Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

May 16, 2025, 07:55:33 pm

Author Topic: Foreign Policy  (Read 11665 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2009, 12:26:09 am »
0
Ron Paul in "High Tide" campaign for liberty ?trailer?

ha a cool nifty video looks like a gaming video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrxSmdwlihs



found this quote
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 03:33:00 am by TrueLight »
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2009, 01:52:35 am »
0
Jeremy Scahill on BLACKWATER a private military company founded in 1997 by Erik Prince...

VERY interesting information. he goes in to much depth and detail regarding its operations and affairs in wars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQiZvtuLl-k

Blackwater Worldwide now Xe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide#Iraq_War_involvement
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

dcc

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Respect: +55
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2009, 11:55:05 pm »
0
Ron Paul is a genius, he has some great ideas.  He's sorta like the austrian school of economics ( mises.org ).  An eyeopening read.

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2009, 12:36:47 am »
0
yep he is. and he doesn't look worn out considering his 74! he has studied thorougly the austrian school of economics which i find is so amazing and logical! im reading his 'end the fed' book and yeah he got a lot of his influences from famous austrian economists like mises, hayek, rothbard, hazlitt, sennholz. so he knows his stuff.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2009, 12:22:33 am »
0
Ron Paul- A foreign policy of free trade, not bombs and sanctions 5/10/09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCKtJVYr4ds


Rand Paul on war and how we don't just go "nilly willy" and only go when a country is directly under threat and as a last resort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkWmkHeswFQ
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 02:29:25 am by TrueLight »
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2009, 03:56:26 am »
0
some interesting points...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26057

10 Things you should know about Iran
Juan Cole

Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US.
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."

Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.

Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map?'

Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.

Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?

Actuality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

Actuality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to US signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the UK intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

Actuality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.

Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

Actuality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.

Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

Actuality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The US elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

Actuality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC."

and some other comments
- Iran is a signatory to NPT & it's constituion FORBIDS aquiring any type of Nuclear weapons.

- Over 200 Israeli nuclear warheads is pointed to Iran. Quarter of a million US troops are deployed surrounding Iran in Iraq,Afganistan,Kuwait & the Persian Gulf.

-IAEA even this week has said “Iran do NOT have any nuclear(military) ambition & is complying with IAEA”. Our own intelligence report said “Iran stopped all its military program that could have DUAL use since 2003”.



*****also they already knew about the facility a long time ago... so the war mongering propaganda is just pathetic just like the iraq war propaganda... to me Iran has a perfect right to create a nuclear bomb if it wants, USA and Israel has thousands of nuclear bombs, so a little hypocrisy there...also america has a lot to do some Iranian people hate for americans...overthrow of their democratically elected government (Mosadeqq) in a coup in 1953..hmmm...

in regards to the israeli government and how the US highly regarded and given so many nuclear bombs... just some quote i found....
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, said: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful."
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, notes the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry."

so basically Iran has no nuclear weapons and the rest of the world including America has heaps, so yeah just the hypocrisy point again.

heres a quote "we will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 01:03:25 am by TrueLight »
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2009, 04:24:13 am »
0
very interesting...Balfour Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2009, 02:21:49 am »
0
Interesting documentary film about Iran's history
http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/about_the_movie

This film is intended to counter the misinformation presented in the U.S. mass media
Sources are cited at www.iranisnottheproblem.com
IRAN (is not the problem) is a feature length film responding to the failure of the American mass media to provide the public with relevant and accurate information about the standoff between the US and Iran, as happened before with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
We have heard that Iran is a nuclear menace in defiance of the international community, bent on "wiping Israel off the map", supporting terrorism, and unwilling to negotiate. This documentary disputes these claims as they are presented to us and puts them in the context of present and historical US imperialism and hypocrisy with respect to Iran.
It looks at the struggle for democracy inside Iran, the consequences of the current escalation and the potential US and/or Israeli attack, and suggests some alternatives to consider.
This 79 minute documentary features Antonia Juhasz (The Bu$h Agenda), Larry Everest (Oil, Power, and Empire), and other activists and Iranian-Americans. The DVD also contains a 20 minute preview version ideal for meetings. The goal of this movie is to promote dialog and change the debate on Iran, so please consider organizing a screening, big or small, in your area.
Produced by Aaron Newman, an independent film-maker and part of the Scary Cow film co-op in San Francisco. He is an anti-imperialism/pro-democracy activist, founder of the SF Chomsky Book Club, and a member of Hands Off Iran
There are differences of opinion between many of the voices in this film, but all agree that a war would be unjustified. Below are brief video introductions for each of the people who participated

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjXaip5Foso&feature=related


a quote from one of the speakers in the movie that i like
Majid Baradar- Iranian-American, "Social Entrepreneur"
"once the threat of bombing Iran comes from an adminstration at this stage, it's basically allows radicals that are basically very small percentage that holding to the power, to clamp down on all these movements and what it does happen that with threat of bombing, the movement stops and the repression becomes much larger and does not allow these grass roots to develop properly."

the article cited in the video about the increase in "terrorists" after the Iraq war
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/03/iraq-101-iraq-effect-war-iraq-and-its-impact-war-terrorism-pg-1
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 03:30:42 am by TrueLight »
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

Trent

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +1
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2009, 07:51:41 pm »
0
On Ron Paul's policy on Afghanistan - Do you not see this as distrubing, he wants to withdraw all troops immediatey? Until I saw this (in one of your videos) I was so-so about Ron Paul, I didn't like him, but didn't dislike him. But this has got my severely questioning his foreign policy knowledge. Is that the he does not understand the wider geo-political nuansces of the situation. It is no longer primarily about Afghanistan, I would say onlu 65-70% of the war is actually about Afghanistan. I refer this article http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/lose_afghanistan_lose_pakistan.html which correctly indentifies that if Afghanistan is lost so too is Pakistan, then Iran. As we know Pakistan is a nuclearly armed state far, far from stable, what if Pakistan becomes a failed state? Terrorists with Pakistani nukes? I don't like this situation. A failed Pakistan means greater Indian presence on the border, another nuclear armed state. A Indian-Pakistan war = devastating for the region and the world. On the other border with Afghanistan is Iran which is believed to be acquiring nukes itself, despite the over-hyped media reports, an evil regime it is cannot be debated. I think Ron Paul needs to seriously reconsider his view on Afghanistan, as this is the most crucial foreign policy issue at this moment, therefore should be the cornerstone of any politicians foreign policy who wishes to dip into the arguement regarding FP.
2008: Geography [42] Revolutions [38]
2009: English [40] Literature [38] Psychology [36] International Studies [33]
ENTER: 93.75

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2009, 08:13:44 pm »
0
-no i don't see this as disturbing, the American founding fathers advocated a policy of non-intervention and to mind your own business, do not go into entangling alliances...etc
-there was a speaker in Australia, talking at the place in Canberaa where all the other speakers talk at and has said the people accept the taliban even though they are more vicious and ruthful because they provide the afghan people with the necessaties they need and courts for civil disputes etc.. the afghan national police do nothing of the kind... the war in afghanistan just like when the Soviets invaded (have you read Kite Runner for school?) will fail. you cannot force your own will on another nation, let the people decide what it is they want...not some US puppet Karzai... Afghanistan was much more peaceful before any intervention...
-Afghanistan is lost? to whom ? the taliban? al-qaeda (which is made up since the US are the ones who paid the mujahideen to attack the Soviets- since back then the whole thing with the cold war..
-pakistan is nuclear armed because of America given them the weapons or paying them....since they also have a government who is pro-America....
-"terrorists" get motivated by foreign occupation who kill many thousands of their own people... this promotes normal everyday citizens to radicalism to fight what they think is wrong... and rightfully so...
-pakistan, israel, india- all have not signed the non-proliferation treaty and America gives them nuclear arms? it's amazing isn't it...
- in contrast to Iran who has signed it... i think you haven't read the last 3 posts of mine... and you might find it interested to actually watch the documentary Iran is not the problem..since this explains alot...
-Iran is does not have nuclear weapons! they have the most nuclear inspectors than anyone else in the world... compared to like 2000 nuclear weapons America has...
-It is the most crucial foreign policy but i believe a policy of intervention which always leads to some sort of 'blowback' and the expansion of power by the US and the accelerating inflation that this is creating is much more worse to everyone...-- and a quick fact i think around ah 60% of the oil reserves in the world are in the middle east region- alot is in the Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq region...America has already caontrolled Iraq, and have Saudi Arabia under their finger so... yes Iran is left... very bad move for the US to continue its war-mongering to gain whateva sinister goals it wants to instead of proper dialogue and fair proposals...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

Trent

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +1
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2009, 09:09:02 pm »
0
You continually refer back to the past, which is correct everything you say, but what the US has done in the past supporting the mujahideen is virtually irrelevant in the current situation - the past means nothing in the current situation.
What I said about lost Afghanistan is that IF it is lost, so too is Pakistan and Iran. I'm not saying it is lost.
I also think the fact that Pak, Isral and India haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty is largely irrelevant also, it is merely a part of the complex geo-political situation. But my main arguement is that if troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan the entire region collapses. 2 nuclear armed states, one which arguably is attempting to gain them, and with China VERY close to all of this, not to mention Russia, is very worrying indeed. Therefore, the US CANNOT and SHOULD NOT withdrawal - which is why I question Ron Paul on this issue.
Also, I personally believe the belief of the founding fathers cannot be given as an adaquate reason to deny an interventionalist policy. in the late 18th century America was not the dominant superpower of the world, that was far, far beyond the minds of the founding fathers. The whole internventionalist debate, also fun, is also irrelevent, the way I see it is the ONLY important thing is if the US withdraws the region collapses.
- To add I have read 'The Kite Runner'.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2009, 09:15:42 pm by Trent »
2008: Geography [42] Revolutions [38]
2009: English [40] Literature [38] Psychology [36] International Studies [33]
ENTER: 93.75

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2009, 10:46:51 pm »
0
-it is relevant, if we don't look at our history then we will continue to do the same mistakes over again
-this is the reason they had weapons, and were trained and then the various groups started fighting each other... consequences of US foreign policy have large implications with unintended consequences
-ronald reagan supported the freedom fighters and now we call these same people terrorists? hypocrisy?
-america funded the Madrassas in Pakistan which were used as places to enroll mujahideen trained by the American and Pakistani intelligence services to fight the Soviet Army occupying Afghanistan back then.
-you cannot antagonize the people in a country by bombing their citizens, it doesn't improve anything! or improve the image to them of America- it just increases extremism    
- and by propping up people and supporting people like musharaff in the past a military dictator- you think this helps the situation in pakistan...
- intervensionist and militaristic policies do not help countries becomes stable or even settle things themselves... it just promotes the environment that creates the problems that they are trying to solve...
-but this policy won't change with governments like obama's or bush's or any of them in fact since they have an interest in having a presence in the middle east for a long time and Oil reserves have a lot to do with this as well as their misguided philosophy hijacked by the neo-conservatives about policing the world and bombing nations to then rebuild the same infrastrucutre they just bombed...
-if we withdraw all troops the country collapses? just like the country collapsed when America left Vietnam?
-therefore I argue that a foreign policy change needs to occur if we want to promote peace and stable governments.
-i disagree that the interventionist debate is irrelevant, its completely relevant, its the policy that has led to so many unforeseen by the US government consequences which jeaperdizes national security!
-let their own people deal with an grieveances they may have and their own people can bring about change if we just get out of the way... we wouldn't like it if China occupied Australia in the name of helping us get rid of racists who promote violence... or something like that and then in the meanwhile "accidentally" killing everyday citizens...you would see people fight against the Chinese forming groups and the more they killed the more people would either flee or take arms.... obviously this won't happen but i'm giving you an analogy. 
-if you see out of such a narrow window then unfortunetaly nothing will change, just as the world governments see the economic problems out of such a small window
-oh ok awesome just wanted to know cause its sorta like the life they had before the soviets invaded.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2009, 10:50:46 pm by TrueLight »
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just

Collin Li

  • VCE Tutor
  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4957
  • Respect: +17
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2009, 09:03:11 am »
0
I'm sure Ron Paul has said something before to reject the need for "tactical shifts" to reflect "geo-political nuances". He has a bigger picture in mind, which is what TrueLight has covered.

They need an exit strategy, something less inactive than Obama, and perhaps more realistic than Ron Paul.

Hatred towards the US is caused by their interventionism in the region. It was cited as a major reason for 9/11. The US props up these proxy wars, and caused this mess to begin with. I'm not sure what the range of outcomes could be if they stopped, but it would only get worse if they continued.

Trent

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +1
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2009, 10:45:17 am »
0
-it is relevant, if we don't look at our history then we will continue to do the same mistakes over again
I think the US has learnt its lesson and isn't going to repeat any policies of the last 20 years really, therefore I would say we should only concentrate on the future for the time being.

-this is the reason they had weapons, and were trained and then the various groups started fighting each other... consequences of US foreign policy have large implications with unintended consequences
-ronald reagan supported the freedom fighters and now we call these same people terrorists? hypocrisy?
-america funded the Madrassas in Pakistan which were used as places to enroll mujahideen trained by the American and Pakistani intelligence services to fight the Soviet Army occupying Afghanistan back then.
All very true, however, under the political situation of the time (Cold War) these actions very much much warranted as the spead of Communisim had to be halted. And it is not hypocrisy, they were 'freedom fighters' to an extent in which they fought against an oppressive regime, they became terrorists when they attacked innocent civilians for political means, in a far away country grabbing the worlds attention. I see a big difference.

-you cannot antagonize the people in a country by bombing their citizens, it doesn't improve anything! or improve the image to them of America- it just increases extremism
Perhaps, but it is the leaders of the Taliban and Al-qeada who camp in the tribal border areas, and lead the campaign, if they are taken out the Taliban fighters to an extent loose their co-ordination and tactical ability, as the average fighter has little grasp on command and tactical decision needed to be made.
   
- and by propping up people and supporting people like musharaff in the past a military dictator- you think this helps the situation in pakistan...
I didn't like Musharraf anymore than the next guy, but I think with the geo-political situtation of the time, the US needed his support to help with the invasion of Afghanistan, and I think he failed with that support, but it was still needed.

- intervensionist and militaristic policies do not help countries becomes stable or even settle things themselves... it just promotes the environment that creates the problems that they are trying to solve...
The taliban harboured terrorists, and actively supported them with their attack on the US, I do not see this as stable or settled. If they did not attack the US, the US would have stayed out no question, yet with 9/11 there was no choice.

-but this policy won't change with governments like obama's or bush's or any of them in fact since they have an interest in having a presence in the middle east for a long time and Oil reserves have a lot to do with this as well as their misguided philosophy hijacked by the neo-conservatives about policing the world and bombing nations to then rebuild the same infrastrucutre they just bombed...
Yes oil is a motivating factor in having a presence in the Mid-East. This is not a bad thing though, a majority of oil comes from this region, and no one can argue that oil doesn't run this world, we need oil. Therefore, the US as a vested interest in seeing the oil supply secure, not just for themselves but for the rest of the world, including Australia.

-if we withdraw all troops the country collapses? just like the country collapsed when America left Vietnam?
Vietnam fell to Communism. The situation in Afghanistan is much more dire than it was in Vietnam. Like I have said, It isn't just Afghanistan at stake here. We are talking about a nuclear armem Pakistan which would essentially be left isolated in the region. We don't want this.

-therefore I argue that a foreign policy change needs to occur if we want to promote peace and stable governments.
Yes I would argree that a foreign policy change needs to occur, however, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan prematurely is not it.

-i disagree that the interventionist debate is irrelevant, its completely relevant, its the policy that has led to so many unforeseen by the US government consequences which jeaperdizes national security!
With Obama winning the Nobel peace prize I can't see him launching any new military invasions, even before I couldn't see him doing so. Therefore, regards if you suport interventionalism or isolationism, we are in Afghanistan.

-let their own people deal with an grieveances they may have and their own people can bring about change if we just get out of the way... we wouldn't like it if China occupied Australia in the name of helping us get rid of racists who promote violence... or something like that and then in the meanwhile "accidentally" killing everyday citizens...you would see people fight against the Chinese forming groups and the more they killed the more people would either flee or take arms.... obviously this won't happen but i'm giving you an analogy. 
I understand completely where you are coming from, but 3000 dead civilians in the US and many more thousand family members would beg to differ we should let the Afghani people sort it out themselves, they are the ones who really jeopardise national security.

-if you see out of such a narrow window then unfortunetaly nothing will change, just as the world governments see the economic problems out of such a small window
I agree, wider view has to be taken, but that view must be confined to the South Asian region.

-oh ok awesome just wanted to know cause its sorta like the life they had before the soviets invaded.
Afghanistan has been a failed state for a long, long, long time.
2008: Geography [42] Revolutions [38]
2009: English [40] Literature [38] Psychology [36] International Studies [33]
ENTER: 93.75

TrueLight

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
  • Respect: +9
Re: Foreign Policy
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2009, 01:17:29 am »
0
-i disagree they are repeated the same mistakes only this time being for sophisticated with them.... they're now funding the sunni's extremist groups to counter iran's shia!
-the short sightedness of america's foreign policy is just wrong- first they fund the fundamentalists that created the now so called al-qaeda due to the whole "communism" scare which is just bizarre- do u know how much damage they did to south america for this!nicaragua.(and this had consequences- funding the contras through covert means by selling arms to israel to IRAN!!!which blew up in their face)..etc... communism wouldn't have spread like a wild, that was just a lie spread by american government and CIA, they usually justified a coup against a government due to the fact they may have ties with russia...pathetic...and now they are adament on fighting a group of people that are spread not only in afghanistan... and now they are easing on the taliban and probably funding them too to get them on the side of the american's..don't you see how america's involvement in the middle east has bit them on the butt?..one of the reasons stated by osama bin laden was america's support for israel and the occupation and bases in the saudi arabian desert during the iraq war in the 90's, that was their holy land!and was seen as defiling their holy land...america needs to reconsider it's foreign policy to not just serve whateva interest's they have and their corporations but to actually promote peace and a democratic society and to help their own people! not steal their taxpayers dollars!..and.not by a barrel of a gun! don't you see that the bombing of so called "enemies" such as libya, sudan, albania, afghanistan, iraq produced the opposite effect of what they seek? don't you think that continueing this same policy will just make things worse?
-the war into and afghanistan and the bombings by drone in pakistan have actually helped to destablise the america gifted nuclear pakistan  and increase the anti-american sentiment by the radcalized groups there..
- do you actually realize why "terrorists" have only attacked America? and have not attacked other countries like iceland or sweden or luxembourg? because they haven't got invovled in such a war and interfering in other countries affairs!
-and also because of oil america has to secure it? by going into a country and attacking it...do you know how much damage to iraq oil they caused when they invaded now they obviously have contractors that have a nice stack of cash in their pockets..
- yeah i just don't agree in what your saying and don't believe in interventionism which is not the same as isolationism..you have to get those facts straight and ron paul has talked a lot about the difference..
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 01:40:13 am by TrueLight »
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Completed Bachelor of Science. Majored in Immunology and Microbiology.

“Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie, the more inclined people will be to believe it”
Adolf Hitler

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just