Counting down...

[degrub]

I said getting involved in Vietnam was a mistake.  Or should I say President Johnson used a lie to escalate the war, (The Tonkin Bay incident)However, once you commit to war, you fight to win.  You don;t fight with one hand tied behind your back.  We stupidly limited offensive operations.  Instead of allowing his commanders to decide how to fight a war, President Johnson refused to let them bomb in various areas, selected the targets, etc.  It would be like in WWII, after all the Allied bombing of Germany, we never attacked by land.  What's the point?

Except with Vietnam, as with Korea earlier, China and Russia were willing to send troops in to support. Only the Viet hatred of China kept them out. Russia supported instead, but the logistics were as bad as ours.

[Alan Klein]

It goes further: as with recent Middle East interventions, how do you exit without leaving a greater mess than the one you created by being there? You can't occupy lands for ever, unless they are on your borders and you just annex 'em.

Rob

Well, we still have American troops in Japan and Germany 75 years after the end of WWII.  Also South Korea (66 years).  Hmmm. 

As far as Iraq, there are still troops there too.  As an aside, I think if you asked Iraqis of they're better off now then they were under Saddam, most would say they are, at least the Shia majority would. 

But you make a good point.  For years I couldn;t understand why in the old days, conquerors would kill all the men and destroy the countries they conquered. Then they occupied the country or what was left with military power. Well, it was the only way to avoid an insurgency.  You couldn't leave them to fight another day.  Since we don;t fight like that anymore (well ISIS did), we wind up having to occupy forever. 

[jeremyrh]

I see it as a state of mind and preference, in exactly the same way as serial rapists, paedophiles, even those attracted to bestiality feel their urges.

I think this signifies that rational discussion with you on this issue is not possible, so I will dip out here.

(If anyone is wondering about what we're talking about, it's this:  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/08/london-bus-attack-fifth-arrest-after-homophobic-assault  )

[jeremyrh]

  As an aside, I think if you asked Iraqis of they're better off now then they were under Saddam, most would say they are, at least the Shia majority would.

Maybe - the ones still alive, anyway.  Perhaps someone could ask them?

[RSL]

Thought you were "dipping out," Jeremy.

[Rob C]

I think this signifies that rational discussion with you on this issue is not possible, so I will dip out here.

(If anyone is wondering about what we're talking about, it's this:  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/08/london-bus-attack-fifth-arrest-after-homophobic-assault  )

As ever, one man's rational is another man's insanity

Happy dipping!

[jeremyrh]

Thought you were "dipping out," Jeremy.

Yes - from discussion with Rob on the morality of homosexuality.

[Alan Klein]

Maybe - the ones still alive, anyway.  Perhaps someone could ask them?

Trump agrees with you.  He thought we shouldn't get involved.  Hillary did.

[Rob C]

Trump agrees with you.  He thought we shouldn't get involved.  Hillary did.

A problem when dealing with a very different culture lies in making the assumption that the beliefs one holds are necessarily those of the common man in another. Democracy is one such western tenet that is, believe it or not, not a totally internationally shared one. In fact, there are cultures where the control of a dictator, religious one or of the common or garden political variety, is the only way of holding a place or society together. Some lands have no respect for political boundaries - if they even recognize them - but great respect for religious unity amongst them. Ignoring that has led to many mistakes already. Russia has made them as has the west. Afghanistan wore them out as no doubt will Syria, with or without the present power structure there.

Often, we meddle at our cost, as China may currently be doing in Africa.

[Alan Klein]

A problem when dealing with a very different culture lies in making the assumption that the beliefs one holds are necessarily those of the common man in another. Democracy is one such western tenet that is, believe it or not, not a totally internationally shared one. In fact, there are cultures where the control of a dictator, religious one or of the common or garden political variety, is the only way of holding a place or society together. Some lands have no respect for political boundaries - if they even recognize them - but great respect for religious unity amongst them. Ignoring that has led to many mistakes already. Russia has made them as has the west. Afghanistan wore them out as no doubt will Syria, with or without the present power structure there.

Often, we meddle at our cost, as China may currently be doing in Africa.

Although it turned out wrong, the main reason we got into Iraq was to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, not to turn it into a democracy.  But your point is well taken.  We often use 'democracy" as an excuse.  On the other hand, that could be a leftover from the Cold War and the Communist Soviet Union.  At that time, the world was in a battle for the minds of man, whether we would be freely Democratic or Communist.   So "making the world safe for democracy" was the raison d'etre for much of the international political jockeying that went on with both sides.  People in the West were afraid of losing their freedom like those in Eastern Europe had lost theirs. 

[degrub]

and all of SE Asia as well.

[degrub]

Although it turned out wrong, the main reason we got into Iraq was to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, not to turn it into a democracy.  But your point is well taken.  We often use 'democracy" as an excuse.  On the other hand, that could be a leftover from the Cold War and the Communist Soviet Union.  At that time, the world was in a battle for the minds of man, whether we would be freely Democratic or Communist.   So "making the world safe for democracy" was the raison d'etre for much of the international political jockeying that went on with both sides.  People in the West were afraid of losing their freedom like those in Eastern Europe had lost theirs.

nah. that was all about Iraqi oil and containing Iran.
WMD was all about providing an excuse.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

nah. that was all about Iraqi oil and containing Iran.
WMD was all about providing an excuse.

Did we get that oil?

And how is defeating an enemy of Iran helping in “containing Iran”?

[OmerV]

Well, we still have American troops in Japan and Germany 75 years after the end of WWII.  Also South Korea (66 years).  Hmmm. 

As far as Iraq, there are still troops there too.  As an aside, I think if you asked Iraqis of they're better off now then they were under Saddam, most would say they are, at least the Shia majority would. 

But you make a good point.  For years I couldn;t understand why in the old days, conquerors would kill all the men and destroy the countries they conquered. Then they occupied the country or what was left with military power. Well, it was the only way to avoid an insurgency.  You couldn't leave them to fight another day.  Since we don;t fight like that anymore (well ISIS did), we wind up having to occupy forever.

Occupying forces in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea? Really?!

C'mon, Alan. Not even Fox News would suggest that.

[Alan Klein]

Occupying forces in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea? Really?!

C'mon, Alan. Not even Fox News would suggest that.

My point is that whatever the reason, we still have American troops in these countries.

On the other hand, there are some non-German Europeans who are happy that American troops are in Germany and that Germany did not have to re-arm at the end of WWII.  They still fear that a rich and armed Germany might try conquest a third time.  Of course, they figured out that a powerful economy and the EU is an easier way to do it.

Any Europeans out there who'd like to confirm or deny on that? 

[degrub]

i would suggest the reasons are Russia and China.

[Alan Klein]

i would suggest the reasons are Russia and China.

Why do American troops have to be in Europe, Japan and Korea?  Let these countries provide the military muscle to defend themselves. What are they, girls, depending on American troops to fight for them?    They're the ones who would be attacked and have more to lose.   China and Russia aren't going to attack the USA.  The Soviets are long gone.  And China needs Walmart.

[OmerV]

Why do American troops have to be in Europe, Japan and Korea?  Let these countries provide the military muscle to defend themselves. What are they, girls, depending on American troops to fight for them?    They're the ones who would be attacked and have more to lose.   China and Russia aren't going to attack the USA.  The Soviets are long gone.  And China needs Walmart.

Well, the notion of a war with the kind of military might that even S. Korea has probably dissuades China and Russia.

N. Korea? Who knows? The leaders there are bananas.

But talk of military confrontations is a remnant of the past. China is expanding by being an economic powerhouse, including its toehold in Venezuela. The US nativist bubble that Donald is creating is opening doors for China and Russia. No nukes needed.

[Alan Klein]

Well, the notion of a war with the kind of military might that even S. Korea has probably dissuades China and Russia.

N. Korea? Who knows? The leaders there are bananas.

But talk of military confrontations is a remnant of the past. China is expanding by being an economic powerhouse, including its toehold in Venezuela. The US nativist bubble that Donald is creating is opening doors for China and Russia. No nukes needed.

So why do American troops have to be there in these countries? 

[RSL]

Let these countries provide the military muscle to defend themselves. What are they, girls...

You don't understand, Alan. Nowadays girls are supposed to be troops -- warriors.