US Soldier Shot for Drinking water

[ATF Consumer]

No, it doesn't "make a lot of sense" and stop trying to mindread people who disagree with you.

I'm not intentionally trying to mind-read, just trying to extract information that you did not clearly convey. Just as earlier I asked about life lost between Israel and the US since Israel has become a nation and you specifically chose to only speak of civilian loss. I'm looking at the big picture about our intervention as opposed to how Israel handles their foreign relations.

As for "we injected ourselves," Yep, how dare those Franks be living on the land that the Islamic Jihad was trying to conquer and the sheer affrontery of Charles Martel objecting to that invasion. How dare El Cid and others of his people decide they want their nation back from their invaders.

How dare Thomas Jefferson object to Islamics attacking American merchant shipping.

protecting merchant ships is a lot different than what we are currently doing over there.

How dare companies that negotiated deals to develop and buy oil from the middle east object when "men with guns" come along to "renegotiate" (read "steal" or, in polite circles, "nationalize").


Unless you are talking about complete isolationism--seal the border, nothing goes in or out--of a level no one has ever maintained anywhere then "injecting ourselves" is a pure smokescreen. The vast bulk, and indeed, the origin of our "injecting ourselves" is simply being willing to do business. The problem is that they keep coming to the table in bad faith. (Per the Koran, lying to infidels is not only acceptable but laudable.)

If we must take up arms to do commerce with a nation, something is wrong with that picture.
Again, Israel isn't isolated, yet they have commerce.

Finally, you might not see it as running away but they would. And that would be only one more reason to make us a target.

Well, you are somewhat correct, if we didn't inject ourselves to begin with then we wouldn't have this problem.
So are you then saying that we can NEVER leave? Oh, what about my earlier question then...how many more must we kill before our troops can come home?

 

[El Cazador]

BOY, has this thread evolved!

And I got my FIRST negative rep out of all of this

SE, you get the time, don't forget about all those cites and quotes you're digging up. I still want to see:

Where the Founding Fathers were against nation building (Wasn't that what they were doing anyway?)

The "Saddam/Bush Sr." cabal, partnership, fraternity, oil hot tub party. (If that turns out to be a listed attack site by my anti-virus, I'm gonna make fun of you again, neg reps or not )

Wasn't there another one? I'm not going back to look.

I have to go make a buck. You guys are a hoot sometimes.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I never said anything about closing our borders. I never said don't defend our interests. Kinda.

I did say that we don't need a military base in multipule countries, we don't needs tens of thousands of troops stationed abroad on a permenant basis, and we don't need to be meddling in the affairs of other Countries. Our Founders didn't do this and they warned against it.

I especially never said close our borders. That IS isolationism. Again, I said Nonintervention. We intervein in every Country that will allow it and a lot that don't and we do it anyway. This MUST stop.

So let me ask you this? If Americans would have had a spine before we entered WWI and WWII and had helped, before so much was lost would we have saved more lives?
Should we have never intervened at all?
What would the world look like then?
If Germany and Japan would have controlled most of the resources around the world, how long would it have been before we fought the battle on our shores? How many innocent lives would we have then lost?
Intervention is not a bad thing.
If a neighbor is intent on doing me harm, I'll nip it in the bud and not let it get to a full scale war.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Because they have nothing to do with the current conflict. Should I also mention all the life lost from malaria and smallpox? Or how about flu deaths? Can't forget those. None of them have anything to do with the current conflict, but they are deaths nonetheless.

Specifically talking about US vs Israel intervention and foreign affairs...so they do count. Those others have nothing to do with my question, so rather than answer my question, you are trying to confuse it with other things that have nothing to do with my original question.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Specifically talking about US vs Israel intervention and foreign affairs...so they do count. Those others have nothing to do with my question, so rather than answer my question, you are trying to confuse it with other things that have nothing to do with my original question.

I think what David is saying, is Israel has taken the close the borders approach and what has it gotten them? Rockets fired upon them, suicide bombers in the markets.
On the other hand we got hit and decided to take them fight to them to prevent our civilians from suffering at their hands again.
For 8 years this strategy has been a success.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I think what David is saying, is Israel has taken the close the borders approach and what has it gotten them? Rockets fired upon them, suicide bombers in the markets.
On the other hand we got hit and decided to take them fight to them to prevent our civilians from suffering at their hands again.
For 8 years this strategy has been a success.

I understand, but I am speaking of the overall interventionist attitude and look at all of the life we have lost since Israel was formed compared to them and see where it has got us.

The numbers in comparison are quite staggering.

 

[SavageEagle]

So let me ask you this? If Americans would have had a spine before we entered WWI and WWII and had helped, before so much was lost would we have saved more lives?
Should we have never intervened at all?
What would the world look like then?
If Germany and Japan would have controlled most of the resources around the world, how long would it have been before we fought the battle on our shores? How many innocent lives would we have then lost?
Intervention is not a bad thing.
If a neighbor is intent on doing me harm, I'll nip it in the bud and not let it get to a full scale war.

WWI/WWII was a whole different animal. We had treaties for defense. We had to honor those treaties. Also, we had a vested interest in those european commodities and should have helped out. They were our allies and they asked for our help. Then we were attacked in 1941. But what about Vietnam? Korea? Somali? Cuba? All these South American Countries? All these African Countries? We have no business there. We certainly have no business setting up bases all across the Earth.

 

[printcraft]

WOW! to the OP.
I'm almost sure the soldiers involved will be sent to tolerance camp for disrespecting that peaceful religion.

Getting embroiled in "some" overseas events are bad ideas.
National interests not withstanding.

.............

The "Saddam/Bush Sr." cabal, partnership, fraternity, oil hot tub party......................

Hey, I found more proof:

 

[BloodEclipse]

I understand, but I am speaking of the overall interventionist attitude and look at all of the life we have lost since Israel was formed compared to them and see where it has got us.

The numbers in comparison are quite staggering.

Just like WWI and WWII if we would have entered Vietnam earlier and helped the French, our loss of life would have been way less.
As a country we have a history of entering a conflict when we are almost left no choice. We have to be brought into the fight kicking and screaming.
I feel if we would have been more proactive we could have saved many wasted lives.
The other thing you have to look at is how many days since Israel has America lived with the threat of a daily attack on it's soil? Now compare that with Israel.

 

[dburkhead]

We aren't at war with Germany, but yet we have a base there. Same with Japan. Same with South Korea. Same with Cuba. I mean really, occupation is NOT the same as war.

And none of those (except possibly Cuba) are "occupations" as the term is usually meant. Germany and Japan were for a while after WWII, but that was continuation of the war.

Consider, for instance, the Philipines. We used to have some substantial bases there. They asked us to leave and we did. That, right there, is one of the key defining points of an occupation. They asked us to leave and we left.


As for us having bases overseas, I'm really curious about how you would propose to protect American interests without having troops readily available?

Do you have any idea what a logistics nightmare it would take to move the kind of troops required from the US to some other theater of operation, without having forward basing in place? Go back and look at the mess we had going into Afghanistan. Things went so well once we got there that folk forget what a mess it was to start with. We were, and remain, sharply limited in our logistics train into Afghanistan.

Consider Germany. The bases we have in Germany are a legacy of the cold war. Do you honestly think that the Soviet Union would not have annexed Europe if they thought for one minute they could get away with it? Well, now that the Soviet Union has fallen, we can probably cut way back on the presence . . . or can we. Putin is certainly no *****cat and there are far worse waiting in the wings for when he is eventually out of power. Maybe keeping a close weather eye--a weather eye with teeth (to mix a metaphor)--isn't such a bad idea after all.

Japan? Since the troops in Korea are dedicated to dealing with the war that is still ongoing there (just not shooting, much, at the moment), since the closing of the Philipines bases, Japan is the only major basing to defend American interests in the entire Western Pacific.

Now look at a map of the middle East. Note the really big threat to us and our interests (through terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and other such mechanisms) is Iran. Look at the big countries around it: Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenestan, Turkey, and Pakistan. We have footholds of one form or another in four out of five of them. Do you honestly think that's a coincidence?

If containing the Ayotolla's, and keeping a close eye on Iran's progress toward becoming a nuclear power (something the rest of the world seems to be willing to merrily watch happen) isn't a legitimate US interest, I don't know what is.

The situation is just not as simple as you seem to think.

 

[SavageEagle]

It is as simple as I think it is. Just because we have a base of operations somewhere doesn't stop someone from taking it over or blowing them up. I don't realize the logistics nightmare? I read the figures involved bringing ALL our troops home from Iraq. I know about what it took to get troops and gear overseas for WWI and II.

The problem is, why would we ever need to do that? We can steam a Carrier Battlegroup anywhere in the world in 2 days time. We have subs all across the globe. We have transport aircraft that can have troops and gear across the globe in less than 24 hours.

Now tell me why we would need to do that if we aren't going to interviene in other Country's affairs? We wouldn't.

And yes, having a base located in a Country is essentially occupying it. If we have troops on their soil, by invitation or not, that is occupying their Country. It is wrong and it costs us Billions each year.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm not intentionally trying to mind-read, just trying to extract information that you did not clearly convey. Just as earlier I asked about life lost between Israel and the US since Israel has become a nation and you specifically chose to only speak of civilian loss. I'm looking at the big picture about our intervention as opposed to how Israel handles their foreign relations.

I chose to deal with civilians because, of folk in the military, it's their job to put their lives at risk to protect the lives of civilians. And for better than 30 years the people in our military have been volunteers, and I don't know anybody who can come out of basic training without knowing that the first article of the Code of the US Fighting Man is fully in effect ("I am a United States Fighting Man. I am prepared to give my life for my country.") People talk about the Air Force being the "country club" service but even there that was drummed into our heads.

Comparing military losses in the line of duty on one side and civilians killed by enemy actions that were not stopped/prevented is not "big picture." It's not even "apples and oranges." It's more like "apples and moon rocks."

The "mind reading" comment was directed at this:

but too many in the US like the smell of blood and the sound of explosions

Are you really so certain of your position

Well, you are somewhat correct, if we didn't inject ourselves to begin with then we wouldn't have this problem.

So basically, you are saying that we should revert to Fortress Amerika: completely seal the border with no one and nothing in or out. Because that's the only way to not "inject ourselves."

If that's not what you're saying, then you have to deal with the reality.

protecting merchant ships is a lot different than what we are currently doing over there.

But if he hadn't "injected ourselves" over there, it wouldn't have happened. So either it's the same or there are cases where you think it's okay to "inject ourself" over there.

If we must take up arms to do commerce with a nation, something is wrong with that picture.
Again, Israel isn't isolated, yet they have commerce.

So, basically, if we want to do business somewhere, and someone else (other than the parties we are doing business with) take exception, we let the bullies dictate how and to whom we can do business? These aren't the Opium wars. We're not holding guns to people's heads and saying "buy our stuff." We are however, acting in opposition when someone else comes along and holds a gun to the customer's head saying "don't buy their stuff."

As for Israel, they have large and powerful allies, they have a much, much smaller economy. And they still face frequent, repeated attacks on their citizens within their own country. Apples and moon rocks again.

So are you then saying that we can NEVER leave? Oh, what about my earlier question then...how many more must we kill before our troops can come home?

And the question is the wrong one.

 

[mettle]

I think it's time America withdraws, secures our borders and then go back out into the world. The borders here, and America needs to be restructured and strengthened before we do any more 'favors' for other countries. It's time America becomes completely self sufficient.

 

[SavageEagle]

David, you used Washington as an example earlier. Allow me to do the same here....

From his Farewell Address...

The greatest rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible... Why quit our own to stand upon Foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

That is not isolationist policy, it is non-interventionist policy.

Even though Bush Jr. reneged on his own candidacy policies, he said it well too in a debate with Al Gore...

I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around he world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.' ... I think the one way for us to end up being viewed as the 'Ugly American' is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'

He also said...

Somalia started off as a humanitarian mission and changed into a nation-building mission. And that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. As as a result, our nation paid the price. And so I don't think our troops should be used for what's called 'nation-building'. I think what we need to do is to convince the people who live in lands to build build the Nations themselves. Maybe I'm missing something here - we're going to have a kind of 'nation-building corps' from America?

In 1999, as Governor, Bush also declared...

Let us have an American foreign policy that reflects the American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness.

John Quincy Adams had this to say on the matter...

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and Independence of all. She is the champion and the vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The Fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

The Founding Fathers were not isolationists. We should go back to their examples instead of globe trotting like to International Police.

I can also throw some other Founding Father's quotes into the mix if you would like.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Just like WWI and WWII if we would have entered Vietnam earlier and helped the French, our loss of life would have been way less.
As a country we have a history of entering a conflict when we are almost left no choice. We have to be brought into the fight kicking and screaming.
I feel if we would have been more proactive we could have saved many wasted lives.
Really though, we gained what by being there?
I see a whole wall of names in DC that could have been saved had we not gone there in the first place...as soon as we left, all we fought for was lost again.

The other thing you have to look at is how many days since Israel has America lived with the threat of a daily attack on it's soil? Now compare that with Israel.

That is one to discuss further, as Israel is a bit different, having their enemy right next door with the ability to simply launch stuff over the fence.

 

[dburkhead]

It is as simple as I think it is.

Certainty is not a sing of accuracy.

Just because we have a base of operations somewhere doesn't stop someone from taking it over or blowing them up.

Somebody might try. Somebody might also get their neck handed to them. Do we always win every battle? Of course not. But that some battles (like for a base) might be lost is no reason to not fight them.

I don't realize the logistics nightmare?

I realize that.

I read the figures involved bringing ALL our troops home from Iraq. I know about what it took to get troops and gear overseas for WWI and II.

And in WWI and WWII we had basing provided by our allies. We had allies who were already fighting the war giving us the "breathing space" to gear up. There's a reason why there was a two and a half year gap between the US entry into the war in the European theater and operation overlord. They weren't just sitting on their hands that whole time. It took time and considerable effort to build up the forces on site.

Look again at going into Afghanistan. We had two routes--one from the north through the 'Stans and one through Pakistan. Air basing was at Diego Garcia, and if you don't think that made things a whole lot more difficult, then I'd suggest you think again.

Back in WWI and WWII, the heavy movement was done by sealift (still is, in fact). We had no sealift capability into Afghanistan. Railroad support through the 'Stans was marginal. Supporting a large army with airlift only is always a chancy proposition at best.

Amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics. Tactics may win battles but it's logistics that wins wars.

The problem is, why would we ever need to do that? We can steam a Carrier Battlegroup anywhere in the world in 2 days time.

How many carrier battlegroups are available? How many are tied down to other tasks at any given time? Is a carrier battlegroup actually the appropriate tool for the task at hand? What is the range of carrier aircraft and how does that compare to distance from navigable (by the group) waters to the potential targets?

What, exactly, is the carrier battlegroup going to do once it gets there?

We have subs all across the globe.

And what, exactly, is the sub going to do? Also, the primary mission of US subs is stealth. Every time one breaks stealth with the subs whether it's for a "show the flag" mission or any kind of "combat ops" it lessens their capability at their primary mission which is one of deterrence.

We have transport aircraft that can have troops and gear across the globe in less than 24 hours.

Well, they can have some troops and gear across the globe in less than 24 hours, but how many troops, and what gear? How many planes, of what classes are required to move an armored division to somewhere, say, in the 'Stans? How many of those planes currently have other taskers? Of the planes available for tasking, how many trips would be required to complete the move? Do you have spare aircrews for required crew rest (or are you willing to soak up the casualties from accidents from skimping on that)? If not, how much down-time do you need to allow and how will that affect the schedule?

As I said, not as simple as you appear to think.

Now tell me why we would need to do that if we aren't going to interviene in other Country's affairs? We wouldn't.

Ah, the old "assume your conclusion" gambit. That's a logical fallacy.

We have interests all over the world. We have allies to whom we have pledged support. While our track record hasn't been the best in following through on that pledges support (a little incident in 1975 is just one case that comes to mind), that's hardly an excuse for not doing so or for not having the capability to do so.

The usual examples of the US "intervening" in some other country's affairs have almost always been in contravention to some other country's intervention.

I suppose that one could take the approach of not bothering to counter the actions of our enemies in other nations, to simply let our enemies have their way wherever they want. But then, in that case you might as well just go the whole Fortress Amerika, build a wall, nothing and no one in or out because that's where that line leads.

And yes, having a base located in a Country is essentially occupying it. If we have troops on their soil, by invitation or not, that is occupying their Country. It is wrong and it costs us Billions each year.

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words to suit yourself. "Occupation" in military, political, and diplomatic contexts has a specific meaning that your use does not match. Just like I called the other guy for the loaded-language use of the word "brandishing" for Open Carry, I call you on your use of the word "occupying" here.

As for Billions each year, you might want to consider the costs of not having a strong overseas presence. Those costs aren't so obvious, since they are in the form of business not done and sales not made, but they are real nonetheless. After the '91 war, Kuwait was bending over backward to do business with the US--to spend money on American Businessmen, paying salaries to American citizens, who would come back and spend it in American stores. Clinton managed to fritter all that away, but it was there, and it was there because we saved their country from a tyrant.

Also, the costs aren't as high as they are often portrayed. For example, the size of our army is set by Congress. We are going to be paying the same number of people whether a particular number is in Iraq (for example) or not.

And suppose we just come home and tune out the rest of the world. How many billions do you suppose it will cost when an Iranian or North Korean nuke, blows up in a US harbor or city? Or how many billions will it cost when "suicide infectors," flying back and forth over the US in the nice, contained environment of airliners, breathing out droplets of spittle infected with smallpox, spreading the infection too far and too fast for any CDC response to contain. Are you willing to bet 1/3 of the US population that these lunatics won't do it? Because without being proactive, that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[dburkhead]

David, you used Washington as an example earlier. Allow me to do the same here....

From his Farewell Address...


That is not isolationist policy, it is non-interventionist policy.

Even though Bush Jr. reneged on his own candidacy policies, he said it well too in a debate with Al Gore...


He also said...


In 1999, as Governor, Bush also declared...


John Quincy Adams had this to say on the matter...


The Founding Fathers were not isolationists. We should go back to their examples instead of globe trotting like to International Police.

I can also throw some other Founding Father's quotes into the mix if you would like.

I am well aware of Washington's views on "entangling alliances."

How many of the Founding Fathers had to face possible nuclear weapons? How many of those had to face infectious diseases that could be spread to a significant portion of the population before the "incubation period" of the very first case was over? ("Incubation period" is that period between infection and the first sign of symptoms, in case you didn't know.)

Back when folk like Washington, et al wrote, the oceans and the frontiers formed a pretty secure border (except against autochthons, so stipulated). Now, instead of taking weeks to cross, they take hours. A single individual crossing a border can bring the ability to wipe out a city of millions. And there are plenty of people out there who are more than willing to do just that. The threat level has gone up on all fronts.

And it's interesting that Washington would speak against entangling alliances when the very existence of the US would not have happened had France followed his advice.

People talk about Washington winning the battle of Yorktown, but it was those French ships, preventing reinforcements from reaching Cornwallis, that won the battle.

Or perhaps I could just answer Washington's quote with something on his views on the militia. He wasn't always right.

 

[SavageEagle]

Somebody might try. Somebody might also get their neck handed to them. Do we always win every battle? Of course not. But that some battles (like for a base) might be lost is no reason to not fight them.

I wasn't saying militants with Ak's. I was refering to any army worth it's salt. We can't just nuke them to stop them you know. If they over run all our regional bases, it doesn't do any good, does it?

And in WWI and WWII we had basing provided by our allies. We had allies who were already fighting the war giving us the "breathing space" to gear up. There's a reason why there was a two and a half year gap between the US entry into the war in the European theater and operation overlord. They weren't just sitting on their hands that whole time. It took time and considerable effort to build up the forces on site.

It wouldn't take that much to build up a force now, compared to then and we wouldn't need a pre-preped base to do it. We've come that far, wouldn't you agree?

Amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics. Tactics may win battles but it's logistics that wins wars.

I agree and disagree. Both win wars. Not one or the other.

How many carrier battlegroups are available? How many are tied down to other tasks at any given time? Is a carrier battlegroup actually the appropriate tool for the task at hand? What is the range of carrier aircraft and how does that compare to distance from navigable (by the group) waters to the potential targets?

What, exactly, is the carrier battlegroup going to do once it gets there?

You don't give Carrier Battlegroups their due respect. A battlegroup can, in and of itself, win a war alone against many small Countries.

And what, exactly, is the sub going to do? Also, the primary mission of US subs is stealth. Every time one breaks stealth with the subs whether it's for a "show the flag" mission or any kind of "combat ops" it lessens their capability at their primary mission which is one of deterrence.

Subs carry Nuclear and non-Nuclear tomahawks among other munitions. They can disable most Nation's war factories within minutes. Then send in the Battlegroup.

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words to suit yourself. "Occupation" in military, political, and diplomatic contexts has a specific meaning that your use does not match. Just like I called the other guy for the loaded-language use of the word "brandishing" for Open Carry, I call you on your use of the word "occupying" here.

militarily speaking, occupying means just as I said. Having a military presence. It doesn't define in what capacity.

As for Billions each year, you might want to consider the costs of not having a strong overseas presence. Those costs aren't so obvious, since they are in the form of business not done and sales not made, but they are real nonetheless. After the '91 war, Kuwait was bending over backward to do business with the US--to spend money on American Businessmen, paying salaries to American citizens, who would come back and spend it in American stores. Clinton managed to fritter all that away, but it was there, and it was there because we saved their country from a tyrant.

We don't need a presence in any Country for any reason. You negotiate trade with whoever is running the Country. If they don't play nice, go somewhere else. How much oil do we get from Kuwait? Not enough that it should matter going elsewhere. We don't have to fight their battles.

Also, the costs aren't as high as they are often portrayed. For example, the size of our army is set by Congress. We are going to be paying the same number of people whether a particular number is in Iraq (for example) or not.

That doesn't explain why we need to send troops anywhere in the first place...

And suppose we just come home and tune out the rest of the world.

That is isolationism. That is not what I'm saying. Read my last post.

 

[SavageEagle]

I am well aware of Washington's views on "entangling alliances."

How many of the Founding Fathers had to face possible nuclear weapons? How many of those had to face infectious diseases that could be spread to a significant portion of the population before the "incubation period" of the very first case was over? ("Incubation period" is that period between infection and the first sign of symptoms, in case you didn't know.)

Back when folk like Washington, et al wrote, the oceans and the frontiers formed a pretty secure border (except against autochthons, so stipulated). Now, instead of taking weeks to cross, they take hours. A single individual crossing a border can bring the ability to wipe out a city of millions. And there are plenty of people out there who are more than willing to do just that. The threat level has gone up on all fronts.

And it's interesting that Washington would speak against entangling alliances when the very existence of the US would not have happened had France followed his advice.

People talk about Washington winning the battle of Yorktown, but it was those French ships, preventing reinforcements from reaching Cornwallis, that won the battle.

Or perhaps I could just answer Washington's quote with something on his views on the militia. He wasn't always right.

So then those views shouldn't apply? Maybe then the First Amendment shouldn't apply anymore then? Nor the Second. I mean, people shouldn't be able to own a mounted 50cal. machine gun in their truck, right? Even though our Founding Fathers said that we have a right to own military style weapons to even the balance between federal army powers vs the civilian popluation?

With that logic, nothing the Founder's said should apply to modern day because they didn't face the same challenges.

 

[Robert Richardson]

What
Will
POTUS
Do?

Nothing,the bad guy is one of his people.Isn't he?