there's a lot more of a spectrum when it comes to followers of Islam than some here give credit.  By and large, the Middle East is a poor and impoverished region.  I challenge anyone to find a poor and impoverished region where education has been mostly neglected for centuries where you don't have some ignorant behavior.  On top of that, these people have some legitimate grievances.  We may not agree with it.  We may be able to see the "big picture" thanks to CNN and our internet news, but when you're living in a hut and all you know is that your uncle Usef just got blown away by a drone because he was buying fruit too close to a funeral procession and big bad Uncle Sam wanted to get a second helping of supposed "Taliban"....that's bound to piss you off (not to derail).

Additionally, if our government had made some kind of deal that saw the Saudi's setting up military bases in the Midwest, a lot of Americans would be pissed as hell, and there's nothing holy about our corn fields.

I'm not saying they're right, and their actions aren't justified in my eyes (although the Pakistani people have as good a case as any, I'd say they have solid legal standing for action against us), but as we've discussed before, the Middle East has been this way for a very long time.  Our problems have just started recently.  Something changed.  That something was us.  WE did things to precipitate this.  You can call that blaming America if you want, but it's really not because it's just a statement of fact.  I promise you, Muslims do not hate us for our freedom, Hollywood, or ice cream sprinkles.

Despite all of this, there are  plenty of Muslims that are more than happy to practice their faith in their own fashion and just want to be left alone.  They may think that some of our ways and culture are decadent, but they're more than happy to ignore those parts of it in order to access the freedoms that are unavailable elsewhere.

[Pointedstick]

It's not that difficult to understand, if you scratch below the surface:

The House of Saud is divided.  Part is pro-Western because they enjoy selling us oil.  The other half are basically Al-Queda. 

We can't invade Saudi Arabia because SA is the birthplace of Islam.  It would too inflame the entire Muslim world, because we are "infidels" who are not pure enough to be on Islamic soil-- even though everybody hates the Saudis anyway.  Still, we can't do it.  Way too much blowback.

So, we have to play in the inside con; The inside game: Support the pro-Western elements and get them to help us fight the anti-Western elements.  Sure, the pro-Western Saudis are sleezy, but what's the alternative?  There is none.

This all makes sense to me.

Going into Iraq was killing two or three birds with one stone:

1.  Establish a large base of operations in the middle of the area.  This was designed to put pressure on Iran (who are nuttier than nutter-butter and we do not want to have nukes).

But Iraq was already putting pressure on Iran. The two countries were enemies. They had fought a war against one another. By taking out Saddam, we replaced his pressure with the necessity that we exert ours… forever, if the strategy is to work.

Despite your assertions that all countries should be equal, I don't believe all countries should be equal with nukes.  Allowing them to have nukes gives them an unfair advantage in the region and they've already demonstrated their willingness to interfere with the affairs of their neighbors.  Being in Iraq also prevents regional players from thinking they can threaten the Saudi Gov. and allows us to be nearby if something internally happens.

I know this could be a whole other thread, but I believe the fact that basically every other country wants nukes is a direct result of our attempting to restrict them. It makes them the untouchable treasure because once they have them, we can't mess with them as much. If we didn't care and stopped messing with people, I don't think nukes would be nearly as attractive. I mean from a strategic perspective you really can't use them and from a tactical perspective you have to set them off waaaaaaay far away from your home country. South Africa evidently realized this when they voluntarily dismantled their own nuclear program. Do you think they would have done that if they'd been our enemies and we were constantly threatening them?

2.  It got rid of a guy who was plotting to kill one of our Presidents and was threatening our allies in the region.  Not to mention... he was just an overall bad dude.

Sure, but there are a lot of bad dudes out there. I don't think it's really our job to take out bad dudes. At least, as an American taxpayer who really doesn't like 40% of his paycheck disappearing, I don't want our job to be taking out bad dudes.

Also, Saddam's prior attack on Kuwait was a result of an American diplomatic bungle, and his threatening of Israel was no different from any of the other nations in the region. That didn't make Iraq special. If anything, Iraq's attacks on Israel were more half-hearted than most other belligerents in Israel's wars with its neighbors.

3.  It relieves some pressure that Israel feels.  It also prevents Israel from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

The first part makes sense, but how did it prevent Israel launching an (incredibly ill-advised) pre-emptive attack on Iran? Iraq was already a counterweight to Iran.

[Coffee]

PS: This is getting messy, due to the forum software.  So, forgive me if I miss some of your counterpoints:

Like I said: The idea was to kill three birds with one stone.  The war with Iran ended.  Iraq wasn't putting pressure on Iran anymore.  Then Saddam turned on us.  Taking him out solved (or appeared to solve) three problems.  Where we went wrong was that we tried to bring democracy to Iraq.  We should have just offed Saddam and let his #2 take over, with the condition that he align Iraq more with America's interests: Stop threatening Israel, Stop threatening Saudi Arabi, Stop threatening Kuwait.  Stop targeting our Presidents.  If he doesn't, then we go back for him.  But that's just the way I see it.  Will there be blow back like there was with the Shaw of Iran?  Not if we keep the guy on a tighter leash and insist that he stop with the rape rooms and internecine killing.

Of course, this strategy would never work with today's politics as we don't have the stomach for it, anymore.

As for Israel: They need our access codes to fly over Iraq.  Without the access codes, they're shot down as they're considered hostiles.  Saddam didn't have the technology to do that.

[Coffee]

I promise you, Muslims do not hate us for our freedom, Hollywood, or ice cream sprinkles.

You're wrong.  They are expansionist in nature.  They seek to install Sharia law in any land they live in, once they acquire great enough numbers.  It's happening already in the UK and Dearbornistan, Michigan.  It happened in Egypt recently, except that the Army was able to push them out.  It happened in Afghanistan. 

You don't need to take my word for it, either.  Read Osama bin Laden's own writings.  Read the papers coming out Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood, Iran, etc...  They make no secret that they despise our culture.  They despise any culture that is not theirs.  They even despise other sects of Islam. 

They strive to subjugate those who do not believe in their faith.  You cannot even drive in the same lanes on the highway if your are not Muslim, in countries that practice Sharia. 

To suggest that they don't hate us because of our freedoms is simply wrong.  Reference that video of their protest in England as further evidence.

[Coffee]

Additionally, if our government had made some kind of deal that saw the Saudi's setting up military bases in the Midwest, a lot of Americans would be pissed as hell, and there's nothing holy about our corn fields.

Not my problem.  If you want to live in a theocracy where you're ruled by Sharia law, then live with the consequences of your government taking actions that may not be in your best interest.  And not letting you have a say in the matter.  That wouldn't happen here because-- with all of our problems-- we still have a mechanism for voicing our grievances, and when the American people get uniformly pissed off about something, heads roll.

[Pointedstick]

Now this is the kind of discussion I've missed a round these parts. Thank you, Coffee. I really appreciate your being patient with this here loony libtard Actually, what epithet do conservatives use to refer to libertarians? I don't think I've heard one.

Personally, my favorite political slur is "Rethuglican." Cracks me up every time I read it. But "DemonRat" is pretty good too.