Andrew Bacevich - Permanent War

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]Neospartan wrote:

I do not mean to sound disrespectful…
…but I suggest you take those specific foreing policy “issues/hypocrisies”, and study them and their history in detail. That way you can understand them better and see where the ACTUAL problems are.

Otherwise… saying things like “US learder supports dictatorships, therefore they are hypocritial, and whatever” only leads to arguments without evidence. (Which is what happens in this forum and countless others).
[/quote]

I suggest you do the same. Here’s a good place to start:

Is this not an example of the US supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected leader and then the US supporting the dictator that subsequently took over?

Iran in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8-a9Bpq471PDjYA2z6WazPmIZqw
[/quote]

He was a Soviet stooge elected to a position of limited power and he tried to usurp power. Learn some real history and don’t get your info from slanted internet sites.

This was a complicated issue and the US probably did the right thing and kept Iran from becoming a Soviet vassal

On a side note, it seems that the US invaded Iraq so that they can give the country to the Iranians:

The invasion of Iraq was the best thing that happened to Iran for a long time.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Taking the war to the enemy and making them fight us on their land is much better than sitting back passively waiting for them to hit us in our homeland. [/quote]

I agree and think you should go to Afghanistan, instead of posting on an obscure internet forum, and keep us all safe. Oh wait, what was I thinking? It’s the Republicans like Rove, Cheney and GWB who avoid fighting in wars while the Democrats like Gore and Kerry actually go and put themselves in harm’s way. Carry on. [/quote]

LOL…THAT’S THE FUNNIEST AND STUPIDEST THING i HAVE HEARD IN A WHILE…THANKS. You need to get over the derangement syndrome. i hear it takes about 8-10 years.[/quote]

You must not read any of your own posts then.

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]Neospartan wrote:

I do not mean to sound disrespectful…
…but I suggest you take those specific foreing policy “issues/hypocrisies”, and study them and their history in detail. That way you can understand them better and see where the ACTUAL problems are.

Otherwise… saying things like “US learder supports dictatorships, therefore they are hypocritial, and whatever” only leads to arguments without evidence. (Which is what happens in this forum and countless others).
[/quote]

I suggest you do the same. Here’s a good place to start:

Is this not an example of the US supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected leader and then the US supporting the dictator that subsequently took over?

Iran in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8-a9Bpq471PDjYA2z6WazPmIZqw
[/quote]

He was a Soviet stooge elected to a position of limited power and he tried to usurp power. Learn some real history and don’t get your info from slanted internet sites.

This was a complicated issue and the US probably did the right thing and kept Iran from becoming a Soviet vassal[/quote]

Oh, it seems they are doing so much better now than they would have.

20 years after the Soviet Empire has crumbled.

I also like the argument that you really had to install a nasty dictator because the Sowjets would have done worse.

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]Neospartan wrote:

I do not mean to sound disrespectful…
…but I suggest you take those specific foreing policy “issues/hypocrisies”, and study them and their history in detail. That way you can understand them better and see where the ACTUAL problems are.

Otherwise… saying things like “US learder supports dictatorships, therefore they are hypocritial, and whatever” only leads to arguments without evidence. (Which is what happens in this forum and countless others).
[/quote]

I suggest you do the same. Here’s a good place to start:

Is this not an example of the US supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected leader and then the US supporting the dictator that subsequently took over?

Iran in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8-a9Bpq471PDjYA2z6WazPmIZqw

I don’t mean to disrespect our army or our soldiers in any way. I have a great amount of respect for the brave men and women that serve, but that doesn’t mean I always support our policy decisions. When I talk about hypocracy, I’m talking about those in Washington that dictate policy; they don’t exactly cherish democracy and freedom as much as like they would have us believe.[/quote]

Neospartan has a good point that you should learn history however it is wasted on you because you are the type of fool who gravitates to the most leftist, one sided, America hating, propaganda you can find and accepts it as gospel.

Iran is a perfect example. First off you pretend that what happened to 1953 was an isolated event, with America behaving in a particularly bad manner for purely selfish reasons while every other player in the affair was an absolute angel. Mosadegh wasn’t democratically elected, he was a stooge of the Ayatollah Kashani who was put in power after the Ayatollahs assassinated Prime Minister Ali Razmara to make way for Mosadegh.

The chain of events that resulted in Mosadegh being overthrown did not begin in 1953 either. The leftist history always ignores what happened in the build up to that event. The first major event was on the 25th of June 1950 when the soviets invaded South Korea. This was the cause of great concern in Iran because they also were on the border of the Soviet Union and feared they were going to be next. That is why the next day June 26th, 1950 the Shah appointed Ramara as Prime Minister.

The background of Stalin invading neighboring countries, imposing dictatorships, putting people in Gulags and trying to take over the world always gets left out of the lefts narrative of those events. Despite the fact that the actions of Stalin played a central role in the decision making.

Your positions are typical leftist bullshit. When something reflects on America in a negative way you always go for simplistic explanation that totally ignores any related factors. ie Iran has oil, ergo oil is the only reason why we did what we did. You completely ignore the fact that the decision makers back then had to try and counter Stalin and the Soviet Union. The oil was important, but not as important as the warm waters of the Persian Gulf and Arabian sea would have been for the soviet navy.

[quote]loppar wrote:
On a side note, it seems that the US invaded Iraq so that they can give the country to the Iranians:

The invasion of Iraq was the best thing that happened to Iran for a long time.[/quote]

Blame the Democrats for that. Because they are the ones who did everything they could to prevent Bush from getting something done with them.

Things are going to get a lot worse too. Because Obama has no intention of stopping them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]Neospartan wrote:

I do not mean to sound disrespectful…
…but I suggest you take those specific foreing policy “issues/hypocrisies”, and study them and their history in detail. That way you can understand them better and see where the ACTUAL problems are.

Otherwise… saying things like “US learder supports dictatorships, therefore they are hypocritial, and whatever” only leads to arguments without evidence. (Which is what happens in this forum and countless others).
[/quote]

I suggest you do the same. Here’s a good place to start:

Is this not an example of the US supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected leader and then the US supporting the dictator that subsequently took over?

Iran in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8-a9Bpq471PDjYA2z6WazPmIZqw

I don’t mean to disrespect our army or our soldiers in any way. I have a great amount of respect for the brave men and women that serve, but that doesn’t mean I always support our policy decisions. When I talk about hypocracy, I’m talking about those in Washington that dictate policy; they don’t exactly cherish democracy and freedom as much as like they would have us believe.[/quote]

Neospartan has a good point that you should learn history however it is wasted on you because you are the type of fool who gravitates to the most leftist, one sided, America hating, propaganda you can find and accepts it as gospel.

Iran is a perfect example. First off you pretend that what happened to 1953 was an isolated event, with America behaving in a particularly bad manner for purely selfish reasons while every other player in the affair was an absolute angel. Mosadegh wasn’t democratically elected, he was a stooge of the Ayatollah Kashani who was put in power after the Ayatollahs assassinated Prime Minister Ali Razmara to make way for Mosadegh.

The chain of events that resulted in Mosadegh being overthrown did not begin in 1953 either. The leftist history always ignores what happened in the build up to that event. The first major event was on the 25th of June 1950 when the soviets invaded South Korea. This was the cause of great concern in Iran because they also were on the border of the Soviet Union and feared they were going to be next. That is why the next day June 26th, 1950 the Shah appointed Ramara as Prime Minister.

The background of Stalin invading neighboring countries, imposing dictatorships, putting people in Gulags and trying to take over the world always gets left out of the lefts narrative of those events. Despite the fact that the actions of Stalin played a central role in the decision making.

Your positions are typical leftist bullshit. When something reflects on America in a negative way you always go for simplistic explanation that totally ignores any related factors. ie Iran has oil, ergo oil is the only reason why we did what we did. You completely ignore the fact that the decision makers back then had to try and counter Stalin and the Soviet Union. The oil was important, but not as important as the warm waters of the Persian Gulf and Arabian sea would have been for the soviet navy.

[/quote]

Quit framing this as left vs right. Ron Paul often mentions the US meddling in ME affairs and, in particular, the events Chomskyian just discussed regarding Iran. I would hardly consider Paul as “America hating” (whatever that means), or a leftist.

Is this how you really view the world? Democrat vs Republican?

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]Neospartan wrote:

I do not mean to sound disrespectful…
…but I suggest you take those specific foreing policy “issues/hypocrisies”, and study them and their history in detail. That way you can understand them better and see where the ACTUAL problems are.

Otherwise… saying things like “US learder supports dictatorships, therefore they are hypocritial, and whatever” only leads to arguments without evidence. (Which is what happens in this forum and countless others).
[/quote]

I suggest you do the same. Here’s a good place to start:

Is this not an example of the US supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected leader and then the US supporting the dictator that subsequently took over?

Iran in 1953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8-a9Bpq471PDjYA2z6WazPmIZqw

I don’t mean to disrespect our army or our soldiers in any way. I have a great amount of respect for the brave men and women that serve, but that doesn’t mean I always support our policy decisions. When I talk about hypocracy, I’m talking about those in Washington that dictate policy; they don’t exactly cherish democracy and freedom as much as like they would have us believe.[/quote]

Neospartan has a good point that you should learn history however it is wasted on you because you are the type of fool who gravitates to the most leftist, one sided, America hating, propaganda you can find and accepts it as gospel.

Iran is a perfect example. First off you pretend that what happened to 1953 was an isolated event, with America behaving in a particularly bad manner for purely selfish reasons while every other player in the affair was an absolute angel. Mosadegh wasn’t democratically elected, he was a stooge of the Ayatollah Kashani who was put in power after the Ayatollahs assassinated Prime Minister Ali Razmara to make way for Mosadegh.

The chain of events that resulted in Mosadegh being overthrown did not begin in 1953 either. The leftist history always ignores what happened in the build up to that event. The first major event was on the 25th of June 1950 when the soviets invaded South Korea. This was the cause of great concern in Iran because they also were on the border of the Soviet Union and feared they were going to be next. That is why the next day June 26th, 1950 the Shah appointed Ramara as Prime Minister.

The background of Stalin invading neighboring countries, imposing dictatorships, putting people in Gulags and trying to take over the world always gets left out of the lefts narrative of those events. Despite the fact that the actions of Stalin played a central role in the decision making.

Your positions are typical leftist bullshit. When something reflects on America in a negative way you always go for simplistic explanation that totally ignores any related factors. ie Iran has oil, ergo oil is the only reason why we did what we did. You completely ignore the fact that the decision makers back then had to try and counter Stalin and the Soviet Union. The oil was important, but not as important as the warm waters of the Persian Gulf and Arabian sea would have been for the soviet navy.

[/quote]

Quit framing this as left vs right. Ron Paul often mentions the US meddling in ME affairs and, in particular, the events Chomskyian just discussed regarding Iran. I would hardly consider Paul as “America hating” (whatever that means), or a leftist.

Is this how you really view the world? Democrat vs Republican?[/quote]

Ron Paul is another useless twit who doesn’t have a clue about the world. I have news for you and Ron, there are people in this world who are not going to like us no matter what we do. If Paul really knew what he is talking about he would understand that the entire middle east is an artificial construct made up at Versailles after world war one.

When they created the middle east the big powers had it in mind that they would intervene from time to time. That is why they created those tiny countries that otherwise make no sense, like Qatar, Kuwait, Dubai, Oman, UAE. They created them knowing that being so tiny they would need a big power to ally with for their protection. Our involvement was designed in 90 years ago and it’s too late to change it now.

I don’t view the world as Democrat vs Republican. But I do see the Democrats as being particularly incompetent at dealing with other people. They rely way too much on diplomacy and because of that they undermine it’s effectiveness. They don’t have the stomach for a fight and they let everyone who will listen know it. It never occurs to any of them that some of the people in this world who are “world leaders” are nothing more than violent criminals. The kind of people that you would encounter in a maximum security prison. These are not people to show weakness.

The constant professing of fear and reluctance to use the military until it is quite evidently the only and last resort is a huge mistake. It invites problems. ie Look at how difficult it has been trying to negotiate with North Korea over it’s nuclear program. If President Clinton had grown a pair we wouldn’t have NK proliferating nuclear weapons now.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

you are the type of fool who gravitates to the most leftist, one sided, America hating, propaganda you can find and accepts it as gospel.
[/quote]

“(Nationalism is) a set of beliefs taught to each generation in which the Motherland or the Fatherland is an object of veneration and becomes a burning cause for which one becomes willing to kill the children of other Motherlands or Fatherlands”

  • Howard Zinn

[quote]Sifu wrote:

I have news for you and Ron, there are people in this world who are not going to like us no matter what we do.
[/quote]

You are wrong and statements like these are evidence of a very distorted world view. It is not a law of the universe that for all eternity there will be a country known as the United States and there will be people somewhere in the world that hate its citizens. People may dislike American ideals and may dislike even more American actions, but those are circumstances that can be changed for the better. You do a disservice to the country by assuming we need to travel the world setting bombs off because we can’t ever be safe unless we do.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The constant professing of fear and reluctance to use the military until it is quite evidently the only and last resort is a huge mistake. It invites problems.
[/quote]

As odd as it may seem to you, the professing of fear and the overzealous use of our military is quite possibly the most dangerous threat to our national security. Case in point, waging a War on Terror when military force in an extremely ineffective way to deal with terrorist groups.

[quote]Abstract

How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa’ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.
[/quote]