Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: As a Nation Mourns McCain, Trump Is Conspicuously Absent

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Plezercruz View Post
    There I disagree. War is the only response to an attack of that magnitude. Any failure to respond overwhelmingly would only prompt more such attacks.

    I'm a libertarian, but I understand power politics.

    Pete (wishes there was a cleaner target, but still thinks an response on that scale of the Iraq war was a necessity)
    Also, the Afghanistan war would’ve been sufficient had we actually done that one right.
    For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
    If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

    "We’ve always assumed that you can’t bring back the dead. But it’s a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

  2. #52
    Saudi? What about attacking Pakistan? They were the ones housing Bin Laden

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by electrician1976 View Post
    Defending yourself from outside attacks is wholly different than acting as corporate minions all over the world and exclaiming “what did I do!?!” when the rest of the world is finally fed up with it. For example, we were here minding our own business and then one day Iran decided for no reason that we were the great Satan.
    That's why I clarified. "Imperialism" strictly means projecting power. It has also come to mean "having a lot of bases all over the world." I'm limiting the statement to that first definition.

    Pete (notes that Iran decided we were the great Satan decades before the Iraq war)

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by dusty View Post
    no. A war against a country that had nothing to do with it is no deterrent.
    Islamic terrorists attack targets all over the world all the time. They have not been deterred. The Iraq war was a politically expedient solution by by power players who had other interests in supporting it. It was our biggest national disgrace of my lifetime. I don’t even think the Trump presidency has surpassed how much of a disgrace it was. Yet.
    I disagree. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks may have had nationalities, but they were clearly acting in an unaligned capacity (i.e. they were Saudis but not acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia). When you're attacked by anyone, you retaliate against their interests. In this case, the attackers were Sunni fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the single largest concentration of Sunni power in the region. It wasn't fair, but it was effective.

    Pete (thinks it's absolutely true that the world's powers now understand that the US will retaliate to any such attack)

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by dusty View Post
    If we needed to respond to 9/11 with overwhelming warfare in he Middle East, then we needed to respond to the OKC bombing with massive civil war against the right in the USA. Both options are actually very wrong.
    Geopolitically, there would be no purpose served there.

    Pete (thinks this is a badly crafted false equivalency)

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Plezercruz View Post
    I disagree. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks may have had nationalities, but they were clearly acting in an unaligned capacity (i.e. they were Saudis but not acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia). When you're attacked by anyone, you retaliate against their interests. In this case, the attackers were Sunni fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the single largest concentration of Sunni power in the region. It wasn't fair, but it was effective.

    Pete (thinks it's absolutely true that the world's powers now understand that the US will retaliate to any such attack)
    Retaliate means to attack someone who struck you first. Which Saddam most certainly did not do.

    The Iraq War wasn't sold as a giant warning to the Middle East. It was sold on a fraudulent bill of goods of WMDs in Iraq... which half the country knew was a lie. If it was sold as a giant warning, it never would have been been viable. If anything, the war made a bad situation even worse.
    "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by dusty View Post
    Also, the Afghanistan war would’ve been sufficient had we actually done that one right.
    No, for a number of reasons.

    For one, Afghanistan is geopolitical insignificant. Iraq is at the heart of the Sunni world. Afghanistan is at the fringe.

    For another, Afghanistan is poor. Iraq was (and remains) about 10x richer. They attacked New York, not Peoria. Baghdad was a suitable target. Kabul was not.

    And Afghanistan had no army or power center to speak of. Iraq had one of the world's largest standing armies.

    Take out Iraq and you devastate the Sunni world. Take out Afghanistan and they can simply laugh you off.

    Pete (remembers very clearly when we attacked Afghanistan thinking "this is not enough")

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff92se View Post
    Saudi? What about attacking Pakistan? They were the ones housing Bin Laden
    At the time both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were at least theoretically allied with the USA.

    Pete (thinks this is only feasible in hindsight)

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by skooly View Post
    Retaliate means to attack someone who struck you first. Which Saddam most certainly did not do.

    The Iraq War wasn't sold as a giant warning to the Middle East. It was sold on a fraudulent bill of goods of WMDs in Iraq... which half the country knew was a lie. If it was sold as a giant warning, it never would have been been viable. If anything, the war made a bad situation even worse.
    There's no doubt in my mind that the decision to attack Iraq came first, and the justification came second. A response larger than Afghanistan was required...but there wasn't a particularly good option. Iraq had a lot of features we didn't like (belligerent anti-American dictator, a large military, frequent and overt threats to our allies, recent war of aggression, previously trying to kill a US President, and so on).

    The minute it was decided that more than Afghanistan was necessary, Iraq was the only possible target.

    Pete (actually bought the WMD argument, but also knew at the time that Iraq was a continuation of the 9/11 retaliation)

  10. #60
    Ow! My Balls! Put Master
    Mr. Raceboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Carl's Jr.
    Posts
    33,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Plezercruz View Post
    It is too bad. It also largely doesn't matter. The message sent was "target New York and we'll fuck up your entire region." That message was received, not only by middle eastern states, but by the whole world.

    That's how deterrence works. Accuracy, while admirable, is somewhat optional.

    Pete (really wishes it was cleaner, but it just wasn't)
    If deterrence worked we wouldn't have been attacked in the first place. You can't go around stomping hornets nests and then wonder why you get stung.

    The US needs to make sure oil is traded in dollars and only dollars. It's the only thing keeping the printing scheme going. Pose a threat to that and that's why we fuck you up.

    Perpetual war or "power politics" as you put it fails for the same reason socialism fails. You eventually run out of other people's money and then tell me how safe we will be.

    Steve (last of the true libertarians)
    "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •