Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Why are you guys acting like syria liked america before the missile strikes?

The entire things reminds me of Bush Sr in the run up against Clinton when he announced he was sending carriers to the persian gulf as if there was some serious threat of war was about to come to a head.

Of course, the goal was to divert attention from Clinton's message and to his lack of foreign policy by crying the wolves were at the gates. In the end, faced with a choice between Iraq and Economic Health, America chose the economy.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

It is amazing how many conflicts we got into just in time for the election debates.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Yes, very Orwellian. We are such chumps. Ambassador Gallespi told Saddam that we had no interest in inter-Arab disputes before gulf war 1. Then afterwards we bombed Iraq thru Bush Sr, Clinton, and shrub. Lets see thats at least 12 years of bombing them. I would be very angry to be bombed for one. Lets get out now, I don't want one more cent spent on this travesty. Or one more drop of blood. On either side. I know this would leave a power vacuum in this region, But I don't care. No more adventures for us. Lets just go back to the Triad system of defense. Worked in the past, will work now...:D

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The sad part is, had we removed Hussein and then IMMEDIATELY withdrawn, it would have cause far less strife and pain than it would if we withdraw now.

However, our failure to perform the mission as a swift and surgical procedure doesn't mean that leaving now would be worse than leaving later.

It would be nice if the UN had a policy of removing the most disgusting of tyrants - a vacuum is better than a cancer - but to do so without open-ended occupation.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Hell if we had not gone in at all and left Hussein in power it would have been less strife and pain. Granted he was a horrible dictator but far more Iraqi have suffered more horribly under the present conditions than had under him. The most we can say is that we made it more fair. Everyone suffers equally.

And the UN does have a policy for taking out the worst tyrants. But beware what you wish for. The world in general does not necessarily agree with your idea of who is or isnt a tyrant.

And the UN will never agree that a vacuum is better.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

You know it's a cold day in hell when the US is getting dirty in a country that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

by "cold day in hell" i take it you mean what the rest of us call "tuesday"?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The key point being "a country that doesn't really matter".
It does seem as though the ideals spoken of in the US involvements only seem to come into play in certain worldly incidents. Mostly those of money benefits to the US.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well there is a great irony there, really. For example, the US has historically paid 22% of the funding for the UN, yet of course only comprises 5% of the world population. The US also tends to shoulder most of the financial, material, and human costs of these so-called "peacekeeping" actions.

If I were the cold-hearted, business-minded politician that we generally see running the US, I would be hard pressed to send our young men out, armed and funded entirely on the back of the US tax rolls, to be the moral fiber of the world. Perhaps if other nations were to invest similarly (in proportion) of their blood, sweat, and toil, to achieve a more peaceful and proud world, then we might see these other "non-economically beneficial" situations dealt with more readily. As it stands, if you look at the wartime costs of the US military budget, as well as the state that our military personnel are in, I can hardly see how anyone could complain about which problems the US gets their hands dirty in.


Of course, this assumes that everything that the US trifles with, is in fact something that they are -right- in doing. Also, it implies that there is actually some real benefit. Thus far in Iraq for example, we have caused enormous loss of life, incredible instability in the Middle East, and allowed some of our wealthiest corporations to reap record profits off price-gouging our own citizens, as a result of that instability. Seems to me that the only people who have actually benefited thus far form the war in Iraq, are the wealthiest and most powerful in America. Now, that said, I refer back to my earlier postulate, that if the other members of the UN had invested a comparable and proportionate amount of their budget and manpower towards resolving the conflict - it likely would have been long over, as even if we had borne 22% of the load (as we pay 22% of the cost of the UN itself), and the rest of the world had shouldered a comparative load, then we would have been looking at 4x the number of feet on the ground, and it seems unlikely that the true instigators of inter-continental terrorism would have been able to hide from that.

This whole issue is riddled with circular arguments, and unrealistic attitudes on the part of many of the players, and will continue to do so because of the terrible handling of the situation by the US government. But it still bears mentioning that if in the future such military engagements were more focused, thought out, and called for - that they would be awfully quick procedures, if the rest of the world cooperated in making such actions involve such overwhelming force.

Heck, if the evil-doers of the world saw how ferocious and thorough the good people of the world could be in eradicating such civil abuses, they might just start to straighten up themselves, knowing there is no way they can get away with doing wrong for very long - or escape from the rule of law once it comes their turn to be removed from power.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The USA has an economy worth about $14 trillion. The world economy is about $65 trillion. 14/65 = 21.5%. Consequently, at 22% it can be argued the US is simply contributing it's fair share of wealth to the UN.