America has had it!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Athelwulf, Jan 12, 2007.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Perhaps you should try to understand why the world is so concerned about US policy?

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And yet when I ask you pointedly about "US foreign policy", you can't even tell me what it is!

    Sam, please tell me what US foreign policies you don't like or that you think cause so much problems in the world. What are those official US policies???

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    If you read my previous post, you can get the general idea. Its rather confusing for us non-Americans. Perhaps it makes sense to you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, Sam, those were just things that occured in history ....that's NOT any kind of foreign policy. Foreign policy is set and determined by the US president and the congress, thus is actually something, laws or approved actions or approved viewpoints, that you should be able to point out to us all.

    A few examples of past history is NOT foreign policy! If it were, what does that say about India policies?? If we took past Indian history as policy, things would be bleak, indeed, in India!

    Baron Max
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    SanCDkey is able to speak for her self, but I do not understand what is your doubt as in post 41 she already gave a long list of things, mainly done by CIA, that I too think have been very destructive to the US's long term interests.

    CIA is too short sighted. For example, they and Bush etc toppled the elected government in Pakistan and replaced it (as is their usual practice) with a military dictator. (These dictators need old US equipment and can be kept happy for a few years by few tanks and planes to play with etc, but usually "get too big to take orders" and then CIA must go in again and kill them. (If they are not wise enough to accept a small fortune and villa near Paris, as "Papa Dock," Diem's wife (Vietnam dictator) and many others have. Penochet got eight deposits in the Riggs National Bank in DC, each just under one million to not trigger automatic investigations, etc. The Shaw of Iran got a nice retirement in Egypt and free trips to US for his medical problems. etc. etc. etc. - The list is too long (even limited to the small fraction of known cases) for me to mention all.

    The latest example is less than a month old. US has returned the war lords to power in Somali with direct attack on the Islamic government that was popular because of the simple project (new sewers, wells, etc.) and ending corruption collection of "taxes" at road intersections by the war lords, however most of the effort was indirect via the Ethiopian forces. Somalis have hated the Ethiopians for centuries and greatly resent the current Ethiopian occupation. - It will probably work to US advantage for many months, but in the long run the Somali's will remember that it was the US who put the war lords back in power, reinstated the road intersection taxes and stopped the construction of sewers and wells etc.

    Recall also, that OSB and Saddam were both once the CIA's "darlings", with stinger missiles going to OSB and poision gas (at least the expertize of handelling and making) + Iranian troop location (from US satellite photos) going to Saddam.

    I have posted it many times, but again:

    IMHO: No agency, of any government, has damaged the long term interest of the US as much as the CIA has.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2007
  9. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Sam, good job with Baron, even though he's much too thick to understand.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Also, I must wonder: From what I've read in this thread, why is it the dissenters, for the most part, only have "Fucktard peaceniks!" to say? As if being opposed to violence and warfare and in favor of peaceful resolution was a bad thing. Buh?
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Well apparently anyone who wants peace is not a true blue American or at least thats how the intellectuals who "bring democracy" with preemptive strikes define it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, point out when there has ever been a "peaceful resolution" for any major international conflict. If "peaceful resolution" is so workable, then there must be hundreds of prime examples throughout history. Please provide some of that evidence of "peaceful resolution".

    Baron Max
     
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Everyone is in favor of peace. Some of us simply do not believe running from a fight we started is in our best interest or that it would result in "peace". You can go on all day about Bush lied or whatever, but right now Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Running is the worst possible thing we could do.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Anyone who believes that there can be a military solution in Iraqi is speaking from a position of monumental ignorance. There cannot. The Middle East is not Europe. 600 years of Ottoman rule did not erase their ethnic tribalism. They are a closed community with deep roots in their place of origin and no respect for international boundaries, nor do they recognise the right of anyone other than their own leaders to tell them what to do.

    This whole conflict is a classic mistake which if continued will bankrupt the US but still not resolve the problem, instead creating more and more enemies with a network that the US can neither understand nor overwhelm.
     
  14. mabufo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    Could it be, maybe, that they just don't agree with what you agree with?
     
  15. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    So it's impossible to create a government that can maintain control in Iraq? Even if this is so, we need to hand around for a while to keep an eye on Iran, if nothing else. We still have troops in Germany and Japan, don't we? Why not save some money by pulling out of them? I'd say they're pretty well pacified. Remember, Germany was occupied by a quarter of a million US soldiers for decades. This didn't bankrupt us, why should Iraq?
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Think Islamofascism. Think war on terror. Think suicide bombers.

    Think:
    al-Qaeda
    Taliban
    Ba'athist Iraq
    Ba'ath Loyalists
    Iraqi insurgency
    Hezbollah
    Waziristan
    Islamic Courts Union
    Mahdi Army
    Jemaah Islamiyah
    Abu Sayyaf

    Think terrorism, oil and the dollar. Think Israel-Palestine. Think World War III.

    And don't confuse the Middle East with Japan or Germany. The ME is a community based on tribalism. They live by a different code of conduct. Revenge and honor. With memories extending for centuries.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2007
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Japan didn't live by a code of honor and revenge? Give me a break. We beat them into submission, nuked them, and occupied them for decades. That's what it takes to beat a society based on honor and revenge. One thing they don't respect is cowardice and running from a fight. That will invite contempt and distain.

    PS Is that the first time you've said "Islamofascist"?
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I'm talking about branding and the effect it has of uniting enemies, like the "Red menace" did in the Cold War.

    Again, don't confuse the ME with Japan. One important difference. Japan had an Emperor who they considered God and would obey. Muslims have no religious or political affinities or obligations. One dead leader is replaced by another. And another. And another.

    And the Japanese had a feeling of country and state which the ME does not. What is has is a range of loyalties that extend at different levels beginning from family, community, tribe, religious sect to the religion itself. Beginning with the 2 digit and all the way to the billion. And the "War on Terror" has already made all the lines fuzzy.

    There is no comparison.
     
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    samcdkey, you need to understand the code of bushido, Honor and Revenge are a large part of it, to insult a Samurai would get you killed, unless you were very good at defending your self. Some of the greatest wars in Japan's internal history were about Revenging Violated Honor.

    They were raised on this kind of legend.

    The 47 Ronin:
    The story begins in feudal Japan in December of 1701, when warrior leader Lord Asano is tricked into committing Hara-Kiri. Oishi, Asano's loyal clansman, holds the wicked Lord Kira responsible. 14 months after Arano's death, Oishi assembles 47 loyal Ronin (samurai) to exact vengeance.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Would they go against the Emperor?
     
  21. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    OK. These seem like reasons not to have invaded in the first place. But wouldn't running away from a battle when fighting a group that lives by honor and revenge invite contempt and further attacks?
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Diplomacy is the art of giving in without appearing to do so.

    The best thing the US can do right now is put it to the people of the ME who will not be seen as "invaders" but rather as familiar enemies with familiar tactics. Condi's trip to the ME to involve the Arab states tells me that this matter appears to be under consideration.

    They must involve the Arab countries, Iran and Syria and let them resolve the issue. There is simply no other way to end this crisis. Americans are too unpopular to be seen as anything but occupiers.

    Even then, there will be repercussions, but they'll be better than what the current blundering around is creating. The best way to avoid future crises is to recognise that they are going to become more fundamentalist now and stop attempting to force change. Rather promote education and social reform by exporting culture and encouraging economic growth. Support democratic regimes even if means paying more for the oil. Nothing wins over people like economic prosperity.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2007
  23. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    The only purpose of government is defense. And, that is as big as government should ever be.

    Therefore, no conservative/libertarian would consider defense as big government. Because they would understand that it is only role of the government.

    That's right, its not welfare, social security, or any social programs. It is simply defense.

    Once you understand that, then maybe we can start having some serious conversation on sciforums. Until that day, the discussion will continue to be boring and typical marxist claptrap.

    And, whether you choose to see it or not. There is an enemy.
     

Share This Page