Off he goes, no one here is down playing or ignoring the complexity of these issues. The entire notion of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" is a fraud and that's exactly the type of policies, actions and results we have shown in the 20th and 21st Century in regards to foreign policy and global issues such as terrorism and similar. The only thing we've done in this timeframe that proved to work is multilateral non-nuclear weapons agreements and since this brief step, we have underminded any type of longterm multilateral efforts to create a long lasting peace and justice in the world. And if you'd like to argue the validity of that statement, please read US History and foreign policy in South and Central America, the Middle East, SouthEast Asia and several other regions of the world. To make a brief synopsis, between the end of WW2 and 2009, the US has backed more human rights abusers, dictators, and underminded democracy, freedom, justice and economic well-being of so many nations and people, its beyond comparison to any "good" we have done by lightyears. In this timeframe, we went from a power to a superpower and became the richest most powerful nation the world has ever seen and history and you know what we did with this power and wealth? Set our place to continue our well-being and growth (economically and militarily) while foresaking everything our nation was founded upon in the process. We are now seeing the results of these issues, largest separation of wealth since the turn of the century during robberbarons; and the current generation will be the first to have less and be worse off than any generation since WW2. Globally, we see much of the same but on larger scales - greater poverty and similar issues. Is it all our fault, absolutely not, but anyone would be biased and lying to not admit we've had a large hand in the process and sometimes directly. Do all of these problems have remedies? Of course, but we're not willing to address them because they require changing how we live, act and deal with the world, globally and locally. Our mantra has become something along the lines of: when you have a big hammer, all the worlds problems start to look like nails", and this doesn't fix the problems or help the world, its further distorts it. Although I don't agree with all of the points originally posted on how to address terrorism and similar by the original poster, the underlaying theme is we can't continue acting in the same manner that help us create or get into the problem into the first place to solve them.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
US foreign policy is not as complicated as a lot of people think.
Anyone can do this. Its really very simple. Pick a country the US has been involved with in past, post WWII. Examine the result of policy. Weigh stated objectives vs the outcome. details may be complex, but that's not the issue here.
Do this 2 dozen times, as i have done (despite what you think, the TV is not my source). and i spend more than a half hour a day on this.
When the stated objectives don't match the outcome, or are rarely met, but the methods and outcomes are consistent....1 logical conclusion remains. That the stated objectives are not the actual objectives, that the result is what they've were trying to achieve all along.
We have dozens of examples of this. See US involvement in South America, to start. There's always a pretext-fighting communism or drugs or terrorists-....but the outcomes are remarkably similar (given stated objectives). What's the saying Bush fucked up "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." how about 30 times? or 40? that's about how many interventions and invasions and black ops we have to go from. Ann if you continue to buy the Washington pretext regarding foreign policy, you are a fool. You can look at the fact that 1-the US got involved and 2 an environment emerged that has been remarkably consistent over the years. Iraq is sliding into that mold perfectly. Resources are a top priority, as is control over the government. The US spent more on a Nicaraguan election one year than both the dems and republicans at home, combined. so we know what they are up to. Its not nuclear physics or something similar, anyone can do an institutional analysis of the US government, if you care to spend some time researching (which I have done)
so call me what you will, (aside from naive and uninformed) at least i've offered solutions. which by no means are concrete, but that's the point of the thread. instead of personal attacks lets deal with the issues, I don't know everything, or pretend to, fuck that's the point of this forum isn't it? to learn about shit like this. its why i come here. (ok and to point out that jlew is wrong about everything, aside from that though, to learn.)
Issues, stick to the issues.
EDit:Five you are right on with all of that, except the part about me being wrong on the solutions
US foreign policy is not as complicated as a lot of people think.
...
By complicated... I meant to say each intervention/intrusion we make are unique and carry a different set of conditions, such as language, culture, religious aspects, customs, etc... and there is not a generic template that covers all. What worked in Germany will not work in Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran, etc... Each one has to be studied and understood... but, we always seem to think the gun is the only way to go. We can make people do what we want them to do as long as we've got a gun pointed in their face... but, we have to be complete idiots if we think pointing a gun at them will force them to be our friend.
Our basic Foriegn Policy is to pour money and weapons into a place to buy the leader du jour... which works in the short term (reference: Iraq in the 1980s, for example). In Iraq's case... it worked. We fed Saddam Hussein to buffer the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran... which he did. Look how that one panned out for us in the long run. Not too smart, doncha think?
And i agree... we need to STOP our Foriegn Policy that goes to other nations with our best interests at the forefront. If we went with their best interests in mind... they, being the people, not the power hungry leaders... then, maybe we wouldn't end up in their crosshairs. Their governments don't openly hate us (probably because we are making them rich and powerful), their people hate us.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
If we went with their best interests in mind... they, being the people, not the power hungry leaders... then, maybe we wouldn't end up in their crosshairs. Their governments don't openly hate us (probably because we are making them rich and powerful), their people hate us.
I agree with the idea here, but not the implied notion that we even have the right to go in at all.
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Anyone can do this. Its really very simple. Pick a country the US has been involved with in past, post WWII. Examine the result of policy. Weigh stated objectives vs the outcome. details may be complex, but that's not the issue here.
Do this 2 dozen times, as i have done (despite what you think, the TV is not my source). and i spend more than a half hour a day on this.
When the stated objectives don't match the outcome, or are rarely met, but the methods and outcomes are consistent....1 logical conclusion remains. That the stated objectives are not the actual objectives, that the result is what they've were trying to achieve all along.
We have dozens of examples of this. See US involvement in South America, to start. There's always a pretext-fighting communism or drugs or terrorists-....but the outcomes are remarkably similar (given stated objectives). What's the saying Bush fucked up "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." how about 30 times? or 40? that's about how many interventions and invasions and black ops we have to go from. Ann if you continue to buy the Washington pretext regarding foreign policy, you are a fool. You can look at the fact that 1-the US got involved and 2 an environment emerged that has been remarkably consistent over the years. Iraq is sliding into that mold perfectly. Resources are a top priority, as is control over the government. The US spent more on a Nicaraguan election one year than both the dems and republicans at home, combined. so we know what they are up to. Its not nuclear physics or something similar, anyone can do an institutional analysis of the US government, if you care to spend some time researching (which I have done)
so call me what you will, (aside from naive and uninformed) at least i've offered solutions. which by no means are concrete, but that's the point of the thread. instead of personal attacks lets deal with the issues, I don't know everything, or pretend to, fuck that's the point of this forum isn't it? to learn about shit like this. its why i come here. (ok and to point out that jlew is wrong about everything, aside from that though, to learn.)
Issues, stick to the issues.
EDit:Five you are right on with all of that, except the part about me being wrong on the solutions
By complicated... I meant to say each intervention/intrusion we make are unique and carry a different set of conditions, such as language, culture, religious aspects, customs, etc... and there is not a generic template that covers all. What worked in Germany will not work in Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran, etc... Each one has to be studied and understood... but, we always seem to think the gun is the only way to go. We can make people do what we want them to do as long as we've got a gun pointed in their face... but, we have to be complete idiots if we think pointing a gun at them will force them to be our friend.
Our basic Foriegn Policy is to pour money and weapons into a place to buy the leader du jour... which works in the short term (reference: Iraq in the 1980s, for example). In Iraq's case... it worked. We fed Saddam Hussein to buffer the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran... which he did. Look how that one panned out for us in the long run. Not too smart, doncha think?
And i agree... we need to STOP our Foriegn Policy that goes to other nations with our best interests at the forefront. If we went with their best interests in mind... they, being the people, not the power hungry leaders... then, maybe we wouldn't end up in their crosshairs. Their governments don't openly hate us (probably because we are making them rich and powerful), their people hate us.
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree with the idea here, but not the implied notion that we even have the right to go in at all.