Well done, President Obama.

[FunkyTown]

The President in the last day showed a remarkable amount of fortitude. He did what few people would dare - He went to NATO country Estonia and reassured them that, if Russia invaded them, the United States would go to war with Russia.

 

Russia responded by having one of the biggest nuclear and strategic readiness exercises in history.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-exercises-idUKKBN0GY0H620140903

 

It needed to be said. The question now is going to be, "Does Russia think that Obama is bluffing?" This is what the rest of the world is holding their breath for.

 

The problem we have is that if Putin thinks Obama is bluffing and invades, World War III begins.

[Urstadt]

I've been following this since March and have had a bad feeling about it. Research what Pres. Reagan said about Russia in connection to the bible. Probably nothing to it but it makes you wonder when you research where Magog is located today.

[2ndRateMind]

I am not persuaded that it helps to analyse this current situation in Biblical terms.

 

I do think, however, that NATO was caught napping, still expecting to continue to reap the dividends of the reduced threat situation in respect of the end of the cold war. I can't speak for America, but I do know that my own country has been busy reducing defence expenditure so that they can continue to fund the banking system and bankers bonuses.

 

Whatever, it should have been quite obvious that Russia would have a problem with Ukraine turning to the west, given that Sevastopol is their only serious warm water port, the only Russian port that can deploy all year round, and is not frozen in winter. The continuing unrest in the eastern Ukraine is a natural corollary - while we are concerned about that, the Crimea escapes notice.

 

Putin is a product of the cold war, and evidently maintains cold war sensibilties. We need to respect that (not necessarily agreeing with him) while pursuing 'soft' power options around proving the argument to the Russian people that peace, freedom and prosperity are good for everybody, and war is good for nobody.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited September 5, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Wordnerd]

Is your "well done" a compliment or sarcasm? After the initial lack of fortitude on the Ukraine and ISIS, it seems like a comment like that is just begging Putin to test him.

[carlimac]

That wobbly line in the sand...

Edited September 6, 2014 by carlimac

[FunkyTown]

Is your "well done" a compliment or sarcasm? After the initial lack of fortitude on the Ukraine and ISIS, it seems like a comment like that is just begging Putin to test him.

It wasn't sarcasm. He genuinely needed to draw a line in the sand. The question is: "What now?"

[Wordnerd]

I honestly have trouble believing he will hold that line, lets just pray it doesn't come to that.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with Wordnerd.  And as a practical matter--as much as I respect NATO, believe we should stand by our allies, and think that Putin needs to be contained--the simple fact is that if the American public isn't willing to put boots back on the ground in Iraq in light of ISIS' recent atrocities (and even I'm not sure that we should); then most of them sure as heck aren't going to send their kids to go die in Estonia, no matter what our contractual obligations to NATO may be.  Britain?  Sure.  France?  Maybe.  Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Scandinavian countries?  Well, we'll have to think about how much we really like them, I guess.  But, Estonia?  Where's that?

 

Depressing, but--I fear--true.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

As much as it will shock you to hear this come from me:

 

If you want to engage with Russia, you need to take a play out of Regan's book.  Make it an arms race.  The Russian economy is built on fraud and can't support a major arms race to keep up with what the US can do.  There's no need to actually have a conflict.  You just need to gear up for one faster than the other guy.

[srmaher]

The world is paying a heavy price for President Obama being a basketball fan, because had he followed hockey he would have learned that the best way to deal with instigators and thugs is to demonstrate that you have superior strength. It is for this reason that professional hockey teams use enforcers as a way of protecting their best players.

 

Historically, the best enforcers have had the privilege of sharing the ice with some of hockey’s greatest players. Marty McSorley played most of his career with Wayne Gretzky. Bob Probert was another enforcer who had a long career playing beside Detroit Red Wings star, Steve Yzerman.

 

 

 

What holds true for Hockey also holds true in other areas of life, like our foreign policy. Many would argue that this approach when dealing with our enemies makes matters worse. But what we have seen in the last few months in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, is nothing more than the product of this President’s failed foreign policy. Totalitarians like Putin are emboldened by weakness, especially when that weakness comes from the United Sates, which is the only power on earth that can restrain them.

 

Obama made it very clear from the beginning of his presidency that he was going to take a softer approach with our adversaries. In his first-inauguration speech he said:

 

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history (like these guys care) but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

 

 

 

Every time he extended "a hand" to our enemies only affirmed our weakness. For example, one of the first things  the Obama administration did was announce they were pushing "the reset button" with the Russians.  They did this in part by removing all sanctions imposed on them by the Bush administration for the invasion of Georgia in 2008. This kind of approach works with your estranged sibling, but not with a former KGB agent.

 

To further appease the Russians, Obama canceled the "missile-defense agreement" the Bush administration made with Poland and the Czech Republic. Anyone familiar with their history would understand why the Poles and Czechs would want a missile DEFENSE shield. The cancellation was announced 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded Poland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany.

 

Let's not forget that President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, that once the election was over (2012), he would be "more flexible with Putin on missile defense.” Then, there was the Presidents failure to follow through with his threat to the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, that the U.S. would get involved in that countries civil war if he used chemical weapons.

 

Putin had made it clear that he wants to see Russia return to what it was before the Soviet Union broke apart, which means the reclaiming of land that once belonged to them as the Ukraine. Knowing what motivates Putin helps us understand why he has invaded Ukraine. It's like the 1930's all over again in the fact that the west is just standing by and does nothing. We won't even give the Ukraine's weapons so they can fight the Russian rebels.  Consider for a moment the message Sent to Putin in how the west has responded the Russians shooting down the Malaysian flight.

 

The New York Times ran a story a few weeks after the Malaysian Airline was shot down titled, Despite Anger over Downed Airliner, Europe Shies Away From Sanctions on Russia. It laid out how spineless and impotent the West has become in confronting real evil. The article reported that the nations of Europe, with the exception of Britain, have all but conceded the fact that the Russians will pay no price for blowing up a passenger jet. Europe fears the potential consequences that Putin would impose on those countries dependent on the Russians for their energy. Thus "harming the Continent’s economic growth."

 

It is beyond belief that the west has done NOTHING after 290 innocent civilians were blown out of the sky, of which 40% were children? Actually, I miss spoke, the west (U.N.) has done something, hold meetings and offer words of condemnation to to Russia.

 

If the west is not willing to act now, what kind of event would force them to take military action. It's actually a scary thought when you put it into perspective. Putin Knows he can do what he wants because the the likes of Obama and the impotent U.N. will do nothing.I fear the world will pay a mighty price for the decision to do nothing while Putin has his way with Ukraine. I hope I am wrong, but what indication do we have that he will stop?

Edited September 5, 2014 by srmaher

[drham3rd]

My counter argument to yours is that our country is tired of war!  We just finished fighting two wars, one that started out in response to 9/11 and the other based upon a bold-face lie!  Why should we waste our sons and daughters and our national treasury on a part of the world where most of the populace can care less who is in charge!  Iraq was Vietnam all over again and when we left, we left an artificial situation that had no-where to go but down!  The Islamic factions have shown repeatedly over history that they can not co-exist peacefully unless forced to by a dictator!  One has to look at the history of these countries to understand the real situation. Iraq should have been divided into three states, each one with their own form of Islam.  The unified Iraq was a British idea that really never worked!  

 

Yes ISIS is a threat, but let those countries directly threatened handle the situation!  Why are not the Saudi's and others in the region forming a response to ISIS?  We have too many problems in our own country, we need to concentrate on bettering the lives of our own people and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems!

[Just_A_Guy]

Look, I can give Obama credit for the action FunkyTown opened the other thread over--affirming our defensive commitment to a NATO ally.  It's the right thing to do. 

 

I think the trouble is that we've gotten away from Teddy Roosevelt's advice about "speak softly, and carry a big stick".  When your stick gets smaller, you need to speak even more softly.  But by contrast, over the past few years as our collective will to actually wage war has steadily declined, our President has compensated by speaking even more loudly--shrilly, even--and more frequently; whilst taking meaningful action not at all.  Our adversaries see us as having gone from being the leader of the free world to the auctioneer of the free world.  They smell weakness. 

 

So growing a backbone on the Europe front now is better late than never, I suppose; but I fear the damage has been done.

 

As for Iraq--An extended family member, a Marine, had done a deployment there and was coming up for a second one post-surge but pre-withdrawal.  He told me that he hoped he'd go to Afghanistan, not Iraq; because he felt he wouldn't really be doing any good in Iraq--most of the country was so calm that, from a military standpoint, things were pretty much "over" (that was the word he used).  Call me crazy, but I think we could have made things work had a) we stuck things out (as we did in postwar Germany and Japan and post-armistice Korea), and b ) the Iraqis been willing to let us stay. 

 

But as things played out, the Iraqis got it in their noggins (aided and abetted by the American Left) that the United States was the root of all evil, and asked us to leave; and President Obama didn't believe in the cause enough to convince them that it was in their interests to let them stay.  I might be open to militarily assisting the Kurds to secure ther territories and evacuate some of these obscure, hapless minority groups (Yazidis, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc); but as for the bulk of Iraqis who asked us to leave and now yearn for the relatively gentler days of the Pax Americana--you wanted us to leave, so we left.  We might have to act as the world's policemen on occasion; but we surely don't have to be the world's chumps.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Pa Pa]

My counter argument to yours is that our country is tired of war!  We just finished fighting two wars, one that started out in response to 9/11 and the other based upon a bold-face lie!  Why should we waste our sons and daughters and our national treasury on a part of the world where most of the populace can care less who is in charge!  Iraq was Vietnam all over again and when we left, we left an artificial situation that had no-where to go but down!  The Islamic factions have shown repeatedly over history that they can not co-exist peacefully unless forced to by a dictator!  One has to look at the history of these countries to understand the real situation. Iraq should have been divided into three states, each one with their own form of Islam.  The unified Iraq was a British idea that really never worked!  

 

Yes ISIS is a threat, but let those countries directly threatened handle the situation!  Why are not the Saudi's and others in the region forming a response to ISIS?  We have too many problems in our own country, we need to concentrate on bettering the lives of our own people and let the rest of the world deal with their own problems!

We should always be tired of war, but it is made worse when we not allowed to win. I entered in Army during a time when the goal of the Army was to win, or we were at the end of the days when allowed to win. ISIS, is because we failed to close the deal.

Now we will have to fight the same war because they will attack us again. I think this time they should call back we retired military who are at the end of our lives and let us go out with a bang. To keep my grandchildren from doing it, it would be an easy sacrifice.

[SpiritDragon]

As much as it will shock you to hear this come from me:

 

If you want to engage with Russia, you need to take a play out of Regan's book.  Make it an arms race.  The Russian economy is built on fraud and can't support a major arms race to keep up with what the US can do.  There's no need to actually have a conflict.  You just need to gear up for one faster than the other guy.

 

With the US financial crisis can the States handle an arms race either? 

[yjacket]

We should always be tired of war, but it is made worse when we not allowed to win. I entered in Army during a time when the goal of the Army was to win, or we were at the end of the days when allowed to win. ISIS, is because we failed to close the deal.

Now we will have to fight the same war because they will attack us again. I think this time they should call back we retired military who are at the end of our lives and let us go out with a bang. To keep my grandchildren from doing it, it would be an easy sacrifice.

 

Failed to close the deal?  Umm . . . we were in Iraq for almost 10 years.  If you can't close the deal in 10 years, it ain't gonna happen.  The last war we closed would have been WWII, but even then that isn't the case.  There is still a border war in Korea, we still have military troops in bases in Europe from WWII.  Vietnam for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that pulling out would be hugely detrimental is actually doing quite well.

 

They will only attack us again if we keep meddling around in their country.  Please read Bin Laden's letter to the US, he quite plainly states the reasons why he attacked.  Meddling around in the middle east was reason #1.

 

It is amazing the cognitive dissonance that goes on.  If Russia were meddling in Mexico, we'd be ticked, if Russia tried to install it's puppet dictator in country close to the US we'd have a war (wait that actually almost did happen!).  But I guess because we are America, we have the God-given right to muck around into any country we please and if they want to attack us because of it they are just plain crazy, they are religious fanatics, uncivilized beasts. Because, didn't you know we have to teach them how to be civilized!!  If it weren't for US, the world would descend into chaos!!!!!

[Palerider]

The President in the last day showed a remarkable amount of fortitude. He did what few people would dare - He went to NATO country Estonia and reassured them that, if Russia invaded them, the United States would go to war with Russia.

 

Russia responded by having one of the biggest nuclear and strategic readiness exercises in history.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-exercises-idUKKBN0GY0H620140903

 

It needed to be said. The question now is going to be, "Does Russia think that Obama is bluffing?" This is what the rest of the world is holding their breath for.

 

The problem we have is that if Putin thinks Obama is bluffing and invades, World War III begins.

I don't believe that Russia or China or North Korea are afraid of Obama. I just heard the other day that China is now doing what Russia is doing in regards to flying by our planes or crossing the line. Obama won't do anything.

[Palerider]

The world is paying a heavy price for President Obama being a basketball fan, because had he followed hockey he would have learned that the best way to deal with instigators and thugs is to demonstrate that you have superior strength. It is for this reason that professional hockey teams use enforcers as a way of protecting their best players.

 

Historically, the best enforcers have had the privilege of sharing the ice with some of hockey’s greatest players. Marty McSorley played most of his career with Wayne Gretzky. Bob Probert was another enforcer who had a long career playing beside Detroit Red Wings star, Steve Yzerman.

 

Oh yes....Bob Probert.....I remember when they played the St Louis Blues and Todd Ewen sent Bob Probert into the next Solar System.

 

 

What holds true for Hockey also holds true in other areas of life, like our foreign policy. Many would argue that this approach when dealing with our enemies makes matters worse. But what we have seen in the last few months in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, is nothing more than the product of this President’s failed foreign policy. Totalitarians like Putin are emboldened by weakness, especially when that weakness comes from the United Sates, which is the only power on earth that can restrain them.

 

Obama made it very clear from the beginning of his presidency that he was going to take a softer approach with our adversaries. In his first-inauguration speech he said:

 

 

Every time he extended "a hand" to our enemies only affirmed our weakness. For example, one of the first things  the Obama administration did was announce they were pushing "the reset button" with the Russians.  They did this in part by removing all sanctions imposed on them by the Bush administration for the invasion of Georgia in 2008. This kind of approach works with your estranged sibling, but not with a former KGB agent.

 

To further appease the Russians, Obama canceled the "missile-defense agreement" the Bush administration made with Poland and the Czech Republic. Anyone familiar with their history would understand why the Poles and Czechs would want a missile DEFENSE shield. The cancellation was announced 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded Poland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany.

 

Let's not forget that President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, that once the election was over (2012), he would be "more flexible with Putin on missile defense.” Then, there was the Presidents failure to follow through with his threat to the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, that the U.S. would get involved in that countries civil war if he used chemical weapons.

 

Putin had made it clear that he wants to see Russia return to what it was before the Soviet Union broke apart, which means the reclaiming of land that once belonged to them as the Ukraine. Knowing what motivates Putin helps us understand why he has invaded Ukraine. It's like the 1930's all over again in the fact that the west is just standing by and does nothing. We won't even give the Ukraine's weapons so they can fight the Russian rebels.  Consider for a moment the message Sent to Putin in how the west has responded the Russians shooting down the Malaysian flight.

 

The New York Times ran a story a few weeks after the Malaysian Airline was shot down titled, Despite Anger over Downed Airliner, Europe Shies Away From Sanctions on Russia. It laid out how spineless and impotent the West has become in confronting real evil. The article reported that the nations of Europe, with the exception of Britain, have all but conceded the fact that the Russians will pay no price for blowing up a passenger jet. Europe fears the potential consequences that Putin would impose on those countries dependent on the Russians for their energy. Thus "harming the Continent’s economic growth."

 

It is beyond belief that the west has done NOTHING after 290 innocent civilians were blown out of the sky, of which 40% were children? Actually, I miss spoke, the west (U.N.) has done something, hold meetings and offer words of condemnation to to Russia.

 

If the west is not willing to act now, what kind of event would force them to take military action. It's actually a scary thought when you put it into perspective. Putin Knows he can do what he wants because the the likes of Obama and the impotent U.N. will do nothing.I fear the world will pay a mighty price for the decision to do nothing while Putin has his way with Ukraine. I hope I am wrong, but what indication do we have that he will stop?

[Just_A_Guy]

Vietnam for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that pulling out would be hugely detrimental is actually doing quite well.

 

Well, sure . . . after forty years and the death of 300,000 refugees and political prisoners, the imprisonment--er, re-education--of two-million-ish South Vietnamese, more rapes than anyone has bothered to count, and the deaths of at least a few hundred thousand boat people . . . 

Edited September 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

Well, sure . . . after forty years and the death of 300,000 refugees and political prisoners, the imprisonment--er, re-education--of two-million-ish South Vietnamese, more rapes than anyone has bothered to count, and the deaths of at least a few hundred thousand boat people . . . 

 

And that's relevant how?  How does the US have the obligation to prevent this?  Russia and China did a lot worse and we haven't fought hot wars with them.

 

No the US only picks fights with countries that it believes will not cost a lot of blood, it gets to test out new toys, have senators make speeches about making America great and free, rah, rah, yah, yah.  Then have the military industrial complex soak up more and more money all in the name of making war (I mean keeping peace).

 

The ugly side effects are that my taxes go up, inflation goes up and there is a very real potential that my son would be called upon or feel the obligation to serve his country and then get killed in some God-forsaken land all in the name of "keeping America free", which is a load a malarkey.

 

There was a time when this constant war-footing was held in check.  Prior to Korea, in WWII the US raised war bonds . . . . instead of just printing the money out of thin air and having the Fed buy it, it actually raised money from the people.  If they wanted the war to be fought then they poneyed up money to do so.  If the war isn't a good war to fight, no matter how many congresscritters vote for it, the people had the ultimate check on it by the power of the purse.  Now there is no check.  Hey xyz who the US claims is a bad guy, so we should go invade and kill them.  Yeah let's do it!!! And the actual costs are hidden, the only one who really know the costs of war are those who fight it.  And sorry to say many of them have no clue why it is fought only that the US says xyz is bad so we must kill him.

 

This is the real downside to our current system, no one gives 2 seconds worth of thought about the actual real costs of war.  It is just a matter of so and so is bad so let's kill 'em.  There are real costs, from the men and women serving, to those who return to the police force who have become so militarized from excess military equipment and ex-military training, to the actual side effects of meddling around in someone else's backyard.  But I guess it is all in the name of "freedom".

Edited September 6, 2014 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

And that's relevant how?  How does the US have the obligation to prevent this? 

 

Well, you were the one who said Vietnam was doing quite well.

 

IN a larger sense--if the US had never gotten involved in Vietnam, I'd be more inclined to agree with your overall point re Vietnam.

 

But we did get involved.  A lot of Vietnamese put their necks on their line because they thought we were in it for the long haul.  As it turned out--we weren't, and people were raped/tortured/killed because they or a family member had aligned themselves with the United States.  We don't have an obligation to fix every flare-up in the world; but when people put themselves in mortal danger to support America's aims I think we have an obligation to do our best to protect those people.

 

Iraq, I can understand what we did (and even oppose putting troops back into the country) because in the end, their government did ask us to leave (and whatever they may claim now, the polling data from back then shows that the vast majority of Iraqis really did want us gone).  Vietnam?  I'm not terribly familiar with what the South Vietnamese thought of our "peace with honor" strategy; but based on my superficial knowledge the thing smacks of betrayal.

 

We should be very slow to go to war; but once we commit--we need to see it through.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

We should be very slow to go to war; but once we commit--we need to see it through.

 

1st part agree.  2nd completely disagree, We should keep fighting the war while it makes sense to keep fighting.  While we are fighting we should do everything to win it.  We should also be constantly evaluating if it makes sense to keep fighting.

 

This idea that we should see it through is nothing more than hubris; that we must win regardless of how much we lose by winning.  It is how empires die.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure an American "empire" was ever supposed to be the goal.  The goal was supposed to be a Pax Americana enforced partially by (the potential use of) our military strength; but more broadly by international economic cooperation and the friendship and goodwill of nations who knew that we would keep the promises we had made to them.

 

Forty years ago, we stabbed our Vietnamese friends in the back.  We've spent most of this past decade with a big chunk of our population ready and willing to do the same thing to our Iraqi friends (their asking us to leave saved us a little bit of face, but not much).  We're getting ready to do the same thing again in Afghanistan.  We've pressured our Eastern European neighbors into making some big strategic concessions in the face of a restless Russia looking to build, if not an outright empire, at least a new Warsaw Pact.  In the face of Palestinian aggression, we've told Israel basically to put down their guns because they deserve what they're getting.  Just a couple years ago our President (or his flunkies) hung his own ambassador and a couple of SEALS out to dry into Benghazi--and we re-elected him for it. 

 

It's pretty clear where we're going, and how we got into this handbasket.  With friends like America in the Obama era, who needs enemies?  I'd hate to be Taiwan or South Korea right now--"pivot to Asia" notwithstanding.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

I'm not sure an American "empire" was ever supposed to be the goal.  The goal was supposed to be a Pax Americana enforced partially by (the potential use of) our military strength; but more broadly by international economic cooperation and the friendship and goodwill of nations who knew that we would keep the promises we had made to them.

 

Forty years ago, we stabbed our Vietnamese friends in the back.  We've spent most of this past decade with a big chunk of our population ready and willing to do the same thing to our Iraqi friends (their asking us to leave saved us a little bit of face, but not much).  We're getting ready to do the same thing again in Afghanistan.  We've pressured our Eastern European neighbors into making some big strategic concessions in the face of a restless Russia looking to build, if not an outright empire, at least a new Warsaw Pact.  In the face of Palestinian aggression, we've told Israel basically to put down their guns because they deserve what they're getting.  Just a couple years ago our President (or his flunkies) hung his own ambassador and a couple of SEALS out to dry into Benghazi--and we re-elected him for it. 

 

It's pretty clear where we're going, and how we got into this handbasket.  With friends like America in the Obama era, who needs enemies?  I'd hate to be Taiwan or South Korea right now--"pivot to Asia" notwithstanding.

 

The goal was never Pax American, the goal was an independent republic where individuals could live their lives in peace without interference from the government.  The goal was that we are so vastly separated (even today) that the idea that another country could invade and take over the US is a fantasy.  The goal was to be an exceptional country, exceptional in that we didn't do things like other countries did.  We didn't do things like Britain did and conquer the world, ensure "world peace".  We didn't send the military all over the world looking for trouble.

 

Obama has done a lot of things wrong and he has engaged in undeclared wars and covert wars, but at least he has toned down the hot wars.

 

I don't know, maybe others countries should have the responsibility for their own defense.  I don't understand why many so-called "conservatives" are so against internal welfare, but absolutely love external welfare.  We provide welfare to the world by subsidizing their defense.  Maybe they should learn how to defend themselves without US support.

 

And to be honest, I'd rather have "stabbed our Vietnamese friends"  than have wasted more years and how many more lives fighting a pointless war all in the name of some mythical "honor". Besides the fact, that the Vietnamese were not our friends, they were used at the first instance.  The US continued the war the French were fighting prior to the US involvement.  The US wanted to install certain puppet leaders and the locals didn't like it.  The war was ultimately a war against colonial powers for local control that the US continued under the guise of fighting "communism".  It was an internal civil war that we got involved in . . .

 

So claiming they were our friends is pretty disingenuous; they weren't our friends prior to when the US decided they could use them for its own interest.  I don't think that qualifies for "friend" in any sense of the word.

[Just_A_Guy]

The goal was never Pax American, the goal was an independent republic where individuals could live their lives in peace without interference from the government.  The goal was that we are so vastly separated (even today) that the idea that another country could invade and take over the US is a fantasy.  The goal was to be an exceptional country, exceptional in that we didn't do things like other countries did.  We didn't do things like Britain did and conquer the world, ensure "world peace".  We didn't send the military all over the world looking for trouble.

 

Point taken--and I sympathize with a lot of your isolationist thought.  FWIW, I have a much stronger isolationist bent than I'm letting show here.  I really loathe the idea of being the world's police man and I'm not sure what America's role on the international stage should be, exactly; but I don't think it's quite as simple as you paint it. 

 

Somewhere along the road we made a couple of interesting discoveries--first, that nasty situations overseas have a way of affecting us over here sooner or later; and second, that when certain key economic partners are at peace, our own prosperity and standard of living tends to increase dramatically.

 

I don't know, maybe others countries should have the responsibility for their own defense.  I don't understand why many so-called "conservatives" are so against internal welfare, but absolutely love external welfare.  We provide welfare to the world by subsidizing their defense.  Maybe they should learn how to defend themselves without US support.

 

Conservatives aren't against domestic welfare that provides for basic living necessities.  They are against redistributionist schemes because they tend to view Keynesianism as voodoo science.  By contrast the theory behind "put a freakin' HUGE army somewhere, and more often than not, the miserable little third-world thug next door is going to calm down in a hurry" is pretty straightforward.

 

And it's not just a matter of letting foreign allies defend themselves when they get into a fight--it's a matter of helping them to be so strong (or have someone in their corner who is so strong) that no one messes with them in the first place.  To use an example from earlier in this thread:  Estonia could never stand against Russia on its own, and quite possibly couldn't do so even if it had mutual assistance treaties with--say--Georgia, the Ukraine, or for that matter the entire former Warsaw Pact.  It's not a matter of will; it's a matter of resources. 

 

And to be honest, I'd rather have "stabbed our Vietnamese friends"  than have wasted more years and how many more lives fighting a pointless war all in the name of some mythical "honor".

 

"Pointless"?  Hadn't the commies just spent the past two decades destabilizing democracies from Cuba to Finland to Hungary to Korea? 

 

 

Besides the fact, that the Vietnamese were not our friends, they were used at the first instance.  The US continued the war the French were fighting prior to the US involvement.  The US wanted to install certain puppet leaders and the locals didn't like it.  The war was ultimately a war against colonial powers for local control that the US continued under the guise of fighting "communism".  It was an internal civil war that we got involved in . . .

 

Are you implying that the South Vietnamese actually loved Ho Chi Minh and his successors, and would have jumped at the chance to live under totalitarianism?  You think America didn't really care one fig about promoting liberty and democracy wherever the seeds for it appeared to be sprouting?  Is your position that no other foreign powers would have been meddling in Vietnam had the US not blundered into the mess France had just left behind?

 

Look, isolationism I can understand; but if it's going to be adopted it should be adopted with an accurate understanding of history.  The above is frankly revisionism at its most extravagant.

 

So claiming they were our friends is pretty disingenuous; they weren't our friends prior to when the US decided they could use them for its own interest.  I don't think that qualifies for "friend" in any sense of the word.

 

Well, it's definitely easier to abandon a friend in mortal peril by reminding ourselves that a) ten years ago we weren't friends at all, and b ) what has that friend really done for me lately, anyways? and c) their tormentors don't hate them because of their affiliation with us; their tormentors hate them because our so-called friends are actually quite incorrigible deadbeats. 

 

What a wonderful balm that is, when the tales of imprisonment, genocide, and sexual assault--brutalities perpetrated on individuals we knew, on individuals who were induced by American promises of safety into activities that the PAVN deemed worthy of death or torture, people who trusted us--and brutalities that we could have prevented, by evacuation and liberal grant of asylum if nothing else--start trickling back!

 

By the way--do you also believe that South Korea would be better off under Kim Jong-Un?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Pa Pa]

Failed to close the deal?  Umm . . . we were in Iraq for almost 10 years.  If you can't close the deal in 10 years, it ain't gonna happen.  The last war we closed would have been WWII, but even then that isn't the case.  There is still a border war in Korea, we still have military troops in bases in Europe from WWII.  Vietnam for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that pulling out would be hugely detrimental is actually doing quite well.

 

They will only attack us again if we keep meddling around in their country.  Please read Bin Laden's letter to the US, he quite plainly states the reasons why he attacked.  Meddling around in the middle east was reason #1.

 

It is amazing the cognitive dissonance that goes on.  If Russia were meddling in Mexico, we'd be ticked, if Russia tried to install it's puppet dictator in country close to the US we'd have a war (wait that actually almost did happen!).  But I guess because we are America, we have the God-given right to muck around into any country we please and if they want to attack us because of it they are just plain crazy, they are religious fanatics, uncivilized beasts. Because, didn't you know we have to teach them how to be civilized!!  If it weren't for US, the world would descend into chaos!!!!!

We are (the U.S. Military) is still in Germany, Japan. I am not saying we should have gone to IRAQ, but one there we should have won first and then insured the peace. Now we are announcing to the Afgans when we are leaving. BTW, in the Middle East it is the coustom to destroy your enemy as they retreat and to kill them forever when possible. This is why we created the ISIS, and why we will one day be fighting them here. I would suggest that no one be in large Malls or large gathering this Thursday. Be in prayer for all Americans abroad.