E
Elric
Guest
Never mind.
- Status
A
AndyF
Guest
rwoehmke:
That’s what happens when a nation becomes information reclusive, ignores what the rest of the world is saying reacting to CNN,NBC’s,etc lack of information that is pertinent to important decision making, and builds a rep by filling the history books of hostile nations with news about yet another overthrow, or another alliance based on economic strategy rather than sincere mutual friendship.
The US needs some lessons in foreign policy and attitude. The Chinese is a fledgling nation has far as world competition in trade is concerned. The US after having spent a 3/4 of a century living it up and is now ecomomically obese is now critical of anyone else making any economical gains, a typical reaction for spoiled entities.
Nothing other nations didn’t already know.
AndyF
SP4 Ret’d 30Inf, 3rd Div,60-63
That’s what happens when a nation becomes information reclusive, ignores what the rest of the world is saying reacting to CNN,NBC’s,etc lack of information that is pertinent to important decision making, and builds a rep by filling the history books of hostile nations with news about yet another overthrow, or another alliance based on economic strategy rather than sincere mutual friendship.
The US needs some lessons in foreign policy and attitude. The Chinese is a fledgling nation has far as world competition in trade is concerned. The US after having spent a 3/4 of a century living it up and is now ecomomically obese is now critical of anyone else making any economical gains, a typical reaction for spoiled entities.
Nothing other nations didn’t already know.
AndyF
SP4 Ret’d 30Inf, 3rd Div,60-63
S
steveandersen
Guest
The current account balance refers to the trade imbalance not the federal budget and that is definitively negative.
Yes the regular federal budget books balance out after a whole lot of hand waving regarding the SS “Trust fund” and a good deal of borrowing.
Some people criticize “tax and spend” politicians
But it always seemed more preferable to me than “borrow and spend”
I realize that debt financing at that level is beyond my meager abilities to grasp. Government can do things that individuals can’t. But sometimes it still makes me uneasy to be so much in debt to foreign lenders.
I do take comfort in the old adage that if you owe the bank $100 you’re in trouble but if you owe the bank a $ billion the bank is in trouble. Serious economic trouble in the US is in everyone’s worst interest (everyone meaning our investors)
As for the OP did Ben Laden want to topple the Western economic system? I don’t know if he was naïve enough to treat the building as anything other than a symbol. He may have been. BUT to credit him with any economic concerns we may have is far too much.
With his laze fare attitudes towards government I’m not sure what he would suggest other than drastic cuts in government spending. Since fiscal policy is one of the few tools the government has that can help the economy I’m not sure that abandoning it would be the way to go.Besides, I’m still waiting for Ron Paul, the one last moral politician, to provide some guidelines here.
S
steveandersen
Guest
I read a statistic the other day that there are more personnel in military bands then there are in the entire Foreign Service.
Very scary.
I like bands and all but we have interest around the globe and as formerly poor nations expand their economies and want their place at the adult’s table, a strong diplomatic corps is needed more than ever.
C
Contarini
Guest
That obviously we are not “going after” those who perpetrated the attacks, except in an indirect sense.
Edwin
E
Elric
Guest
Kind of, its more that they have gone about it the wrong way and some of the motives being “questionable”.
M
melensdad
Guest
Al Quada killed 3000+ people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
We found out that Al Quada was taking refuge in Afghanistan, and we also found out that Afghanistan had granted them safe harbor. We asked Afghanistan to turn them out. They refused. We told Afghanistan to turn them out. They refused. The world then told Afghanistan to turn them out, still Afghanistan refused. In fact Afghanistan’s Taliban government issued words of support for Al Quada and Osama Bin Laden. We then warned Afghanistan we would attack if they did not turn out the Al Quada. They again refused. We invaded Afghanistan, routed out the terrorist backing government of the Taliban, and we have been beating down the Taliban and their associated Al Quada fighters fairly successfully ever since.
What motive is in err? What action is in err?
Now that is ONE of two completely separate wars we are fighting. That ONE war, in Afghanistan is a just war. The world courts and the world’s armies still support and participate in that effort.
There is ANOTHER war, it is in Iraq. It is a different war, fought for different motives, and I do not believe that is a just war. I do support our soldiers, but not the political reasons for going in there. I do NOT believe we were lied to as for the reasons for going into war, I simply do not believe that the alleged possession of WMD made it just war. The world all believed there were WMDs in Iraq, every nation admitted it, even those that opposed the action we took. Time seems to show there were only dismantled WMDs, and now the effort there is certainly not aimed at WMDs but at fringe Muslims who would topple the new government. If we pull out, there will be genocide and the blood will be on our hands. I don’t believe we should have gone in there, but I am not willing to pull out and leave those people to die.
Further, we MUST be very careful when talking about wars, the justifications of them, to consider them to be separate and individual events. Iraq and Afghanistan are TWO different wars and should not be muddled together.
R
rpp
Guest
Oh brother.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I would say my thinking is similiar. However, while I believe that Afghanistan could have been a just war, it has not, to date, fully met the criteria.
We tend to forget that we aided Bin Laden when he was looking to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan. Once that objective was achieved, we lost interest in the region. In other words, the Taliban stepped in and provided some order, and Bin Laden was perceived as a liberator and not a fair-weather-friend like the US.
This does not, in of itself, address the criteria of Just Cause, but it does help us understand why we were so ineffective at diplomacy. However, ignoring the ‘last resort’ criteria, I think we can seriously question ‘right intention’ and ‘probability of success’ criteria.
In hindsight, we can now see that strategic decisions in Afghanstan were driven, in part, by the administration’s plans and goals in Iraq. It is difficult to study, say, the Battle of Tora Bora and not have seroius concerns as to rather the stated goal of the war, finding and capturing Bin Laden and members of his terrorist network, matches the execution of the conflict.
Similiarly, by diverting critical resources to Iraq planning and chronically underfunding the effort we have created a situation where there is more criminality and chaos, but the Taliban still hold signficant control over the country.
Or, I guess I would say we had a just cause, but have waged an unjust conflict.
Regarding Iraq, I have never bought into arguments of a just war. I found it very telling that George Weigel wrote extensively on the subject, but never once disclosed to fellow Catholics that he was a original signatory on the Project for the New American Century’s Mission Statement. PNAC had been producing policy papers calling for the invasion of Iraq for purely pragmatic self interest reasons for years. Little surprise then that when readers pointed out that virtually all of Weigel’s claims in his column and in an opinion piece for First Things had turned out to be false, Weigel asserted that, for him, the core issue remained “regime change”.
While I try to be respectful of differences of opinion on this matter, I must admist that, for me, Iraq represents everything that is wrong with my country today. Earlier in the thread there was a note ot the effect of ‘who cares what it costs - the goal is worthy…’
But the fact of the matter is we aren’t even paying for the war. We are deferring it to our descendants. The idea that the government would see fit to give me tax cut after tax cut while Americans are in harms way without proper equipment or receiving reprehensible care in the VA system drives me absolutely insane.
Similiarly, having volunteered for military service during a war I personally objected to (I ended up doing two tours as a medic, my attempt to balance my faith with my duty to country), I find it outrageous that so many ‘supporters’ of the war are willing to let all the fighting be done by a tiny segment of the population which is being abused horrifically. If you won’t pay for it and you won’t fight for it, haven’t you already ‘voted’ with your actions - regardless of whatever bravado comes out of your mouth?
Finally, the level of graft, incompetence, and corruption is just maddening to me. I won’t go into all the details, but because of my own experiences, the issue of helmet liners and proper body armor is very important to me. My wife and I became involved in sending sets of Dragonskin and helmet liners to soldiers. Once you run into the sheer profiteering and corruption behind our current military supply system any doubts Pope John Paul II may have planted about the death penalty will be sorely tested.
As much as I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt, the recent furor over the Blackwater shootings and the revelations about the Hunt oil deal undermining national revenue sharing efforts is making it very hard. Right now I see little evidence to suggest that Iraq is anything other than the pursuit of political and monetary profit.
E
Elric
Guest
M
melensdad
Guest
WOW that is not only a rewrite of the history books but a gross over simplification of world events.
Jimmy Carter, in 1979, through his security advisor, began to assist the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan. By the mid-1980s the CIA was clearly involved in Afghanistan through the Pakistani connections we had in the Pakistan secret service, all in an anti-Soviet Cold War era game of politics to fight communism. Remember, the official government of Afghanistan was a communist puppet government under the USSR and had officially asked for Russian “observer forces” and military equipment and supplies to fight the anti-communist insurgents. To suggest that Bin Ladin was involved is totally inaccurate.
It is true that later in the game Osama Bin Ladin took his little band of terrorists and set up camp there, but that was not during the cold war years. After the Russians pulled out there was another period of civil war that essentially ended in the early 1990’s when the communist leader effectively lost power after Russia stopped supplying oil to the leaders. The Mujahideen fighters effectively took control of Kabul sometime in the early mid-90’s. It is true that Osama Bin Ladin was allied with the Mujahideen, it is not safe to even imply that he was their leader. It is safe to say that he eventually achieved an influential level, but not a level of control or leadership in the nation’s politics.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
I have not yet heard any good evidence that the strike on 9/11 wasn’t meant to throw our economy into chaos. It was the center of our world trade efforts and it took two tries and almost immediately after their success steps were taken to protect the Stock Exchange. Why was that?
Again I apologize for conflating two different wars. I never had and don’t have a problem with our going into Afganistan and am only sorry that we didn’t keep up the pressure and now have to play catch-up. As far as the costs in terms of lives and money I still do not see that I am that far off when it comes to our Iraqi adventure.
As for being a bloody liberal, I can’t help but think the labeling as liberal or conservative appears to hinge on what side of me people stand on. I have been labeled with both labels from friends and acquaintances forever. As far as the “communist or socialist label” being a product of a 40’s through 50’s Catholic education, I am like teflon; won’t stick!
All that being said, I have quite enjoyed everyones responses. Thanks for your thoughts, all of them.
Again I apologize for conflating two different wars. I never had and don’t have a problem with our going into Afganistan and am only sorry that we didn’t keep up the pressure and now have to play catch-up. As far as the costs in terms of lives and money I still do not see that I am that far off when it comes to our Iraqi adventure.
As for being a bloody liberal, I can’t help but think the labeling as liberal or conservative appears to hinge on what side of me people stand on. I have been labeled with both labels from friends and acquaintances forever. As far as the “communist or socialist label” being a product of a 40’s through 50’s Catholic education, I am like teflon; won’t stick!
All that being said, I have quite enjoyed everyones responses. Thanks for your thoughts, all of them.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
That’s an interesting take. In 1979 Bin Ladin joined Abdullah Azzam in Peshawar specifically to fight the Soviets. His monetary contribution was considered huge. Rather or not he was receiving CIA aid at this time depends on who you ask.
According to Robin Cook (former head of the British House of Commons) in 2005, the answer is absolutely yes:
According to CNN’s Peter Bergen in 2006, the answer is absolutely no:
According to Pakistan’s Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the ISI in the early/mid 80’s, the answer is ‘yes, but indirect’ (quoted, ironically, by Peter Bergen in 2001):
However, all that misses the main points I was stressing. The Taliban filled a post Soviet security and stability vacuum. We did assist in the ouster of the Soviets. Bin Ladin was viewed as a fellow fighter. The US was viewed as a fair weather ally - something reinforced by our recent half hearted attempt at invasion and regine change.
M
melensdad
Guest
I wholeheartedly agree with your last point. However the reason I disagreed with your prior assertion was because you inferred/implied that Bin Ladin was a driving force. Again, your exact wording was: **We tend to forget that we aided Bin Laden when he was looking to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan. ** While there is some level of dispute about his role, there is no question that he joined an already developed Mujahideen resistance force and it is also clear that he was not its leader. The Mujahideen fighters had support from the greater Muslim world, and from much of the anti-Communist western nations. They were fighting the communist puppet government in the 1970’s and in was 1979 that we entered, covertly, into the fray by supporting the Mujahideen. The earliest evidence I see of Bin Laden in Afghanistan is in “the 80’s.”
Probably because nobody seems to have even addressed that point. In fact I doubt you will hear anything to the contrary that is credible because it is not only an obvious point, but also widely accepted as fact. Perhaps that is why nobody bothered to address it?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Then I spoke poorly. He was well known, but not yet a leader. His financial backing was probably more significant, but he played up his role as an actual fighter later on.
P.S. FWIW his earliest verifiable involvement in Afghanistan was 1979.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
That sure was not the impression I got from some of the earlier posts. I think I have already said to much on this thread. Again thanks for the lessons.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Well, yeah, but they were fighting the “bad guys” then.
It’s called the law of unintended consequences.
H
HamtramckSteve
Guest
Yack, yack, yack, blah, blah, blah, blah…
While we’re all bopping each other over the silliest of reasons (whether the Democrap or Republistank parties are to blame. Puh-leeze. They both are.), our borders are no more secure today than on 9/11/01.
Maybe it’s because I live on the border (in Detroit), but I fault the federal government for overlooking the number one method to keep us all safe from another attack: secure the borders. And We, the People, deserve a heaping-help of blame for falling for the diversions and not holding all of them accountable.
Know who comes in, where they go AND IF THEY OVERSTAY THEIR VISA! Kick them out promptly when their time is up. Doing just this little bit would have stopped Atta and the others. No new government power needed.
Back on topic, there’s no way anyone can convince me that the Attack on Iraq was just. It is unconstitutional by the strict observance (which we used to do better, when this country wasn’t morally bankrupt) of our own laws and rules, which makes anything that comes from it “fruit from a poisoned tree”.
While we’re all bopping each other over the silliest of reasons (whether the Democrap or Republistank parties are to blame. Puh-leeze. They both are.), our borders are no more secure today than on 9/11/01.
Maybe it’s because I live on the border (in Detroit), but I fault the federal government for overlooking the number one method to keep us all safe from another attack: secure the borders. And We, the People, deserve a heaping-help of blame for falling for the diversions and not holding all of them accountable.
Know who comes in, where they go AND IF THEY OVERSTAY THEIR VISA! Kick them out promptly when their time is up. Doing just this little bit would have stopped Atta and the others. No new government power needed.
Back on topic, there’s no way anyone can convince me that the Attack on Iraq was just. It is unconstitutional by the strict observance (which we used to do better, when this country wasn’t morally bankrupt) of our own laws and rules, which makes anything that comes from it “fruit from a poisoned tree”.
M
melensdad
Guest
Please give us a history lesson.
I’m curious to know how Afghanistan was not culpable in the 9/11 attacks, especially considering they didn’t just harbor Al Quaida, but they in fact supported and protected them. Further, as for who trained them, please don’t simply say it was the US. There is clear evidence that the Mujahideen had as much support from the Muslim world as from the west. We were far from alone in our support of the anti-communist forces and our support was not direct aid, but rather aid through Pakistan. Most of the financial aid actually came from other nations, and we were not the major supplier of weapons either. I’m not saying we didn’t play a part, obviously we did. Jimmy Carter was clearly involved in undermining the Communist government of Afghanistan in the 1970’s. But you seem to imply it was the US who did it all. Not true. We played our part, but we should not rewrite history to imply more than that.
Ditto.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Good point. Look no further than our exchange - OBL was originally a financial backer. This makes sense, Saudi’s have given about $70B (yes, billion with a B) to extreme Wahabism.
Small wonder most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.
And it creates a tremendous dilmena today. We hear a lot about Iranian support for Shia militias in Iraq, but we don’t talk much about external support for the Sunnis. In hindsight, it seems obvious. Remove a secular, Sunni minority, tyrant, and you get a majority that wants a Shia theocracy with close ties to Iran. If you counter it with support for Sunni militias you may get short term results with certain militant factions, but you end up with long term instability and the consequences of armed extremists (ex. Iraq’s 1.2M Christians are dramatically over represented among refugees and the internally displaced).
- Status