Thread: A question on the constitution

Originally Posted by BobH

There has to be a better method that does not create more problems than it solves.

Bob

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Much as I sympathise with the sentiment Glen, your argument supposes that the vanquished are of one mind. Unfortunately, the countries in question are so fractured that minorities will always be able to take liberties and power at the same time so that the enemy you are fighting keeps changing.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

Yea, it is pretty frustrating.

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

Basically tried after WWI and had a good deal to setting up WWII.

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Some how managed not to leave a "power vacuum" in Germany after WWII. Unfortunately the current war on terrorism is not conventional in any sense of the word. The old recipes don't seem to have the desired effect.

Maybe the current attempt at getting the regional players to sort their own problems out, with support, will have longer lasting success or not.

Bob

After WW2 both Germany and Japan had Allied Occupational armies left in place... we (the Allies) also decimated their warfighting capabilities so the threat was pretty low.. By then the civilian populations were ready for the end of hostilities


Now leaving the whole region alone is definitely an option I can get behind but somehow I do believe that TBS's scenario of defending Israel and WW3 will be the outcome and things might be too far gone after that...

We also need to remember that simply trying to blame the US for invading Iraq like a few here are leaning on, is basically being blind to who we knocked out of power.. He was after all called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason , he did after all invade Kuwait and also gassed over 200000 Kurds .. we should have taken him out in 1991 that was a mistake

A convenient lapse of memory,

Much like ISIS and Boko Harum, and many others practicing Genocide in the Dark corners of the world, I feel that is what we "The Western World" agreed to never let that happen again after 1945, yet we seem to forget so much..

Perhaps the answer is actually a International Warfighting Force / Merc's that instead of a UN peacekeeping mission, they are deployed by the UN to go in and hunt down and kill groups like ISIS and Boko then leave ???? If the UN can't handle that responsibility perhaps Nato,

I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral

Well, as you found with Iraq jumping the gun can be just as bad if not worse. Fighting to win starts with knowing what you want to win and what it takes to win it. The fact is that the western world does not have the resources to take over and rule the whole world i.e. you can't stop the genocides and people die. So second best option is the United Nations - you negotiate with the others of what should be done. Compromise means that you can only do less than what you want to do, but at least it can be ensured that it gets done (cf. Iran sanctions).

Of course that goes against that caricature of 'american exceptionalism' that is popular in some circles, but chasing one's tail is just dumb.

For example US has not been fighting China or Saudi Arabia despite their oppressive governments which have been killing their citizens, instead it's partnered with them in the hope that over time they will improve. To claim moral superiority one has to be consistent, and have a relatively clear line when a dictatorship should be treated with cooperation and when with war.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

After WW2 both Germany and Japan had Allied Occupational armies left in place... we (the Allies) also decimated their warfighting capabilities so the threat was pretty low.. By then the civilian populations were ready for the end of hostilities


Now leaving the whole region alone is definitely an option I can get behind but somehow I do believe that TBS's scenario of defending Israel and WW3 will be the outcome and things might be too far gone after that...

We also need to remember that simply trying to blame the US for invading Iraq like a few here are leaning on, is basically being blind to who we knocked out of power.. He was after all called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason , he did after all invade Kuwait and also gassed over 200000 Kurds .. we should have taken him out in 1991 that was a mistake

A convenient lapse of memory,

Much like ISIS and Boko Harum, and many others practicing Genocide in the Dark corners of the world, I feel that is what we "The Western World" agreed to never let happen again after 1945 yet we seem to forget so much..

Perhaps the answer is actually a International Warfighting Force / Merc's that instead of a UN peacekeeping mission, they are deployed by the UN to go in and hunt down and kill groups like ISIS and Boko then leave ???? If the UN can't handle that responsibility perhaps Nato,

I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral

I would agree if only in part..

WWII and the occupation was done after a conventional war with a defined enemy in uniform from a defined and recognized geographical area Germany/Japan. I do not think that method is wholly applicable when you are fighting ghosts like modern terrorism.

I don't think anyone in the west cared much what the Butcher of Baghdad did until he invaded Kuwait and tried to upset the oil cart. That is regardless of who or how many he gassed or otherwise misbehaved. No lapse of memory there on my part and I don't blame the US for invading to protect oil sources. Just call it what it was and don't fancy it up is all.

Yes, we in the west sit back and ring our hands far too long in the face of genocide in the dark corners of the world. Not right or moral.

NATO is for the protection of it's member states by it's charter and it may be a stretch to push that protection so far from it's members physical borders. OTH even though the main area of operation for ISIS is physically far away there have been attacks within the borders of NATO member states so it might not be that far a stretch. Hard to make that stretch for BOKO though.

Yes, the UN could do more if it were to have a standing army of it's own made up from member nations large enough and well equipped to do serious peace keeping. No need to hire Mercs. That would take a quantum leap in world mentality on relinquishing sovereign power and special interests. I do not think most regions in the world would want to do that.

I think getting multi national forces from the surrounding area to handle their own problems with outside support when needed and requested may be an alternative if it could be made to work. There are more than enough countries that view Boko and ISIS as a common threat to their region. Would make some pretty interesting and strange bed fellows.

Bob

The more I think about it the more I like a Mercenary force paid for by a Group of nations (yet to be defined) maybe not the UN since it is pretty non-functional...
We are like you say fighting a non-conventional war perhaps it is time to change the dynamics and be much more reactive, with fast and decisive action against groups like this without the cumbersome mantel of statecraft...

Sanctions and Discussions seem to only hurt the innocent citizens and lengthen the time of suffering..

Originally Posted by BobH

No need to hire Mercs. That would take a quantum leap in world mentality on relinquishing sovereign power and special interests. I do not think most regions in the world would want to do that.

I know this is heretical, but there may be something in there. I mean with increased globalisation the country boundaries are becoming less meaningful. The other piece is that with growing economic disparity a country's politics is shaped more by the economic power at the top than by the large numbers at the bottom (I mean that's probably always been the case). So decreased sovereign power and increased role of the special interest doesn't strike me as all too improbable future, though getting there wouldn't be by quantum leap but gradual transition.
I mean mercenaries used to be around in the past, but then the wars became between conscript armies, then we moved towards all volunteer army, and Iraq saw pretty dramatic outsourcing to private companies, i.e. mercenaries (it boggled my mind at the time).

Originally Posted by BobH

I think getting multi national forces from the surrounding area to handle their own problems with outside support when needed and requested may be an alternative if it could be made to work.

I believe that's been one of the components for quite some time, just not the most prominent.

We all hate it when innocent people die and suffer and that's the tragedy. The way I see it even as a 'collateral damage' and not 'victims' dead people are still dead. I know I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz may have genuinely believed that it will be a quick campaign where the Iraqi people greet US as liberators and rebuilding the country into a free and democratic Iraq would be simple and easy. I mean that's what they sold, but while I've never been in war I really think that's a fictionalized story of how wars work, and they should've known better.

Originally Posted by gugi

We all hate it when innocent people die and suffer and that's the tragedy. The way I see it even as a 'collateral damage' and not 'victims' dead people are still dead. I know I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz may have genuinely believed that it will be a quick campaign where the Iraqi people greet US as liberators and rebuilding the country into a free and democratic Iraq would be simple and easy. I mean that's what they sold, but while I've never been in war I really think that's a fictionalized story of how wars work, and they should've known better.

Call me a cynic but I believe they did know better. When a decision is made to invade a foreign country there are usually two reasons to do so. They are the real one and the window dressing that sells the deal to the public. It is an added bonus if you can build a coalition of other like minded countries to go along as it adds an air of legitimacy to the venture. You really can't take much at face value.

Bob

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

I think it stats by figuring out what's your objective and if it's even achievable by war; secondly with the potential consequences and whether they would create far bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve.
For example the war in Afganistan was to destroy Bin Laden's organization - utter failure. In Iraq it was about getting rid of that country's WMD's.

Perhaps the lesson for US is that a 'war on terror' is unwinnable, at least not in the way of conan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdzBaPDmJk

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help aft

That sounds like doubling down on what keeps failing. Just think about it - the dictators in these countries hold them together by terrorizing the people and when the government oppression is weakened you get violence and chaos. What would US do differently when it's in charge?
Colonialism ended over half a century ago, do you really think US can do better than the past failures and build a colonial empire that will work? What would you do differently from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy... ?