Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (99674)	6/1/2003 2:25:13 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Defense of the US can be expanded, to include mutual defense treaties with other democracies, like NATO, and Japan Except for the possibility of Great Britain and Japan, none of the others will do any heavy lifting. I see no reason to make treaties with, and defend, undemocratic nations. Too vague. Are you talkking about left over stuff from the Cold War or new things like the treaty with N Korea, a decidedly undemocratic place? And, yes, in some cases that means standing aside and letting bad things happen Let me see if I get this straight. Rwanda was OK? What's happening in the Congo is OK? What was happening in Iraq and elsewhere in ME is OK? Too many times, we have replaced one tyranny with another tyranny. Or even replaced a democratically elected government with a fascist tyranny, as in Chile. If you're talking about the Cold War, that was then and this is now and the US doesn't seem to be doing much of that stuff anymore. Again too general. The US made good and sure S Korea and Taiwan became democratic, it supported democratic forces in Thailand to the degree it could. It ensured that Greece, Italy, Austria and as much of Germany as possible remained outside the Soviet tyranny and it fought that tyranny for 40 years. I'd also extend the principle of defense-only, to when the community of nations (the UN) approves of it, to end genocide or reverse a war of aggression. But the decision cannot be left to any one nation. The UN did nothing about Rwanda but that's OK. But it would not have been OK for some nation to have stepped in and stopped immense amounts of suffering. Christ! What limp wristed nonsense! Despicable dribble.. Basicly, I think our foreign policy should be guided by the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This hasn't been true since 1898. Your country's foreign policy should be guided by what your government regards as your country's best interests. Times have changed since the 19th century and your country doesn't behave the way you say, except in your imagination. Wars of aggression, wars of colonial conquest, wars merely to extend our power, wars to create a "good business environment" for US multinationals, that's not what the U.S. is supposed to be about. It's not about those things. I'm not even a citizen of your country and I can see that. You seem to say your country can get by being passive as its bitterest enemies organize to plan, if not its destruction, then at the least the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of its citizens. The countries that aid and harbour those enemies can not be given a free pass, which is what you are advocating. A nation founded on the idea of "consent of the governed", has been taken over by imperialists. No. Your country is cleaning house in the area that sent it 9/11. Incidently, modern elements in the ME and elsewhere desire greatly the that US and the rest of the West do this. Don't you realize your country has finally declared against the dictators? There is a World War being fought and what is at stake is the survival of modernity. Don't you realize this?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (99674)	6/1/2003 6:30:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I see no reason to make treaties with, and defend, undemocratic nations. And, yes, in some cases that means standing aside and letting bad things happen. So do nothing, have NO influence over these regimes (we'll help you in exchange for opening up your economy and political system), and just permit these oppressed and brutalized people to become headline news on CNN, right?? That's REALLY American.. I don't give a sht about anyone until it impacts me directly, right?? No such thing as an "ounce of prevention preventing a pound of cure" in your venacular, right?? Too many times, we have replaced one tyranny with another tyranny.* And that's why there are more democracies in the world than at anytime previously? While I grant you that the US has supported some unsavory characters in the world, it generally has been as a response to the Soviets and Chinese supporting EVEN MORE unsavory characters of their own... And I think history will show that temporarily supported authoritarian dictators was FAR LESS AN EVIL than permitting totalitarian regimes to become established... History already shows that totalitarian societies turn into utter chaos when their governmental systems collapse. Or even replaced a democratically elected government with a fascist tyranny, as in Chile. Wait a minute here? Now you're suddenly saying the US should have intervened and prevented the Chilean military from overthrowing the Allende government?? I thought you said we should just "let bad things happen"?? And given that Chilean society later returned to democracy and enjoyed economic stability (which didn't exist under Allende), are they really complaining as a whole? I'd also extend the principle of defense-only, to when the community of nations (the UN) approves of it, to end genocide or reverse a war of aggression. But the decision cannot be left to any one nation. Given that the UN is a creation of the United States, can it not be argued that the UN has no legitimacy to intervene ANYWHERE (since they are obviously a creation of the US imperialist agenda)??? The Taliban offered Safe Haven to an organization that had attacked us, so our attack on Afghanistan was a defensive war. Pakistani tribal leaders are harboring remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda right now.. Do you believe that this requires the US to declare war on Pakistan?? Basicly, I think our foreign policy should be guided by the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This hasn't been true since 1898. Hmmm... So the mexican-American war was a "defensive war"?? How about the war of 1812 and the invasion of Canada (then British ruled)?? Wars of aggression, wars of colonial conquest, wars merely to extend our power, wars to create a "good business environment" for US multinationals, that's not what the U.S. is supposed to be about. A nation founded on the idea of "consent of the governed", has been taken over by imperialists. Given the FACTUAL RECORD of the US being the primary force for pressuring decolonization post-WWII, is it not the case that, under your belief system, the US should have left well enough alone and permitted these European nations to maintain their empires? Hawk