posted
"In a UNITED STATES presidential election, I think the needs of the UNITED STATES come before all else, even if it means pissing of a country here or there."
Amen. Our votes are for US elections. We, as voting, responsible citizens possess a duty to elect those to public office whom we believe will best serve the interests of the United States of America. Serving the interests of foreign powers is nonsensical and borders on treason (thinks of Algore accepting how many millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from Red China and then endorsing free trade with them? Odd, how that happened).
I don't recall the Palestinians saying to themselves, "Let's not put Arafat into office; he'll upset the Israelis." They clearly elected him because they believed that Arafat could best represent their interests. That's democracy (or at least a republic) in action, just the way it should be - the will of the people. Why should the USA behave differently? Why should the USA always cave in to others?
Vote your conscience. If you're a US citizen, then vote for whomever you personally believe will do the best job for America and best represent your interests as US citizens. Don't not vote for someone, because you think their election will offend someone ten thousand miles away. This is life, and they need to accept reality. To every foreigner (no xenophobia intended. Really) who is upset on religious grounds because Liebermann might, just might become Vice President, I have one thing to say to you: "Deal with it."
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
"And as conflicts maybe eternal, and bloodlines different, the US always has to keep the stance of peace and make truce. It is the responsibility for us to douse the flames. Seperate the fighting. In extreme situations, annex the country. But we must promote peace"
Um, and just how many young American soldiers do you intend to get killed every year dousing the flames? One? One thousand? One hundred-thousand? One million? The occasional peacekeeping mission may be acceptable, even proper, but it is hardly the USA's duty to police the world. "...annex the country?" Yeah, right. Let's annex Indonesia. They're only in the middle of Christian versus Islamic civil unrest, among other problems. Let's make that our problem. Wait, how about making the former Yugoslavia US territory! I'll bet Milosovic will just love learning he now has American citizenship, not to mention Russia's reaction. Can you imagine the sheer number of troops that would be required to occupy and garrison these annexed countries? And, who is to say they even want to be annexed? What about independence? Self-determination? These troops would become the targets of terrorists, freedom fighters, call them what you will, intent upon reestablishing their countries' freedom. So again, how many young Americans do you intend to kill today?
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
posted
"And as conflicts maybe eternal, and bloodlines different, the US always has to keep the stance of peace and make truce. It is the responsibility for us to douse the flames. Seperate the fighting. In extreme situations, annex the country. But we must promote peace"
Um, and just how many young American soldiers do you intend to get killed every year dousing the flames? One? One thousand? One hundred-thousand? One million? The occasional peacekeeping mission may be acceptable, even proper, but it is hardly the USA's duty to police the world. "...annex the country?" Yeah, right. Let's annex Indonesia. They're only in the middle of Christian versus Islamic civil unrest, among other problems. Let's make that our problem. Wait, how about making the former Yugoslavia US territory! I'll bet Milosovic will just love learning he now has American citizenship, not to mention Russia's reaction. Can you imagine the sheer number of troops that would be required to occupy and garrison these annexed countries? And, who is to say they even want to be annexed? What about independence? Self-determination? These troops would become the targets of terrorists, freedom fighters, call them what you will, intent upon reestablishing their countries' freedom. So again, how many young Americans do you intend to kill today?
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
quote:"Let's not put Arafat into office; he'll upset the Israelis."
Yes, yes, yes, but who is the US? Not a group full of culturally similar people with a religious grudge towards someone else. You cannot compare a first and third world country. They have different mindsets, one forwards, one backwards. A good metaphor would be to say "The Columnbine kids kids had a reason to shoot their school apart, why don't I? Aren't I angry?" Of course you're angry, but you're the US and you don't lower yourself to others attitudes.
I think it was sometime around WWII that the United States was crowned de facto peacekeeper/ruler/director of everything it can see. If we suddenly became isolationist again, quite a few countries woulds call foul and iresponsibility on behalf of us, and before you'd know it our economy would fall through (by cutting the apparratus that connects us to the world markets) and we would soon be as paltry as a big third world country. If nothing else, our foreign policy ensures our domestic and economic futures.
I don't know how you're bringing the Balkans into this, that's something different. About the Middle East, the situation right now doesn't call for any drastic action. Its Clintons and a few other people's agenda to play with the leaders in the off chance they'll agree to a nice, shiny peace of paper just for the sake of Clinton's legacy.
But if they did start doing something stupid (like a really good chance of nuclear warheads going off) we would certainly come in and take the country. And it wouldn't involve substantial sums of people dying. That happens when the US is has a so/so stance about something (like with every conflict since WWII, most noticably Vietnam). Though when a determined US is determined, things will happen quickly and forcefully, and most likely there wont be any resistance on the side of the other country, for fear of having their country permanently annexed and not just reformed.
------------------ -Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor
Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.
A scene that was cut from last season's "Rock" episode, Tsumkatse: Rock: Do ya smell what the Rock's cookin'? Janeway: Mr. Rock, was that you? Tuvok: An intriguing smell ...
[This message has been edited by SCSImperium (edited August 11, 2000).]
posted
Ecch. That's a bit imperialist, even by MY standards.
Of course, my approach to foreign policy when dealing with squabbling minor countries is generally the same one my father had towards squabbling between my brother an myself, which takes one of two tacks:
A: "Okay, you boys go out and fight it out. when you're done, the winner can fight ME."
or
B: "I've had it up to here with you two, and if you don't stop fighting RIGHT NOW I'm going to come up there and beat the living shit out of BOTH of you."
Generally, the threat was enough for us, although I suppose that with some of these other countries a few flattened cities might be required.
And if you're worried about terrorists or "freedom fighters," there's always the Douwd solution... "You don't understand. I killed ALL of them. All Husnock, everywhere."
(I'm not really serious about all this. It's just that it's all so very tiresome, what with these other countries that refuse to grow up.)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
A scene that was cut from last season's "Rock" episode, Tsumkatse: Rock: Do ya smell what the Rock's cookin'? Janeway: Mr. Rock, was that you? Tuvok: An intriguing smell ...
[This message has been edited by SCSImperium (edited August 12, 2000).]
A scene that was cut from last season's "Rock" episode, Tsumkatse: Rock: Do ya smell what the Rock's cookin'? Janeway: Mr. Rock, was that you? Tuvok: An intriguing smell ...
[This message has been edited by SCSImperium (edited August 13, 2000).]
posted
I'm not sure Liam. It sounds sentient, but I can't quite make out the meaning. I think....its trying to communicate with us.
------------------ Efficiency is a highly developed form of laziness. - anon (...and boy am I efficient...) A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbour�s throat without having his neighbour notice it. � Trygve Lie
posted
Understand that he's not trying to communicate with anyone. I think I'll give a name for him, he's Peter McKeeter.
Peter McKeeter lived once-upon-a-time in Cogsborough, Sussex, where he worked as a fieldworker and journeyman. After his work was done in the field, he'd come waltzing into the local pub roaring "Ayyy'ma Peter McKeeter! Long Live the Queenie!" {swig}
------------------ -Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor
Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.
A scene that was cut from last season's "Rock" episode, Tsumkatse: Rock: Do ya smell what the Rock's cookin'? Janeway: Mr. Rock, was that you? Tuvok: An intriguing smell ...
posted
Okay, I'll try to get back on-topic, although this may or may not involve Sen. Liebermann.
Why did I bring in the Balkans? Its simple, really. Because you stated that the US should annex countries/regions that are undergoing problems, unrest, etc., in the interests of promoting peace. That naturally implies world troublespots like the Balkans. That is not any different from some other part of the world, be it the Balkans, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, etc. Incidentally, the Balkans and the Middle East share a great number of similarities, including some rather serious religious differences. By the way, I'm truly not certain if you are aware of this, but when you annex a country you by definition have to do something with the people who already live there. You can either forcibly expel or exterminate them, thus eliminating the problem (yeah, wouldn't that go over well?), or grant them citizenship. Now, since I doubt the US intends to engage in another Holocaust, I submit that granting citizenship would be the only semi-viable option. Therefore, if we annex these troublespots as you suggest in the interests of peace, guess what? Yep, all of those wonderful people who have spent decades if not centuries trying to kill each other just became your equals. Let's see... How many Middle Eastern terrorists just got US citizenship today and are now living right down the street from you and me? Hmmmmm.... Isn't annexation great?
Finally, many people don't cotton to having their country and national self-identity summarily erased and would certainly resist, hence my query about regarding the vast number of troops needed to police these newly annexed regions. Oh, but wait... Those heavily armed troops occupying your country aren't meant to intimidate. They're here in the interests of peace! That's why they're carrying M-16A2s! Trust us!
Non-annexation also does not imply isolationism. It just means that we aren't going to take over some poor dirt farmer's country today and create a threat to world peace. Oh, and if you're such a big fan of annexation please send me your address. You see, I'm bigger and badder than you (remembers his drill instructor's kind words) and I just annexed your home. Everything you owned now belongs to me. Now, get out! Teehee! That was fun! Your computer, your furniture, everything. How do you like it? Probably, not very much. Just remember, its all for your own good. Trust me!
Now, if some moron (thinks of Saddam Hussein) grabbed a hold of a nuclear weapon and threatened to use it, then yes, the USA would certainly act in self-defense. However, that is a far cry from outright annexation, which in the manner you have represented it is nothing short of rabidly imperialistic land grab - just the sort of behavior the world has come to loathe, and definitely the type of behavior which would give the USA a very bad reputation.
Promoting world peace can be pursued through many avenues that don't involve the use of military force to eliminate someone else's country. Direct negotiations, the use of the UN, etc., all come to mind.
------------------ Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
Maybe I have used the wrong word. Whenever I say "annex", take it for "temporarily annex." Or maybe not annex at all, but "U.S. aided reform." Right now, I would not touch the Middle East or Balkans. I'd wait for things to run their natural course, as through waiting for Hussein and Milosevic and their respective parites to demise in power, and then in that small time frame when the country is without a leader invite in the local democractic, or what-have-you party, into the capital and draw up a new constitution for the country.
Annexing involves a long term strategy. Not a one day massacre to "take the country." In no case would the U.S. hold the country for any duration of time, about as much time as it takes to plant the seeds and insure the country with a proper ruling party (Months). No policing of streets, or forcing anything on anyone. Just slow reform.
Slow reform as we see in Russia, and now China. But for those two countries, reform was selfimposed, or is being selfimposed. But the U.S. could easily play that transitional leader role itself for those "hot spots" where such a leader could never be cultivated.
------------------ -Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor
Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.
"Woman is deprived of rights from lack of education, and the lack of education results from the absence of rights. We must not forget that the subjection of women is so complete, and dates from such distant ages, that we are often unwilling to recognize the gulf that separates them from us."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
