Iran

[Aargh]

Eliminating Saddam Hussein removed local control over Iran. Hussein would have sent his entire population to their deaths opposing Iran developing a nuclear capability. Iran and Iraq more or less neutralized each other by pretty much constant fighting at the border.

Once Hussein was gone, there was no local force to control Iran. What's happened there was pretty predictable. What's happened in Iraq was also pretty predictable. Removing Hussein could only end in civil strife, unrest, or flat out civil war.

We had to either leave an occupation force there forever or withdraw our troops. If we left an occupation force, they would have been constant targets and probably foirced to pick one side or another in the ongoing struggle for power among the various groups there.

It doesn't really matter whether it was Bush or Obama who committed to pulling the last troop out. Someone had to do it, and the moment it was done, it was pretty predictable the situation would fall apart. If Obama had left an occupation force there and we were still racking up casualties, the voting public would be ready to string him up for leaving American lives in jeopardy. When Obama pulled the troops out, the cry went out that he had forfeited everything we fought for over there.

Whoever followed Bush was in a hopeless situation in the Middle East. A historically unstable area had been further destabilized. There were no options regarding American forces that would not be subject to intense criticism. Iran's natural enemy had been removed and they were free to do whatever they wanted with no opposition in the region.

I'm a Viet Nam era vet. My draft # was 31. The earlier point about deferments was probably intended to point out that people who've had to be involved in a war might be less likely to send others into one.

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan - the results of those are not encouraging. Now there's saber-rattling to put military forces into the Mid-East and Iran.

[RoyalShock]

When I clicked on this topic I was expecting:

[WuDrWu]

Back in the day I referred to them as "A Flock of " something other than seagulls.

[shocka khan]

Eliminating Saddam Hussein removed local control over Iran. Hussein would have sent his entire population to their deaths opposing Iran developing a nuclear capability. Iran and Iraq more or less neutralized each other by pretty much constant fighting at the border.

Once Hussein was gone, there was no local force to control Iran. What's happened there was pretty predictable. What's happened in Iraq was also pretty predictable. Removing Hussein could only end in civil strife, unrest, or flat out civil war.

We had to either leave an occupation force there forever or withdraw our troops. If we left an occupation force, they would have been constant targets and probably foirced to pick one side or another in the ongoing struggle for power among the various groups there.

It doesn't really matter whether it was Bush or Obama who committed to pulling the last troop out. Someone had to do it, and the moment it was done, it was pretty predictable the situation would fall apart. If Obama had left an occupation force there and we were still racking up casualties, the voting public would be ready to string him up for leaving American lives in jeopardy. When Obama pulled the troops out, the cry went out that he had forfeited everything we fought for over there.

Whoever followed Bush was in a hopeless situation in the Middle East. A historically unstable area had been further destabilized. There were no options regarding American forces that would not be subject to intense criticism. Iran's natural enemy had been removed and they were free to do whatever they wanted with no opposition in the region.

I'm a Viet Nam era vet. My draft # was 31. The earlier point about deferments was probably intended to point out that people who've had to be involved in a war might be less likely to send others into one.

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan - the results of those are not encouraging. Now there's saber-rattling to put military forces into the Mid-East and Iran.

As always Aargh, you are spot on. It would be nice if some of the others on this board had your insight. Especially the point about the deferments as well. It's always easier to send someone else's kids to die or declare a war when you've never fought in one. I still remember my father sharing what he saw and how he felt when I was growing up. I'm sure he had PTSD from his combat experiences. He'd occasionally tell stories about how his good friend got blown to smithereens standing next to him or having to watch people die.

[MoValley John]

As always Aargh, you are spot on. It would be nice if some of the others on this board had your insight. Especially the point about the defer. I still remember my father sharing what he saw and how he felt when I was growing up. I'm sure he had PTSD from his combat experiences. He'd occasionally tell stories about how his good friend got blown to smithereens standing next to him or having to watch people die.

If that was the point you were trying to make, why didn't you state your point? You jumped frm Netanyahu to Republicans and deferments. It was totally confusing.

Now, to respectfully answer your assertion that "It's always easier to send someone else's kids to die or declare a war when you've never fought in one"

I disagree. Not just to pick a fight, but because I've never believed that. I think it's a belief that's easy to adopt, has been politicized, but in doing so, you are really believing that people can't be sensitive to violence if they've never experienced violence. That is really sad if you stop and think about it.

The human condition doesn't work that way. Lawmakers, who have never experienced rape, understand that rape is horrific. They've never experienced the rape, nor the pain, but they understand the depravity, the violence, the horror, and they pass laws accordingly. That transfers to all violence as well. The fact of the matter is this, people understand violence regardless if violence has been a part of their life. People understand death. People understand war.

There are plenty of "peace freak hippies" out there that have never touched a weapon or been in the military. How did they get that way without experiencing war? People get it. I think what few of us really get is regardless of military or combat experienced, just how tough and gut wrenching the decision must be to choose to send troops into war. That goes for a Democrat our Republican.

[tropicalshox]

It seems to be easier for Republicans.

[MoValley John]

It seems to be easier for Republicans.

It seems to be easier for Republicans.

Not true. And here is the rub. The whole chickenhawk thing really holds no merit. It has been an effective ad hominem, but in reality, when you look at Presidents (those Constitutionally entrusted with running a war) military experience played zero role in whether or not we entered conflicts, neither did political party. There is absolutely no correlation and never has been.

Since the Civil War, the majority of Presidents without military experience, are Democrats. These Democrats involved us in similar conflicts as Republicans. Republicans have involved us in no more or less conflicts regardless of military experience. Overall, neither political paety or military experience resulted in fewer or more conflicts.

Makes for effective political fodder, though.

[shocka khan]

The human condition doesn't work that way. Lawmakers, who have never experienced rape, understand that rape is horrific. They've never experienced the rape, nor the pain, but they understand the depravity, the violence, the horror, and they pass laws accordingly.

Or "how the republicans lost two senatorial elections" (Akin in Misssouri with his 'you can't get pregnant if you put an aspirin between your knees' and Mourdock with this 'God intends to make rape pregnancies happen').

Sure, the evangelical wing of the republican party really 'understands' rape.

Not from an assessment of the anecdotal data. Both those ill-informed comments pretty much sank two candidates who should have won the elections they were in.

Better get some new schtick. This thought may play well in the upper Midwest and the south, but not in many other states. Just think, the republicans would probably have a veto-proof majority in the senate had they only been able to get their evangelical candidates to keep their mouths shut. Then you would have had your wish and PP would have been defunded.

Sorry for taking the thread off-topic.

[shocka khan]

Not true. And here is the rub. The whole chickenhawk thing really holds no merit. It has been an effective ad hominem, but in reality, when you look at Presidents (those Constitutionally entrusted with running a war) military experience played zero role in whether or not we entered conflicts, neither did political party. There is absolutely no correlation and never has been.

Since the Civil War, the majority of Presidents without military experience, are Democrats. These Democrats involved us in similar conflicts as Republicans. Republicans have involved us in no more or less conflicts regardless of military experience. Overall, neither political paety or military experience resulted in fewer or more conflicts.

Makes for effective political fodder, though.

I really don't like re-hashing the debate during the Bush-Obama presidency (just like the debates we heard when Bill Clinton was president), but the fact of the matter was at the time that this debate was going on, there were a bunch of republicans who were chickenhawks. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush (his record wasn't as bad as Clinton's, but it was so embarrassing that he had Karen Hughes and another staffer go to Camp Mabry to sanitize his national guard records BEFORE he ran for president). And then the whole bunch lied to Colin Powell (another man I respect) to get him to go to the U.N. and make a case for war with Iraq.

I respected Bush, Sr. He fought. His dad, Prescott, not so much (don't care much for people who sold arms to Germany during WWII). McCain, I respect. Trump tries to make him look like a clown. I bet he would have broke at the torture and beatings that McCain had to endure every day).

I can post references later this evening if you want to continue to make these statements.

And if Jeb gets elected president, he'll try to bring them all back and that loudmouth Maw Bush. No thanks on that one.

[MoValley John]

I really don't like re-hashing the debate during the Bush-Obama presidency (just like the debates we heard when Bill Clinton was president), but the fact of the matter was at the time that this debate was going on, there were a bunch of republicans who were chickenhawks. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush (his record wasn't as bad as Clinton's, but it was so embarrassing that he had Karen Hughes and another staffer go to Camp Mabry to sanitize his national guard records BEFORE he ran for president). And then the whole bunch lied to Colin Powell (another man I respect) to get him to go to the U.N. and make a case for war with Iraq.

I respected Bush, Sr. He fought. His dad, Prescott, not so much (don't care much for people who sold arms to Germany during WWII). McCain, I respect. Trump tries to make him look like a clown. I bet he would have broke at the torture and beatings that McCain had to endure every day).

I can post references later this evening if you want to continue to make these statements.

And if Jeb gets elected president, he'll try to bring them all back.

The biggest problem with the whole idea, beyond the fact that there is zero evidence that service, lack of service, deferment our lack of deferment, has ever had any real impact on a President committing troops, is that if you fairly apply your standard across party lines, we have run out of qualified candidates for president.

[Play Angry]

Prescott, not so much (don't care much for people who sold arms to Germany during WWII).

lol, no. Do you pull this stuff straight from reddit or is there some other treasure trove of nutjobisms that you use as your own personal google?

Having a banking relationship with Fritz Thyssen in the 30s =/= selling Germany weapons during WWII, good lord.

[shocka khan]

lol, no. Do you pull this stuff straight from reddit or is there some other treasure trove of nutjobisms that you use as your own personal google?

Having a banking relationship with Fritz Thyssen in the 30s =/= selling Germany weapons during WWII, good lord.

Could have sworn I read it on Wikipedia, but it's time for me to eat some serious crow (by the way, this was from Wikipedia):
"According to journalist Joe Conason, Prescott Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and he was not a Nazi sympathizer.[9] The Anti-Defamation League[10] and historian Herbert Parmet[7] agreed with that assessment. The Anti-Defamation League stated: "Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer." "

Just proves my point, anyone involved in politics can and does spread politically motivated, untrue rumors.

My bad.

[shocka khan]

The biggest problem with the whole idea, beyond the fact that there is zero evidence that service, lack of service, deferment our lack of deferment, has ever had any real impact on a President committing troops, is that if you fairly apply your standard across party lines, we have run out of qualified candidates for president.

IIRC, other than Bush, who served in the National Guard, none of the people (Wolfowitz, Cheney or Rumsfeld) who were the architects of the Iraq war, ever ran for president. I would not consider deferments or military service as something that would qualify or disqualify a potential candidate. I would, however, consider statements that we ought to fight a war with 'x' or 'y' (insert a country - we have a whole bunch of people clamoring for war with any number of countries) by a candidate without 'x' or 'y' attacking us who did not serve or had deferments as a negative for that candidate.

BTW, if you want to add a country to the list, let me add one: Venezuela. Venezuela is jailing political opponents, using its army against protesters, doing everything they can to rig elections and is now threatening to attack Guyana over a huge off shore oil discovery. If the Venezuelans invade or otherwise try to go to war with Guyana, I am 100 percent in favor of us going there, as it gives us an excuse to take Maduro out.

I also realize that short of a good excuse (come to the aid of an ally) we can't and shouldn't interfere in Venezuela's internal politics.

[DUShock]

Rummy was a naval aviator.

[RoyalShock]

Rummy was a naval aviator.

He's also the guy who was instrumental in getting a stacked FDA to approve aspartame for human consumption.

He's evil, I tell you!