The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You don't think oil plays a significant role in our presence and support of the frenemy regimes in the ME?

I do agree that oil is not the reason for this strike, but our dependency on oil has set the stage for our ME policy for decades.

We don't get much oil from the Middle East anymore. And the main country we do get it is Saudi Arabia who gets a free pass on everything.

This has more to do with funneling money to defense contractors and playing to chickenhawks.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There was a coup in Bolivia and there seems to be a lot of smoke that indicates that the US was involved heavily in it.

So we control all the lithiums in Bolivia now right?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So we control all the lithiums in Bolivia now right?

The coup was interesting timing as it happened right as Bolivia's President was about to sell just about all the lithium mining rights to Chinese state owned companies.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We don't get much oil from the Middle East anymore. And the main country we do get it is Saudi Arabia who gets a free pass on everything.

This has more to do with funneling money to defense contractors and playing to chickenhawks.

19% is still pretty significant. Yes, I do agree that Saudi Arabia gets a free pass on many things. Protecting SA and ensuring their oil flows freely to rest of world is a reason why we are there.

United States energy independence - Wikipedia

As of March 2015, 85% of crude oil imports came from (in decreasing volume): Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia.[6] Nineteen percent of imported oil comes from the Middle East.[7] The fraction of crude oil consumed in the US that was imported went from 35% immediately before the 1973 oil crisis, peaked at 60% in 2005, and then returned to 35% by 2013[8] thanks to increased domestic production[9] from the shale oil boom.[10] Beginning in the 1970s, exports of crude oil were illegal without a permit; in 2013, the United States physically exported a relatively small amount of oil, and only to Canada.[11] The ban was repealed in 2015.[12]

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The coup was interesting timing as it happened right as Bolivia's President was about to sell just about all the lithium mining rights to Chinese state owned companies.

If we did engineer a coup, we should have done it in Venezuela first.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

19% is still pretty significant. Yes, I do agree that Saudi Arabia gets a free pass on many things. Protecting SA and ensuring their oil flows freely to rest of world is a reason why we are there.

United States energy independence - Wikipedia

6% of our oil comes from Iraq. 0% from Iran.

Saudi Arabia can defend itself. No one is invading them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If we did engineer a coup, we should have done it in Venezuela first.

We did. First during the Bush2 years and again during Trump.

[cuervo72]

Well, I hope Pompeo's and Kushner's security is good should they decide to head to the region again. Because Iran might more seriously consider assassination on the table now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We did. First during the Bush2 years and again during Trump.

Is a coup a coup if it wasn't a successful coup?

Let me reword ... If we did engineer a successful coup, we should have engineered a successful one in Venezuela first.

[JediKooter]

This seems rather tame in light of recent events...but for fucks sakes man. The dude is walking piece of shit garbage.

Fox News reporter says Trump invited her to his office 'so we can kiss'

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

6% of our oil comes from Iraq. 0% from Iran.

Saudi Arabia can defend itself. No one is invading them.

My comment was ME oil.

I'm with you here. Unfortunately we still have strong interests in ME oil (hurry up Elon and like). I look forward to the day when ME regimes can no longer build their adult playgrounds in the sand with US, European and Chinese money.

Should SA be able to defend itself, absolutely. Can they? Not a good bet. Iran takes over Iraq and you better believe they can threaten and invade SA without US forces.

On your alternate theory re: "This has more to do with funneling money to defense contractors and playing to chickenhawks". I would like to read more analysis on this, care to share them?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is a coup a coup if it wasn't a successful coup?

Let me reword ... If we did engineer a successful coup, we should have engineered a successful one in Venezuela first.

Why not engineer a successful coup in China and North Korea, too?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why not engineer a successful coup in China and North Korea, too?

Why do you think that serves the US interests and do you think it has good chance for success and positive outcomes?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My comment was ME oil.

If we are doing this to keep oil prices down, it's one of the dumbest moves we've ever made. It has cost trillions of dollars.

We could have replaced almost every car in this country with a more fuel efficient one and it would have been cheaper. We could have put a fraction of that Middle East money into alternative options and seen massive strides. Or just drilled more here (which we are doing and why our dependence on ME oil has dropped so dramatically).

There are much better uses for $6 trillion and counting. Heck, you could cut a check to every taxpayer for $43,000. I'd take that over saving 20 cents a gallon at the pump.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Should SA be able to defend itself, absolutely. Can they? Not a good bet. Iran takes over Iraq and you better believe they can threaten and invade SA without US forces.

Not our fucking problem.

Originally Posted by Edward64

On your alternate theory re: "This has more to do with funneling money to defense contractors and playing to chickenhawks". I would like to read more analysis on this, care to share them?

https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/busin...ors/index.html

Guess which industry donates a lot of money to politicians?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If we are doing this to keep oil prices down, it's one of the dumbest moves we've ever made. It has cost trillions of dollars.

I think its to keep oil accessible and market stable (as much as possible). Lower oil prices would also be nice though.

We could have replaced almost every car in this country with a more fuel efficient one and it would have been cheaper. We could have put a fraction of that Middle East money into alternative options and seen massive strides. Or just drilled more here (which we are doing and why our dependence on ME oil has dropped so dramatically).

I would go for that. Unfortunately hindsight is 20-20

Not our fucking problem.

Unfortunately, in the real world of geopolitics, it is our problem ... for now.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/busin...ors/index.html

Guess which industry donates a lot of money to politicians?

Uh, there's not much in the link that supports your statement to my comment

You don't think oil plays a significant role in our presence and support of the frenemy regimes in the ME?

I do agree that oil is not the reason for this strike, but our dependency on oil has set the stage for our ME policy for decades.

"This has more to do with funneling money to defense contractors and playing to chickenhawks"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think its to keep oil accessible and market stable (as much as possible). Lower oil prices would also be nice though.

Again, we don't get oil from Iran. We barely get any from Iraq. If this is about oil, put up a nice defense in Saudi Arabia like we do. No need to meddle in other shit that doesn't concern us.

Our military is there to defend us. Not to make sure Exxon share prices go up.

Oil is more than accessible today than it has been in decades. There is no shortage of oil as supply has only increased within our borders. As I mentioned, we buy less and less oil from the Middle East each year now.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Unfortunately, in the real world of geopolitics, it is our problem ... for now.

It really isn't though. We don't have to be in Iraq. We don't have to deal with Iran. These are choices we make.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Uh, there's not much in the link that supports your statement to my comment

The article shows it is incredibly profitable to be in endless wars if you are a defense contractor.

[cartman]

Thread by @Mikel_Jollett: For those of you who didn’t live through the invasion of Iraq, here is what is about to happen: 1. There will be a MASSIVE propaganda push (…

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Again, we don't get oil from Iran. We barely get any from Iraq. If this is about oil, put up a nice defense in Saudi Arabia like we do. No need to meddle in other shit that doesn't concern us.

The world gets approx 38-40%+ of oil from ME (SA, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE). I can see why you are thinking this discussion is focused on the US, but its really world wide access.

World's Top 10 Oil Exporters

Our military is there to defend us. Not to make sure Exxon share prices go up.

Our military is there to defend US interests. I am all for this. We should get out. Unfortunately, I do not believe we are ready to break all those ties with our frenemies right now.

Oil is more than accessible today than it has been in decades. There is no shortage of oil as supply has only increased within our borders. As I mentioned, we buy less and less oil from the Middle East each year now.

I don't disagree. And yet 38-40+% of oil comes from there. If you don't see how that is a major factor in our interests right now in the ME, I don't know what to say.

I do agree it shouldn't be and it is becoming less and less. We are not there yet and we need to give Elon and like more time.

It really isn't though. We don't have to be in Iraq. We don't have to deal with Iran. These are choices we make.

I think where we differ is you think we can get out now of the ME. I think we should get out after we have hit critical mass to some alternative energy solution(s) that the US and world can use. I'm hoping in next 20 years.

The article shows it is incredibly profitable to be in endless wars if you are a defense contractor.

And you say that is #1 reason why the US is involved in the ME whereas I say its oil. Let's agree to disagree.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The world gets approx 38-40%+ of oil from ME (SA, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE). I can see why you are thinking this discussion is focused on the US, but its really world wide access.

World's Top 10 Oil Exporters

They can fight for their oil if they want. Not sure why you want us fighting for cheap oil for China.

The oil isn't being sold directly to the United States either. It is being sold and distributed by multinational companies. Their shareholders are all over the world. Maybe Exxon should fund their own expeditions for cheap oil.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Our military is there to defend US interests. I am all for this. We should get out. Unfortunately, I do not believe we are ready to break all those ties with our frenemies right now.

You aren't "all for this". Otherwise you would have enlisted and fought for that oil.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't disagree. And yet 38-40+% of oil comes from there. If you don't see how that is a major factor in our interests right now in the ME, I don't know what to say.

I do agree it shouldn't be and it is becoming less and less. We are not there yet and we need to give Elon and like more time.

We aren't getting much of our oil from there. And if we need access to more, $6 trillion does a shitton of drilling in this country. Like I said, if this is about oil for this country, it's by far the biggest financial waste imaginable. You could buy an electric car for every household in this country for that price.

Elon Musk is a moron and you shouldn't be counting on him for anything.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They can fight for their oil if they want. Not sure why you want us fighting for cheap oil for China.

The oil isn't being sold directly to the United States either. It is being sold and distributed by multinational companies. Their shareholders are all over the world. Maybe Exxon should fund their own expeditions for cheap oil.

US imports 19% of oil from ME. The top 4 countries in the ME exports 38-40%+ of oil to the world. I don't know how else to show how important ME oil is right now.

To confirm, you are saying the below, right?

And you say that is #1 reason (defense contractors making a bunch of money) why the US is involved in the ME whereas I say its oil. Let's agree to disagree.

You aren't "all for this". Otherwise you would have enlisted and fought for that oil.

This is really an insightful point and I'm going call this officially jumping the shark on this discussion.

[RainMaker]

I believe you should only support a war that you are personally willing to fight in. It's cowardly to ask someone else or their children to die for a cause you aren't willing to. Is saving 20 cents a gallon only worth the lives of other Americans to you?

And 19% is small considering the cost. We have spent $6 trillion in the ME the past 18 years. Even if you believe this is all about oil, there are far more efficient ways of spending $6 trillion. Do you know how much oil we could drill here with that kind of money? Not to mention that part where thousands die and more are wounded. Plus the toll of being separated from loved ones.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I believe you should only support a war that you are personally willing to fight in. It's cowardly to ask someone else or their children to die for a cause you aren't willing to. Is saving 20 cents a gallon only worth the lives of other Americans to you?

And 19% is small considering the cost. We have spent $6 trillion in the ME the past 18 years. Even if you believe this is all about oil, there are far more efficient ways of spending $6 trillion. Do you know how much oil we could drill here with that kind of money? Not to mention that part where thousands die and more are wounded. Plus the toll of being separated from loved ones.

Is there any "war" or low intensity conflict where our troops are in danger that you do support?

I'm guessing from your above statement, there is no current war or low intensity conflict that you would support ... but just wanting to be sure.


Also, trying to confirm, you are saying ...

And you say that is #1 reason (defense contractors making a bunch of money) why the US is involved in the ME whereas I say its oil.

[RainMaker]

I would support a war that I believed was a direct threat to this country's and my own safety.

Our oil production has doubled since 2000. This isn't the 70's when we got most of our oil from the Middle East. Importing from the Middle East has continued to plummet since we started fracking. Heck, we are now on the tipping point of becoming a net exporter of oil as a country (and will likely be by next year). There is no reason to continue spending trillions and American lives over an ever decreasing dependence on the oil in that region.

And yes, I believe our ME policy is much more centered around defense contractors and weapon sales than it is around oil. World has changed.

There is a reason Lockheed donated millions to Trump and then got a fat contract to sell to the Saudis. Why Erik Prince was such a pivotal figure in the transition (and willing to perjure himself). There is a lot of money to be made in that region with war.

[RainMaker]

I should also add that I think another part of it is we have some extroadinarily dumb people running foreign policy in this country. And this isn't about Trump. It's been a trend for decades. And somehow this country continues to buy into it.

I mean for fucks sake, the cable news channels were bringing on guys who claimed we'd be treated as liberators in Iraq and calling them "experts".

So while greed is a driving force, don't underestimate dumb people with small dicks.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I would support a war that I believed was a direct threat to this country's and my own safety.

So what war or low intensity conflict do you support? Can you name one or two?

Again, I'm guessing you don't support any recent war or conflict because based on what you asked of me, you would be fighting in them (or have you?).

I believe you should only support a war that you are personally willing to fight in. It's cowardly to ask someone else or their children to die for a cause you aren't willing to. Is saving 20 cents a gallon only worth the lives of other Americans to you?

Our oil production has doubled since 2000. This isn't the 70's when we got most of our oil from the Middle East. Importing from the Middle East has continued to plummet since we started fracking. Heck, we are now on the tipping point of becoming a net exporter of oil as a country (and will likely be by next year). There is no reason to continue spending trillions and American lives over an ever decreasing dependence on the oil in that region.

And yes, I believe our ME policy is much more centered around defense contractors and weapon sales than it is around oil. World has changed.

There is a reason Lockheed donated millions to Trump and then got a fat contract to sell to the Saudis. Why Erik Prince was such a pivotal figure in the transition (and willing to perjure himself). There is a lot of money to be made in that region with war.

Below are 3 links, there are many more that puts oil front and center and no discussion on defense contractors and weapons sales. To be fair, the last article does say the importance of oil as the reason is on its "last legs" (and I sure hope that is true).

No discussion on defense contractors or weapons sales as the/primary catalyst.

The new geopolitics of the Middle East: America’s role in a changing region

The United States retains a significant troop presence in the region, but the American public has limited support for military engagement in Middle Eastern conflicts. The perception that the United States is no longer dependent on the region’s oil supplies is not borne out by the realities of the global oil market, but does shape contemporary American decisionmaking. The United States has stepped back from diplomatic leadership on the Middle East peace process and conflict management across the region. Only on issues related to Iran has the United States had a sustained—but not consistent—focus.

Why America Can't Quit The Middle East | Hoover Institution

The interests that have long kept the United States involved in the Middle East are fairly clear. Coming out of World War II, American strategists resolved that the United States must prevent any hostile force from dominating a region of critical geopolitical or geo-economic significance. The Middle East, with its vast oil reserves, certainly fit that description. True, America never got a particularly large portion of its oil from Middle Eastern sources. But its allies did: “The Marshall Plan for Europe,” noted Truman’s first Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, “could not succeed without access to the Middle East oil.” Moreover, the fact that oil was traded on a global market meant that a disruption of price or supply in one region would cause disruption on a far larger scale.

At present, the United States is again becoming a net energy exporter and a swing producer in the global oil market. Yet so long as the countries of the Middle East sit atop huge energy reserves that confer great wealth and power on whoever controls it, the strategic importance of the Middle East—and the imperative of keeping it out of hostile hands—will remain.

Other issues have also kept the United States engaged. Since the 1970s, America has had a critical interest in preventing or combating international terrorism, much of which emerges from the Middle East. American policymakers have been properly concerned with confronting aggression against friendly nations and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states or non-state actors. Then there is the American interest in promoting peace, democracy, and human rights in the Middle East—one that has never been as important as the other U.S. interests, that has affected how even the most cynical, “realist” administrations have approached the region.

Questioning the Reasons For U.S. Involvement in the Middle East

The United States first ventured into the Middle East early in the Cold War and has remained heavily involved, particularly since the 1970s. Over the decades, America’s policies and partnerships in the region have evolved, but the basic reasons for U.S. involvement in the Middle East remained consistent: preventing a hostile power from using the region’s petroleum reserves as a weapon. To achieve that objective, the U.S. used direct applications of military power when necessary but relied heavily on local allies, from Egypt to the Gulf states, bolstering them with security assistance and weapons sales.

Now the core assumptions for U.S. involvement in the Middle East are collapsing. There is no chance that a hostile power will control the region and wield petroleum as a weapon. Yet the U.S. still clings to its longstanding, military-centric Middle East strategy even while its underlying assumptions become invalid and its central rationale fades. Today, America’s Middle East strategy is on its last legs, less a reflection of a central purpose than a search for one.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I should also add that I think another part of it is we have some extroadinarily dumb people running foreign policy in this country. And this isn't about Trump. It's been a trend for decades. And somehow this country continues to buy into it.

I mean for fucks sake, the cable news channels were bringing on guys who claimed we'd be treated as liberators in Iraq and calling them "experts".

So while greed is a driving force, don't underestimate dumb people with small dicks.

I think Albright, Rice and Clinton will take issue with your sexist remark!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So what war or low intensity conflict do you support? Can you name one or two?

World War 2

Originally Posted by Edward64

Below are 3 links, there are many more that puts oil front and center and no discussion on defense contractors and weapons sales. To be fair, the last article does say the importance of oil as the reason is on its "last legs" (and I sure hope that is true).

No discussion on defense contractors or weapons sales as the/primary catalyst.

The new geopolitics of the Middle East: America’s role in a changing region

Why America Can't Quit The Middle East | Hoover Institution

Questioning the Reasons For U.S. Involvement in the Middle East

I know a lot of people still believe in this. Like I said, I don't take stock in them since they have been wrong about practically everything.

Take the Hoover Institution article you posted. An institute I should add that banged on the Iraq War drum loudly with opinions that turned out to be comically wrong.

It's written by Hal Brands who is described as a "Hal Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger distinguished professor of global affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies". Now we don't really need to go into Kissinger's track record, right?

Anyways, here is an opinion piece he wrote about how we need to keep spending more money. His opinion piece write there agrees with my notion that this is about making money.

Brookings was another institute that cheerleaded the Iraq War. Their biggest foreign donor is the nation of Qatar. A country that has some big incentive for us to be involved in the Middle East.

I don't know anything about the other source. I guess I just don't agree with the people who have been wrong about foreign policy for decades when they try to tell me what's really happening in the Middle East. Maybe the people who thought we'd be hailed as liberators don't know jack shit?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

World War 2

Thanks. I was actually expecting possibly Afghanistan (initial at least) and would not have been surprised if you also supported the humanitarian conflicts Bosnia/Kosovo, Somalia (initial purpose). Just by the fact you did not support the Afghanistan war shows we have significantly different foundation we are working from (no surprise I guess) and explains much of our sometimes contentious views.

I know a lot of people still believe in this. Like I said, I don't take stock in them since they have been wrong about practically everything.

Take the Hoover Institution article you posted. An institute I should add that banged on the Iraq War drum loudly with opinions that turned out to be comically wrong.

It's written by Hal Brands who is described as a "Hal Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger distinguished professor of global affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies". Now we don't really need to go into Kissinger's track record, right?

Anyways, here is an opinion piece he wrote about how we need to keep spending more money. His opinion piece write there agrees with my notion that this is about making money.

Brookings was another institute that cheerleaded the Iraq War. Their biggest foreign donor is the nation of Qatar. A country that has some big incentive for us to be involved in the Middle East.

I don't know anything about the other source. I guess I just don't agree with the people who have been wrong about foreign policy for decades when they try to tell me what's really happening in the Middle East. Maybe the people who thought we'd be hailed as liberators don't know jack shit?

I'm sure we can all find faults with authors/links that we present.

I read your link. There is nothing there I found that said defense contractors or weapon sales are the main reason we are in the ME. I guess you can extrapolate it but IMO its a stretch.

[RainMaker]

We've been in Afghanistan for 18 years and spent trillions of dollars. Terrorism still thrives and the Taliban still has a lot of power.

The government was shown to have repeatedly lied about the conditions and progress made in the war. Just as they did in Iraq. Just as they did in Vietnam. I'd find it hard to fight for leaders who have shown such little contempt for our military over the past half century.

As for the opinion piece, he is literally arguing to spend a bunch of money on the military because it is good for the economy. Not sure how that isn't an endorsement of a full time war economy.

[RainMaker]

Maybe he will fall in line later on but this was interesting from Tucker Carlson. Agree with everything he says.

Tucker Carlson attacks Ben Sasse and Pompeo over air strikes pic.twitter.com/KLjsefRggC

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) January 4, 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We've been in Afghanistan for 18 years and spent trillions of dollars. Terrorism still thrives and the Taliban still has a lot of power.

The government was shown to have repeatedly lied about the conditions and progress made in the war. Just as they did in Iraq. Just as they did in Vietnam. I'd find it hard to fight for leaders who have shown such little contempt for our military over the past half century.

Hindsight is 20-20.

On Oct 7, 2001, without the benefit of hindsight, I think your position is that you still would not have supported the US going into Afghanistan?

Similar to Somalia. All good intentions, no strategic purpose for the US (that I could discern) other than goodwill. I supported it.

Kosovo and Bosnia. All good intentions. The EU wasn't going to do much without US leadership. That story turned out well didn't it?

On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is a warmonger and 1 is a total pacifist, I classify myself as a 7 whereas I think you are in the 0 camp. By your criteria and answer, the US would not have any much military presence outside of the US embassies, wouldn't have any presence in South Korea, Japan, Western Europe, presence in other conflicts fighting AQ affiliates etc.

As for the opinion piece, he is literally arguing to spend a bunch of money on the military because it is good for the economy. Not sure how that isn't an endorsement of a full time war economy.

Huh? This particular tangent was what is the primary reason we are still in the ME. I said primarily oil, you said primarily defense contractors and weapons sales. The article was regarding money for military spending but was not specific to ME or oil.

Out of the Kevin Bacon seven degrees of separation, maybe on the 3rd or 4th IMO.

[RainMaker]

I'm fine with some bases overseas for strategic defense.

As for "supporting it", you mean you support other people giving up their lives. You don't support putting your life on the line for those causes. Like I said earlier, I believe if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of other Americans, you should be willing to do the same for that cause. Why is your life more valuable than them?

Our military spending is predominately in the Middle East. We aren't starting a war with Canada. It's the part of the world you can throw as much money as you want and no one bat's an eye.

Maybe this whole thing has nothing to do with defense contractors or weapons manufacturers.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm fine with some bases overseas for strategic defense.

As for "supporting it", you mean you support other people giving up their lives. You don't support putting your life on the line for those causes. Like I said earlier, I believe if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of other Americans, you should be willing to do the same for that cause. Why is your life more valuable than them?

My life is not. If there was a draft and I was of military age, I would go. We have a volunteer force and my time has passed.

These military conflicts (or potential for conflicts) do put lives on the line, but they also support the US interest and protect US lives. I do not see incongruence in being able to say I support the US policy while not having served (and not currently able to due to age limits).

Is the logical conclusion to your rigid criteria then -- majority of Congress should not be able to make any decisions that could bring US troops into harms way (e.g. because majority have not served or are not obviously serving in the military)?

Maybe this whole thing has nothing to do with defense contractors or weapons manufacturers.

Until you provide some analysis that shows defense contractors and weapon sales are the main reason why we are in the ME, let's just agree to disagree.

[JPhillips]

What's the political goal?

War is just politics by force, so what's our objective?

Not bothering to have an answer for that has been our problem in most conflicts since WW2. Notably, we did have an answer for that in the first Gulf War, and that didn't end with hard to gauge outcomes.

[JPhillips]

dola

As for coups, maybe we should stay the fuck out of other governments. We can trace a direct line from the current Iran crisis to the CIA/MI6 overthrow in the fifties. Hard to imagine we'd be in a worse position if Mossadeg had stayed in power.

Or we can just keep rebooting after rage quitting until we finally get a coup to work.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

As for coups, maybe we should stay the fuck out of other governments. We can trace a direct line from the current Iran crisis to the CIA/MI6 overthrow in the fifties. Hard to imagine we'd be in a worse position if Mossadeg had stayed in power.

Or we can just keep rebooting after rage quitting until we finally get a coup to work.

You can draw a direct line toward illegal immigration too. United States fucks with a sovereign country and makes it worse. People leave for a better life.

Same people who don't have a problem with our foreign policy also don't like illegal immigration. Wonder why those Nicaraguans are fleeing?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My life is not. If there was a draft and I was of military age, I would go. We have a volunteer force and my time has passed.

These military conflicts (or potential for conflicts) do put lives on the line, but they also support the US interest and protect US lives. I do not see incongruence in being able to say I support the US policy while not having served (and not currently able to due to age limits).

Is the logical conclusion to your rigid criteria then -- majority of Congress should not be able to make any decisions that could bring US troops into harms way (e.g. because majority have not served or are not obviously serving in the military)?

It obviously is. These conflicts have been going on for a long time. Well within the time you could enlist. The cause was just not worth dying over (I don't blame you). But it is worth someone else dying over apparently.

As for Congress, you don't have to serve. I just expect that if you're willing to send someone else's kid off to die in a war, you should be willing to do the same to your own. Too many chickenhawks out there willing to use other kids as cannon fodder. Eric Trump isn't enlisting tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Until you provide some analysis that shows defense contractors and weapon sales are the main reason why we are in the ME, let's just agree to disagree.

So if it's not about money, why are we there? What have we accomplished in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or 16 years in Iraq? Can you even tell me what the goal is at this point? I assure you, neither of us have any "interests" in Iraq.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It obviously is. These conflicts have been going on for a long time. Well within the time you could enlist. The cause was just not worth dying over (I don't blame you). But it is worth someone else dying over apparently.

I think you are comparing apples with oranges. My life is not worth more than someone that joins the army, its just different and at different stages of life. When I was in college and in the 90's, I was not a PR or citizen. I don't know when the laws changed, but the option to join the military was not an option (I looked into it hoping for an option to get my PR vs H1B process). I did become a citizen in the late 90's but was married then and had kids.

Is my life worth more than the kid that has the potential to serve the US, get out, work and start a family. I really don't think so. If I was a neurosurgeon, theoretical physicist etc., then yeah. I'm a computer guy, so no.

As for Congress, you don't have to serve. I just expect that if you're willing to send someone else's kid off to die in a war, you should be willing to do the same to your own. Too many chickenhawks out there willing to use other kids as cannon fodder. Eric Trump isn't enlisting tomorrow.

Why does Congress get a special pass and not me as an individual, why are you holding me to a higher standard (e.g. Yes, if my kids are drafted, I would definitely want them to go).

Like I said earlier, I believe if you are willing to sacrifice the lives of other Americans, you should be willing to do the same for that cause. Why is your life more valuable than them?

Regardless, average age in Congress is 58-62 so most in Congress have kids that are past the prime age. They don't get to support/vote on a policy that may put troops in harms way? I know there are a lot of whatabouts, I'm just pointing out your rigorous criteria is just not realistic in today's world.

So if it's not about money, why are we there? What have we accomplished in 19 years in Afghanistan? Or 16 years in Iraq? Can you even tell me what the goal is at this point? I assure you, neither of us have any "interests" in Iraq.

We are talking about primary reason why we are in the ME and my claim is not that money is not a factor, my claim is that oil is the primary factor (and hence, money does play a role). This is in contrast to your supposition that we are in the ME because of "defense contractors and weapon sales".

I'll leave answering about Iraq for later.

Afghanistan is not in the ME so all I'll say to why & what have we accomplished is ... the why we went in is obvious, the what we have accomplished is we kicked out AQ (but not Taliban) and we have not accomplished much since then. Unless the Afghanistan government is all-in with the US (they aren't and never will be), there is little reason to continue staying in Afghanistan.

Like Vietnam, negotiate a face-saving peace with the Taliban and then watch Afghanistan government fall in < 2 years. I don't believe western democracies work for all countries of the world.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Elon Musk is a moron and you shouldn't be counting on him for anything.

100% accurate.

[Radii]

I'm not sure where I land on the idea of needing to be willing to die yourself to support a war in which people will die. But, can we agree that a war with iran would cost thousands of American lives and very likely 100,000+ innocent lives? Back to Cartman's link regarding the playbook for convincing a nation to go to war, there are a lot of estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq, the one used in that link was 200,000. Other estimates are dramatically higher, the only ones lower end in 2006 or 2009.

So, as some of this debate ends up casually discussing "America's interests" and moving pieces on a chessboard, every action should not just be weighed against "America's Interests" but against a strong possibility of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost. I would argue, as some others have here, for likely zero benefit, based on post WWII conflicts America has inserted itself into.

As Rainmaker pointed out earlier, this kind of escalation very likely increases the likelyhood of terrorist attacks on american soil too. It remains a miracle in my mind that extremely simple acts that would generate far more actual "terror" in our citizens, such as having a few individual attacks - just one guy with a machine gun in each location - coordinated at malls in 5 or 10 different cities on the same day. Imagine the lasting impact of that. I'm just stunned that it hasn't happened yet. Rainmaker mentioned a Hezbollah agent scouting daycare centers in the US. We are probably now in an era where we can't pretend war is only something that happens somewhere else anymore.


I don't see these factors being taken strongly enough in our armchair quarterbacking on US involvement in the middle east or the value of a war with Iran.

[CrimsonFox]

well they've been trying to get Iran to go to war with us for years so now they are just attacking them and make excuses for it. In before next whistleblower dies.

oh and what a surprise...let's avoid impeachment by creating a war

[CrimsonFox]

holy crap does EVERYONE at Fox News have Botox and lip injections?

[Galaril]

Great article on the cost of full scale war with Iran:
What a War With Iran Would Look Like

Also, I served in the Air Force from 1988 to 2000 in the Air Force with the rank of Captain. I was “ lucky” to get the golden ticket and spent my entire military career overseas in combat mostly. My career field was combat weapon officer (bombardier) on B1s and B52’s.

I do generally feel those on the far right are hawkish for war yet they nor none of the family have served. I don not however feel everyone needs to server in the armed forces to have a say . But I believe strongly that if they had they might think differently about war I know I do. I am not entirely anti war but have a great understanding of terribly horrific results of war on everyone involved.

I for my part know that from my bombing hands over 30000 humans and not all combatants likely were killed in the conflicts I was involved in. I have had the opportunity to go out on patrols with ground forces and see the results of bombing missions I was involved in and see the shadows on building walls of humans who were melted into the concrete and all that remains is the ghostly soot image of there shadow. Some of those wall shadows were of children based on the size of them. That is something I think about everyday of my life and gives me a great motivation to do better with my time here left on this planet.

Are there wars such as WW 2 or the Revolutionary War worth fighting for? Yes, absolutely but otherwise those who have seen the results can tell you most are not worth the cost.

Just my .2 cents for what it is worth.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'm not sure where I land on the idea of needing to be willing to die yourself to support a war in which people will die. But, can we agree that a war with iran would cost thousands of American lives and very likely 100,000+ innocent lives? Back to Cartman's link regarding the playbook for convincing a nation to go to war, there are a lot of estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq, the one used in that link was 200,000. Other estimates are dramatically higher, the only ones lower end in 2006 or 2009.

So, as some of this debate ends up casually discussing "America's interests" and moving pieces on a chessboard, every action should not just be weighed against "America's Interests" but against a strong possibility of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost. I would argue, as some others have here, for likely zero benefit, based on post WWII conflicts America has inserted itself into.

As Rainmaker pointed out earlier, this kind of escalation very likely increases the likelyhood of terrorist attacks on american soil too. It remains a miracle in my mind that extremely simple acts that would generate far more actual "terror" in our citizens, such as having a few individual attacks - just one guy with a machine gun in each location - coordinated at malls in 5 or 10 different cities on the same day. Imagine the lasting impact of that. I'm just stunned that it hasn't happened yet. Rainmaker mentioned a Hezbollah agent scouting daycare centers in the US. We are probably now in an era where we can't pretend war is only something that happens somewhere else anymore.


I don't see these factors being taken strongly enough in our armchair quarterbacking on US involvement in the middle east or the value of a war with Iran.

I am going to have to strongly disagree with your last several paragraphs. We start out with something I totally agree with which is the innocent lives often unaccounted for/unreported in a war with Iran. Then for whatever reason the innocent nation becomes savages that would have no problem killing people at a mall or daycare center because they are Iranian? Why would Iranians be any more willing to mass murder American women and children than Americans? I think I live in more fear of being mass murdered by my psychopathic fellow lone gunman Americans than Iranians who probably want this war even less than we do.

And not to get too nitpicky with the daycare center headline but this one guy (who claimed to be Hezbollah, where I would think he would actually distance himself if he was part of some mass conspiracy) was apparently mapping out federal and military targets that had daycare centers in them. Not to give him or idiots like Timothy McVeigh any sympathy but I don't think he was looking to strike ABC daycare in Ames, Iowa he was planning on attacking a federal building (among hundreds of targets) that had a daycare center in it. A pretty marked difference I would think.

[Edward64]

Regarding your questions on Iraq - why we went in, why are we still there, what has been accomplished, and what's our goal, I'll break it down into Initial and Current.

Initial. We went in because of miscalculations on both sides which also included a slice of personal vendetta/animosity on both sides. The goals were to (1) remove the threat of WMD (2) get rid of Saddam and his threat to us & our frenemies and (3) establish a friendly Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iran (proxy for the US/West).

Secondary reasons include (4) ensure flow of oil (5) lift the oppressed Shia & Kurds, and (6) ideally establish a western democracy-like.

So as far as what has been accomplished? 1, 2, 3 (some but Iran is winning), 4, 5 (partial), and let's not even go into 6

Current. Because of where we are and the failures of the past, I believe the US has given up on establishing a friendly, allied Iraqi government. The reason why we are still there is because we are playing just enough to not lose Iraq to Iran (or to another ISIL-like uprising) while we try to regime change Iran through economic & political destabilization, and crossed fingers.

Let's broaden this discussion to ME vs just Iraq.

If Iraq becomes beholden to Iran then Iran is in position to really threaten Saudi Arabia and rest of the Gulf states by land (look at a map on how centrally located Iraq is). Protection of Saudi Arabia and rest of Gulf states is the primary US interest because of oil and US/World's current need for it -- 19% of US oil comes from there; 4 largest countries in ME exports 38-40+% of oil to world.

Obviously there are other reasons why we are there including not giving Iran easy land access to Syria, Lebanon; not giving Iran easy access to threaten friendly Jordan; not giving Iran even closer access to threaten Israel; not giving Iran more prominence/platform to spread their anti-US rhetoric etc.

My contention of the root cause is oil even above and beyond Iran all things held equal (e.g. no Iranian terrorism threat). If the ME was a bunch of "shithole" countries with nothing much but sand, would we even be there (other than supporting Israel)?

Looking at the map of Africa, let's use Somalia (aka Saudi Arabia), Ethiopia (aka Iraq), Sudan (aka Iran), Eritrea (aka Gulf states) as the closest example I can find - anyone really gives a flip other than for humanitarian reasons? No.

Would these representative countries who don't have oil even have money for your supposition of "defense contractors and weapons sales"? No.

I insert "Hurry up Elon and like" in several of my posts because I really mean it. Alternative energy hitting critical mass won't completely free us from the ME but it will greatly reduce the crap we think we have to do there. The real threat IMO is China. We should be focusing on the China chessboard vs the ME chessboard.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'm not sure where I land on the idea of needing to be willing to die yourself to support a war in which people will die. But, can we agree that a war with iran would cost thousands of American lives and very likely 100,000+ innocent lives? Back to Cartman's link regarding the playbook for convincing a nation to go to war, there are a lot of estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq, the one used in that link was 200,000. Other estimates are dramatically higher, the only ones lower end in 2006 or 2009.

I pretty much agree. I do think war with Iran may not be a traditional land, sea, air war. It could be a technological, economic war with low intensity conflicts and/or by proxy (e.g. Yemen) or combination. However, the probability that it would result in many soldiers dying, and many innocents dying and suffering is high enough where your point is taken.

So, as some of this debate ends up casually discussing "America's interests" and moving pieces on a chessboard, every action should not just be weighed against "America's Interests" but against a strong possibility of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost. I would argue, as some others have here, for likely zero benefit, based on post WWII conflicts America has inserted itself into.

There are many conflicts we've been in where I think zero/minimal benefit is true but do not belief it is as completely as you do. There are some (now with 20-20 hindsight) we can say not worth it but at the beginning I would say worth it.

Lebanon, Grenada, Panama (mostly), Libya was much about nothing IMO.

Kosovo, Bosnia absolutely worth it. The western countries weren't going to do much without US leadership and the US saved a lot of lives.

The initial Somalia conflict was worth it (e.g. humanitarian reasons). With 20-20 hindsight on what resulted later, no.

The initial Afghanistan war was worth it (I don't understand how some can say otherwise) but the continued war is not.

The first Iraq war w/Kuwait, I am unsure but lean towards yes.

The second Iraq war, if Iraq had WMD which is what most believed, then yes. But we know how that turned out with 20-20 hindsight so I will say no.

Syrian conflict initially with hope Assad would have been overthrown, yes. With 20-20 hindsight on how poorly we played that chess game, no.

Current low intensity conflicts in Philippines, Yemen (not the SA incursion), and other countries where we are fighting AQ and affiliates, yes.

And the grand daddy (but now aging away) of them of recent conflicts, the Cold War. Absolutely yes.

Question - can those that say Afghanistan was not worth it help me understand if you are referring to the initial war or the current never-ending one or both?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Great article on the cost of full scale war with Iran:
What a War With Iran Would Look Like

Also, I served in the Air Force from 1988 to 2000 in the Air Force with the rank of Captain. I was “ lucky” to get the golden ticket and spent my entire military career overseas in combat mostly. My career field was combat weapon officer (bombardier) on B1s and B52’s.

I do generally feel those on the far right are hawkish for war yet they nor none of the family have served. I don not however feel everyone needs to server in the armed forces to have a say . But I believe strongly that if they had they might think differently about war I know I do. I am not entirely anti war but have a great understanding of terribly horrific results of war on everyone involved.

I for my part know that from my bombing hands over 30000 humans and not all combatants likely were killed in the conflicts I was involved in. I have had the opportunity to go out on patrols with ground forces and see the results of bombing missions I was involved in and see the shadows on building walls of humans who were melted into the concrete and all that remains is the ghostly soot image of there shadow. Some of those wall shadows were of children based on the size of them. That is something I think about everyday of my life and gives me a great motivation to do better with my time here left on this planet.

Are there wars such as WW 2 or the Revolutionary War worth fighting for? Yes, absolutely but otherwise those who have seen the results can tell you most are not worth the cost.

Just my .2 cents for what it is worth.

Thank you so much for this. You have captured my thoughts perfectly and in a more eloquent manner that I am capable of when it comes to the effects of war on those who fight them.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(3) establish a friendly Iraqi government as a counterweight to Iran (proxy for the US/West).

This one has always perplexed me. In a game of geopolitical chess against the center of the Shia Islamic world, we overthrow the minority Sunni regime of its next-door neighbor and give power to its Shia population.

I believe this assassination is probably the final nail in the coffin of a friendly Iraq so long as the Shia majority holds power. Sure, some people in Tikrit are probably happy that he is dead but the ones who have the power aren't.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

This one has always perplexed me. In a game of geopolitical chess against the center of the Shia Islamic world, we overthrow the minority Sunni regime of its next-door neighbor and give power to its Shia population.

I think we were thinking the Iran-Iraq war was so horrendous that there would be no love lost and also because Chalabi (sp?) sold us a bill of goods. We just assumed we toss out Saddam, give power (e.g. vote) to the now "freed" Shia, help them write a new constitution, democracy-lite will be established and all will be relatively happy.

There's an interesting discussion to be had on examples of where democracy-or-like was established successfully after a war/uprising, where it wasn't, and why.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think we were thinking the Iran-Iraq war was so horrendous that there would be no love lost and also because Chalabi (sp?) sold us a bill of goods. We just assumed we toss out Saddam, give power (e.g. vote) to the now "freed" Shia, help them write a new constitution, democracy-lite will be established and all will be relatively happy.

There's an interesting discussion to be had on examples of where democracy-or-like was established successfully after a war/uprising, where it wasn't, and why.

It's naive now and it was naive at the time. It displays a complete lack of awareness of religious divisions being at the forefront rather than divisions of national identity. It's a hard thing for Americans who view themselves as Americans first and Protestant second (or fifth or not at all).

It seems like we've been playing this see-saw in Iraq. First we get the Sunni Saddam out of power and Shias are pretty cool. Until the Mahdi Army and the Sadrists stop handing us flowers in the streets and tell us to GTFO. So then we get the 'Sunni awakening' going. Until that spawns ISIS. Now the Shias are pretty cool again. Until ISIS is defeated. Now Shias bad! And then just package it to the American public by just calling them all terrorists!

It's as if constant conflict in the region is what we are really after. Count me in on the idea that this isn't about oil. If it was, we'd actually be making an effort to stabilize the region. I don't think anybody can argue with a straight face that we (collective Western we) have done anything but destabilize the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.