Quarto, I agree with many of your arguments. However, I do take exception to being told what I do or do not think. If you're referring specifically to Jason here, that's fine - but this smells distinctly like you're telling Americans as a whole what they do or do not think, and I definitely take issue to this.
Well, I was talking specifically to Jason.
However, the same thing applies to everyone involved - and I don't just mean Americans. I'm saying that all of us are guilty of this. As long as a particular problem doesn't affect us, we're happy to ignore it.
Furthermore, I think this is one of those assumptions that have been proven true so many times in the past, that it's a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation. We've all seen this so many times... altruist motives in politics almost always turn out to be lies.
Why is this *exceptionally* stupid just because it is coming from an American? I think this line of thinking is flawed regardless of the thinker's nationality.
I really don't want to hijack this threat, but this comment bothers me - we didn't go into Iraq or Afghanistan to "teach them a lesson." We went thinking that they posed real threats to our security. Our intelligence was the key variable that distinguished the nature of each invasion - it was mostly correct concerning Afghanistan, largely incorrect regarding the disposition of weapons in Iraq.
How's it working out for us? Not half bad, I'd hazard to say - in fact, better than anyone looking in from the outside could have predicted three years ago.
It's exceptionally stupid coming from an American because you've just spent half a decade fighting - and losing, severely and painfully - the two wars mentioned above. It would be excusable (albeit still stupid) for me to demand that Poland teach Germany a lesson or something, because it would be reasonable for me to be unaware how that worked out the last time. But you - you've experienced the "success" of Iraq and Afghanistan. You Americans have the expertise to understand better than any other nation why it's foolish to undertake military action for the wrong reasons.
Why do I say you are losing both of these wars? Because it takes more than just military victory. Great Britain won WWII militarily - but it lost the war in every other way. It went into the war saddled with heavy, but repayable debt from WWI... and it went out of the war with a debt that literally broke their back, forcing them to give up their empire. So, in assessing Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to consider not only the human costs, but the financial ones as well. It seems that you've really achieved a great and positive change in Iraq (Afghanistan, sadly, seems to have reversed completely), and I think that any American soldier who died there would ultimately consider his own death to be a reasonable price to pay for this change. But if he knew that the debt incurred brought his nation a step closer to financial collapse, endangering his own family's wellbeing - he might not be satisfied about that. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the long-term costs of the two wars (including interests, because they're both financed via credit - Chinese credit, incidentally) will reach $2.4
trillion by 2017. This estimate presumably didn't take into account the possibility that the US would withdraw from Iraq so quickly - but then again, it presumably also didn't take into account that Afghanistan would get worse instead of better either.
BTW, as another aside - speaking as an American, we really don't need anything to distract us from the economy. I love conspiracy theories and the like, but no one here is actually using North Korea as an escape from the 'unbearable,' 'oppressive,' and seamingly 'shattered' American economy which has already begun to recover.
And a pink elephant just flew by my window
. Man, have you read up about your national debt lately? All that your government has achieved so far is to delay the real explosion by taking up even more debt. You're getting to the point where foreign governments are publically saying they will have to stop buying US treasury bonds in the future. When you reach the point where you are no longer able to finance your annual budget deficit, the dollar's price will fall through the floor... while prices on foreign-imported goods go through the ceiling.
So really, America has two choices... 1. Ignore the World's problems and deal with strictly internal matters, and get called snobs and uncaring jerks. Or we could do option 2, get involved in World Politics and problems and get labeled the "World's policeman."
Not saying you personally have said or done anything like the Quarto, from what I've seen you've been pretty unbiased in your remarks and I respect you for it, but this is what I as an American citizen have seen going on over the passed 15 years or so, before and after the invasion.
You're right, that's exactly the case - you don't take action, you'll be accused of being heartless. You take action, you'll suffer other problems. But accusations are accusations, while those other problems - they're real. You can survive European whining - you can't survive the debt you're building up.
This is also not true, so let me go on to further explain. There is a group of nations on this planet that has laughed off diplomacy. They have laughed off UN sanctions. They have laughed off military build up on their borders. A whole group of nations - nations that seize embassies and hold foreign citizens hostage against the rules of diplomacy, or murder foreign citizens on foreign soil.
A whole group. Not just North Korea, or Iran.
These nations believe that they have a God-given right to do whatever they damn well feel like, with blatant disregard for the rest of the worlds populations. Given that they have shoved everyones nose in the fact that they are going to ignore the rules, ignore the talks, ignore the diplomacy, and do what they like regardless, while suckering the rest of the world into providing them with what they want, the only option I see to address this situation is to slap them down - and slap them down hard.
Jason,
your country is on that list. Everything you've written above has been said about America. I believe the only thing you haven't done from the above is seize embassies - but definitely holding foreign citizens, and kidnapping or murdering them on foreign soil is a check. You sure you wanna keep going with this kind of attitude? Because, you know, you may not be too happy when China decides to slap you down.
EXCEPT that for thirty years Korea was an occupied territory of Japan, BEFORE World War II during which time the Korean Language was outlawed and they basically set up a dummy government with which to rule over the land.
Given the Japanese treatment of a certain other Asian Nations citizens during World War II, you don't think Korea, after 30 years of occupation that only ended with the destruction of the Japanese Empire after World War II is going to be a little angry?
I do - but not in the way you think. North Korea is no different in this regard to South Korea. If the south can get on with Japan, then it's a non-issue for the north as well.
I fail to see how a US led - or even supported, since you're so fond of pointing out that the North Koreans or Japan could handle it just as well with their expensive military forces - could give China justification to get involved. Once the issue is settled they will have no reason to get involved, but I'm sure they'll bluster and object. But that's all their doing now.
If you honestly fail to see how a US-led intervention in North Korea could lead to Chinese involvement, then you're a... well, I'm sorry to insult you, but if this is your honest belief, then you're a completely illiterate imbecile. The last time North Korea was on the brink of collapse, it was saved by Chinese troops. What could possibly induce you to believe this time it will be different?
First up, the Chinese would intervene just because they intervened once before. They'd do it again, just to show that they still can - otherwise, they'd lose face, which is a hugely important thing in Chinese culture. Secondly, the Chinese would intervene because North Korea is their immediate neighbour, and they will not permit the United States to expand its influence in their neighbourhood. Thirdly, China would intervene because North Korea is their client state, and China would want to show its other client states that it pays to stick with China. Fourthly, China would intervene because a united Korea is not in their interest, unless it were united by their client North Korea. Fifthly, China would intervene because any instability in North Korea could lead to China getting flooded with refugees. Sixthly, China would intervene because they too, are having economic troubles, and a political crisis is a great way to rally the nation in support of the government. I think there's probably a bunch of other reasons I haven't thought of.
And yes, the context of this discussion, as far as military force is concerned, is either no action, or a regional war. There are absolutely no "middle ground" scenarios. Even the most focused military action would lead to escalation.
I find it very interesting that you use the term 'teach them a lesson' in reference to both worlds, and now I hope you can answer a question for me - is that what the world opinion is about the American actions there? As an American, you can understand that my access to world opinions is somewhat limited (though I have a few overseas friend, so I think I'm in a better position then most).
I don't know what the world opinion is about these particular actions,
but certainly the world opinion (...insofar as such a thing even exists - it's impossible for 6 billion people to agree about any subject) about American behaviour in general is that you guys are arrogant, blustering, stupid, and desperately need to be taught a lesson. That, I hasten to add, is not my opinion, so don't take it out on me
. About these specific actions, all I can say is what the reaction was at universities. Afghanistan was met with understanding as a reasonable attempt to destroy a government that supported 9/11 by sheltering Al Qaida. There was a fair amount of irritation about the way the war was conducted (...Guantanamo Bay and all that - for the record, I
personally think the American government violated some of the most ancient and honourable rules of war with Guantanamo Bay, and I think it lost all moral high grounds simply by trying to pretend that prisoners of war are not prisoners of war and that torture is not torture), but nobody seriously questioned the motives for the war. Iraq is a different story. I have never met a non-American that honestly believed the WMD thing. I know such people must exist, but I've never met one. Everyone I know thought this was mainly a case of America flexing its muscles. Because weapons of mass destruction were chosen as the main justification, and because they seemed like such a blatant lie, everyone (...that I know) assumed the motives behind the invasion were dark ones - otherwise, why lie about them?
I'm not quite sure why you think it didn't work though - certainly we're still there, certainly we're still fighting an insurgency that will probably never die, but at some level we have to accept that.
I've answered this earlier, so I'll refer you to that part of my post. The answer is money. You've picked up a huge debt in these wars, and it has not paid off. What's more, while Iraq is headed for victory, Afghanistan may not be - a military defeat in Afghanistan is very much still a possibility.
...Come to think of it, just pushing the oil price up (which you did by creating instability in the region) was harmful in multiple ways. On one end, you hurt your own, oil-dependent economy, and on the other end, you helped strengthen your oil-producing enemies like Iran and Venezuela. You've gained influence in Iraq... but you've lost a lot of influence in Latin America, with Hugo Chavez bribing half the continent by giving out money he wouldn't have had if it wasn't for the Iraq war.
Has Afghanistan learned that it can't harbor terrorists in the hills? Yes, I think they've learned that lesson too.
Um... you do realise that a large part of Afghanistan is now once again under Taliban control, and that it's Taliban victories in Afghanistan that have been fuelling the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan? In 2008, the US lost more soldiers in Afghanistan than it did in any year since the start of the war. I guess the Afghans are slow learners...
Damn it. I just realised I spent three hours on this post, and I just can't afford to spend this much. I'm sorry, from now on I'm going to have to limit myself to no more than half an hour for reading and responding to this thread, so don't be surprised if I ignore a lot of what's been written.
