Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Will Beijing Biden Start New wars?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will Beijing Biden Start New wars?

    I didn't want to derail another thread that started down this path.

    I was defending the Libertarian foreign policy position to avoid the old "America: World Policeman" role we slowly devolved into since the early 1990s (thanks a lot, Maggie).

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    While I'm a small L libertarian I understand the desire to defeat ISIS since the last time we effectively ignored such groups, things did not go very well resulting in the invasion of Afghanistan.
    ISIS wasn't posing any real threat to the US. It caught our attention more because of its ruthless behavior and public beheadings, but its targets were just about everyone in the Middle East - not the US. That being the case, it wasn't our fight. It was a perfect opportunity for those endlessly squabbling nations to come together and defeat them, which should have been rather easy considering they had them surrounded.

    IMO, the US should not get involved in any conflict that does not directly threaten the US, our vital interests, or a solid* ally.

    (* "ally" meaning a country that would also come to our aid in a significant manner)

  • #2
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    I didn't want to derail another thread that started down this path.

    I was defending the Libertarian foreign policy position to avoid the old "America: World Policeman" role we slowly devolved into since the early 1990s (thanks a lot, Maggie).



    ISIS wasn't posing any real threat to the US. It caught our attention more because of its ruthless behavior and public beheadings, but its targets were just about everyone in the Middle East - not the US. That being the case, it wasn't our fight. It was a perfect opportunity for those endlessly squabbling nations to come together and defeat them, which should have been rather easy considering they had them surrounded.

    IMO, the US should not get involved in any conflict that does not directly threaten the US, our vital interests, or a solid* ally.

    (* "ally" meaning a country that would also come to our aid in a significant manner)
    The exact same thing could have been said about the Taliban. Then they started providing refuge to al-Qaida and the rest is history. Similarly, ISIS was moving out of the Middle East what with the plot to blow up British PM Theresa May and the plot to perform random beheadings in Australia. Should we have just sat by and waited until they started killing people on American soil?

    At least with ISIS we managed to keep our presence much more limited and got out rather than continued to pretend they were merely the JV squad.



    And some of those behead were Americans

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

      The exact same thing could have been said about the Taliban. Then they started providing refuge to al-Qaida and the rest is history.
      The Taliban in 2001 was a weak government, overstretched, trying to survive in a multi-front war. It posed no threat to the US itself.

      Now, having said this (and in hindsight since I didn't know the details in 2001) Bush handled the situation poorly. His ultimatum was that the Taliban "hand over" Osama bin Laden or face a war with us.
      (1) The Taliban didn't have the power/strength to capture and "hand over" OBL.
      (2) Al Qaida was assisting the Taliban's survival by joining in its fight against the Northern Alliance.
      Taking that into consideration, Bush's declaration should have been: "We're coming in to get OBL. Stay out of our way and there won't be a problem."

      Because Bush chose the former route, we ended up in a 20-year war with the Taliban that need never have started.

      Similarly, ISIS was moving out of the Middle East what with the plot to blow up British PM Theresa May and the plot to perform random beheadings in Australia. Should we have just sat by and waited until they started killing people on American soil?
      First, ISIS barely qualified as a nation. It was more like Capone gangsters setting up a criminal territory within host nations - nations that had the ability and motive to rout them. Given time that's what they would have done. But they knew the US would come running to intervene because we were the established "World Cop" and so they didn't need to bother.

      At least with ISIS we managed to keep our presence much more limited and got out rather than continued to pretend they were merely the JV squad.

      And some of those behead were Americans
      Criminal activity. We found out who these criminals were, and they would ultimately be dealt with.

      Comment


      • #4
        There was so much in-fighting in the fractured Northern Alliance that they posed more of a threat to themselves than they did the Taliban.

        And ISIS was continuing to spread in those host nations so while they had the motive to stop them that they had the ability without a great deal of outside assistance is highly questionable. Not to mention that the ineptness of the previous Administration the Russians were rapidly moving into the vacuum that was created and that was definitely not in our interest.

        Personally I would have preferred to have let the Saudis and Jordanians who probably had the best armies in the region (outside of Israel) pick up the ball but...

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

          The exact same thing could have been said about the Taliban. Then they started providing refuge to al-Qaida and the rest is history. Similarly, ISIS was moving out of the Middle East what with the plot to blow up British PM Theresa May and the plot to perform random beheadings in Australia. Should we have just sat by and waited until they started killing people on American soil?

          At least with ISIS we managed to keep our presence much more limited and got out rather than continued to pretend they were merely the JV squad.



          And some of those behead were Americans
          But we are the cause of the Taliban because we even earlier decided to meddle and arm proxy groups and train them decades earlier. How is that any different than what we've been doing against ISIS, in syria, etc.? All we're doing is failing to learn from our past mistakes. Because the warmongers and those paid by the military industrial complex don't want us to. Time to wake up, folks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            There was so much in-fighting in the fractured Northern Alliance that they posed more of a threat to themselves than they did the Taliban.
            In any case, Al Qaida fought on the Taliban side. Bush's demand was that the Taliban betray an ally (which it probably couldn't have achieved in any regard).

            And ISIS was continuing to spread in those host nations so while they had the motive to stop them that they had the ability without a great deal of outside assistance is highly questionable.
            Their only hindrance was the willingness to unite. Militarily, it would not have been a contest.

            Not to mention that the ineptness of the previous Administration the Russians were rapidly moving into the vacuum that was created and that was definitely not in our interest.
            That would be a nightmare for Russia then, like Afghanistan was previously. I really don't care if Russia meddles in that region - or China for that matter. It is a quagmire of never-ending conflict; a fool's venture.

            Personally I would have preferred to have let the Saudis and Jordanians who probably had the best armies in the region (outside of Israel) pick up the ball but...
            If they didn't have the US to come to the rescue, they would have been forced to cooperate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

              But we are the cause of the Taliban because we even earlier decided to meddle and arm proxy groups and train them decades earlier. How is that any different than what we've been doing against ISIS, in syria, etc.? All we're doing is failing to learn from our past mistakes. Because the warmongers and those paid by the military industrial complex don't want us to. Time to wake up, folks.
              Addressed some of this in the other thread https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e4#post1209518

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                In any case, Al Qaida fought on the Taliban side. Bush's demand was that the Taliban betray an ally (which it probably couldn't have achieved in any regard).



                Their only hindrance was the willingness to unite. Militarily, it would not have been a contest.
                They formed in 1996 and pretty much lost ground from that point on. Only one of the groups that made up the Alliance was even successful in defending their own homeland. All they managed was to avoid being wiped out being on the defensive the entire time until American forces arrived at which point the Northern Alliance had been effectively pushed back into the province of Badakhshan in northeastern corner of the country.

                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                That would be a nightmare for Russia then, like Afghanistan was previously. I really don't care if Russia meddles in that region - or China for that matter. It is a quagmire of never-ending conflict; a fool's venture.
                I'm not talking about their sending in military forces but rather bringing the region under their sphere of influence.

                Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                If they didn't have the US to come to the rescue, they would have been forced to cooperate.
                Maybe, but in the case of the Saudis I think they would save themselves for a fight with Iran and be loathe to expend their strength against ISIS.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Is it just me or does this thread have little or nothing to do with the title?

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Is it just me or does this thread have little or nothing to do with the title?
                    Well, in a broad sense. It's more about the two-fold Libertarian objection to "regime building" and playing "world policeman." Trump followed a libertarian path, where I believe Biden will go back to the old ways.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Is it just me or does this thread have little or nothing to do with the title?
                      No, it's not just you.

                      I've heard Biden's appointments so far described as Obama 2.0. Now as I recall, Obama didn't start any wars. However, he did authorized drone strikes on people, supported the Arab Spring and then backed off when the governments cracked down, drew red lines in the sand that weren't enforced, and kept troops in Afghanistan (I have absolutely no idea why we still have troops there) and Iraq.

                      Short answer is no Biden won't (at least intentionally) start any wars. However there will be more armed interventions in other countries.
                      "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                      "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post

                        No, it's not just you.

                        I've heard Biden's appointments so far described as Obama 2.0. Now as I recall, Obama didn't start any wars.
                        Air strikes in Libya, and boots on the ground in Syria.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...rian_Civil_War

                        However, he did authorized drone strikes on people, supported the Arab Spring and then backed off when the governments cracked down, drew red lines in the sand that weren't enforced, and kept troops in Afghanistan (I have absolutely no idea why we still have troops there) and Iraq.

                        Short answer is no Biden won't (at least intentionally) start any wars. However there will be more armed interventions in other countries.
                        I hope you're right, but I doubt it. Biden is an "old school" protagonist of world policing and regime change. He voted for the invasion of Iraq, and wanted the US to carve the country into pieces after Hussein was ousted.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          While I certainly don't shed any tears for Gaddafi the problem with removing him is that he had pretty much done what he was told him he had to do. He wasn't sponsoring terrorism and even shut down his nuclear weapons program and decommissioned his chemical weapons program in an attempt to normalize relations with the West. And yet we still assisted in overthrowing him any way.

                          What sort of signal did that send to other dictators throughout the world? Even if you do as we demand we're still going to take you out. Pretty much obliterated any motivation for others to also comply.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Even worse than Gaddafi...

                            https://www.haaretz.com/1.5115373

                            Obama's betrayal of Hosni Mubarak is not just the betrayal of a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation. Obama's betrayal of Mubarak symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                              Even worse than Gaddafi...

                              https://www.haaretz.com/1.5115373

                              Obama's betrayal of Hosni Mubarak is not just the betrayal of a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation. Obama's betrayal of Mubarak symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.
                              Yeah. That one nearly pushed the Saudis into the Russian's camp. They saw what happened in Egypt as the betrayal of an ally and wondered just how much they could trust us. One thing about the Russians they always support their allies even when they disagree whereas our support and friendship can disappear like magic any time a new president moves into the White House. Likely the main reason that they didn't turn to Russia is they were already friends with their most dangerous enemy, Iran, and they probably figured that if it came to a conflict between the two the Russians might be forced to choose between the two and they couldn't chance it that they would pick the country they share a border with and had a longer relationship with. That and almost all of their military equipment is American and ours is better.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 01:59 PM
                              1 response
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:50 AM
                              8 responses
                              144 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post LeaC
                              by LeaC
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 01-16-2021, 04:20 PM
                              63 responses
                              495 views
                              5 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 01-16-2021, 09:35 AM
                              8 responses
                              92 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post LeaC
                              by LeaC
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-15-2021, 06:39 PM
                              18 responses
                              162 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X