Wisdom of Captain Roderick Blaine

Conquest is expensive, extermination is cheap.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... diers.html

Obama's jihadists know their business.

Before the "Coalition of the Willing" Bush, Blair and Howard defied the UN to attack the sovereign country of Iraq and kill its people, Saddam kept the jihadists in line.
Sure he was a nasty dictator who treated his people dreadfully, but he was actually not quite as bad as the nutter in North Korea or a number of similar African dictators, and he didn't export his nastiness. If we had left him alone his people would still be suffering but the world wouldn't have the current problem.
I still can't understand how we invaded Iraq because of purported WMD that all sensible intelligence reports said didn't exist, yet don't invade North Korea that boasts about its WMD and its intention to use them against us. No oil perhaps?

Daryl wrote:Before the "Coalition of the Willing" Bush, Blair and Howard defied the UN to attack the sovereign country of Iraq and kill its people, Saddam kept the jihadists in line.
Sure he was a nasty dictator who treated his people dreadfully, but he was actually not quite as bad as the nutter in North Korea or a number of similar African dictators, and he didn't export his nastiness. If we had left him alone his people would still be suffering but the world wouldn't have the current problem.
I still can't understand how we invaded Iraq because of purported WMD that all sensible intelligence reports said didn't exist, yet don't invade North Korea that boasts about its WMD and its intention to use them against us. No oil perhaps?

Believe it or not Daryl. Neo-isolationists like myself and Namelessfly would likely agree with you. Nation building is a will-o-wisp to those who cherish liberty. Imposing a government on any society is the antithesis of the liberty enshrined by our Constitution. So to pursue nation building is to sow the seeds of governments without liberty.

PeterZ wrote:

Daryl wrote:Before the "Coalition of the Willing" Bush, Blair and Howard defied the UN to attack the sovereign country of Iraq and kill its people, Saddam kept the jihadists in line.
Sure he was a nasty dictator who treated his people dreadfully, but he was actually not quite as bad as the nutter in North Korea or a number of similar African dictators, and he didn't export his nastiness. If we had left him alone his people would still be suffering but the world wouldn't have the current problem.
I still can't understand how we invaded Iraq because of purported WMD that all sensible intelligence reports said didn't exist, yet don't invade North Korea that boasts about its WMD and its intention to use them against us. No oil perhaps?

Believe it or not Daryl. Neo-isolationists like myself and Namelessfly would likely agree with you. Nation building is a will-o-wisp to those who cherish liberty. Imposing a government on any society is the antithesis of the liberty enshrined by our Constitution. So to pursue nation building is to sow the seeds of governments without liberty.

Nation building can work but it is a VERY LONG term commitment. Basically if you want to build a nation plan on being there a generation with a LOT of boots on the ground. You have to start at the bottom, village by village educating people in Republican principles (and in this case I mean Republican as in the form of government not as in the party). It's not something that lends itself well to the 4 year presidential cycle. And if you're not going to do it right (i.e. stay there with a LOT of boots on the ground until you've built a fully functioning Republic no matter how many decades it takes), you shouldn't do it at all.

biochem wrote:Nation building can work but it is a VERY LONG term commitment. Basically if you want to build a nation plan on being there a generation with a LOT of boots on the ground. You have to start at the bottom, village by village educating people in Republican principles (and in this case I mean Republican as in the form of government not as in the party). It's not something that lends itself well to the 4 year presidential cycle. And if you're not going to do it right (i.e. stay there with a LOT of boots on the ground until you've built a fully functioning Republic no matter how many decades it takes), you shouldn't do it at all.

I agree with your assessment, Biochem. My point is that whatever system is imposed upon that society, it is not one that enshrines liberty. Liberty as in limited government with indiviudal citizens haveing responsibility for their own decisions and government heving very limited powers. To impose government on society is to assert that some larger entity has the authority to impose structures on that society. That's a very small jump to government has the authority to impose just about anything on the individuals in that society.

Liberty can only grow from the individuals and cannot be imposed from government. Nation building might generate a viable government, but that government will not be one based individual liberty.

I tend to agree with both of you.

Liberty can not flourish unless the principles are internalized. The imposition of a republican form of government by an occupying power is therefore difficult. Japan, Itally and Germany had some previous history with parliamentary systems that had failed them, so most people understood what the goal was. The external threats posed by Russia to West Germany and by China and Korea to Japan was a motivator. Both had serious insurgencies until the Korean War then the Berlin blockade. Significant interventions were needed in Greece and Turkey to avoid dictatorships.

I tend to agree that North Korea would have been a better initial target than Iraq. However; an invasion would not have been possible without South Korea's cooperation. The South Koreans had just elected an anti-American nutcase who told Bush to go screw himself. (This is why I favor ending the US security agreement with South Korea and declaring open season on them.). Pakistan would have been an even more appropriate target but Mushariff was wise enough to declare open season on his Taliban clients in Afghanistan to avert a US invasion. Invading a country that already has nukes and has a history of sponsoring terrorism vicariously is an exceedingly dangerous proposition.

Of course I still reject the idea that there was no WMD threat in Iraq because I actually read the Kaye and Dueffler reports. The key phrase was "militarily significant.". US troops encountered binary chemical munitions incorporated into IUDs often enough to convince anyone with a brain that "militarily insignificant" can be damn significant. A lot of people are still alive only because binary weapons need a thorough mixing and reaction time prior to detonation to be fully toxic. Saddam also had advanced isotope technology including a Calutron and gas centrifuges after the first gulf war. Gas centrifuges are to small to be detected by National Technical Means if they are dispersed. Since it snow known (and probably known at the time) that our alleged allies were violating sanctions back when oil was less than $20 per barrel, it was inevitable that sanctions would fail completely when oil hit $100 per barrel.

PeterZ wrote:

biochem wrote:Nation building can work but it is a VERY LONG term commitment. Basically if you want to build a nation plan on being there a generation with a LOT of boots on the ground. You have to start at the bottom, village by village educating people in Republican principles (and in this case I mean Republican as in the form of government not as in the party). It's not something that lends itself well to the 4 year presidential cycle. And if you're not going to do it right (i.e. stay there with a LOT of boots on the ground until you've built a fully functioning Republic no matter how many decades it takes), you shouldn't do it at all.

I agree with your assessment, Biochem. My point is that whatever system is imposed upon that society, it is not one that enshrines liberty. Liberty as in limited government with indiviudal citizens haveing responsibility for their own decisions and government heving very limited powers. To impose government on society is to assert that some larger entity has the authority to impose structures on that society. That's a very small jump to government has the authority to impose just about anything on the individuals in that society.

Liberty can only grow from the individuals and cannot be imposed from government. Nation building might generate a viable government, but that government will not be one based individual liberty.

The Problem with US invading North Korea, is that
since November 1950 it has been under China's protection.

HTM

Daryl wrote:[snip - htm]
... we ... don't invade North Korea that boasts
about its WMD and its intention to use them against us.
No oil perhaps?

The who Iraq WMD thing was a pretext. SoDamn Insane had used them many years before so why not invade back then?

We'll probably never know the real reason for the timing of the invasion which makes any discussion of, or justification of it pointless.

At least our case was simpler, though I do wonder if our PM was actually told the truth.
The US is too important to us militarily for us not to, and someone like Australia comming on board was to important politically for the US not to ask. So yeah the Iraq invasion is a simpler question for us.
One of the things our leftist party seemed to forget when last in office.

Our far right PM is talking it down atm too but then he's got an invented imaginary budget crisis that would make paying for it hard to justify.

Oh, this is rich:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/former-uk-pm-blair-says-iraq-crisis-not-114906266.html#WpfkJ5v

Not his fault. Yeah, RIGHT!

If Blair was handed over to the ICC for war crimes there would be street parties in the UK. The man's utterly despised.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tony-blair-has-moved-beyond-parody-in-his-latest-attempt-to-absolve-himself-9538980.html

Mike.

Now the Jihadists are calling for unmarried girls in their newly conquered territories to wage "sex jihad".

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis- ... had-by-sex

It is absolutely, and disgustingly, normal for conquerers to rape as well as pillage. It is amusing to see it rationalized by a religious edict.