Fighting the side effects and not the disease

[MysteryMeat]

I increasingly feel that this is our (US's) current approach to foreign affairs: we stick our nose in someone else's country to promote our own interests, then fight against the side effects and backlash to our original intrusion.

Something tells me deep down that this country hasn't learned anything yet. Had we gone after the original cause of the hatred that spawned 9/11, I truly believe that this world would be a much safer place. The country is too concerned with playing offense to realize that a retraction -- not a bolstering -- of armed forces presence would do much more good than our current position.

I believe this country feels that a retraction would be a retreat, rather than a diplomatic correction of foreign policy.

There's nothing we can do to stop those people from hating us. They are ruled by fear and lied to by their own governments about everything.

Honestly I don't think we're doing enough over there. It's going to take the entire world getting involved and lots and lots of bloodshed before that region will ever see true peace and prosperity. This entire fiasco over there has been a chickenshit half-assed blunder fest that was started for, in my opinion, personal revenge and political grandstanding on Bush's part.

I think that if we're serious about getting a handle on that region we need to be better equipped and much more agressive. I know that nobody is fond of putting our soldier's lives at risk, but if we're going to do the job it needs to be done right. This pussy footing around is pointless and is costing us lives anyway. Otherwise we should just pull the fuck out and leave that area to the barbarians that have ran it into the ground for the past few thousand years.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by -m-4900
There's nothing we can do to stop those people from hating us. They are ruled by fear and lied to by their own governments about everything.

The exact same could be said for Americans.

Honestly I don't think we're doing enough over there. It's going to take the entire world getting involved and lots and lots of bloodshed before that region will ever see true peace and prosperity. This entire fiasco over there has been a chickenshit half-assed blunder fest that was started for, in my opinion, personal revenge and political grandstanding on Bush's part.

I think that if we're serious about getting a handle on that region we need to be better equipped and much more agressive. I know that nobody is fond of putting our soldier's lives at risk, but if we're going to do the job it needs to be done right. This pussy footing around is pointless and is costing us lives anyway. Otherwise we should just pull the fuck out and leave that area to the barbarians that have ran it into the ground for the past few thousand years.

I wonder: why do we need to get a handle on that region? I agree with a separatist POV: if they want to duke it out amongst themselves, let 'em have at it. If those countries ever felt like seriously attacking anyone outside of their current squabbles (rather than defending their country against a foreign occupying force), I believe it'd be right to step in at that point -- and I can bet that'd be a much more winnable war.

A person defending their homeland is much more difficult to fight against than an offensive force.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
The exact same could be said for Americans.

To say that we are ruled in the same way that those people are ruled is absurd. I don't think I should have to elaborate on that.

I wonder: why do we need to get a handle on that region? I agree with a separatist POV: if they want to duke it out amongst themselves, let 'em have at it. If those countries ever felt like seriously attacking anyone outside of their current squabbles (rather than defending their country against a foreign occupying force), I believe it'd be right to step in at that point -- and I can bet that'd be a much more winnable war.

When I use the term "we", I mean the entire planet. WE need to get that region under control. The problems in that area are going to get worse until the world steps in and does something about it. They've been "duking it out" over there since the beginning of recorded history. Mark my word, it's going to take nothing less than a world conflict to purge that place of all the fagetry.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by -m-4900
To say that we are ruled in the same way that those people are ruled is absurd. I don't think I should have to elaborate on that.

Just because we enjoy a comfortable lifestyle here, don't let that blind you to the fact that we do so by making life miserable for many, many other people across the world. There's a reason Americans are hated across the world, and I can assure you: it's not because they're jealous of our 'freedom'. That's PR fodder.

When I use the term "we", I mean the entire planet. WE need to get that region under control. The problems in that area are going to get worse until the world steps in and does something about it. They've been "duking it out" over there since the beginning of recorded history. Mark my word, it's going to take nothing less than a world conflict to purge that place of all the fagetry.

What about all the incredibly stupid killing that goes on in this country? What about our school systems and health systems not getting the monetary support they need, because the money is going into a National Defense system we wouldn't need if we weren't sticking our nose into other country's businesses? For example, Fiscal year 2004 govenment expenditures:
21.7% Social Security
17.4% National Defense
14.1% Income security (unemployment)
11.3% Medicare
3.7% Education and Social Services (note that education gets such a small percentage that it gets rolled in with social services)

In other words, most of the $$ goes to Social Security, next National defense, then unemployment, then healthcare, then a distant way away, education. I'd say this country's priorities are a little out of whack.

[johnny861]

We're too intertwined with the world to just retract into isolationism...


My favorite was when South Africa openly opposed action against Iraq and then later the US threatened to pull military aid and personel from countries it was helping if they did not support the coalition.

South Africa threw a fit saying America had an obligation to assist in its military aid and training...

It's amazing how many countries we support military-wise in regards to training and aid and vice versa with foreign troops in our country as well. Russians, British, Germans, the Irish navy and the list goes on and on...


Same with the FBI. We have agents around the world that help out agencies with new tactics and crime investigative measures and vice versa...


Welcome to globalization... You're a little tardy....

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by johnny861
My favorite was when South Africa openly opposed action against Iraq and then later the US threatened to pull military aid and personel from countries it was helping if they did not support the coalition.

ex·tor·tion n. - Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
ex·tor·tion n. - Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

ex·tort - To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation.

Not for sure how pulling the military out of one of the most powerful countries on the african continent as intimidation, but I suppose I could be wrong. Besides, the South African government just spent billions of rand on German submarines, why we are giving military aid is another issue.


coercion - To bring about by force or threat

Di.plo.ma.cy n. - The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.

Negotiate - To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement.

There's a thin line between diplomatic negotiation and coercion, wouldn't you say, save the force part. We didn't force South Africa to do anything in regards to this Iraq affair.

Now, granted there's good diplomatic moves and bad moves, but in the end, it's all how you spin such things...

[woodyrosen]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
I wonder: why do we need to get a handle on that region? I agree with a separatist POV: if they want to duke it out amongst themselves, let 'em have at it. If those countries ever felt like seriously attacking anyone outside of their current squabbles (rather than defending their country against a foreign occupying force), I believe it'd be right to step in at that point -- and I can bet that'd be a much more winnable war.

I gotta throw in my 2 pennies here. And I say this NOT because I am pro war by any stretch, but because my polish- jewish ancestors would probably want me to, but this kind of thinking was part of what let Hitler gain as much power as he did.

God I never thought I would disagree with someone who was anti war.

[Krash]

Originally posted by woodyrosen
I gotta throw in my 2 pennies here. And I say this NOT because I am pro war by any stretch, but because my polish- jewish ancestors would probably want me to, but this kind of thinking was part of what let Hitler gain as much power as he did.

God I never thought I would disagree with someone who was anti war.

That's a completely different issue. As has been said previously (and ignoring that we supported Saddam), removing Saddam is a reason I would of supported - but it wasn't the reason we were given. The longer that this goes on, however, the more inclined I am to agree with MM and say, arm both sides, let them kill each other - see how quickly peace follows.

Of course, it would take decades - but they've been fighting for decades anyway.

However, as the Israeli's are so much better armed now (again, because of us) it would be a slaughter. And slaughter is unacceptable - which is why I supported going in to Sierra Leone a few years ago, and why we should be doing something about the terrible situation in Nigeria and the Congo right now.

As the saying goes, we've made our bed - now we have to lie in it.

[Adam D]

Politicking over the superficial issues while completely ignoring the root cause of problems is as American as apple pie and baseball.

Historically, politicians respond to everything through a very limited scope of answers that deal with the effects of any given problem, whether it is crime, terrorism, or education. Most of the answers given arrive in partisan opposition of more or less, yes or no, do or don't, on existing policies. How often do you really see politicians proposing brand new responses to issues? Not very often, and the few that do are cast aside as extremists.

You don't even have to look at radical paradigms to find answers to some of these issues (although I would contend that none of these issues will be seriously dealt with until you do). You can find them right within the existing framework. A great deal of the reason why better answers are not proposed is simply because politicians and the money behind them don't want it done that way. Nor do the institutions that support them within the public.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
Had we gone after the original cause of the hatred that spawned 9/11, I truly believe that this world would be a much safer place. The country is too concerned with playing offense to realize that a retraction -- not a bolstering -- of armed forces presence would do much more good than our current position.

I believe this country feels that a retraction would be a retreat, rather than a diplomatic correction of foreign policy.

You oversimplify the reasons that Al-Qaeda attacked us. You seriously think if we just pulled out our military from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain etc... that 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

So we pull everything out of the middle east including business and we get gas where?

You espouse that jealousy of 'freedom' is propaganda, well so is saying that our military presence is what caused us to get attacked. There is massive propoganda being thrown by both sides on this issue.

It's much deeper than that.

While I disagree with this administration on many things when dealing with Iraq.

When it comes to the war on terror:

There is one thing I am certain of, by ignoring the problems caused by terrorists you are doing nothing to prevent it. They aren't going to go away because we decided to play nice. Bin Laden wants to rid the world of all infidels. You think he really wages war on the entire non-muslim world(his definition of muslim) because we have military bases in the middle east? Furthermore this is also something that the US cannot take care of on their own and so far it doesn't look like much of the rest of the world is concerned enough. Let's see what happens when the Eiffel tower gets blown up, or someone flies a plane into the Reichstag.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Element4040
When it comes to the war on terror:

There is one thing I am certain of, by ignoring the problems caused by terrorists you are doing nothing to prevent it. They aren't going to go away because we decided to play nice. Bin Laden wants to rid the world of all infidels. You think he really wages war on the entire non-muslim world(his definition of muslim) because we have military bases in the middle east? Furthermore this is also something that the US cannot take care of on their own and so far it doesn't look like much of the rest of the world is concerned enough. Let's see what happens when the Eiffel tower gets blown up, or someone flies a plane into the Reichstag.

I don't think a lot of the Middle East buys the "let's wipe out all of the infidels in the world" argument. But I do think a lot of people there buy the "let's get the West out of here" argument as a matter of sovereignty. bin Laden and the other terror group leaders I think are no different than anybody else who aspires to power, he just took the route most effective for himself. But there's obviously a lot of people who are willing to accept what he has to say as a better alternative to watching western hegemony invading their part of the world.

The reason most of the rest of the world is unconcerned is because middle eastern terrorists are not attack Ecuador or Zaire. The attacks have been focused on those states that are involved in the Middle East. So I think it's at very least questionable that al Qaida is immediately concerned with wiping out the rest of the world. However they do seem very concerned with pushing those involved states out of the middle east.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by Adam D
I don't think a lot of the Middle East buys the "let's wipe out all of the infidels in the world" argument. But I do think a lot of people there buy the "let's get the West out of here" argument as a matter of sovereignty.

I agree, I am only talking about Al-Qaeda's ideals in my post. I know the people of the Middle East do not wish to rid the world of "Infidels".

bin Laden and the other terror group leaders I think are no different than anybody else who aspires to power, he just took the route most effective for himself.

Certainly he like any other leader plays of what 'seems' important to them. He plays off the dislike of the West and twists it to fit his ideals. I just felt like pointing out that the line of thinking that we should do 'nothing' in retaliation to Al-Qaeda is something I personally strongly disagree with.

I know that all the Neo-Con talk show hosts like to beat you over the head with the talk of "the only thing they understand is force". I however agree that doing nothing shows weakness and basically sends the message that if you hurt us bad enough we will do what you want. Bin Laden used the incedent in Somalia in many speeches to his followers. He used it as a sign of weakness. This situation is obviously a catch 22 because either way you strengthen his recruiting. But I would rather "fight back" and show them what they are dealing with than "do nothing" and just wait for the next strike.