Originally Posted by Mikebert

The account below the asterisks gives an excellent account of why the Gulf War was such a disaster for the US. This one decision, made by the Bush I administration (and which I supported) directly led to 911, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and ISIS. One decision gave an unending series of cluster fucks that continue to this day.

Nobody could have predicted the shit storm we were unleashing by deciding to get involved in the Gulf. And this is precisely the problem, you cannot know the results of what you do when you intervene. So the question becomes should we ever intervene? It seems to me that the logical answer to this question is, well what has been the record of past interventions? For example, how much good has been achieved by interventions of the past 50 years? How much bad? Does the good outweigh the bad? This thread is for this discussion.

Consider this: if the answer is no, then we should never intervene, in which case we do not need the ability to intervene. When you think that were spend 3.5% of GDP on national defense compared to about 1.0% for the other three big nations in the Western hemisphere (who generally do not engage in interventions) it looks like we would rack up about $4 trillion in savings over ten years by “just saying no” to interventions. That $4 trillion would buy a lot of infrastructure, creating 20-40 million jobs over the decade. That’s quite a reward for ceasing to do stupid things that we later regret.

******************************************
Osama bin Laden used his vast inheritance go fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. There he met other Arab fighters, self-described jihadists, with whom he formed al-Qaeda in 1988. The Saudi government, which along with the US backed the Afghan jihad as official policy, supported bin Laden. He came home in 1990 a national hero.

That same year, bin Laden personally met with Prince Sultan, the national defense minister, to ask permission to lead his jihadist fighters against Saddam Hussein's armies in neighboring Kuwait. When Sultan refused, bin Laden turned against the monarchy, publicly condemning it and questioning its legitimacy.¹ In 1992, Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship and expelled him to Sudan. In 1996, under US pressure, Sudan expelled him to Afghanistan.

By 1996, bin Laden had come to blame his problems, and the problems of the Muslim world, on the United States, which he saw as a heretical imperial power little different from the Soviet Union. Salvation could only come through defeat of nonbelievers, which to him included the American-allied Saudi royals, and the establishment of a vast pan-Islamic empire.[ref]

¹After Iraq invades Kuwait (see November 8, 1990), bin Laden, newly returned to Saudi Arabia, offers the Saudi government the use of his thousands of veteran fighters from the Afghan war to defend the country in case Iraq attacks it. The Saudi government turns him down, allowing 300,000 US soldiers on Saudi soil instead. Bin Laden is incensed, and immediately goes from ally to enemy of the Saudis. (ref)

Very interesting question and article.

I can't follow the current discussion, so I'll just comment on this OP.

It reminds me of how we turned off Uncle Ho of Vietnam at the end of World War II, when he offered to be an ally of the USA and adopt a democratic constitution, but we opted to support the French colonialists instead.

I wonder if, since we had been allies of bin Laden in Afghanistan, we could have worked something out with the Saudis to defend them together against possible invasion by Saddam. Would bin Laden still have been "incensed" at Americans on Saudi soil, in that case? Would our recent alliance have mollified him, and thus prevented 9-11 and the Afghan invasion by the USA? It's hard to say.

I thought beefing up Saudi defenses was a good idea, but I vociferously opposed Bush I's invasion of Kuwait and Iraq. I was opposed to most interventions in the post-Vietnam War era, but am less opposed to some that Democratic presidents since Bush have done. And there's still a difference in my mind between sending support (money, weapons, training), and sending troops to invade a country.

Intervention should have UN support, and/or be a last resort to respond to an invasion or attack against the USA or its treaty allies. That would be my guess. But also, the USA needs to stop genocides in some way, also multilaterally, and not usually with ground intervention. And air and drone strikes too should be carried out cautiously, since they often do more harm than good.

The Islamic State is a threat to the United States and its allies, and is genocidal. Air strikes and special forces seem the best approach, in concert with allies in the region. Maybe the attacks need to be stronger and speeded up. Their oil, transport, money and other resources need to be hit, and borders secured. But reckless bombing that kills lots of civilians will be counter-productive.

We should have protected the Syrians against genocide, as we did the Libyans. Once the revolutions started in these countries, chaos was inevitable no matter what we did or didn't do. Involvement through providing support is a good idea, and should be increased. Air strikes were used in Libya, and it is tempting for me to recommend them in Syria. But on balance I think it was right for Obama to hold off on this in 2013, and since then too; although he would have been wise to ask congress before he drew the "red line." At least, that way the pundits would have been kinder to him, FWIW.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No I'm not, you are.


But this is unknowable. My metric is knowable. Consider if interventions had a 100% probability of failure to achieve their objectives, then it would make no sense to ever engage in one.

Surely there have been successful interventions. Among the big ones I would label successes as Korea, the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Each achieved their initial objectives. In Korean South Korea did not fall to the North. In the Gulf Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. In Iraq, the Saddam regime fell and the country was certified free of WMDs. I rate these three successes as Good, Bad and Bad.

Then we can look at the failed interventions in order to get an idea of what might happen if we don't choose to intervene. In this category I would put Vietnam and Afghanistan.

It is too early to tell with Afghanistan, but for Vietnam the outcome has been neutral.

So as an objective function I you sum up the successes and the converse of the failures:

Good + Bad + Bad + -neutral = net Bad.

Here I did not place magnitudes, not did I consider minor interventions. We can add interventions in 1958 Lebanon Panama, 1964 Panama, 1965-6 Dominican Republic, 1983 Grenada, Honduras, 1989 Panama, 1990 Liberia, 1992 Somalia, 1993 Bosnia, 1994 Haiti, 1996 Congo, 1997 Liberia Albania, 2001 Macedonia, 2002 Philippines, 2003 Columbia, 2001 Libya, 2014 ISIS, but this gets hard.


This is addressed by looking at what did happen in the failures.

I guess I'm missing what you are trying to convey.

I see your entire post(s) suggesting that we should examine prior success/failures to help predict future success/failures, with an occasional throwing-up of the hands that it's not possible. Not sure if that's more my problem with reading comprehension or not.

But I see possible a bigger question -

By stating you only argue the knowable, you at least imply the existence of the problem of "arguing from ignorance" - in this case, the consequential results through the years and into the future of the world recognizing the US clearly having the capacity/willingness to intervene. By dismissing it so early, are you giving your initial question a fair shake?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

You might want to include a trip to the Navajo Nation, parts of it which also lack water.

I certainly agree. I'm sure that legions of places/people lack something as simple as potable drinking water. It is for that reason that among others that the US can be categorized as a banana republic.

I hereby introduce our new flag.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Very interesting question and article.

I can't follow the current discussion, so I'll just comment on this OP.

It reminds me of how we turned off Uncle Ho of Vietnam at the end of World War II, when he offered to be an ally of the USA and adopt a democratic constitution, but we opted to support the French colonialists instead.

I wonder if, since we had been allies of bin Laden in Afghanistan, we could have worked something out with the Saudis to defend them together against possible invasion by Saddam. Would bin Laden still have been "incensed" at Americans on Saudi soil, in that case? Would our recent alliance have mollified him, and thus prevented 9-11 and the Afghan invasion by the USA? It's hard to say.

I thought beefing up Saudi defenses was a good idea, but I vociferously opposed Bush I's invasion of Kuwait and Iraq. I was opposed to most interventions in the post-Vietnam War era, but am less opposed to some that Democratic presidents since Bush have done. And there's still a difference in my mind between sending support (money, weapons, training), and sending troops to invade a country.

Intervention should have UN support, and/or be a last resort to respond to an invasion or attack against the USA or its treaty allies. That would be my guess. But also, the USA needs to stop genocides in some way, also multilaterally, and not usually with ground intervention. And air and drone strikes too should be carried out cautiously, since they often do more harm than good.

The Islamic State is a threat to the United States and its allies, and is genocidal. Air strikes and special forces seem the best approach, in concert with allies in the region. Maybe the attacks need to be stronger and speeded up. Their oil, transport, money and other resources need to be hit, and borders secured. But reckless bombing that kills lots of civilians will be counter-productive.

We should have protected the Syrians against genocide, as we did the Libyans. Once the revolutions started in these countries, chaos was inevitable no matter what we did or didn't do. Involvement through providing support is a good idea, and should be increased. Air strikes were used in Libya, and it is tempting for me to recommend them in Syria. But on balance I think it was right for Obama to hold off on this in 2013, and since then too; although he would have been wise to ask congress before he drew the "red line." At least, that way the pundits would have been kinder to him, FWIW.

I agree with most of your post, but I did support Bush I's invasion of Kuwait to drive Iraq out. Also thought the decision to not occupy Iraq was correct.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have never met you in person. I do not want to.

Probably wise. The experience probably wouldn't be very enjoyable or all that comfortable for you. Me, I could meet you but I doubt that I could stand being near you for very long.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

People do not get much respect by offering stuff without strings.

I disagree. I've earned a lot of respect and admiration from people by offering stuff without any strings.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Was that the fellow who told another poster to commit suicide and gave explicit instructions on how to do so? Or was that the one who accused me of some really-nasty crimes*? Good riddance to both; I may have done much to get those two taken out of these Forums. I was not alone, so I don't expect much credit.

What happened to that fellow who suggested to another poster that if he was attempting to gain sympathy that he might as well shoot himself? Dude, two can play the same game. At some point, the moderators are going to have to make a decision about you, your antics and maintaining the social integrity of this forum. I played a role in removing a biased moderator and a queen bee. No one likes a tattle tale because tattle tales have no integrity. I'll give Craig the credit for removing KIA-67 for you. I wonder how many prominent adult posters it would take to complain and remove an adult poster who's a weasel, attacks people behind the scenes and threatens the integrity of the entire forum. Craig made mistakes and paid for his mistakes. Kiff made horrible mistakes and paid for her mistakes. Eventually, you'll make mistakes and find yourself in the same boat as them. It's just a matter of time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I doubt that you have ever sought the goal of self-actualization.

Self-actualization is a virtue that's related to success.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I disagree. I've earned a lot of respect and admiration from people by offering stuff without any strings.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

What happened to that fellow who suggested to another poster that if he was attempting to gain sympathy that he might as well shoot himself? Dude, two can play the same game. At some point, the moderators are going to have to make a decision about you, your antics and maintaining the social integrity of this forum. I played a role in removing a biased moderator and a queen bee. No one likes a tattle tale because tattle tales have no integrity. I'll give Craig the credit for removing KIA-67 for you. I wonder how many prominent adult posters it would take to complain and remove an adult poster who's a weasel, attacks people behind the scenes and threatens the integrity of the entire forum. Craig made mistakes and paid for his mistakes. Kiff made horrible mistakes and paid for her mistakes. Eventually, you'll make mistakes and find yourself in the same boat as them. It's just a matter of time.

Some mistakes are more forgivable than others. Telling someone to commit suicide is inexcusable.

I have recently exposed my despair at a seemingly-hopeless situation. It is hard to avoid doing so at times even if it is gauche. Who knows? I may come out of the unpleasant situation a better person than I went into it. The situation might also break me into a sniveling wreck. I would not wish what has gone on in the last few years of my life on anyone. My worst enemy? My worst enemy would probably commit a crime to get out of the situation.

Self-actualization is a virtue that's related to success.

Self-actualization is success even if the achievement is modest. But success in creative activity (Maslow cites Richard Wagner and Vincent van Gogh as examples) imply a failure to self-actualize if one is still miserable. They were miserable people to be around.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If history is any guide, what would stop these players from using their new toys? And the consequences to the US if they did? Say Japan decides one of China's new islands or new missile placements is just too close and takes a couple out just to signal their resolve, but China takes out a new Japanese destroyer to show its own resolve - impact on our stock markets, real estate, banking, consumer confidence, economic activity, etc? Can you say "economic depression?"

Well lets look at history. In August 1914 Europe went to war, European stock markets closed as did the NYSE, which was closed between July 30 and December 12 of 1914. Stocks were quoted by brokers and traded off the exchange during this time and traded in narrow range of 53.3 ± 0.7. The Dow had been at about 57 at the end of July having fallen about 18% from its Sept 1912 peak. The economy had been in recession since Jan 1913. The war dropped the market another 8% to a bottom at 8% in early August. When the market re-opened a bull market began. The recession ended in Dec 1914. Unemployment stood at 8% when the war broke out; it would peak at 8.5% in 1Q 1915, and a year later stood at 5.1%.

Anyone ever heard of the Great Depression of 1914? Probably because there wasn't one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I guess I'm missing what you are trying to convey.

It's simple. There is no evidence that American interventions have been net beneficial for America during my lifetime. The only major positive outcome was Korea and that was more than sixty years ago.

Your arguments are based on comparison with what actually happened to a hypothetical awful outcome that would have happened had we not intervened. I can point to an actual case where we KNOW what would have happened had we not intervened; Vietnam. What we were trying to prevent by intervening was a Communist takeover of South Vietnam. We failed to achieve this objective and what we were trying to prevent happened anyway and so we were forced to live with the awful consequences that supporters of invention argued would happen had we not intervened. And what has been the consequence of our failure to successfully intervene? Well, nothing much for us Americans.

Just above I give an example of one of your hypothetical outcomes. The rise of Chinese power in the South China Sea. I agree this is a problem for the Japanese, for Vietnam, for the Philippines, and perhaps, for Indonesia. But it is not a problem for America. You try to make a case for an economic impact in the form of depression, citing history. So I replied with the most applicable historical example, the beginning of WW I, which closed the stock market for four months, far, far longer than the closure in 1873 or the brief closure after 911. Yet the negative impact on American markets (once they re-opened) and economy was very small. In the broad market the 1913-1914 decline was the 12th largest, behind the 2007-9 bear, the 2000-2002 bear and the 1973-74 bear. Amongst surrounding bears it was smaller than 1906-7 and 1920-21. In short it was not the big deal you imply a conflict could create. And this was a world war involved nations whose financial systems were closely coupled with ours (that is why the market was closed for four months--it was THAT big). And yet it had little effect on us until...we decided to get involved.

By stating you only argue the knowable, you at least imply the existence of the problem of "arguing from ignorance" - in this case, the consequential results through the years and into the future of the world recognizing the US clearly having the capacity/willingness to intervene.

Consquential, certainly. Eating 5000 calories as day is consequential for most people, but is it desirable? My point is we have enough data to show that the results of our interventions over the past half century for Americans has not been positive. You have failed to show any evidence that had be not intervened Americans would be worse off that we are. (And this is not considering the positive impacts that could have been achieved at home from the resources employed in interventions)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Some mistakes are more forgivable than others. Telling someone to commit suicide is inexcusable.

How does one have the authority to order someone else to commit suicide over the internet? I suggest that you think about it (look at it) that way before you do anything like you're used to doing from now onward. You had a poster removed because they made some nasty comments about you or accused you of being a bad person. I guess that means I have grounds to remove you too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It reminds me of how we turned off Uncle Ho of Vietnam at the end of World War II, when he offered to be an ally of the USA and adopt a democratic constitution, but we opted to support the French colonialists instead.

This shows the perils of intervention. Should we have intervened on behalf of Ho, or against him? You seem to believe that a correct decision exists. I used to think so. But having lived as long as I have and have made this decision multiple times (and having been disappointed) I am no longer sure of this. Let unexamined by you is the possibility that we could choose to say "No" to Ho AND the French.

I wonder if, since we had been allies of bin Laden in Afghanistan, we could have worked something out with the Saudis to defend them together against possible invasion by Saddam. Would bin Laden still have been "incensed" at Americans on Saudi soil, in that case? Would our recent alliance have mollified him, and thus prevented 9-11 and the Afghan invasion by the USA? It's hard to say.

Yes, it IS hard to say. Had we NOT been allies of bin Laden in Afghanistan and had we done NOTHING about the invasion of Kuwait, it is possible something like this might have been arranged by the Saudis on their own (or not). In any case it would be of little concern with us.

I thought beefing up Saudi defenses was a good idea,

Why is it a good idea for American taxpayers to beef up Saudi defenses? Why can't the super-rich Saudis pay for their own beefed up defenses?

Intervention should have UN support,

Agreed

But also, the USA needs to stop genocides in some way, also multilaterally, and not usually with ground intervention. And air and drone strikes too should be carried out cautiously, since they often do more harm than good.

So we should try to prevent people from being killed by killing people?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well lets look at history. In August 1914 Europe went to war, European stock markets closed as did the NYSE, which was closed between July 30 and December 12 of 1914. Stocks were quoted by brokers and traded off the exchange during this time and traded in narrow range of 53.3 ± 0.7. The Dow had been at about 57 at the end of July having fallen about 18% from its Sept 1912 peak. The economy had been in recession since Jan 1913. The war dropped the market another 8% to a bottom at 8% in early August. When the market re-opened a bull market began. The recession ended in Dec 1914. Unemployment stood at 8% when the war broke out; it would peak at 8.5% in 1Q 1915, and a year later stood at 5.1%.

Anyone ever heard of the Great Depression of 1914? Probably because there wasn't one.

Nope. I heard about the sinking of The Lusitania by a German submarine and our informal support of the European allies during the early years of World War I.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This shows the perils of intervention. Should we have intervened on behalf of Ho, or against him? You seem to believe that a correct decision exists. I used to think so. But having lived as long as I have and have made this decision multiple times (and having been disappointed) I am no longer sure of this. Let unexamined by you is the possibility that we could choose to say "No" to Ho AND the French.

Didn't we choose to say "No" to Ho and the French colonialist and allow the two fight it out among themselves and reach a negotiated compromise that resulted in two nations?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes, it IS hard to say. Had we NOT been allies of bin Laden in Afghanistan and had we done NOTHING about the invasion of Kuwait, it is possible something like this might have been arranged by the Saudis on their own (or not). In any case it would be of little concern with us.

I always wondered how you were able to ignore the importance of oil, the price of oil, the obvious presence of oil based products and the all the uses of oil when making silly comments and statements like this.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why is it a good idea for American taxpayers to beef up Saudi defenses? Why can't the super-rich Saudis pay for their own beefed up defenses?

Would you rather have Saudi oil, Saudi wealth and the Saudi military on your side during a major war or not?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So we should try to prevent people from being killed by killing people?

IMO, we killed Nazi's and Germans who supported the Nazi's to prevent the extermination of Jews and other social and ethnic groups for a very good reason. What kind of person are you?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This shows the perils of intervention. Should we have intervened on behalf of Ho, or against him? You seem to believe that a correct decision exists. I used to think so. But having lived as long as I have and have made this decision multiple times (and having been disappointed) I am no longer sure of this. Let unexamined by you is the possibility that we could choose to say "No" to Ho AND the French.

I don't disagree.

Yes, it IS hard to say. Had we NOT been allies of bin Laden in Afghanistan and had we done NOTHING about the invasion of Kuwait, it is possible something like this might have been arranged by the Saudis on their own (or not). In any case it would be of little concern with us.

You have a good point. I don't know what harm it would have done to let the Russians take Afghanistan. The Soviet Union would have probably fallen anyway.

Why is it a good idea for American taxpayers to beef up Saudi defenses? Why can't the super-rich Saudis pay for their own beefed up defenses?

That's a good point. I guess they felt they were beefing up their defenses by paying us to do it. We were there for the buying.

So we should try to prevent people from being killed by killing people?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Didn't we choose to say "No" to Ho and the French colonialist and allow the two fight it out among themselves and reach a negotiated compromise that resulted in two nations?

We said no to Ho , but essentially said yes to the French via proxy by saying yes to Ngo. The US also said no to a country wide election fearing the buggaboo commies would win that election, so we the said yes to a S Vietnam election.

I always wondered how you were able to ignore the importance of oil, the price of oil, the obvious presence of oil based products and the all the uses of oil when making silly comments and statements like this.

I rather doubt anyone ignores the oil side of things. The costs of all of all of those interventions was NEVER, EVER factored in as an externiality to the price of oil. If I had my way, I'd hike the hell out of an oil import fee to recapture the costs of said interventions. I'm sure the cost of solar/wind would be a lot less that way. I'm sure that fee would be north of $100/bbl. I'd of course set the 0 bracket of income tax to offset said fees as well.

Would you rather have Saudi oil, Saudi wealth and the Saudi military on your side during a major war or not?

I wouldn't want the oil as per above. If oil had a floor at $100/bbl the renewable complex would be profitable as would marginal domestic oil production. We'd get lots of domestic jobs from both marginal oil production and the renewable complex right here in the US. That means even more government revenue and lower deficits along with more funds to fix our 3rd world infrastructure. Now, I think I would agree with you that I'd love to chuck mindless bureaucratic overhead as well. For example, Oklahoma needs to delete a lot of education bureaucrats ["educrats"] and consolidate school districts before getting around to any discussion about more funding. I don't mind government spending as long as it is worthwhile, but I detest wasteful spending. Another example is using 20 different kinds of software that do the same thing. Finally, there's this little matter of the petro-dollar. I pretty much think it's in my interest that the petro-dollar gets destroyed. The rationale for that is it would really put the fuck to the MIC, Wall Street Banks, and other nefarious fat cats.

Sort of like this:


Hmmm, speaking of "KIA" , looks like it's bad luck.

IMO, we killed Nazi's and Germans who supported the Nazi's to prevent the extermination of Jews and other social and ethnic groups for a very good reason. What kind of person are you?

1. Uh, IIRC this happened after Pearl Harbor and a declaration of war by Germany. That's an example of self defense which is OK.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Didn't we choose to say "No" to Ho and the French colonialist and allow the two fight it out among themselves and reach a negotiated compromise that resulted in two nations?

No, we supported the French colonialists. Not directly but with aid. And Rags reminds me correctly: "The US also said no to a country wide election fearing the buggaboo commies would win that election, so we then said yes to a S Vietnam election."

I always wondered how you were able to ignore the importance of oil, the price of oil, the obvious presence of oil based products and the all the uses of oil when making silly comments and statements like this.

What is silly is to kill to maintain our oil addiction. Global warming was already well known in 1991, and Reagan had taken the solar panels down from the White House and stopped the energy transition that should have already been well under way. "No blood for oil"
was correct.

Would you rather have Saudi oil, Saudi wealth and the Saudi military on your side during a major war or not?

It's true, they were our allies. But, on the other hand, if we didn't get ourselves involved in Middle East wars (chiefly by propping up Israel), maybe we wouldn't need their help. Even against the IS today, they haven't done much yet. I seriously doubt the Saudis were of much help with our recent Iraqi and Afghan invasions. On the other hand, the Saudis themselves (the people) are not with us. Most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis.

IMO, we killed Nazi's and Germans who supported the Nazi's to prevent the extermination of Jews and other social and ethnic groups for a very good reason.

I agree with you on that one. Self-defense too, right.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Finally, there's this little matter of the petro-dollar. I pretty much think it's in my interest that the petro-dollar gets destroyed. The rationale for that is it would really put the fuck to the MIC, Wall Street Banks, and other nefarious fat cats.

Excellent point. So why didn't you post a fat cat? Come on Rags, where's all that cartoon cleverness of yours?

Sort of like this:

Some people, and some governments, just don't know how to spin that wheel. Some of us DO, but we don't get the chance to spin it.

Reminds me, time to watch the show! (if it's on)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Excellent point. So why didn't you post a fat cat? Come on Rags, where's all that cartoon cleverness of yours?

Ask and you shall receive.



Then of course... Let's sing it. "Rain Drops Keep Falling on My Head". From the skyscrapers of Wall Street and on to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If_yxchMYTg

Some people, and some governments, just don't know how to spin that wheel. Some of us DO, but we don't get the chance to spin it.

Yes, and that and the "what goes up goes down." The stawk market of course does that even with painted ponies.
We have just so many, many dodos when it comes to such a simple concept.



Reminds me, time to watch the show! (if it's on)[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, we supported the French colonialists. Not directly but with aid. And Rags reminds me correctly: "The US also said no to a country wide election fearing the buggaboo commies would win that election, so we then said yes to a S Vietnam election."


What is silly is to kill to maintain our oil addiction. Global warming was already well known in 1991, and Reagan had taken the solar panels down from the White House and stopped the energy transition that should have already been well under way. "No blood for oil"
was correct.

It's true, they were our allies. But, on the other hand, if we didn't get ourselves involved in Middle East wars (chiefly by propping up Israel), maybe we wouldn't need their help. Even against the IS today, they haven't done much yet. I seriously doubt the Saudis were of much help with our recent Iraqi and Afghan invasions. On the other hand, the Saudis themselves (the people) are not with us. Most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis.

I agree with you on that one. Self-defense too, right.

So, considering that most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, we should assume that all Saudis are radicals then? Shall we kill them all too?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Didn't we choose to say "No" to Ho and the French colonialist and allow the two fight it out among themselves and reach a negotiated compromise that resulted in two nations?

No we took the French side and paid for the entire cost of their war. Had we opted out, Ho would have won outright, there never would have been a South Vietnam in the first place.

I always wondered how you were able to ignore the importance of oil, the price of oil, the obvious presence of oil based products and the all the uses of oil

I did not ignore oil. Iraq was friendly with the US at the time of the invasion (recall Reagan had sided with Saddam in their recent war with Iran). Had we done nothing, that wouldn't have changed. Oil prices likely would have stayed elevated for some years into the 1990's. In the face of higher oil prices, US automakers would likely not not have scrapped their electric car programs. Fracking would have made sense earlier and been rolled out a decade before it actually was. We would have become energy independent years ago.

Would you rather have Saudi oil, Saudi wealth and the Saudi military on your side during a major war or not?

You are saying that we should submit to Saudi blackmail? Really?

IMO, we killed Nazi's and Germans who supported the Nazi's to prevent the extermination of Jews and other social and ethnic groups for a very good reason. What kind of person are you?

Actually as Rags said, we went to war with Germany not to prevent people from being exterminated, but because they declared war on us. As it turned out, European Jews and other social and ethnic groups were exterminated, we did not prevent it. Besides if we were concerned about Jews being exterminated why did we send a shipload of them back to Europe?

Do you think that was a mistake and so now advocate throwing our doors open to fleeing Syrian refugees? Or do you advocate a major ground war in Syria and Iraq to conquer the entire region and hold it in perpetuity to prevent ISIS from killing those Syria refugees they (and we) don't want? If you really feel this way, it would be cheaper just to let them all come here.

What ISIS is doing to peoples they do not like is reprehensible. For America to actually stop this would require that we conquer the entire region and annex it, which would take a permanent staff of millions of American personnel to maintain. I believe it is the American government's responsibility to provide the staff needed to maintain the social peace and prosperity here in America. It is under no obligation to extend these services to places outside of America.

There is the neocon view, that America is an empire like Rome, and has the responsibility to bring civilization to people at risk by making provinces out of their lands with the goal of eventually making them all imperial citizens as was achieved in AD 212. I don't hold with this.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Actually as Rags said, we went to war with Germany not to prevent people from being exterminated, but because they declared war on us. As it turned out, European Jews and other social and ethnic groups were exterminated, we did not prevent it. Besides if we were concerned about Jews being exterminated why did we send a shipload of them back to Europe?

Nitpick. FDR had us providing full aid and support to the Allies well before Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaring war on the US. See the 1941 State of the Union speech, the 'Four Freedoms' speech. There were obvious military, moral and cultural reasons for the US to side with the Allies, but there were economic reasons as well. Many feared Hitler would turn the areas he controlled into a closed economic zone, cutting the US out of a lot of the world's economy. FDR was quietly in contact with Churchill well before Churchill became prime minister. This was a highly unusual example of a head of state communicating with politician in a lesser position, but the two men already shared an opposition to Hitler.

I'd concur, though, that fighting the genocides was not a major concern before or during the war. I wouldn't say, however, that the cause of US entry in the war was Hitler's declaration of war. FDR was looking to get involved in the war, and Hitler had more than sufficient cause for declaring war (as if he thought just cause was required.)

There was a controversial memo written by a navy officer that was sent to the White House. It recommended that to get involved in the war one should provoke the Japanese. To do so one might take a number of steps, including cutting off their oil supply and pushing the Pacific Fleet forward to Pearl Harbor. It was never proven that FDR saw this memo, but a few weeks after it was presented to the White House, all of the recommended provocative steps were taken.

And well before Pearl Harbor, the 'Germany First' policy was decided on.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No we took the French side and paid for the entire cost of their war. Had we opted out, Ho would have won outright, there never would have been a South Vietnam in the first place.


I did not ignore oil. Iraq was friendly with the US at the time of the invasion (recall Reagan had sided with Saddam in their recent war with Iran). Had we done nothing, that wouldn't have changed. Oil prices likely would have stayed elevated for some years into the 1990's. In the face of higher oil prices, US automakers would likely not not have scrapped their electric car programs. Fracking would have made sense earlier and been rolled out a decade before it actually was. We would have become energy independent years ago.


You are saying that we should submit to Saudi blackmail? Really?


Actually as Rags said, we went to war with Germany not to prevent people from being exterminated, but because they declared war on us. As it turned out, European Jews and other social and ethnic groups were exterminated, we did not prevent it. Besides if we were concerned about Jews being exterminated why did we send a shipload of them back to Europe?

Do you think that was a mistake and so now advocate throwing our doors open to fleeing Syrian refugees? Or do you advocate a major ground war in Syria and Iraq to conquer the entire region and hold it in perpetuity to prevent ISIS from killing those Syria refugees they (and we) don't want? If you really feel this way, it would be cheaper just to let them all come here.

What ISIS is doing to peoples they do not like is reprehensible. For America to actually stop this would require that we conquer the entire region and annex it, which would take a permanent staff of millions of American personnel to maintain. I believe it is the American government's responsibility to provide the staff needed to maintain the social peace and prosperity here in America. It is under no obligation to extend these services to places outside of America.

There is the neocon view, that America is an empire like Rome, and has the responsibility to bring civilization to people at risk by making provinces out of their lands with the goal of eventually making them all imperial citizens as was achieved in AD 212. I don't hold with this.

It's pretty hard to prevent extermination from a neutral position located thousands of miles away. What began to happen once our troops entered Europe and began defeating the German army on the ground while allied air power pounded Nazi Germany from the air and cut off it's access to raw materials like oil?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, considering that most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, we should assume that all Saudis are radicals then? Shall we kill them all too?

No, but perhaps we should be wary of thinking of them as our allies.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ask and you shall receive.

Thanks; I like cats! well, except one I guess (:

Then of course... Let's sing it. "Rain Drops Keep Falling on My Head". From the skyscrapers of Wall Street and on to you.

raindrops keep trickling on my head.....

Excellent song, Spinning Wheel. I'll see you that one, and raise you this one:



Another great Fourth Turning theme song too.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, considering that most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, we should assume that all Saudis are radicals then? Shall we kill them all too?

No, but that does not mean Americans have to die for Saudis. We can let the Russians and the Iranians have a free hand with them--all the way to Riyadh and Mecca. And we have enough oil to export our own oil and embargo all imports of energy if we are constitutionally prohibited from discriminating against the religion of the oil producer. Just because someone has something for sale more cheaply than we do dosen't mean that we have to allow Americans to buy or possess it if we deem it immoral or not in the national interest. We have every right to boycott imported oil and the money that comes from it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No we took the French side and paid for the entire cost of their war. Had we opted out, Ho would have won outright, there never would have been a South Vietnam in the first place.

And just so we know, we made the same mistake with Mao Zedong. If we had not listened to our Christian missionaries in China, handling (or not handling) Mao would have been Japan's problem. One war--against Hitler alone--was enough.

I did not ignore oil. Iraq was friendly with the US at the time of the invasion (recall Reagan had sided with Saddam in their recent war with Iran). Had we done nothing, that wouldn't have changed. Oil prices likely would have stayed elevated for some years into the 1990's. In the face of higher oil prices, US automakers would likely not not have scrapped their electric car programs. Fracking would have made sense earlier and been rolled out a decade before it actually was. We would have become energy independent years ago.

And we might have had to face a world without the petrodollar that much sooner. The issue has never been Mideast oil per se, but the power that having oil priced in US dollars gives the US over most other countries.

You are saying that we should submit to Saudi blackmail? Really?


Actually as Rags said, we went to war with Germany not to prevent people from being exterminated, but because they declared war on us. As it turned out, European Jews and other social and ethnic groups were exterminated, we did not prevent it. Besides if we were concerned about Jews being exterminated why did we send a shipload of them back to Europe?

And if Hitler had not declared war on us when he did, we would have faced being in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time against the wrong enemy--Japan. We might not even have been able to continue Lend Lease if we had gotten stuck into a war with Japan alone.

Do you think that was a mistake and so now advocate throwing our doors open to fleeing Syrian refugees? Or do you advocate a major ground war in Syria and Iraq to conquer the entire region and hold it in perpetuity to prevent ISIS from killing those Syria refugees they (and we) don't want? If you really feel this way, it would be cheaper just to let them all come here.

Better they should go to Brazil, where some of them are being allowed in. What is happening in Syria and Iraq is that Shias and Sunnis can no longer live in the same country. But rather than accept that, the US and Europe (out of neo-Liberal conceit and hubris, mostly) persist in following a default position that because international law says what it says about involiability of national borders and ethnic cleansing being illegal that the US and Europe can somehow put things back together the way they were. We don't have that level of supremacy anymore and that if there is to be an order--any kind of order--in the Mideast everyone is going to have to be a whole lot more flexible and accept facts on the ground as they are. Either there will be a Sunni State between Alawite Syria and Shia Iraq --and a Kurdish independent state--or there will be ethnic cleansing of either Sunnis or Alawites, Christians and Druse as refugees to Europe--or there will be genocide as there was 100 years ago. The West no longer has the preponderance of military or economic force to have things it's own way in the Mideast.

What ISIS is doing to peoples they do not like is reprehensible. For America to actually stop this would require that we conquer the entire region and annex it, which would take a permanent staff of millions of American personnel to maintain. I believe it is the American government's responsibility to provide the staff needed to maintain the social peace and prosperity here in America. It is under no obligation to extend these services to places outside of America.

The problem is that what ISIS is doing is capturing Sunni Muslim's imagination. Even if we succeed in mustering forces against it in Syria-Iraq, ISIS has spread to Libya-Nigeria. The Sahara Desert is just too big for the US to occupy or patrol, even with drones. And then there's Afghanistan. Finally, the West may have to simply contain and quarantine a Khalifa or Khalifas for the next Saeculum and simply refrain from doing business with it.

There is the neocon view, that America is an empire like Rome, and has the responsibility to bring civilization to people at risk by making provinces out of their lands with the goal of eventually making them all imperial citizens as was achieved in AD 212. I don't hold with this.

Needless to say, neither do I. Imperial Rome was rather oppressive to it's citizens and it's slaves. Let the Chinese play that game if they wish.