Forums | MacLife

Again, you're lacking sufficient cynicism. Bosnia/Yogoslavia, again, comes down to energy and pipelining and Russian influence. Bosnia was an opportunity, not a cost (for those who call the shots). There's a very large U.S. base left over in the region called Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. It's officially a NATO base, but really, we know why it's there. It's a "valuble" regional presence.

You're there to stay, not because Europe couldn't handle the Yugoslav conflict, but because you chose to be there. And that's under Clinton; this isn't a left/right issue. This is post WWII U.S. policy in action. You might as well blame Truman and Churchill and the Ruskies.

I sooo want to lift this and use it in the gas prices thread.

Bat wrote:

'79. And sorry, I somehow forgot to mention the Russians in my characterization. Yes, it's first and foremost their bad- OTOH, we both 'helped free them from Russian tyranny' while rather cynically using them as cannon fodder in a proxy war with Moscow. The CIA supplied them the Stingers that enabled them to shoot down many gunships in the mountain passes, making it overall a losing proposition for them in lives and treasure. But like Saruman, once that tool ceased to be of use, we dropped it [them] without a second thought. IIRC some promises went unfulfilled, but what were they going to do to us, half a world away? We found out.

Yes, and that was wrong. It was wrong the same way going into Vietnam was wrong. We screwed the South Vietnamese too and that was wrong. You'd think we would have learned our lesson. Now that both major parties have had their respective Vietnams, hopefully we will, but it doesn't appear so. We should have never made promises we never intended to keep. And the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend.

Somewhat. I'm sure we agree that Iraq II was the big mistake. But it wasn't 'mission accomplished' against the Taliban or AQ; we drove the former from power and Kabul. OBL got away. Our followup was not impressive.

Not just Iraq, but our unwavering (until now) support of Israel, our cozy relationship with a horrible dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, interfering in Iran's internal affairs - we have a long list of sins in the region. We need to keep our fat noses out of their business. It does pain me to say it because a lot of people are being oppressed and killed there. Our cultures are completely incompatible.

We dropped the ball on OBL because of Iraq. But there's no going back. He got a way and we're never going to get him, it's time to accept that.

How would you do it, besides say 'spend the money to?' Our record on security is frankly poor, and you've also said spending money is what you want to avoid. We've got 3,000 miles of border north and south, NAFTA, and lousy shipping security. American don't make good Israelis, temperamentally, and they have short borders, few ports. Fortress America? We can't keep out illegal immigrants, let 'lone terrorists. Israel turned Mossad loose on the '72 Munich terrorists; unleash Blackwater? Mil action is one thing we're actually fairly good at. I don't think it should ever be first resort either, but fact is we've been handed one major SNAFU by eight years of Bush. All we can do is make the best of it.

(Time runs short. I wish for what you wish for, I just don't expect much.)

I don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish. I understand there are threats out there and we do need to spend some money on security. I just disagree with the preeminent strike approach. You're right in that our own security is poor - but border security isn't part of the immense military budget. It's chump change in comparison. We're ready for WWIII, but not to defend against smaller attacks.

I disagree in that the military should have had little to do with the operation to get OBL or bring down the Taliban. Israel used the Mossad to great effect after Munich. The CIA should have been the ones to get OBL. We need our own cells of operatives ready to strike against organizations like AQ and the Taliban. The military is an effective, but blunt instrument. But Rumsfeld saw the problem as a nail and used a sledgehammer.

Nor I, but I don't think the military wants to go overseas and squander lives. Self-perpetuating bureacracies and all that goes with them, OTOH... not far apart on. And I don't think an MIC has really captured our hearts and minds; this war is increasingly unpopular. I sympathize; I wish it had never been, failing that that it'd end well and quickly. But I don't think it will.

It won't end well, it never does. Nobody ever thanked us for any military intervention we've made. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ribtorus wrote:

Again, you're lacking sufficient cynicism. Bosnia/Yogoslavia, again, comes down to energy and pipelining and Russian influence. Bosnia was an opportunity, not a cost (for those who call the shots). There's a very large U.S. base left over in the region called Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. It's officially a NATO base, but really, we know why it's there. It's a "valuble" regional presence.

You're there to stay, not because Europe couldn't handle the Yugoslav conflict, but because you chose to be there. And that's under Clinton; this isn't a left/right issue. This is post WWII U.S. policy in action. You might as well blame Truman and Churchill and the Ruskies.

You're right. The point still being the US needs to start staying out of these little tussles. It's not our problem. There is no reason to have military bases on foreign soil or troops stationed abroad for decades.

Our need for oil is our biggest threat to national security. I wish the conservatards could see that...

robco wrote:

We're ready for WWIII, but not to defend against smaller attacks.

Not really. We are now configured for small regional conflicts. Our emphasis on Brigade level deployments is configured for colonial type engagements. Small, quickly in and quickly out.

WWIII is large scale, high-intensity, and likely would require large unit deployment and commitments. Think WWII, or cold-war anticipation in Europe. WWIII is likely to involve conventional forces to take and deny territory. Unless you subscribe to the theory that we are already fighting WWIII.