Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We would never have been in Iraq were it not for the fact that Hussein tried to take Kuwait. Should we have let him have that kingdom and control a good portion of the world’s oil?
After we left, he then gassed his own people, killing tens of thousands, and creating a humanitarian disaster as the Kurds fled their homes. Should we have not went back in and created a no fly zone and returned the Kurds home?
Hussein absolutely had WMD, but before we invaded, he had his military drive it overland to Syria and give it to Assad. Should we have let him keep his WMD?
We would never have been in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn’t given safe haven to Bin Laden when he was banished from the Sudan. Should we have ignored 9/11?
We helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, certainly. Should we not have given them MANPADS and just let the Soviets indiscriminately strafe them from the skies? Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn’t know it at the time that the Taliban would betray us later.
Assuming we do leave Afghanistan, we will be left with a choice. Do we go back in, or do we let the Taliban kill tens of thousands of people? Force girls out of school and back into a life of servitude? I suspect that our media will try to suppress what happens after we leave, but I don’t want to digress from the question you posed.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. No I don’t think war is a racket. I think we have acted altruistically through the conflicts we have chosen to become engaged in.
Somehow, half the country has decided that we are the evil empire, and our adversaries are the just ones. They think we are only in it for money. That is pure insanity.
I guess you can criticize Butler for his out spoken comments but he was a Marine through and through. Achieved the rank of General and had two Medals of Honor. He had a huge Eagle Globe and Anchor tattooed on his chest.
There was a strong pacifist sentiment among some Americans in the 20’s and 30’s that war was a racket especially after WWI which created huge casualties for no real gain but only profited corporate weapons manufacturers.
And in the so called Banana Wars that the Marines fought in the Caribbean primarily to ensure that American fruit companies had access to a highly lucrative market. He certainly spoke his mind and was highly controversial.
We would never have been in Iraq were it not for the fact that Hussein tried to take Kuwait. Should we have let him have that kingdom and control a good portion of the world’s oil?
He was still going to have to sell the oil to pay his own bills, and at world market price.
The real reason the US took action against Iraq at that time was the petro-dollar deal Nixon made with Saudi Arabia in 1974. The US agreed to be Saudi Arabia's body guard as long as Saudi Arabia accepted only US dollars for oil sales to any country. That means if China wants to buy Saudi oil, the Chinese first have to buy US dollars. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the real fear was that they were going to roll on through to Saudi Arabia.
If it had not been for the petro-dollar deal (which is still in force, btw), the US response to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait would have been the same as the US response to the Libyan invasion of Chad. (Namely: "Invasion? What invasion?")
Moreover, the US troops placed in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Iraq was the specific cause of the 9/11 retaliatory attack.
Quote:
After we left, he then gassed his own people, killing tens of thousands, and creating a humanitarian disaster as the Kurds fled their homes. Should we have not went back in and created a no fly zone and returned the Kurds home?
He gassed the Kurds with weapons supplied by US manufacturers...which rather proves the general's point. The US never did actually protect the Kurds. The no-fly zone did nothing to prevent Hussein's army from driving up there in trucks and terrorizing the Kurds.
Quote:
Hussein absolutely had WMD, but before we invaded, he had his military drive it overland to Syria and give it to Assad. Should we have let him keep his WMD?
Iraq had nothing but old chemical munitions from the 80s that they had buried because there was no way at that time to destroy them. The locations of the buried munitions was one of those "unknown knowns." Hell, I personally knew where they were buried. The problem was that the information was locked up in classified Pentagon data bases, and the troops on the ground during the invasion didn't even know the information existed.
Nothing went to Syria. That was a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact and no evidence to support it. Not even the Administration tried to float that balloon.
BTW, generals were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The Army Chief of Staff opposed the invasion so strenuously in public that he got himself fired. The Commandant of the Marine Corps also spoke publicly against it, and retired rather than be there for it. In fact, the entire group of generals of the "class of Vietnam" (generals who were junior officers in Vietnam) retired rather than be there for the invasion of Iraq.
[/quote]We would never have been in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn’t given safe haven to Bin Laden when he was banished from the Sudan. Should we have ignored 9/11?[/quote]
No, but the US should have left Afghanistan when it was ascertained that Bin Laden was no longer there, instead of letting the mission creep into "nation building." And the US certainly should have left Afghanistan tout suit after Bin Laden was killed.
Quote:
We helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, certainly. Should we not have given them MANPADS and just let the Soviets indiscriminately strafe them from the skies? Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn’t know it at the time that the Taliban would betray us later.
The US should also have remembered, "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The Russians played that same game when their turn came.
Quote:
Assuming we do leave Afghanistan, we will be left with a choice. Do we go back in, or do we let the Taliban kill tens of thousands of people? Force girls out of school and back into a life of servitude? I suspect that our media will try to suppress what happens after we leave, but I don’t want to digress from the question you posed.
There is a lot of bad stuff going on in countries around the world. The US is going to have to let most of it happen.
Quote:
I could go on and on, but you get the point. No I don’t think war is a racket. I think we have acted altruistically through the conflicts we have chosen to become engaged in.
War pretty much is a racket, and Eisenhower saw it coming. Prior to WWII, there were few, if any, industries that were purely weapons related. Companies made products mostly for civilian use and ramped up military production lines during war time. After WWII, new companies were created such as General Dynamics that make nothing but weapons...and they have to make money continually and need a military that will find a reason to buy their new weapons continually. That's what Eisenhower saw arise, and what he meant by the "military-industrial complex."
Quote:
Somehow, half the country has decided that we are the evil empire, and our adversaries are the just ones. They think we are only in it for money. That is pure insanity.
The US honestly does act like an evil empire much of the time. When you've got generals pointing it out, it's time to start paying attention.
The majority of US military 'actions' have been to preserve the petrodollar as the world's primary currency of trade and to protect the commercial interests of US based global corporations and resources they deem of interest. So, yes, Butler's insights as a military insider are accurate.
War pretty much is a racket, and Eisenhower saw it coming. Prior to WWII, there were few, if any, industries that were purely weapons related. Companies made products mostly for civilian use and ramped up military production lines during war time. After WWII, new companies were created such as General Dynamics that make nothing but weapons...and they have to make money continually and need a military that will find a reason to buy their new weapons continually. That's what Eisenhower saw arise, and what he meant by the "military-industrial complex."
.
Lol your post is so wrong that I'm laughing more than getting mad about it!
I work for General Dynamics, I don't make weapons, nor do any of my coworkers. The only weapons I am a part of are the ones in my house for defense of myself and property. Nor do we work for any branch of the military. smh
GD makes nothing but weapons bwahahahaha
Thanks ralph, its been a long day until now.
eta: I just saw where YOU personally knew where the wmd were lol wow, you could have stepping in and been a hero pointing out where they were, you missed your chance RK!
We would never have been in Iraq were it not for the fact that Hussein tried to take Kuwait. Should we have let him have that kingdom and control a good portion of the world’s oil?
After we left, he then gassed his own people, killing tens of thousands, and creating a humanitarian disaster as the Kurds fled their homes. Should we have not went back in and created a no fly zone and returned the Kurds home?
Hussein absolutely had WMD, but before we invaded, he had his military drive it overland to Syria and give it to Assad. Should we have let him keep his WMD?
We would never have been in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn’t given safe haven to Bin Laden when he was banished from the Sudan. Should we have ignored 9/11?
We helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, certainly. Should we not have given them MANPADS and just let the Soviets indiscriminately strafe them from the skies? Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn’t know it at the time that the Taliban would betray us later.
Assuming we do leave Afghanistan, we will be left with a choice. Do we go back in, or do we let the Taliban kill tens of thousands of people? Force girls out of school and back into a life of servitude? I suspect that our media will try to suppress what happens after we leave, but I don’t want to digress from the question you posed.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. No I don’t think war is a racket. I think we have acted altruistically through the conflicts we have chosen to become engaged in.
Somehow, half the country has decided that we are the evil empire, and our adversaries are the just ones. They think we are only in it for money. That is pure insanity.
Don't mean to sound rude but
I'm totally astounded and disgree [with respect ] with almost everything you wrote
and contrary to what you might think I'm not a "liberal" , and completely disagree with their agenda and totally support selling weapons to rest of the world
But I do not see Russia as an enemy [ china is] , intervention in Afghanistan in 80s was the biggest foreign policy disaster post ww2. No Vietnam war was worth it we just should have sent asian troops to figtht it
i could go on and on but I'll stop
Quote:
We helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, certainly. Should we not have given them MANPADS and just let the Soviets indiscriminately strafe them from the skies?
yes it was soviets backyard, leave it to them and don't feel so sorry for them afghans tortured their captives in bestial ways much like the "natives" in north america
We would never have been in Iraq were it not for the fact that Hussein tried to take Kuwait. Should we have let him have that kingdom and control a good portion of the world’s oil?
World's oil? You mean Kuwait's oil?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
After we left, he then gassed his own people, killing tens of thousands, and creating a humanitarian disaster as the Kurds fled their homes. Should we have not went back in and created a no fly zone and returned the Kurds home?
The US assisted in targeting Kurds, the Kurds aligned with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. Aso, the gassing did not occur after we left, the gassing occurred years before the Gulf War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
Hussein absolutely had WMD, but before we invaded, he had his military drive it overland to Syria and give it to Assad. Should we have let him keep his WMD?
Iraq had no WMD program, they had nothing more than trace parts of the former program that was dismantled, even George Bush has stated the US was wrong on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
We would never have been in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn’t given safe haven to Bin Laden when he was banished from the Sudan. Should we have ignored 9/11?
Going in after 9/11 is one thing, sitting there for 20 years and dumping a trillion dollars into it is another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
We helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, certainly. Should we not have given them MANPADS and just let the Soviets indiscriminately strafe them from the skies? Hindsight is 20/20, but we didn’t know it at the time that the Taliban would betray us later.
No, we should have stayed 100% out of it. Only a mentally ill person would think a ruthless Islamic regime is better than a Soviet backed communist one. We can see the results of this, as the former USSR republics and former backed regimes are far better off now days than Afghanistan is.
But we knew this beforehand, hence the rally cry of "at least we are getting back at them", yea, great foreign policy that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
Assuming we do leave Afghanistan, we will be left with a choice. Do we go back in, or do we let the Taliban kill tens of thousands of people? Force girls out of school and back into a life of servitude? I suspect that our media will try to suppress what happens after we leave, but I don’t want to digress from the question you posed.
Who cares what they do, if you care so much, by all means, go assist in fighting them. The US for years supported the Taliban via Pakistan, hence why the Northern Alliance, which were made up of the left overs of the former communist government, never cared for the US then and now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
I could go on and on, but you get the point. No I don’t think war is a racket. I think we have acted altruistically through the conflicts we have chosen to become engaged in.
Just have to disagree, it is a racket, one not only the US engages in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91
Somehow, half the country has decided that we are the evil empire, and our adversaries are the just ones. They think we are only in it for money. That is pure insanity.
When a country starts ensuring its troops are involved in every little brush fire in the world, yea, something wrong with that, being a "kind" empire certainly is not it, evil may apply depending on perspective. I am sure those who are victims of US arms certainly do not view the US in a kind way. The US propping up dictatorships, and hell, responsible for the Taliban itself, certainly those actions to not make one kind.
The US assisted in targeting Kurds, the Kurds aligned with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. Aso, the gassing did not occur after we left, the gassing occurred years before the Gulf War.
Iraq had no WMD program, they had nothing more than trace parts of the former program that was dismantled, even George Bush has stated the US was wrong on this.
Going in after 9/11 is one thing, sitting there for 20 years and dumping a trillion dollars into it is another.
No, we should have stayed 100% out of it. Only a mentally ill person would think a ruthless Islamic regime is better than a Soviet backed communist one. We can see the results of this, as the former USSR republics and former backed regimes are far better off now days than Afghanistan is.
But we knew this beforehand, hence the rally cry of "at least we are getting back at them", yea, great foreign policy that is.
Who cares what they do, if you care so much, by all means, go assist in fighting them. The US for years supported the Taliban via Pakistan, hence why the Northern Alliance, which were made up of the left overs of the former communist government, never cared for the US then and now.
Just have to disagree, it is a racket, one not only the US engages in.
When a country starts ensuring its troops are involved in every little brush fire in the world, yea, something wrong with that, being a "kind" empire certainly is not it, evil may apply depending on perspective. I am sure those who are victims of US arms certainly do not view the US in a kind way. The US propping up dictatorships, and hell, responsible for the Taliban itself, certainly those actions to not make one kind.
If Hussein was able to control Kuwait’s oil, along with his own, he would’ve been able to create much more chaos in the world’s oil production and distribution. Not to mention he would’ve been emboldened to move on other GCC countries. He needed to be stopped. It was in our best interests to do so.
Iraq absolutely had a WMD program, and they absolutely gassed the Kurds to suppress the 1991 rebellion. The UN put out some BS report saying they couldn’t find any evidence, but I’ve talked to a lot of people in the know about that whole thing. Not to mention that some nerve agents are impossible to detect after the effect. All you can say is that there was no evidence, but it could’ve happened. Again, I trust firsthand accounts that it did happen.
I don’t care about George Bush saying now that they didn’t and he was wrong. That’s a political statement, and I’m not going to get into it other than he knows better than to say that. If he even said it.
As far as the Kurds and who they are aligned with, it’s very convoluted, and they aren’t a monolithic entity. Most Kurds are Sunnis, so some align closer to that side of the fight. Kurds also align with Iran too. It’s not always clear which faction is on our side and which one isn’t. Not only that, but it constantly changes, too.
I agree with you, we never should have engaged in nation building in Afghanistan. That’s a fools errand. Who to blame on that? Bush and Cheney? I have no problem calling them out. But we absolutely should’ve went in there and toppled the Taliban for allowing Bin Laden to operate there.
As far as helping the Mujahideen fight off the Soviets, I’m not really sure what Carter and Reagan were thinking, but it absolutely helped us win the Cold War, and helped lead to unification in Germany, USSR collapse, etc. I’d call that a win, up until when the Taliban allowed Bin Laden to bring down the towers in NYC.
Lastly, international alliances are constantly shifting. You do what you can in the moment to protect your interests, and when a foreign country changes their stance towards you, then you adjust accordingly. So when people complain about how we used to support the Taliban over the Soviets, or we used to support Hussein over Iran, it made sense to do so. When it didn’t make sense to do so, we stopped.
War is not a racket. It’s just a tool of last resort in the diplomacy toolbox, and it does need to be used from time to time, unfortunately. Nobody really wants war, not even someone like John Bolton, and I don’t believe any leader in the US ever gets into a war for arbitrary reasons. The differences occur between hawks and doves because their threshold of when war is needed isn’t the same.
He was still going to have to sell the oil to pay his own bills, and at world market price.
The real reason the US took action against Iraq at that time was the petro-dollar deal Nixon made with Saudi Arabia in 1974. The US agreed to be Saudi Arabia's body guard as long as Saudi Arabia accepted only US dollars for oil sales to any country. That means if China wants to buy Saudi oil, the Chinese first have to buy US dollars. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the real fear was that they were going to roll on through to Saudi Arabia.
If it had not been for the petro-dollar deal (which is still in force, btw), the US response to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait would have been the same as the US response to the Libyan invasion of Chad. (Namely: "Invasion? What invasion?")
Moreover, the US troops placed in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Iraq was the specific cause of the 9/11 retaliatory attack.
He gassed the Kurds with weapons supplied by US manufacturers...which rather proves the general's point. The US never did actually protect the Kurds. The no-fly zone did nothing to prevent Hussein's army from driving up there in trucks and terrorizing the Kurds.
Iraq had nothing but old chemical munitions from the 80s that they had buried because there was no way at that time to destroy them. The locations of the buried munitions was one of those "unknown knowns." Hell, I personally knew where they were buried. The problem was that the information was locked up in classified Pentagon data bases, and the troops on the ground during the invasion didn't even know the information existed.
Nothing went to Syria. That was a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact and no evidence to support it. Not even the Administration tried to float that balloon.
BTW, generals were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The Army Chief of Staff opposed the invasion so strenuously in public that he got himself fired. The Commandant of the Marine Corps also spoke publicly against it, and retired rather than be there for it. In fact, the entire group of generals of the "class of Vietnam" (generals who were junior officers in Vietnam) retired rather than be there for the invasion of Iraq.
We would never have been in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn’t given safe haven to Bin Laden when he was banished from the Sudan. Should we have ignored 9/11?[/quote]
No, but the US should have left Afghanistan when it was ascertained that Bin Laden was no longer there, instead of letting the mission creep into "nation building." And the US certainly should have left Afghanistan tout suit after Bin Laden was killed.
The US should also have remembered, "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The Russians played that same game when their turn came.
There is a lot of bad stuff going on in countries around the world. The US is going to have to let most of it happen.
War pretty much is a racket, and Eisenhower saw it coming. Prior to WWII, there were few, if any, industries that were purely weapons related. Companies made products mostly for civilian use and ramped up military production lines during war time. After WWII, new companies were created such as General Dynamics that make nothing but weapons...and they have to make money continually and need a military that will find a reason to buy their new weapons continually. That's what Eisenhower saw arise, and what he meant by the "military-industrial complex."
The US honestly does act like an evil empire much of the time. When you've got generals pointing it out, it's time to start paying attention.[/quote]
Regardless of the reasons why, it was in our best interests to hit Hussein after he tried to take Kuwait.
We had largely stayed out of African affairs, but that is no longer true. I didn’t agree with Obama’s decision to take out Qaddafi by bombing his forces and weakening them enough so that the rebels could kill him. Libya is a mess right now. But we are all over the African continent right now, and that is only going to grow, in my opinion.
Just because some of our leaders make mistakes on which engagement to get into, that doesn’t mean war is a racket. Obama was just wrong, his main goal wasn’t trying to line the pockets of defense contractors.
Again, the WMD did go to Syria. I don’t care whether you believe me or not, it won’t change anything one way or the other.
As far as troops in KSA, guess what? We are still there and OBL is dead. That should be a lesson to our adversaries, right there. Now, more than ever, we need to be in KSA. The Houthis are right on the border flinging rockets like the Palestinians are. Iran funded, of course. Just like in Syria, US troops are needed to protect oil infrastructure. Again, it’s in our best interests to do so.
The only thing we agree on is the nation building in AFG was stupid. We should’ve went in, accomplished what we needed to do, and then got out. All sides in AFG are problematic. There is nobody worthwhile to form an alliance with.
War is not a racket, war is necessary and it’s in our best interests to keep that option open to us at all times and not be afraid to use it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
