Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

Postby bcglorf » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:51 pm

chrismb:
...and what was it, exactly, that he did to piss you off to lead *us* into an unprovoked attack on him in 2003?

The only thing I can see that would've pissed off America is that the new President's daddy had lost power whilst Saddam went from strength to strength (politically speaking). Yeah, I can see why that'd piss you off, and I can see why it was worth $XXtrillions. Sure, a real worth-while enterprise, to spend money on!

You're right, the middle east wasn't a problem of yours..... but you sure as heck made it one!

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

What did he do?

Postby bcglorf » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:56 pm

What did Saddam do to piss off America? I'm not entirely sure.

I can tell you for certain he deserved what he got and so very much more. That sits better with me than discussing if it was in America's best interests anyway.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:37 pm

I never did like the fact that he was a mass murderer of his own citizens. And he made us keep an air force in place to defend the Kurds (for which they are still rather grateful). Since it was based in Saudi it made Osama unhappy and that led to 9/11.

As to the value? The grand strategy is to change the fundamentals in the ME from autocracy to self government. Will it last? Will it spread? Ask me in 40 years. If I'm still around.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Sounds about right

Postby bcglorf » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:51 pm

MSimon wrote:I never did like the fact that he was a mass murderer of his own citizens. And he made us keep an air force in place to defend the Kurds (for which they are still rather grateful). Since it was based in Saudi it made Osama unhappy and that led to 9/11.

As to the value? The grand strategy is to change the fundamentals in the ME from autocracy to self government. Will it last? Will it spread? Ask me in 40 years. If I'm still around.


Agreed, the benefit to America of removing Saddam is much longer term and the expense was incredible. More over, pretty much every nation in the world gets all the same benefits America does of living in a world without Saddam running Iraq, and without having to pay the same cost.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: What did he do?

Postby chrismb » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:32 pm

bcglorf wrote:I can tell you for certain he deserved what he got and so very much more. That sits better with me than discussing if it was in America's best interests anyway.

Ah! yes, the law of the 'lynch mob'. As if the taming of the wild west never happened and was a rather redundant adjunct to American history.

All those little wind-swept towns on the high planes, with little slatted swing-doors into the bar [only one in town]. Those darn' outlaws, we gotta one 'ere, boss, let's stringemup on the ol' tree. What about due legal process? Nah! Look at 'im! Eee's got "wrongun" written all over 'is face! Ee's gotta be guilty of summut!!! String-em-up!

You Americans! How quaint!

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: What did he do?

Postby MSimon » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:39 pm

chrismb wrote:
bcglorf wrote:I can tell you for certain he deserved what he got and so very much more. That sits better with me than discussing if it was in America's best interests anyway.

Ah! yes, the law of the 'lynch mob'. As if the taming of the wild west never happened and was a rather redundant adjunct to American history.

All those little wind-swept towns on the high planes, with little slatted swing-doors into the bar [only one in town]. Those darn' outlaws, we gotta one 'ere, boss, let's stringemup on the ol' tree. What about due legal process? Nah! Look at 'im! Eee's got "wrongun" written all over 'is face! Ee's gotta be guilty of summut!!! String-em-up!

You Americans! How quaint!


You Brits will be stinging them up soon without due process if your direction doesn't change - soon. And that goes double for Euros.

I'd like to see it. It might bring some life back into the old country.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:51 pm

Chris,
Was Wild West Justice something like British due process in India? Africa? The South Pacific? Ireland? Scotland? China?

I wonder how the citizens of Hong Kong have been trending in thier feelings of British fair play since 1999? "Why China, we'll be very cross with you if you don't treat these folks fairly, really...we will. Right, now we are really getting cross. Ooooh, stop it, or we'll tell you how cross we are again." Another intelligent decision filled with insight.
Kind of like the one when the UK walked out of Iraq leaving a power vacuum that young Saddam was then educated in. What a brilliant move, he turned out to be the best leader ever for Iraq, and if it weren't for British foresight, he never would've had the chance.

The US is not the panicea for sovling other folk's messes. In fact, historically, the US just wants to be left alone. What other major world power in history has had so many large sweeping victories, and then given all the gains back to the natives bundled in large aid packages and economic special deals. I swear it has cost us more to win the wars than to fight them. The US has lead in the creation of a whole new modern concept of warfighting, "to the victors goes the expense".

In Saddam's case, it was nothing personal. He was an a-hole, and he needed to go. A-holes like him get what they deserve, a lynch mob of their own peers acting out a court decision made by themselves.
You are right, if America had acted like traditional Europeans, we would have dropped the grenade down the hole, instead of risking a soldiers life to talk him out. Or at the least, dragged him and his family out into the courtyard and shot them upon capture. Much more civilised that, right ho!.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:03 pm

I'd like to play a while, but want to go to bed now. But you guys are so funny!

ladajo wrote:Chris,
Was Wild West Justice something like British due process in India? Africa? The South Pacific? Ireland? Scotland? China?
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.

ladajo wrote: I wonder how the citizens of Hong Kong have been trending in thier feelings of British fair play since 1999?
I think what was done was wrong, but all the same they seem to be doing bloomin' well - looks like they are taking China over, rather than the other way around!


ladajo wrote: Kind of like the one when the UK walked out of Iraq leaving a power vacuum that young Saddam was then educated in.
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.

ladajo wrote: In Saddam's case, it was nothing personal.
'ang on a minute? This 'conversation' kicked off when someone mumbled that Saddam did something to piss off Americans. WHAT DID HE DO???? It's just a question, right? But people seem to be able to make a statement on this forum and feel no compulsion to answer a direct and simple question on it.

ladajo wrote:You are right, if America had acted like traditional Europeans, we would have dropped the grenade down the hole, instead of risking a soldiers life to talk him out.
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: What did he do?

Postby chrismb » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:11 pm

MSimon wrote:You Brits will be stinging them up soon without due process if your direction doesn't change - soon. And that goes double for Euros.
The UK Government already is! Remember that red-light incident I reported on a few months back - I won the case but I am still hammering back; to the police, the court services and the crown prosecution service because they are all bl**dy useless and were all happy to see me strung up for their own failings.

But remember - nowadays (if it were ever any different) the British people are NOT the Government. I think in US the people feel much closer and more 'responsible' for their Government. In UK they are a different breed (ever since the Russians infiltrated the hierarchy of the country's leadership several decades ago). The average Brit feels no association with their Government, and the political "representatives" are no such thing. This country has had it.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:41 am

chrismb wrote:
ladajo wrote: Was Wild West Justice something like British due process in India? Africa? The South Pacific? Ireland? Scotland? China?
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.
Justification for, no. Reason for, perhaps. It does seem that we keep getting into trouble trying to fix the problems you all built into the shards of your ex-empire. I'm sort of glad we were able to con you all into paying for at least a small part of the job.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:46 am

chrismb wrote:I'd like to play a while, but want to go to bed now. But you guys are so funny!

ladajo wrote:Chris,
Was Wild West Justice something like British due process in India? Africa? The South Pacific? Ireland? Scotland? China?
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.

ladajo wrote: I wonder how the citizens of Hong Kong have been trending in thier feelings of British fair play since 1999?
I think what was done was wrong, but all the same they seem to be doing bloomin' well - looks like they are taking China over, rather than the other way around!


ladajo wrote: Kind of like the one when the UK walked out of Iraq leaving a power vacuum that young Saddam was then educated in.
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.

ladajo wrote: In Saddam's case, it was nothing personal.
'ang on a minute? This 'conversation' kicked off when someone mumbled that Saddam did something to piss off Americans. WHAT DID HE DO???? It's just a question, right? But people seem to be able to make a statement on this forum and feel no compulsion to answer a direct and simple question on it.

ladajo wrote:You are right, if America had acted like traditional Europeans, we would have dropped the grenade down the hole, instead of risking a soldiers life to talk him out.
Yup. And your point is.........British past dodgy exploits are a justification for current US foreign policy?? sorry, no understando.


Chris, enjoy the below with your morning coffee.

You are arguing by citing US history, but when UK history is used in the same manner, you cite that it does not apply to the discussion and you do not understand.

Yup. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

Fundamentally, you also do not seem to understand current US Foriegn Policy. You are discussing events from 2003. It is now 2010. I understand why you don't get it, because historically, the UK either stays forever or leaves immediately with little thought to the aftermath. The US on the other hand has understood that you cannot just walk away. Our perpetual guilt over Viet Nam is that we left.
US Foreign Policy today is "Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan", driven by the imperitive of leaving something viable behind that we will not be required to go fix later.
Like Europe at the end of WWII. We did our best to shore it up, but at the same time knew the best way to beat the Soviets was to wait them out. Finishing the fight then would have set Europe back 100 years or more. The US could have finished it and won, at the expense of Europe.
Our mistake during Kuwait, was not to finish the job, like Viet nam, we left. Sure we ran Southern Watch out of Saudi, and Northern Watch out of Turkey, but we left Iraq in-situ. We all knew then that we would have to go back. We also knew that all the UN Sanctions were going to do were bleed us dry over time, not the regime. Taking out Saddam was not a personal vendetta. It was not about Saddam making american's angry. It was the realization that the game needed to end. Because if it did not, he was going to do something stupid again. And, he sure put in a lot of effort trying to convince folks that he was going to. He even admitted in prison that he was ambiguous and postered on purpose. In fact, he did not understand just how well it worked, to his final detriment.

If you really think your country is broke, you can move. It is a free world in the free part thanks to the sacrifices of oh-so-many folks from oh-so-many of the free countries to make it so and keep it so over the years.
People like Saddam would end the free world if they could. It is an affront to the method of rule and justification of power they use. Case in point: Iran. Iran now is like Iraq was, not an if, but a when. And when it happens, I am sure that you will lead the cry that it was all the US's idea, and that the US dragged everyone else in. That is your right, because you live in the free part of the world. In China they would shoot you. In Hong Kong, they would take you to China and shoot you.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:02 am

...and what was it, exactly, that he did to piss you off to lead *us* into an unprovoked attack on him in 2003?


It was hardly unprovoked, he was firing on us (and you guys) almost daily. That's in addition to the many, many other violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

Sigh, how quickly everyone forgets.

I mean, that is such a striking reason for spending trillions and getting a lot of people deaded that,


Actually, the war saved lives, and probably money. Containment wasn't free, and might have gone on for another 50 years or more (and it would have gotten more and more expensive; the sanctions regime was collapsing, Oil-For-Food had become a massive bribery scheme, and the Russians and Chinese would have happily rearmed him; eventually he'd have gotten nukes). And Saddam's regime killed an average of 3,000 to 7.000 people per month, far more than died in all but a couple months since 2003.

People too rarely consider opportunity costs. I think everyone should be forced to take some economics classes so they understand the concept.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:06 am

Like Europe at the end of WWII. We did our best to shore it up, but at the same time knew the best way to beat the Soviets was to wait them out. Finishing the fight then would have set Europe back 100 years or more.


No, in fact not letting Patton go to Prague and eventually Moscow was probably the biggest mistake of the 20th Century. We could have avoided the entire Cold War. Russia had no air force or navy to speak of, it was entirely doable. And we certainly never should have armed them via Lend-Lease; 2/3 of their six-wheeled trucks were made in the U.S. It was an alliance that benefitted them far more than us.

Just imagine if China and the rest of SE Asia had never gone Communist. Human civilization might be decades ahead.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:22 am

TallDave wrote:
Like Europe at the end of WWII. We did our best to shore it up, but at the same time knew the best way to beat the Soviets was to wait them out. Finishing the fight then would have set Europe back 100 years or more.


No, in fact not letting Patton go to Prague and eventually Moscow was probably the biggest mistake of the 20th Century. We could have avoided the entire Cold War. Russia had no air force or navy to speak of, it was entirely doable. And we certainly never should have armed them via Lend-Lease; 2/3 of their six-wheeled trucks were made in the U.S. It was an alliance that benefitted them far more than us.

Just imagine if China and the rest of SE Asia had never gone Communist. Human civilization might be decades ahead.


I don't know about arming them. When lend-lease with Russia started it was desperate times. No one was sure about Russia's ability to hold. Stalin at one point was ready to high tail it from Moscow.

And with the defeat of the Germans, America still had to finish Japan and the bomb was no sure thing and if it did work we had only three available for tactical use with more several months away.

And in fact it is not just the Brits who screwed the ME. The Germans had a big hand in it too. Baathism - still extant in Syria - is/was an offshoot of German fascism. Mein Kampf is still a best seller in the ME. The Palestinian problem is in part the result of German intrigues in WW2. See "The Mufti of Jerusalem".

In may ways we are still fighting WW2 in the ME.

And consider American morale. How do you turn an Army on a dime and make an ally an enemy in a matter of months? All that took a while. As costly as it was a slow bleed was probably the best strategy vs the Soviets. Sadly.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Postby CaptainBeowulf » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:34 am

I'll say it again my general view on these things:

The superpower of the day gets dragged into things.

Britain often just wanted to be left alone. It tried to maintain a "balance of power" in Europe so that no one would get strong enough to invade it. It frequently only got around to formally colonizing places where it traded when someone else (the French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, Germans, Russians, whoever) threatened to plant a flag there.

The U.S. also wants to be left alone, but when your trade routes and citizens are spread all over the world, people don't leave you alone. So, the U.S. ends up having to fight in many of the same places Britain did. The same geostrategic imperatives apply. The behavior of both countries is, at a grand strategy level, rational. It can appear irrational in the short-to-medium term during a conflict.

Also, the U.S. gets villified these days much the same way the U.K. did in the 19th century, and for similar reasons (interfering around the world due to the same geostrategic imperatives). To some extent, Chris, you're taking the same attitude towards Americans as Americans in 1890 would have taken towards a Brit.

I think it's beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam was guilty of numerous crimes. Any fair trial would have found him guilty, and he got what he deserved.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests