I can’t believe I’m coming to Oldscratch’sdefense on a political issue.
The US has been guilty of destabilizing or destroying regimes that they considered inimical to US economic interests, like toppling President Arbenz of Guatemala in the 50s at the behest of US fruit import companies; the toppling of Muhammad Mossadegh of Iran in 1954 because he threatened to nationalize US oil companies, the fall of President Allende of Chile in 1973, and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of The Congo in 1964. That’s not opinion, that’s history.
Since nobody yet knows who bombed the US Cole in Aden harbor, it behooves the US to withhold retaliation until the sponsors of the act are found.
The naked, racist, jingoist rantings of the OP disgust me. There are no simple solutions to the current Middle East political situation, and the idea of “kill them all, the Lord will recognize his own,” went out with Godfrey de Bouillion.
My thoughts are with the sailors and their families.
Rosie - I will not be back to work until Wednesday (this hand thing) but as promised, as soon as I return I will verify for the board if what you claim is in fact true. You may also send me your C#.
As most people here already know, I work closely with disabled vets and have for more than a few years. One thing that has always been a constant is the fact that those who have seen action, be it Nam, WWII, Korea, the Gulf, are the same clients who want to put it behind them, the same clients who never want to see war again. It’s hard for most to talk about, let alone participate in another.
Very, very rarely do we see war vets who are gung-ho to go back in and kick some ass. Of these, it seems like the majority are the younger Gulf vets who were in the desert but didn’t see much action. The Gulf was fought very differently than the others, especially WWII and Nam.
On the other hand, those with the kick-ass mentality are, almost without fail, those soldiers who never served on the firing line and somehow, as strange as it seems and as relieved as they are for not being called, feel left out.
Out of curiosity, you are female and served in the Air Force, correct? What is your war time experience?
**Rysdad: **
I think ** oldscratch’s ** point is still valid; the thing is that the US practices our own brand of imperialism. Britain, France, Spain, etc all colonized places, then got their comeuppance. The US just doesn’t colonize directly, but it’s still imperialism. We install and remove leaders of countries pretty much at a whim (well, we’ve sorta of cut down on that, seeing as it results in things like out ships being bombed). It’s not hard to see why people would hold a grudge. Granted, we don’t know the exact circumstances behind this particular attack (in this case, it may have been nutcases with no real cause, or whatever), but as a whole, the US really should expect this sort of thing when we putz around in affairs that aren’t ours.
BTW, what exactly are these interests that we’re so fired up to protect there? The only interest I can see is oil, which is not vital to our survival. If we have to pay more because the suppliers want to charge more, well, that’s just capitalism. Unless somebody can show me what other interest we have there (besides screwing around with their internal politics and showing off how damn cool we are), I’d have to say that this is what we should expect. I don’t condone it, but I’m not surprised and understand why people would take such actions.
Forget while she was posting, I want to know what Rosie was smoking during hte Vietnam War, as it has obviously fried her warped little mind.
What she is proposing to is JUST like Austria-Hungary did when Archduke Ferdinand was shot-declare war on an entire nation because of one asshole.
And look what happened to Austria and the rest of Europe!
You wanna send MY friends and relatives over there because of one terrorist act? War sucks, honey.
That’s coming from a history major.
As far as the Vietnam war we should never gotten involved.
We were so freaked about communism-why didn’t we try and help people who really needed instead of installing fascist dictators in Latin America?
Essentially, the US burns some 18 million barrels/day of crude oil from all sources. Only about 50% or less of this figure is been achieved through domestic production; the rest is imported. Oil from the Middle East accounts for the largest single share of imports, about 30% of total volume imported. Cutoff of Middle Eastern oil would therefore result in not just increased prices, but drastic cuts in domestic energy usage due to unavailability of feed stock. This in turn would have severe economic impacts that would likely take years to recover from.
Although I’m not particularly sympathetic to Big Oil, I can only conclude that there is a clear national interest at stake in the Middle East.
So wait, it’s ok for me to use a gunboat to secure food from the A&P because I need it and they may not want to supply it, at least at prices I find resonable? :rolleyes:
Damn, and here I thought we were such a gung-ho capitalist nation…I guess we are as long as it doesn’t apply to us. Hmmm…
Nice mental image of gunboats protecting our right to buy frozen peas at 99 cents a bag (it’d be Genuardi’s, not A & P where I live), but it’s really not the same thing.
AFAIK, our gunboats are not in the region to force the sale of oil to us at lower-than-market prices, but more to help prevent hijacking of the supply by declared enemies of the US.
That’s right. We maintain a presence there to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and other countries that sell us oil from the likes of Goddam Insane in Iraq. Remember what happened during the Gulf War? That was the only time the strategic petroleum reserves were ever used, until Clinton incorrectly exploited them to alter prices.
My father is a Vietnam combat veteran. He spent part of every year from 1967 to 1973 in Southeast Asia, and 28 years all told in the military. And I can tell you with all certainty that the last thing in the world he would ever want is to waltz into the Middle East to kick anyone’s ass. In fact, he retired just in time to avoid the Gulf (although he probably could have been called up had the situation required it – he was a W3 and on the W4 list when he retired), and thanks God every day for that. So, as other posters have iterated, please don’t presume to speak for all veterans.
But, couldn’t we choose to aggressively pursue alternatives to reliance upon reliable delivery of cheap foreign oil? Heavy investment in alternative energy technologies, not limited to nuclear, solar, wind. Aggressive exploration for alternative deposits and reclamation technology. Required conservation.
But wait a minute. All them approaches would impose costs upon us Americans. Meanwhile, we got all these missles just laying around, and we can’t use all the planes and ships in the drug war. And them fellas over there are pretty dusky-hued.
This is evolving from a Pit thread into a GD. That’s a good thing, I guess.
What some people view as “imperialist aims,” others may view as normal, common, all-countries-do-it or-would-if-they-could foreign policy.
I simply don’t see the US as the demon of the world, mindlessly undercutting governments, regularly assassinating heads of state, laying claim to foreign soil, or doing all of the things that would aptly be described as “imperialistic.” If the US supports friendly goverments and/or uses its power to minimize the reach of non-friendly (or openly antagonistic) nations, that’s fully right and proper. That’s the government’s job, fer chrissake.
The worldwide humanitarian efforts of the US would surely offset any bad karma resulting from US foreign policy actions.
I simply resent the apologists that cry, “Boo-hoo. We’re so bad.” That’s baloney. The US recognizes its position as a superpower, and has, by and large, exercized that power justly and appropriately, in my view.
If I was personally called to speak for US foreign policy, I could honestly say, “No apologies, no regrets, and a clear conscience.”
Why, why, would the US even want to starve Guatemalan children, much less actually attempt to do so?
Please provide a credible cite for such an inane claim.
How incredibly obtuse.
And, Andros, I did say it was “in my view.” Would you grant that there are other nations that might also view US foreign policy as just and appropriate? Would you tend to believe that there are more nations that would be supportive of US foreign policy than those that would condemn it?
I’m not standing here as a flag-waving, “my country right or wrong” redneck. I don’t agree with every single application of US foreign policy. I’m just saying that the US is not the “blue-eyed satan” and that every application of US foreign policy is not designed to install a puppet government, then rape the country of its natural resources, and then obliterate/starve its citenzenry.
I’m not saying one thing or the other is good or bad. We can define our national interests essentially as broadly or narrowly as we wish. But let’s at least not lie to ourselves about what we are doing.
We’re number one! There’s no denying that fact. While I think it may not be entirely appropriate for us to attempt to maximize our economic, military and technological advantages every opportunity we get, nor do I believe we are obligated to simply share the wealth. And there in the middle lie a multitude of possible choices.
The vast majority of Americans seem to assume plentiful cheap oil is their birthright, and our government has consistently acted to support that. Such a preference creates certain results. But it strikes me as less that entirely forthcoming to say, for example, that we pursued the Gulf War simply to counter an act of aggression against a sovereign state.
Having been there and done that with the best of 'em, I’ll say this to all you "Kill Them All"ers: GET A GRIP!
The US has enough unwashed bloods on its collective soul without indiscriminately killing dozens of civillians as collateral damage just to assuage its injured pride.
Find the people who did this (which is really the neat trick).
Then send some sharp operators (that’s “snake eaters” for those in the biz) to get, you know, up close and personal.
A few fingers and toes (and other assorted pieces of anatomy) lying about will get the mesaage across just as well as a cruise missile or LGB.
Take some snapshots, or have one of those web-cams along for the ride, and post it on the internet.
It’d be the last terrorist incident against America for a good long time.
I’m a Navy vet. The bombing of the Cole hit me pretty hard, especially waiting for the casualty list to come out so I could see if I knew anyone. I’m still waiting to see if they’ll release a list of injured.
The comments made in the OP and the follow ups are both scary and asinine. Some Palestinians are attacking Israelis because they’re Israelis; some Israelis are attacking Palestinians because they’re Palestinians. Now the OP states we should attack all Arabs because they’re Arabs? Please :rolleyes: I’d like to think we’re better than that.
