Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: US foreign policies
Posted By: julian, on host
Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 00:24:39
In Reply To: Re: US foreign policies posted by Nyperold on Monday, September 24, 2001, at 15:24:07:

> > > How are we supposed to act against despots if we don;t use military action?
> >
> > What happened to diplomatic action?
> Umm... Hello? A guy who sends men to BLOW PEOPLE UP is not likely to be swayed by diplomacy. One wonders if you've even read the rest of the posts on the subject.

Are we talking Saddam, the Talibans, bin Laden, or just guys/despots in general? There are significant differences in the degree to which the above can be applied to these cases.

A guy may be a maniac (or whatever the term is), but he bombs for a reason. Terrorists know exactly why and what they are bombing. If you take away his reason, he (1) won't do it, or (2) his support - which is a practical/logistic necessary - disappears. It is civilized practise to try to solve a conflict by diplomatic means, only using war as a last resort. If nothing else, any maniac who has sense enough to organize a terrorist attack can be bought, if you really want to. The question is whether you are willing to pay. If not, you go to war.

I think diplomacy was doing just fine in the present case until the soldiers barged in. But what do I know...

> > > Perhaps Iraq should just be allowed to do as it pleases? This is NOT just American embargoes, this is an internationally sanctioned embargo. So this is not an example of US foreign policy, but world policy against a dictator who will hopefully be shot before this whole mess is over.
> >
> > Refresh my mind: Why was Saddam not killed at the end of the Gulf War? Was it because The American President decided that any alternative would be worse, as I have heard?
> Oil, oil, oil. We try to take them out; they shut off the oil valve, and (mode=sarcasm)of course, a few oppressed people who will die anyway if we do nothing isn't near as important as whether we can drive to our preferred sports games.(/mode)

Enough said.

> [snipping bits I'm not responding to, for now]
> > Why is arms supply vital to supporting democracy?
> > Democracy is characterized by openness, armament ultimately results in closing.
> Lessee... Try this. There are people who want to rule with military force. No arms, and those people take over. Worse than a democracy with arms, wouldn't you say?

I tried cooking up a good answer to this, but I think I'll just admit that my inital statement was simplistic and leave it at that.

> > I personally think that there is a great deal of hypocracy involved in US (in particular - many other countries in general) policy towards China. Some might even say that the US supports China just as much as it does Israel.
> It's possible, but sad if true.

I haven't the faintest of clues, since I generally don't really trust journalists or politicians. In such a case, I tend to be a cynic and pessimist. At least as long as it's only my personal opinion.

> > julian
> Nyperold

I think this should teach me not to cut this type of posts too short. I think I was in a bad mood.


Replies To This Message