SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: michael97123 who wrote (111183)8/12/2003 10:59:43 PM
From: marcos  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I think that US military might can be 'a force for good in the world', and in many cases it has been .... Afghanistan for instance, that was righteous pursuit of criminals, it had to be done, and for the most part it was done well, meaning done surgically with regard for lives of non-combatants .... i do have some quibbles on the US doctrine of overwhelming firepower combined with a certain trigger-happiness, these are a deadly combination, often for allies or their own men .... but overall, it sure could have been done worse

There are other examples, wwii of course .... Korea, the alternatives to that action were worse than inaction, since Mao and Stalin were truly territorially ambitious at the time .... the former Yugoslavia, what a mind-bender that place is, so complex, but a lot of the actions by US and allies were productive to the extent they could be

Can't leave Iraq out of it, that's the reality of the day and it's a prime example of US military might being used to destructive end, it was absolutely a mistake to go in there in that fashion, to try to bully and bribe others into going along with that particular plan, to fail at the bullying and the bribing, and then to roll your tanks in anyway .... so what do you have now, you've got an occupation of twenty-seven millions iraqis .... we told you, but you wouldn't listen ..... this is What Not To Do, michael, to fail to listen

Back here - #reply-19203149 - Michael thought i was kidding when i said 'thou shalt not go to war without the canucks', and i was sort of saying it tongue in cheek, but it was truth told in jest ..... think about it, what do you get when you start up your own wars without us, you get problems .... Viet Nam, we told you and we told you, leave those people independent, as one of the three members of the Tripartite commission [and the representative of 'the west' thereon, i might add] we told Eisenhower to permit the promised elections of 1956, because they were after all promised, but Ike wouldn't listen ...... same year he did listen to Mike Pearson on the Suez matter, so Ike wasn't a total screwup, but he did help set up a situation where you went to war without the canucks, and you must never do that, mon ami

When you cannot sell us on your plan for a war, then look to the quality of that plan.

It is reasonable to lump us with the europeans in this respect, to an extent ... that would apply to México as well, our attitudes to foreign affairs are not far apart ..... but we are americanos too, and each nation independent with its own mind, in a way that the europeos are no longer, personally i'd rather be lumped with the kiwis and the costarriqueños

it's quite alright 'to put a stick in canadas eye', we do that ourselves all the time, we simply do not relate to our nationality the way you do to yours .... there are many valid criticisms of our foreign policy, the recent Liberals have let canadian diplomacy wither to nothing, along with our military .... a few years ago we didn't need any help to clean up the coast of Europe, and players around the world listened to us as well as spoke at us .... this has been permitted to shrivel, and it's a bad thing, especially when the europeos are doing it too, it makes a vacuum into which demented world domination projects like this PNAC group can fester their evils .... we're a nation of thirty millions educated rich people, not as rich as US nationals but far from poor, we're rich enough to have a responsibility, certainly rich enough to have a lot to lose

We should have two full strength regiments minimum of hearts-and-minds commandos, with construction and education specialties, language capabilities, and liaison with the mounties possibly .... units able to go into a place like Afghanistan and do whatever it takes, to learn on the fly ... people need jobs, well maybe they just need fifty loonies venture capital to set up a business or buy seed or something, loan it to them on strict conditions like that Grameen Bank does, that sort of thing works if you do it right .... but above all, teach the children something of the world outside, of their own heritage too, give them something of which to be proud, something to gain, also something to lose ..... invite as many of their young people as possible to study in Canada, give them Canada Council grants if necessary, lol [that's a canehjun joke]

We do things like this, so do the europeos, but none of us do enough of it, so there is a hole left for the Big Hammer, that is always looking for a nail .... i don't propose this hearts-and-minds stuff in place of armed force, by the way, rather augmented by armed force, we definitely need a highly mobile hard striking military to get the hearts and minds folk an entry, and then keep them secure once they're in ..... this business of the US holding the only hammer, that is exactly wrong michael, it will lead to trouble down the road ..... you should fire all your neocons and get somebody in admin who can make allies effectively, and then some of us in the g.w.n. will slap the Ottawa crowd upside the head, get some sense of responsibility into them
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext