I hear a lot about the most dangerous nations in the world. People like to follow Bush's doctrine of the Axis of Evil. North Korea, Iran and Iraq. First off, North Korea is dismantling its nuclear program and reunification of the Korean peninsula is now more than just a dream. Second, the only reason Iran and Iraq are threats is because we backed their worst leaders. I'd like to take Iran and Iraq off that list and add Pakistan and any nation that we've backed that has commited human rights abuses.
If you haven't noticed, everytime America intervenes in countries and backs a leader coming to power, we end up having to topple them eventually. It happened in Iran, Iraq, and Panama. When Britian felt threatened by the Iranian Prime Minister because he thought Iran should get an equal share of the money for their oil. Well we went in and the prime minister was overthrown, then the Shah took power and he was hated by the people for his human rights abuses. This led to the Ayatollah and his successor. And now Iran has a government that hates us. It's our fault.
We also backed Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan until the threat for them to gain power scared us into taking them down. And because the CIA taught them human rights abuses and how to get away with them. We had to cover our asses. So we took down the leaders in Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan because they threatened democracy, but the real reason we because we intervened and they didn't accept our ideals and didn't become Americanized. What scares our government is people being different than them.
At the moment we are backing President/dictar Musharaff(spelling). Twice we have had to stop him from taking full control of the country and imposing martial law. He has nuclear weapons. He is more of a threat to America than Iran. The people there hate Musharaff, and are none to thrilled with America for backing him. We are doing the same thing there that we have done countless times around the globe. Sometime in the future we will have to take our Pakistan, at least according to the thinking of our government and what I've seen from how they work. Pakistan is a threat but about as threatening as Iran and Iraq was when we backed the Saddam and the Shah.
Every country that we intervene in, it comes back to bite us in the ass. We need to stop intervening in other countries issues and stop backing dictators who take over those countries. Not American, but the American government is to blame for most of our "enemies." They aren't our enemies but we've made them our enemies. It is the governments fault and the American people's because they were blinded by all the bullshit that the government fed to us. Blowback is a bitch and Septemeber 11th was the blowback from the CIA intervening in other countries. Countries where the population rose up against their leader and overthrew them and vowed revenge on America. Pakistan will get her revenge unless you stop tampering in their affairs. When we stop tampering and intervening in other countries affairs, then we will have safety.
Josh
Check out my blogs and lets start discussing: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/son-of-disaster
My favorite blog http://www.progressiveu.org/111649-manifest-destiny-i-think-not
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
China is one of the biggest human rights violators in the world and we've made them our Most Favored Nation several times because of the economic benefits we receive from doing so.
I absolutely agree with most of this post. It makes me angry too. I look forward to a change in leadership, and I hope our new President will focus more internally.
I don't think a change in president will help. It's been this way since Eisenhower had the prime minister kicked out of Iran and it has progressed to Bush, I don't see a new president changing this except Ron Paul.
Ron Paul wants to destroy the strongest military in the world and de-moralize this country, among other things. He also has no chance of being elected.
Pulling out and leaving the rest of the world that is currently dependent on us for stability or military support will not resolve these problems. We need a plan to do it the right way, and also be able to refocus on American problems in the meantime.
I can't argue something that I've argued countless times and you still won't listen. He is doing exactly what I am saying. He is stopping us from intervening in the world by withdrawing troops. Our job is not to police the world, sorry to break it to you.
And I've never disagreed with you. Except when it comes to nuclear arms. And that is a different story, because I've worked nuclear. I know what kind of energy it is, and it scares the hell out of me.
My argument is that, because we are already there, we have an obligation to finish what we have started. If you screw something up, you can't just say, "Whoops... guess it's your problem now". That's not the way the world works... and everyone (American and other nationalities alike) would hate us even more.
Bush has already destroyed the military. As for demoralizing the country, I'd be rather highly moralized if this country stopped being an international bully and pariah and began adhering to the standards it demands of others.
Actually, it was Clinton who reduced the military funding.
Bush has been building the military back up from it's dismally small numbers during the previous administration.
Whether we are looking outwards or inwards, it's essential we maintain the most powerful military in the world. Why? Because our current combination of rich natural resources and economic strength requires military defense. I don't want to be taken over by China, do you?
We need to maintain a military to protect ourselves here. Our current combination requires the military to protect the country, not bully other countries like we've been doing since Eisenhower. China won't take us over. They're not strong enough, but bullying them, makes it worse. I don't know why you fear China at the moment? As long as the US is respectful, China will be respectful. When the government starts being an asshole, well China won't like it.
Is there an echo in here? I clearly just stated that we need to keep our military best-in-the-world for defensive purposes.
China has been quietly buying up our debt for years. Think about that.
But you insist that to keep our military the "best in the world for defensive purposes" means to attack contries and bully them because we believe they are a threat. Like what we did to Iraq. Any country that the US thinks could be stronger than them, is a threat to the government, and that is a horrible outlook.
Yes they have. I think about it, but why should it frighten me? They still seem to depend on America for work. If we stopped outsourcing and brought back all these jobs to America, there wouldn't be a threat and unemployment would drop. China is doing what the US has been doing for years. We just now are inflating our money for the idea that might makes right, sounds fascist to me.
So China now has more outside money than the US? They've had nuclear weapons for awhile now. They're saving up money to do what with? Build a bigger military? The nations of the world would crush them if that happened. Other leaders aren't stupid, even though they support the failed system of communism.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I haven't said anything about attacking other countries. Why you want other countries to be stronger than America, I don't know. I'll keep my strong military thank-you-very-much.
As for China, my only statement was that they have been buying up our national debt for years, and that is an action we should be afraid of. You clearly do not understand the implications of this. Prepare for a future blog about it.
Do I think China is preparing to take an aggressive stance against the US? Absolutely. Will that be a military stance? Only after they destroy our economy.
I have nothing more to say to you. This conversation is over.
We attacked Iraq for no reason. Even Bush came and said that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 or WMD's. I never said I wanted other countries to be stronger, but there is nothing wrong with a country being as strong as us. It works for everyone else for the most part. I didn't put words in your mouth, I just used the ones that came out.
If they were buying up our national debt, our debt wouldn't be getting any larger. There would be stuff on the news about it, even in a biased media, it would be talked about, unless Washington wants that to happen. The implications are that China is stronger than us, get over it.
What has showed you that China is prepared to take an aggressive stance against us? If China attacks, NATO and the useless UN would condemn it and attack China. But then again, Russia might back China and so might Iran, since we bully them around and can't play nice with anyone. We are destroying our economy with incessant war, not China. Stop blaming everyone else but the US government. Keynesian Economics is a failed system that we are implementing yet again.
You want us to build our military for defense purposes and seem to agree that we need to stop bullying other countries.
Yet you can't stand Ron Paul...
Am I missing something here?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
She can't stand Ron Paul because she thinks we should keep our military in those countries, not remove them.
If you choose to continue speaking for me, I will use Mr. Flag Boy on you. Be more mature.
I don't like Ron Paul because he advocates the immediate removal of military from all countries, which I believe would be more damaging to those countries than staying and slowing pulling out in stages, so they can establish their own military law in the process. Many of these countries have had US "help" for decades, and would be at a loss as to how to do so without some sort of initial plan. Also, he wants to return to a gold standard, which is impossible and completely ridiculous in a global economy. There are various other reasons, but I choose not to ramble on.
Oh, keeping our military in fifty other countries is self-defense. I get it.
I swear, compared to our own modern neocon Republicans, Hitler seems to have been rather sane.
Are nation is becoming full of facism. All this, the government is God, is fascist.
sorry double post
Excuse me, genius, but "reducing military funding" is not "destroying the military." Getting into an easily avoidable quagmire in which thousands are killed, tens of thousands are wounded, and we are unable to exert effective action in any new crisis that may arise because we are already over-extended in extinguishing problems we started ourselves, is pretty much a working definition of "destroying the military."
Whether the military's numbers were "dismally small" or not under Clinton depends on what you want it to do. They were not "dismally small" for the purpose of protecting the United States. They were dismally small for the purpose of serving as world policeman, but then, they still are.
I don't recall ever fearing coming under the boot of China when Clinton was president. Granted, that was because he was usually in bed with China, but still. If China decided to seize Taiwan tomorrow there isn't a damn thing we could do about it, aside from going nuclear, and that is a direct consequence of our insane policy in the Middle East.
Let there be Peace on Earth
outside intervention is ALWAYS a NEGATIVE THING...basically, US should NOT involve itself in others countries political matters unless it REALLY REALLY troubles EVERYONE and not ONLY US
We will get rid of Musharraf, it will require tremendous effort, BUT it has to happen, DO NOT WORRY YOURSELF OVER THE POLITICS IN PAKISTAN, they are really complicated and every single time the US intervenes...the situation only worsens
Also, I think you need to do some back ground research on how Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, they are under the army's control and Musharrafs BUT we got them under Nawaz Sharif's prime ministership or rule...whatever....
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
Supposedly it's the U.N.'s job to deal with this stuff.
But we all know they aren't very effective, and use the U.S. military anyway. *sigh* We really just need a better system of identifying (a) when intervention is necessary and (b) how to do that intervention in a real international collaboration.
Nuclear weapons are nothing to kid about, and I will worry myself over the politics in Pakistan if I feel it's necessary. I don't really care how people acquire them... but I do care if they might use them. Not that I'm singling out Pakistan, because I'm no expert in Pakistani politics.
nation of the Muslim world, I will talk about Pakistan, I don't think anyone else has it, that has a Muslim population as ours, we only acquired them in 1999, but that's about 8 years of nothing happened,
why does everyone here think that it is so easy for someone to detonate something of that magnitude over such political matters? And no, they are NOT easily obtainable for people who are terrorists
If one doesn't know about Pakistan's history or politics, isn't it wrong to assume that the country or its leaders have their finger on the big red button (i mean the detonate one)
seriously, everyone, (I'm not pointing toward specific people), please get some perspective, Musharraf needs to be outed, and so do his supporters, now that is NOT a very large group of people so, stop calling the country as dangerous as Iraq
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
I, naturally, assume anyone who has a nuclear weapon is going to use it. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? It is my ideal and naive belief that we should all destroy our nuclear weapons, except then the "bad guys" would be the only ones who had them, so how would the "good guys" protect themselves? This would never work.
In my mind, the only solution would be for everyone, including and especially the US, to give up their nuclear weapons to an international peacekeeping force that will actually be productive and work with others (unlike the UN). That way, they are there in the event that some idiot attacks someone else, but otherwise it's a no-no.
I don't think anyone on this website really understands the true power of nuclear weapons, otherwise they wouldn't be defending their acquisition (not that I am singling you out, asmaw).
If we didn't truly understand the power of nuclear weapons, we'd be calling to use them much more liberally, don't you think? The fact of the matter is, the United States used them once and has regretted doing so. Is that to say that others won't use it? No. The Cold War was all about a political stalemate between the US and Russia and revolved around nuclear weapons.
Sadly enough, this world will probably never see peace until it's either threatened by an outside force or humanity all but destroys itself.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
perpective by gtting some back ground knowledge... You have to understand what our history is (a rather short one since we only got independence in 1947, the Partition of India in 1947 by the British, formed the two states of India and Pakistan)
Now if you knew a little, you would know that Pakistan and India DO NOT GET ALONG I mean we have a really long volatile history of fighting, arguing, staining, bashing each other, neither side is better than the other in my opinion ...
the fact is we don't have a good relationship....
Pakistan's nuclear weapons were acquired because of this threat that If India had the nuclear weapon capabilities, people in our country did not feel safe, I mean isn't that logical, and now since both countries have them. btoh know that we are on equal plane and both know that they will not use them, I mean we do have intelligent people, despite the fact that our government is so stupid
...of course I think India has been advancing a lot more since the US actually helps them more and backs them sincerely, unlike what it does with Pakistan..
there is a song in a hindi movie saying everyone loves them some INdia...truthfully, I love Indian movies :)
anyways, my short back ground into how and why Pakistan felt it necessary to get these nuclear weapons.
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
"...of course I think India has been advancing a lot more since the US actually helps them more and backs them sincerely, unlike what it does with Pakistan.. "
India is several times as populous, and a good bit more cultural and geographically diverse. They also have had a more stable government and transitions of power. The involvement in the US efforts in Afghanistan seems to be the center of all US involvement with Pakistan. If there is some specific US action that you think applies I would be interested to hear.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
sure It is-- I didn't want to say much because I don't know much about the conditions of people living there
BUT since you made some comments, let me also say something---
The last decades, the country has not always had such a great time, it's been ups and downs for them too but they've always tried to work things out-
so I commend India for its stability.........BUT that's because it never had to deal with the consequences of wars that went on in Afghanistan (currently and in the past). I've mentioned before that there are more than one refugee camps in Pakistan in which Afghani's number above 100, 000
India is not as socially and politically stable as you think, tensions between the Muslim and HIndu population have been everpresent, you just don't know it because the media here does not talk that much about it. here is an excerpt from online indian news that highlighted what exactly does happen in INdia (specifically in Gujarat what happened in 2002 has been JUST NOW revealed) (there is a lot of anger and resentment in some areas between Hindus and Muslims)
NEW DELHI: The victims, the state government, the courts and social activists have all spoken out on the 2002 Gujarat riots, said to be the worst communal strife since Independence.
Now in a sting operation, Tehelka has recorded scores of self-confessed rioters speaking out on the riots - how deadly arsenals were built and transported across the state, how mobs were mobilised and Muslims killed, the role of the police, and even that of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Gujarat_riots_comes_back_to_hau...
-------------------------------------
here is another way of explaining what i mean....
they get support from foreign powers because they are considered to be the new improved version of China (that's personally how I look at it)
It is due to the politics and of the people of the country BUT corruption is also present in India..and their is always going to be some people in India who are prejudiced and hate the fact that INdia is a country that is home to BOTH, Hindus and Muslims, plus they still have age old problems of the caste system and a lot of poverty and prostitution is there too, But i think India is changing slowly (I am all for advancement of people everywhere)
Also, I hope you are aware that the US has tried and has already struck deals with India to help them out with their nuclear energy becxause the US feels that INdia deserves the help because they need them to supply energy in their factories and power plants.
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/213137-osama-in-my-back-pocket
Ok so the first two paragraphs backed up what I was saying in the blog.
The last paragraph has nothing to do with what I've said. Reread the blog.
Pick on Musharraf and his stupid actions, BUT do not call the nation as one that is a threat, I mean that man needs to be put in place, ALL i know is he definitely has to remove himself from a leadership position considering he has such dismal approval BUT the thing is that people need to replace him and right now, people are trying to find someone capable, and Bhutto is definitely NOT a good replacement
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
My mistake. By saying Pakistan I meant the governent not the people. I didn't mean to offend the people or you.
I'm not a fan of our tendency to think "Oh, we're the US - everyone should be like us. If we change everything about this country, & make it more like us, their lives will automatically be better." Umm ... anyone remember Vietnam? The funding for the Iraq war is growing closer & closer to the Vietnam expenses by already surpassing $600 billion. What do we have to show for it?
If everybody was like the US the world would be boring and I'd have never had the pleasure of eating sushi. : )
I don't like that tendency either.
What we have to show for World War III is a terrorist country(Afghanistan) being taken down, Iraq invaded and occupied based on false testimony(like Vietnam), bullying Iran and North Korea, and putting the people of Pakistan under the government of a dictator.
that he had the US support and he uses the fact that US wants him to remain in power because he does anything that the US wants regardless of how much the public disapproves of the things he does...well it's because they consider him less of a threat than the guy he took control from (Nawaz Sharif)
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/213137-osama-in-my-back-pocket
Right, kinda like how we took out the prime minister of Iran to put the Shah in charge because we thought he was less of a threat. Well the Iranian people overthrew him and now they have governments that hate us, the same will happen in Pakistan. And all because the US had to meddle in other peoples business.
their support for Musharraf...they're really screwed up our system, we need to come back to holding free and fair elections BUT Musharraf controls the polling places and ballots, He says who can and can not run... Elections are therefore only for show... He has also tried to take away power from the judicial branch (he tried to sack the SUPREME Court Chief Justics back in May of this year but through legal battles, the CHief Justice is back and Finally the courts are trying (often failing) to do their job)
Um, generally the Pakistani people and especially the youth take part in anti-west demonstrations because they blame the outside intervention on the state of our current politics... and country
The ridiculous thing about Musharraf is that when he came to power he said that he was going to NEVER let Bhutto or Nawaz Shariff come back into the country {they both have blames of corruption on them)
BUT he considered Bhutto less of a threat so he struck a deal with her that he will let her come back BUT when Nawaz Shariff (the guy who was in power before 1999) came back after 8 years of exile back in september of this year, The ARMY (soldiers) FORCEFULLY put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia (HIm and his WHOLE family have been living in Saudi Arabia for last 8 years)
"I leave my one and only grain of spiritual sand
to universal scales of humanity, all humanity...
forever is finding a solution to a solution." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/213137-osama-in-my-back-pocket
by you saying the US 'supports' Musharraf. I see plenty of threaten and bribe, but not support. We have even offered to take him out if he did not cooperate with us.
Is there a side you would like to see prevail in your country? I ask because it appears Bhutto has sold out.
how exactly can US threaten Pak, it's not like our country has made any comments or threats similar to Iran's or anything even remotely similar to what happened in Iraq or was happeing under Saddam; where is the justification for the Us trying to put us on the same level as these other nations????
US has always supported/used/ bribed or whatever words you want to use-- means it uses them therefore it automatically supports that regime (i don't know where threaten comes in, I really don't think the US can have a massive or even a small operation against pakistan, how is that legitimate in any way?))
and Musharraf is the biggest sell out, the person in the prime minister position before him was Nawaz Sharif---who did not do some thing just because US wanted certain things to happen in Pak... and Bhutto is one of the biggest corrupt politicians and she is a sell out, I don't support her...
Yes, there is a side, its the side that comes to power after holding free and fair elections that are NOT controlled by Musharraf. I want PML leader Nawaz Sharif to come back too, and his party should also be able to run in elections..
"I'm more like a fool for soul and passion....
I watch crash, and realize that we all survivors
no religion or race, whatever describe us." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
Here:
'Musharraf described how then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had called Musharraf's intelligence director shortly following the September 11, 2001 attacks and threatened military action if Pakistan did not support the U.S.-led War on Terror. According to Musharraf, Armitage warned: "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age"[89] Furthermore, during an interview with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on September 26, 2006, Musharraf stated that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell also contacted him with a similar message: "You are with us or against us."'
If this misrepresents the situation please provide a link. He is in power by his own devices. If he did not go along he would not be.
Free elections seem like they could elect fundamentalists. Certainly bombers seem likely to disrupt them at this point. I've followed this more closely since we first talked. Pakistan does not seem to be approaching any good outcome. I don't see any course that might bring one. US involvement, even aid, is definitely not the answer.
---
"where is the justification for the Us trying to put us on the same level as these other nations?"
I think the popular demonstrations after 911 went a long way toward putting Pakistan in those cross hairs. Even military leaders must pay attention to the mood of the people. The threats were put out there to clarify the choice for Musarraf.
---
I'm glad to hear that Bhutto is not your champion. You are right about her by all accounts. Her present actions look like she will participate in the next round of sham elections.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Come on, Saddam killed thousands of kurds, executed other innocents, and was a cruel bastard....saying that a couple of demonstartions in Pakistan after 9/11 which mostly the iliterate mass public congregatge to create trouble....puts Pakistan on the level with how Iraq was under Saddam is a bit much isn't it?
I'm just trying to follow your argument here....
Musharraf's statements make me laugh and cringe at the same time...
You've given me those quotes from Musharraf before.. I actually don't believe the bastard followed US because he felt threatened, more like he did it because isn't it the right thing to say that Pakistan is against terrorism in general, when he released those comments, I thought they were purely for his book to sell and him to make money--- Bomb us to the stone ages? yeah, right, I find it ridiculous that US thinks so little about how powerful countries such as Pak can be.
I am also trying to ask you, does it make sense that the US would so easily be able take military action aginst a sate that has done NOTHING to it........how the heck has pakistan--the government and citizens-- done anything to harm the US..? I mean you're saying demonstrations in Pakistan killed any US people or something else than maybe...
we're arguing over words here--- you don't want to accept support or backing....the US has provided support to Musharraf's rule, that is how he has been able to remain in power.. he played on the fear factor, told the public that only he knows how to dicsuss and cooperate with the US and the US only trusts him
--- that bastard....I hope he gets his due in this life for bringing Pakistan to its current situation. I blame him for everything.
PS.. I am sure you don't trust me yet....I need to get links, ah, you'll have to wait...I'm side tracked by a load of school work. but I'll look for what you're asking to clarify the situation althoguh I do beleive that the deal was we were wither with US or against them, that seems like a plausible BUsh policy.
"I'm more like a fool for soul and passion....
I watch crash, and realize that we all survivors
no religion or race, whatever describe us." -Forever Begins, Common
http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...
nation backing has not always led to trouble. Japan, South Korea, South Vietnam, heck, we helped put germany and half of europe back together after WWII... and they're not trying to blow us up.
Remember, though, that the nations we rebuild and back, we do so in hopes of encouraging freedom. In Freedom, people don't always choose what WE want them to choose. If every nation we ever helped was always good to us, right now the left would be complaining about all the 'puppet governments' we set up.
When they DO help us, they're "puppet Governments" . . . when they DON'T help us, they are a failure caused by US Intervention....
darned if you do, danged if you don't.
It is important, for our own security, that we help our allies across the world. Israel and Japan would not be there if not for us, and we help one another.
Not yet. But that's also because in those countries we chose wisely enough not to back a person/party that was capable of becoming a dictatorship.
It's not our job to encourage freedom by saving our "interests", pushing democracy(a bad system in and of itself) on them, but by using diplomatic means, not war. Countries don't always choose, but the government tries pretty damn hard to enforce who we want on those governments that we back. I understand the last part, however, we should be doing what the founding fathers told us to do, not intervene unless we were attacked first. Only in the past 110 years have we been attacked. By Japan in World War II, and by Al-Qadea from within Afghanistan. Yet another government that we backed that back-fired on us.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't is a good saying for this. So what we should do is keep out of the damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario by not intervening.
It is important, for our own security, that we help our allies across the world. Israel and Japan would not be there if not for us, and we help one another.
It is important to help our allies...by diplomacy and negotiaion, not war and unrest. We've backed Japan peacefully with diplomacy and negotiations. Israel is tricky because the only reason we're there is because of the 1000 year war going on between the Jews and Palestinans. That is their job to work out, not ours, especially not with force.
What was Japan's motive, anyway? Was it because we chose to stay out of the war in an active manner, but still helped the allies by sending supplies? We, technically, chose to stay out of WWII. The European nations brought it on themselves, they can settle it themselves. Then Japan decided to bomb Pearl Harbor and immediately regretted it. Two bombs on our part and the war was over.
If we didn't rebuild Japan, they'd probably be nothing, but since we did, they are a substantial partner in trade and global economics. Besides, Japan was our mess to clean up.
Now, while we could say Iraq is now "our mess," they weren't the ones who attacked us. Al-Qadea did. Of course, the President did a poor job when it came to responding to the attack. Covert ops would probably have suited the situation better and Osama would probably have been less likely to go run and hide in a hole than an all-out invasion. And we probably wouldn't have to worry as much about car bombs because they wouldn't even know we were there (until people started dropping like flies).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
My main problem with WW2 is how it ended because documents that were unsealed showed that Japan was trying to surrender all through the summer of 45, but Truman wanted to drop the bomb to scare the world.
Japan was our mess because our president decided that it was more important to scare the shit our of Stalin than to save thousands of lives. That looks horrible on us.
I actually didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me that they were trying to surrender. The leader of Japan regretted bombing us since it was done ("I fear we have awoken the sleeping giant.").
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The situation was not that simple. No official that claimed any authority made any attempt, and they would have remained a heavilly armed imperialist nation. Thus the choice was allow them to just start rebuilding their war machine or take it from them. The choice to remove their militaristic leaders from power seems like a good one even in hindsight. Next the use of nuclear weapons probably saved Japanese lives when compared to saturation bombing that would have accompanied an invasion. The bombs certainly saved American lives.
"In the spring and summer of 1945, individuals working for the Japanese military contemplated a negotiated conclusion to the Pacific War. The most formidable obstacle to peace was the unwillingness of both sides to compromise their own stated objectives. The last ditch fanaticism of Japan's militaristic officials and a commitment from the Allied powers not to soften stipulations of unconditional surrender announced by Churchill and Roosevelt at Casablanca in 1943 could not be reconciled. An earlier indication of Japan's willingness to fight a war to the bitter end and not be bound by diplomatic overtures was announced in 1934 by the ambassador to the United States, Hirosi Saito:
Japan will commit national suicide, if necessary, to pursue her plan of establishing peace in the Far East.(1)
Translating "peace in the Far East" as total domination of that part of the world, Japan had embarked on a crusade it was now losing. After observing the collapse of Germany in May 1945 and the near annihilation of their own country, a few Japanese officials stationed abroad in Berlin, Stockholm, and Berne sought a negotiated peace."
"In addition, a Gallup Poll on 29 June 1945 revealed that over 70 percent of the Americans surveyed desired to see the emperor hanged as a war criminal and Japan destroyed completely for its treachery in attacking Pearl Harbor without warning.(5)"
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-14627507.html
Reminds me a little of how the majority wants to blame Bush for this war that 80% or more of them supported in the begining. Pure Democracy would be very Bi-Polar, we choose leaders to help us overcome our wishy washy ways.
Pure democracy is a crock of shit, it works in theory, not in real life. Kinda like Communism. Governments founded using a Constitution and Common Law are much better than democracy, hence why Constitutional Republic worked well until politicians screwed with it until it became a failing democracy. The only reason American's supported Bush for Iraq was because he appealed to our patriotism by lying to us. Only after he said that there were no WMD's and Iraq was not helping Al-Qadea, then he lost support.
The emotion caused by that attack and the ease of the first gulf war were the big opinion influences. Democrats in the Senate repeated the same intelligence from Clintons' CIA that Bush had. The only people doubting that Sadam had WMD were a few analysts buried at Langly, VA and Hans Blix, who admitted he likely had some, but discounted the danger they posed.
The loss of support was gradual after the early easy invasion was replaced by endless occupation.
The government took advantage of us. I supported the war in Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq was just the government riding our emotion for all it was worth. We easily believed the crap that we were told. Saddam actively searched for WMD's in the 80's and stopped after we defeated him in the first gulf war. And Bush said that Saddam had nothing to do with September 11th, months after he claimed that Saddam had been involved.
We shouldn't occupy a country at all. We're building 14 new bases over their, we're not leaving and it's wrong. No one seems to care except those hippy bastards from the 60's who sold out long ago. I agree with Gay Talese, the draft needs to be reinstated so that people will be angered and realize how bad they're being fucked by the government and the upper one percent.
The peace talks over the summer were legit with Japan, we were just to much of a bastard to let things go back to the way it was before the war, we had to show off.
Duplicate
I was against both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have wasted effort occupying them, and befriended evil. I would have offered to build the economy of any Muslim country that followed some basic rules, and at the same time hunted down the terrorists. If a government helped them, no warning regime change by B52. The second or third nation to receive that treatment would have been the last one to harbor terrorists. Plata o Plomo? works wonders.
I'd be impeached by now also ;-)
---
"The peace talks over the summer were legit with Japan; we were just too much of a bastard to let things go back to the way it was before the war, we had to show off."
Afraid we are reading from a different book on this one. Even if these negotiations were being held with the government in power (they clearly weren't) allowing the imperial Japanese government, and the military to continue to run that country would have been unpalatable to the US voters, and the next war would have followed shortly.
Also, remember with Germany, that we had troops stationed there will into the 80's on guard.
In fact, though they are there in a different role today, we still have soldiers stationed in Germany.
How long ago was the end of world war 2? People, nowdays, have no patience.
There is no reason to be in Germany now. The Cold War is over, it's time to bring those troops home. I disagree strongly with leaving some of our military in Germany.
World War 2 ended in 1945, the Cold War in 1991. I think 60 years is enough time for the government to become an empire, it's time for her to be cut back down to size.
I think we would remove them if Germany asked. Taking a VERY short term view you have a point. A little longer timeline does not support the assumption that Europe will remain at peace, or that we would not be involved when peace is lost. The US forces at this point are symbolic of our commitment to stop agression in this region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
scroll 3/4 down for chronological list.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I never said revoke NATO. I said the US needs to leave Germany. I'm not saying Europe won't remain in peace, I'm saying that it's not our job to intervene in Europes wars. I'm pretty sure Europe will erupt into war sometime.
So I think we have very different pictures of what NATO means.
There is an advantage to having troops and equipment pre-positioned where we are likely to need them. If we don't leave NATO we are obligated to help most of the EU. Which means intervene in their wars. By clearly being committed to do so we might prevent one of those wars from starting. Military commanders are preparing to fight wars they hope to never see.
The time and tactical disadvantage of moving equipment and troops could be decisive.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
To be part of NATO doesn't mean we need to keep troops in Germany. We can help, we just don't need to help using military might. Military leaders are preparing to fight wars they will see because everyone is trying to be like the Imperial Roman Empire and when you do that, you fall. Until we get rid of this disease of the idea that fascism is ok, then we will have peace, but fascism reigns in goverments even in America.
Take in refugees?
Sanctions?
Cover it for the TV news?
NATO is a MILITARY treaty. That means stepping up and protecting each other. The reason I asked if you wanted to leave NATO, is because you don't want to fullfill our obligations under it. Everything you have said is along those lines.
There is a pretty good argument, that the European members of NATO could take care of themselves. Those members include many former Soviet satelites. Russia retained almost all of the most modern military equipment, so they would have to increase their defence spending, or be vulnerable from that direction. Why shouldn't they be responsible for their own defence costs?
Facism is pretty specific if you use the traditional definition. Any power is potentially oppressive.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Take in refugees? Yes
Put up sanctions and embargos because someone told us too? no
Cover it on TV? yes
Actually the only reason we were a part of NATO was to counterbalance the threat from the Soviets. That threat is gone, NATO doesn't need us because we are now the bully in the room.
Fascism is what our form of government system is turning into, it's part of the disease of the Roman Empire.
"That threat is gone"
Google News 'putin' look back over the past couple of years.....See what I mean?
At least he is not extolling any expansionist ambitions yet.
Not involving ourselves is a nice concept. I'd go allong with it, but we are too deeply involved. We need security for the rest of the world because we are interconnected in many ways.
I agree that the past relations of every country in the world are a bad example to learn from. Pulling back within our borders does not move forward to a better place, it retreats and cowers. Most people in the world live far below poverty, with poor education, and few of the civil rights we take for granted. I think we need to get to work fixing all of that.
Courage not fear, engage not disengage.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde