Contrasts in Policy

[canceled.2021.1]

we skew noticeably to the dovish here.

I disagree with your premise. I wouldn't say that it is fair to say that just because people don't want to intervene in every shit hole in the world that it makes them a dove. I for one supported taking out Saddam. I would be a fool to think that it was without consequence. Foreign policy doesn't just fit in some neat little box that you can just pull off of the shelf and apply to other countries. In retrospect, Iraq was probably a bit mistake on many fronts. Afghanistan was a mistake for tactical reasons. We should have rained hell fire on that country within hours of the Twin Towers falling, but we should have NEVER EVER put troops in there for 10 years. That doesn't make me a dove. It makes me practical. How many countries do you want our troops to reside in? Where does it end? I know this is going to make me sound like a liberal to you, but when are you going to go volunteer for all of these adventures?

It is clear that Libya was an unmitigated disaster and I don't know that we know the long term ramifications of our little adventure in Iraq. What happens 10? 20? 30 years from now? Do you know? I sure as shit don't.

I do know that we can no longer afford to fight everyones battles for them. All this bullshit talk about making sure Iran doesn't get a nuke. Who is going to stop them? You? Are you prepared to start a war with Iran to keep them from getting a nuke? I am not. It is Israel's problem let them deal with. At the end of the day they are going to have to fight it out.

If you want to bring down the radical muslime fucks it is simple and you never have to fire a shot. Unleash every single energy source in this country and that means coal, oil and natural gas. We could supply our energy needs with coal and natural gas and be a net exporter of oil to everyone else thus drying up all the money the muslime fucks get.

While I am sure you put a lot of thought into your post and honestly believe what you believe, it is based on a faulty premise.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

He makes absolutely NO point. He is trying to change the topic to Alabama and it's segregationist history, which has absolutely ZERO to do with our national foreign policy, or the situation in Iraq and Libya. While Gov. Wallace did support segregation, he also recanted the position and went on to be re-elected numerous times in the state, garnering wide support from the black community. But what the hell does this have to do with the topic? There can be no "point" in an argument that does not relate to the subject, so we must simply disregard what crewcut has to say, and you as well. If you want to debate the topic, I will be glad to entertain that, but we're not going to turn this thread into an Alabama-bash-fest.

I call you "dovish" because that is what you are. In your minds, there is no reason to ever pick up arms and fight, unless we are directly being attacked, and even then, many of you are still reluctant. You see nothing special about what we have here, and what we stand for, worth trying to instill around the world, and you think we are "better off" to mind our own business and leave the people over there to sort their own differences. This is the purpose of my argument, the comparative contrast in your ideas and policies, versus the idea and policy of establishing democracy and freedom for others. It's certainly NOT irresponsible to show people how to live in peace. It's not "un-christian" to do that either, not that we're supposed to be running around promoting "christian" values, but since you interjected it, that's the fact of the matter. It has nothing to do with "killing brown people" and that is a disgusting insinuation designed to show your intolerance and complete bigotry in an insulting way that is simply reprehensible and inaccurate. Iraqi's are certainly not "white supremacists" who "hate brown people" so what the living fuck are you talking about here?

BULLSHIT!! The only reasonable and moral justification for using armed forces is when there is a Clear and Present Danger to our national security. Your and the Neocons idiotic brand of cowboy diplomacy is beyond stupid and it gets innocent people killed in large numbers. Something you don't seem to care about.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

More than 100 people have been executed this year and critics say the legal and justice system are being used as a smokescreen for killings - Sep-23

LMFAO... Saddam executed 100 people before breakfast every morning!

Prime minister’s alleged creeping power-grab has again come under spotlight after suspension of respected head of the central bank - Oct-17

Ahh.. the sweet smell of democracy and partisan politics! It's a beautiful thing!

 

[canceled.2021.1]

BULLSHIT!! The only reasonable and moral justification for using armed forces is when there is a Clear and Present Danger to our national security.

I hear this quite often. Define what constitutes a clear and present danger to our national security to you? I am not trying to trap you, I am just curious. It is a great line, right? Who would disagree with it. But, now take a step farther and define what a clear and present danger is. Is it like porn? Will we know it when we see it?

What was the clear and present danger of Libya?

 

[Lowaicue]

LMFAO... Saddam executed 100 people before breakfast every morning!



Ahh.. the sweet smell of democracy and partisan politics! It's a beautiful thing!

Sorry dear boy. None of those news stories were chosen in accord with party politics ... and none of them came from American propaganda. They are all genuine news reports. If you don't believe them then it's up to you. Stay ignorant, stay stupid, stay in America.
Oh. If Saddam killed a million people before breakfast it HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, it had NOTHING to do with the 'stated' reason for your country's invasion. It had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.
You really are so ill-informed as to be a laughing stock.
Ditch fox, dixie, read something with credibility. Preferably the BBC or DW or F24.

 

[Lowaicue]

I hear this quite often. Define what constitutes a clear and present danger to our national security to you? I am not trying to trap you, I am just curious. It is a great line, right? Who would disagree with it. But, now take a step farther and define what a clear and present danger is. Is it like porn? Will we know it when we see it?

What was the clear and present danger of Libya?

You won't need to define clear and present danger if you change your attitude to the rest of the world.

 

[Lowaicue]

I hear this quite often. Define what constitutes a clear and present danger to our national security to you? I am not trying to trap you, I am just curious. It is a great line, right? Who would disagree with it. But, now take a step farther and define what a clear and present danger is. Is it like porn? Will we know it when we see it?

What was the clear and present danger of Libya?

Ahh, that American memory again.
Here's a rough timeline. See if you can find your country's involvement:

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war,[18] and military operations began, with US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] the French Air Force and British Royal Air Force[20] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed.[22][23] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.

Yes, you came in with us (so difficult to get porters these days) after UN resolution 1973. If you scroll back you will find that I have told you all that you have no business invading any sovereign nation UNLESS and UNTIL directed by the United Nations.
Is there some part of that you cannot understand?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

BULLSHIT!! The only reasonable and moral justification for using armed forces is when there is a Clear and Present Danger to our national security. Your and the Neocons idiotic brand of cowboy diplomacy is beyond stupid and it gets innocent people killed in large numbers. Something you don't seem to care about.

Yes, 100 people were killed in September by the democratically elected government in Iraq, as LowIQ points out. In contrast to the 100,000 Kurds dumped into mass graves under Saddam after being horribly gassed to death, and was never even reported to the rest of the world.

Look at the two examples in the OP. Iraq, where the people are free and have a functioning democratic style government, and live in relative peace... and Libya, where the country is eroding into chaos and terrorists are in charge. IF you had to pick one of the two to live in and raise your family or open a business, which would it be?

We're certainly NOT "morally justified" in following YOUR example.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ahh, that American memory again.
Here's a rough timeline. See if you can find your country's involvement:

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war,[18] and military operations began, with US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] the French Air Force and British Royal Air Force[20] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed.[22][23] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.

Yes, you came in with us (so difficult to get porters these days) after UN resolution 1973. If you scroll back you will find that I have told you all that you have no business invading any sovereign nation UNLESS and UNTIL directed by the United Nations.
Is there some part of that you cannot understand?

Yes, and we followed the UN peacenick passive policy of not interfering and letting them sort their differences, after helping the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow Qadaffi in the glorious "Arab Spring" ...and what has happened as a result of our non-interference?

Here's a clue, your policy has failed! We have a dead ambassador and burned out former consulate, the terrorists run rampant and no one is safe. Is Libya a better place? Are we seeing roses bloom in the beautiful Arab Spring? Have "the people" been able to figure it out on their own and establish civilized government of the people? NO! It's a total clusterfuck, and now there is no easy solution. We followed the protesters of Iraq's exact game plan in Libya, we did precisely what you claim we should have done in Iraq, we avoided what you called "occupation" in Iraq, and stayed the hell out of their business, and the results are catastrophic.

 

[Rune]

Well that is your opinion, and it is shared by a good many, but as the OP points out, this is the contrast in two different policies, and we can see the results. In Iraq, 26 million people were liberated, now holding elections and functioning in a democratic-style society, not pursuing nuclear arms or WMD programs, not invading smaller and weaker neighbors, or instigating trouble for US interests in the region.

True, just as they have not been doing since the first Gulf War. NONE of the things you claim are resolved now were a problem after the first gulf war, so your attempt to justify thousands of american lives lost, hundreds of thousands of americans wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and trillions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted is in vain.

Meanwhile, your policy of non-intervention in Libya and Egypt, are resulting in chaos and violence, radicalism and death, and the whole of society is being overrun by terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and alQaeda. Things are not working out for the better, they are getting worse, and we've now lost an Ambassador and several others, and there will be more American deaths to follow.

Our "policy" isn't resulting in anything. The actions of the people of those countries are. We lost an embassy because assholes like you voted to cut embassy security funding. What the fuck did you think would happen, idiot?

Diplomacy and passive tolerance is not working, hasn't ever worked in that region, and won't work in the future. We've even attempted a mixture of both policies in Afghanistan, go in with the military and oust the controlling regime, then allow the people to sort things out and stay out of their affairs, and that isn't working out either. These people simply do not know how to establish western-style democracy, and left to their own devices, revert back to what they do know how to do, fight each other until a prevailing power is strong enough to take authoritarian control and start the tyrannical cycle of totalitarian dictatorship all over again.

Right, which is why we should stay entirely out of their business. Who the fuck gave you the authority to sacrifice american children and treasure to bring unwanted democracy to tribal war-like people? You make me physically ill with your vast ignorance.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's amazing, you can spew massive amounts of unfounded lies and bull, and STILL be completely full of shit!
It's like a weird and bizarre contradiction of physics!

 

[Rune]

It's amazing, you can spew massive amounts of unfounded lies and bull, and STILL be completely full of shit!
It's like a weird and bizarre contradiction of physics!

Please, prove one thing I said is untrue. Even one.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Please, prove one thing I said is untrue. Even one.

Well for one, Saddam Hussein wasn't prime minister of a democratic government. The only "liberation" of Iraqis came at the bottom of a mass grave after being choked to death on poison gas. They had no constitution or representatives elected by the people.

You can cling to the lies about funding in Libya, but it's just not factually accurate in any way. Republicans NEVER cut funding for security in Benghazi, Libya.... that did not happen in the reality we all live in.

 

[Rune]

Well for one, Saddam Hussein wasn't prime minister of a democratic government. The only "liberation" of Iraqis came at the bottom of a mass grave after being choked to death on poison gas. They had no constitution or representatives elected by the people.

You can cling to the lies about funding in Libya, but it's just not factually accurate in any way. Republicans NEVER cut funding for security in Benghazi, Libya.... that did not happen in the reality we all live in.

Funny, I never said Iraq was a democracy under Saddam.
2. Yes they did, we covered this already.

Score so far; Dixtard: zero.

 

[Phantasmal]

Funny, I never said Iraq was a democracy under Saddam.
2. Yes they did, we covered this already.

Score so far; Dixtard: zero.

Bawahahaha, liberation of Iraq, the excuse they used after the weapons of mass destruction didn't work for them! How many citizens did the USA liberate from their very lives?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

IRAQ POLICY: Coalition overthrow of government, help the people establish functioning democracy.
RESULT: SUCCESS!

LIBYA POLICY: Coalition overthrow of government, leave them to sort it out on their own.
RESULT: ABJECT FAILURE!

 

[Rune]

IRAQ POLICY: Coalition overthrow of government, help the people establish functioning democracy.
RESULT: SUCCESS!

LIBYA POLICY: Coalition overthrow of government, leave them to sort it out on their own.
RESULT: ABJECT FAILURE!

It is a bit too soon to tell in Libya you myopic moron. How did the first year in Iraq go? Idiot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Funny, I never said Iraq was a democracy under Saddam.
2. Yes they did, we covered this already.

Score so far; Dixtard: zero.

Dixie: "In Iraq, 26 million people were liberated, now holding elections and functioning in a democratic-style society."
Rune: "NONE of the things you claim are resolved now were a problem after the first gulf war."

FACT: Iraq was NOT a functioning democratic-style democracy before the fall of Saddam Hussein.

2. No, they didn't. And Yes, we've covered this already.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is a bit too soon to tell in Libya you myopic moron. How did the first year in Iraq go? Idiot.

LMFAO... No, with a burned out consulate and dead ambassador, the country in chaos, terrorists in charge... there is nothing "too soon to tell" about the situation. But thanks for reiterating the apparent incompetence of this administration in it's utter failure to protect Americans in Benghazi.

HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE HOPE AND CHANGE! --Democrat's Answer to EVERYTHING!

 

[Rune]

Dixie: "In Iraq, 26 million people were liberated, now holding elections and functioning in a democratic-style society."
Rune: "NONE of the things you claim are resolved now were a problem after the first gulf war."

FACT: Iraq was NOT a functioning democratic-style democracy before the fall of Saddam Hussein.

2. No, they didn't. And Yes, we've covered this already.

Originally Posted by Dixie
not pursuing nuclear arms or WMD programs, not invading smaller and weaker neighbors, or instigating trouble for US interests in the region.

Right, not since 1991. Thanks.