What is a vital U.S. Interest?

[Redfish]

Nothing defines our way of life like our use of energy. Right now oil is the worlds most vital interest.

So you supported the first Gulf War and subsequent Iraqi War?

I supported energy independence before military intervention became necessary.

President Bush should never have let Saddam think we wouldn't protect Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them. But then if he'd never have invaded Kuwait we'd never known about the secret Manhattan Project style nuclear bomb program he'd kept hidden from his American Sugar Dadd.....opps I mean benefactor, Ronnie Raygun. But then again if Ronnie hadn't supported Saddam and taken him off the Terrorist supporter list and allowed him access to all the duel use technology he could afford he'd never had that sophisticated a WMD program.

I disagreed with the Second Bush administration's justification for the invasion and occupation. Doesn't mean I don't understand how vital oil is in the world today.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Funny how the lists change over time. Just shows how stupid our foreign policy was, is, and always will be until we learn to stay out of other countries business.

 

[bendog]

So what is a vital U.S. interest?

Trade. Trade between businesses and individuals in the US and any other country is a vital US interest. Same is true between states. Trade should always be encouraged and left unencumbered, not regulated and embargoed. When people trade, they tend not to war. That is why try trade, not some particular piece of land or country, is always of vital interest to the US.

Stated differently, if the people of Russian heritage in Crimea want to be part of Russia, that's their right to strive to achieve that goal. I don't really care as long as we continue to trade with those people and everyone else on the planet.

That's certainly true from a neolibertarian viewpoint that trade is the ultimate justification for war ... or stated alternatively state power is only justified to protect the power of individuals to enter into, and exit from, free markets.

However, from a Thatcher/Reagan perspective, I think you view is too narrow an interpretation of neoliberalism. BushI's war with Iraq was legally justified on the grounds that Saddam chose not to use intl law forums to gain redress from Kuwait's drilling into his oilfields. Saddam had no real effect on our trade, but BushI and Major saw a precedential issue.

I think Thatcher would have seen the same in Putin redrawing post-cold war maps. Poland and the Czech Rep are her "crowning" (-: achievements in showing formerly communist satellites the way to Jesus through free markets. Thus, its in an interest of the US and the EU to bring emerting former soviet republics into free market economics.

Not that it's worth a nuclear exchange, or even trying to find some of the heavy weapons W had go missing in Mesopetamia.

 

[kaz]

I did, now answer mine--------how did viet nam serve the national interests of the USA?

The way it was fought, it didn't. We should have fought it to win it. But Communism was taking over the world country by country and it was better to fight them in Vietnam than in Mexico.

OMG, you too? communism did take over viet nam, after we lost 58,000 americans there. how is the current status of viet nam a threat to the USA?

I addressed that

 

[kaz]

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy detected.

Yes, you frequently detect that direct responses to your point are absurd. Which is of course a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

You need to review what the reductio ad absurdum fallacy is. I have bolded the fallacy in red in your post to get you started.

I asked you why we should defend nations we aren't allied with, your response was that ones we are allied with cold be next.

Instead of word parsing and quibbling, you could just be clearer about who you would and and would defend because you don't seem to be drawing any line.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nothing defines our way of life like our use of energy. Right now oil is the worlds most vital interest.

Yes, but only because we have an insane energy policy in this country. We could be energy self sufficient and actually sell to the rest of the world-----but no, because fossil fuels are evil and are destroying the world, causing the seas to rise, crops to die, polar bears to cry, and eskimos to lose their igloos ! of course none of that is true----but you fools believe it to our detriment.

Well no I think it was the rapid post war increased consumption that caused our demand outstripped our supply of cheap , easily produced, near surface oil, long before there was ever a cohesive energy policy.

 

[BlindBoo]

So you supported the first Gulf War and subsequent Iraqi War?

I supported energy independence before military intervention became necessary.

President Bush should never have let Saddam think we wouldn't protect Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them. But then if he'd never have invaded Kuwait we'd never known about the secret Manhattan Project style nuclear bomb program he'd kept hidden from his American Sugar Dadd.....opps I mean benefactor, Ronnie Raygun. But then again if Ronnie hadn't supported Saddam and taken him off the Terrorist supporter list and allowed him access to all the duel use technology he could afford he'd never had that sophisticated a WMD program.

I disagreed with the Second Bush administration's justification for the invasion and occupation. Doesn't mean I don't understand how vital oil is in the world today.

Was that a yes or a no?

A little bit of both.

No, because in the first place after the first energy crisis we should have weaned ourselves off foreign sources of oil.

Yes, because self-sufficiency is not the path our government followed. I'm an American Tax-payer and my taxes supported those oil wars.

 

[The Rabbi]

I supported energy independence before military intervention became necessary.

President Bush should never have let Saddam think we wouldn't protect Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them. But then if he'd never have invaded Kuwait we'd never known about the secret Manhattan Project style nuclear bomb program he'd kept hidden from his American Sugar Dadd.....opps I mean benefactor, Ronnie Raygun. But then again if Ronnie hadn't supported Saddam and taken him off the Terrorist supporter list and allowed him access to all the duel use technology he could afford he'd never had that sophisticated a WMD program.

I disagreed with the Second Bush administration's justification for the invasion and occupation. Doesn't mean I don't understand how vital oil is in the world today.

Was that a yes or a no?

A little bit of both.

No, because in the first place after the first energy crisis we should have weaned ourselves off foreign sources of oil.

Yes, because self-sufficiency is not the path our government followed. I'm an American Tax-payer and my taxes supported those oil wars.

Do you have any idea what it would cost to "wean ourselves off foreign oil"?

 

[eflatminor]

No, because in the first place after the first energy crisis we should have weaned ourselves off foreign sources of oil.

All foreign oil? Even from Canada, Mexico and Brazil?

How would you accomplish that? Nationalize the oil industry? How very...Communist.

 

[Pheonixops]

The libs here, and their fellow travelling narco-libertarians, maintain that Ukraine is not a vital US interest and we need to stay away.
So what is a vital U.S. interest? Philippines? Cuba? Hawaii? California? At what point is action of any kind a necessity?

In my opinion Our country should be our primary "vital U.S. interest". I think our relationship with Our North American, Central American, South American, and Caribbean friends and allies should be the next "vital U.S. interest" and we should strengthen that relationship. I also that that Great Britain is another vital interest. I think that it's good to have free trade and friendship with most nations and we should always encourage peaceful commerce and trade. I think that having our Navy sailing the seas all over the world is a good thing, as they can protect our vessels. Hawaii is part of Our country. I think that we should cultivate better relations with Cuba.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about answering the question, Conrad?

I did, now answer mine--------how did viet nam serve the national interests of the USA?

Where was your answer defining what a vital US interest is? All I saw was you putting words in my mouth. Either answer the question and start a dialogue or shut the fuck up and go post somewhere else.

Redfish competently answered The Rabbi, yet The Rabbi refuses to reply. Others also competently answered The Rabbi. Don't need no stinkin' neo-cons no more.

OP fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

I did, now answer mine--------how did viet nam serve the national interests of the USA?

Where was your answer defining what a vital US interest is? All I saw was you putting words in my mouth. Either answer the question and start a dialogue or shut the fuck up and go post somewhere else.

Redfish competently answered The Rabbi, yet The Rabbi refuses to reply. Others also competently answered The Rabbi. Don't need no stinkin' neo-cons no more.

OP fail.

You're a joke, jake.

 

[Moonglow]

Nothing defines our way of life like our use of energy. Right now oil is the worlds most vital interest.

Yes, but only because we have an insane energy policy in this country. We could be energy self sufficient and actually sell to the rest of the world-----but no, because fossil fuels are evil and are destroying the world, causing the seas to rise, crops to die, polar bears to cry, and eskimos to lose their igloos ! of course none of that is true----but you fools believe it to our detriment.

Is that why oil production hit a 40 year high this month???

 

[Mojo2]

Philippines: Nope.

Cuba: Nope.

Hawaii: Yep.

California: Yep.


When someone threatens the actual U.S., including its formally recognized territories/districts, or a country with which we have a border that asks for our support.

OK. The lesson of Afghanistan is that isnt true. We were engaged in Afghanistan. Then we pulled out. Afghanistan literally was shorthand for the other side of the universe that no one cared about. Most people didnt even know where it was.
Then we suffered the biggest attack on US soil since WW2, orchestrated from Afghanistan, that place we abandoned.
So attacks can come from anywhere these days.

so you think we should police the entire world? get involved in every civil war and border dispute? make enemies instead of trading partners? force others to accept our way of life---or else?

How about the lesson of viet nam? 58,000 dead americans and billions of dollars---exactly how did that serve the national interest of the USA?

It stopped or slowed the spread of Communism in S.E. Asia.

Militarily, one thing sticks in my memory is the first deployment of the Cobra helicopter gunship in combat. First helicopter designed to attack and not also transport troops or cargo.

Mobile Air Cavalry was proven as a tactical concept.

And we had figured out the basics of jungle warfare by the end of the war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where was your answer defining what a vital US interest is? All I saw was you putting words in my mouth. Either answer the question and start a dialogue or shut the fuck up and go post somewhere else.

Redfish competently answered The Rabbi, yet The Rabbi refuses to reply. Others also competently answered The Rabbi. Don't need no stinkin' neo-cons no more.

OP fail.

You're a joke, jake.

you moron, you set up a circle trap then ran around the circle and fell into it.

Now answer their questions, because they have answered yours.

Or give up the OP, goof ball.

You are Big Government progressive conservative who wants the BG to support neo-con and social con solutions, yet pretends to be a small government conservative. You are any thing but.

Step off, clown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK. The lesson of Afghanistan is that isnt true. We were engaged in Afghanistan. Then we pulled out. Afghanistan literally was shorthand for the other side of the universe that no one cared about. Most people didnt even know where it was.
Then we suffered the biggest attack on US soil since WW2, orchestrated from Afghanistan, that place we abandoned.
So attacks can come from anywhere these days.

so you think we should police the entire world? get involved in every civil war and border dispute? make enemies instead of trading partners? force others to accept our way of life---or else?

How about the lesson of viet nam? 58,000 dead americans and billions of dollars---exactly how did that serve the national interest of the USA?

It stopped or slowed the spread of Communism in S.E. Asia.

Militarily, one thing sticks in my memory is the first deployment of the Cobra helicopter gunship in combat. First helicopter designed to attack and not also transport troops or cargo.

Mobile Air Cavalry was proven as a tactical concept.

And we had figured out the basics of jungle warfare by the end of the war.

Yup, we won every battle, learned a lot about weaponry and technology, and lost the fucking war. It broke the American people's trust in government after the lies of Johnson and Nixon.

All of Vietnam went red, Cambodia killed 40% of its population, the rest of the subcontinent was terrified for two decades and . . . you call it success.

The war began the end of the Republic, as terrible as parts of it was, into which I was born, that saved civilization from the fascists.

 

[Redfish]

Nothing defines our way of life like our use of energy. Right now oil is the worlds most vital interest.

Yes, but only because we have an insane energy policy in this country. We could be energy self sufficient and actually sell to the rest of the world-----but no, because fossil fuels are evil and are destroying the world, causing the seas to rise, crops to die, polar bears to cry, and eskimos to lose their igloos ! of course none of that is true----but you fools believe it to our detriment.

Well no I think it was the rapid post war increased consumption that caused our demand outstripped our supply of cheap , easily produced, near surface oil, long before there was ever a cohesive energy policy.

we have enough supply to support our demand, but the current idiots in DC are not allowing us to harvest our own resources because of some foolish, unproven, THEORY about climate change caused by man.

 

[Redfish]

Was that a yes or a no?

A little bit of both.

No, because in the first place after the first energy crisis we should have weaned ourselves off foreign sources of oil.

Yes, because self-sufficiency is not the path our government followed. I'm an American Tax-payer and my taxes supported those oil wars.

Do you have any idea what it would cost to "wean ourselves off foreign oil"?

ZERO, the oil and gas companies are ready to go, but obozo has their hands tied.

 

[Redfish]

OK. The lesson of Afghanistan is that isnt true. We were engaged in Afghanistan. Then we pulled out. Afghanistan literally was shorthand for the other side of the universe that no one cared about. Most people didnt even know where it was.
Then we suffered the biggest attack on US soil since WW2, orchestrated from Afghanistan, that place we abandoned.
So attacks can come from anywhere these days.

so you think we should police the entire world? get involved in every civil war and border dispute? make enemies instead of trading partners? force others to accept our way of life---or else?

How about the lesson of viet nam? 58,000 dead americans and billions of dollars---exactly how did that serve the national interest of the USA?

It stopped or slowed the spread of Communism in S.E. Asia.

Militarily, one thing sticks in my memory is the first deployment of the Cobra helicopter gunship in combat. First helicopter designed to attack and not also transport troops or cargo.

Mobile Air Cavalry was proven as a tactical concept.

And we had figured out the basics of jungle warfare by the end of the war.

No, it did not stop the spread of communism. Viet Nam is now 100% communist. We accomplished nothing but the losss of 58,000 americans and billions of dollars. but idiots like you refuse to learn from it.

 

[Redfish]

so you think we should police the entire world? get involved in every civil war and border dispute? make enemies instead of trading partners? force others to accept our way of life---or else?

How about the lesson of viet nam? 58,000 dead americans and billions of dollars---exactly how did that serve the national interest of the USA?

It stopped or slowed the spread of Communism in S.E. Asia.

Militarily, one thing sticks in my memory is the first deployment of the Cobra helicopter gunship in combat. First helicopter designed to attack and not also transport troops or cargo.

Mobile Air Cavalry was proven as a tactical concept.

And we had figured out the basics of jungle warfare by the end of the war.

Yup, we won every battle, learned a lot about weaponry and technology, and lost the fucking war. It broke the American people's trust in government after the lies of Johnson and Nixon.

All of Vietnam went red, Cambodia killed 40% of its population, the rest of the subcontinent was terrified for two decades and . . . you call it success.

The war began the end of the Republic, as terrible as parts of it was, into which I was born, that saved civilization from the fascists.

I usually don't agree with you snake, but I am going to give you a rep for this one.

 

[The Rabbi]

A little bit of both.

No, because in the first place after the first energy crisis we should have weaned ourselves off foreign sources of oil.

Yes, because self-sufficiency is not the path our government followed. I'm an American Tax-payer and my taxes supported those oil wars.

Do you have any idea what it would cost to "wean ourselves off foreign oil"?

ZERO, the oil and gas companies are ready to go, but obozo has their hands tied.

US oil consumption: 18.69 million bbd
US oil production: 9.6 million bbd.
You do the math.