Making Baby Jesus Cry

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Yes we did. And yet the country is run by armed gangs, for exactly the reasons you cite. Intervention is not as simple as knocking some tinpot dictator off his throne. It's a lesson we failed to learn in Somalia, in Haiti, and even to some extent in the Balkins, with disasterous effect now in Iraq.

Right. Not to be taken lightly. And Haiti is a warning that should be heeded - we can't expect to do these things with 200 hundred troops and a ship anchored off the coast, even when the people are willing. Certainly not in a place like Haiti; they needed too much, and we didn't do it.


Balkans, Balkans!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I disagree with almost all of the above.

The massacres in Kosovo did negatively impact our national security. While our European allies and the UN stood helplessly by, the Iranians were the only people to provide assistance to the Bosnians, and Islamacists now are far more influential in BH and Turkey than they were before.

We may have no direct interest in the region, but we also don't have an interest in Turkey and Greece going to war (which was a possibility when Macedonia declared its independence, and wouldn't change its name).

Refugees from a full-scale war in the Balkans could also destabilize Italy (they weren't too happy with all of the Croatians pouring across the border in the early-90s).

I imagine in early 1914 that Mister Asquith probably didn't think that internal strife in the Balkans was a big deal, either.

Following this line of thinking we have a strategic interest in every square inch of the earth. Anytime Muslims are threatened we need to help to improve our reputation with the muslim world (because saving Kosovo really helped in our propaganda war agains the "Islamofascists"). If any two countrys on earth might go to war we need to stop it and if any country becomes destabilised we need to intervene. Of course that is assuming that Greece and Turkey were on the brink of war and that after the cold war we really care. And assuming that if Italy could be that effected by the Balkins, and if it is affected we would really care.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
we have millions of Cuban emigres who would jump at the chance to go back and help.

I'm not so sure about that. I think we're stuck with them.

One thing I've never been quite clear about - is the US position (theoretically) that everyone who had property nationalized by Castro is supposed to get it back, come the counter-revolution?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Just so we're clear- you feel Jimmy Carter handled Iran intelligently and it became a non-issue for Reagan just because of some alleged deal that cropped up several years later?

Shape Shifter- slow down on the posting- i think as long as you don't screw up loberry might move your crown.

Just so we're clear - I think that Carter didn't do a very good job handling Iran, and that he was hamstrung by an inefficient military structure that was still reeling from Vietnam and which had a command structure that doomed any special operations to failure. But I think the chances of his success in gaining the release of the Iranian hostages was significantly diminished by the Reagan operatives who were working at cross purposes to ensure that the hostages were not released until Reagan was in charge. The contacts established by the administration at that point were very useful a couple of years down the line when Congress passed legislation expressly forbidding the military backing of certain Central American facist paramilitary organizations. Contras get some dough, Iran gets quid pro quo, and the quasi-legitimate arms market with Iraq gets expanded. Everybody wins!

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
some alleged deal that cropped up several years later?

Iran-Contra is just "alleged" but Vince Foster was deffo killed by Hillary's hit men. Got it.

Originally posted by baltassoc
Just so we're clear

Things don't get cleared up with Hank. He's kind of like Ratzinger to Penske's JPII, except without the doctrinal flexibility. And instead of "saved" and "damned" his categories are "with us" or "Terrorist."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
So do you think Cuba is the most pressing place the U.S. should apply its interventionist capital?

FWIW, I am partly - even mostly - on your side here. I think human rights and the unique place America occupies in the world give us reason and even obligation at times to intervene where there is disaster and degradation. However, there are a million places we could go, so you have to have other factors, or at least some special ones. Is being Western Hemisphere sufficient? Or desire for democracy (which I assume in Cuba, though I don't know)? Why there and not some other place with horrific human rights conditions?

As I said before, to intervene, the country cannot be a democracy and its government must be ruining the economy. In addition, our intervention must be able to change that situation. Following these conditions there are not a lot of places to intervene.

North Korea falls under this catagory, but if we invade we lose Seoul and possibly San Francisco.

Syria and Iran are now adopting free market policies so they are out.

Burma would be good, but the US public would never support it.

Belarus falls under this catagory but Russia would not like this and they have nuclear weapons.

Although Hugo Chavez is destryoing his economy he is still supported by the majority of the people.

That leaves Cuba.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ironweed
Things don't get cleared up with Hank. He's kind of like Ratzinger to Penske's JPII, except without the doctrinal flexibility. And instead of "saved" and "damned" his categories are "with us" or "Terrorist."

I wish I were Catholic and understood what the hell you just said, because I suspect it was clever.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Following this line of thinking we have a strategic interest in every square inch of the earth. Anytime Muslims are threatened we need to help to improve our reputation with the muslim world (because saving Kosovo really helped in our propaganda war agains the "Islamofascists"). If any two countrys on earth might go to war we need to stop it and if any country becomes destabilised we need to intervene. Of course that is assuming that Greece and Turkey were on the brink of war and that after the cold war we really care. And assuming that if Italy could be that effected by the Balkins, and if it is affected we would really care.

What were you saying about the "slippery slope" argument earlier?

Originally posted by baltassoc
I wish I were Catholic

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, I could buy myself an indulgence!

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said before, to intervene, the country cannot be a democracy and its government must be ruining the economy. In addition, our intervention must be able to change that situation. Following these conditions there are not a lot of places to intervene.

That leaves Cuba.

What about Tibet? Or does China's leberality on capitalism in Shanghai and the ports give it free reign? And if so, shouldn't Castro get credit for the European resorts on Cuba's beaches (I mean, given the relative size of the two countries)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Bush I's intervention.

No matter how many times one points out on this board that Bush I got us into Somalia, Spanky continues to give WJC the credit for that one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Things don't get cleared up with Hank. He's kind of like Ratzinger to Penske's JPII, except without the doctrinal flexibility. And instead of "saved" and "damned" his categories are "with us" or "Terrorist."

I've put you in for an Exorcism. If nothing else, the holy water might tone down the BO a little.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said before, to intervene, the country cannot be a democracy and its government must be ruining the economy. In addition, our intervention must be able to change that situation. Following these conditions there are not a lot of places to intervene.

North Korea falls under this catagory, but if we invade we lose Seoul and possibly San Francisco.

Syria and Iran are now adopting free market policies so they are out.

Burma would be good, but the US public would never support it.

Belarus falls under this catagory but Russia would not like this and they have nuclear weapons.

Although Hugo Chavez is destryoing his economy he is still supported by the majority of the people.

That leaves Cuba.

How about any number of African nations?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is so Anti-American about getting rid of one of the most ruthless tyrants in history. Here is a man that gassed his own people, tortured thousands and had mass killing fields and graves. If you are going to get all idealistic, saying that we needed WMDs as an excuse to go in un-American. We did the right thing in WWII, in Serbia and in Iraq. What is so wrong with getting rid of dictators and stopping Genocide?

Per se, not much. But when you tell us that the reason for invading Iraq was to get rid of dictators and stop genocide, we start to wonder about why Dick Cheney didn't seem bothered by Saddam before he invaded Iraq, and why there are other dictators whom we support, and why Republican supporters of the mess in Iraq don't seem to care to use the government's power to stop genocide in other places, like Rwanda, or Darfur, or Zimbabwe, or the former Yugoslavia. People who want us to take these as real principles, and not just ex post facto justifications for a clusterfuck, need to apply the principles elsewhere. We don't seem to have the military forces to depose Robert Mugabe right now -- alas, they're tied up in Iraq -- so would you support tax hikes to pay for a larger military to do something about these dictators and this genocide in countries which don't start in I and end in Q?