Why the US Naval Buildup in the Gulf?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp All of which has nothing to do with Iranian nukes. You want regime change. You want to force the Iranians to bend to US will by whatever means. Your answer appears to be more imperial forays, more bumbling invasions and/or coups that have failed so miserably in the past. The ultimate world policeman/nanny imposing our will on others, because we know better? One question - will you admit that you neocons have nothing but contempt for democracy, as you claim the right to dictate events in other coutnries around the world regardless of the will of their citizens? Or is it that you simply do not understand the meaning of the word?

Of course it has everything to do with nukes. An Iran or N. Korea wants them because it will allow them to operate more freely with what they wish to do. The question becomes if what Iran or N. korea want to do is beneficial to the world. I cannot imagine you would argue an expansion of a theocratic state in the region is something beneficial. I suppose one could argue it is none of the USA's business what happens to a Lebanon, or a Turkey. That is fine. But that is not the argument you have been presenting.

Iran does not have democracy. they vote of course (as does Cuba, as did Saddam's Iraq). But only the approved candidates are allowed to compete. So the claim we are going against the will of the Iranian people is without foundation. We don't know.

[Autolykos]

@BobbyO

I agree that nothing that goes on in Europe or the Pacific is "our" (meaning the government's) business.

You state that you do not think isolationism is the best way to "secure" the United States. Now, when you say "isolationism", do you mean that practiced by China and Japan in the 18th and 19th centuries? Or do you simply mean the lack of political intervention in other nations' affairs, as I do? There is a difference, you know.

In any case, I'd like to understand why you don't think isolationism is the best way to "secure" the United States. Maybe we should start with what you mean by "secure"?

- Rob

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Iran does not have democracy. they vote of course (as does Cuba, as did Saddam's Iraq). But only the approved candidates are allowed to compete. So the claim we are going against the will of the Iranian people is without foundation. We don't know.

I have long contended that neo-cons either hate democracy or do not understand it. Both are probably true in part. And here you demonstrate elements of both. Given the US history of replacing a democraticly elected Iranian leader with a dictator, your lack of concern about the will of the Iranian people is shameful, but not particularly surprising.

[rmnunez]

Well now those ships have been sitting around the Gulf for a few months, it seems the imminence of those invasions plans was a bit exagerated.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez Well now those ships have been sitting around the Gulf for a few months, it seems the imminence of those invasions plans was a bit exagerated.

I started this topic last week, Nunez. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying there is an imminent invasion, just wondering why the US needs such force off the coast of a nation that hasn't threatened Uncle Sam directly.

[rmnunez]

Perhaps an indirect threat is enough?

But the contention has been for more than a week, that Bush had some plans for intervention in Iran, some said this was the device planned long-ago, an "October Surprise" to boost the Republicans at election eve.

Maybe they've got a bunch of capital ships off Iranian coasts because its as close as they can get their navy to Iraq, which has just one maritime outlet, near its border with Iran.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp I have long contended that neo-cons either hate democracy or do not understand it. Both are probably true in part. And here you demonstrate elements of both. Given the US history of replacing a democraticly elected Iranian leader with a dictator, your lack of concern about the will of the Iranian people is shameful, but not particularly surprising.

Oh, I understand democracy. The rule of the majority over the minority. Freedom may, or may not, accompany it. President Bush chose to define democracy with the understanding that liberty accompanies it. It is regrettable you have chosen to side with the definition which discards liberty.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos @BobbyO I agree that nothing that goes on in Europe or the Pacific is "our" (meaning the government's) business. You state that you do not think isolationism is the best way to "secure" the United States. Now, when you say "isolationism", do you mean that practiced by China and Japan in the 18th and 19th centuries? Or do you simply mean the lack of political intervention in other nations' affairs, as I do? There is a difference, you know. In any case, I'd like to understand why you don't think isolationism is the best way to "secure" the United States. Maybe we should start with what you mean by "secure"? - Rob

Whether we like it or not, the USA is going to be drawn into the world. We cannot sit back and say whatever happens outside our borders has no impact which happens inside its borders.

[rmnunez]

Isolationism is no loger feasible. Oceanic barriers have been overcome with modern weapons and the US economy has evolved into a major commercial power. Not only would the US economy have to shrink substantially, so would the rest of the world's (for which the US is still the largest market). In fact, many economists of the more leftist persuasion (the London School) seem to suggest the US economy is in a slowdown and are prognosticating global recessionary effects.

[RickSp]

Quote by: BobbyO Oh, I understand democracy. The rule of the majority over the minority. Freedom may, or may not, accompany it. President Bush chose to define democracy with the understanding that liberty accompanies it. It is regrettable you have chosen to side with the definition which discards liberty.

Pretty funny. To be called one who "discards liberty" by a raving imperialist is amusing. You support invading countries that never attacked us, using torture and scrapping habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights and you claim that your mad king supports liberty? Bizarre.

Liberty doesn't often follow imperial legions. Democracy cannot be delivered by JDAM. You want to force your will on others then call it "democracy" or "liberty". That is either highly dishonest or completely clueless.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: BobbyO Whether we like it or not, the USA is going to be drawn into the world. We cannot sit back and say whatever happens outside our borders has no impact which happens inside its borders.

That doesn't answer my question. Let me ask you again: what does "secure" mean to you?

Also, I find your statement "the USA is going to be drawn into the world" to be vague in the extreme. Do you mean the US government, or individual citizens and organizations, or what?

Finally, you also failed to explain what you mean by "isolationism". I'm asking you again to please do so.

- Rob

[BobbyO]

Quote by: RickSp Pretty funny. To be called one who "discards liberty" by a raving imperialist is amusing. You support invading countries that never attacked us, using torture and scrapping habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights and you claim that your mad king supports liberty? Bizarre. Liberty doesn't often follow imperial legions. Democracy cannot be delivered by JDAM. You want to force your will on others then call it "democracy" or "liberty". That is either highly dishonest or completely clueless.

You are the person defending the Khameni theocracy of Iran as a "democracy."

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos That doesn't answer my question. Let me ask you again: what does "secure" mean to you? Also, I find your statement "the USA is going to be drawn into the world" to be vague in the extreme. Do you mean the US government, or individual citizens and organizations, or what? Finally, you also failed to explain what you mean by "isolationism". I'm asking you again to please do so. - Rob

Secure would be able to go about your life without wondering if an airplane is going to fly into the building you are in.

I mean all of the USA.

Isolationanism is a term of opprobrium coined Democrats to describe their Republican opponents during the 30s. It generally means retreating behind the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, and let the world go where it may go. Isolationists of the past tended to swear off "entangling alliances" because they felt the USA was to good for the world. Modern isolationists leave the impression the world is to good for the USA.

[rmnunez]

I suspect the US would be just as vulnerable regardless of the foreign policy it followed. If through some miraculous development suddenly the US made peace with Muslims and withdrew from their lands, either to isolationism of just to focus on other peoples, this would only satisfy Muslims. Are radicalized revolutionaries, hot-blooded Mexicans, worried environmentalists, underemployed humanities majors, disgruntled minorities and committed socialists less worthy of improvements in US foreign policy? Why, given the successful application of terrorism by one group to accomplish change in US foreign policy, shouldn't others with particularized gripes not seek to emulate the Islamic fundamentalists' methodology?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez ? Why, given the successful application of terrorism by one group to accomplish change in US foreign policy, shouldn't others with particularized gripes not seek to emulate the Islamic fundamentalists' methodology?

Evidently terror works. Otherwise why did the US kill Hirosima and Nagasaki? They did it to terrorize Japan into capitulation...

And now they seek to terrorize Iran with a nuclear armed Navy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/wo...html?th&emc=th

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — The United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.

Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative. One purpose of the deployment, they said, is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran. That would also reassure Washington’s allies in the region who are concerned about Iran’s intentions.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chief of naval operations, has made the case that the United States should seek to create “a thousand-ship Navy.” That would be impossible for the United States alone given current budgets, so instead it would be accomplished by operating more closely with allied warships to better cover critical areas like the Persian Gulf. He said that such a cooperative naval concept would be a “global maritime partnership that unites navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers and many other government and nongovernment agencies to address maritime concerns.” As an example, at present there are about 45 warships deployed in the Persian Gulf and waters across the region from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, with a third of those supplied by allies, which this month include Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Pakistan and Britain.

It's the New World Order.:rolleyes: