US Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan

Huskarine

New member
"Hi Huskrain, >>we need to force feed them on what is good..<< You will find that you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar, and with the troops attitude towards the population in general you are driving them into the arms of the extreemists and jihadists."

alright...they are not flies to begin this discussion, but to conclude it, you have to know what type of people they are...diplomatic strategies are nearly irrelevant with a third world country's general populace that can not grasp the idealistic principles of enalienable rights and statutes....liberty would have to be something they would simply have to experience...

obtw, this is not to disclude all of the humanitarian efforts that are happening... :cool:

 

Michael Rudd

New member
have you even been over there??? the Iraqi population likes us over there...the ones fighting us, believe it or not, are not predominantly Iraqi...most are from other countries....
Hi ( by the way what is the time over there it is about 7am here so when do you sleep), Correct in the beginning the main anti US people were not locals, however because of the way the the locals are being treated by the US troops local attitudes have changed untill now they want you to leave. Even your top general in Iraq agrees that US troop behaviour has to change.

And no I have not been to Iraq, I have spent some time in Parkistan which is the only muslim country that I have any experience with. Have you been there??

 

hugo

New member
Thoughts of a true conservative

Excerpts from:

A Republic, Not an Empire

by Patrick J. Buchanan

March 25, 2000

Only an engaged and informed citizenry can bring about a reversal of the neo-imperial foreign policy that has been foisted upon us in the post-Cold War era by the elites of both Beltway parties.
Foreign policy, they tell us, is not an issue in this election year. By that they mean it is off the table, a matter already decided upon and settled by those who know what is best for America. So they, and their media auxiliaries, redirect our attention away from foreign policy to such burning national issues as the dating policy at Bob Jones University.

What is best for America and the world, they tell us, is that the United States should remain a superpower sheriff, the Wyatt Earp of the West, possessed of the sole right to deputize posses, or go it alone if necessary, to discipline evil-doers, wherever our "values" are threatened. I submit that this foreign policy poses a great and growing danger to the peace and security of the United States.

Look at the balance sheet of Bill Clinton's unconstitutional war. NATO, a defensive alliance, launched an offensive war against a nation that threatened no member of that alliance, dissipating the moral authority with which NATO had emerged from the Cold War. Serbia is smashed. Montenegro and Macedonia are destabilized. Kosovo was purged first of Albanians, then of Serbs. And lies in ruins. U.S. relations with China and Russia have been damaged. For what? So we and NATO could police in perpetuity a Balkan province that has not the remotest connection to U.S. vital interests. Such are the fruits of neo-imperialism.

Meanwhile, a decade after the Gulf War, American soldiers and airmen stand ready to die to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Iran and Iraq - as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait conspire with Iran and Iraq to keep oil prices over $30 a barrel -- to loot America and gouge U.S. consumers.

For ten years, the U.S. has played the dominant role in maintaining rigid sanctions on Iraq. By one UN estimate, these sanctions have resulted in the premature deaths of 500,000 children. Will the parents of those children ever forgive us? Even our European Allies recoil. By keeping these sanctions fastened on Iraq, we flout every tenet of Christianity's Just War doctrine, and build up deposits of hatred across the Arab world that will take decades to draw down. One day our children shall pay the price of our callous indifference to what is happening to the children of Iraq.

I speak as a proud Cold Warrior who supported every great anti-Communist initiative from JFK to Reagan. And I support a U.S. defense that is second to none and a foreign policy whereby America responds resolutely to any attack on American citizens, honor, or vital interests.

But what purpose is served by our shortening the lives of Iraqi people who have done us no harm? If Desert Storm could not remove Saddam Hussein, how are the women, children and elderly of Iraq, the victims of our sanctions, supposed to overthrow him?

And if 78 days of bombing could not eject Milosevic from power, how does forcing the people of Serbia to endure a brutal winter without fuel or heat advance our goal? What happened to the moral idea of proportionality, even in wartime, between means and ends?

During one debate, John McCain singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea as "rogue states" and advocated the armed overthrow of all three by U.S.-trained and equipped armies. Pressed on what he would do if his armies were being annihilated, the Senator did not respond. But he did not reject the notion that Iran, a nation of 70 million, should also be designated a rogue state to be targeted for overthrow.

Friends, this is hubris; this is triumphalism; this is the arrogance of power; this is America's Brezhnev doctrine. I single McCain out not because he in particular is misguided, but because such ideas are commonplace among the global gamesmen in Washington.

Governor Bush cried out in anguish when he was compared by Senator McCain to Bill Clinton, but he did not utter a skeptical word about McCain's plans for rogue regimes. Indeed, the Governor has exhibited neither absorbing interest nor extraordinary aptitude for foreign policy -- to put it generously. His call last year for the war on Serbia to be waged "more ferociously" was his one memorable foreign policy utterance. But in the cluster of foreign policy aides, the self-styled "Vulcans," now home-schooling the Governor, notions of "rogue state rollback" are music to the ear.

Among the more prominent of the Vulcans is Paul Wolfowitz. A Pentagon aide to Bush the Elder, Wolfowitz produced in 1992 a blueprint for war against Russia that would utilize six carrier battle groups and 24 NATO divisions to rescue Lithuania, should Moscow recolonize that tiny republic.

Richard Perle, another of the "On-to-Baghdad" brigade, is perhaps Washington's premier enthusiast of using U.S. power to topple rogue regimes. Another tutor to Governor Bush is his father's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. A few months ago, General Scowcroft advocated putting a division of U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, to police peace between Syria and Israel, thereby insuring there would be dead Americans in any future Syrian-Israeli clash.

Not one of the "Vulcans" embraces the new thinking on foreign policy that has taken root in Congress and the country in the aftermath of the Cold War. This new thinking alarms both Clintonites who call it "isolationist," but even more the neo-conservatives who believe America should convert her hour of power into a "benevolent global hegemony."

Indeed, during Clinton's war on Serbia, one neoconservative strategist was so disheartened by the lack of war spirit among the Republican rank-and file, he mused about giving up and leaving the GOP altogether.

Quo Vadis? Where are you going, America?

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some ****** brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.

Let me state my present intent: If elected, I will have all U.S. troops out of the Balkan quagmire by year's end, and all American troops home from Europe by the end of my first term. Forty years ago, President Eisenhower pleaded with JFK to bring all U.S. troops home from Europe. Certainly, sixty years after the end of World War II, and fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, is not too soon to get all U.S. troops out of Europe and let Europeans provide and pay the cost of their own defense. If not now, when?

And let us quickly adopt a measure of humility about how much we know about what is best for other peoples and cultures. In the words of the great scholar Russell Kirk: "There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government depends on the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture...and all these things vary from land to land and age to age."

In this new era, many of us are rediscovering the old distrust of crusading that was at the center of the world view of the old American Right. We are conscious of our love for this country. We do not wish to isolate America from the world, only to isolate America from wars -- the religious, ethnic, and territorial wars of less fortunate lands. We know there is a powerful body of American thought -- from Washington to John Quincy Adams to William Jennings Bryan and Robert Taft -- as well as all the near forgotten figures written about by Justin Raimondo and others -- to help guide us. And their message is one I intend to stamp upon our banners in the campaign of 2000: A Republic, Not an Empire! America First!
Sadly, our response to 9/11 was more of the same failed Wilsonian ideology.

 

Huskarine

New member
Hugo, first of all, please don't have me read a super-long essay on a simple debate...please do me the favor of a link, maybe a quick synopsis of the 10 page essay....oh another thing, the author is Pat Buchanon, a libertarian pundant...yes, he has conservative ideology in him, but none the less, he has more so libertarian tendencies...what's inherent with Pat Buchanon? the fact that he was proposing isolation from the world, for example, the building of a wall on our borders with Mexico...the guy is an isolationist, a libertarian, and remember we decided a long time ago (WWI) that we can not be an isolated country...we are the leaders of the free world... :cool:
 

Huskarine

New member
even at this point of all this debate, I am willing to agree with Snafu that the liberal media has corrupted the whole war...

that's most peoples source of information right???

 

hugo

New member
Please, Pat Buchanan is no libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. His foreign policy is straight from a man, who in his era was referred to as Mr. Republican, Robert Taft. His views on gay rights is straight from Corinthians. His policy on immigration is oppossed to libertarian open border philosophy. I am sorry if your attention span is too short to read a lengthy quotation. That disability may be what would lead you to classify Pat as a libertarian. The fact is the US had a long standing policy, before 1898, of staying clear of foreign wars and entangling alliances. The fact is neoconservatism is nothing more than Wilsonianism spread at the point of a gun. It is impossible to have small government and an empire.

Let me quote our last Republican President, ironically also named George Bush:

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-- George H. W. Bush, in his 1998 memoir A World Transformed

 

snafu

New member
Please, Pat Buchanan is no libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. His foreign policy is straight from a man, who in his era was referred to as Mr. Republican, Robert Taft. His views on gay rights is straight from Corinthians. His policy on immigration is oppossed to libertarian open border philosophy. I am sorry if your attention span is too short to read a lengthy quotation. That disability may be what would lead you to classify Pat as a libertarian. The fact is the US had a long standing policy, before 1898, of staying clear of foreign wars and entangling alliances. The fact is neoconservatism is nothing more than Wilsonianism spread at the point of a gun. It is impossible to have small government and an empire.
Let me quote our last Republican President, ironically also named George Bush:

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-- George H. W. Bush, in his 1998 memoir A World Transformed
Well President Bush Senior was right. Going in unilaterally would've destroyed our international standings but we didn't go in unilaterally and it's still being destroyed.

The world is smaller and much much more leathal. We had to go in.

And I said this before we went in that we are looking farther than others. Iran is our main problem. We had U.N. backup to go into Iraq. We now have a foothold in that region.

 

hugo

New member
We have empowered Iran by ridding them of their enemy. We rejected traditional conservative balance of power politics. We had a secular Sunni run state balancing a fundamentalist Shiite state. We should have left it alone. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Our support of Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war was done to keep Islamic fundamentalism in check. The neocons (Wilsonian liberals) ignorantly ignored the conditions in the ME.
 

snafu

New member
We have empowered Iran by ridding them of their enemy. We rejected traditional conservative balance of power politics. We had a secular Sunni run state balancing a fundamentalist Shiite state. We should have left it alone. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Our support of Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war was done to keep Islamic fundamentalism in check. The neocons (Wilsonian liberals) ignorantly ignored the conditions in the ME.
Yes but again we had U.N. backing. I know bullshit politics. The rest of the world seem to think Saddam was a threat at the time too.

 

Michael Rudd

New member
Hi Hugo. The UN unfortunately is an expensive joke, but because it is the only truly international forum for discussion of world troubles we are forced to use it. even when it gets the green light to do something positive, such as peace keeping in the Congo, you get one groupe of UN soldiers disarming a certain faction by day and the Pakistan soldiers re arming them by night in return for gold and diamonds, In other parts of Africa, UN soldiers are heavily involved in child prostitution, this time they were from Europe. All this has been done with the full knowledge of their senior officers, who were not left out of the financial loop.

So your question>>Why would a conservative think UN backing is an asset?<<

could be rephrased.Why woulds anyone think UN backing is an asset.

The UN was set up as a place to talk by most of the Nations after WW2 that it is not working perfectly is hardly supriseing, but untill a better system is produced it is all we have,

 

snafu

New member
I don't like the U.N. I wish we would walk out from it. I wish Israel, Britain and other Democratic nations would follow us. But the U.N. keeps rouge nations in check. It allows talks that might not be feasible any other way. It allows us and the rest of the nations to instill sanctions on nations that pose a threat. But when push comes to shove I say we tell them to **** off or we're gonna kick some ***.
 

Michael Rudd

New member
Hi snafu.I hear you. That this is the best we as humans can come up with is a terrible indictment of us in general. The US has tried to bring some sense of order to it, but to many people involved use it as get rich quick forum, just think back to dear old Koffie and his son, But for all that we have to work within the law while trying to get that law work better.
 
Top Bottom