Obama To Ramp Up Military Presence In Pacific Rim

[Ed W]

How quickly we forget.  Didn't 66,000 Americans eventually get killed after sending 500 "advisors" to some little third world country about 50 years ago? 

Again, why is this acceptable to people like you and Wevus when your guy is in the White House?  Even for the reasons of fiscal conservatism, I'm sick and tired of playing top cop all over the world, much less putting our soldiers at risk.

Conan, you argued in favor of sending troops into Iraq to depose Saddam - when he posed no threat to the United States - yet you argue against sending Marines to Australia?  We'll ignore the fact that we were allied with Saddam when the Iranians were a threat.

Is there some common thread underpinning these two apparently disparate arguments, or are you simply opposed to anything the Obama administration proposes?

[Conan71]

Conan, you argued in favor of sending troops into Iraq to depose Saddam - when he posed no threat to the United States - yet you argue against sending Marines to Australia?  We'll ignore the fact that we were allied with Saddam when the Iranians were a threat.

Is there some common thread underpinning these two apparently disparate arguments, or are you simply opposed to anything the Obama administration proposes?

No threat?  You know who actually influenced my opinion on this more than anyone else?  Please listen to the whole of President Clinton's comments. This was even after the controversy of the 2003 SOTU address taped in July of '03 on Larry King Live.  This was the second time President Clinton affirmed on LK there were known missing WMD the day he left office.  Those WMD were no doubt considered a threat to not only our national security, but to Iraqis and many others in the region.  

The reason I oppose increased presence in the Pacific Rim?  We are freaking bankrupt.  We need to quit being the world's cop and the country every one runs to to oust every single tin pot dictator, and quit being the one everyone runs to for a billion dollars after a mud-slide.  It's got no bearing on me who the President is on issues like these.  I have a specific set of values and ideals.   Whomever is president doesn't sway my opinion on those. I'm quite certain there are 2500 able-bodied Aussies quite capable of ramping up a defense presence and they can use arms purchased from the United States to do so.  Also consider how ridiculous a force of 2500 would be if the Chinese or NOKO were really interested in a nuclear attack on Australia- worthless.

Admittedly, my opinion has changed over the years on Iraq, mainly because we very possibly could have kept Hussein on a short leash, or perhaps not.  He was playing a shell game with UN inspectors and flaunting UN sanctions. If you don't enforce those sanctions, then there's no deterrent value in them in the first place. It's pissed me off no end that we had to take the lead role there for so many years.  I'm quite certain President Bush and his advisors believed Iraq was a one year milk run.  If it had been, his legacy would have looked a whole lot better.  Had we not been fighting in two different theaters at the same time, we might have gotten out of Iraq in a year, at least as far as our major involvement.

[Hoss]

No threat?  You know who actually influenced my opinion on this more than anyone else?  Please listen to the whole of President Clinton's comments. This was even after the controversy of the 2003 SOTU address taped in July of '03 on Larry King Live.  This was the second time President Clinton affirmed on LK there were known missing WMD the day he left office.  Those WMD were no doubt considered a threat to not only our national security, but to Iraqis and many others in the region.  

The reason I oppose increased presence in the Pacific Rim?  We are freaking bankrupt.  We need to quit being the world's cop and the country every one runs to to oust every single tin pot dictator, and quit being the one everyone runs to for a billion dollars after a mud-slide.  It's got no bearing on me who the President is on issues like these.  I have a specific set of values and ideals.   Whomever is president doesn't sway my opinion on those. I'm quite certain there are 2500 able-bodied Aussies quite capable of ramping up a defense presence and they can use arms purchased from the United States to do so.  Also consider how ridiculous a force of 2500 would be if the Chinese or NOKO were really interested in a nuclear attack on Australia- worthless.

Admittedly, my opinion has changed over the years on Iraq, mainly because we very possibly could have kept Hussein on a short leash, or perhaps not.  He was playing a shell game with UN inspectors and flaunting UN sanctions. If you don't enforce those sanctions, then there's no deterrent value in them in the first place. It's pissed me off no end that we had to take the lead role there for so many years.  I'm quite certain President Bush and his advisors believed Iraq was a one year milk run.  If it had been, his legacy would have looked a whole lot better.  Had we not been fighting in two different theaters at the same time, we might have gotten out of Iraq in a year, at least as far as our major involvement.

I remember saying at the outset of the Iraq war to many of my Bush-supporting friends (and at the time I was a supporter of his, but not for this) that this will be his Vietnam.  They all scoffed at me.  While we didn't lose the manpower we did in Vietnam (58000 or so was the losses from that War), 4500 is still too many for something people were saying wouldn't last more than a month.  Hell, even one American is too many.

[nathanm]

The reason I oppose increased presence in the Pacific Rim?  We are freaking bankrupt.  We need to quit being the world's cop and the country every one runs to to oust every single tin pot dictator, and quit being the one everyone runs to for a billion dollars after a mud-slide.  It's got no bearing on me who the President is on issues like these.  I have a specific set of values and ideals.   Whomever is president doesn't sway my opinion on those. I'm quite certain there are 2500 able-bodied Aussies quite capable of ramping up a defense presence and they can use arms purchased from the United States to do so.  Also consider how ridiculous a force of 2500 would be if the Chinese or NOKO were really interested in a nuclear attack on Australia- worthless.

For what it's worth, both South Korea and Japan shovel a lot of money our way to keep the current arrangement. I seem to recall that they pay for most of the cost of maintaining our presence in those countries. I guess that's the nice thing about seriously rebuilding countries like we did after WWII and the Korean War. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past while we were (almost) learning the lessons we so desperately needed to learn from Vietnam.

[Conan71]

For what it's worth, both South Korea and Japan shovel a lot of money our way to keep the current arrangement. I seem to recall that they pay for most of the cost of maintaining our presence in those countries. I guess that's the nice thing about seriously rebuilding countries like we did after WWII and the Korean War. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past while we were (almost) learning the lessons we so desperately needed to learn from Vietnam.

If they pay the entire freight, I have not problem with it.  I'm sick and tired of being hand-out central.

[nathanm]

If they pay the entire freight, I have not problem with it.

I'm not sure precisely how the accounting works out, but I do know that it amounts to billions a year that they pay us.