Is the US now a paper tiger?

[Antilogic]

Two major points here:

A) North Korea: I simplified things a little, I know that. I do believe Clinton should have insured NK was not developing weapons in the meantime while the treaty was in effect...and, if he didn't, I would have hoped there would at least be UN weapons inspectors. That didn't happen, and now the situation is even worse. I believe Clinton handled this better than Bush, who has only antagonized and accelerated the program. You can at least agree Bush hasn't helped the situation, no?

B) Vietnam: It's funny, but if you actually read accounts, the US pretty much won a draw in Vietnam. There was a cease-fire signed by the Americans and North Vietnamese with a North and South Vietnam existing, much like the Korean situation. Then, when the US left, the North Vietnamese invaded the South and won. The US didn't have the gut to go over there again, especially because of a certain scandal that was distracting them... (Nixon, Watergate)

Has anyone read the agreements? One of the terms for the return of all the US prisoners of war was that the USS New Jersey (I think--it was an Iowa-class battleship) had to be moved because all it did was sit on the North Vietnamese coast and bombard them constantly. And every single attack by the North Vietnamese amounted to a dented door on the ship.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

The problem is that America's biggest strengths are naval and air power, but you cannot hold territory with either of those.

Leaders should listen to their army generals, not the inflated promises of air force generals. They should have listened to Shinseki...

 

[Antilogic]

It's kind of funny, but does anyone remember what Gen. Shinseki said two or three years ago, and the Bush administration laughed at him? Now, it seems that he is being proven right...and they are changing their tune to exactly what he said before.

I know hindsight is 20/20, but in this case, I think the Bush administration should have weighed their army generals' (especially Shinseki) more heavily in their decisions. Our foresight could have been much better.

 

[MamboJoel]

Cool to hear 2003 war supporters understand the difference between occupation and invasion. I remember a time when just opening such a debate was unpatriotic or supporting terrorists etc...
The USA are not a paper tiger at all, it is able to defeat military defeat most powers in the world. Are they capable of assuming the entire responsibility of such things ? Should they engage in such thing without legitimacy ?

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

So is Russia still a superpower? I'm not saying the US is now an insignificant country but if we can't impose our will then where is the power? As I said before, destroying things is not in our interest. We benifit most from world stability because we are on top economically. Destroying things does not help us. Stabilizing unstable oil rich countries and making them friendly would help but we obviously cannot do that. So what good are all the laser guided bombs and nukes?

Fear garners complacency. The threat of total obliteration brings forth a willingness to surrender. If Russia were to play the nuclear card more often, I have a feeling it would be more powerful.

 

[Trajan12]

Cool to hear 2003 war supporters understand the difference between occupation and invasion. I remember a time when just opening such a debate was unpatriotic or supporting terrorists etc...
The USA are not a paper tiger at all, it is able to defeat military defeat ALL powers in the world. Are they capable of assuming the entire responsibility of such things ? Should they engage in such thing without legitimacy ?

Just a slight correction.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Just a slight correction.

But probably not all at the same time.

 

[Trajan12]

But probably not all at the same time.

Ok then.

Originally Posted by MamboJoel
Cool to hear 2003 war supporters understand the difference between occupation and invasion. I remember a time when just opening such a debate was unpatriotic or supporting terrorists etc...
The USA are not a paper tiger at all, it is able to defeat military defeat ANY power in the world. Are they capable of assuming the entire responsibility of such things ? Should they engage in such thing without legitimacy ?

That work?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Ok then.

That work?

Works for me!

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

That work?

Depends on your definition of "defeat".

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Funny how the debate is turning out:
Q -Is the US now a paper tiger?
A -No, the US Army is very strong!
Q -Yes, but have the war in Iraq reduced our ability to act on the world stage?
A -No, the US Army is very strong!

I agree with the OP. The result of the actions of the US Gov is that it's nearly impossible for USA to act as the power it want to be, on other issues that might be of great concern for Americans or their friends and allies in other parts of the world.

I also agree with MobBoss' ( ) statement about staying the course. Besides that's the only way to save face now. This of course means pumping in billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq and its infrastructure.

 

[Antilogic]

I also agree with MobBoss' ( ) statement about staying the course. Besides that's the only way to save face now. This of course means pumping in billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq and its infrastructure.

Isn't it bemusing that the fiscally conservative party, the one that's supposed to understand economics, doesn't know what a sunk cost is? The fact is, what you have already invested doesn't matter. The question is what will happen if the troops withdraw and if the troops stay for another 10 years. Or 20. The other question is, is it worth it to pump billions into Iraq to build up the infrastructure again? It's not "well, we already spent 300 billion...we have to spend another 300 billion to get it done".

People thought we had to stay in Vietnam as long as possible, just to save face, although there were voices that said "hey, this is BS...maybe we shouldn't be doing these things..."