Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I don't want war Tal and your entry into Iraq should have told you something, but no, your arrogance continues. A nation fighting on their own ground is very hard to conquer. You don't suggest the use of nuclear weapons, do you?

---

Hey, are you joining us or not? Stop equivocating, as we have sent the Saudis all kinds of stuff to defend themselves, and now troops to boot. If you prefer the media saber rattling fair enough, but Iran ain't giving up nothing, and there is no nuclear deal, as bad as you may think the old deal was, NO deal means anything goes, so which side of the fence are you on, or would you just rather read the funny papers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Hey, are you joining us or not? Stop equivocating, as we have sent the Saudis all kinds of stuff to defend themselves, and now troops to boot. If you prefer the media saber rattling fair enough, but Iran ain't giving up nothing, and there is no nuclear deal, as bad as you may think the old deal was, NO deal means anything goes, so which side of the fence are you on, or would you just rather read the funny papers?

---

I'm sitting in the stands watching the play. The way I see it Iran should be left alone so long as they don't attack anyoneelse.

They have only attacked stuff so far, but it's not theirs, and I guess it doesn't matter if it was them or a proxy buddy, since the Saudis and Iran are already technically at war with each other through proxy's so let them have at each other.

Talaniman: U.S., Western Hemisphere, Monroe Doctrine.....Abide by the warning to avoid foreign wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Talaniman: U.S., Western Hemisphere, Monroe Doctrine.....Abide by the warning to avoid foreign wars.

---

Since the Monroe Doctrine, the US has been involved in many foreign wars, including the largest war in the history of mankind.

Athos: There is a major difference between being "pulled into" a "WAR" through attacks and becoming embroiled in a conflict because of ridiculous agreements with so called "allies who would not come the U.S.'s defense under any circumstance.....The U.N. is decidedly ANTI-U.S., do you not agree?

You are correct about the U.S. and involvement with largest war in the history of mankind......but that was different....do you know why? It was different because the U.S. wrote and approved A DECLARATION OF WAR.....we have NEVER DECLARED WAR WITH ANY NATION SINCE WWII......that is a tremendous difference: These conflicts are not wars...Korea and Vietnam were not wars....neither were any of the engagements in the M.E.....these conflicts serve no good end and they do nothing but endanger and kill off our young people while weakening the economy of the U.S. and sowing dissent and agitation amongst the population....they are divisive....with no upside.

Come on Vac, declared or not war is war. You know bombs and fighting and death. That semantics dance doesn't change those facts, and that Monroe Doctrine was just a piece of paper with a nice idea but no reality.

Talaniman: The Declaration Of War turns loose the entirety of U.S. Military might upon the aggressor.....that is something that did not happen in Korea or Vietnam or anywhere since WWII.

You could argue that the Monroe Doctrine was a "Piece Of Paper" but it was much more than that until Eisenhower and Kennedy decided to take a dump on it and permit Castro to turn Cuba into a "Worker's Paradise" of Bolshevik terror. I have heard those on the left, including Obama, say that the U.S. Constitution was "Just A Piece Of Paper".....do you think the U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper?

It's a guideline for governance for our country. It took four years of our might aided by Allies to free Europe and defeat Japan. By your logic we should not have stopped the Russians from stationing nukes in Cuba, not have aided Korea against NK, and certainly not have tried to help SVN against NVN. Am I correct? What about E Germany against W Germany? The Balkans? Africa? Afghanistan?

Seems your strict interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine would have us sit and watch the rest of the world be over run, and surround us with enemies working against our interests. Doesn't sound much like security, not that there is much security now.

I must take issue with the notion we can just kick everybody's butt all by ourselves anywhere in the world. Can you think of a single instance when we have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I must take issue with the notion we can just kick everybody's butt all by ourselves anywhere in the world. Can you think of a single instance when we have?

---

What about poor little Granada, or Panama, places easily forgotten. But when the UN says no, you gather others and say we will do it anyway. No, you live in a coward's castle these days behind your drones

Talaniman: No, not one instance. My reservations are that many in the world look at the U.S. as a "safety blanket", free of charge.....but you know that nothing is free...and you know the payment is in the blood of our national treasure of soldiers. We just have to pick our battles more carefully and we don't need to protect the Saudi Arabians who don't like us anyway. Entanglement is easy, un-entanglement is much more difficult!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What about poor little Granada, or Panama, places easily forgotten. But when the UN says no, you gather others and say we will do it anyway. No, you live in a coward's castle these days behind your drones

---

Good points, but you won't see our military to far behind our MONEY interests, nor can we make Mo' money by sitting on our own porch. Calling us cowards is a reflection on you to Clete since you don't seem to mind wagging your little tails behind us where ever we go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Talaniman: No, not one instance. My reservations are that many in the world look at the U.S. as a "safety blanket", free of charge.....but you know that nothing is free...and you know the payment is in the blood of our national treasure of soldiers. We just have to pick our battles more carefully and we don't need to protect the Saudi Arabians who don't like us anyway. Entanglement is easy, un-entanglement is much more difficult!

---

I cannot say that those we engage with for our mutual interests and security don't pay a price despite the popular view that it's just us doing the work. Of course they cannot do what we can, but they can do what THEY can. The big dog can be expected to do the bulk of the work. Libya comes to mind and the criticism was Obama was leading from behind while the Euro's ran all those sorties. They were the ones that needed the oil to keep flowing not us.

Talaniman: What you say is true.....But Libya.....what a horrid outcome.....getting rid of Ghadaffi and replacing him with a civil war, of sorts, wasn't a nice thing for the U.S. to get involved in....Did you know Ghadaffi gave the oil wealth back to the people (no, I am not a Ghadaffi fan!) and we replaced him with rulers who are much more brutal and self-absorbed......maybe his end came as a form of payment for Lockerbie. But we did tell the Russians that we were going to stay out of it.....and we didn't....what happened in Bengazzi was a horrible mess and we will never know the truth about that, I guess.

Why are you worrying about the past? Haven't you noticed that this Saudi/Iran thing was a storm in a tea cup and the world has moved on, you are more interested in a possible political mistake than conflict. This is because you no longer rely on Saudi product just on Saudi buys. No one is interested in Yemen so there was shout the other day, hey, look over here and the world said where?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Tal I know about thirteen hours in Benghazi, I know there was failure, mayhem, cowardise even. Not a good look but it was a long time ago, far away, and I'm sure you wish it would go away.

Vac, you don't need to protect Saudi Arabia, that mob have been slitting each others throats for centuries and no amount of american blood will stem the tide. 1400 years ago a desert conman started a war and it is always raging somewhere

Paraclete: Couldn't agree more about the Saudis.....their Wahhabism is poison in the M.E....but they may have met their match in the crazy department with the Mullahs....maybe they will cancel each other out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Paraclete: Couldn't agree more about the Saudis.....their Wahhabism is poison in the M.E....but they may have met their match in the crazy department with the Mullahs....maybe they will cancel each other out!

---

I think it is more a stare down, surely Iran knows they lack the military power, you see there is that matter of a few miles of water

What they lack in military, they more than make up in guerilla groups.