Syria says US 'interfering' as ambassador visits Hama

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

Yes, there are some things we see differently.

So that means all of Europe with the exception of France & the UK, parts of the middle east & Asia falls under soviet influence. Korea & Japan as well ?

(COMMENT)

One of those difference is in the appreciation of the "defense" - and - "intervention."

The AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) differs between "Self-Defense" and "Political Intervention."

• Japan attacked US Territory - the Pacific Fleet. An act of war.
• Germany declared war on the United States.
• Korea was a Post-WWII Repatriation Effort to Independence but under Occupation and Administration by LTG JR Hodge, US Army.

Everything after the Korean War was a US Intervention, with the exception of the Liberation of Kuwait.

What surprised me at the time was that there were Americans who believed intervention in Vietnam was justified.

(COMMENT)

Yes, there where the "Whiz Kids" and their follows. There was a very strong anti-communist period.

If you surrender to the enemy then lives can be saved but there are other costs that come along with that.

(COMMENT)

Obviously, this is true. But there are also diplomatic and 4GW (asymmetric warfare techniques).

Vietnam was the only exception and that was because public support for it ended.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is hard to explain. But this dates back to French colonization and the origins of the "Domino Theory." Ho Chi Mihn was my father's ally before I got there (Anti-Japanese Occupation Insurgency).

Otherwise i'm tempted to say wherever the US has intervened has resulted in a better situation than before. Was talking to an elder about the Iraqi invasion and his view was the Americans are doing the Iraqi's a favour. Same with Afghanistan.

(COMMENT)

I am not so sure that you should include Iraq or Afghanistan. And the Palestinian issue has now dragged-on for half a century.

Libya is clearly a mistake. And Yemen is a situation that remain to be seen. Syria is a nation that we should be very careful in how we proceed.

I would like to think your ppl do not resort to force as the only option, force is the last option when others have failed. I would advance that it is just that determination you bring that would make an enemy reconsider their position. There are many regimes that benefitted from your largesse without use of any force either through military aid or otherwise.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the US is a military hegemony (Persuasive in Peace - & - Invincible in War). There are many that would agree that the AUMF should be a last result.

Having said that i don't entirely diasgree with what you've said here. Its just a very difficult call. One can have positions, then reality intrudes and plays havoc with it. One then tries to understand the situation and rationalise it. I can understand why you went into Iraq and feel I'm in a better position that those that don't. The only reason to spend billions is to protect trillions otherwise it makes no sense.

(COMMENT)

Yes, "spending of billions to protect trillions" is an excellent slogan. You should send it to the White House. I'm sure they will use it.

But on a serious note, the expenditures lost over that military adventure will never be recovered. It it is anything but assured that we (the US) will recover any of our investment. Plus, any dollar we lost, directly or indirectly, at a result of Iraq will cost us twice as much. The refit of the military, the dollars sacrificed to upgrade Iraqi infrastructure at the expense of the US infrastructure, and the future costs of the DOS Effort are but a few items we should consider. Yet, if you were here, listening to the discussion of the debt and the unemployment rate, you would no doubt not that --- certainly the US is no better off. One can argue that neither is Iraq or Afghanistan. One needs only look at the news.

OK, so they chose the less costly route here from their pov. So they do exercise some discretion then. It isn't always force but only force when it can be cost-effective and compromises after. As i've said earlier its isn't always guaranteed whether there will be force at al.

(COMMENT)

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Not every choice the US make is wrong. But the US position is, by no means, a good bet.

Well isn't being an umbrella mean that you might at times be required to bring out the broadsword.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is always a risk. That is why it is imperative that we evaluate the alternatives. The US National Security Decision Making Process (NSDMP) must balance the "inductive (evidence-based) analytical reasoning --- against deductive (hypothesis-based and evidence tested) reasoning.[1]"

We did not do that in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan. Congress did not tell the American Public that it would take more than a decade in either place, or that at the end of the decade, the outcome would be still in question.

[1]Cooper, Jeffrey R. (2008). The CIA's Program for Improving Intelligence Analysis - "Curing Analytic Pathologies" (Kindle Locations 72-73). MacMay. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps not militarly but there are other pressures your opponents can exercise. Downsizing as you suggest creates a vacuum which will be filled by others. Take East Asia, your presence there waned for five years with Afghanistan & Iraq on the front burner. China became more assertive and ppl wondered whether you were deserting them or not. So in a way you have bult up dependencies across the globe which implies there will be consequences if an upcoming contraction is in the cards.

(COMMENT)

That is because the US is no longer smart enough or strong enough to address more than one major theater at a time. This is one of the first symptoms of a power in decline.

Not attacking Libya in 1986. But Ronnie had to do that because he was called by a local thug. And thugs won't leave you alone until you cede the field to them entirely. Thats not something anyone would be willing to do.

(COMMENT)

I was in Germany at the time. The US had intercepted the telecommunication traffic between Libya and their assets in Berlin. There was no question. They were caught red-handed.

Now, was it an appropriate response? There are always unintended and unpredictable consequences to such actions. One could make a similar argument for non-action in the aftermath of the 1983 Marine Barracks event in Lebanon.

You call into question whether govt should have secrets or not. To what extent may a govt do so. Your society tends to have fewer than other also free countries.

(COMMENT)

NO! You misunderstand me. I do think that many people believe that the government does know more than the public. And in many cases the government does. But I also think that the American Public places way too much confidence in the government to be honest. It was clearly a case of depraved indifference that the US Government claims to the status of Iraqi WMD, (where and how much) when in fact that was blatantly untrue. Politicians are natural liars. They do it without even thinking. The bend the truth to fit their agenda. And they anted to go to war, so they molded the facts to fit that agenda. Their was no honestly or integrity involved.

None of the top intel agencies of the world could give your president an answer to a simple question -- would Saddam be a threat to america & her interests and by extension western interests.

(COMMENT)

There is a reality and their is non-reality.

Can you honestly say that the US is better-off?

Remember the 80s, with hijackings, bombings & hostage taking. Here is an article from that era that goes into using premption to combat terrorism.

(COMMENT)

Yes, there is a huge difference between "crime prevention" and "preemptive military strikes." And "conventional war" is the least successful of the options.

You're the president, what do you do, in the wake of 9/11 ?

(COMMENT)

May be the invasion of Afghanistan, the home of al-Qaeda, was a proper move. But we should have devoted all our resources and capacities to that task; cleaned it up fast, and withdrawn. One task at a time and executed with speed and agility; not dragged-out for a decade.

I would not quite say that. You laid down the road or railroad if you prefer, now its upto to business to capitalise on that. Its free access to anyone.

(COMMENT)

Agreed.

Facebook & Twitter, where are they based ?

(COMMENT)

These are not new technologies, but adaptions of an existing technologies and improvements. The same as automobiles improved over time.

There's more. Not always on the radar.

(COMMENT)

The top 10 you display are all IT adaptations, with the exception of two.

2% on 14trillion is a lot. What rate do you expect ?

(COMMENT)

Growth in comparison of previous years. Most of this does not energize the economy, but it does help. Remember, the wealth in America is held by the very top of society. If makes no difference to an average American, like myself, who is unemployed.
[INDENT][QUOTE=Double Edge;820968] There seem to be lots of top 10 lists around for this depending on the discipline, here's one from the Telegraph

Hows your defense industry doing ?

(COMMENT)

That is a niche market. Yes it makes an important contribution, but not everyone works in the defense industry.

Drones, i would never have expected that remotely piloted planes would be as effective.

(COMMENT)

That, again, is an evolution of an old technology. It is not a new technology. It is like an automobile that incorporates newer technologies over time. UAV (as we call it today), is four decades old.

REFERENCE: Brief history of UAVs

It works both ways, ppl either buy your debt or they invest in your country. Thats money that isn't availiable to go elsewhere.

(COMMENT)

Yes, and that has been helpful. Agreed.

I wonder whether you would have said the same thing just a few years back when your economy was ticking along nicely.

(COMMENT)

I did, and may be was a little more critical.

It does seem that ppl are trying to screw the pooch by exploiting all the previous era's inventions and not thinking about he future. But development is going on, paradigm shifts happen once very few decades, the intervening period is just preparation for the next one.

(COMMENT)

Agreed.

MostRespectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

Maybe --- and may be it added stability, just as it did in Cambodia; after the US failed.

So that means all of Europe with the exception of France & the UK, parts of the middle east & Asia falls under soviet influence. Korea & Japan as well ?

OK, that is a POV. But if the US had not been involved in the decade long conflict:

• How many more would have survived?
• How much sooner would have Vietnam become inhabitable and prosperous?

What surprised me at the time was that there were Americans who believed intervention in Vietnam was justified.

If you surrender to the enemy then lives can be saved but there are other costs that come along with that.

The motives in both were faulty. But that is a political call made by the Washington Intelligencia (The Whiz Kids and the PNAC).

But it also begs the question about long-term US military Occupations and the ability of the US to guide a nation; after WWII.

Vietnam was the only exception and that was because public support for it ended.

Otherwise i'm tempted to say wherever the US has intervened has resulted in a better situation than before. Was talking to an elder about the Iraqi invasion and his view was the Americans are doing the Iraqi's a favour. Same with Afghanistan.

No, it doesn't cut off US interests, but focuses its power in another direction, economic and political. The idea that a US Military Hegemony "must be" and there is no other way, is just plain wrong. There are other ways to establish relationships and maintain the peace besides through military intimidation.

This is not to say that the US should not have continued US military R&D and develop a strong military force. But its relationships should not have been based solely on that force structure as it has been in the past.

It is also a mistake in the way we use that force structure. The use of military force is an admission that diplomacy has failed. Once the decision is made to use military force, it has to be a total commitment to completely reduce the nation to which we are engaged, with that goal that the end of combat operations --- the survivors have lost all will to oppose the occupation power. The opponent must be so devastated that there is absolutely no chance to reconstitute an insurgency --- even if that means total annihilation (leaving no one behind that can harm you). Once combat power is assumed as the solution, it must answer all aspects of the equation. Once this objective is met, then an immediate withdraw is in order; and civilian control resumed.

I would like to think your ppl do not resort to force as the only option, force is the last option when others have failed. I would advance that it is just that determination you bring that would make an enemy reconsider their position. There are many regimes that benefitted from your largesse without use of any force either through military aid or otherwise.

Having said that i don't entirely diasgree with what you've said here. Its just a very difficult call. One can have positions, then reality intrudes and plays havoc with it. One then tries to understand the situation and rationalise it. I can understand why you went into Iraq and feel I'm in a better position that those that don't. The only reason to spend billions is to protect trillions otherwise it makes no sense.

The Korean Conflict was not a containment effort. The North Koreans attacked the South. Once the North Koreans were defeated, the Chinese entered the conflict and the US flinched. We should have targeted Peking for total destruction; along with every major city in China. But the US chose another route.

OK, so they chose the less costly route here from their pov. So they do exercise some discretion then. It isn't always force but only force when it can be cost-effective and compromises after. As i've said earlier its isn't always guaranteed whether there will be force at al.

Being an "umbrella" is a much different position than being a "broadsword." And the way in which we handled the countries of Germany and Japan as much different from how we managed Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the former WWII opponents were countries that were managed states --- being separate from religion, and rapidly re-industrialized.

Well isn't being an umbrella mean that you might at times be required to bring out the broadsword.

It doesn't need protection if it withdraws it Armed Forces and oversized diplomatic missions. With the investments made in the US, there is no real adversary capable of challenging the US offensively through military force. Today, it is a struggle economically, industrially, scientifically and educationally.

Perhaps not militarly but there are other pressures your opponents can exercise. Downsizing as you suggest creates a vacuum which will be filled by others. Take East Asia, your presence there waned for five years with Afghanistan & Iraq on the front burner. China became more assertive and ppl wondered whether you were deserting them or not. So in a way you have bult up dependencies across the globe which implies there will be consequences if an upcoming contraction is in the cards.

What is the motivation for the Lockerbie event? Besides US military intervention, what would have prevented such an event?

Not attacking Libya in 1986. But Ronnie had to do that because he was called by a local thug. And thugs won't leave you alone until you cede the field to them entirely. Thats not something anyone would be willing to do.

Yes, this is "the government knows more than the public" defense. In philosophy, we call it a false appeal to authority.

You call into question whether govt should have secrets or not. To what extent may a govt do so. Your society tends to have fewer than other also free countries.

There was enough information in the "Open Source" domain (OSINT) that it should have been killed and the White House Staff arrested for making false official statements. But it didn't happen that way because there are not enough people in Washington that have the best interest in America in mind. It is all about power, influence and ass kissing.

None of the top intel agencies of the world could give your president an answer to a simple question -- would Saddam be a threat to america & her interests and by extension western interests.

Remember the 80s, with hijackings, bombings & hostage taking. Here is an article from that era that goes into using premption to combat terrorism.

You're the president, what do you do, in the wake of 9/11 ?

Yes, everyone falls back on the ARPANET (forerunner to the Internet). As if it is the savior of America. That moment in history has long since past. I was using the ARPANET in the late 1970s and TCP/IP in the 1980s. At the very least, the technology is three decades old, with the popular version (the INTERNET) that is two decades old.

I would not quite say that. You laid down the road or railroad if you prefer, now its upto to business to capitalise on that. Its free access to anyone.

Facebook & Twitter, where are they based ?

Top 10 tech innovations of the deacade

Pharma R&D is interesting. In the US, there are very few costs that have national level issues like US Health Care Costs.

There's more. Not always on the radar.

Yes, of course, there are a couple industries still surviving in the US, but it is not the power house it once was. I don't think that a 1.5% (>2%) grow in GNP is not stellar.

2% on 14trillion is a lot. What rate do you expect ?

Name something in the last decade that is new?

The US could, if they reinvested in American R&D and scientific efforts. But we have not. Once that process stops, it becomes very difficult to restart. A loss in a decade of scientist and engineers is devastating.

There seem to be lots of top 10 lists around for this depending on the discipline, here's one from the Telegraph

Hows your defense industry doing ?

Drones, i would never have expected that remotely piloted planes would be as effective.

Yes, "subsidizing our debt;" not profit.

It works both ways, ppl either buy your debt or they invest in your country. Thats money that isn't availiable to go elsewhere.

Products are what you sell. In order to have products, you must have manufacturing; which requires industry to support it. Manufacturing and industry create jobs; which, in turn, generates revenue (taxes). The greater the level of employment, the less of an effect of other costs (health care, social security, social programs, education). The greater the disposable income, the less the costs of incidental programs have an impact.

I wonder whether you would have said the same thing just a few years back when your economy was ticking along nicely.

It does seem that ppl are trying to screw the pooch by exploiting all the previous era's inventions and not thinking about he future. But development is going on, paradigm shifts happen once very few decades, the intervening period is just preparation for the next one.

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, et al,

This is not an unreasonable assessment.

... ... ... I mean we have members in Congress that make many tall promises in a finacial way that should be not free to give away taxpayer money with a consenses of the people along with the well being of our economy taken into consideration first. If these rates go up becuase of their failure, IMO the economy is going to slump again and we would be fools to let that happen without a few getting tossed out on their ear first.

(COMMENT)

The only way that we can fix this is to take the very drastic measure of ousting every Congressman and Senator as they come-up for re-election. THEN --- in the Presidential Election, voting for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat. It will only be then, that Washington knows America is serious and the two major parties don't have a lock on power ... that occasionally, they must listen to America and act in good faith.

But this is never going to happen, and the smug bastards in Washington know it. They have America over a barrel. They are members of the royal court, and they are secure in the knowledge that the general population will never let them go and cannot work together to oust them.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

S-2, highsea, et al,

While we might recall the AMBO, as a show of our position, pulling-up stakes completely is probably not the best thing to do.

If Syria blows up it involves everyone.

This ambassador should get the hell back to Damascus or wherever he normally hangs out.

A regional war would be uncool, everything that goes on in Syria translates to Lebanon and Iran and Israel.

The last thing we need to be doing is stirring that pot.

Actually, if Washington is so nauseous regarding events in Syria they should recall that ambassador. The idea that we should have cordial state-to-state relations with those b00bs was a heinous, (st)ill-borne notion in any case. A recall would more-than-adequately express our dismay while safely removing U.S. target #1 from Syria.

Hell, recall the whole consulate. Another example of ill-conceived Obama statesmanship gone awry.

(COMMENT)

When looking at the Embassy, you have to remember that the Ambassador is the "Chief of Mission" (COM). And among the member of the COM component, there are a number of satellite activities. If you pull-out the COM, then the next one in line is the DCM (who becomes the Chargé de Faire, a.i.).

With the COM, there is a Consulate; and the keys to that are the "Visa Section," and the "American Citizen Services Section." While America is the Great Satan to many in the region, you would be absolutely amazed at the number of American Citizens (AMCITs) (Arab - Syrian/Americans) there.

If you withdraw the COM, there could very well be a run on the Embassy (ACS) to register their undocumented family members, that are AMCITs. This could number into the thousands (maybe several thousands). And if you have several thousand AMCITs in Syria, the last thing you want to do, as the COM, is to create a condition that places them at odds with the government security forces. If we get to the point where an evacuation is required because the COM aggravated the conditional relationship, it will get messy and very expensive.

ACS is one of the most important US services provided by the Embassy. The last thing we want to do is jeopardize AMCITs by conducting diplomatic action that is inconsistent with their safety.

Most Respectfully,
R

[S2]

"...This ambassador should get the hell back to Damascus or wherever he normally hangs out..."

Actually, if Washington is so nauseous regarding events in Syria they should recall that ambassador. The idea that we should have cordial state-to-state relations with those b00bs was a heinous, (st)ill-borne notion in any case. A recall would more-than-adequately express our dismay while safely removing U.S. target #1 from Syria.

Hell, recall the whole consulate. Another example of ill-conceived Obama statesmanship gone awry.

[highsea]

If Syria blows up it involves everyone.

This ambassador should get the hell back to Damascus or wherever he normally hangs out.

A regional war would be uncool, everything that goes on in Syria translates to Lebanon and Iran and Israel.

The last thing we need to be doing is stirring that pot.

[Dreadnought]

We see the US spending Trillions of Dollars overseas on military expeditions, with no real braking system, yet on the verge of going into default on its debt payments like a Third-world Nation.

In this sense I can certainly agree with you, their needs to be far more accountability however doing that and cutting costs is a pretty good problem that definately needs to be solved. Unfortunately for the military it tends to fall many times among them first and not the stupid things like pet projects. I mean Congress needs to inspect and correct its checkbook and all actions related to that. There is also a matter of how much aid we give, who we give it too and what are the returns outside of good nature.

I mean we have members in Congress that make many tall promises in a finacial way that should be not free to give away taxpayer money with a consenses of the people along with the well being of our economy taken into consideration first. If these rates go up becuase of their failure, IMO the economy is going to slump again and we would be fools to let that happen without a few getting tossed out on their ear first.

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

So you do not believe in the domino theory then ?

(COMMENT)

No. While it was a very popular theory of the day, that was a theory disproved by the Communist themselves. When the Chinese backed Khmer Rouge Regime defeated US backed forces support the host nation, who came to restore order? The Russian back Vietnamese. Once the Khmer Rouge were defeated, the Vietnamese withdrew its forces in 1989

That the US should have ignored any advances made bythe Soviets all over the globe to favour communist movements. These movements end up robbing the citizens of said countries of freedoms that could improve their lives, ensured more trade and a win-win for everybody concerned.

(COMMENT)

Maybe --- and may be it added stability, just as it did in Cambodia; after the US failed.

I recall having a discussion wth one of your generation about Vietnam. Was told the motivations for going in were justified but the prolonged occupation was not. Now, the generation or two after yours mostly believes that Vietnam was a bad move. And their ideas influenced my views about Vietnam as well.

(COMMENT)

OK, that is a POV. But if the US had not been involved in the decade long conflict:

• How many more would have survived?
• How much sooner would have Vietnam become inhabitable and prosperous?

This is very similar to how the Iraq war is viewed, the invasion was ok (by those that understood the motivations) but the occupation was not. Leading to the conclusion that both going into Vietnam & Iraq were bad to begin with. This narrative neatly bypasses the motivations for going into these countries in the first place and uses hindsight to condemn them.

(COMMENT)

The motives in both were faulty. But that is a political call made by the Washington Intelligencia (The Whiz Kids and the PNAC).

But it also begs the question about long-term US military Occupations and the ability of the US to guide a nation; after WWII.

The other point with a policy of non-intervention is does it amount to turning your back on interests across the globe. All those bases & fleets dotted around the globe. Telling friends & allies that they are on their own. We'll do business with you but if a bully turns up well you'll just have to deal with it on your own. Does this not cut the US off from her interests beyond her borders. Cannot see how you can seperate the two. A policy of non-intervention has to lead to isolationism if not in the immediate term then surely into the middle & longer term. US MNC's earn more of their profits abroad than domestically.

(COMMENT)

No, it doesn't cut off US interests, but focuses its power in another direction, economic and political. The idea that a US Military Hegemony "must be" and there is no other way, is just plain wrong. There are other ways to establish relationships and maintain the peace besides through military intimidation.

This is not to say that the US should not have continued US military R&D and develop a strong military force. But its relationships should not have been based solely on that force structure as it has been in the past.

It is also a mistake in the way we use that force structure. The use of military force is an admission that diplomacy has failed. Once the decision is made to use military force, it has to be a total commitment to completely reduce the nation to which we are engaged, with that goal that the end of combat operations --- the survivors have lost all will to oppose the occupation power. The opponent must be so devastated that there is absolutely no chance to reconstitute an insurgency --- even if that means total annihilation (leaving no one behind that can harm you). Once combat power is assumed as the solution, it must answer all aspects of the equation. Once this objective is met, then an immediate withdraw is in order; and civilian control resumed.

Why then would you exclude Korea ? surely that was the first in a long series of interventions all in the name of containing communism. Am sure the S.Koreans do not harbour any ill will towards the US for it, quite the contrary.

(COMMENT)

The Korean Conflict was not a containment effort. The North Koreans attacked the South. Once the North Koreans were defeated, the Chinese entered the conflict and the US flinched. We should have targeted Peking for total destruction; along with every major city in China. But the US chose another route.

Am under the impression that your country mostly acts when its interests are at stake. If it did not then you would be poorer as a result of it. In some ways what you are saying is lets imagine we are Germany or Japan. Those countries could devote lots of resources to developing their countries to the point where they were #2 & #3 until China recently pipped both. Now they could do that because they were under a US umbrella.

(COMMENT)

Being an "umbrella" is a much different position than being a "broadsword." And the way in which we handled the countries of Germany and Japan as much different from how we managed Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the former WWII opponents were countries that were managed states --- being separate from religion, and rapidly re-industrialized.

Who is going to protect the US so it can re-invest in its own country :)

(COMMENT)

It doesn't need protection if it withdraws it Armed Forces and oversized diplomatic missions. With the investments made in the US, there is no real adversary capable of challenging the US offensively through military force. Today, it is a struggle economically, industrially, scientifically and educationally.

Iraq was a case of pre-emption. A concept championed by Israel, their argument is if they wait for evidence they might not have a country. Maybe some of that rubbed off here. But the general idea was to prevent future Lockerbie type incidents. That is an example of just one occurrence out of potential many in a sensitive part of the world. My opposition to Iraq subsided when i understood the motivations. And it was very difficult because for years all i heard & read about was how it was such a bad idea that too from non-americans. Nobody cared to talk about or examine US motivations just making their own opinion.

(COMMENT)

What is the motivation for the Lockerbie event? Besides US military intervention, what would have prevented such an event?

Congress saw it, you could not because a lot of what gets discussed in the intelligence committee is classified. You are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is "the government knows more than the public" defense. In philosophy, we call it a false appeal to authority.

There was enough information in the "Open Source" domain (OSINT) that it should have been killed and the White House Staff arrested for making false official statements. But it didn't happen that way because there are not enough people in Washington that have the best interest in America in mind. It is all about power, influence and ass kissing.

Computers and the internet. All american and still dominated by the US two decades later. Forget about iPod, think about how much silicon valley contributes to your nations bottomline. What about all those pharmceutical firms doing research on new drugs & treatments. All this of course dwarfed orders in magnitude by wall st and how much of global finance is controlled if not influenced by them.

(COMMENT)

Yes, everyone falls back on the ARPANET (forerunner to the Internet). As if it is the savior of America. That moment in history has long since past. I was using the ARPANET in the late 1970s and TCP/IP in the 1980s. At the very least, the technology is three decades old, with the popular version (the INTERNET) that is two decades old.

Pharma R&D is interesting. In the US, there are very few costs that have national level issues like US Health Care Costs.

Yes, of course, there are a couple industries still surviving in the US, but it is not the power house it once was. I don't think that a 1.5% (>2%) grow in GNP is not stellar.

Where something is made is less important compared to where it was designed and who owns the design. That means everybody around the globe that buys YOUR product sends their money to you. Because now you have that money you can keep on making new stuff and raking in even more.

(COMMENT)

Name something in the last decade that is new?

The US could, if they reinvested in American R&D and scientific efforts. But we have not. Once that process stops, it becomes very difficult to restart. A loss in a decade of scientist and engineers is devastating.

In my country they think no end of their IT prowess but i have a problem that there are no indian companies that have ANY IP in the parts inside your computer. We still can't make world beating products and neither can the Chinese. For now all we can do is follow your instructions on how to make things at a competitive price. But the Japanese managed it in certain areas so one always lives in hope.

(COMMENT)


Yes, agreed. But hope is not always objective --- based in reality.

And countries benefitting from this are reinvesting back in your own country and creating jobs. My country alone did $10 billion in business when your president last came calling. Where are the Chinese & Japanese going to put their trillions. Lots of it going into subsidising your debt. Debt if not tackled could lead to more trouble. But you don't see any of this, just jobs going abroad and take your economy for granted.

(COMMENT)

Yes, "subsidizing our debt;" not profit.

What you just said amounts to an indictment of your country's decision making process. Ppl that you voted into office to look afer your interests. The impression i get from Americans is that they are mostly concerned only about what happens within their own borders. This i term typical big country attitude, its not very different in my country either.

(COMMENT)

The US (just as any country) must be concerned with the entire commercial community; internal and external, and the forces that drive them.

But in your case if ppl don't care what happens abroad then they are not going to object to foreign intervention. This has gone on since WW2. If your own ppl are not that bothered that their representatves do not consider it important then who is to blame. Your system after all is product of what you are isn't it.

(COMMENT)

Products are what you sell. In order to have products, you must have manufacturing; which requires industry to support it. Manufacturing and industry create jobs; which, in turn, generates revenue (taxes). The greater the level of employment, the less of an effect of other costs (health care, social security, social programs, education). The greater the disposable income, the less the costs of incidental programs have an impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, et al,

Clearly, during the Reagan Administration, there was a goal to make the US Armed Forces first among all nations, technologically superior, and unchallengeable by any. But, it was only a piece --- and and not the largest piece at that.

The US may even have been the primary cause! But it was an unintended consequence, not a plan to economically break them.

Disgaree with this part, Ronald Reagan had every intention to break them in the 1980 Cold War meaning outbuild them at all odds and let them go broke trying to keep up with the US military. The Soviets leaving Afghanistan also contributed to this considering their heavy losses at this time.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the US intended to out build them, but they never envisioned an economic collapse. By that time, much of the Intelligence Community (IC) had been reduced significantly; especially Counterintelligence and HUMINT resources. Analysis, on economics, was considered a very minor contributor to the National Estimates. The entire community was caught by complete surprise. It wasn't a goal or objective, otherwise it would have been monitored much more closely.

I can distinctly remember in the 1979 RED CELL Briefing, that the US believed that the WARSAW PACT/Soviet Ground Forces could be uploaded and in Munich in three hours. Back then, we were a bit intimidated. By the late 1980's --- I was part of the CI/Security Team involved in the Russian-US destruction of tactical nuclear weapons in Germany; while the Russians observed.

I departed Europe in 1988, and in 1989, I was receiving messages at how shocked everyone was in Berlin, USEUCOM and SHAPE at the nearly overnight turn of event.

No, the economic collapse, --- while politicians were thumping their chests and taking credit for it, --- was a complete surprise. No one saw it coming.

Everyone assumed that "self preservation" would kick-in and that the Russians would never allow a collapse. Now we know that "Super Powers" are very prone to self destructive action, especially in terms of military adventures. We see the US spending Trillions of Dollars overseas on military expeditions, with no real braking system, yet on the verge of going into default on its debt payments like a Third-world Nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Dreadnought]

The US may even have been the primary cause! But it was an unintended consequence, not a plan to economically break them.

Disgaree with this part, Ronald Reagan had every intention to break them in the 1980 Cold War meaning outbuild them at all odds and let them go broke trying to keep up with the US military. The Soviets leaving Afghanistan also contributed to this considering their heavy losses at this time.

[Double Edge]

With the possible exception of the Korean War (25 June 1950 – Armistice signed 27 July 1953), but still we are at war, we probably should not have gotten evolved in any of the others --- until the liberation of Kuwait.

So you do not believe in the domino theory then ?

That the US should have ignored any advances made bythe Soviets all over the globe to favour communist movements. These movements end up robbing the citizens of said countries of freedoms that could improve their lives, ensured more trade and a win-win for everybody concerned.

I recall having a discussion wth one of your generation about Vietnam. Was told the motivations for going in were justified but the prolonged occupation was not. Now, the generation or two after yours mostly believes that Vietnam was a bad move. And their ideas influenced my views about Vietnam as well.

This is very similar to how the Iraq war is viewed, the invasion was ok (by those that understood the motivations) but the occupation was not. Leading to the conclusion that both going into Vietnam & Iraq were bad to begin with. This narrative neatly bypasses the motivations for going into these countries in the first place and uses hindsight to condemn them.

The other point with a policy of non-intervention is does it amount to turning your back on interests across the globe. All those bases & fleets dotted around the globe. Telling friends & allies that they are on their own. We'll do business with you but if a bully turns up well you'll just have to deal with it on your own. Does this not cut the US off from her interests beyond her borders. Cannot see how you can seperate the two. A policy of non-intervention has to lead to isolationism if not in the immediate term then surely into the middle & longer term. US MNC's earn more of their profits abroad than domestically.

Why then would you exclude Korea ? surely that was the first in a long series of interventions all in the name of containing communism. Am sure the S.Koreans do not harbour any ill will towards the US for it, quite the contrary.

Yes we agree. But not only is it 50-50 Odds (approx the same odds on a Roulette Table betting Black or Red), it is a very expensive set of propositions. Imagine how much more advanced the nation would be if we have re-invested in America.

Am under the impression that your country mostly acts when its interests are at stake. If it did not then you would be poorer as a result of it. In some ways what you are saying is lets imagine we are Germany or Japan. Those countries could devote lots of resources to developing their countries to the point where they were #2 & #3 until China recently pipped both. Now they could do that because they were under a US umbrella.

Who is going to protect the US so it can re-invest in its own country :)

Yes, this is true. Congress simply abandoned it job. It didn't look at the evidence with a clear and bold eye. It assumed that the government (the national security process) was reliable. It is not.

Well, 911 certainly demonstrates that there was an actual threat. No question. And while we could argue the relative merit of the US action in Afghanistan (ie al-Qaeda in Tora Bora), in the post-destruction period; it would be extremely hard to defend the invasion of Iraq in the absence of evidence connecting Iraq to 911.

Iraq was a case of pre-emption. A concept championed by Israel, their argument is if they wait for evidence they might not have a country. Maybe some of that rubbed off here. But the general idea was to prevent future Lockerbie type incidents. That is an example of just one occurrence out of potential many in a sensitive part of the world. My opposition to Iraq subsided when i understood the motivations. And it was very difficult because for years all i heard & read about was how it was such a bad idea that too from non-americans. Nobody cared to talk about or examine US motivations just making their own opinion.

[*]Reference: http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf[/LIST]

Remember, claimed that the Congress saw the same intelligence, and voted for the invasion. That defense creates all sort of questions.

Congress saw it, you could not because a lot of what gets discussed in the intelligence committee is classified. You are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Intellectual property rights (as a percentage of disposable income) has virtually NO impact on the average American. It simply doesn't put anyone to work. And the intellectual development, as a result of R&D, is trickling to a stop. Name a single technological or scientific development in the last 2 decades that cranked-up the economy in America. Such, things like the iPOD and what-not are sold, and they have helped the economy, but they are small and the majority of todays IT components are made overseas. Pull your cell phone out of your pocket and tell me where it was made.

Computers and the internet. All american and still dominated by the US two decades later. Forget about iPod, think about how much silicon valley contributes to your nations bottomline. What about all those pharmceutical firms doing research on new drugs & treatments. All this of course dwarfed orders in magnitude by wall st and how much of global finance is controlled if not influenced by them.

Where something is made is less important compared to where it was designed and who owns the design. That means everybody around the globe that buys YOUR product sends their money to you. Because now you have that money you can keep on making new stuff and raking in even more.

In my country they think no end of their IT prowess but i have a problem that there are no indian companies that have ANY IP in the parts inside your computer. We still can't make world beating products and neither can the Chinese. For now all we can do is follow your instructions on how to make things at a competitive price. But the Japanese managed it in certain areas so one always lives in hope.

Congress will NOT offer any legislation that will adversely impact the shareholder. They will allow any industrial initiative to be outsourced, if it maximizes the wealth of the shareholder --- no matter how many jobs it may cost, and no matter what the commodity it may affect.

And countries benefitting from this are reinvesting back in your own country and creating jobs. My country alone did $10 billion in business when your president last came calling. Where are the Chinese & Japanese going to put their trillions. Lots of it going into subsidising your debt. Debt if not tackled could lead to more trouble. But you don't see any of this, just jobs going abroad and take your economy for granted.

No one in Washington is to be trusted. They could care less about America. If the wanted to increase revenue, that generates tax dollars, they would promote industry and the infrastructure that brings industry back to America. They simply do not want to do that. That is not even an option being considered or under discussion in Washington (not by one single entity).

What you just said amounts to an indictment of your country's decision making process. Ppl that you voted into office to look afer your interests. The impression i get from Americans is that they are mostly concerned only about what happens within their own borders. This i term typical big country attitude, its not very different in my country either.

But in your case if ppl don't care what happens abroad then they are not going to object to foreign intervention. This has gone on since WW2. If your own ppl are not that bothered that their representatves do not consider it important then who is to blame. Your system after all is product of what you are isn't it.

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

Again, we are not that far apart!

Now out of this list which ones should the US have engaged in and which should it have stayed out of.

(COMMENT)

With the possible exception of the Korean War (25 June 1950 – Armistice signed 27 July 1953), but still we are at war, we probably should not have gotten evolved in any of the others --- until the liberation of Kuwait.

Perhaps but US was not entirely innocent here.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that, the Cold War did contribute to the fall of the Soviet Economy --- and then the government. The US may even have been the primary cause! But it was an unintended consequence, not a plan to economically break them.

Yes, but is the record fifty-fifty, less or more ?

(COMMENT)

Yes we agree. But not only is it 50-50 Odds (approx the same odds on a Roulette Table betting Black or Red), it is a very expensive set of propositions. Imagine how much more advanced the nation would be if we have re-invested in America.

Because there are those that think otherwise. You had votes about going to Iraq, the majority in the house voted for it. What does that tell you.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is true. Congress simply abandoned it job. It didn't look at the evidence with a clear and bold eye. It assumed that the government (the national security process) was reliable. It is not.

Who owns the Intellectual Property on that equipment ? You will find its just manufactured abroad. The R&D is still done in the US.

(COMMENT)

Intellectual property rights (as a percentage of disposable income) has virtually NO impact on the average American. It simply doesn't put anyone to work. And the intellectual development, as a result of R&D, is trickling to a stop. Name a single technological or scientific development in the last 2 decades that cranked-up the economy in America. Such, things like the iPOD and what-not are sold, and they have helped the economy, but they are small and the majority of todays IT components are made overseas. Pull your cell phone out of your pocket and tell me where it was made.

If you want to fret about a domain that used to be American dominated, think cars :)

(COMMENT)

You can talk about the auto industry, the tire industry, the IT industry, the aircraft industry ... any number of industries.

Depends what your defintion of 'critical' is here. You congress won't allow foreign takeovers of critical areas. Your farmers are subsidised to the hilt as well.

(COMMENT)

Congress will NOT offer any legislation that will adversely impact the shareholder. They will allow any industrial initiative to be outsourced, if it maximizes the wealth of the shareholder --- no matter how many jobs it may cost, and no matter what the commodity it may affect.

No one in Washington is to be trusted. They could care less about America. If the wanted to increase revenue, that generates tax dollars, they would promote industry and the infrastructure that brings industry back to America. They simply do not want to do that. That is not even an option being considered or under discussion in Washington (not by one single entity).

But they're YOUR mongrels

What you just said there is what anybody anywhere could use to describe their countries political entities.

(COMMENT)

Yes, except that most American Politicians bill themselves as super patriotic.

This board promotes the reason was -- security of your interests in the wake of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 then there would be no need to go into Iraq.

The line '9/11 changed everything' did not make much sense to me earlier.

(COMMENT)

Well, 911 certainly demonstrates that there was an actual threat. No question. And while we could argue the relative merit of the US action in Afghanistan (ie al-Qaeda in Tora Bora), in the post-destruction period; it would be extremely hard to defend the invasion of Iraq in the absence of evidence connecting Iraq to 911.

"what we got was a document that was slanted towards 'yes, there were weapons of mass destruction at 550 sites in Iraq,"

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"

AND

In dealing with the relationship between Al Qaeda, Hiatt becomes even more selective. He points out that statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with Al Qaeda, “were substantiated by intelligence information.” But Hiatt does not tell us that the report also says, “policymakers’ statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qaeda,” and, “statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.”
Source: Cherry Picking the Facts on Pre-War Intelligence

• Reference: http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf

Remember, claimed that the Congress saw the same intelligence, and voted for the invasion. That defense creates all sort of questions.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

Correct, isolationism is not what I was talking about. And that is a very important point.

Non-Interventionist Policy is NOT the same as Isolationism. America can engage in industry and commerce -- diplomatic efforts -- communication -- exchange technology -- without interfering in the internal affairs of a nation, or engaging in activities as an indirect form of imperial dominance (neo-colonialism, proxy rule, or informal empire building).

ok, so lets apply that idea to the list you have below to get a better idea.

• 1947-1949 Greece (Communist Insurgency)
• 1948-1954 Philippines (Huk Rebellion)
• 1951-1953 Korean War (Communist - No Win)
• 1953 - Iran (US overthrows Democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in a coup d'état and installs the SHAH)
• 1954 - First US Involvement in Vietnam
• 1960-1975 - Formal Involvement in Vietnam
• 1961 - Cuba - US Government supported invasion (Proxy War)
• 1962 - Loas Proxy paramilitary operations
• 1963 - Iraq - US supported coup d'état
• 1973 - Chile coup d'état
• 1981-1992 El Salvador US intervention (Proxy Conflict)
• 1981-1990 Nicaragua (US Contra Affair)
  THEN came:
• Iraq - Afghanistan - etc ... ... ...

You left out
1991 - Kuwait
1993 - Somalia
1999 - Kosovo

Now out of this list which ones should the US have engaged in and which should it have stayed out of.

This is the short list. The world was anything but quiet and stable under the leadership of the US. Yes, there were some successes, but don't think the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was part of the plan. The US had no idea that was coming. The entire intelligence community was caught by surprise.

Perhaps but US was not entirely innocent here.

We could write books on the struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as every other intervention the US participated in in the last half century)

Yes, but is the record fifty-fifty, less or more ?

The reason we talk about small business being the backbone of the economy, is because all our "big" business is gone. We, in America, have lost our way --- unable to build a nation, yet we believe we can build others.

Because there are those that think otherwise. You had votes about going to Iraq, the majority in the house voted for it. What does that tell you.

Example: If all the computer equipment is made-up of parts built overseas, then the US could be held hostage to external influences. But more importantly, is the jobs are all overseas, then there is no industrial revenue source.

Who owns the Intellectual Property on that equipment ? You will find its just manufactured abroad. The R&D is still done in the US.

If you want to fret about a domain that used to be American dominated, think cars :)

Economic self-sufficiency means an economy that is able to support the expenditures. It does not mean we have to build everything. But we have to maintain a industrial capacity in all critical items.

The US cannot be merely a nation of service oriented companies and fast food outlets. It will not survive.

Depends what your defintion of 'critical' is here. You congress won't allow foreign takeovers of critical areas. Your farmers are subsidised to the hilt as well.

The armed forces of the US is not a defense force (Department of Defense). It is an Offensive Force. It is tool of political entities that will risk money and blood for their own gain and interests. If the oppressed make any gain, it is purely coincidental. The Washington Elite is nothing but a bunch of self-serving political mongrels.

But they're YOUR mongrels

What you just said there is what anybody anywhere could use to describe their countries political entities.

To see the truth of that quote, one just only needs to examine the reasons we went to war in Iraq, and the reality --- including the post-war consequences to date.

This board promotes the reason was -- security of your interests in the wake of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 then there would be no need to go into Iraq.

The line '9/11 changed everything' did not make much sense to me earlier.

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

I think this requires me to answer in a slightly different order; on points that I think are more important.

It sounds like a more isolationist stance. Almost like a return to the US of pre WW1. If the US economy tanks in a bad way in the future then this will inevitably happen. But i don't think this is your intention.

(COMMENT)

Correct, isolationism is not what I was talking about. And that is a very important point.

Non-Interventionist Policy is NOT the same as Isolationism. America can engage in industry and commerce -- diplomatic efforts -- communication -- exchange technology -- without interfering in the internal affairs of a nation, or engaging in activities as an indirect form of imperial dominance (neo-colonialism, proxy rule, or informal empire building).

There is a reason the 2nd half of the last century was relatively more peaceful in comparison to the first half. Maybe more intra country turmoil but less inter country.

The first half saw the rise of many other powers that all tried to carve out their own spheres of influence. There was no countervailing power present to mitigate those moves. So if you want to bow out then you will have to cede the field to somebody else. Because if you're not interfering then others will.

(COMMENT)

The allied powers, as the emerging victors of WWII, were the only countries having true military influence. The phrasing was: "Persuasive in Peace - Invincible in War."

But having the strongest conventional military force projection capability, required that opponents gradually adopt a more asymmetric approach to face-off and counter Second Generation (Straight Conventional) and Third Generation (Proxy Warfare) capacities of the remaining allied powers.

• 1947-1949 Greece (Communist Insurgency)
• 1948-1954 Philippines (Huk Rebellion)
• 1951-1953 Korean War (Communist - No Win)
• 1953 - Iran (US overthrows Democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in a coup d'état and installs the SHAH)
• 1954 - First US Involvement in Vietnam
• 1960-1975 - Formal Involvement in Vietnam
• 1961 - Cuba - US Government supported invasion (Proxy War)
• 1962 - Loas Proxy paramilitary operations
• 1963 - Iraq - US supported coup d'état
• 1973 - Chile coup d'état
• 1981-1992 El Salvador US intervention (Proxy Conflict)
• 1981-1990 Nicaragua (US Contra Affair)
  THEN came:
• Iraq - Afghanistan - etc ... ... ...

This is the short list. The world was anything but quiet and stable under the leadership of the US. Yes, there were some successes, but don't think the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was part of the plan. The US had no idea that was coming. The entire intelligence community was caught by surprise.

The costs of acting today are always going to be cheaper than acting tomorrow. I believe Afghanistan & Iraq were done with this goal in mind.

(COMMENT)

We could write books on the struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as every other intervention the US participated in in the last half century).

Afghanistan was not a true intervention, but a retaliation. Once the Taliban government crumbled and the Tora Bora bombed into ruins, it was time to go. But the US did not do that. To understand how bad things are at the moment in Afghanistan, you have to ask about the availability of gas and electricity in the area. And that is the way the Afghan's will associate the US presence.

Iraq was a long term failure that started decades before, and Saddam, while not our invention, didn't not come to power completely absent our influence. And the most recent invasion, was based on anything but a reliable national security decision making process. Now it is in the hands of a corropt official with close Iranian ties. It is so bad that:

"We'll be doubling our size if all of our plans go through and if we receive the money from Congress in 2011 and then again in 2012," James Jeffrey, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, told reporters.

He said the staff would increase "from 8,000 plus personnel that we have now to roughly double that by 2012," adding that U.S. forces would make up only a very small part of that number.

"This will be an extraordinarily large embassy with many different functions. Some we took over from USFI (United States Forces in Iraq) and some of them continuation of the work we are doing now."

AND

He and Austin said they were confident that the force was adequate, and that Iraq will remain stable once U.S. troops have departed.

They said that in 2012, the American presence in Iraq will consist of up to 20,000 civilians at sites that include two embassy branches, two consulates, and three police training centers.

No, we could have withdrawn from both place and then returned a decade later --- knocking them back into the stone age again; for less of a cost.

The problem with this question is you cannot see the future. You could argue it will be bad just as well as not. Either way its harder to move fast today than in the past. Libya is a case in point here, you reduced assets in the theatre after a few weeks. There is a doubt still hanging whether you will continue any longer.

(COMMENT)

And that is a part of the problem. Under my theory (which is the minority held view), I would need more than guess work to justify a military intervention. In the case of Libya, it wasn't cut and dry. It was not a clear case where the vast majority of the indigenous population (including those in the military & security apparatus) agreed for change was necessary.

I don't think many would disagree with this. America used to think long term and a lot of development was made but when wall st. got into the picture, the outlook became short term. I'm not sure how you tackle this becaus then you can't grow beyond a certain point without. If you're not big enough then you get gobbled by somebody else that is.

(COMMENT)

While I agree, it goes much beyond that.

Without this strength America is dead in the water and will not be able to help anyone.

The analogy i draw form here is $ vs euro. Twenty years ago euro was billed as the $ killer. Well, the picture today isn't quite that and is why think paradigm shifts in this scenario will take longer than they did in the past.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, that's correct. The panic was that the US Dollar represented America. It is how we buy our allies, and bribe leaders. It is what we throw at the problems; in Iraq by the pallet full.

I get the feeling that things will have to get a lot worse before enough ppl in the US realise that there needs to be a change. You can't rely on immigrants to fill in the gap forever, they're a temporary stopgap at best or you will have to increase your quotas in the hopes of catching more talent. This will introduce more social problems. Nothing like growing your own. There's a lot of ideas kicking around about this theme, cetainly a hot topic.

(COMMENT)

Money (disposable income) cures all. This requires a reduction in under employment, as well as unemployment.

The reason we talk about small business being the backbone of the economy, is because all our "big" business is gone. We, in America, have lost our way --- unable to build a nation, yet we believe we can build others.

I think you have the most efficent energy infrastructure you could have. That you pay a great deal less for gas than other countries is proof. But you don't see that, all you see is increasing gas prices and think there is a problem. Hey, prices are going up everywhere and am certain we will still be paying more for it than you.

(COMMENT)

Actually, I was thinking of the electrical grid. The US needs a new grid and a new set of power generators.

But, since you mentioned "gasoline" --- it is true that we need a new set of refineries.

The current refinery squeeze has been building for years. For the past two decades, deregulation and low profits have combined to push the industry into consolidation. Partly because of environmental regulations, it was cheaper to expand existing refineries than to build new ones. In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication.

This bottleneck is expected to keep pressure on gas prices - and politicians. Both parties are weighing measures to loosen environmental and permitting constraints for refineries. Rep. John Shadegg (R) of Arizona is set to offer a bill to streamline federal regulations governing refineries, Congressional Daily reports.

This is a simple case that Washington Leadership is not interested in the Long-Term Health of America; but short-term gains on their investments.

This part is little bit less clear. What do you mean by self-sufficient economy ?

An autarky is an example of a self-sufficient economy too.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you're correct. But in the case of America, if the economy cannot support the nation, it cannot support its overseas interventions. If the overseas interventions bleed America dry, we cannot help anyone.

Example: If all the computer equipment is made-up of parts built overseas, then the US could be held hostage to external influences. But more importantly, is the jobs are all overseas, then there is no industrial revenue source.

My country went through a phase termed self-reliance in the 60s. It has its pros but much more cons. It was effectively a bad case of 'not invented here syndrome'. Of course we could not make everything others could do more efficiently and we blocked imports of such tech because it was considered threatening to nascent industy. Over time this created vested interests that could not really compete abroad at all because they were so protected, all in the guise of self-reliance.

(COMMENT)

Economic self-sufficiency means an economy that is able to support the expenditures. It does not mean we have to build everything. But we have to maintain a industrial capacity in all critical items.

The US cannot be merely a nation of service oriented companies and fast food outlets. It will not survive.

Doesn't this description already partly fit your forces today. what do you think ?

(COMMENT)

The armed forces of the US is not a defense force (Department of Defense). It is an Offensive Force. It is tool of political entities that will risk money and blood for their own gain and interests. If the oppressed make any gain, it is purely coincidental. The Washington Elite is nothing but a bunch of self-serving political mongrels.

Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.

To see the truth of that quote, one just only needs to examine the reasons we went to war in Iraq, and the reality --- including the post-war consequences to date.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

There are those that believe the US intervention (military, political, economic) is absolutely essential. I was one of them for many years. I believed that America was acting in the best interest of the indigenous population and the world. But I gradually learned better and shed my naiveté.

During the cold war US intervention was essential. Today its a bit more nuanced.

Only if there is a credible strategic goal worth going for. Of course the argument is always over how credible that goal is going to be. So what this will do is ensure a lot more questioning than in the past. This will act as a natural brake on the tendencies of yesterday. I'm not as confident today that the US will necessarily intervene as it would in the past. Consider this a natural progression of previous actions. You acted before so you do not have to act as often in the future. The costs of acting today are always going to be cheaper than acting tomorrow. I believe Afghanistan & Iraq were done with this goal in mind.

There is no question that America can make a difference. The question is:

• What kind of difference?

America must also understand, that the very same forces that brought down the Iron Curtain, could also bring down America. We are not untouchable, as much as we would like to believe that.

The problem with this question is you cannot see the future. You could argue it will be bad just as well as not. Either way its harder to move fast today than in the past. Libya is a case in point here, you reduced assets in the theatre after a few weeks. There is a doubt still hanging whether you will continue any longer.

This looks to be a trend for the future. So now its maybe you might come in but the uncertainty works to your advantage. In some cases this is easy to tell ie Iran but in many other regions its not.

Some would argue that my belief that America should concentrate on:
[LIST][*]Building a New Library of Alexandria; a center of learning, education, science, technology, and research. A magnet for new ideas that will reshape the world.

I don't think many would disagree with this. America used to think long term and a lot of development was made but when wall st. got into the picture, the outlook became short term. I'm not sure how you tackle this becaus then you can't grow beyond a certain point without. If you're not big enough then you get gobbled by somebody else that is.

If things don't change then seats of learning & development will inevitably shift abroad. The problem is they will be scattered around in many countries which will suffer from the cohesiveness that one country can bring. We all lose out in this scenario. The analogy i draw form here is $ vs euro. Twenty years ago euro was billed as the $ killer. Well, the picture today isn't quite that and is why think paradigm shifts in this scenario will take longer than they did in the past.

I get the feeling that things will have to get a lot worse before enough ppl in the US realise that there needs to be a change. You can't rely on immigrants to fill in the gap forever, they're a temporary stopgap at best or you will have to increase your quotas in the hopes of catching more talent. This will introduce more social problems. Nothing like growing your own. There's a lot of ideas kicking around about this theme, cetainly a hot topic.

[*]A new energy infrastructure, one that is efficient, adding to the competitive advantage to industrialization.

I think you have the most efficent energy infrastructure you could have. That you pay a great deal less for gas than other countries is proof. But you don't see that, all you see is increasing gas prices and think there is a problem. Hey, prices are going up everywhere and am certain we will still be paying more for it than you.

[*]A nation that has a self-sufficient economy, a commercial giant in the world, and the land that - once again - offers the promise of opportunity to all comers.

This part is little bit less clear. What do you mean by self-sufficient economy ?

An autarky is an example of a self-sufficient economy too.

My country went through a phase termed self-reliance in the 60s. It has its pros but much more cons. It was effectively a bad case of 'not invented here syndrome'. Of course we could not make everything others could do more efficiently and we blocked imports of such tech because it was considered threatening to nascent industy. Over time this created vested interests that could not really compete abroad at all because they were so protected, all in the guise of self-reliance.

[*]A new "defense force" - one dedicated to peace and protection. A force that is universally recognized as fair, and honest, a force that is universally recognized as defending the weak, promoting justice and integrity; maintaining the lanes of free trade.

Doesn't this description already partly fit your forces today. what do you think ?

Each time we interfere, we alter the balance in favor of our development alternatives, versus, the natural development of the culture.

What about Japan & Germany. The former Eastern europe does not hate you. They were falling over themselves to join NATO after their 'liberation'.

The aim should be that the similar occurs in the arab world thirty years from now :)

Yes, Double Edge has a point. I encourage our Discussion Group to carefully consider it; and the consequences that a Policy of Continuous Interference brings with it. But there is another way, one less militaristic; one less Hegemonist.

I will admit, that I am generally the holder of the minority view.

It sounds like a more isolationist stance. Almost like a return to the US of pre WW1. If the US economy tanks in a bad way in the future then this will inevitably happen. But i don't think this is your intention.

If not, consider what happens when your presence is removed. It creates a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled with something else. That intervening period will signal a new era of unrest as neighbouring powers scramble to fill the void as best they can. A multi-polar world with no real centre of gravity is an inherently more unstable one. We will be forced to all adapt to a new reality. It's not a future i would look forward to.

There is a reason the 2nd half of the last century was relatively more peaceful in comparison to the first half. Maybe more intra country turmoil but less inter country.

The first half saw the rise of many other powers that all tried to carve out their own spheres of influence. There was no countervailing power present to mitigate those moves. So if you want to bow out then you will have to cede the field to somebody else. Because if you're not interfering then others will.