US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
Jim the Moron
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:45 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:28 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:15 pm
RIP George H.W. Bush

Ref Kuwait - rather than putting US ground forces in there, there should have been a relentless bombing of Saddam's palaces and the various hangouts of his barbaric sons. They might still be "retired" elsewhere, to Iraq's benefit.
Operation Desert Storm to rescue Kuwait (annexed by Iraqi forces) was sanctioned by a United Nations resolution whose brief was only to remove Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait; not to invade Iraq.

There was NO UN resolution in support of the (unprovoked) US led 2003 invasion of iraq which was widely condemned internationally as violation of a sovereign state's sovereignty. The invasion placed the United States (and its supportive allies) morally in exactly the same reprehensible position as Saddam Hussein placed Iraq in when he ordered his forces into Kuwait in 1990.
Forgive me if I reject the implication that actions that are immoral on their own stop being so simply because of a resolution from the UN, of all things.
neverfail wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:28 pm
The difference between President George Bush one and two was that the first respected and complied with international law whilst his son turned the USA into a rogue state. I consider it an injustice that the US voting public chose to turn the first George Bush into a one-term president (by electing Bill Clinton in 1992) whilst rewarding his son of far lesser virtue than his old man with a second term in office.
The difference is that when the Bush family and their cadre got a second chance, they made sure their war of choice was better timed to ensure peak patriotism aligned with the election.
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1918
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:15 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.
Well, I certainly agree with the last part. But as for the rest, Saddam was a bulwark against the Ayatollahs. So what incentive did U.S. policymakers have to remove him at all?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:52 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:15 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.
Well, I certainly agree with the last part. But as for the rest, Saddam was a bulwark against the Ayatollahs. So what incentive did U.S. policymakers have to remove him at all?
Yes, if I had adhered to Milo Doctrine guidelines, I would have allowed Saddam and the Ayatollahs to duke it out as is their tradition. But after the nasty things Iraqi troops did to the Kuwaitis, I wanted vengeance. Similarly I dream of having nukes on Diego Garcia and maybe on a sub somewhere with "Mecca" stenciled on them, at the ready should a generalized Islamic attack on US interests threaten.

neverfail
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by neverfail » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:05 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:45 pm
The difference is that when the Bush family and their cadre got a second chance, they made sure their war of choice was better timed to ensure peak patriotism aligned with the election.
Patriotism? The man who dies defending his country is a patriot. The one who cheers rah, rah, rah from his armchair when news comes through that his country has invaded a foreign country that has no hope of defending itself is merely a vacuous, heartless fool.

Bush senior did then right thing (period) whereas his son and the bad company he kept did only the right thing by themselves.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:54 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:52 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:15 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.
Well, I certainly agree with the last part. But as for the rest, Saddam was a bulwark against the Ayatollahs. So what incentive did U.S. policymakers have to remove him at all?
Yes, if I had adhered to Milo Doctrine guidelines, I would have allowed Saddam and the Ayatollahs to duke it out as is their tradition. But after the nasty things Iraqi troops did to the Kuwaitis, I wanted vengeance. Similarly I dream of having nukes on Diego Garcia and maybe on a sub somewhere with "Mecca" stenciled on them, at the ready should a generalized Islamic attack on US interests threaten.
Some people believe that Iraq's claims on Kuwait may have been justified.
The Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 (29 July 1913) was an agreement between the Sublime Porte of the Ottoman Empire and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which defined the limits of Ottoman jurisdiction in the area of the Persian Gulf with respect to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Shatt al-‘Arab. Signed, but never ratified, the long-lasting impact of the agreement was that of the status of Kuwait; the basis for both formal independence and the frontiers of modern Kuwait were established.
Until then what is now Kuwait belonged to the Ottoman Empire and had a long standing political and economic relationship with Basra, in the Basra Vilayet, the boundaries of which were:

Image

Based on which Sadam Houssein may have had some grounds for Iraq's claim on Kuwait. Which was mostly a British invention to justify its oil exploitation in the region. But who cares about history? The US and the UK wanted to keep control of Kuwait and its oil, and that was it...

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:28 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:54 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:52 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:15 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.
Well, I certainly agree with the last part. But as for the rest, Saddam was a bulwark against the Ayatollahs. So what incentive did U.S. policymakers have to remove him at all?
Yes, if I had adhered to Milo Doctrine guidelines, I would have allowed Saddam and the Ayatollahs to duke it out as is their tradition. But after the nasty things Iraqi troops did to the Kuwaitis, I wanted vengeance. Similarly I dream of having nukes on Diego Garcia and maybe on a sub somewhere with "Mecca" stenciled on them, at the ready should a generalized Islamic attack on US interests threaten.
Some people believe that Iraq's claims on Kuwait may have been justified.
The Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 (29 July 1913) was an agreement between the Sublime Porte of the Ottoman Empire and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which defined the limits of Ottoman jurisdiction in the area of the Persian Gulf with respect to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Shatt al-‘Arab. Signed, but never ratified, the long-lasting impact of the agreement was that of the status of Kuwait; the basis for both formal independence and the frontiers of modern Kuwait were established.
Until then what is now Kuwait belonged to the Ottoman Empire and had a long standing political and economic relationship with Basra, in the Basra Vilayet, the boundaries of which were:

Image

Based on which Sadam Houssein may have had some grounds for Iraq's claim on Kuwait. Which was mostly a British invention to justify its oil exploitation in the region. But who cares about history? The US and the UK wanted to keep control of Kuwait and its oil, and that was it...
Yes, I recall the controversy regarding Saddam's claims on Kuwait. And it's true that, had not Kuwait possessed large oil fields, there wouldn't have been a US invasion. Kuwaitis would have received the same "western" support as did the Tutsi in Rwanda - none.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1918
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:53 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:52 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:15 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.
Well, I certainly agree with the last part. But as for the rest, Saddam was a bulwark against the Ayatollahs. So what incentive did U.S. policymakers have to remove him at all?
Yes, if I had adhered to Milo Doctrine guidelines, I would have allowed Saddam and the Ayatollahs to duke it out as is their tradition. But after the nasty things Iraqi troops did to the Kuwaitis, I wanted vengeance. Similarly I dream of having nukes on Diego Garcia and maybe on a sub somewhere with "Mecca" stenciled on them, at the ready should a generalized Islamic attack on US interests threaten.
Vengeance? For what? Are you Kuwaiti? Did their actions affect you in the slightest? I could maybe see it if Kuwait were some bastion of freedom or something, but it's just another oil-rich emirate. And don't forget, U.S. policymakers told Saddam in advance that they didn't care what he did in Kuwait, it was only after his forces took it that they changed their tune.

As for your dream of nuking Mecca, which is all too common among Americans, you do realise how much that undermines the argument that "they hate us for our freedoms"?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:42 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:53 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:52 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:15 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:33 pm
'UN resolution" a laughable concept. I don't believe there would have been an Iraq war had the US acted unilaterally as I suggested. Had Saddam and/or his progeny survived intense bombardment, they would now be comfortably ensconced somewhere on the Riviera. The US should never have had ground forces anywhere in the Islamic Middle East.
Well, I certainly agree with the last part. But as for the rest, Saddam was a bulwark against the Ayatollahs. So what incentive did U.S. policymakers have to remove him at all?
Yes, if I had adhered to Milo Doctrine guidelines, I would have allowed Saddam and the Ayatollahs to duke it out as is their tradition. But after the nasty things Iraqi troops did to the Kuwaitis, I wanted vengeance. Similarly I dream of having nukes on Diego Garcia and maybe on a sub somewhere with "Mecca" stenciled on them, at the ready should a generalized Islamic attack on US interests threaten.
Vengeance? For what? Are you Kuwaiti? Did their actions affect you in the slightest? I could maybe see it if Kuwait were some bastion of freedom or something, but it's just another oil-rich emirate. And don't forget, U.S. policymakers told Saddam in advance that they didn't care what he did in Kuwait, it was only after his forces took it that they changed their tune.

As for your dream of nuking Mecca, which is all too common among Americans, you do realise how much that undermines the argument that "they hate us for our freedoms"?
I see nothing wrong with Americans (or anyone else) expressing concern over innocents being mistreated by Muslim savages (or by anyone else). In some instances there are means of mitigation short of military action by ground forces. An example would be the previously-mentioned bombardment of the Iraqi leadership. Another would have been establishment of protected refugee camps in Rwanda. Some, though, seemingly cannot be resolved; e.g.the plight of Native Americans in the Amazon.

Mecca? Mecca goes should the (unlikely) prospect of defeat at the hands of militant Islam looms.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Jim the Moron » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:34 am

We are just hearing about the total withdrawal of US ground forces from Syria. This is against much opposition from the entire spectrum of political interests.

Screw 'em. Iraq and Afghanistan should be next.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:40 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:34 am
We are just hearing about the total withdrawal of US ground forces from Syria. This is against much opposition from the entire spectrum of political interests.

Screw 'em. Iraq and Afghanistan should be next.
...and don't forget Europe...

Post Reply