A Fight That Can't Be Won. Afghanistan Mission.

[Oleg Bach]

Yah - kind of the same mind as Afghanistan....old proud cultures would rather die than submit.

[ToadBrother]

The House of Saud is very very rich - if they export a brand of extremist Islam - then I am sure the clever little boys there have a way of exporting MONEY to facilitate any terrorist action...don't tell me that the money can not be followed back to Saudi. Secondly even though Pakistinan nukes are pointed at India..The west that has nukes would never dare threaten another nuke nation...It's a case of power - for instance - America threatens Iran at present but would back off the second they had deliverable nukes. As for the kinship that exists between Saudi oil merchants and American ones...both of these sets of merchants are not loyal to their own people but are loyal to each other - If the Bushites knew of fully realized that the Saudis are responsible - to attack them would be to attack themselves. The whole point is...money rules - ethics do not. Pakistan plays all sides..with full force of the Pakistani military they could remove in a short time all the camps harbouring terrorists, that line their boarder..they do not have the will....as if they really care about western interests.

I'm not going to deny the unholy alliance between the US oilmen and the House of Saud. It's impossible to deny. But the Saudis aren't exporting lunatics and lunatic ideas because they want to convert the world their severe Wahabist version of Islam, but because those lunatics pose an enormous threat to them. Guys like bin Laden first and foremost despise the House of Saud because of its tight relations with the United States (let's face it, it's basically an energy alliance), and dream of toppling the Saudis and instituting a new fundamentalist Muslim regime. Some (and I think bin Laden is among them) dream bigger than that, looking to create a new Islamic empire.

As to Pakistan, the country is completely schizophrenic. The government isn't a unified government at all. Different factions back different groups. You might have one group in the security services backing northern tribesmen (the brothers of the Taliban), and another trying to combat those same tribesmen. Even the recent attack on India, which appears to have had some support from Pakistani security services, probably did not happen with any knowledge by the regular Pakistani government.

The place is a demented, schizophrenic basket case, a country where even the strongest military rule by a guy like Musharaff can't guarantee that some faction isn't still going to be either attacking the government or India, sending aid to the Taliban, or just generally blowing people up to spread fear and uncertainty. But as crazy as the place is, imagine if the Islamists actually managed to gain control. That's why we, knowing full well that even the friendliest Pakistani regime is not a reliable friend, still do what we can to back them. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not going to deny the unholy alliance between the US oilmen and the House of Saud. It's impossible to deny. But the Saudis aren't exporting lunatics and lunatic ideas because they want to convert the world their severe Wahabist version of Islam, but because those lunatics pose an enormous threat to them. Guys like bin Laden first and foremost despise the House of Saud because of its tight relations with the United States (let's face it, it's basically an energy alliance), and dream of toppling the Saudis and instituting a new fundamentalist Muslim regime. Some (and I think bin Laden is among them) dream bigger than that, looking to create a new Islamic empire.

As to Pakistan, the country is completely schizophrenic. The government isn't a unified government at all. Different factions back different groups. You might have one group in the security services backing northern tribesmen (the brothers of the Taliban), and another trying to combat those same tribesmen. Even the recent attack on India, which appears to have had some support from Pakistani security services, probably did not happen with any knowledge by the regular Pakistani government.

The place is a demented, schizophrenic basket case, a country where even the strongest military rule by a guy like Musharaff can't guarantee that some faction isn't still going to be either attacking the government or India, sending aid to the Taliban, or just generally blowing people up to spread fear and uncertainty. But as crazy as the place is, imagine if the Islamists actually managed to gain control. That's why we, knowing full well that even the friendliest Pakistani regime is not a reliable friend, still do what we can to back them. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Was there not one Saudi adventurer and lunitic they exported - called Bin Laden - that they still protect to this day? Culturally and emotionally Pakistanians are prone to rage - and rage is accepted - ever piss one off...they are louder then drunken Russians. As for the devil we know or do not know - no devil will let you know - what he is really thinking or what motivates him - that's a classic saying but it's kind defeatest.

[ToadBrother]

Was there not one Saudi adventurer and lunitic they exported - called Bin Laden - that they still protect to this day?

Protect? The guy hasn't been back to Saudi Arabia in years, and if he ever tried, he'd be arrested before you could count to one.

Culturally and emotionally Pakistanians are prone to rage - and rage is accepted - ever piss one off...they are louder then drunken Russians. As for the devil we know or do not know - no devil will let you know - what he is really thinking or what motivates him - that's a classic saying but it's kind defeatest.

You are one deeply racist guy.

[blueblood]

Protect? The guy hasn't been back to Saudi Arabia in years, and if he ever tried, he'd be arrested before you could count to one.

You are one deeply racist guy.

Replying to this character, results in him posting more of his nutbar drivel and screws everyone over by having his "wisdom" taking up thread space.

[wulf42]

The Soviets had massive amounts of troops and armor in Germany and surrounding areas. Maybe we could have won, but what was left of Europe would have been pounded into the ground. While preliminary plans were allegedly drawn up, and even some British strategists expected there to be an armed conflict with the Russians, the thought of an even longer protracted war, particularly with Russia, was more than anyone could stomach. What would have been the goal? Simply to oust them from Eastern Europe? To overthrow the Communists? Hitler had basically lost the war because he got bogged down in Russia, just like Napoleon had a century earlier. Russia is a very hard place to invade.

Yes the Americans missed a golden opportunity after the Germans gave up....the U.S. was much stronger than the Soviets at that point

not to mention the Americans had the Bomb the Russians didn't...the cold war would never have happened. The Russians would have been totally defeated by American Forces in Europe!

[DogOnPorch]

Yes the Americans missed a golden opportunity after the Germans gave up....the U.S. was much stronger than the Soviets at that point

not to mention the Americans had the Bomb the Russians didn't...the cold war would never have happened. The Russians would have been totally defeated by American Forces in Europe!

The Soviets had a MASSIVE army of battle hardened veterans with tanks that the Western Allies couldn't match in raw strength. In the air, modern Soviet fighters like the La-7 were an equal match to aircraft like the P-51 Mustang. A war with Russia would have been as bloody as WW2.

Politically, it would have been suicide for the Truman administration to NOT 'bring the boys home' as it would have been in all other free countries. Churchill's 'spheres of influence' were a much more logical choice when dealing with fellows like Stalin. You might not save Bulgaria...but you can keep the bugger out of France.

The American 'golden opportunity' was from 1947 to 1952 when they had not only the A-Bomb (in increasing numbers) but the magnificent B-47 Stratojet bomber which at the time could outrun everything in the sky including the Russian's new MiG-15s. The Soviets didn't get an effective strategic delivery system until the Tu-95 Bear and Mya-4 Bison (circa 1952). During that period, the Commies were wide open.

-------------------------------------------------------

That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.

---Curtis Lemay

[bush_cheney2004]

....Politically, it would have been suicide for the Truman administration to NOT 'bring the boys home' as it would have been in all other free countries. Churchill's 'spheres of influence' were a much more logical choice when dealing with fellows like Stalin. You might not save Bulgaria...but you can keep the bugger out of France.

Moreover, the path forward was detailed at Yalta and Potsdam. The thirst for commie blood would be satisfied soon enough in Korea.

Edited December 17, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, I am an American who not only knows his country's history, but actually lived through it. What are your credentials from afar? I don't like to do this in an A-stan thread, but sometimes it's the only way to demonstrate the folly of your thinking:

Partial list of US military interventions since 1890:

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos

CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua

PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas

MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.

WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.

CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.

GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.

HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.

MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.

AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.

YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.

PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.

COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.

IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.

LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.

HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.

PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians.

SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, covert operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.

SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians

Nonsense...see above...looks to me like the foreign policy is the same as it ever was.

Any questions?

Numerous ones but let us start with this one; in your little rant you list some but not all US military missions, and you include some but not all of the CIA missions, but fail to address the point I made about a change since Kennedy. You are attempting to bury or deflect the point that there was a change in policy by simply stating that military intervention was merely a due course of action as proven out through historical documentation. That would be a highly oversimplified answer, one lacking certain truths and explanations. Mixing overt and covert operations with military and non military actions is merely a smokescreen for the public and political struggles both inside and outside of the administrations of the day in command and control of the events depicted. Again not all incidents are listed and not all incidents could be determined to be successful due to reasons of national security. In other words you have failed to prove anything at all, other than taking up webspace.

I suppose you will suggest that America, to coin a phrase, created "gun boat diplomacy". When in fact the phrase was originally used to describe the threat of military intervention by the British Royal Navy against the Chinese during the "Opium Wars". Not exactly original, more like a copy cat strategy on the part of your government. In fact you might even believe that America created the now accepted strategy of preemptive strikes, now accepted by the UN as legitimate that is. However that was another British strategy used against who you ask? The United States of America in the War of 1812 by "Canadians" on the Great Lakes.

To return to the original point Ike had it right. The military industrial complex has taken control of US foreign policy in an insidious manner. Through its political influence by nature of the capital expenditure on the part of the federal government and its desire to "spend the wealth" in its pork barrel solutions, the industry has impacted the economy to the extent that a significant fraction of employment is derived through arms manufacturing and other equipment related to military infrastructure. In other words, since the departure of Ike and his administration, the US economy is arms dependent to the same extent that Canada is automotive dependent. There is huge power in economic terms with respect to this military industrial complex. Until Ike's retirement military intervention was political, it was the result of failed diplomacy. In today's political environment, military intervention is an economic requirement. America needs to use and replace those expensive weapons in order to retain and expand its economy. This is of itself a political survival strategy independent of international events. Even if war is not politically required, expending munitions and supplies is an economic requirement.

Toward the next question, just how naive are the American people that they cannot see this reality? Or perhaps more accurately, how blind are the people of America to corporate ambitions?

[ToadBrother]

The Soviets had a MASSIVE army of battle hardened veterans with tanks that the Western Allies couldn't match in raw strength. In the air, modern Soviet fighters like the La-7 were an equal match to aircraft like the P-51 Mustang. A war with Russia would have been as bloody as WW2.

Possibly even bloodier. Russia, in all its forms over the years has always enjoyed two critical advantages; geography and substantial resources. The Germans were always in trouble because occupying Europe meant being surrounded by potential sea-based invasion routes. As well, modern wars require lots of oil, and Germany needed to secure it.

Beyond that, atomic bombs for all their frightening power, are not the equivalents of modern nuclear armaments. They must have inspired fear in the Russians, and probably kept them from trying to gun down the western Allies, but at the same time, the delivery systems of that period were basically bombers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Numerous ones but let us start with this one; in your little rant you list some but not all US military missions, and you include some but not all of the CIA missions, but fail to address the point I made about a change since Kennedy. You are attempting to bury or deflect the point that there was a change in policy by simply stating that military intervention was merely a due course of action as proven out through historical documentation. That would be a highly oversimplified answer, one lacking certain truths and explanations.

On other words, you do not have an adequate response to deflect the reality of many American interventions before Kennedy, including the use of nuclear weapons on two cities. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of a nuclear WW3.

Your grasp of history is curious indeed, and seems to pivot on the speech of one American Cold War president.

Mixing overt and covert operations with military and non military actions is merely a smokescreen for the public and political struggles both inside and outside of the administrations of the day in command and control of the events depicted. Again not all incidents are listed and not all incidents could be determined to be successful due to reasons of national security. In other words you have failed to prove anything at all, other than taking up webspace.

Any reaonable person can see that you are tap dancing. You don't even understand Ike's role in Vietnam. American interventions in the 20th century are well documented, because of the historical ramifications. America is the same as it ever was.

I suppose you will suggest that America, to coin a phrase, created "gun boat diplomacy". When in fact the phrase was originally used to describe the threat of military intervention by the British Royal Navy against the Chinese during the "Opium Wars". Not exactly original, more like a copy cat strategy on the part of your government. In fact you might even believe that America created the now accepted strategy of preemptive strikes, now accepted by the UN as legitimate that is. However that was another British strategy used against who you ask? The United States of America in the War of 1812 by "Canadians" on the Great Lakes.

Wrong on both counts...as gunboat diplomacy and pre-emptive strikes occurred long before either. I didn't suggest anything of the sort...you are still tap dancing.

In other words, since the departure of Ike and his administration, the US economy is arms dependent to the same extent that Canada is automotive dependent. There is huge power in economic terms with respect to this military industrial complex. Until Ike's retirement military intervention was political, it was the result of failed diplomacy. In today's political environment, military intervention is an economic requirement. America needs to use and replace those expensive weapons in order to retain and expand its economy. This is of itself a political survival strategy independent of international events. Even if war is not politically required, expending munitions and supplies is an economic requirement.

America went broke with WW2.....which involved arms production on a massive scale. Was this another bad idea?

Toward the next question, just how naive are the American people that they cannot see this reality? Or perhaps more accurately, how blind are the people of America to corporate ambitions?

They are no more blind or naive than Canadians and defense related industry....mostly for export to the United States!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

On other words, you do not have an adequate response to deflect the reality of many American interventions before Kennedy, including the use of nuclear weapons on two cities. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of a nuclear WW3.

Your grasp of history is curious indeed, and seems to pivot on the speech of one American Cold War president.

The reality of the numerous American military interventions was not the question, the specific difference between pre and post Kennedy foreign policy was. In fact it was your inadequate response that danced around the issue. The fact of foreign policy is a far cry of the reality of a change of that foreign policy. The use of nuclear weapons was the means to end a war and actually save lives. Yes Kennedy almost brought the world to the brink of WWIII, as a response to a national security threat of having nuclear missiles 90 miles away and directed toward their nation. That strategic policy saved lives as well.

Ike was a cold warrior, that was true, but he actually commanded troops in a hot war. In any case the departing speech was a warning based on his personal experience, it was not heeded.

Any reaonable person can see that you are tap dancing. You don't even understand Ike's role in Vietnam. American interventions in the 20th century are well documented, because of the historical ramifications. America is the same as it ever was.

Ike and CIA head Dulles were not satisfied with the 1954 Geneva Conference that divided the ountry at the 17th parallel, so Ike brought South Vietman into SEATO later that year. This placed the US against Ho Chi Minh and was a political effort to oppose communism being imposed on South Vietnam with a unification agenda from the North. Having said this, things changed shortly thereafter with Kennedy's death. America's advisory position morphed into massive troop deployment. That was what Ike avoided, becoming physically involved. From that day forward America began a process of foreign policy changes. The nation of America has not changed but its foreign policy did. No reasonable person can deny the reality of Vietnam on American foreign policy.

My foray into gunboat diplomacy was a direct response to your suggestion that it was a American trademark, that is another of your exposed falsehoods. It is not I who can be found dancing to the sound of war drums. Yes America was for all intents and purposes broke after the second war to end all wars. As a result Ike was a fiscal conservative who watched military spending like a hawk, and has been much quoted in his comparisons of military to domestic spending. The expenditures of the second war were imposed upon America from being attacked in 1941. war was forced upon them. Combating the AXIS forces forces who pursued aggressive actions that took many lives was not a bad idea, and the world owes much gratitude for the sacrifices made by Americans, without whose help the ALLIES never could have prevailed in eventual victory.

The harsh reality here is that your arguments imply an ignorance of the perceptions of the rest of the world as related to America. That is either disdain or arrogance, with which brush do you wish to be painted with?

[cybercoma]

Canada has lost 103 soldiers in Afghanistan over the span of about 7 years, yes?

How long does it take ethnic gangs in Canada's biggest cities lose that many lives? About 2 months?

-k

I'd wouldn't call The Hells Angels "ethnic".

[bush_cheney2004]

The reality of the numerous American military interventions was not the question, the specific difference between pre and post Kennedy foreign policy was. In fact it was your inadequate response that danced around the issue. The fact of foreign policy is a far cry of the reality of a change of that foreign policy. The use of nuclear weapons was the means to end a war and actually save lives. Yes Kennedy almost brought the world to the brink of WWIII, as a response to a national security threat of having nuclear missiles 90 miles away and directed toward their nation. That strategic policy saved lives as well.

Your continued qualification of circumstances will not bolster your position wrt the lack continuity of American interventionist foreign policy, from its founding...in North America, in the Western Hemisphere, and lastly, in the world. American foreign policy (and corporatism) is the same as it ever was.

Ike was a cold warrior, that was true, but he actually commanded troops in a hot war. In any case the departing speech was a warning based on his personal experience, it was not heeded.

So what? Ike was wrong in the end....US defense spending as a percentage of GDP is actually down..way down...especially when compared to Ike's Cold War.

Ike and CIA head Dulles were not satisfied with the 1954 Geneva Conference that divided the ountry at the 17th parallel, so Ike brought South Vietman into SEATO later that year. This placed the US against Ho Chi Minh and was a political effort to oppose communism being imposed on South Vietnam with a unification agenda from the North. Having said this, things changed shortly thereafter with Kennedy's death. America's advisory position morphed into massive troop deployment. That was what Ike avoided, becoming physically involved. From that day forward America began a process of foreign policy changes. The nation of America has not changed but its foreign policy did. No reasonable person can deny the reality of Vietnam on American foreign policy.

Methinks your timing is a bit off, particularly if you continue to champion Kennedy. You are also ignoring troop deployments to Germany and Korea. America's foreign policy often includes troops, just as it always has. No change there at all.

My foray into gunboat diplomacy was a direct response to your suggestion that it was a American trademark, that is another of your exposed falsehoods. It is not I who can be found dancing to the sound of war drums. Yes America was for all intents and purposes broke after the second war to end all wars. As a result Ike was a fiscal conservative who watched military spending like a hawk, and has been much quoted in his comparisons of military to domestic spending....

A complete fiction on your part....I posted no such thing. I only directed you to revisit the American version of gunboat diplomacy. Your fabrications are attempts at mis-direction to avoid the main point, i.e., American foreign policy methods for the past 100 years.

The harsh reality here is that your arguments imply an ignorance of the perceptions of the rest of the world as related to America. That is either disdain or arrogance, with which brush do you wish to be painted with?

It's not even that dramatic....any fool who worships America as a paragon of virtue before 1965 is seriously delusional. For what purpose, only that person would know. Blueblood was kind enough to reference even earlier interventionist policies....from attacking Great Britain in Canada to the Plains Wars to Mexico. America even invented a fancy term for this..."Manifest Destiny". At least back then American troops were dying close to home....in the 20th century, they are KIA far, far away.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Your continued qualification of circumstances will not bolster your position wrt the lack continuity of American interventionist foreign policy, from its founding...in North America, in the Western Hemisphere, and lastly, in the world. American foreign policy (and corporatism) is the same as it ever was.

So what? Ike was wrong in the end....US defense spending as a percentage of GDP is actually down..way down...especially when compared to Ike's Cold War.

Methinks your timing is a bit off, particularly if you continue to champion Kennedy. You are also ignoring troop deployments to Germany and Korea. America's foreign policy often includes troops, just as it always has. No change there at all.

A complete fiction on your part....I posted no such thing. I only directed you to revisit the American version of gunboat diplomacy. Your fabrications are attempts at mis-direction to avoid the main point, i.e., American foreign policy methods for the past 100 years.

It's not even that dramatic....any fool who worships America as a paragon of virtue before 1965 is seriously delusional. For what purpose, only that person would know. Blueblood was kind enough to reference even earlier interventionist policies....from attacking Great Britain in Canada to the Plains Wars to Mexico. America even invented a fancy term for this..."Manifest Destiny". At least back then American troops were dying close to home....in the 20th century, they are KIA far, far away.

We must choose to disagree. I maintain that American foreign policy is no longer what it was prior to Kennedy. With his death and the Vietnam war everything began to change. World opinion has shifted away from American support to as large degree. America has lost much respect. There was a time when wars were fought for peoples lives and freedom, it has become a question of economics in America. You choose to take another view, so be it. The war in Iraq was based on WMD's. The only ones there were those that America sold to Saddam years before. So the purpose of that exercise was what? To spend and be forced to replace munitions for the military industrial complex perhaps.

Your assertion that I look into gun boat diplomacy was then merely to provide background information as to a continuity of naked aggression on the part of the United States government. I can see your point, however as I have said before the entire premise of the use of force has changed, you cannot see that point.

I have never worshiped the United States of America, as a matter of fact I oppose US foreign policy. I was never a Kennedy fan, although I believe he had some good ideas, he was just another American politician. Yes your citizens are dropping like flies far from their homes, but that is a result of an interventionist foreign policy based on protecting American interests abroad. Face it, when you are the big dog you attract a lot of attention.

The simple truth is that America replaced the British Empire with their own version. Empires rise and fall, America has risen and it may now be falling.

[White Doors]

I'd wouldn't call The Hells Angels "ethnic".

Why not? Most of them are white. Is white not an ethnicity anymore?

[DogOnPorch]

Why not? Most of them are white. Is white not an ethnicity anymore?

Try saying the 'N' word, cracker.

Whites are the planet's yardstick by which one sets his or her's bigotry.

------------------------------------------------------

...and in the end...the love you take is equal to the love you make.

---Abbey Road

[bush_cheney2004]

We must choose to disagree. I maintain that American foreign policy is no longer what it was prior to Kennedy. With his death and the Vietnam war everything began to change. World opinion has shifted away from American support to as large degree. America has lost much respect. There was a time when wars were fought for peoples lives and freedom, it has become a question of economics in America.

Disagree if you must, but the America you think has long gone never existed at all. Economics has always been the priority...my slave ancestors will attest to that, as will many others from US history's socio-economic strata. The respect that you speak of is just another charade, in suppport of the bottom line, at home, and abroad. Pretending otherwise is shortsighted at best, particularly since we have the luxury of evaluating the historical realities in complete context today.

Many don't long for the American foreign policy of old compared to the present.....the victims of such policies sure don't. That's because it is the same policy....American power supporting American interests.

You choose to take another view, so be it. The war in Iraq was based on WMD's. The only ones there were those that America sold to Saddam years before. So the purpose of that exercise was what? To spend and be forced to replace munitions for the military industrial complex perhaps.

It matters not who's view is at stake....Iraq only exemplifies the continuity of American foreign policy for the region, which is my main contention. Operation Allied Force in 1999 also expended enormous quantities of munitions....Canada ran out and had to buy bombs from the Americans with a credit card at Aviano. Yet defense spending is much lower as a percentage of GDP. Force levels are much smaller. I still like Ike, but he whiffed on this one.

Your assertion that I look into gun boat diplomacy was then merely to provide background information as to a continuity of naked aggression on the part of the United States government. I can see your point, however as I have said before the entire premise of the use of force has changed, you cannot see that point.

Understood, but the matter of origin (it wasn't Britain) is irrelevant. The USA has projected force through sea power going back to the Barbary Pirates. One of the most common expectations whenever US interests are threatened is for the president to ask, "Where are the carriers". This has been true since 1945, not 1965. Dewey did not sail into Manila Bay on a raft.

I have never worshiped the United States of America, as a matter of fact I oppose US foreign policy. I was never a Kennedy fan, although I believe he had some good ideas, he was just another American politician. Yes your citizens are dropping like flies far from their homes, but that is a result of an interventionist foreign policy based on protecting American interests abroad. Face it, when you are the big dog you attract a lot of attention.

Excellent...this is progress. Now please go back and see how long this has been going on. Your own forces are deployed far away from home for interventionist purposes....same as in Iraq, Haiti, and Kosovo.

The simple truth is that America replaced the British Empire with their own version. Empires rise and fall, America has risen and it may now be falling.

Even better....for if you believe that, there is no way it just happened in the past 40 years. Your position vis-a-vis post-Kennedy is not consistent with a Pax Americana far longer in the making.

[Oleg Bach]

Disagree if you must, but the America you think has long gone never existed at all. Economics has always been the priority...my slave ancestors will attest to that, as will many others from US history's socio-economic strata. The respect that you speak of is just another charade, in suppport of the bottom line, at home, and abroad. Pretending otherwise is shortsighted at best, particularly since we have the luxury of evaluating the historical realities in complete context today.

Many don't long for the American foreign policy of old compared to the present.....the victims of such policies sure don't. That's because it is the same policy....American power supporting American interests.

It matters not who's view is at stake....Iraq only exemplifies the continuity of American foreign policy for the region, which is my main contention. Operation Allied Force in 1999 also expended enormous quantities of munitions....Canada ran out and had to buy bombs from the Americans with a credit card at Aviano. Yet defense spending is much lower as a percentage of GDP. Force levels are much smaller. I still like Ike, but he whiffed on this one.

Understood, but the matter of origin (it wasn't Britain) is irrelevant. The USA has projected force through sea power going back to the Barbary Pirates. One of the most common expectations whenever US interests are threatened is for the president to ask, "Where are the carriers". This has been true since 1945, not 1965. Dewey did not sail into Manila Bay on a raft.

Excellent...this is progress. Now please go back and see how long this has been going on. Your own forces are deployed far away from home for interventionist purposes....same as in Iraq, Haiti, and Kosovo.

Even better....for if you believe that, there is no way it just happened in the past 40 years. Your position vis-a-vis post-Kennedy is not consistent with a Pax Americana far longer in the making.

You're black? ....oh I see...You don't like getting used either..join the club.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're black? ....oh I see...You don't like getting used either..join the club.

I don't mind getting used at all. Just keep on using me...until you use me up - Bill Withers

[Oleg Bach]

I don't mind getting used at all. Just keep on using me...until you use me up - Bill Withers

You are totally correct. There is nothing wrong with being used - but abused no so good - Imagine yourself as a shovel and some twit attempts to ram you into the groud handle first - now that's abuse - Do you like old R&B...like the cool feel...."What Does It Take" - go head - name the artist big shot.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are totally correct. There is nothing wrong with being used - but abused no so good - Imagine yourself as a shovel and some twit attempts to ram you into the groud handle first - now that's abuse - Do you like old R&B...like the cool feel...."What Does It Take" - go head - name the artist big shot.

That tune was covered by many bands / artists...I like Junior Walker's version because of the soprano sax.

[Oleg Bach]

That tune was covered by many bands / artists...I like Junior Walker's version because of the soprano sax.

Yes that sax is so sweet and haunting - it brings about a very nice melancoly...it's my favorite also - I used to swoon to that tune as a kid..bought a CD with it on it a few months ago...with a bit of BB King - I like putting on BB real loud and putting him in his place with by ripping guitar solos - and old guy has to amuse himself...one great thing about the older R&B - melody - to bad the average kid listening to hip hop and rap got ripped off - but - good preformes that can sing are making a come back - it's great - Did I ever tell you about the time I hung out with Elvin Jones the drummer - now that's a drummer.

[bush_cheney2004]

Did I ever tell you about the time I hung out with Elvin Jones the drummer - now that's a drummer.

No, but you just did. I agree that the texture and elements of old will come back....I blame the damn digital drum machines for starting the current malaise. We need tight horn sections to make a comeback too. Sly told us how it all works, from bass bottom to the top. Melody, arrangement, chord progression....good thing we have it on tape. How many times can you rap about bitches and ho's ?

We are off topic.

[Oleg Bach]

No, but you just did. I agree that the texture and elements of old will come back....I blame the damn digital drum machines for starting the current malaise. We need tight horn sections to make a comeback too. Sly told us how it all works, from bass bottom to the top. Melody, arrangement, chord progression....good thing we have it on tape. How many times can you rap about bitches and ho's ?

We are off topic.

Oh just a bit more - we're making friends here people. Yah that synthetic drum thing was the death of it. Now any kid with a computer thinks he's a songster. Horn section! Wow - you are a man after my heart. There are some very hot young drummers coming up - and man - when they go - no machine can match that...I almost feel like helping the kids out and doing some producing - ran into a very talented black opera singer - about 30 - she wants to rock - I can imagine her soaring..but that would mean a re-commitment to music - should drop her a line and maybe give a power ballad...what do you think - maybe it's time to go back.?