Black Hawk Down and American GIs

The Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | 03/2002 | Jacob G. Hornberger

[Demidog]

So if you think that this article is "crapola", please give us your expert opinion on what in the world we were doing in Somolia. How were you personally being helped? Use lots of paper. Show us your work.

[Demidog]

If I take off my shoes, I can probably count them all. How many American citizens have they saved because of their brave sacrafices? I would say its in the thousands, if not the millions.

Really? Who were we saved from?

[Demidog]

The American presence in Europe in WWI caused WWII?

I'm not sure that this was the assertion. However, it was Churchill himself that said if it weren't for our involvement in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler would never have come to power. And he is not the only one to have mentioned that fact. WWII was predicted by an English economist who said that if Versailles was enforced, it would bring about another war. He was absolutely correct and WWII was precipitated by the French marching into Germany in order to physically demand payments that were impossible for the Germans to make.

The invasion of France by Hitler was a direct retribution for that act. Perhaps it is you who needs to come to grips with the actual historical record rather than your imigination.

[johniegrad]

In your view, when is the use of military force warranted against a foreign sovereign?

[Demidog]

In your view, when is the use of military force warranted against a foreign sovereign?

Only when they pose an eminant threat against the U.S.

[johniegrad]

Only when they pose an eminant threat against the U.S.

Actually, the term is "imminent threat". Nonetheless, can you clarify what constitutes an imminent threat? How would you define it and who would determine it?

[abraxas_sandiego]

BOOYAAA!!

[Demidog]

Forces on the Mexican or Canadian border. Forces on either seabord. Forces on the border of Alaska. Forces inbound to Hawaii. Missiles fired from any nation in an attempt to attack the U.S.

That about covers it. Any of those is an act of war and merit a swift and deadly response.

It's easy to figure out if you just imagine what course of action you are allowed to take when you are yourself threatened. When are you as an individual allowed to use deadly force?

[sheltonmac]

It should be pointed out that a threat to the U.S. is not the same thing as a threat to "U.S. interests." Saddam Hussein hardly posed a threat to the U.S. directly but his invasion of Kuwait threatened-- at least according to the federal government-- U.S. interests. In my opinion, it's this loose definition of "U.S. interests" that has put us in the position we are today. If we want to be consistent, perhaps we should change the soldier's oath to read, "I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the rights of all citizens of the world, and to follow all orders given by my commander in chief, no matter how unconstitutional those order may be..."

[Demidog]

It should be pointed out that a threat to the U.S. is not the same thing as a threat to "U.S. interests."

Exactly right.

According to the warmongers, anything is cause for an attack as long as the country in question is not likely to inflict any real damage.

China, for instance, has one of the most egregious human rights violation records on the planet but for some bizarre reason, we haven't invaded. Well not so bizarre. We'd likely send thousands upon thousands of soldiers to "die for our freedoms" and the public wouldn't stand for that.

This is of course the very same reason our police departments will disarm the poor in our nation's ghettos and then send in a bunch of thugs to "keep the peace."

Those of us who are lucky enough not to live in Watts or Cook county, are relatively free from police intrusions or weapons confiscations. After we've been thoroughly conditioned and taxed, the entire country will be a ghetto ruled by thugs acting under color of law. Now that just occcurs amongst those not financially prepared to weave their way in and out of the courts as a plaintiff.

[johniegrad]

I think most Americans would find your thresholds for justifying military intervention too high. That was the reason for asking you who would decide when to launch the military. In your scenarios, you have waited too long to intervene. There may be early methods of intervention that would be less risky for everyone involved than waiting to be attacked. I also don't think that drawing an analogy to personal protection is legitimate. We have a body of laws that have developed around self-defense based on our own history and jurisprudence. Not everyone in the world will agree to the standards we would hold overselves to. I don't believe that personal rights are the same as international rights and I don't think our ideas on freedom translate very well to nations that don't concur with our ideals.

For discussion purposes, however, you do have an advantage in arguing that position. It is basically an untestable hypothesis since no one with those views will ever be elected to a position to implement them. Therefore, it is easy to argue about it being an idealistic position without ever running the risk of being disproven.

[kidd]

Reply #21: (its Somalia, not Somolia)I've never agreed that this was the right use of the military. This article is crapola because it gets the history wrong: "President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country" is wrong. Bush Sr made this order. And this first phase of the Somalian operation went smoothly. Then Clinton came into office and engaged the military in nation building. During this second phase is when most of the American lives were lost. I don't believe that either Phase I or II use of the military was right. The article just gets its history wrong - thats why its garbage: revisionism as an attack on the military at the same time trying to (incorrectly) portray Clinton as a hero.

Reply #22: Who were we saved from? Duh.

Reply #23: What assertion? The article directly states: U.S. intervention in World War I actually contributed to the conditions of chaos and instability that gave rise to Adolf Hitler and World War II as well as to the rise of the Soviet Union and the threat of international communism. US intervention ended a stalemate that had been going on for three years. In that sense, the US ended the ongoing "chaos and instability". It was a lack of US involvement, and European "ostrich-diplomacy" that led to WWII. The Russian revolution took place two months before the United States declared war, so communism was already on the rise. This article is revisionist garbage.

[motexva]

Afghanistan was harboring the architect of 9/11. We asked the Taliban to give him up. They refused. We removed the Taliban from power. We continue to search Afghanistan for bin Laden and his cronies. When we have captured/killed them all we will leave. It's pretty easy, surprised you don't get it. You can pretty it up, call them terrorists or Islamic fanatics, but all al Queda is a transnational criminal organization. It must be destroyed. In the course of the US' investigation/eradication, some nation-states may seek to impede us. If they do, they will be blasted out of the way. Bush has outlined this policy fairly clearly and simply. Seems like only the "peace at all costs" group of leftos don't get it - I didn't think you were a member of that clique but I guess you are.

Doesn't really matter - there's so few of your ilk, you guys have all the prestige and power of a Flat Earth Society.

[Demidog]

There may be early methods of intervention that would be less risky for everyone involved than waiting to be attacked.

I never said you must wait until attacked. I said immenant threat (spelling errors notwithstanding).

The President under the constitution was always given the leeway to act when such a threat was present even before an attack occurred. It can't even be rationally argued that Somolia posed a threat to the US nor can it be argued that any nation this century apart from Japan has posed such a threat.

[kidd]

China, for instance, has one of the most egregious human rights violation records on the planet but for some bizarre reason, we haven't invaded

Do you believe that human rights violations is a good basis for military intervention?

[johniegrad]

Somalia - agreed.

Al-Queda?

[Demidog]

It was a lack of US involvement, and European "ostrich-diplomacy" that led to WWII.

You asserted that the author of this piece stated that US presence is what caused WWII. This is not what he stated as evidenced by your quote. That you will not concede the point proves that you are being disengenuous. Furthermore, your assertion that it was Chamberlain's fault that WWII occurred along with American resistence to get involved ignores all of the history leading up to WWII including the treaty of Versailles. You cannot pick out a small piece of history and argue that it makes your point while refusing to look at the rest.

[WyCoKsRepublican]

There's a big difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan. I'm reminded of that every time I see the clips of the airliners crashing into our building killing thousands. We have no choice and we are doing it right. We have the right President surrounded by the right people making sound decisions. Thank God we don't have Al Gore in charge. As for our exit strategy, it will unfold. Remember, President Bush made it clear in the beginning that this will not be a "made for TV" prime time war.

[Demidog]

This article is crapola because it gets the history wrong: "President Clinton ordered them to help feed people who were starving to death in that country" is wrong.

Does the fact that this statement doesn't exist in the article bother you? It should. It is starting to look like you are not a truthful person.

[kidd]

nor can it be argued that any nation this century apart from Japan has posed such a threat

Other than a direct attack on American citizens on American soil, the gruesome murder of an American reporter and threats to unleash nuclear and chemical weapons on America, those Al Qaeda guys and their supporters in other countries are really pretty nice people, huh?