Dealing with US aggression

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by candletrader, Oct 14, 2002.

  1. The international community continues to be subjected to US aggression, including:
    1) overt bombing
    2) assasinations of leaders
    3) unjustified sanctions
    4) meaningless trade wars
    5) not signing up to Kyoto
    6) puppet dictator installations
    7) confiscation and control of natural resources

    Many wrong-minded people have taken terrorist action against US interests in revenge for US aggresssion... I think terrorist action is absolutely disgusting, and the victims of US aggression must not stoop to the level of US tactics, in order that the victims can maintain the moral high ground...

    So what strategies can the international community use in a united and legal way, to contain the disaster that is US policy... constructive ideas only, please...

    Candle
     
  2. So, in order to answer this question, I must first agree with your assertions that US policy is one of "aggression" and is a "disaster", right?
     

  3. In some cases it was the lesser of two evils.......
     
  4. how's ole Chomksy doin' these days Candle?

    ps - i doubt you'll get any constructive commentary since your premises are so assumption laden and beg the question of whether or not US foreign policy is indeed what you say it is.
     
  5. js1257

    js1257

    Candletrader I take it you are not an American?
     
  6. I dunno about Chomsky... although I have read some of his stuff, I ain't a Chomskian, otherwise I wouldn't be a trader.. Chomsky comes across as somewhat of a socialist... I am most certainly NOT a socialist!... my views have transformed from a guy who wanted to bomb anyone who looked like he was wearing a towel to someone who is seriously concerned about the direction of US foreign policy... after September 11, I started to wonder why the world hated the USA (and, by implication, her allies)... I did read some Chomsky but, more importantly, I tried to look for the rationale behind policies i.e. I compared unstated policy objectives (invariably economic or geostrategic) to stated policy objectives (invariably arguments that would easily appeal to the masses through benign media broadcasts)... like you, daniel, I wanna see true threats eliminated and not tolerated... a true threat would be the Saudi financing of Al-Quaeda.... I want to see just wars against real enemies for security based reasons... I do NOT want to see unjust wars against innocuous oafs - who we used as our puppets - for oil...

    The USA, as the sole remaining superpower, has a responsibility to project herself for the betterment of humanity and also, not unjustly, for the betterment of economic self-interest... but the latter must not be at the expense of innocent lives, global destabilisation and the beginnings of a real global wave of disdain for American foreign policy (which all too often transforms itself, unfairly, to a global disdain for the American people)...

    This thread is intentionally provocative, because I feel it is necessary to get people thinking outside the box of patriotism, at the expense of reality... we were the good guys in our fight against the Soviets during the dark days of the Cold War.... let's not become perceived as the bad guys... God Bless America...
     
  7. So what strategies can the international community use in a united and legal way, to contain the disaster that is US policy... constructive ideas only, please...

    Candle [/B][/QUOTE]


    We have to change from withtin.........
     
  8. Oh, back during the Cold War you mean? I guess that is how we should define good guys.

    As the good guys during the Cold War, we would never have done any of the following :
    1) overt bombing Maybe not, a U-2 flight or two should suffice. Who will be the wiser?
    2) assasinations of leaders Well, maybe a couple of guys in Vietnam, but just until we get a "friendly" government installed.
    3) unjustified sanctions Tell me why I can't import Havanas again?
    4) meaningless trade wars Probably a good idea to trade hostages for guns, instead.
    5) not signing up to Kyoto still working on this one...
    6) puppet dictator installations You ever go to Central and South America between 1950-1980?
    7) confiscation and control of natural resources Hello, I am from the federal government, and I have to confiscate your farmland under the doctrine of "eminent domain". We will be installing underground missile silos.

    I think the US was right most of the time during the Cold War. However, whether or not we were the good guys or not, depended upon who you were asking at the time.
     
  9. "Tell me why I can't import Havanas again?"....

    I would like to know the answer to this one....

    The embargo to Cuba is hurting us more than it's hurting Fidel ( lost revenues for US farmers is one example). Hell, his net-worth is in the 10's of billions ( according to an article in forbes )...it hurts the Cuban citizens and has done nothing to move Fidel. He actually uses the embargo agaisnt us, to show the international community why his socialism ( a farce in my opinion) doesnt work.
    I hate that prick with a passion, but the only reason the embargo to Cuba is in place 40 something years later is Miami ( exiles).....We are a force to be reckon with in the political arena..its all about the votes......
     
  10. I agree that the Saudi direct financing of any terrorist group is a real threat to whoever the terrorist group is targeting. When that money goes to Al Quaeda, a group that has openly declared war on US and western interests, then yes I would say that the continuation of the money flow is a true threat. But the Saudi government is cooperating to some degree in stopping the money flow. Is it doing enough? Probably not, but what do you suggest? Invade Saudi Arabia?

    Middle East security IS a US priority. We actively support Israel, which receives about half of our foreign aid dollars annually. We have two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India that are on the verge of all-out war that has religious undertones to it. We have several countries in the region actively funding, training and supporting terrorists who directly target Israel. Among them are Iran (funding and supporting) Syria (funding and supporting), Lybia (funding and supporting), Iraq (funding and supporting).

    Now I'm not saying we haven't done damage in the past with our policies of supporting one against the other to maintain regional "stability". We probably should have just let Iran overrun Iraq, but we chose to not allow that to happen. But what are the alternatives? Do nothing in the region? In a matter of years Israel will not exist as we know it if we do nothing. Syria already has 8-10 thousand (yes thousand) missles pointing at Israel that can hit the industrial sector.

    The whole situation boils down to the following: if we do nothing in the region then we will be faced with an ever-increasing threat. They will continue building up armaments to wipe out Israel, and terrorize the U.S. Sadam Hussein has used his WOMD against his own people and against our troops (though the defence dept denies). Bush has chosen to target Iraq. A prolonged US presence in a new Iraqi state with free trade and a democratic form of government might give Iran the impetus to overturn its currently anti-US government and replace it with at least one more favorable to the west. As I understand it Hizbillah has about as many sleeper operatives in the US as Al Quaeda has, so we can't just say that Al Quaeda is the only threat to the US. Our fight is with terrorism and those governments who fund and protect them. We have already removed one government in Afghainstan. Are you saying that was an unjust war?
     
    #10     Oct 14, 2002