BMW i
Forum for the BMW i3, i4 and i8
BMW i3 BMW i8
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  BMW i Forums > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-21-2018, 10:08 AM   #67
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
7186
Rep
20,599
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

We need to keep an eye on those sneeky buggers
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:09 AM   #68
Real Dodger
Field Marshal of the Cosmos
Real Dodger's Avatar
United_States
5336
Rep
6,419
Posts

Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: McKinney TX

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
What you do is stop making deals with bad regimes. You stop acting like the worlds police because the majority of the time you end up making the least worst decision.

A classic example was our fight against the spread of communism. The amount of blowback from this fight is tremendous and to this day we're still paying for it. Just about every "deal"/coup/war/military action we've been involved in since the end of WW2 was over the fear of communism.
How does this at all relate to our discussion about pulling out of Afghanistan? Or what we should've done there in the first place?
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.
I'll bet you voted libertarian. I've never agreed with libertarian foreign policy.
__________________
Renegade of Funk
Appreciate 1
F32Fleet1121.00

      12-21-2018, 10:16 AM   #69
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1469
Rep
3,911
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
What you do is stop making deals with bad regimes. You stop acting like the worlds police because the majority of the time you end up making the least worst decision.

A classic example was our fight against the spread of communism. The amount of blowback from this fight is tremendous and to this day we're still paying for it. Just about every "deal"/coup/war/military action we've been involved in since the end of WW2 was over the fear of communism.
How does this at all relate to our discussion about pulling out of Afghanistan? Or what we should've done there in the first place?
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.
Our mistake in Afghanistan wasn't arming the mujahideen, it was the end game. We didn't want to spend the money to build up what little in Afghanistan was destroyed by the Soviets. That allowed the Taliban to take over.

The mujahideen was not the Taliban. The Taliban actually fought the Mujahideen for
control of Kabul and pushed the militias out. The majority of the militias that were part of the Mujahideen were against Taliban rule and the stronger ones were the ones we aligned with after we invaded in 2001.

The failure of the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan is pointed out as one of the key contributing factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. So to call our intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s as a failure or misguided is in contrast to history.
Appreciate 1
Run Silent6255.00

      12-21-2018, 10:17 AM   #70
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
6255
Rep
1,999
Posts

Drives: Back and Forth To Work
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.

You can't just lump everything into one basket and pretend that the policies of Ross Perot, or Ron & Rand Paul are always going to be the right answer.

We knew the Mujahideen were not the best dudes, but we didn't have a choice in helping them. During those times, we simply couldn't let the USSR gain yet another satellite state. Especially one so close to the oil fields of the middle east and to our allies in India. In addition, the Mujahideen and the Taliban are not the same groups of people or the same tribes. Finally, aiding them allowed the USSR to get bogged down in that country, effectively collapsing their military due to funding.

I agree we should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq war and should have avoided aiding in the Iranian coup. Those were dumb moves.

To say we shouldn't have come to the rescue of the Kuwait people when they were invaded by a despot as evil as Hussein is foolish and cold hearted. That would be akin to walking by a grandmother getting beaten to death by a thug teenager and just shrugging your shoulders and carrying on. That is simply not the right thing to do.

There is much more, especially behind the scenes, of our military intervention than you might believe.

Not sure what you do/did for a living, but I spent a large swath of my life working first in the military and later with the US Government in many of these theaters. There is much more to this than whatever you are being spoon fed by a few random websites and skeezy politicians.
__________________
Вести себя? да, после дождя в четверг.
Appreciate 4
Jockey1469.00
minn194518.00
MKSixer10068.50

      12-21-2018, 10:20 AM   #71
MGM135is
Primo Generalissimo
United_States
1180
Rep
2,007
Posts

Drives: 135is #399
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC area

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Yes. There's no winning. Empires die in Afghanistan. Didn't they teach that to you in school?

Hell, we supplied these same people with weapons when the Russians invaded back in the 1980's.


We can't afford it anyways.
If you think about it, the sudden turn about is probably so he can divert cash from Syria and Afghanistan to wall building at home. Resolves his $5B shortfall fairly quickly.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:22 AM   #72
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.
I agree that yes those may have been mistakes, but again we are where we are now. So how would of responded right after 9/11?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
And what will the fall out be? Wasnt it a mistake for obama to pull out early in his first term ? Led to another rise of terror and isis?
As they say you and I rarely agree, but I mostly agree with this.
Waited it out and attempt to apprehended Bin Laden rather than become a recruiting poster for Jihad Inc.

It would only be a matter of time and we have all the time in the world.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:24 AM   #73
Tuxedo
Bowties r cool ▶:◀
Tuxedo's Avatar
United_States
289
Rep
495
Posts

Drives: 2009 128i MT e88
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD View Post
And what will the fall out be? Wasnt it a mistake for obama to pull out early in his first term ? Led to another rise of terror and isis?
You have been misled that Obama pulled out early. Bush made the plan and signed the Iraq legislation for withdrawing after Obama was President-elect. Bush and Cheney controlled it and if Obama stayed in the liabilities of the military would have been a disaster. Facts matter

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...0081214-2.html
Appreciate 1
minn194518.00

      12-21-2018, 10:26 AM   #74
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGM135is View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Yes. There's no winning. Empires die in Afghanistan. Didn't they teach that to you in school?

Hell, we supplied these same people with weapons when the Russians invaded back in the 1980's.


We can't afford it anyways.
If you think about it, the sudden turn about is probably so he can divert cash from Syria and Afghanistan to wall building at home. Resolves his $5B shortfall fairly quickly.
Good point, but there are legal reasons why that might not be possible because IIRC border security is under DHS not DoD. IIRC the Exec Branch can't unilaterally divert money across Department's. Congress has control over the purse.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:29 AM   #75
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
7186
Rep
20,599
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuxedo View Post
You have been misled that Obama pulled out early. Bush made the plan and signed the Iraq legislation for withdrawing after Obama was President-elect. Bush and Cheney controlled it and if Obama stayed in the liabilities of the military would have been a disaster. Facts matter

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...0081214-2.html
Thats fine dont care who, seemed to be a mistake.
Appreciate 1
minn194518.00

      12-21-2018, 10:30 AM   #76
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1469
Rep
3,911
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.

You can't just lump everything into one basket and pretend that the policies of Ross Perot, or Ron & Rand Paul are always going to be the right answer.

We knew the Mujahideen were not the best dudes, but we didn't have a choice in helping them. During those times, we simply couldn't let the USSR gain yet another satellite state. Especially one so close to the oil fields of the middle east and to our allies in India. In addition, the Mujahideen and the Taliban are not the same groups of people or the same tribes. Finally, aiding them allowed the USSR to get bogged down in that country, effectively collapsing their military due to funding.

I agree we should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq war and should have avoided aiding in the Iranian coup. Those were dumb moves.

To say we shouldn't have come to the rescue of the Kuwait people when they were invaded by a despot as evil as Hussein is foolish and cold hearted. That would be akin to walking by a grandmother getting beaten to death by a thug teenager and just shrugging your shoulders and carrying on. That is simply not the right thing to do.

There is much more, especially behind the scenes, of our military intervention than you might believe.

Not sure what you do/did for a living, but I spent a large swath of my life working first in the military and later with the US Government in many of these theaters. There is much more to this than whatever you are being spoon fed by a few random websites and skeezy politicians.
Well said and my thoughts exactly.

I always thought our support of Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War was nothing more than being petty and trying to "payback" Iran for their revolution.
Appreciate 1
Run Silent6255.00

      12-21-2018, 10:33 AM   #77
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
What you do is stop making deals with bad regimes. You stop acting like the worlds police because the majority of the time you end up making the least worst decision.

A classic example was our fight against the spread of communism. The amount of blowback from this fight is tremendous and to this day we're still paying for it. Just about every "deal"/coup/war/military action we've been involved in since the end of WW2 was over the fear of communism.
How does this at all relate to our discussion about pulling out of Afghanistan? Or what we should've done there in the first place?
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.
Our mistake in Afghanistan wasn't arming the mujahideen, it was the end game. We didn't want to spend the money to build up what little in Afghanistan was destroyed by the Soviets. That allowed the Taliban to take over.

The mujahideen was not the Taliban. The Taliban actually fought the Mujahideen for
control of Kabul and pushed the militias out. The majority of the militias that were part of the Mujahideen were against Taliban rule and the stronger ones were the ones we aligned with after we invaded in 2001.

The failure of the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan is pointed out as one of the key contributing factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. So to call our intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s as a failure or misguided is in contrast to history.
The Taliban and Mujahideen were cut from the same cloth. I didn't mean to imply they were the same. After all it was the Taliban who gave OBL refuge.

Russia was already breaking in the 1970's. Oil prices were papering over the cracks.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:34 AM   #78
minn19
Major General
minn19's Avatar
United_States
4518
Rep
5,356
Posts

Drives: 18 M3, 16 F150,
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Minnesota

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Waited it out and attempt to apprehended Bin Laden rather than become a recruiting poster for Jihad Inc.

It would only be a matter of time and we have all the time in the world.
I agree with you that we shouldn't of gotten ourselves into the place where we needed to go into Afghanistan etc. But, I disagree with your wait them out game. But, we will never know how it would've gone had we not invaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuxedo View Post
You have been misled that Obama pulled out early. Bush made the plan and signed the Iraq legislation for withdrawing after Obama was President-elect. Bush and Cheney controlled it and if Obama stayed in the liabilities of the military would have been a disaster. Facts matter

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...0081214-2.html
I place the blame on both administrations. If the Bush 2 administration thought it was so important to stay they should've got the forces agreement done before the next President came in. But, it might not of mattered because Obama campaigned on pulling out by a certain date, which I disagreed with.

I disagreed with the initial invasion of Gulf War 2. But as they say if you break you own it and we should've stayed until it was much more stable. This is my view on both Syria and Afghanistan. Except I thought we (US0 was right to go into Afghanistan out of all of these places to take out OBL and AQ.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:43 AM   #79
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.

You can't just lump everything into one basket and pretend that the policies of Ross Perot, or Ron & Rand Paul are always going to be the right answer.

We knew the Mujahideen were not the best dudes, but we didn't have a choice in helping them. During those times, we simply couldn't let the USSR gain yet another satellite state. Especially one so close to the oil fields of the middle east and to our allies in India. In addition, the Mujahideen and the Taliban are not the same groups of people or the same tribes. Finally, aiding them allowed the USSR to get bogged down in that country, effectively collapsing their military due to funding.

I agree we should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq war and should have avoided aiding in the Iranian coup. Those were dumb moves.

To say we shouldn't have come to the rescue of the Kuwait people when they were invaded by a despot as evil as Hussein is foolish and cold hearted. That would be akin to walking by a grandmother getting beaten to death by a thug teenager and just shrugging your shoulders and carrying on. That is simply not the right thing to do.

There is much more, especially behind the scenes, of our military intervention than you might believe.

Not sure what you do/did for a living, but I spent a large swath of my life working first in the military and later with the US Government in many of these theaters. There is much more to this than whatever you are being spoon fed by a few random websites and skeezy politicians.
Kuwait was accused of stealing oil from Iraq via slant drilling.
Kuwait was also accused of overproducing which depressed oil prices and made it difficult for Iraq to pay the billions($) owed to the US for material support in their war with Iran.

What a tangled mess. More blowback.


As for taking a noninterventionist view point. How can you say it won't work when we've never tried it?
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:44 AM   #80
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.

You can't just lump everything into one basket and pretend that the policies of Ross Perot, or Ron & Rand Paul are always going to be the right answer.

We knew the Mujahideen were not the best dudes, but we didn't have a choice in helping them. During those times, we simply couldn't let the USSR gain yet another satellite state. Especially one so close to the oil fields of the middle east and to our allies in India. In addition, the Mujahideen and the Taliban are not the same groups of people or the same tribes. Finally, aiding them allowed the USSR to get bogged down in that country, effectively collapsing their military due to funding.

I agree we should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq war and should have avoided aiding in the Iranian coup. Those were dumb moves.

To say we shouldn't have come to the rescue of the Kuwait people when they were invaded by a despot as evil as Hussein is foolish and cold hearted. That would be akin to walking by a grandmother getting beaten to death by a thug teenager and just shrugging your shoulders and carrying on. That is simply not the right thing to do.

There is much more, especially behind the scenes, of our military intervention than you might believe.

Not sure what you do/did for a living, but I spent a large swath of my life working first in the military and later with the US Government in many of these theaters. There is much more to this than whatever you are being spoon fed by a few random websites and skeezy politicians.
Well said and my thoughts exactly.

I always thought our support of Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War was nothing more than being petty and trying to "payback" Iran for their revolution.
Payback for the payback for the payback....and round and around we go!
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 10:49 AM   #81
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1469
Rep
3,911
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
What you do is stop making deals with bad regimes. You stop acting like the worlds police because the majority of the time you end up making the least worst decision.

A classic example was our fight against the spread of communism. The amount of blowback from this fight is tremendous and to this day we're still paying for it. Just about every "deal"/coup/war/military action we've been involved in since the end of WW2 was over the fear of communism.
How does this at all relate to our discussion about pulling out of Afghanistan? Or what we should've done there in the first place?
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.
Our mistake in Afghanistan wasn't arming the mujahideen, it was the end game. We didn't want to spend the money to build up what little in Afghanistan was destroyed by the Soviets. That allowed the Taliban to take over.

The mujahideen was not the Taliban. The Taliban actually fought the Mujahideen for
control of Kabul and pushed the militias out. The majority of the militias that were part of the Mujahideen were against Taliban rule and the stronger ones were the ones we aligned with after we invaded in 2001.

The failure of the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan is pointed out as one of the key contributing factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. So to call our intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s as a failure or misguided is in contrast to history.
The Taliban and Mujahideen were cut from the same cloth. I didn't mean to imply they were the same. After all it was the Taliban who gave OBL refuge.

Russia was already breaking in the 1970's. Oil prices were papering over the cracks.
Yes, Taliban gave OBL refuge. If you want to lay blame somewhere, blame the Soviets. Again, our intervention in Afghanistan didn't create the Taliban.

Gulf War I gave OBL his platform to stand on for jihad against the West. But blaming the US for that because we came to aid of Saudi and Kuwait is also horribly shortsighted. We went in with clear objectives that we satisfied and when we met those, we stopped. We didn't go after regime change.

Now Gulf War II will go down as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in modern times. But like what minn19 said, if we break the egg, we gotta clean up the mess.


Lastly, to keep inferring that US intervention overall is a bad thing, I will continue to point out type rise of China. There will be some other power that will step in and try to influence the region if we don't. I'd rather have troops overseas (myself included) then watch Russia or China become the dominant power.
Appreciate 2
minn194518.00

      12-21-2018, 10:59 AM   #82
minn19
Major General
minn19's Avatar
United_States
4518
Rep
5,356
Posts

Drives: 18 M3, 16 F150,
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Minnesota

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Yes, Taliban gave OBL refuge. If you want to lay blame somewhere, blame the Soviets. Again, our intervention in Afghanistan didn't create the Taliban.

Gulf War I gave OBL his platform to stand on for jihad against the West. But blaming the US for that because we came to aid of Saudi and Kuwait is also horribly shortsighted. We went in with clear objectives that we satisfied and when we met those, we stopped. We didn't go after regime change.

Now Gulf War II will go down as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in modern times. But like what minn19 said, if we break the egg, we gotta clean up the mess.


Lastly, to keep inferring that US intervention overall is a bad thing, I will continue to point out type rise of China. There will be some other power that will step in and try to influence the region if we don't. I'd rather have troops overseas (myself included) then watch Russia or China become the dominant power.
I still can't believe they didn't go after Iran instead. We had Saddam bottled up and if they wanted to attack somebody because of terrorism/WMDs (nuke program), Iran was the far better choice. Plus you wouldn't of had to rely on Pakistan and others so much to get supplies etc to the troops in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying that would've been the right thing to do either, but it made a whole lot more sense than going after Iraq for a second time. They wanted to go after somebody, they might as well of gone after somebody that would've possibly helped stabilize the region better by taking out their regime instead.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 11:05 AM   #83
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by minn19 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
What you do is stop making deals with bad regimes. You stop acting like the worlds police because the majority of the time you end up making the least worst decision.

A classic example was our fight against the spread of communism. The amount of blowback from this fight is tremendous and to this day we're still paying for it. Just about every "deal"/coup/war/military action we've been involved in since the end of WW2 was over the fear of communism.
How does this at all relate to our discussion about pulling out of Afghanistan? Or what we should've done there in the first place?
We shouldn't have started a proxy war with the Russians by arming the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) back in the 1980's, and we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq/Iran War, and we shouldn't have "saved" Kuwait and placed military bases in the Persian Gulf. We sure as hell shouldn't have conducted a coup in Iran and we shouldn't have closed the gold window because we wouldn't have had to make a deal with the Saudi's to price oil in USD.


Afghanistan 2.0 was simply the next domino of a long line to fall. You have to cut bait at some point.
Our mistake in Afghanistan wasn't arming the mujahideen, it was the end game. We didn't want to spend the money to build up what little in Afghanistan was destroyed by the Soviets. That allowed the Taliban to take over.

The mujahideen was not the Taliban. The Taliban actually fought the Mujahideen for
control of Kabul and pushed the militias out. The majority of the militias that were part of the Mujahideen were against Taliban rule and the stronger ones were the ones we aligned with after we invaded in 2001.

The failure of the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan is pointed out as one of the key contributing factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. So to call our intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s as a failure or misguided is in contrast to history.
The Taliban and Mujahideen were cut from the same cloth. I didn't mean to imply they were the same. After all it was the Taliban who gave OBL refuge.

Russia was already breaking in the 1970's. Oil prices were papering over the cracks.
Yes, Taliban gave OBL refuge. If you want to lay blame somewhere, blame the Soviets. Again, our intervention in Afghanistan didn't create the Taliban.

Gulf War I gave OBL his platform to stand on for jihad against the West. But blaming the US for that because we came to aid of Saudi and Kuwait is also horribly shortsighted. We went in with clear objectives that we satisfied and when we met those, we stopped. We didn't go after regime change.

Now Gulf War II will go down as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in modern times. But like what minn19 said, if we break the egg, we gotta clean up the mess.


Lastly, to keep inferring that US intervention overall is a bad thing, I will continue to point out type rise of China. There will be some other power that will step in and try to influence the region if we don't. I'd rather have troops overseas (myself included) then watch Russia or China become the dominant power.
So let them. China is already getting a taste in Pakistan. They'll learn.

I wouldn't worry about the Russians. Last I heard they can't even sail a carrier without a tug escort.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 11:13 AM   #84
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1469
Rep
3,911
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Sounds like you're campaigning for the fall of the US as the lone superpower.
Appreciate 1
Run Silent6255.00

      12-21-2018, 11:36 AM   #85
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
6255
Rep
1,999
Posts

Drives: Back and Forth To Work
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Kuwait was accused of stealing oil from Iraq via slant drilling.
Kuwait was also accused of overproducing which depressed oil prices and made it difficult for Iraq to pay the billions($) owed to the US for material support in their war with Iran.
"accused". Again, you are woefully missing so many other details here. Even assuming you are correct (which you arn't), what you are saying is that it would have been okay to let a mass murderer and rapist invade a soverign nation and murder thousands of women and children because said soverign nation was making oil cheap and it hindered the mass murderer's ability to give the USA money. That is a very poor argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
As for taking a noninterventionist view point. How can you say it won't work when we've never tried it?
How'd that work out for us in WW2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
The Taliban and Mujahideen were cut from the same cloth.
Nope. Not even close. How many Afghani people have you had dinner with in Kabul and other locals? Because I have, and can assure you that your sources are incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Russia was already breaking in the 1970's. Oil prices were papering over the cracks.
The USSR (Russia in 1970) was always struggling financially, but certainly wasn't breaking apart in the 1970's. Again, not sure where you get your sources, but they are very one sided and sometimes appear to be flat out wrong. You are cherry picking pieces of the puzzle that fit your agenda. This is not a sound way to come to logical conclusions on foreign policy or factual history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
I wouldn't worry about the Russians. Last I heard they can't even sail a carrier without a tug escort.
Again, your sources are terrible. Kuznetsov class ships have always been perpetual problem children within the Russian Navy, so this isn't really news. Other than that, Russian doesn't really have any aircraft carries as they don't align with their strategic objectives and never have. Heck, over the last 50 years, they've only even ever built 4, 2 of which were eventually sold to China and India.

Currently in active service, The Navy of the Russian Federation has:

1 battlecruiser
3 cruisers
15 destroyers
10 frigates
81 corvettes
20 landing ship tanks
32 landing craft
15 special-purpose ships
1 patrol ships
42 patrol boats
46 mine countermeasures vessel
3 special-purpose submarines
64 submarines

Nothing to sneeze at.
__________________
Вести себя? да, после дождя в четверг.
Appreciate 3
Jockey1469.00
minn194518.00
MKSixer10068.50

      12-21-2018, 12:34 PM   #86
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
1121
Rep
7,438
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Kuwait was accused of stealing oil from Iraq via slant drilling.
Kuwait was also accused of overproducing which depressed oil prices and made it difficult for Iraq to pay the billions($) owed to the US for material support in their war with Iran.
"accused". Again, you are woefully missing so many other details here. Even assuming you are correct (which you arn't), what you are saying is that it would have been okay to let a mass murderer and rapist invade a soverign nation and murder thousands of women and children because said soverign nation was making oil cheap and it hindered the mass murderer's ability to give the USA money. That is a very poor argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
As for taking a noninterventionist view point. How can you say it won't work when we've never tried it?
How'd that work out for us in WW2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
The Taliban and Mujahideen were cut from the same cloth.
Nope. Not even close. How many Afghani people have you had dinner with in Kabul and other locals? Because I have, and can assure you that your sources are incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Russia was already breaking in the 1970's. Oil prices were papering over the cracks.
The USSR (Russia in 1970) was always struggling financially, but certainly wasn't breaking apart in the 1970's. Again, not sure where you get your sources, but they are very one sided and sometimes appear to be flat out wrong. You are cherry picking pieces of the puzzle that fit your agenda. This is not a sound way to come to logical conclusions on foreign policy or factual history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
I wouldn't worry about the Russians. Last I heard they can't even sail a carrier without a tug escort.
Again, your sources are terrible. Kuznetsov class ships have always been perpetual problem children within the Russian Navy, so this isn't really news. Other than that, Russian doesn't really have any aircraft carries as they don't align with their strategic objectives and never have. Heck, over the last 50 years, they've only even ever built 4, 2 of which were eventually sold to China and India.

Currently in active service, The Navy of the Russian Federation has:

1 battlecruiser
3 cruisers
15 destroyers
10 frigates
81 corvettes
20 landing ship tanks
32 landing craft
15 special-purpose ships
1 patrol ships
42 patrol boats
46 mine countermeasures vessel
3 special-purpose submarines
64 submarines

Nothing to sneeze at.
Perhaps, just perhaps, if we hadn't interfered in Iran in the 1950's, there may not have been a war with Iraq and possibly no disagreement with Kuwait which lead to an invasion.

As for the Taliban and Mujahideen, both had a belief in Jihad (although there are minor differences). That is their commonality.

As for USSR I never said they broke apart in the 1970s. I said they were beginning to and oil was covering up the cracks. As in as long as oil is high they can keep everything together. Think Venezuela today.

I don't know what you mean by WW2? The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted Germany and was the incubator which brought us Hitler.

What about Vietnam? Panama? Somalia? Iran-Contra?
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2018, 12:34 PM   #87
MGM135is
Primo Generalissimo
United_States
1180
Rep
2,007
Posts

Drives: 135is #399
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC area

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Good point, but there are legal reasons why that might not be possible because IIRC border security is under DHS not DoD. IIRC the Exec Branch can't unilaterally divert money across Department's. Congress has control over the purse.
I'm assuming Trump brain logic is at work in this scenario.
Appreciate 1
F32Fleet1121.00

      12-21-2018, 01:10 PM   #88
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
6255
Rep
1,999
Posts

Drives: Back and Forth To Work
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Perhaps, just perhaps, if we hadn't interfered in Iran in the 1950's, there may not have been a war with Iraq and possibly no disagreement with Kuwait which lead to an invasion.

As for the Taliban and Mujahideen, both had a belief in Jihad (although there are minor differences). That is their commonality.

As for USSR I never said they broke apart in the 1970s. I said they were beginning to and oil was covering up the cracks. As in as long as oil is high they can keep everything together. Think Venezuela today.

I don't know what you mean by WW2? The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted Germany and was the incubator which brought us Hitler.

What about Vietnam? Panama? Somalia? Iran-Contra?
I'll take whataboutism for a thousand, Alex.




I believe I mentioned multiple times that some of our interference has been for the right reasons and some has not.

Panama = bad reasons
Vietnam = good reasons, but done the wrong way due to pussies in congress who wouldn't put both feet in the pool
Somalia = Right reasons, we should have been there. I was, were you?

I could spend all night writing about the reasons Iran-Contra was needed, mostly due to inept democrat congressional oversight that wouldn't do the right things, forcing the North's hand.
__________________
Вести себя? да, после дождя в четверг.
Appreciate 1
MKSixer10068.50

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST