Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
At the very least, coming clean and admitting it might be a good start.
Part of the problem here is a lack of coherency and consistency in our foreign policy. For some reason, this country is hampered in having any kind of collective public debate on what our interests are, what our role is in the world overall, and who we are (as Americans) and what we value as a nation. Our foreign policy is incoherent and changes from country to country, from region to region.
Who are we? Hell, we are everyone. We are the Great Melting Pot. The "problem" with having a population with such a mixed ancestry is that we have that many competing value systems. FFS, we couldn't even agree that English would be our National language!
I wasn’t really referring to ethnicity or culture, but overall ideology and our general role in the world.
Still, it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to review the various regional sub-cultures and competing value systems and try to find a way for them all to coherently fit together and coexist within the same nation. A good place to start might be to explore the question: Why are Red States different from the Blue States? Why do they have different values? Is it because of cultural differences, ethnic differences, religious differences – or what?
Instead of telling everyone to be politically correct and to play nice (as a response to an escalation of political rhetoric), perhaps it might be more productive to explore the roots of our political divides and how they can be bridged.
quote:
The only way we could make amends for what's done is to stop what we're doing now, and gtfo. Admitting what we did isn't that important, as all they need to do is read our press. Anyone who cares to know would know that we have egg on our faces over our consistent meddling in M.E. affairs.
I think admitting that our former policies were wrong and misguided would actually be a major step towards making amends. I don’t think it’s a matter of having egg on our faces, as I think the bigger thing they look at is a set of incoherent and inconsistent policies and deem them hypocritical.
So, if we admit that and change the policies, then it might be a step in the right direction.
quote:
Are you willing to no longer back Israel? That causes enough enmity towards us from many M.E. countries. I support a firm statement backing Israel's defense coupled with a firm statement that Israeli actions that are not reactions to attack will not be supported.
We’re in a tough spot right now with Israel. 20/20 hindsight being what it is, I would say that we would have been better off if we had not so closely aligned ourselves with Israel at the very beginning. We should have taken a more neutral and detached approach to the Israeli situation.
However, since we’ve gotten ourselves so deeply involved in our alliance with Israel, it might not be that easy to just cut them off and say “Okay, you’re on your own!” This is not an enviable situation to be in, but we’ve backed Israel for so long, it would be extremely problematic to just cut them off. For one thing, the Israelis may become even more desperate and take more extreme measures if they feel threatened.
If we do pull out of the Middle East, it may be that our only option would be to either to share hegemony or yield to it to one or more other major powers, preferably those which are more geographically proximate to the Middle East.
Israel’s security would probably have to be guaranteed by whichever major powers would be involved, especially if the alternative is Israel exercising its Samson Option.
I think the best thing for the U.S. to do at this point is to be careful. I don’t think we should just cut off Israel completely, but we might consider gradually withdrawing from the situation while bringing other major powers in to act as neutral mediators where needed. We also need to have a more coherent, cordial, and civil relationship with China and Russia, as they should not be taken lightly.
I don’t think the U.S. can be completely isolationist, although I think we’re at a point when our present global alliance system may have run its course. We may ultimately have to realign ourselves along more geographical and regional lines. From the U.S. viewpoint, it may mean that we won’t be so heavily tied in with European alliances. As strange as it may sound, we may ultimately seek allies in our own backyard. This may even be more inevitable as Latinos become a larger percentage of the U.S. population, which can and probably will have an effect on U.S.-Latin American relations.
It’s conceivable that a unified coalition of nations in North and South America could be quite a force to be reckoned with on the global scene. The Eastern Hemisphere can run itself, and if they fuck it up, it’s on them. We in the Western Hemisphere can then live in peace…maybe. Of course, we’d have to make amends to Latin America, but that may be more doable and advantageous in the long run than making amends to the countries of the Middle East.
In any case, I think we really need to sit down and closely examine our geopolitical perceptions and consider some restructuring and reorganizing of how we conduct foreign policy.
quote:
quote:
Yeah, I get it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I agree with that, but I would say that's just as true for Friedman and his Chicago School disciples as much as anyone else. He says that "socialism is force," and in response to this force, the U.S. has set itself up as global defender against "socialism," in which we used plenty of force of our own, which in part created the shitstorm in the Middle East you're referring to.
Yes, we have forced our ideals and beliefs onto the M.E. and have come under fire - literally and figuratively - for it. I'm of the opinion that we should defend every nation's right to have it's population self-determine. We should support peaceful protests and peaceful reactions to protests. If one nation invades another without provocation, we should oppose it. We should support non-military resolution of disputes.
All government action is force. All of it. Not all of it is bad, or a bad use of force, but it is still force. Threatening a people with a financial penalty unless they take a particular action, is using force. Choosing winners and losers is using force. Spying on your populace is a bad practice that can very, very easily end up as a bad use of force.
I think force is an unfortunate fact of life. Civilization itself requires force, as does every law. There really is no way around it, although we can and should be mindful about how it is used. That’s why I favor more openness and transparency in government, so that the use of force by government can be more properly scrutinized in public discourse and by legal scholars and civil libertarians.
|
RE: The National Security/Surveillence state - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread