‘US like a hammer, everywhere else in world just nails for it’ – US vet

[anon45]

gotcha.



pounded by military force, as in iraq? but, mon frere, where were the wmds, and last i remember, the hijackers from 911 were mostly saudis, funded by a saudi (tho also ethnic yemeni) extremist , right? interventionism in iraq in 2003 led to global security, yes? or did it lead to antithesis thereof?

and as for aghanistan, the immense firepower of ISF led to the annihilation of taliban right ? or did it....um...fail in said policy objective?




*bow*

Note I said in Obama's case, not Bush's

Even in hindsight Bush's decisions (particularly Iraq) were terrible for US foreign policy.It doesn't look like they were insurmountable mistakes as of yet though.

As for Afghanistan it remains to be seen. I don't think we did the Afghans any favors (despite some effort to raise standards for our own interest) and I think ultimately our goal of nation-building in Afghanistan will fail, but as yet the result isn't decided. We got Osama, the mastermind behind the attacks, so domestically the mission is viewed as 'accomplished' ( yes I see the Irony).

Ultimately it hasn't been our 'graveyard' though as many speculated, maybe a mini-Vietnam.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

g

and as for aghanistan, the immense firepower of ISF led to the annihilation of taliban right ? or did it....um...fail in said policy objective?

The definition of a "win"'is always subjective. Germany overran France in WW2 and Hitler was soon after touring Paris. Yet every day the French resistance was picking off soldiers and the countryside was a dangerzone. Some people call it a German win (like me) and some people say that since the resistance wasn't completely crushed it was not a win.

So the bottom line was the French Government was overthrown and yes the Germans didn't clear out every inch of the country. You can't machine gun the entire population.

 

[Piper]

gotcha.



pounded by military force, as in iraq? but, mon frere, where were the wmds, and last i remember, the hijackers from 911 were mostly saudis, funded by a saudi (tho also ethnic yemeni) extremist , right? interventionism in iraq in 2003 led to global security, yes? or did it lead to antithesis thereof?

and as for aghanistan, the immense firepower of ISF led to the annihilation of taliban right ? or did it....um...fail in said policy objective?




*bow*

Iraq and Afghanistan were very costly lessons which had to be re-learnt. There was a reason, Saddam was let off after first Gulf War. Not many foreign armies have fared well in another country after the initial shock and awe.

Well what's done is done and there hasn't been another major attack on US soil after 9/11.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well what's done is done and there hasn't been another major attack on US soil after 9/11.

so that justifies the means? the some estimated 2 million dead iraqis and afghanis are ... justified?

wow. just wow.

Piper !

The definition of a "win"'is always subjective. Germany overran France in WW2 and Hitler was soon after touring Paris. Yet every day the French resistance was picking off soldiers and the countryside was a dangerzone. Some people call it a German win (like me) and some people say that since the resistance wasn't completely crushed it was not a win.

So the bottom line was the French Government was overthrown and yes the Germans didn't clear out every inch of the country. You can't machine gun the entire population.

thanks, but how is that related to Iraq and Afghanistan, tho.

Note I said in Obama's case, not Bush's

Even in hindsight Bush's decisions (particularly Iraq) were terrible for US foreign policy.It doesn't look like they were insurmountable mistakes as of yet though.

i would argue obama's foreign policy was worse. he encouraged arab spring, then , in regards to syria, air dropped and funneled money in support of 'moderate' syrian terrorists. voila, fsa, al nusrah, which then morphed into ISIL/ISIS/DAESH.

in fact, obama authored the vacuum in iraq, and then his foreign policy led to genesis of instability and indirect (tho some could argue direct) influence in genesis of what is now the Islamic Caliphate aka ISIS.

hmmm, goodness me!

 

[Piper]

so that justifies the means? the some estimated 2 million dead iraqis and afghanis are ... justified?

wow. just wow.

Piper !

No! An unanimous NO! you misunderstood my point.

Ends never justify the means. It didn't in WW2 and it doesn't now.

However at some point, we have to move forward. There will be no progress if we let the chains of past shackle us.

 

[Aepsilons]

No! An unanimous NO! you misunderstood my point.

Ends never justify the means. It didn't in WW2 and it doesn't now.

However at some point, we have to move forward. There will be no progress if we let the chains of past shackle us.

move forward? how can you move forward when the middle east is in, pardon my french, a wreck ? surely you cannot expect american interventionism led to a greater stabilized region, right?

move forward? no, my friend, i believe your nation's foreign policy have led to a backwards jump.

There will be no progress if we let the chains of past shackle us.

tell that to the heart of the levant, now. words of encouragement and brushing will not hide nor excuse nor hide what is going on there , now, real-time.

 

[Piper]

move forward? how can you move forward when the middle east is in, pardon my french, a wreck ? surely you cannot expect american interventionism led to a greater stabilized region, right?

move forward? no, my friend, i believe your nation's foreign policy have led to a backwards jump.





tell that to the heart of the levant, now. words of encouragement and brushing will not hide nor excuse nor hide what is going on there , now, real-time.

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Aepsilons]

Hindsight is 20/20.

lol, it comes down to that?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

thanks, but how is that related to Iraq and Afghanistan, tho.

What is your definition of a win in Afghanistan?

The US has to fullfill what?

1) Every Taliban fighter must be dead or in jail
2) Every citizen must bow in agreement to the new government
3) The Taliban must make an announcement of defeat

All 3 of these can never be fully accomplished no matter whose army invades Afghanistan.

 

[Aepsilons]

All 3 of these can never be fully accomplished no matter whose army invades Afghanistan.

precisely, can we agree that objectives in iraq and afghanistan were -- failures? besides the showing off of american military power, did it lead to --- a stabilized region and the defeat against 'terror' , or did it open pandora's box and indirectly helped fuel terror with rigor? is america truly safe? with recent domestic terrorists in the home front, truly, the argument of a safer america due to direct heavy handed interventionism is naught?

 

[Piper]

lol, it comes down to that?

Well to paraphrase your Emperor - I am defending the indefensible. Forgive me if I have no better arguments.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well to paraphrase your Emperor - I am defending the indefensible. Forgive me if I have no better arguments.

lol, please, there is no relation here with His Most Imperial Majesty, the Showa Emperor.

 

[Piper]

lol, please, there is no relation here with His Most Imperial Majesty, the Showa Emperor.

Dammit. It seems there is a lot lost in translation.

What I meant was l am defending a position which in this case is US Military Action and Foreign Policy which is in reality indefensible i.e. is cannot be defended i.e. wrong.

My reference to your Emperor was solely restricted to borrowing the use of his quote " To Endure the Unendurable" and changing it to suit my own needs.

I am retreating my friend, attempting to be graceful but seems like you want me to spell it all out

 

[Aepsilons]

Dammit. It seems there is a lot lost in translation.

What I meant was l am defending a position which in this case is US Military Action and Foreign Policy which is in reality indefensible i.e. is cannot be defended i.e. wrong.

My reference to your Emperor was solely restricted to borrowing the use of his quote " To Endure the Unendurable" and changing it to suit my own needs.

I am retreating my friend, attempting to be graceful but seems like you want me to spell it all out

Perhaps it would be best to note refer to His Imperial Majesty with American foreign policy in the Middle East, as in this case His Majesty had past this realm in the 1980s, even before US interventionism started in Iraq. I can forgive your use of prose , tho i admit, rather distasteful in the Japanese world view. The difference here, my friend, is that unlike Japan, which had for the past 70 years onwards, has focused on development-oriented foreign policy and on a cohesive strategy for regional security, the United States has adopted a heavily securitized apparatus , which has proved rather ineffective in not only the middle east, but also in the south china seas and in the korean peninsula.

I hope we can better understand these transnational and trans-regional relationships, with use of more appropriate context.

 

[anon45]

i would argue obama's foreign policy was worse. he encouraged arab spring, then , in regards to syria, air dropped and funneled money in support of 'moderate' syrian terrorists. voila, fsa, al nusrah, which then morphed into ISIL/ISIS/DAESH.

in fact, obama authored the vacuum in iraq, and then his foreign policy led to genesis of instability and indirect (tho some could argue direct) influence in genesis of what is now the Islamic Caliphate aka ISIS.

hmmm, goodness me!

Obama's exit from Iraq was almost inarguably the opening ISIS needed, but he didn't have much choice as Iraq did not want to renew the status of forces agreement under conditions that the US wanted. I know he ran on a campaign of pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but in practice I don't think he wanted to leave it as it was wholesale (which is why there were discussions for a SOF agreement in the first place).

Fsa, al nusrah, and the like are actually seperate from ISIS, which has been around since the beginning of the US intervention in Iraq.

Due to the nature of the exit, I place most of the blame on Bush for invading Iraq in the first place. It has arguably been the worst error in US foreign policy for our interests since Vietnam.