US foreign policy

US foreign policy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> US foreign policy (9/30/2012 10:57:15 AM)
Take a look at Tweaks link on the Israel thread. To say it is quite long is an understatement. Some parts also need reading twice to get what the writter is actually saying. That said, it is well thought out and well written and in my opinion provides much food for thought on several issues. http://www.thenation.com/article/170117/false-prophecy-and-real-history-mideast?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=7f3bccff5b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email#

Politesub53 -> RE: US foreign policy (9/30/2012 11:48:55 AM)
I found the above very interesting and informative. There are several points one could discuss but I shall start with the middle east. At the end of WW2 American foreign policy started to expand into the middle east, both with Egypt and Iran. America decided to support Nasser, and install him as a buffer to the USSR. America, along with the UK, decided to depose Mossadeq and put the Shah back on the throne, mostly due to oil. At this time Israel wasnt all that great in Americas plans, infact America decided in 1956 not to supply Israel with bombers and it was another ten years before America changed their mind. The British Empire had been built by trade, but we had the problem of not being able to defend all our supply lines. So in many parts of the world we turned a blind eye to despotic leaders that were our friends. America did the same with the Shah, Nasser, Hussein and others. To a degree this still happens today. Millions of weapons poured into the ME, both from the west and east. So now we have the US, the West, China, and USSR arming different governments at an alarming rate The general populace in the ME started to resent the luxurious lives of those in power, one by one they have started to be deposed, starting with the Shah. A void has formed in many of these nations that has been filled by fundementalists. So today, much of the ME is unstable. To give one example, Bush and Blairs adventure into Iraq has left the economy broken, infrastructure fractured and the population more deeply divided than it was under Saddam. There is no real explaination for this exept either gross stupidity or gross culpability. My view it is the later. Israel is part of the solution, with no lasting peace there it gives extremists something to preach about. All sides need to start talking, and soon. Netenyahus speech at the UN telling us we need to draw a red line in the sand was farcical. Sooner or later friendly regimes in the area will fall (regimes always fall ) what happens then ?

vincentML -> RE: US foreign policy (9/30/2012 7:06:31 PM)
quote: Israel is part of the solution, with no lasting peace there it gives extremists something to preach about. All sides need to start talking, and soon. Netenyahus speech at the UN telling us we need to draw a red line in the sand was farcical. Sooner or later friendly regimes in the area will fall (regimes always fall ) what happens then ? Sorry, Polite, to disagree. Israel is the focus of the problem. The Islamists will never accept Israel imho. You paint it with too dainty a brush when you say Israel gives the extremists something to preach about. There is genuine rage and humilation at its existence, and at its occupation of Palestinian lands. Also, rage and humilation at our troops in Afghasistan like the Russians before us, and the British before them. I fear the world is beyond the point of talking. Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories and we need to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Just sayin. What and who are the 'extremists' anyway?

DesideriScuri -> RE: US foreign policy (9/30/2012 8:14:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I found the above very interesting and informative. There are several points one could discuss but I shall start with the middle east. At the end of WW2 American foreign policy started to expand into the middle east, both with Egypt and Iran. America decided to support Nasser, and install him as a buffer to the USSR. America, along with the UK, decided to depose Mossadeq and put the Shah back on the throne, mostly due to oil. At this time Israel wasnt all that great in Americas plans, infact America decided in 1956 not to supply Israel with bombers and it was another ten years before America changed their mind. The British Empire had been built by trade, but we had the problem of not being able to defend all our supply lines. So in many parts of the world we turned a blind eye to despotic leaders that were our friends. America did the same with the Shah, Nasser, Hussein and others. To a degree this still happens today. Millions of weapons poured into the ME, both from the west and east. So now we have the US, the West, China, and USSR arming different governments at an alarming rate Very interesting history, in a sad, SMH way. Thanks for pointing it out. My one big question regarding these things, is, why does it seem the US is drawing the ire more than any other country, outside of Israel? If ya'all had a hand in this shit, too, would you please take some of the shit that's being thrown out. Please? quote: The general populace in the ME started to resent the luxurious lives of those in power, one by one they have started to be deposed, starting with the Shah. A void has formed in many of these nations that has been filled by fundementalists. So today, much of the ME is unstable. To give one example, Bush and Blairs adventure into Iraq has left the economy broken, infrastructure fractured and the population more deeply divided than it was under Saddam. There is no real explaination for this exept either gross stupidity or gross culpability. My view it is the later. Is it possible that Saddam's Baathist Party ruled with an iron fist and kept the divisions under wraps? If people were afraid to complain, it could keep the divisions hidden. But, when people aren't as afraid, it can be seen as the divisions getting worse, while they may not be getting worse at all, simply finally being heard. The fear of speaking up was alleged to have happened under Saddam and Qaddhafi. While I'm not saying this is the answer you're missing, it's possible. quote: Israel is part of the solution, with no lasting peace there it gives extremists something to preach about. All sides need to start talking, and soon. Netenyahus speech at the UN telling us we need to draw a red line in the sand was farcical. Sooner or later friendly regimes in the area will fall (regimes always fall ) what happens then ? I still don't understand wtf is going on between Israel and Palestine. While I'm not there and not privy to all the things that are going on, it seems to me that talks move forward, and peace is near, then Israel launches missiles and Palestinians react with their own munitions, or Palestinians launch mortars and grenades and Israel responds with missiles. Netanyahu and Abbas both talk peace and getting close to reaching an agreement, and then one of their countries does something to move everything back a ways. Is the talk simply talk and not truly indicative of what's going on?

Politesub53 -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 2:12:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sorry, Polite, to disagree. Israel is the focus of the problem. The Islamists will never accept Israel imho. You paint it with too dainty a brush when you say Israel gives the extremists something to preach about. There is genuine rage and humilation at its existence, and at its occupation of Palestinian lands. Also, rage and humilation at our troops in Afghasistan like the Russians before us, and the British before them. I fear the world is beyond the point of talking. Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories and we need to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Just sayin. What and who are the 'extremists' anyway? I get your points Vincent. You use the term Islamists, do you mean all Muslims that take Islam seriously, or extremists IE fundimentalists ? I dont feel the former want Israel wiped off the earth, certainly not the many I speak to in the UK. For reason stated by Others, especially tweaks, Israel cant just hand back the occupied territories, too many settlers live there now. Moving such a large section of society is practically impossible. Israel can make a good start by banning, and critically enforcing, the building of new settlements on Palestinian lands. The fact America and its allies remain in Afghanistan, proping up a corrupt regime, wont endear us to anyone. I have said all along theat we should have gone in, dealt with Bin Laden and Al Qaida, then got out again. It is impossible to impose western style governance on a nation that runs on a tribal basis. Its like trying to make apples out of oranges.

crazyml -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 2:23:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My one big question regarding these things, is, why does it seem the US is drawing the ire more than any other country, outside of Israel? If ya'all had a hand in this shit, too, would you please take some of the shit that's being thrown out. Please? America's long record of being the only security council blocker of key UN resolutions that, if passed, would have curtailed the worst Israeli excesses might be a factor...

Politesub53 -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 2:32:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Very interesting history, in a sad, SMH way. Thanks for pointing it out. My one big question regarding these things, is, why does it seem the US is drawing the ire more than any other country, outside of Israel? If ya'all had a hand in this shit, too, would you please take some of the shit that's being thrown out. Please? I`m not sure what you mean by SMH. As for wondering why the US cops so much flack, it is due to your unfailing support for Israel and the lack of real pressure to halt the settlers movement (Ethnic cleansing to a degree). If you think America are the only country taking shit as you put it, then there is no chance you will get whats been going on. Are you (Americans) really that isolated to fail to have spotted bombing attacks world wide, or the allied soldiers getting killed right alongside yours, from Iraq to Afghanistan ? The notion this only affects the US is absurd. quote: Is it possible that Saddam's Baathist Party ruled with an iron fist and kept the divisions under wraps? If people were afraid to complain, it could keep the divisions hidden. But, when people aren't as afraid, it can be seen as the divisions getting worse, while they may not be getting worse at all, simply finally being heard. The fear of speaking up was alleged to have happened under Saddam and Qaddhafi. While I'm not saying this is the answer you're missing, it's possible. Not only possible, but 100% correct. often without a word of condemnation from the west. Thats not my point though, My point is Bush and Blair made a bad situation a whole lot worse. Didnt you catch the news about more bombings of civillians in Iraq this week, or last week, or the week before ? quote: I still don't understand wtf is going on between Israel and Palestine. While I'm not there and not privy to all the things that are going on, it seems to me that talks move forward, and peace is near, then Israel launches missiles and Palestinians react with their own munitions, or Palestinians launch mortars and grenades and Israel responds with missiles. Netanyahu and Abbas both talk peace and getting close to reaching an agreement, and then one of their countries does something to move everything back a ways. Is the talk simply talk and not truly indicative of what's going on? Did you read Tweaks link in full....... Netenyahu has made it clear halting the new settlements isnt an option. It seems to me that by leaving the main stumbling block to any peace talks, he wants to carry on the situation. The same can be said for some of the Arab leadership also.

tallathleticmale -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 3:37:27 AM)
The Palestinians need to quit being so violent and hateful towards Israel. I have no Jewish blood in me, yet it is painfully obvious they have never gotten over having their land taken by Israel in the 7 days war. Palestinians started that war, and israel kicked their asses. They shouldn't have started that war, they lost and quit whining. Geesh, all they can do is kill innocent people with terrorist strikes, which is just cowardly and evil. Can't respect that at all.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 5:14:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Very interesting history, in a sad, SMH way. Thanks for pointing it out. My one big question regarding these things, is, why does it seem the US is drawing the ire more than any other country, outside of Israel? If ya'all had a hand in this shit, too, would you please take some of the shit that's being thrown out. Please? I`m not sure what you mean by SMH. As for wondering why the US cops so much flack, it is due to your unfailing support for Israel and the lack of real pressure to halt the settlers movement (Ethnic cleansing to a degree). If you think America are the only country taking shit as you put it, then there is no chance you will get whats been going on. Are you (Americans) really that isolated to fail to have spotted bombing attacks world wide, or the allied soldiers getting killed right alongside yours, from Iraq to Afghanistan ? The notion this only affects the US is absurd. SMH = Smack My Head or Shake My Head. I had to look it up to find out what some people on Facebook meant. I know other countries are experiencing things, too. I figured my comment stating the US is getting "more than any other country" acknowledged that we weren't the only ones. quote: quote: Is it possible that Saddam's Baathist Party ruled with an iron fist and kept the divisions under wraps? If people were afraid to complain, it could keep the divisions hidden. But, when people aren't as afraid, it can be seen as the divisions getting worse, while they may not be getting worse at all, simply finally being heard. The fear of speaking up was alleged to have happened under Saddam and Qaddhafi. While I'm not saying this is the answer you're missing, it's possible. Not only possible, but 100% correct. often without a word of condemnation from the west. Thats not my point though, My point is Bush and Blair made a bad situation a whole lot worse. Didnt you catch the news about more bombings of civillians in Iraq this week, or last week, or the week before ? I'm surprised you're as aggressive in your responses to me on this one, Polite. We are essentially agreeing on this stuff, yet, you can't keep from implying something negative in regards to me. The question isn't did they make it a whole lot worse, but, is it a whole lot worse? Are you saying that, in the long run, going through the struggles they are going through now (provided they do result in a more democratic and free nation) isn't better than living under an oppressive despot? quote: quote: I still don't understand wtf is going on between Israel and Palestine. While I'm not there and not privy to all the things that are going on, it seems to me that talks move forward, and peace is near, then Israel launches missiles and Palestinians react with their own munitions, or Palestinians launch mortars and grenades and Israel responds with missiles. Netanyahu and Abbas both talk peace and getting close to reaching an agreement, and then one of their countries does something to move everything back a ways. Is the talk simply talk and not truly indicative of what's going on? Did you read Tweaks link in full....... Netenyahu has made it clear halting the new settlements isnt an option. It seems to me that by leaving the main stumbling block to any peace talks, he wants to carry on the situation. The same can be said for some of the Arab leadership also. No, I didn't read the entire link. There have been times when Netanyahu stopped new settlements and everything was moving forward. It seemed like an accord was imminent and then permission would be given for new settlements, derailing everything. I do not understand that at all. I don't even pretend to.

vincentML -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 8:40:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tallathleticmale The Palestinians need to quit being so violent and hateful towards Israel. I have no Jewish blood in me, yet it is painfully obvious they have never gotten over having their land taken by Israel in the 7 days war. Palestinians started that war, and israel kicked their asses. They shouldn't have started that war, they lost and quit whining. Geesh, all they can do is kill innocent people with terrorist strikes, which is just cowardly and evil. Can't respect that at all. It was a six days war in 1967 and there are questions about its origins. It was preceded by several years of guerilla skirmishes along Israel's borders. But the actual war was precipitated by Israel's pre-emptive strike against Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian air fields. The enmity predates 1967. Israel continues to occupy Arab land in violation of the Oslo accords 1993. 'evil, innocent, cowardly, terrorists' are just your characterizations and you are not living in the West Bank.

vincentML -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 8:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sorry, Polite, to disagree. Israel is the focus of the problem. The Islamists will never accept Israel imho. You paint it with too dainty a brush when you say Israel gives the extremists something to preach about. There is genuine rage and humilation at its existence, and at its occupation of Palestinian lands. Also, rage and humilation at our troops in Afghasistan like the Russians before us, and the British before them. I fear the world is beyond the point of talking. Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories and we need to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Just sayin. What and who are the 'extremists' anyway? I get your points Vincent. You use the term Islamists, do you mean all Muslims that take Islam seriously, or extremists IE fundimentalists ? I dont feel the former want Israel wiped off the earth, certainly not the many I speak to in the UK. For reason stated by Others, especially tweaks, Israel cant just hand back the occupied territories, too many settlers live there now. Moving such a large section of society is practically impossible. Israel can make a good start by banning, and critically enforcing, the building of new settlements on Palestinian lands. The fact America and its allies remain in Afghanistan, proping up a corrupt regime, wont endear us to anyone. I have said all along theat we should have gone in, dealt with Bin Laden and Al Qaida, then got out again. It is impossible to impose western style governance on a nation that runs on a tribal basis. Its like trying to make apples out of oranges. I use Islamists synonymus with purists and fundamentalists, yes. Extremist is a value judgment. Five hundred thousand settlers. A huge problem. But a planned, phased withdrawal should be possible with some land conceded by the PA. Afghanastan. Oy! Obama missed his chance to get out fast. What a dumbass. And I will have to give him my vote again. It is not so much we are supporting a corrupt regime. All regimes are corrupt. It is that we occupy their land with troops, weapons, and transports. THAT is the outrage. So, mostly we agree there, Polite.

Politesub53 -> RE: US foreign policy (10/1/2012 4:38:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I know other countries are experiencing things, too. I figured my comment stating the US is getting "more than any other country" acknowledged that we weren't the only ones. You clearly asked for others to take some of the shit (Your words). I pointed out we already were. quote: I'm surprised you're as aggressive in your responses to me on this one, Polite. We are essentially agreeing on this stuff, yet, you can't keep from implying something negative in regards to me. The question isn't did they make it a whole lot worse, but, is it a whole lot worse? Are you saying that, in the long run, going through the struggles they are going through now (provided they do result in a more democratic and free nation) isn't better than living under an oppressive despot? I wasnt agressive, I was stating the obvious. We clearly dont agree, since you talk about "in the long run" I would suggest to you that a figure of some 5,000 coalition (Mostly American) dead, along with thousands more maimed for life, isnt acceptable for a war built on lies. Let alone the 100,000 minimum Iraqis, mostly civillians, who have died as a result. quote: No, I didn't read the entire link. There have been times when Netanyahu stopped new settlements and everything was moving forward. It seemed like an accord was imminent and then permission would be given for new settlements, derailing everything. I do not understand that at all. I don't even pretend to. Netanyahu doesnt wish for peace, he could do more but wont.

tweakabelle -> RE: US foreign policy (10/2/2012 12:14:49 AM)
quote: There have been times when Netanyahu stopped new settlements and everything was moving forward. It seemed like an accord was imminent and then permission would be given for new settlements, derailing everything. I do not understand that at all. I don't even pretend to. Palestinians object strongly to settlements/colonies for many reasons. Among the more important reasons are: * The settlements/colonies contravene international law, which prohibits the colonisation of land acquired by military means; * The primary goal of the settlement/colonisation movement, according to the settlers/colonists themselves, is prevention of a Palestinian State; * The land being colonised is all part of the land designated to be part of a future Palestinian State; * Israel has no legal claim or right over the land being settled/colonised; * Palestinian land owners are often forcibly ejected from their lands by settler thugs or the IDF or both, often without compensation; * The settlements/colonies are part of a more general program of ethnic cleansing, aimed at driving indigenous Palestinians from the region they have occupied for centuries to create a greater Israel extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterannean. The settlements are there to prevent the formation of an independent Palestine. Palestinians argue, with good reason, that to continue building or expanding these settlements/colonies cannot be consistent with good faith negotiations about a Palestinian State. For Israel the choice is simple. Israel can have peace negotiations with the Palestinians, or it can expand the settlements/colonies - but it cannot have both. They are mutually exclusive. Israel has consistently chosen to continue expanding the settlements/colonies rather than continue the peace process. Israeli policy and choices only make sense if one assumes that the goal of Israeli policy is the annexation of all of Occupied Palestine. As the stated goal of the settlements/colonies - the prevention of a Palestinian State - directly contradicts the goal of the peace process - the Two State solution - Israeli participation in the peace process while ongoing settlement/colony growth is occurring makes that participation a sham, a charade, a nonsense.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US foreign policy (10/2/2012 4:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: There have been times when Netanyahu stopped new settlements and everything was moving forward. It seemed like an accord was imminent and then permission would be given for new settlements, derailing everything. I do not understand that at all. I don't even pretend to. Palestinians object strongly to settlements/colonies for many reasons. Among the more important reasons are: * The settlements/colonies contravene international law, which prohibits the colonisation of land acquired by military means; * The primary goal of the settlement/colonisation movement, according to the settlers/colonists themselves, is prevention of a Palestinian State; * The land being colonised is all part of the land designated to be part of a future Palestinian State; * Israel has no legal claim or right over the land being settled/colonised; * Palestinian land owners are often forcibly ejected from their lands by settler thugs or the IDF or both, often without compensation; * The settlements/colonies are part of a more general program of ethnic cleansing, aimed at driving indigenous Palestinians from the region they have occupied for centuries to create a greater Israel extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterannean. The settlements are there to prevent the formation of an independent Palestine. Palestinians argue, with good reason, that to continue building or expanding these settlements/colonies cannot be consistent with good faith negotiations about a Palestinian State. For Israel the choice is simple. Israel can have peace negotiations with the Palestinians, or it can expand the settlements/colonies - but it cannot have both. They are mutually exclusive. Israel has consistently chosen to continue expanding the settlements/colonies rather than continue the peace process. Israeli policy and choices only make sense if one assumes that the goal of Israeli policy is the annexation of all of Occupied Palestine. As the stated goal of the settlements/colonies - the prevention of a Palestinian State - directly contradicts the goal of the peace process - the Two State solution - Israeli participation in the peace process while ongoing settlement/colony growth is occurring makes that participation a sham, a charade, a nonsense. I get all that. What I don't get is talking the peace talk while preventing further expansion, and right before the deal gets done (or seemingly so), resume the settlement expansion. I get the onus being on Israel for that, and don't dispute it. I also don't think the US should support Israel in those actions. It seems that Palestinian actions involve launching mortars and grenades into Israel (to which Israel responds militarily). Israeli actions involve settlements, which can set off the Palestinian actions. I think both are at fault and that we aren't to blindly support Israel in all it does.

tweakabelle -> RE: US foreign policy (10/2/2012 10:44:33 PM)
quote: I think both are at fault and that we aren't to blindly support Israel in all it does. Yes. I feel that a more balanced approach by the US towards the region would have wide ranging and positive effects. It would enable a fair and just solution to the intractable Palestinian question, it would revive the US's reputation in the region, it would isolate the fanatics on all sides and give a huge boost to the pro-democracy movements in the Arab States. It could even open the door to a peaceful resolution of the Iran issue. It would also secure the West oil needs, which is why the West is involved in the region in the first place. It's such a no-brainer you really have to wonder why the US doesn't act in its own interests - it just happens that the US interest, and the interests of all sides in the region coalesce here.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875