LOL- didn’t see someone had posted something just like mine. Good thing we both like Wilfred Brimley, huh?
I don’t think just for the fact they would have spent their time slaughtering each other. At risk of being called racist and other words the middle east just seems to be a region that cares nothing about human life or have any concept of freedom, self improvement or innovation. So while they would have blood in their eyes for the west the ability to carry the fight over would be diminished.
I think that you, and Dr. Paul, think that events began to take on an ever-faster pace some 15 years ago, and that may be correct, to some degree. I would argue that our struggle with Islam goes back to before Vienna, when Polish King John helped to defend the city against Muslim armies that sought to spread Islamic hegemony throughout Europe.
Well actually I got the pace increasing in the past 15 yrs from you. Look at your earlier post.
As to the issue of American military bases worldwide, I’d say that it’s a function of a number of things; our friendships and alliances, the desire by some countries to have an American military presence as a sort of watchdog against the intentions of other countries in the region who may be hostile to the host country in which the American base resides, the combined American/NATO presence on a number of bases in most countries in Western Europe, and the fact that we may, indeed, be renting land, etc. for a forward presence.
As to the bases in the Phillipines, it wasn’t really the fact that Pinatubo’s eruption caused us to pull out (though it was a big contributor, on a cost-benefit analysis), but mainly due to the large increase in rent that the Aquino government wanted in order to allow those bases to remain open. She bluffed and we called it, relocating, for the most part, to Guam and elsewhere.
T.
So you think its ok, for us to spend money to have a base on another countries land, because they want us their to protect them?
So would it be ok, for the Chinese to put a base in Panama, Mexico, or Cuba? Would we get upset about that? What if Venezuela asked the Iranians, or Chinese to open a base their?
“So would it be ok, for the Chinese to put a base in Panama, Mexico, or Cuba? Would we get upset about that? What if Venezuela asked the Iranians, or Chinese to open a base their?”
None of those would be OK. This is international politics not the fairness game. What is good enough for me might not be good enough for you.
Big Kahuna,
I appreciate the conversation we have on this forum. We might not agree with one another but discussions like that are great.
I just have one question for you:
How would you and Americans feel, would an agency of a foreign country aid a group within our country overthrow our elected government; provide that “radical” group with military aid, help them install a military dictator that replaces our own elected government and ultimately rob us of our resources that belong to the American country and our people. Top it off with permanent military basis on our land and on the land of our neighbors so that they can continue to force their financial ideals upon us and continue directing the profits of our resources away from us?
Video: U.S. Foreign Policy: When U.S. helps overthrow elected government to replace with the Shah (1953) = Blowback
**Well actually I got the pace increasing in the past 15 yrs from you. Look at your earlier post. **
I know that. What I was pointing out was that there are different reasons for the increase in AQ (just to name one group) pace of operations over the last 15 years than you might be aware of. In other words, it’s not just about some sort of “underlying causes” which, truth be told, actually have very little to do with the current situation. It’s my belief that most of it springs forth from an interpretation of Islamic law that demands jihad against non-Muslims.
T.
So you think its ok, for us to spend money to have a base on another countries land, because they want us their to protect them?
So would it be ok, for the Chinese to put a base in Panama, Mexico, or Cuba? Would we get upset about that? What if Venezuela asked the Iranians, or Chinese to open a base their?
#1. The answer to the first question would be that it all depends. Maybe that nation and ours share a long history of friendship and cultural and socio-economic ties. Maybe it’s as simple as them wanting us there to help them fend of what they perceive to be the predations of a neighboring country, and the requesting nation is seen by our leadership as either having something we need (a “quid pro quo” arrangement) or something that we don’t want to fall into the hands of the neighboring country. On a geopolitical scale, the possibilities are endless. After all, our American navy has defended the right of passage on the world’s oceans since World War II and before that, the British did so. Some of us refer to what the U.S. has done over the last 100 years or so as a “Pax Americana.”
#2. In answer to the second question I would have to say that we of course wouldn’t like it (not that I have any illusions when it comes to the input I might have into such important decisions :-), but that we’d also exert the influence that we do have to try prevent such an outcome. I think our position was made evident in the Monroe Doctrine when it came to making it clear that, rightly or wrongly, we consider our hemisphere to be of vital interest to us. Interestingly, our response was tested back during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviets attempt to base ICBMs on Cuban soil. A nuclear war, apparently, was barely averted. But again, geopolitical considerations, as in everything else, come into play.
- One thing to keep in mind, though, is that this year’s U.S. defense budget will be larger than the combined budgets of almost every other country on the planet. That bespeaks volumes not only about our ability to project combat power, but also of the vigor of our nation and its people in terms of GDP and GDP per capita (where we rank 8th, with Luxembourg 1st). Many countries want us there because they know that we can, on a purely logistics and capabilities basis, sustain those efforts.
T.
**I just have one question for you: **
**How would you and Americans feel, would an agency of a foreign country aid a group within our country overthrow our elected government; provide that “radical” group with military aid, help them install a military dictator that replaces our own elected government and ultimately rob us of our resources that belong to the American country and our people. Top it off with permanent military basis on our land and on the land of our neighbors so that they can continue to force their financial ideals upon us and continue directing the profits of our resources away from us? **
You’re referring, of course, to the CIA and the Pahlavis of Iran, who took the Peacock Throne after the overthrow of that country’s government. On a moral basis, I of course would say that such a thing shouldn’t have been done. Looking at it through the eyes of a Von Clauswitz, I’d say that I understand the reasons for why.
The CIA, and the United States, believed at the time that the stability of a vital oil producing nation was more important. I understand on one level and disagree on another. The Shah believed so much in the modernization of his nation (he forbade the wearing of chador, among other things) that he used his SAVAK intelligence agency to brutalize his people. But can you really say that Khomeini was an improvement? Perhaps the U.S. and the Pahlavis helped to create the conditions which made the rise of the Ayatollahs possible.
I don’t understand the observation about “forcing” financial ideals on nations. Do you mean through the IMF or the World Bank and its associated directorates?
T.
So you think its ok, for us to spend money to have a base on another countries land, because they want us their to protect them?
So would it be ok, for the Chinese to put a base in Panama, Mexico, or Cuba? Would we get upset about that? What if Venezuela asked the Iranians, or Chinese to open a base their?
#1. The answer to the first question would be that it all depends. Maybe that nation and ours share a long history of friendship and cultural and socio-economic ties. Maybe it’s as simple as them wanting us there to help them fend of what they perceive to be the predations of a neighboring country, and the requesting nation is seen by our leadership as either having something we need (a “quid pro quo” arrangement) or something that we don’t want to fall into the hands of the neighboring country. On a geopolitical scale, the possibilities are endless. After all, our American navy has defended the right of passage on the world’s oceans since World War II and before that, the British did so. Some of us refer to what the U.S. has done over the last 100 years or so as a “Pax Americana.”
#2. In answer to the second question I would have to say that we of course wouldn’t like it (not that I have any illusions when it comes to the input I might have into such important decisions :-), but that we’d also exert the influence that we do have to try prevent such an outcome. I think our position was made evident in the Monroe Doctrine when it came to making it clear that, rightly or wrongly, we consider our hemisphere to be of vital interest to us. Interestingly, our response was tested back during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviets attempt to base ICBMs on Cuban soil. A nuclear war, apparently, was barely averted. But again, geopolitical considerations, as in everything else, come into play.
- One thing to keep in mind, though, is that this year’s U.S. defense budget will be larger than the combined budgets of almost every other country on the planet. That bespeaks volumes not only about our ability to project combat power, but also of the vigor of our nation and its people in terms of GDP and GDP per capita (where we rank 8th, with Luxembourg 1st). Many countries want us there because they know that we can, on a purely logistics and capabilities basis, sustain those efforts.
T.
Well lets not overlook the fact we are a nation in HUGE debt. So interesting that on #1 you are willing to pay to protect other countries, even countries in better financial situation then our own. To me that seems financial irresponsible, but clearly we see these things differently. I think we both understand each others position, we just disagree.
As you have pointed out, the CIA and the US believed at that time that “a vital oil producing nation was more important”. Important to who? Important to the U.S.
The problem though is that this Nation was not theirs. I might feel that I can invest money better than you can invest yours, but that doesn’t give me the right to invade your private property because it fits my financial and economic agenda.
What’s the worst thing if Iran would have stopped producing oil. Sure, markets would have rattled but the market would have set the price. Americans would have probably started producing more fuel efficient engines. Maybe even began investing in an efficient mass transportation system. If oil prices would have gone completely through the roof alternative fuel would have been introduced through the free market as there would have been a demand for it. America could be a better America today, an America that wouldn’t depend as much on foreign oil. Of course the latter part is all hypothetical but even if that were not the case – what gives the U.S. the right to overthrow government in foreign countries, interfere in their internal affairs to enrich themselves?
Even if all that were the case, and I don’t say that it is, there’s a problem with radical strains of Islam that seem to have been for the most part, expunged from mainstream Judaism and Christianity. This was accomplished through the dimunition of religion and the awareness that the right of the individual took precedence. However, Islam doesn’t seem to have made it all the way through this process.
As Jaffa (2008) says: “The dominant forms of political life throughout the Middle East are, with only one exception, as barbaric as those of Europe during the wars of religion. Only a despotism, as benign as we can find, and one that can begin turning people away from sectarian fanaticism, will answer our purpose. Otherwise, they will have to fight it out among themselves, as we did.”
The rub, though, lies therein when fundamentalist Islam ensconces itself within liberal Western society. For then, as observed by Siegel (2008): “When it comes to speaking of Islam, there is troubling evidence that our cherished liberty of discussion may not be compatible with security of life and limb, not to mention the security of property.” In looking at just the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and the riots and loss of life they provoked, one should see a fundamental disconnect between Islamic outlook and the outlook in the West as it pertains to matters such as freedom of speech and thought.
T.
Did you note that Ron Paul voted for hunting down the terrorists that attacked us? But why invade other countries when it wasn’t the country that attacked us?
“Otherwise, they will have to fight it out among themselves, as we did.”
What’s wrong with having them fight it out like “we” had to do? After all, it worked out for this Nation and the past 60 years should have clearly shown that an interventionist foreign policy just always backfires on us as a Nation and does more harm than good. Why don’t we look at the root of the problem and that is clearly money. As long as you have politicians that are in bed with the military-industrial complex for the reason of personal enrichment there will be war.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. " - Dwight D. Eisenhower
edit: It’s ok to disagree.