Iraq militants seize Mosul

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

........, I mean that the U.S. plays the role of the stabilizer to prevent such conflicts from occurring in the first place, keeping the thugs of the world at bay.

Today's thug is tomorrow's ally....

And today's ally might be tomorrow's thug...

In most places you keep a thug in place by using your "thug" in the region.

A good thug is getting hard to find these days.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Pete

A good thug is getting hard to find these days.

You'd think a Chicago politician would know that, but I guess not. (Unless)

[Joker]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

...the U.S. plays the role of the stabilizer to prevent such conflicts from occurring in the first place, keeping the thugs of the world at bay.

For someone that hasn't traveled anywhere (self admitted no third-world first-hand knowledge) you don't know much of Jack squat. For us to act the part of stabilizer would mean deploying troops there to act as UN-like "Peace Forces." The last time I checked, we were Special Forces and were considered combat forces; I'll check on that again tomorrow when I get into work.

[Box]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

If only Obama would treat our enemies the way he treats his political opposition.

I see what you did here...
...you used "our" wrong


Just because you consider a group enemies doesn't mean he does...

[Joker]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Would have to disagree Sir (with regards to having troops deployed). We have troops in Germany that acted as a check on the Soviets for many years. We have troops in South Korea to check the North Koreans. We have troops in the Philippines and Okinawa, we have naval forces near Iran, etc...all of these play a role in helping to act as a stabilizer.

Those countries were not in a civil religious war where suicidal fanatical combatants want to kill everything in their path that is not from their clan/tribe. And how has that "navel forces near Iran" worked out?

Case in point where our brothers were killed doing exactly what you want: Beirut, Lebanon, October 23rd 1983.

With your attitude and lack of worldly education you would make an excellent member of our esteemed State Department working in the Consultant section handing out visas.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Would have to disagree Sir (with regards to having troops deployed). We have troops in Germany that acted as a check on the Soviets for many years. We have troops in South Korea to check the North Koreans. We have troops in the Philippines and Okinawa, we have naval forces near Iran, etc...all of these play a role in helping to act as a stabilizer.

TPTB in the US Government have deployed troops to those areas as well as many 3rd world cesspools ruled by dictators and in all cases there is a segment of the populous in areas that did not and do not want the intervention of the US Government.

If it was up to WE, as in We the People I am nearly certain that WE would vote to use our wealth and resources at home and not to waste the lives of friends and family on people who don't like us and our ways.

For starters, how about check the influx of illegal border traffic and stabilize our own border?

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Sir, you seem to think I am arguing to keep soldiers in very dangerous areas such as Iraq, that is not what I am arguing. Regarding Iran, the naval forces that keep the Strait of Hormuz open are needed or else the world would be at the mercy of the Iranians because some 60% of the global oil supply flows through there.

Broadsword,

Try this out.... imagine what would happen (2nd,3rd order) IF someone (Iran, Iraq, 3rd party) did blockade the Straits. Then outline what countries other than the United States would do...include Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Iran, as well as Japan, Great Britain.

Think it through, and opine

SnT

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Pete

Today's thug is tomorrow's ally....

And today's ally might be tomorrow's thug...

In most places you keep a thug in place by using your "thug" in the region.

A good thug is getting hard to find these days.

That is awesome the "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" for the current generation nice.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

If you mean never start something like an Iraq war unless you are sure you can win it, I agree there. My view is that one should always maintain the capability to fight such a war just to be on the safe side. It's like having nuclear weapons and survival shelters for the military and government bureaucracy in case of a major catastrophe (nuclear/biological/chemical warfare), you don't intend to ever have to use them, but have them just in case. But don't start conflicts if one doesn't absolutely have to.

On the issue of wars, I think that prudence with military intervention is something that is naturally conservative because conservatives always point out how government programs always balloon exponentially in cost because of all of the unforeseen variables. Wars are no different, and thus one can never really predict how much a war will cost or how long it will last.

In terms of the U.S. playing an active role in the world, I do not mean the U.S. needs to be getting itself into Iraq wars here and there, I mean that the U.S. plays the role of the stabilizer to prevent such conflicts from occurring in the first place, keeping the thugs of the world at bay.

In a college debate where everyone has the same institutionalized foundation of knowledge with variations you would be a champ, persistance is a trait you do not lack.

It is the depth of the knowledge and a true perspective we have that you and many educated people lack. There is the view from the U.S. and the views from the rest of the world with all the vast experiences and knowledge.

In any culture it is the same when it comes to institutionalized thinking, it means social norming. For SOF whether it is CA, PSYOPS or SF we have the luxury of seeing how confusing our country is simply because of a skewed view of what reality is. In the U.S. our news is really not news it can best be described as entertainment/news or infotainment. When we deploy we see what real news should be just clean impartial information for the most part. No drama, no shock value, no sensationalism just plain old boring information. After having spent considerable time in these other countries we come home and our news is more like a Jerry Springer show than important information. Make no mistake our news does not have healthy debate it is entertainment so you will tune into their channel and therefore more advertising dollars. And yes beneath the rhetoric there is some form of marketing to us even if it is partisan funded guests, nothing is free.

Every situation you desribe where the U.S. has a military presence there is an interest by our government that ties back to our economy.

BTW you said you were an 18X, what happened? and did you go to the needs of the Army I assume for the remainder of your contract?