RE: http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,192938,00.html


We have met the enemy..and it is us! Or at least according to this writer...

We are the Evil Empire...so, I guess the United States gets put to the top of the List of Axis of Evil now??? Should we put ourselves on nonfavorable nations list, and Protest ourselves at the U.N.? maybe start putting better sattalite systems to spy on ourselves so that we..."The Evil Empire" will not do anything to provoke a altercation with us?

Until the fall of the United States and whats left is converted to Islam will we "The United States" ever have a good relationship with that part of the world...anybody that thinks other wise is smoking some good rope!

The writer never said or implied any of those things.

Yes, we did have a good relationship with that part of the world, once. Ever hear of the Camp David Accords? Did you ever hear about the Peace we helped negotiate between Jordan and Israel?

Perhaps not.

Gee all this "Lets just get along", didn't that fail in 1939 in a place called Germany, after we and the rest of the world buried our heads in the sand and let "lil Adolph" do as he pleased, it only killed 20+ million people! Since Iraq has bowed out and Libiya and gotten quiet, most of the support for terrorist groups has come from Iran, Yemen and Somalia- with Iran providing most of the hardware. Yet the author suggest we just get along! How sweet- what solace to the families of the bombed American embassies, the USS Cole and the 3000 dead at the twin towers/Pentagon- didn't we ignore those terrorist and got along untill it was too late? What a bunch of crapola!

quote:

Originally posted by 6362250:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,192938,00.html


We have met the enemy..and it is us! Or at least according to this writer...

We are the Evil Empire...so, I guess the United States gets put to the top of the List of Axis of Evil now??? Should we put ourselves on nonfavorable nations list, and Protest ourselves at the U.N.? maybe start putting better sattalite systems to spy on ourselves so that we..."The Evil Empire" will not do anything to provoke a altercation with us?

Until the fall of the United States and whats left is converted to Islam will we "The United States" ever have a good relationship with that part of the world...anybody that thinks other wise is smoking some good rope!

---------
Nah, U.S. foreign policy is just going back like it was in the Ronald Reagan days. No "pre-emptive wars" and a "trust but verify" type of diplomacy. U.S. national interests don't necessarily mean threatening an attack against any country that doesn't have a U.S. style democratic government. Particulary threats against countries that have a great deal of the world's oil reserves.

quote:

The United States would like Iran to become more democratic, help stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, give up its nuclear program, and stop its support for Hamas and Hezbollah -- Israel's enemies. Although its elections are not perfect, Iran has been -- and still is -- the most democratic country in the Middle East other than Israel. The United States is embarrassed that its diabolical foe is much more democratic than its autocratic and repressive allies of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Hating the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran, in the past, has quietly worked with the United States in Afghanistan to stabilize that nation. In Iraq, although the U.S. and Iranian interests sometimes diverge, both countries have an interest in stability there (it's right next door to Iran), and both countries are supporting the Shi'i-dominated government.

The US blew a massive opportunity with Iran soon after 9/11, when the Bush Administration was not only given huge amounts of intelligence w/r/t Afghanistan by Iran, but was also offered logistical support, plus use of airfields and hospitals to support our effort to go after Bin Laden and the Taliban. There was also a stong desire, made clear by Iran, to put all previous issues on the table, and start negotiations to renormalize relations between our countries to in effect bury the hatchet.

Instead, the Bush Administration opted for the low road and added Iran to the so-called "axis of evil" in a cheap political stunt. Then we further aggravated the middle east by removing Irans arch enemy (Iraq), thereby upsetting the balance of power by putting Iran into the drivers seat, angering our arab allies, garnering a foreign policy disaster in the process, and according to the 2007 NIE making the nation considerably less secure than if they had done nothing at all (by inciting a new influx of followers and cash into Al Queda, etc). Iran opted taking the smart route, by creating alliances with Russia and China to compromise what few remaining foreign policy options the US had

This was obviously a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

W/r/t nuclear energy, the Iranians have been planning for nuclear power generation for almost a generation - since the Ford Administration in fact. Back in the 70's, Iran was our ally. The Shah commissioned studies to determine how long Iran's oil reserves would hold out, and found that Iran had 30-40 years of reserves given the current market. They wanted to retain energy independence, and ultimately determine that nuclear power was the best way to guarentee that. The results of that study were sent to the Ford Administration, who evaluated that research and ultimately approved Iran nuclear ambitions.

Two of the most notable individuals that signed off on Irans long range power plans were Richard B Cheney and one Donald Rumsfeld. Do the math and we find ourselves in that exact timeframe.

That isn't to say that something else might not be gong on, but Iran's interest in nuclear power isn't merely a passing phase - it has been around for decades and in their long range plans. And it got the United States blessing.

Why does this web site, which is dedicated to veterans continuously force us to suffer the opinion of this idiot author? Enough with the stupid America hating liberal bullsh*t.

Blah blah blah blame America, the world is out to get you...

quote:

Originally posted by lovatscot:
Gee all this "Lets just get along", didn't that fail in 1939 in a place called Germany, after we and the rest of the world buried our heads in the sand and let "lil Adolph" do as he pleased, it only killed 20+ million people! Since Iraq has bowed out and Libiya and gotten quiet, most of the support for terrorist groups has come from Iran, Yemen and Somalia- with Iran providing most of the hardware. Yet the author suggest we just get along! How sweet- what solace to the families of the bombed American embassies, the USS Cole and the 3000 dead at the twin towers/Pentagon- didn't we ignore those terrorist and got along untill it was too late? What a bunch of crapola!

We buried our heads in the sand because the overwhelming majority of the American people saw the European conflict as just that: a European Conflict. No one was threatening American interests (at the time).

The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain was a highly decorated war hero, who was looking to avoid going to war because the damage suffered from WWI was still a recent memory (it was hard to ignore millions of dead on your doorstep). No leader in history has ever been happy about going to war (possible exception: G W Bush, who smiled his way throughout his presidency and the Iraq war, and reputedly never regretted sending thouusands of US troops to their deaths over WMD's that never materialized, or for that matter 100k+ Iraqi's - despite the fact that the invasion of Iraq in the end was unjustifiable - but I digress).

He was fully supported by the Allies and the British people at the time.

When Hitler broke the agreement, he immediately started to mobilize Great Britian for total war. Note that he was an old friend of Winston Churchill, and only resigned his post due to illness. They remained friends until his death (in 1942, I think).

I realize that it is important to some that we just kill a sh*t-load of people (arabs) to make 'em pay for 9/11, but it would seem logical to most that we put blame where it is supposed to be, and not on those who had nothing to do with it (neither Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or Libya were involved). But did we go after the Saudi's (of which 15 of them took part in those attacks)? Nope. Thats despite the fact that the madrassas in Saudi Arabia preached hatred/taught of Jews and Christians for years. We went after the Iraqis, but they had nothing to do with the attacks either (despite Cheney constantly claiming so years after that claim had been debunked).

The documentation is clear: all other United States administrations put the highest priority on fighting terrorism except that of G W Bush. He was infamously quoted as being "tired of swatting flies", and ignored his counter-terrorism experts as that administration had "other priorities". Until 9/11.

Then that administration took action, by using the most damaging (to United States interests) policies in history. According to the 2007 NIE (amongst others) he endangered our national security and created far more problems than if he took no action at all, garnered the US numerous foreign policy disasters, and became the chief recruiter to Al Queda for both terrorist volunteers and cash donations.

So all the supposedly great things "accomplished" by President Bush were in the end disastrous to this nation - and garnered Al Queda and those who hate America the greatest victory imaginable.

W/r/t Iran - G W Bush made a mess of that as well. After 9/11 the Iranians came to the US and not only helped us with huge intelligence to support the Afghanistan campaign, but also offered use of airfields and hospitals (plus logistical support), and made it clear that they were ready to come to the table to put all issues of the past to rest, with the goal of renormalizing relations between our countries.

But he blew that opportunity - making our lives and those in the region vastly harder than they had to be, and far more difficult to fix.

The methods of the previous administration failed - and we are vastly less safe as a result (according to the opinion of all 16 of our national security agencies). The nonsense that "we haven't been attacked since so he must've been right" is lame. By that measure, Jimmy Carter was easily the superior president because we suffered no attacks during his term in office. If anything, it is a testimony to the dedication and hard work of our national security agencies that prevented attacks (so far) on this nation, despite the policies of the Bush Administration.

Going to war is easy, and diplomacy is hard. G W Bush took the easy way out, as was typical.

Unfortunately.

quote:

Originally posted by PolicyWonk:

quote:

W/r/t nuclear energy, the Iranians have been planning for nuclear power generation for almost a generation - since the Ford Administration in fact. Back in the 70's, Iran was our ally. The Shah commissioned studies to determine how long Iran's oil reserves would hold out, and found that Iran had 30-40 years of reserves given the current market. They wanted to retain energy independence, and ultimately determine that nuclear power was the best way to guarentee that. The results of that study were sent to the Ford Administration, who evaluated that research and ultimately approved Iran nuclear ambitions.

Iran and nuclear related ideas are older than the 1970s. It goes back to the end of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War. The adminstration and the CIA's Wild Bill wanted the US to control Iranian oil reserves and the US would "promise" to provide nuclear power to Iran for peaceful purposes. The US then would have a foot hold against the Russians who also were seeking the same strategic resources.

The problem was the Shah wanted nuclear weapons, and the US did not trust him due his weak leadership. When Moussedeq won power in the coup de etat, the US' support for nuclear power subsided; at least in action, not necessarily on paper. Even after the Shah was reinstated
and returned from Europe, the US did not consider giving control to Iran over nuclear options; only in US control. The 1979 Revolution cemented the US' decision.

Even administrations like Carter's who wanted discussions with Iran failed, because Iran didn't want to bow down to the US. Iran may be a Muslim theocracy, but it is not an Arab country, it is of Persian descent. Iran wants to reestablish it's prior empire that it once had. Hence, it favors to support and supply violent factions in other countries in the Middle East and around the world in order to strong arm them to stay out of Iran's way or suffer attacks on their own soil.

Currently, Iran does not want dialogue with the Obama Administration no matter how well intended Obama's requests or concessions may sound. Iran's current regime knows it will weaken their power and that is something the Supreme Leader will not allow.

There may a glimmer of hope with the protests from the younger generations, but the Revolutionary Guard is like the KGB and imbedded in almost every facet of society and is not afraid to kill in the name of the Ayatollah and the protection of the theocracy. It is a cultural mindset from 30 years of being slaves to the regime.

If Iran's regime changes, it will open new doors in a lot of places for change. Saudi Arabia will then look like an evil empire to its people pushing for more "social norms". That's of Osama's main goals is overthrowing the monarchy of Saudi and restoring power to the people (albeit under a theocracy). We can only hope for the best.

Policy Wonk is right on target....scroll back up and re-read the thoughtful entry.

So is the entry by Yanqui69 above.

The international news media has to get better at getting around the public statements of elected and Pentagon officials.

America is the only nation to conquer the world at least three times, conquer numerous countries, and then give them back. That's what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, throwing the tyrants out and giving these countries back to their people. God help us if people like you, the progressives and the liberals complete your takeover of our country.

if you don't like the way we do things HERE go to France, or Russia, or China, or Iran....no!... you can't go to Iran... the people there are fighting for their freedom now... WONDER WHERE THEY GOT THAT IDEA??

quote:

Originally posted by sbtaxpro:
America is the only nation to conquer the world at least three times, conquer numerous countries, and then give them back. That's what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, throwing the tyrants out and giving these countries back to their people. God help us if people like you, the progressives and the liberals complete your takeover of our country.

if you don't like the way we do things HERE go to France, or Russia, or China, or Iran....no!... you can't go to Iran... the people there are fighting for their freedom now... WONDER WHERE THEY GOT THAT IDEA??

W/r/t Iraq, you really shouldn't go there. We had no right whatsoever to invade Iraq, as even according to the 2002 NIE (published that October, just after 9/11) Iraq was not a threat to the United States of America, and they were not our enemy. According to that document, the UN Inspectors were highly successful removing WMD's from Iraq's arsenal (and said any remaining ones were simply residual and of no consequence), and that the sanctions against them had completely stripped Iraq of any real offensive capability. So the administration knew that Iraq wasn't a threat, but was determined to go after them anyway. They are therefore fundamentally responsible for the deaths of 4000+ American soldiers, ~50,000 American wounded, and over 100,000 Iraqi deaths, not counting the IRaqi wounded, expense (a trillion dollars and counting), foreign policy disaster, etc. All supposedly to fight the terrorists where they were not (and instead of fighting them where they were: in Afghanistan).

In Afghanistan, GWB failed this nation after 9/11 because he expected the Northern Alliance to do the fighting for us, and ultimately capture Bin Laden. The US only sent 40 special forces personnel (to call in airstrikes) to help trap Bin Laden when he was holed up in Tora Bora when the opportunity was there (and we knew where Bin Laden was), instead of sending thousands of marines, etc, to surround the area. The man who killed 3000 Americans was effectively allowed to get away: they stopped looking for him only 6 months after 9/11 (regular detectives pursue common murderers for years: but not that president). They started pulling people out of Afghanistan and started sending them to prepare for Iraq instead of finishing the job and bringing that foul excuse for scum to justice.

President Clinton actually had a predator tasked specifically to follow Bin Laden around so we could keep tabs on him: Donald Rumsfeld cancelled those orders (who's side was HE on?) right at the beginning of the Bush Administration. Janet Reno had increased the counter-terrorism budget in the DoJ by 13.6% in 1999, 7.1% in 2000, and 22.7% in 2001. John, Ashcroft, by comparison, cut the counter-terrorism budget by 23%. Just one day before 9/11, 2001: Ashcroft's budget asked for increased budgets for over 68 programs in his DoJ, not one of them was terrorism. On May 10th, 2001, Ashcroft, in a letter to his department heads, outlined 47 "strategic goals" for the DoJ, and not one of them was fighting terrorism. Note also, that when Richard Clarke outlined what the Bush Adminsitration didn't do to fight terrorism (it was the highest priority in the Clinton Administration), the Bush adminsitration didn't argue/deny what he was saying: instead they attacked him personally. They simply didn't do the job, and failed to do the job during August 2001 when all of our national intelligence agencies were going ape because of the increased tempo of of terrorist traffic indicated that a major operation was soon to come, involving aircraft, and major targets in the US. No one in the Bush Administration took action - and the president at the time was on vacation in Crawford, Texas. They made no attempt whatsoever to ooordinate/take control of the situation, and left the CIA, FBI, etc, on their own. The documentation is clear, and there is no possible excuse. Not even so much as a warning to the airlines. Nothing. Silence.

The "tactics" (such as they were) to combat terrorism used by the Bush Administration (according to multiple NIE's - the consensus of all 16 of our national intelligence agencies, for years 2006 and 2007) used only after the worst catastrophy since Pearl Harbor, had the fundamental effect of making this nation far LESS safe than it would have been if Bush had taken NO ACTION AT ALL. And it isn't merely the incompetence of the Bush Administration that made the United States less safe - oh no - thats too easy: they had to bring this disaster down on all our allies in the process. And put Iran into the power brokers seat by taking out Iraq, who wasn't even our enemy at the time, according to our governments own documentation. That had the additional benefit of destabilizing the region, and angering our arab allies to boot. Awesome - huh???

The so-called "tough on terrorism" "conservatives" so screwed the pooch, that Bin Laden should pin medals on them - because they fulfilled his wildest dreams. And then they have the gall to claim that they have a clue - yep - and the world is FLAT, too. Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, they still try to claim we are safer - despite the published opinion (to the contrary) of the NIE.

Fortunately, the crimes against this nation (let alone the world) are so aggregious that there is no statute of limitations for what they have done. And it may only be a matter of time...

You should be profoundly relieved that someone with an interest in protecting the United States is in office and doing his job instead of vacationing during a national crisis. In the first 7 years of his administration, GWB spent over 900 days on vacation. Who do you know who takes over 127 days a year on vacation (not even your hated French, Iranians, Russians, etc, have the gall to do such a thing)? Not even your dreaded "socialist" governments do that! Only the laziest president in our national history could do that...

If you think anyone can somehow justify all this, and there is so much more, then I'd love to hear the excuses!. Because history has demonstrated that it did not work for the United States of America - and will remain of ill consequence to this nation for years to come.

What a shame...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PolicyWonk,

Wonk,

Don't forget to place some blame on both the Dems and Repubs and Independents of Congress that approved the wars and funded them. Remember our country's "balance of power"?