Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree26Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 26th, 2018, 09:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: United States
Posts: 3
Repercussions of U.S. military actions

It is my understanding that much of the terrorism over the past couple of decades has been retaliation against the actions of the militaries of western governments like the U.S. Without the aggressive military action of these governments, especially the U.S., it seems likely to me that ordinary people living in the U.S. and Europe would have little reason to worry about terrorist attacks.

I get this impression from articles like this one from the Intercept, book chapters like this one from Michael Huemer's book The Problem of Political Authority, and various similar sources.

Do others here think this is a correct impression? What opinions do others have?

Also, I would like to see the U.S. government's military scaled down as much as is possible. (I want it abolished altogether, but I figure it might be easier to persuade others to at least want it scaled down.) Who else here wants to see it scaled down or abolished?
Thanks from the Beast
silentstarling is offline  
Old January 26th, 2018, 09:28 PM   #2
Coconut Lure
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,987
Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.
Thanks from locke23
webguy4 is offline  
Old February 4th, 2018, 06:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,906
Governments don't function in terms of evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.
Yah, there's a lot of rhetoric on the topic. But the US has policy aims, & combatting evil isn't one of them. For instance, we entered WWI & WWII late - partly because we weren't ready militarily - but also because we weren't certain we wanted to intercede, & in WWI, it wasn't immediately clear whose side we would favor.

If fighting evil were truly our policy, there were things we should have done & things we should not have done in the near 250 years we've existed. In the case of the troubles in the Middle East, I blame the Sykes-Picot agreement between UK & France, carving up the Middle East (after the Ottoman Empire's collapse) without any regard for the desires nor affinities of the peoples already living there.

By all rights, we should force UK & France to clean up their mess.
Thanks from Hollywood
hoosier88 is offline  
Old February 5th, 2018, 06:28 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 23,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.
Hmmm, we seem to prefer to confront "evil" primarily if it's happening in places with lots of oil or other natural resources we value or it's physical location is of stratigic/economic importance to us.

I'm sure that is just a coincidence.
Thanks from RNG, hoosier88 and Clara007
Hollywood is offline  
Old February 5th, 2018, 11:16 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.

WHY ???? Why must WE bear the major responsibility for it ?? Why must WE pay for being the world's policeman ??

$2 TRILLIONS DOLLARS pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan and what do we have to show for it ??
Thanks from Hollywood
BubbaJones is offline  
Old February 5th, 2018, 11:21 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Hmmm, we seem to prefer to confront "evil" primarily if it's happening in places with lots of oil or other natural resources we value or it's physical location is of stratigic/economic importance to us.

I'm sure that is just a coincidence.

Darfur ?? Darfur ?? Darfur anyone ?? We KNEW who was committing most of the atrocities. He was speaking openly on a sat phone from his compound. ONE Tomahawk missile could have changed the lives of millions. Yet we sat by and did nothing. WHY ??

Simple, Darfur is a dirt poor region with few natural resources, filled with dirty, poor and uneducated little brown people. NOTHING WE WANTED OR NEEDED from there.

Why didn't WE with all our technology hunt for, find and rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram ??
Thanks from Hollywood
BubbaJones is offline  
Old February 5th, 2018, 11:41 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 23,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Darfur ?? Darfur ?? Darfur anyone ?? We KNEW who was committing most of the atrocities. He was speaking openly on a sat phone from his compound. ONE Tomahawk missile could have changed the lives of millions. Yet we sat by and did nothing. WHY ??

Simple, Darfur is a dirt poor region with few natural resources, filled with dirty, poor and uneducated little brown people. NOTHING WE WANTED OR NEEDED from there.

Why didn't WE with all our technology hunt for, find and rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram ??
Guess it just wasn't EVIL enough for us to do something about it. *shrug*
Hollywood is offline  
Old February 5th, 2018, 12:25 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Guess it just wasn't EVIL enough for us to do something about it. *shrug*

We've spent $2 Trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama dropped 26,000 bombs on "terrorists" in 2016.

Yet with a military budget of $700 BILLION dollars, we couldn't find our way to spare a single $1.4 million dollar missile ?? A missile that would have changed the lives of millions of people, while placing NOT a single one of our personnel in danger ??
Thanks from Hollywood

Last edited by BubbaJones; February 5th, 2018 at 12:33 PM.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old February 7th, 2018, 06:16 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,906
One possibiity - there are others

Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
We've spent $2 Trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama dropped 26,000 bombs on "terrorists" in 2016.

Yet with a military budget of $700 BILLION dollars, we couldn't find our way to spare a single $1.4 million dollar missile ?? A missile that would have changed the lives of millions of people, while placing NOT a single one of our personnel in danger ??
On Darfur - or Sudan (I'm not sure who was directing things in Darfur)? From the US point of view, it probably depended on who was buying the oil/natgas from Sudan - lately China has been moving in on the Third World - especially Africa - on building infrastructure, refineries, pipelines, networks, comms, etc. - or financing them (& design, build, providing materials & workforce & equipment & operators - practically vertical integration of the whole package, from proposal to finance/insurance & implementation, to a turn-key solution). If China wasn't buying nor building, we might have been happy to keep China out & just let Sudan go on their merry way.

It should be possible to see who was buying output @ the time, & who the refineries & etc. belonged to & who was operating all that. Offhand, that's all I can think of, in terms of why we would have let the deals stand as they were. Especially if the end buyers were Western European - thereby putting a thumb in the CIS' oil/natgas market, depriving them of some hard currency. & giving the Western European countries some leverage to negotiate better oil/natgas deals with the CIS. A kinda Realpolitik win-win for the US & Western Europe - but hard on the people in Darfur.
hoosier88 is offline  
Old March 2nd, 2018, 08:21 PM   #10
patriot
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Darfur ?? Darfur ?? Darfur anyone ?? We KNEW who was committing most of the atrocities. He was speaking openly on a sat phone from his compound. ONE Tomahawk missile could have changed the lives of millions. Yet we sat by and did nothing. WHY ??
Have you ever heard of Executive Order 12333--United States intelligence activities, Part 2.11, "Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

Our only involvement in assassination is that of counterintelligence, which "means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations or persons, or international terrorist activities, but not including personnel, physical, document or communications security programs."

Source.

Quote:
Simple, Darfur is a dirt poor region with few natural resources, filled with dirty, poor and uneducated little brown people. NOTHING WE WANTED OR NEEDED from there.

Why didn't WE with all our technology hunt for, find and rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram ??
"The Islamic State in West Africa (abbreviated as ISWA or ISWAP), formerly known as Jamā'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-Da'wah wa'l-Jihād (Arabic: جماعة أهل السنة للدعوة والجهاد‎, "Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad") and commonly known as Boko Haram until March 2015, is a Jihadist militant organization based in northeastern Nigeria, also active in Chad, Niger and northern Cameroon." - Sources, below

The fallout of us interdicting with an Islamic jihadi organization would have resulted in many times that amount of slaughter the world over.

As it is, the U.S. had many responses, most of which supported forces already in the area and already fighting them.

Sources:

"Islamic State recognizes oath of allegiance from jihadists in Mali". Long War Journal. 31 October 2017.
"Islamic State West Africa (ISWA / ISWAP)". Terrorism Research Analysis Consortium.
"Boko Haram renames itself Islamic State's West Africa Province (Iswap) as militants launch new offensive against government forces". the Independent. 25 April 2015.
"Islamic State West African province (ISWAP)/Boko Haram". Globalsecurity.org.
"Is Islamic State shaping Boko Haram media?". bbc. 4 March 2015. Retrieved 24 September 2015.
"Nigeria's Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Islamic State". BBC news. BBC. 7 March 2015. Retrieved 7 March 2015.
Adam Chandler (9 March 2015). "The Islamic State of Boko Haram? :The terrorist group has pledged its allegiance to ISIS. But what does that really mean?". The Atlantic.
mugaliens is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
actions, anti-war, blowback, military, repercusions, repercussions, repurcusions, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lawless’ Obama Actions azchurchmouse Americas 65 May 10th, 2014 08:51 AM
Actions The Us Could Have Taken To Prevent Wwii baloney_detector Warfare 5 July 29th, 2012 03:51 AM
UK Military Briefing re. Iran's Actions baloney_detector Warfare 8 April 8th, 2007 05:47 AM
Bush not man enough to face his actions. mmafighter Warfare 62 August 17th, 2005 11:46 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.