Should the U.S. maintain economic security with military force if necessary?

Should other states use military force to maintain their economic security if necessary?

Does Israel's refusal to recall military activities back to the Green Line and completely dismantle settlements threaten the stability of the region?

Does the U.S., under the rubric of national security, have the right to secure its influence and works in the Middle East with military force?

Should other countries use military force to secure their influence and works?

Should the U.S. maintain economic security with military force if necessary?
That is a pretty loaded question. Iraq was a war of choice. Before any further discussion can take place we need to clearly define what is 'necessary'.


Should other states use military force to maintain their economic security if necessary?


I would answer no because to accept this line of thought is the first step in legitimizing force based on whim under the guise of necessity.


Does Israel's refusal to recall military activities back to the Green Line and completely dismantle settlements threaten the stability of the region?


It is one of the points of contention among the Palestinians. At some point both sides must come to a compromise. To impose the will of one upon the other is to repeat the last 50 years of history.
Does the U.S., under the rubric of national security, have the right to secure its influence and works in the Middle East with military force?


Absolutely not. Mein Kamf became accepted within the German community because millions of people bought into his ideas without ever stopping to examine his work. The book's success was largely opportunistic, that is it came along as a quick and easy answer to freezing, starving people who were suffering a huge economic depression. The people didn't care about the answer, the wanted the lights back on. This was a case of bad practice on the government's part leading to disaster which was capitalized on by a nut. National security is a misnomer for force projection, plain and simple.


Should other countries use military force to secure their influence and works?


No they should not, as it will inevitably lead to larger conflicts.

I believe we invaded Iraq, at least in part, due to economic considerations, but it is up to posters to define necessary military intervention to further and/or maintain economic security. How much economic disruption can we "allow"? At what point does economic disruption warrant violent intervention? Sometimes? Never? I don't want to tell posters when conditions warrant intervention and have them respond to my views (at least not until I answer my own questions). I would like them to formulate their own conclusions, and hopefully support their answers. You define necessary.

The question isn't more of should we maintain economic security, but more of what do we want the world to see us as. If we want them to look up to us as a model and good leader, we should sit back, let the capitalist system try to carry us through any dips we may find in the economy, and deal with economic concerns like any other nation. But if we want to use our sole superpower status and keep it that way, but suffer the world looking upon us as oppressors and a new imperialist force, we follow realpolitik, and use force when necessary to boost or maintain the economy, and if it means invading a country to keep our economy in line or gain assets, so be it. The best way is in the middle of these two: try to pull out of any stagnations in the economy waiting it out with Keynesian economics, and if a country threatens to severely disrupt our economy (severely, let me repeat that), we need to use political negotiations, then, if needed, military force to stop whatever they're planning. You have power, you have enemies, and if we want to protect all economic assets, we will become an imperialist country. I hope not.

Yes. If the nations of the world decide to blockade our coasts, thus strangling our economy, I think it would certainly behoove us to use military force to prevent such from happening. That is, of course, an extreme example, but extreme examples serve to clarify principles.


Certainly, as a matter of principle, the use of military force is as legitimate for other nations as it is for us, everything else being equal.

Having established the principle, which is just as valid for nations as it is for individuals, the reality sets in that the devil is in the details. Is military force necessary? Is it the most effective means available? How is "economic security" defined? How is the military force going to be used?

The same details bedevil the individual who is being shaken down by a Mafia enforcer. Is it necessary to use force to maintain the individual's economic security? Is force the most effective means available?

No. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, with the subsequent launching of multiple attacks by the Palestinians from the abandoned settlements illustrates pretty convincingly that it is the existence of Israel that "threatens the stability of the region", or to be more accurate, it is the unhinged, irrational, Islamofascist reaction to the existence of Israel.

See "devil, details" above.

See "devil, details" above.

Should the U.S. maintain economic security with military force if necessary?
Should other states use military force to maintain their economic security if necessary?

The answer here is : yes, of course it should. Any state can only exist if the economy is stable. Economic reasons are the real reasons behind many of the world's conflicts.

Why did Hitler break his deal with Russia? Ukrainian wheat and oil in the Baku oil fields. Of course, Hitler preferred to control them since he already had access to them via his alliance with Russia. Also, he had a bias against the Slavic race (as documented in Mein Kampf). But these limited resources drove the decision.

In general, the world has limited resources and struggles over those limited resources will always be a source of conflict if those resources cannot be acquired in a peaceful manner. It is the same in the animal kingdom: struggles over the best watering hole or the best hunting ground or the best mate do not only happen, they are commonplace and always will be.

Now, all that being said, military conflict should not be the first option. We do not need to control every resource that we require, but we must have access to it. Oil is one of the number one resources that is needed in a modern society (water and food are other key resources, which the US is luckily abundant in).

We can ask ourselves whether or not the US Navy should be used to keep Middle East waterways free of mines.

Does Israel's refusal to recall military activities back to the Green Line and completely dismantle settlements threaten the stability of the region?

I'm not quite certain how this relates to economic interests being defended by the military. There are other factors than economic ones that cause unrest, this dispute being something along those lines. Israel has security reasons (rather than economic ones) for being where they are and the economic reasons are somewhat less (although land itself is a limited resource).

Does the U.S., under the rubric of national security, have the right to secure its influence and works in the Middle East with military force?
Should other countries use military force to secure their influence and works?
Yes, when other methods are ineffective or inappropriate. A nation's government has a first and foremost responsibility to protect its nation's interests, including security, economics, and social interests. Of course, when you use military force (as opposed to other forms of influence) then you must be prepared to face the consequences of the means employed. This is the reason that military force is not the first resort.

Should the U.S. maintain economic security with military force if necessary?Absolutely. To not do so would be to invite economic disaster..

Should other states use military force to maintain their economic security if necessary?
They do and will in the future.

Does Israel's refusal to recall military activities back to the Green Line and completely dismantle settlements threaten the stability of the region?

Yes but at the same time we need to recognize their legitimate reasons for not doing so. Any state that is surrounded by hostile and aggressive powers that claim it does not even have the “right to exist” must be very concerned with security. Unfortunately our close association and funding of Israel is a major reason we are hated above other western powers by the Arab world.

Does the U.S., under the rubric of national security, have the right to secure its influence and works in the Middle East with military force?

Yes. Unless and until we become energy independent of foreign oil (don’t hold your breath) we are economically dependant on the stability of the oil market and the safety of the major suppliers. IMO this was a major reason for Gulf War I and II. Our 12 trillion $$$ economy is totally dependant on foreign oil. If we could just wake up the idiots in Congress to the need to rapidly explore and drill for our own oil we could mitigate the need for intervention to protect oil interests around the world. We find ourselves now forced to defend countries like Saudi Arabia that IMO are not real allies at all.

I agree with the danger created from forcefully controlling another's economy. My concern is the progression of ever diluted criteria of what constitutes a threat.

Take for example a singular group of hijackers which fly planes into a building and then transition one's focus onto a dictator which was proven to have no relations with the first group. Now expand the involvment one step further and advocate the open removal of a national [Iran]. This is not acceptable in any sense of the word especially if the same individuals from the first fiasco are present and continue to spew allegations which is the case today.

My reasoning is simply if you entered a country under false pretenses the ability to discern one enemy from another or friend from foe is compromised. Therefore accepting regime change of any sort is out the window.

My concern is this behaviour will breed anxiety among allied countries and open hostility leading to an arms race for others. Furthermore if one publicly mounts opposition, can we expect a 40 million dollar destabilization campaign via the NED as in the case of Mr. Chavez? Or what about occupied countries which can longer accept development contracts abroad and no longer market their remaining resources fairly to the free market? Iraq is now a closed market for Russian and Chinese interests. Storm92keeper, does this strike you as fair and equatable?

Continuing this line of thought what would happen if a traditionally friendly country like Canada voided NAFTA for something potentially more lucrative and allowed equal distribution of resources whether they be gas, tar sands or something else with America no longer holding the monopoly? My question to you is 'would you take this sitting down?'. I'll clarify, what happens when America faces pressure of a reduced market share from rivals with deeper pockets?

At that point the criteria for regime change devolves into something rather ugly and risks alienating traditional allies.

Of course this is not acceptable. One group, not even a government or agency attacks you, then in reaction you attack a country that has no acceptance of that one group, and even opposed it, this is not justified. The invasion of Iraq may have been for economic reasons (oil), but it is pretty obvious it was for personal reasons of GWB. Not acceptable at all to kill young men in your country because you believe your dad didn't finish the job.


In the case of Mr. Chavez, the amount spent is not 40 million, but 1 million. Yet, yes we can expect this, which is the diplomatic route the U.S. should take, rather than a rash military maneuver or supporting attempted coupes. Venezuela Spending


No, the Iraq case is not fair at all. As it is a free country now (more or less occupied by us) it should have the ability to sell its goods in a global market.


Go for political talks, see if we can make a separate trade agreement exclusively between us and them. The only way I would justify using force is if, for example, China decided to stop buying millions of US dollars a year, which is keeping the dollar alive, which would effectively ruin our economy.

I hear what you are saying but let’s remember the WMD issue and realize that it was certainly not in “our National Interest” to allow Saddam, who had invaded a neighbor, to have and maintain same while flouting all UN Resolutions – the one we got in place with blood and treasure. To make believe this was not an issue just because we were stupid enough to let them slip away is not telling the whole story.

True- but we can agree al Qaeda was in no way linked to Saddam's Baathist Iraq, right? And of course that issue was real, its the major reason we had to go into Iraq.

“linkage” to Saddam is hard to prove. IMO Saddam had no “alliance” with AQ but that does not mean he would never have helped them with WMD if he knew they would be used to kill hated Americans.

The main issue in Iraq, and the subject of UN 1441 was the missing WMD detailed by weapons inspectors from 1991 -1998 – when they were booted and again questioned by Blix. Saddam could have avoided war if he had either brought out the WMD for destruction or proved they were destroyed. – He did neither and our attack was predicated on that.

Many here say “we didn’t find them therefore they were not there” but IMO they were there and we let Saddam move them before we attacked. A serious mistake.

Except that he hated AQ and Islamicism just as much, arguably more. Thats why the vaunted links with Hussein never existed, and one of the most ironic little side notes of this whole conflict: Saddam Hussein was as strong an opponent of radical islam as the US is. Trying to imply based on nothing that they might have suddenly collaborated against the US in the future is a touch intellectually dishonest.



Would that be the same Blix who was begging the US not to go to war and to give his inspectors time to finish the job of inspections? The same Blix who begged the US to let them have the intelligence the US claimed to have (but didn't) about where these supposed WMD were, and was totally rebuffed?



and the cat came back, the very next day, the cat came back, we thought it was a gonner but the cat came back, it just couldn't stay away....

Ya ya we keep hearing this put IMO Saddam was a pragmatist – if he thought for one second he could give AQ a WMD to sneak into the US and kill Americans he would certainly do it. He hated the US far more than radical islam.

The answer to that last question is simple: lots. The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/033jgqyi.asp





Certainly and IMO we should have waited – as I have said numerous times. As far as intel we apparently had squat and so did Blix. Bush believed (Clinton holdover) CIA chief “slam–dunk” Tennant . Worst mistake ever made.

On the UN side we have total lack of real intel on Iraqi hiding places. Near the end the US pointed out that Iraq had several large underground bunkers. Blix then went to the UN and asked for more time and money to “explore” them – and he asked Iraq for a list of all underground facilities!!!! Any idiot who watched the history channel knew in 2003 that Iraq had numerous underground and bomb proof shelters.

Ya same Blix.

So you wildly assert. You seem to have more in-depth knowledge into the private opinions and thoughts of Saddam hussein than most anyone, care to tell us where you came by this information?

In fact from his actions, not to mention his own words, it is dead clear he hated radical Islam FAR more than he hated the US, and specifically refused invitations from AQ to work against the United States and the west. Please stop making things up Ted.



Yes, you certainly cut and pasted some powerful evidence from that article written September 1st 2003. It may however surprise you to know that rather a lot has happened since then. Seriously Ted, this is one of the deadest horses around, yet still you keep beating it. NINE seperate investigations have been launched into AQ-Hussein links, from Carnegie to the IISS to the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee to the 9/11 Comission. EVERY ONE had unanimously agreed that not only were there NO links between AQ and Iraq, but that Hussein was openly hostile to AQ and any other form of militant islam.

The most recent of these reports was the Pentagon Inspector General's report released just 2 months ago, which stated:

"Feith's Office of Special Plans, an office in the Pentagon run by Douglas Feith that was the source of most of the misleading intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, had "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsisent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war.

Should the U.S. maintain economic security with military force if necessary?


When you ask this question- you have to ask- is it for the entire US economic security, or the bottom line of one company?

Guatamala and Iran both stand out as prime examples- Guatamala had nothing to do with the economic security of the US- it had a very strong special interest though- Chiquita banana wanted to keep it's slaves in line- and the CIA obliged.

With Iran and the Shah- we didn't even use the pretext of paying for thier resources- we stole them outright. It is not our freedom Iranians hate- it is the fact that we were thieves in thier land, and appointed a dictator to oversee that theft.

But I am sure Chevron's economic interests were well looked after

If it is a naval blockade of our shores- sure- this epitomizes the need to defend one's economic base- however- if it is to overthrow an entire country to help a special interest group- like, oh Haliburton, then no. In Fact, no single endevour since WW2 has had ANY overall economic consideration- EXCEPT for special interests groups. name one? I can't!



Should other states use military force to maintain their economic security if necessary?

Only if they are blockading our coasts, or something equally radical. Otherwise, economic decisions in thier borders are thier problem, and it is not moral or ethical to invade just to steal from them or change thier economic policies.

Does Israel's refusal to recall military activities back to the Green Line and completely dismantle settlements threaten the stability of the region?

Not quite sure what this has to do with economic considerations- but Isreal is more of a religious reason of the religious far right than any percieved ally in the ME Isreal is- I mean, if anything, they are the single most destabilizing influence in the ME, bar none, just by thier very presence.

Does the U.S., under the rubric of national security, have the right to secure its influence and works in the Middle East with military force?

Yes and no. If we are talking about the global market- yes, if they are sinking tankers or something- yes, but otherwise, no.

Should other countries use military force to secure their influence and works?

Saddam also hated the Iranians, but where did he send his air force for protection? Did the Iranians ever return those aircraft? Of course not. Gaining a few billion dollars worth of aircraft.

As for reports Mossad seems to be convinced that the Iraqis did send there stockpile of munitions to Syria. And it known that Syria does have a strong chemical weapons program which they did use against there on citizens just as Saddam did. They are believed to have a biological program as well.

Saddam had no love loss with either Syria or Iran, yet when pressured he would far rather they benefited over the West.

Loreng, why in the world, would you or anyone else, believe what the CIA, FBI, Mossad, KGB or any other secret service has to say- seriously- they lie for a living- I can roll my eyes at silly, debunked conspiriacy theories that Ted likes to spew- it is kinda funny to see each one of them shot down, and see him stick to them anyway- - but Loreng- you also are a soldier, have been told what is "needed to know" and know damn well you aren't getting the truth-

The most insane thing about that is this- Saddam Hussien would have used them on troops attacking him, rather than sending them to some silly scheme to send them to syria- all military men also know that chemical weapons are a dubious weapon against trained 1rst world troops- the casualities would be very, very light against 1rst world troops, even if he hurled everything he USED to have- it is for civilian populations without a gas masks or other MOP gear.

If Assad would take ANYTHING it would be nukes- the great equalizer on the planet now- everyone can see that the only way to blunt US power is the threat of nukes.

We should be scared of that too- If I were some Iranian whose family had been nearly wiped out by the Shah, or some Guatamalen whose family had been killed by CIA operatives in it's various civil war- I would be looking to get a nuke into a US city- don't ya think? It is hard enough to smuggle nukes and nuke materials- much less tons of home made gas and it's much more important delivery systems-

after all, chemical weapons need a good delivery system, or they are useless. You can have enogh Sarin gas to kill 40 million poeple, but if you don't disperse it, just crack a bag of it open or something, it is only going to effect the folks within breathing range.

That whole WMD thing in Iraq was just a hoax played on the western public by Blair and Bush- there hadn't been any production since before Gulf one- when the US was aiding and abbetting Saddam with chemical weapons.

WE try to turn it around- but the bottom line is- no US help, no chemical weapons- it is just that easy!



Once again- you have no evidence in ANY war we have been in since WW2 that really had the US's vital economic interests at heart- you had some special interests that do very, very well by war profiteering- see Haliburton, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin etc etc etc.

He did no such thing. Individual aircrew, afteri being sent up to their deaths with no proper Command and Control or tactical guidance, fled to Iran of their own volition, several receiving death sentences in absentia from the Iraqi High Command. The aircraft were (of course) never returned, and the aircrews only returned after several years. Hussein had nothing to do with the fleeing aircraft.



I would have to ask for a link to the Mossad comment, the only mossad statement I have read was one confirming that they knew there were no active WMD in Iraq before the war but said nothing on the subject. As far as I know the ONLY source for the 'WMD moved to Syria' fable is a discredited Iraqi intel officer who made dozens of claims to get himself into US good graces, and had almost all of them disproven. This again: a dead horse.

I think you have a fairly skewed sense of intelligence agencies. The statement'they lie for a living' not exactly correct. Their job is to gather and interpret information. The gathering process is usually fairly straight forward, interpretation is not. And yes they do not give everything they know. But you are very mistaken about what they do.

Mossad is a bit better at interpretation than most, but it is a game of piecing together a vast amount of information and finding the truth. It is not easy, I know I spent enough time with MI to know that even if you get it right, sometimes you can't release it because of other considerations. That is how intelligence works sometimes.

Saddam Hussein did have WMDs and used them. You are free to question the survivors of Halabja to your hearts content. He also used them against the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. You are more than welcome to deny it, but there is far too much proof that they were used. Over 20,000 Iranian soldiers were killed.

Hama, Syria February 2, 1982, the Syrian army bombed the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, and in the process thousands of people were killed. Amnesty International claims that 10,000-25,000 were killed at Hama.

So to claim that there were no WMDs is just false. As for the Shah and Guatamala, I won't even begin to fathom what that has to do with the question.

As for the Well that is strange since this is my 1st response to the question. How it 'once again'?

I would submit that the Cold War had our vital economic interests very much at heart.

vermillion - I would ask for proof that it was not ordered, because I have heard that it was. That is from people that were listening to the Iraqi military traffic during the war.

As for official statements from Mossad, hold your breath. They have never issued a single one in 60 years. I doubt they will ever start now. But it was in all the Israeli newspapers at the time. If you Hebrew is up to the task I am sure that you could read it for yourself.

Loreng- to quailify my statement- they had NOT used them since Gulf 1, and an egomainical dictator like Saddam had every reason to use them on the US- like, oh, his survival?

When I said "once again"- I was not meaning YOU personally Loreng, but rather- "once again we have these rumors" kinda thing- NOT directed at you or your post directly.

And Loreng- you ommited the other part of the role of the "intelligence agencies"- DIS information. Intelligence agencies act with whatever THEY think is in thier citizens best interests- that not always neccesarily so.

I mean really- trusting an intelligence agency- thier very personality has to be a bit psychotic to even WANT that job.

If it suits an intelligence agency to use the truth, they will, if it doesn't, they don't.

Saddam HAD chemical weapons- after all, I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld still have the reciept - though they may have bought them off other nations- we gave the go-ahead for it- and like the fact that he gassed iranians- America is very, very culpable in the use of chemical weapons in that war- in fact, we all but gave the order.

I can buy most of what you said. But there is a lot of armchair intelligence types that have no clue as to how it is done.

For one thing no agency is monolithic it's outlook. Inside there is a lot of different opinions bouncing around. And you might be surprise to find that most of the people are very liberal in their view points. I have found most to be hard working dedicated honest people. Attempting to discover the truth out of pile of information that usually disagrees with itself. There are those that also do their best to prevent other intelligence agencies from finding out what we do know and what we don't.

If you care to look up old MOSs mine for 3 years was 98G with a classified language qualifier. That was before I became a 153A.

The reason that Saddam did not use chemicals weapons is simple. We have longed declared that use of any WMDs against us would be met with WMDs on our part and I do not mean the same ones that they might use. We made this clear during the Cold War that any WMDs would result in a nuclear response.

You keep saying this and alluding to “us” being the cause of Saddam. I fail to see how we game the man his advanced nuclear program. I have debunked the “anthrax” nonsense and the VX was made by Iraq with possible help from Russia and others. Did we support him in his fight with Iran – YES. Did we give him VX which he used on the Kurds – NO. Nor did we build all the chemical and bio plants he had in Iraq. The fact is that man was a nutcase with lots of WMD – and had used same on civilians. Your insinuation that we had anything to do with this is ludicrous.