05 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy do so?
The dictators of Saudi Arabia invited US troops into the kingdom under some US pressure. The US left those troops in Saudi Arabia knowing full well that it would cause a backlash against the US. The question isn't whether the US under international law could leave troops in SA (obviously they could), the question is: Why do so? Why continue to su ...[text shortened]... you can also add in supporting Israel's illegal occupation and repression of the Palestinians).
As far as I know their purpose (after the gulf war) was to monitor the "no-fly" zones. The base is out in the desert and the personnel are 80 percent Airforce. These troops are due to be pulled out since there is not much use for them anymore.
bin Laden volunteered to mobilize veterans of the 1979-89 Afghan jihad against Soviet occupation to defend Saudi Arabia against Iraq - but I'm sure he had other goals. The Saudi government declined his offer, preferring to rely instead on the U.S.-led coalition.
I cannot submit a cost-to-benefit analysis of an opinion.
We could pull out and let them all fester...but history has shown isolationism does not work. The problems we are trying to deal with will not magically disappear. In "pay now or pay later" situations the latter is always more costly.
05 Aug 05
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder'A prescription for neverending war in the name of saving face.'
A prescription for neverending war in the name of saving face. It should be obvious that the attempt to impose a government friendly to the West by force in Iraq is an utter failure. Your solution? Keep killing and getting kil ...[text shortened]... ign and the US' time to resign the game in Iraq is long past due.
Exactly.
I know you aren't Bush's fan no.1 so I'll make this brief and
free from conspiracy (best case scenario). Skip to end for
concise version.
He couldn't defend you properly, prefering to be on holiday
in his ranch when important documents like the Phoenix
report were telling him the US would be under attack and
that Arabs were signing up to learn to fly planes but not to
land them?! (apologies if I'm repeating threads).
He conveniently lost all of the major security documents
around the attack and then proceeded to go straight to
war based on poor intelligence and against the UN's advice.
He either wasn't prepared as a commander for this war or
he was willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives for
a trumped up cause.
He can't defend you or conduct your war and yet he was
still voted in again!!
In my eyes it's not a question of saying 'Whoops, we made
a mistake, come on home boys.' This is war and while Bush
is in power, it always will be (and I don't mean Bush Jnr).
While it's a war, you're either on his side or against him.
If you are with him, you need to support the troops achieving
their goals. If you are against him (by way of war) then
he'll probably just lock you up and forget about you.
I was grossly against this war beginning, that's the time to
stand up and shout, now that it's underway I want us to win.
However the time for beginning is still about us, how do we
know he won't start another war?
If you want to do something, think of a way to remove him,
you're the lawyer can the people call for a vote of no confidence?
Thousands more will die unless you stir up the monkey house.
What I'm saying is there's no point attacking the decisions Bush
has made. There is a point to attacking his presidency (without
overthrowing the government).
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse de Nage: "You state that a policy of non-interference in other countries would be regarded as egotistical; ... "
You state that a policy of non-interference in other countries would be regarded as egotistical; by implication, current US involvement is the epitome of selflessness. You're right in saying that the USA is perceived, rightly or wrongly as a nation that puts its own interests first, but that perception has not arisen from any policy of non-interference. Thank you for an excellent example of political double talk.
A policy of extreme non-interference and isolationism which No1 advocates is to be looked upon as egotistical, yes.
A foreign policy which does not criticise for instance the Human Rights in a country, which is also a form of interference, is absolutely unacceptable.
A policy of simply withdrawing from the world stage (militarily and also economically ?) is dangerous because it would create a power vacuum which others would try to fill in such a way that world peace would become seriously endangered.
Leaving the Middle Eastern countries to the Jihadist extremists would not influence the West in any relevant way, according to no1. Besides the unacceptable and despicable indifference towards the fate of the people in those countries (just hand them over to those criminals, who cares ? .... the majority of Americans does not benefit from it.) this is an assumption of grotesque proportions. It is absolutely untrue.
If someone assumes such pertinent untruths and builds his views on them then it becomes impossible to expect opinions of a clear decisive relevance to the matter in hand.
We have to seek cooperation with the moderate forces who are willing to cooperate with us. What is the alternative ?
What does No1 want to achieve with his foreign policy which is based on a conservative isolationism that will get us nowhere ?
Well, he answered that himself: the majority of Americans should benefit from it ......... egotistical ? ..... nationalistic ? .... you tell me.
Many third world countries are not complaining about the US's interventions but about the US's indifference towards their backward economic and cultural situation. They would love to see more intervention by the US, but of course not in a dominating way, but in a cooperative way.
THIS is the change that is necessary in US foreign politics. Tony Blair has convinced Bush that more intervention is necessary in Africa .... of course not in a military way, but in the way I described above. Bush very reluctantly made a step in the direction Blair proposed.
A policy of Maraudian isolationism is absolutely unacceptable in our globalising world. It would be devastating if the US withdrew from the world stage. Many many devastating and long lasting local wars would be the result of such an unresponsible policy. World economy and as a result of that the US's and EU's economy would be seriously and very negatively affected. World peace and peaceful cooperation between the nations would be further away then ever.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo not going to war with a bunch of countries would be a threat to world peace????🙄🙄
Bosse de Nage: "You state that a policy of non-interference in other countries would be regarded as egotistical; ... "
A policy of extreme non-interference and isolationism which No1 advocates is to be looked upon as egotistical, yes.
A foreign policy which does not criticise for instance the Human Rights in a country, which is also a form of interfe ...[text shortened]... . World peace and peaceful cooperation between the nations would be further away then ever.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by xsI am aware of the history, but you are merely kicking the can down the road saying to "enforce the no-fly zones". The US and Britain are the ones who created the "no-fly zones", so you would have to point out some benefit to the "no-fly zones" that was worth the risk to the US. You haven't even tried.
Why do so?
As far as I know their purpose (after the gulf war) was to monitor the "no-fly" zones. The base is out in the desert and the personnel are 80 percent Airforce. These troops are due to be pulled out since there is not much use for them anymore.
bin Laden volunteered to mobilize veterans of the 1979-89 Afghan jihad against Soviet occupation ...[text shortened]... ot magically disappear. In "pay now or pay later" situations the latter is always more costly.
If by "isolationism" you mean an unwillingness by the US to get involved militarily in innumerable conflicts all over the world, I would say that that was the US' policy throughout most of its existence and it worked wonderfully. Again, what "problems are we trying to deal with" that "dealing" with promise any benefit to the vast majority of Americans? What "foreign policy goals" do you think are being pursued and why? Your last two sentences are mere cliches; provide some actual argument to support your conclusions, please.
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou spouting a bunch of questionable assertions as absolute fact does not an argument make. Try actually presenting some reasons for the trite phrases, cliches, spin and propaganda you spew and perhaps a debate could be had, but your simple-minded view of the world ("Good guys" v. "Bad guys"😉 is the main cause for conflict, not the solution.
You are again trying hard NOT to understand things .... and guess what ? You are succeeding ..... again !
05 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
You spouting a bunch of questionable assertions as absolute fact does not an argument make. Try actually presenting some reasons for the trite phrases, cliches, spin and propaganda you spew and perhaps a debate could be had, but your simple-minded view of the world ("Good guys" v. "Bad guys"😉 is the main cause for conflict, not the solution.
😉
08 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI think Sun Tzu's advice to the US and allies would be to give up--they're clearly outnumbered.
(Sun Tzu)
'Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.'
I'm no strategist as you can tell by my chess but I am willing to
accept that we are in a war and we need to treat it as such.
(Suicidal tactics...I'm reminded of the Russians in WW2--some of their attacks consisted of throwing wave after wave of infantry at the Germans until their ammunition ran out. It seems an apt enough comparison. )
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, as you suggest, the change required in US foreign politics is to help other countries through aid and trade and refrain from imposing a partisan agenda on international political and economic relationships. This will in fact eventually benefit the average American. Quite how Bush's hopeless Iraqi adventure is helping to achieve this I can't see.
Many third world countries are not complaining about the US's interventions but about the US's indifference towards their backward economic and cultural situation. They would love to see more intervention by the US, but of course not in a dominating way, but in a cooperative way.
THIS is the change that is necessary in US foreign politics. Tony Blair ha ...[text shortened]... . World peace and peaceful cooperation between the nations would be further away then ever.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, as you suggest, the change required in US foreign politics is to help other countries through aid and trade and refrain from imposing a partisan agenda on international political and economic relationships. This will in fact eventually benefit the average American. Quite how Bush's hopeless Iraqi adventure is helping to achieve this I can't see.
As far as I can see it, the US government saw the Iraqi government as a major threat because Saddam decided to trade oil in Euros instead of US dollars. If more oil-producing countries would decide to go down that road it would seriously endanger the US's economy and the US's role as the only superpower in the world.