View Full Version : Political Science
You live in America.
Somone has occupied your land.
They make the rules. Basically they can kick your ass, take your home, and occupy your land. You have no rights, no methods of production, cannot come and go as you please, and have had every freedom taken from you.
You will be told when and if you can cross this border or that border, and if the occupier decides you're a terrorist/insurgent, you're shot on the spot.
What options do you have?
How do you combat your condition?
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
What is left is the seemingly weak and helpless of your society.
Now what?
Ret10Echo
11-15-2007, 05:54
Now what? History, that's what.
The Trail of Tears
The Dirty War
The Great Purge
Idi Amin's "economic war"
The Killing Fields
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
Until such time as those who have decided to turn a blind eye have no choice but to become engaged...
Reality...it's what's for dinner.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-15-2007, 05:54
Now what?
Make sure you vote next time and kick the democrats out of office.
Roguish Lawyer
11-15-2007, 06:26
Make sure you vote next time and kick the democrats out of office.
LMAO!
You live in America.
Somone has occupied your land.
They make the rules. Basically they can kick your ass, take your home, and occupy your land. You have no rights, no methods of production, cannot come and go as you please, and have had every freedom taken from you.
You will be told when and if you can cross this border or that border, and if the occupier decides you're a terrorist/insurgent, you're shot on the spot.
What options do you have?
How do you combat your condition?
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
What is left is the seemingly weak and helpless of your society.
Now what?
I know how to establish an insurgency and conduct unconventional warfare. I have guns, ammo and training. I have former team mates who have the skill, weapons and equipment. So, by the definition above, I am probably serving a life sentance or already hanged.
The Reaper
11-15-2007, 07:30
I know how to establish an insurgency and conduct unconventional warfare. I have guns, ammo and training. I have former team mates who have the skill, weapons and equipment. So, by the definition above, I am probably serving a life sentance or already hanged.
I agree.
If my family is still alive, I would try to link-up with or organize and establish a low-level insurgency effort.
If they are gone, I would use the resources at hand to inflict the maximum number of casualties possible on the occupiers and to destroy the infrastructure that benefits them.
I liked COL M's answer best though.:D
TR
Team Sergeant
11-15-2007, 08:16
I agree with my brothers.
We are kind, peace loving, gentle individuals, until its time not to be, then, there is not a force on this planet that can stop us.
We would never bow to anyone or allow any gov to take our freedoms, not while we're breathing.
There's not a government on the planet we walk in fear of, I can't say that goes both ways.
We not only know how to fight, but how to win.
Realistically, Para is right: all you alpha males are dead. Hopefully, some time in the future the kids in college will be wearing a teeshirt with your face on it instead of Che's, but that's about the best you can hope for. Right now the survivors assimilate or die. A "Sophie's Choice."
My godson is a FBI (his term: Full-Blooded Indian, not 'Native American')...<edit..snip, not in front of the Cadre>
If we leave some of the fighters alive and throw in some sympathy/support from the surrounding population, it's a different situation. But that's not the premise.
COL Moroney is right. The only solution is to make sure it doesn't get to that point.
You live in America.
Somone has occupied your land.
They make the rules. Basically they can kick your ass, take your home, and occupy your land. You have no rights, no methods of production, cannot come and go as you please, and have had every freedom taken from you.
You will be told when and if you can cross this border or that border, and if the occupier decides you're a terrorist/insurgent, you're shot on the spot.
What options do you have?
How do you combat your condition?
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
What is left is the seemingly weak and helpless of your society.
Now what?
Isn’t that what the Yankees did to Dixie?:D
Team Sergeant
11-15-2007, 13:15
You live in America.
Somone has occupied your land.
They make the rules. Basically they can kick your ass, take your home, and occupy your land. You have no rights, no methods of production, cannot come and go as you please, and have had every freedom taken from you.
You will be told when and if you can cross this border or that border, and if the occupier decides you're a terrorist/insurgent, you're shot on the spot.
What options do you have?
How do you combat your condition?
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
What is left is the seemingly weak and helpless of your society.
Now what?
It would no longer be considered America.
Like Rome it would fade into obscurity and would only live in history books.
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
I don't ever see this happening, but I do see those that could/would take a stand decide not to do so.
If this country ever gets to the point where good men become indifferent, lord have mercy on the 100 of milions of sheep.
3SoldierDad
11-15-2007, 16:04
You live in America.
Somone has occupied your land.
They make the rules. Basically they can kick your ass, take your home, and occupy your land. You have no rights, no methods of production, cannot come and go as you please, and have had every freedom taken from you.
You will be told when and if you can cross this border or that border, and if the occupier decides you're a terrorist/insurgent, you're shot on the spot.
What options do you have?
How do you combat your condition?
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
What is left is the seemingly weak and helpless of your society.
Now what?
I've sired three military sons...
I guess I'd have to get busy and sire a few more. :rolleyes:
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
What is left is the seemingly weak and helpless of your society.
Now what?
Sometimes the seemingly weak and helpless learn how to fight and resist and have even won.
x-factor
11-15-2007, 17:47
I could see America tearing itself apart in a multi-lateral civil war way way WAY before some kind of Orwellian dictatorship.
As for the original question...first thing I'd probably do is to extract my family to a safe country. Then assess operational options. Is there a Free America diaspora to link up with? Is there an allied government (or non-governmental organization?) that wants to fund an American insurgency against whatever nastiness has taken over? Or do I need to start working on setting up a network from scratch? If so, I need to start looking for like-minded people with useful skills, start building my team.
I'd probably also try to collect whatever works of American culture I could find into some kind of repository to make sure they were saved for posterity. Like TS said, even if the society has to die, the memory of its accomplishment should live on.
They have arrested all of the members of your country who would and could fight for you? They have all been either imprisoned for life or hanged.
How did they accomplish this? How was every single person in a population of 300 million across a very large landmass with the knowledge or willingness to fight identified and apprehended by "the authorities"? Did this monumental task supposedly happen overnight? Are you magically assuming that there was no forewarning at all so folks that would fight could decide to "disappear" and organize?
More importantly, is this "theoretical" scenario supposed to parallel circumstances currently occuring elsewhere in the world, because if so it seems to me many of the listed assumptions are either incomplete or inaccurate.
82ndtrooper
11-15-2007, 18:00
I agree.
If my family is still alive, I would try to link-up with or organize and establish a low-level insurgency effort.
If they are gone, I would use the resources at hand to inflict the maximum number of casualties possible on the occupiers and to destroy the infrastructure that benefits them.
I liked COL M's answer best though.:D
TR
That low level insurgency would be called "The Wolverines" :cool:
If I could make it to Fayettville, North Carolina then count me in. If not then I am seeking like minded individuals to take up arms with me. Call signs for recognition of solidarity would be "Bite us" and "Kiss my arse"
Make sure you vote next time and kick the democrats out of office.
Indeed.
While not a professional I recently learned I'm a fairly decent shooter. I'd gather people of like mind and join the fight; I'll die on my feet before I will ever live on my knees.
I believe Col M. has the best solution. It is far easier to carry a acorn in your pocket than a full gown oak tree.
More importantly, is this "theoretical" scenario supposed to parallel circumstances currently occuring elsewhere in the world, because if so it seems to me many of the listed assumptions are either incomplete or inaccurate.
It does sound to me that the original post was less an actual question, and more of a rhetorical point. To what end, I'm not sure. Maybe the OP can tell us?
Dan
This thread is for my curiosity to see how the most intelligent group of people I 'know' view occupation and what to do about it. Specifically, Americans (although I could have phrased the question differently to include members of other nations, I am specifically looking for the American perspective.)
It is more of a questioning of our foreign policy the last 60 years than it is about one or two specific nations or people under occupation today.
I wanted your persepective on what you would do. Most of the answers are right in line with what is actually happening in the world today, and has happened in the past conflicts we have either been apart of overtly or covertly.
Thanks.
Ambush Master
11-15-2007, 19:46
Quite simple GW/UW-101!!!
I have enough of what I need and the mindset to get more!!
Gather those that are like-minded, and with the ability to train and arm them, grow the Resistance!!!
Then, do what I can do BEST!!!
Signed: AMBUSH MASTER
If you wish to know how Americans would handle this situation, then read about the Reconstruction period in the south. This was a very tough time for the South. but our ancestors did handle the situation.
Many BAD and UNETHICAL policies came out this movement and really did not get addressed until the 1960's, but this was the result of the action taken against the native southeners by the carpet baggers and red legs.
Just my .02$ worth.
clapdoc sends.
CosaNostraUSMC
11-15-2007, 22:11
Having personally seen how things played out in al Anbar...I'd have to say that, if the world thinks we had a rough go of it in places like, Ramadi, Fallujah, Nasariyah, al Kut...can you imagine the hornets nest of an insurgency that some poor bastards would kick up in Americas ghettos; anyone of the housing projects in Chicago, Oakland, Houston/Dallas, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, Los Angeles, DC, NYC's buroughs, Detroit, Jersey...the list is endless.
I'm with the QP's and others of this forum; I'd exercise my right and duty to plan and carry out operations to disrupt and destroy infrastructure, hunt targets of opportunity and disminate information for the resistance. I'd wisely use what my government has taught me by any means necessary.
For all intensive purposes, I'd become an insurgent.
I'd exercise my right and duty to carry out operations to disrupt and destroy the invading forces infrastructure, to operate with like minded/skilled individuals, and to hunt targets of opportunity. For all intensive purposes, I'd become an insurgent.
What kinds of targets (not specifically either - I am not trying to dish out ideas to idiots.) for instance?
Military?
Government?
Social?
Infrastructure?
Education?
Transportation?
Make it hard for the occupying force to govern and protect? Spread the fight out into the urban areas across the nation?
What about collateral damage? Is there a line to cross? Not to cross? How far would you go?
Are there limits, based on availability of willing participants, concerning age? Sex?
Keep in mind they are a superior force with armor and air superiority.
Food for thought - I'm pretty sure this has been covered here before:
NO - this is not intended to be a direct answer to your question. I've been studying UW for 30+ years, and I'm still a rank amature. One thing I have learned though is the value of discretion. Think on it a while.
Peregrino
Has it been covered?
What do Americans know about being occupied? What do Americans know about an insurgency? What do Americans know about oppression?
Do Americans realize they enjoy a fat life? Do Americans understand what the Iranians, Iraqis, Palestinians, North Koreans, Georgians, Afghanis, Sudanese and Pakistanis have to deal with daily?
I'll be honest, I am trying to understand American Foreign Policy the last 60 years, and part of that is the utter cockiness Americans display in the face of occupation.
WTF do Americans understand, as a whole, about occupation? What about the privledged class of Americans that run this country, and make decisions across the globe like some kind of strategic chess board? WTF do these idiot policy makers understand?
What brought this on personally for me was the Pakistan 'situation.' First of all we "pressure" Musharraf into allowing Bhutto into the country. Why? WTF do we care about Bhutto? Foreign Policy at its finest. Then we make overtures how "unhappy" we are about the emergency powers he put in place.
First of all we have no idea what we're doing on foreign policy, and we haven't in over 60+ years. Second, why do we feel the need to comment on what is going on in Pakistan? We can't be like coach Bilichick and say NO COMMENT?
Thirdly, we have to pull back on the "America leads the world towards democracy" stance. We''re not stewards.
Until we understand what occupation is, and until we stop spending money on oppressors, and until we empathize with the oppressesd and occupied without thinking we can change the fooking world, I think our policy sucks.
And I don't care who is in office - with complete respect to you Col M, Sir - there has been SNAFU's on both sides of the aisle. No respectable American can point the finger at either Dems or Repubs and say it is thier fault.
Finally, if your leadeship decisions cannot withstand the leftist media, maybe you should not be the head coach.
CosaNostraUSMC
11-15-2007, 23:01
I know who I am.
Not too sure which side of the fence you're on.
Seems you've got a lot of anger and resentment inside.
Maybe you'd like to share with the group...
I'll be honest, I am trying to understand American Foreign Policy the last 60 years, and part of that is the utter cockiness Americans display in the face of occupation.
WTF do Americans understand, as a whole, about occupation?
Like I said. It seems much more obvious that the original poster is trying to make a grand rhetorical point rather than asking a cogent question.
Dan
GratefulCitizen
11-15-2007, 23:39
Has it been covered?
What do Americans know about being occupied? What do Americans know about an insurgency? What do Americans know about oppression?
Do Americans realize they enjoy a fat life? Do Americans understand what the Iranians, Iraqis, Palestinians, North Koreans, Georgians, Afghanis, Sudanese and Pakistanis have to deal with daily?
I'll be honest, I am trying to understand American Foreign Policy the last 60 years, and part of that is the utter cockiness Americans display in the face of occupation.
WTF do Americans understand, as a whole, about occupation? What about the privledged class of Americans that run this country, and make decisions across the globe like some kind of strategic chess board? WTF do these idiot policy makers understand?
What brought this on personally for me was the Pakistan 'situation.' First of all we "pressure" Musharraf into allowing Bhutto into the country. Why? WTF do we care about Bhutto? Foreign Policy at its finest. Then we make overtures how "unhappy" we are about the emergency powers he put in place.
First of all we have no idea what we're doing on foreign policy, and we haven't in over 60+ years. Second, why do we feel the need to comment on what is going on in Pakistan? We can't be like coach Bilichick and say NO COMMENT?
Thirdly, we have to pull back on the "America leads the world towards democracy" stance. We''re not stewards.
Until we understand what occupation is, and until we stop spending money on oppressors, and until we empathize with the oppressesd and occupied without thinking we can change the fooking world, I think our policy sucks.
And I don't care who is in office - with complete respect to you Col M, Sir - there has been SNAFU's on both sides of the aisle. No respectable American can point the finger at either Dems or Repubs and say it is thier fault.
Finally, if your leadeship decisions cannot withstand the leftist media, maybe you should not be the head coach.
Please forgive my forthcoming bluntness.
I hope this thread was not started to expose a big conspiracy theory and how it's necessary to "fight the power".
Conspiracy theorists, whether in there 20s, 30s, 60s, etc., typically posess one quirk:
For whatever reason, they haven't reached the level of achievement to which they think they're entitled and time has left them in its wake.
In order to reconcile reality with what "should have been", they imagine great and malignant powers have suppressed their success.
Then, they create fantasies of noble resistance against incredible odds and try to get others (especially those viewed as authoritative or powerful) to legitimize these fantasies.
They try to portray themselves as holders of secret knowledge or special insight and valiantly sound the clarion call.
All this is done in an attempt to feel important and fill the void left by coulda, shoulda, woulda...
Please tell me I am mistaken.
82ndtrooper
11-15-2007, 23:46
I know who I am.
Not too sure which side of the fence you're on.
Seems you've got a lot of anger and resentment inside.
Maybe you'd like to share with the group...
There's a 12 step program for that.
I know who I am.
Not too sure which side of the fence you're on.
Seems you've got a lot of anger and resentment inside.
Maybe you'd like to share with the group...
Anger/Resentment..... Yeah a little. So what? I should hang my head in genuflect?
I did share. I started the thread.
Point is not many Americans give a crap about people under occupation. Not many Americans worry about insurgents.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-16-2007, 06:11
Anger/Resentment..... Point is not many Americans give a crap about people under occupation. Not many Americans worry about insurgents.
You know it would take me about 6 hours worth of pounding this silly keyboard to lay out a strategy with supporting campaign plans that would answer your initial questions. However, as I do not know a whole lot about you so do not take this the wrong way, you would have to have an in depth understanding of unconventional warfare and I would have to delve into areas not suitable for either this medium or for the general public at large as I really do not think I want to give anyone a game plan to exploit against my own country. Having said all that, it is hard to "give a crap" about people under occupation who do not seem to "give a crap" about standing and fighting, staying and fighting rather than fleeing their homeland, or who do not seem able to throw off the yoke of oppression because they cannot or will not stand up and yell that the emporer has no clothes as they continue to allow themselves to be subjugated by fallacious dogma and doctrine they know to be false.
The Reaper
11-16-2007, 06:17
Anger/Resentment..... Yeah a little. So what? I should hang my head in genuflect?
I did share. I started the thread.
Point is not many Americans give a crap about people under occupation. Not many Americans worry about insurgents.
It occurs to me that you throw the word "occupation" around pretty generically.
Was the British presence before the Revolutionary War occupation? What about the military invasion of Federal soldiers and the suspension of basic Constitutional rights during Reconstruction, was that occupation? How about Germany, Japan, or Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? Somalia? How about Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Bosnia? Kosovo? Afghanistan (under the Taliban vs. now)? Iraq (under Sadaam vs. now)? Pakistan is not being occupied, it is under the rule of a military dictator, BTW. You have to distinguish between liberation, UW, FID, presence, interventions, etc.
Is occupation after liberation always a bad thing, particularly when it replaces a dictatorship with a more benign form of government?
I do not know too many countries that met your totally lost cause other than the Soviet Union or the like. Certainly, I cannot see an external threat with that capability, given the size, population, and independence of America.
You seem angry about something. Think and post rationally here. Don't become another America hater. There are plenty of those here already in the Democratic Party and the MSM.
TR
...What do Americans know about being occupied? What do Americans know about an insurgency? What do Americans know about oppression?
Do Americans realize they enjoy a fat life? Do Americans understand what the Iranians, Iraqis, Palestinians, North Koreans, Georgians, Afghanis, Sudanese and Pakistanis have to deal with daily?.......
Your profile says you are into Military History.
Insurgency? Do a little reading on the Rev War. Look to the areas around the Carolinas. Lots of nasty stuff going on there.
Occupied? Oppression? Do a little reading on the Civil War. People around here still scare the children with stories of Damn Yankees. Sherman and his boys cut a path to the sea that stands as a leason of total war to this day.
Takes a long time to get the average American really POed, but when he does he comes out swinging and don't stop until it's over.
x-factor
11-16-2007, 16:44
I'm with TR on this "occupation" issue. "Occupations" are as varied as war in general, the product of nearly infinite list of factors: terrain, economics, religion, culture, neighboring countries, etc etc etc etc. Not the least of which is the question: who's doing the occupying and what are their intentions? An American resistance to an Islamic occupation would look very different from an American resistance to a Communist occupation would look very different from an American resistance to occupation by another ostensibly American element...etc etc etc.
I think your root question of how the American character would handle being the "military underdog" (something it hasn't been since at the latest WWII, but arguably as far back as the Revolutionary War) is interesting, but your scenario is missing so many of the relevant details for the scenario that you're not going to get past generalities with the discussion.
If you want guys to play your game, you've got to provide the equipment.
I think the reason I started this thread was to point out that America does not understand the implications of another nation meddling in the domestic issues of our nation. We do not have a vastly superior economic and military power butting its nose in our business, and I am confident we would not put up with it. That partly motivated me to ask the occupation question.
We do not understand true occupation, we do not understand what it is like to be under the thumb of a more powerful nation, yet we feel the need to be in everyone else's business. When are we going to learn that we do not need to make statements or take action when dealing with other nations?
Pakistan is just one example. So we use back channels to have Bhutto return, then a few weeks later emergency rule is installed, and we're not happy? Who the hell are we to meddle in that affair? Especially an ally like that in an area of the world where he does not have full control over terrorist no mans land.
And it is not just Pakistan. It is our carte blanche support of Israel. Our support if Iraq vs Iran. Our wars with Vietnam and Korea. Why can't we just stop trying to be the savior of the damn world for once and realize people and nations can define their own destiny, and if derelicts and tyrants want to take control by force, then the rest of the world is either going to partner with us to stop it, or we're not doing squat either.
Sometimes I think we react to a crisis (i.e., Pakistan) because people expect us to. We're saying all the wrong things pertaining to Pakistan. We're moving forward without understanding the consequences. And we've seen where that can get you already.
So yeah, I am upset and angry. I think our foreign policy sucks.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-17-2007, 12:26
I think our foreign policy sucks.
Okay, taking as your starting point that the main elements of national power with which to protect and project our national interests as: diplomatic, psychological (informational if you prefer), economic, and military how would you construct our foreign policy and why? It is one thing to get mad, now here is your chance to lay out how you think things should be done to enhance, protect, or project our national interests. A good first step would be for you to lay out what you see our national interests to be and, by the way, if you can do that you will be way ahead of the demonstrated panderings and understanding of most of our politicians.
The Reaper
11-17-2007, 13:00
No nation can operate successfully in isolation today. Even China eventually came out of the closet.
The vast oceans that for many years protected this nation from attack ceased being an adequate shield with the advent of the long range jet aircraft and the thermonuclear weapon.
We function as the world's policeman because we are the only nation with the capability to do it. In addition to our military, look at our force projection and strategic lift capability. How many countries can move a division to the other side of the planet in a few weeks, or put an aircraft carrier off an opponent's coast in a few days? I doubt that Great Britain could conduct the Falklands campaign again if they had to.
I am not satisfied with our foreign policy either, but I do not see your analogy as a valid one. Nation states, even benevolent ones like ours, can always be counted on to act in their own self-interest.
TR
3SoldierDad
11-17-2007, 13:17
I think the reason I started this thread was to point out that America does not understand the implications of another nation meddling in the domestic issues of our nation.
In a global world we're all meddling with each other.
We do not have a vastly superior economic and military power butting its nose in our business, and I am confident we would not put up with it. That partly motivated me to ask the occupation question.
Power gives us the ability to not have to put up with a lot. If we don't like something we have more resources to change it. Power gives one more options. However, as we're learning power doesn''t guarantee success. In fact, it creates unique problems and complications.
We do not understand true occupation, we do not understand what it is like to be under the thumb of a more powerful nation,
There is a lot we don't understand. What we don't understand far exceeds what we do understand. And, that's why the universe is a scary place. It is human nature to control what we can. America's power gives us a sense that we can apply power. But, there's the rub - It's not enough. Nation-State power - hard power - has big limits in the 21st century. Once one applies power he has a bulls-eye on his back. The good news is that we can do something. The bad news is that we do something. Power and restaint don't often go together real well, unfortunately.
yet we feel the need to be in everyone else's business.
Power actually makes us more insecure in many ways and our "needs" multiply and our sense of needing to know multiplies and our sense of needing to get in people's business multiplies. However, if you look around the world, many nations - if not most - WANT America to be active in their country or their region or their economy. It goes both ways. I would submit that America is more often "pulled" into other people's business than America purposely jumps into other people's business. This all a function of power and little of it can be avoided.
When are we going to learn that we do not need to make statements or take action when dealing with other nations?
Never. When will people begin behaving rationally? - Never. What do we need to do? Grow-up and get real. Life ain't so simple.
Pakistan is just one example. So we use back channels to have Bhutto return, then a few weeks later emergency rule is installed, and we're not happy? Who the hell are we to meddle in that affair?
We're a big powerful country and we're nervous about the Paks' nukes, and that they'll fall into the hands of those who would seek our destruction. When you have a nervous Power, they do things. We're doing things that are in our perceived national interests. But, you say, "But it is wrong!" Hey, the they is us - We're a democracy. Well, you may say, "Well, it's out of control!" Okay, I'd say then, "We're out of control." In a democracy every man is entitled to his opinion and the majority will choose HOW we want to seek change; even if that is preceived by you as policy that puts us out of control. In Iraq - We stay there we have problems; we leave we have problems - We're between the hammer and the anvil. Same as Pakistan and any number of choices that we have.
Especially an ally like that in an area of the world where he does not have full control over terrorist no mans land.
Ally? ...As long as the check is in the mail. ;)
And it is not just Pakistan. It is our carte blanche support of Israel. Our support if Iraq vs Iran. Our wars with Vietnam and Korea. Why can't we just stop trying to be the savior of the damn world for once and realize people and nations can define their own destiny, and if derelicts and tyrants want to take control by force, then the rest of the world is either going to partner with us to stop it, or we're not doing squat either.
Well, some day the lion will lie down with the lamb...
But, it is going to be a while.
Sometimes I think we react to a crisis (i.e., Pakistan) because people expect us to. We're saying all the wrong things pertaining to Pakistan. We're moving forward without understanding the consequences. And we've seen where that can get you already.
No matter which way we go left or right, back or forward, up or down - we can never really know the consequences. The security you seek and certainty that you demand cannot be found on this planet.
So yeah, I am upset and angry. I think our foreign policy sucks.
I agree with the Colonel - What would you then suggest? Lots of things suck in life, but a tantrum probably doesn't help.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
.;)
It is one thing to get mad, now here is your chance to lay out how you think things should be done to enhance, protect, or project our national interests. A good first step would be for you to lay out what you see our national interests to be and, by the way, if you can do that you will be way ahead of the demonstrated panderings and understanding of most of our politicians.
Col M, that is really a tall order sir. I don't have the capacity to frame it that way.
How about we start small. Lets be honest brokers. How about we stay out of other peoples business.
Someone mentioned that we're global now. Fine, lets start acting like it. Lets start making decisions that are good for the rest of the world, and not just ourselves. If were not going to save places like Darfur and Somalia, then what is the point?
If we allow Israel to bulldoze homes and build settlements, than why not Turkey with the Kurds? If we support an insurgency in America if someone invades, how can we not expect one in Palestine and Iraq? Musharref has his hands full in Pakistan, and we backdoor him on Bhutto?? WTF is that about? We support Iraq and Afghanistan in ther wars "with our enemies" yet today find our men and woman on their soil, fighting "the enemy of our enemy."
We're not smart brokers in the world. We are a poor example of strength. We're not patient. We're not smart. We're not selfless enough. We're agressive and bullying. We do not do a very good job of thinking 5-6 moves ahead. Our decision making is clouded.
For a nation that is capable of the most incredible acts of genorosity, we have also caused - indirectly and directly - untold amounts of suffering. And because of the good that we do in the world we're not comfortable coming to grips with these faults of ours.
So Col M, sir, I don't have the solutions. Just a realization lately that I am not happy about our decisions in foreign policy. No TV shows I watched, or books recently read, or lectures I heard broght me to this conclusion. Maybe I am getting old.
I do not see your analogy as a valid one. Nation states, even benevolent ones like ours, can always be counted on to act in their own self-interest.
TR
Yes Sir. I agree. But isn't in our best interests to make sure the decisions we make today do not end up making things worse tomorrow? Can't we expect our foreign policy to reflect a certain intelligence and foresight so that we're not fighting the very nations we supported 30+ years ago? Self interest sometimes means you not actually acting on your own behalf. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet, admit you made a mistake, and reverse field, but I would rather we fail to act sometimes and let things play out a little longer. We tend to act with immediacy all the time.
I do not want to be the policemen of the world, but we are. But we patrol only those neighborhoods that serve our interests. That is not exactly a policeman, that is a Mafia.
In a global world we're all meddling with each other.
Power gives us the ability to not have to put up with a lot. If we don't like something we have more resources to change it. Power gives one more options. However, as we're learning power doesn''t guarantee success. In fact, it creates unique problems and complications.
There is a lot we don't understand. What we don't understand far exceeds what we do understand. And, that's why the universe is a scary place. It is human nature to control what we can. America's power gives us a sense that we can apply power. But, there's the rub - It's not enough. Nation-State power - hard power - has big limits in the 21st century. Once one applies power he has a bulls-eye on his back. The good news is that we can do something. The bad news is that we do something. Power and restaint don't often go together real well, unfortunately.
Power actually makes us more insecure in many ways and our "needs" multiply and our sense of needing to know multiplies and our sense of needing to get in people's business multiplies. However, if you look around the world, many nations - if not most - WANT America to be active in their country or their region or their economy. It goes both ways. I would submit that America is more often "pulled" into other people's business than America purposely jumps into other people's business. This all a function of power and little of it can be avoided.
Never. When will people begin behaving rationally? - Never. What do we need to do? Grow-up and get real. Life ain't so simple.
We're a big powerful country and we're nervous about the Paks' nukes, and that they'll fall into the hands of those who would seek our destruction. When you have a nervous Power, they do things. We're doing things that are in our perceived national interests. But, you say, "But it is wrong!" Hey, the they is us - We're a democracy. Well, you may say, "Well, it's out of control!" Okay, I'd say then, "We're out of control." In a demecracy every man is entitled to his opinion and the majority will choose HOW we want to seek change; even if that is preceived by you as policy that puts us out of control. In Iraq - We stay there we have problems; we leave we have problems - We're between the hammer and the anvil. Same as Pakistan and any number of choices that we have.
Ally? ;) ...As long as the check is in the mail.
Well, some day the lion will lie down with the lamb...
But, it is going to be a while.
No matter which way we go left or right, back or forward, up or down - we can never really know the consequences. The security you seek and certainty that you demand cannot be found on this planet.
I agree with the Colonel - What would you then suggest? Lots of things suck in life, but a tantrum probably doesn't help.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
.
Yeah I agree a tantrum doesn't help. Maybe I am doing some searching lately and needed a place to start that search.
Mr. JMI,
I suggest that you run in the next election for Representative or Senator from your state.
clapdoc sends.
CosaNostraUSMC
11-17-2007, 19:45
Anger/Resentment..... Yeah a little. So what? I should hang my head in genuflect?
One might infer, from that statement and other views voiced, your religious preference is that of one that isn't indigenous to America. I could be wrong.
Point is not many Americans give a crap about people under occupation. Not many Americans worry about insurgents.
You are wrong. We do, and history supports this.
I worried about insurgents, when they were part of my reality, when I was searching for them overseas. Now that I'm home, and they're a scarce commodity here in comparisson to there, yeah, I don't worry so much. The reality of that situation was confined to those geographics, and is no longer my reality, in the HERE and NOW.
You mentioned the bulldozing of structures by Israel. I take it you're a Palestinian sympethizer? PLO supporter?
What about some of the other "misunderstood and oppressed groups" of our planet; Abu-sayef, RIRA/PIRA, Basque separtists, Chechyn rebels, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Fatah...are they all righteous citizens, merely trying to champion their State oppressed brothers and sisters?
You typify the, "Anti-establishment, big brother's watching, Rage Against The Machine, fight the power, down with government" type.
Someone who wants to believe so badly in something, that, you don't want to be told what to believe in. A pesemist who never takes action himself, to change the things lacking or of dislike in your life, so you blame everything and anyone around you.
Is that your M.O.?
Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-17-2007, 20:24
Maybe I am getting old.
Oh please, I have jump boots older than you.
You mentioned the bulldozing of structures by Israel. I take it you're a Palestinian sympethizer? PLO supporter?
What about some of the other "misunderstood and oppressed groups" of our planet; Abu-sayef, RIRA/PIRA, Basque separtists, Chechyn rebels, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Fatah...are they all righteous citizens, merely trying to champion their State oppressed brothers and sisters?
You typify the, "Anti-establishment, big brother's watching, Rage Against The Machine, fight the power, down with government" type.
Someone who wants to believe so badly in something, that, you don't want to be told what to believe in. A pesemist who never takes action himself, to change the things lacking or of dislike in your life, so you blame everything and anyone around you.
Is that your M.O.?
No, you're wrong on all points. Every single one of them and I am not going to justify your post by trying to prove what you wrote is wrong. You took my post the wrong way and decided it was a good time to take some shots at me personally. You can take the post personally, I will not.
Instead of taking on the points of my post you decided to take me on. When you decide to debate the merits of my post and not me personally, I will respond. I have been here since the board started and I am sure my pro-terrorists leaning would have surfaced by now.
Have a great day.
You talk about things like Dufar and Somolia, Pakistan and Musariff/Bhutto, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... Please, do not take this as a personal attack, but where do you get your information? Have you been to any of these places? Do you have the proper security clearance to be read in on what is really happening in the world or is CNN the 100% complete truth? Or maybe even 50% of the truth. Understand, preception is reality and unfortunately some people are left in the dark and that preception is a dark reality. There are things going on that the public will never know. What <insert media entity here> may present as "the ground breaking truth from our reporter on the ground" is an illusion that amounts to less then 1% of the complete truth. It is not that YOU, an owner of this democratic nation, can not be trusted, it is that the secrets that are kept pose a grave threat to our national security.
I am sorry it all appears FUBAR, but 9/11 left us with a shit sandwich and we are doing our best to make it taste like meatloaf.
I do not want to be the policemen of the world, but we are. But we patrol only those neighborhoods that serve our interests. That is not exactly a policeman, that is a Mafia.
This statement right here tells me you do not have a proper understanding of the job preformed by the very men you are trying to converse with. We do not just go to Afghanistan, Iraq, Phillipines, and Columbia. You talk of Somolia, have you looked into OEF-HOA or OEF-TS? Do you understand how USSF and other SOF elements work in conjunction with DoS? Have you taken the time to research the enemy within the region, i.e. the Janjaweed?
x-factor
11-17-2007, 22:32
You've got high standards for the conduct of your nation and thats a good thing, but try to look at the situation with a little nuance and perspective. Sure the US isn't perfect. We've made our share of mistakes and had the occasional lapse in ethics in our foreign affairs, but on the whole we do far more good for worldwide stability and prosperity than we do harm.
Put it like this...
What do you think the world would look like without a proactive US foreign policy?
What do you think the world would look like if the US pursued a truly meddling/imperial/exploitative foreign policy?
In both cases, I think its fairly certain that the world would be in a LOT worse shape.
CosaNostraUSMC
11-18-2007, 10:52
No, you're wrong on all points. Every single one of them and I am not going to justify your post by trying to prove what you wrote is wrong. You took my post the wrong way and decided it was a good time to take some shots at me personally. You can take the post personally, I will not.
Instead of taking on the points of my post you decided to take me on. When you decide to debate the merits of my post and not me personally, I will respond. I have been here since the board started and I am sure my pro-terrorists leaning would have surfaced by now.
Have a great day.
No, I simply asked if any of my conclusions were getting close. You say, no, so I'll re-read-into your post and we'll talk more along those lines.
GratefulCitizen
11-18-2007, 11:33
What do Americans know about being occupied? What do Americans know about an insurgency? What do Americans know about oppression?
I'll be the first to admit that, thankfully, I have no first hand knowledge in these subjects.
What do you know about these subjects?
Do Americans realize they enjoy a fat life? Do Americans understand what the Iranians, Iraqis, Palestinians, North Koreans, Georgians, Afghanis, Sudanese and Pakistanis have to deal with daily?
Yes, this American realizes we have it better than any group of humans in history.
I am inclined to believe that this is a good thing.
What do you think these other countries should do to rectify their problems?
I'll be honest, I am trying to understand American Foreign Policy the last 60 years, and part of that is the utter cockiness Americans display in the face of occupation.
Your statement is dissonant.
The first part claims an attempt to understand.
The second part implies you have reached a conclusion.
WTF do Americans understand, as a whole, about occupation?
I'm beginning to think this isn't a question.
What about the privledged class of Americans that run this country, and make decisions across the globe like some kind of strategic chess board?
This is an assertive question.
Rather, it is a statement of assumed fact followed by a question mark.
Do you know these statements to be true?
WTF do these idiot policy makers understand?
It seems, by your statements, they understand enough to accomplish this:
ensure Americans have a fat life,
be part of the "privledged class",
be powerful enough to run this country,
make decisions across the globe like it's a chess board,
and accomplish all this with an attitude of utter cockiness.
If this is the level of power and success an idiot achieves, I would highly recommend it.
What brought this on personally for me was the Pakistan 'situation.' First of all we "pressure" Musharraf into allowing Bhutto into the country.
Why? WTF do we care about Bhutto? Foreign Policy at its finest. Then we make overtures how "unhappy" we are about the emergency powers he put in place.
You make some good points here.
First of all we have no idea what we're doing on foreign policy, and we haven't in over 60+ years.
This is an assertion.
Compare the success of US foreign policy to that of every other country on Earth for the past 60+ years.
Second, why do we feel the need to comment on what is going on in Pakistan?
We can't be like coach Bilichick and say NO COMMENT?
The first sentence is a rhetorical question.
The second sentence is a statement (answering your own question) followed by a question mark.
Thirdly, we have to pull back on the "America leads the world towards democracy" stance. We''re not stewards.
This statement is in the general form: "we have to do X because of Y."
It takes on the appearance of an argument, but it is circular reasoning.
It essentially says that we are not stewards because we are not stewards.
Until we understand what occupation is, and until we stop spending money on oppressors, and until we empathize with the oppressesd and occupied without thinking we can change the fooking world, I think our policy sucks.
This seems to sum up your position:
until the US changes its foreign policy, you think it sucks.
And I don't care who is in office
THEN HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT TO CHANGE POLICY!?!
- with complete respect to you Col M, Sir -
It might be worthwhile to respect his proven intellect, insight, and experience, especially as it applies to these matters, rather than just the man.
there has been SNAFU's on both sides of the aisle. No respectable American can point the finger at either Dems or Repubs and say it is thier fault.
You are correct.
Respectable Americans can point the finger at themselves.
We put both sides of the isle in office.
Finally, if your leadeship decisions cannot withstand the leftist media, maybe you should not be the head coach.
This sounds much like a "compromise" argument.
I firmly believe 2+2=4
Being told 2+2=6 by a multitude of loud obnoxious voices will not result in a compromise where 2+2=5.
The majority of the arguments you have put forth in this thread seem to follow a similar method:
1) Don't you agree that X is true?
2) Since X is true, we should do Y.
I am one voice and one vote in this country.
I will loan my authority, via my vote, to the public servant who puts the welfare of this country ahead of personal political gain.
That is the most important thing I can to about any future problems.
Team Sergeant
11-18-2007, 12:28
What do you think the world would look like without a proactive US foreign policy?
What do you think the world would look like if the US pursued a truly meddling/imperial/exploitative foreign policy?
In both cases, I think its fairly certain that the world would be in a LOT worse shape.
Except for being proactive where the super powers are concerned I’m not sure about the blanket statement of the world being “a lot worse off”. That depends on who you are doing the looking…….relativity.
Personally I've no qualms about third, 4th and 5th world nations/tribes engaged in an occasional spat. I do have a problem with placing US troops square in the middle of these intellectually challenged morons every time george clooney (father of the year) and the MSM places them in the news.
I've no problem sending the “Fleet” off the coast of China as a warning to stay the F*** out of Taiwan or a stern warning to the idiot that rules north korea that continuing to play with nuclear weapons will only get “his” country burnt.
Proactive US policy is all about agendas, every one of our tribes has their own and when the “people” give certain tribes the power to make changes on an international level the only individuals that are a lot worse off seem to be the troops we send into harms way. Not that I mind sending troops into harms way, its their jobs, but doing so without any long term goal is beyond stupidity. Somalia comes to mind here, tell me X-factor, we were proactive and where did that get us, them? Are they better off now?
I could name many more countries we’ve attempted to be proactive with, with little to no effect or long term stability, but I digress.
IMO “worse off” does not hold water.
x-factor
11-18-2007, 13:42
Except for being proactive where the super powers are concerned I’m not sure about the blanket statement of the world being “a lot worse off”. That depends on who you are doing the looking…….relativity.
Personally I've no qualms about third, 4th and 5th world nations/tribes engaged in an occasional spat. I do have a problem with placing US troops square in the middle of these intellectually challenged morons every time george clooney (father of the year) and the MSM places them in the news.
I've no problem sending the “Fleet” off the coast of China as a warning to stay the F*** out of Taiwan or a stern warning to the idiot that rules north korea that continuing to play with nuclear weapons will only get “his” country burnt.
Proactive US policy is all about agendas, every one of our tribes has their own and when the “people” give certain tribes the power to make changes on an international level the only individuals that are a lot worse off seem to be the troops we send into harms way. Not that I mind sending troops into harms way, its their jobs, but doing so without any long term goal is beyond stupidity. Somalia comes to mind here, tell me X-factor, we were proactive and where did that get us, them? Are they better off now?
I could name many more countries we’ve attempted to be proactive with, with little to no effect or long term stability, but I digress.
IMO “worse off” does not hold water.
First, when I say "proactive" foreign policy, I'm not just talking about military expeditions. JMI was finding fault with all kinds of "meddling," not just military.
Second, its always an unprovable thing to argue counterfactuals.
Third, I agree with you about not having long-term goals. But thats more of a question of "how to be proactive" rather than "whether or not to be proactive."
On Somalia specifically, the Marine intervention did stop the famine/genocide. So Somalia was certainly better off in that respect as measured in people (I don't have stats, but probably at least tens of thousands) who did not die. Are their lives still pretty awful? Yeah, but "better off" is a relative thing.
I'd agree that the peacekeeping and related operations (including Gothic Serpent) after the initial intervention unfortunately didn't do much to positively effect Somalia in the long-term. I'd argue that those were more failures in planning than goal. I don't think with the idea of trying create a functioning Somali government in 1993 was a fools errand. But the way we went about it we tried to take Somalia too far, too fast, and using the wrong methods with, as you say, US troops stuck in the middle of a poor plan based on an overoptimistic assessment of what was possible.
Consider some of the things that have come about directly as a result of, as JMI termed it, US meddling.
- Other than the Soccer War (which was only 6 days and only killed about 2000 people) Latin America has not seen an interstate war since the end of WWII and it saw very few before that. Thats an amazing thing and directly the result of American acting as a "balancer" (or whatever term you want to use) for the region.
- We've talked India and Pakistan out of war on multiple occasions.
- We brokered the Dayton accords that ended the Yugoslav civil war and our Kosovo campaign saved tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of ethnic Albanians.
- We brokered the Camp David Accords (peace between Egypt and Israel), the Israel-Jordanian peace, the Good Friday Agreements (Northern Ireland).
- How bad off would the Palestinians be without us restraining the Israelis? I think a fence would be the least of their worries.
- We've protected the Kurds for over a decade. From Provide Comfort, through the No Fly Zones, up to the present day.
- We talked the Russians out of Georgia.
- We sheperded South Korea, Taiwan, and several other Asian countries from military dictatorship and poverty to democracy over the course of decades. All to the benefit of their people and world prosperity.
- We saved the people of Kuwait (and the world economy) from an Iraqi hegemony.
None of these are perfect accomplishments. Far from it. But in every case, the "proactive" actions of the US resulted in people being alive who wouldn't have been and, in many cases, the world being a more stable and prosperous than it would have been. Sometimes you've got to measure success as disasters avoided rather than things accomplished.
Also, I think you're thinking of Alec Baldwin (great comic actor, lousy human being) as "father of the year."
X-factor- great post.
clapdoc sends.
The Reaper
11-18-2007, 14:30
This speech pretty much sums it up and explains where some of these policies came from.
I believe that by and large, these are noble goals for our country, and American soldiers have liberated more people (and asked less in return), than any force in history.
Of course, this comes from a guy who believes in our motto, "De Oppresso Liber".
TR
"Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. "
President John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961
But isn't in our best interests to make sure the decisions we make today do not end up making things worse tomorrow? Can't we expect our foreign policy to reflect a certain intelligence and foresight so that we're not fighting the very nations we supported 30+ years ago?
Can you share your source for future telling crystal balls? Lord knows I'd like to have 30 year foresight to help me in my decision making.
x-factor
11-18-2007, 15:57
God, how I love that JFK speech. The next President, regardless of party, should give that for their inaugural with only minimal changes.
God, how I love that JFK speech. The next President, regardless of party, should give that for their inaugural with only minimal changes.
At a minimum, they should read it! And the Constitution also has a few tips about running this country, as well.
Pat
Surf n Turf
11-18-2007, 18:57
“In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.”
TR,
Hadn’t thought about the speech for a long time. I felt a lump in my throat, and got something in my eye.
That was a different time and place.
Thanks for posting it
SnT
Team Sergeant
11-18-2007, 19:58
First, when I say "proactive" foreign policy, I'm not just talking about military expeditions. JMI was finding fault with all kinds of "meddling," not just military.
Second, its always an unprovable thing to argue counterfactuals.
Third, I agree with you about not having long-term goals. But thats more of a question of "how to be proactive" rather than "whether or not to be proactive."
On Somalia specifically, the Marine intervention did stop the famine/genocide. So Somalia was certainly better off in that respect as measured in people (I don't have stats, but probably at least tens of thousands) who did not die. Are their lives still pretty awful? Yeah, but "better off" is a relative thing.
I'd agree that the peacekeeping and related operations (including Gothic Serpent) after the initial intervention unfortunately didn't do much to positively effect Somalia in the long-term. I'd argue that those were more failures in planning than goal. I don't think with the idea of trying create a functioning Somali government in 1993 was a fools errand. But the way we went about it we tried to take Somalia too far, too fast, and using the wrong methods with, as you say, US troops stuck in the middle of a poor plan based on an overoptimistic assessment of what was possible.
Consider some of the things that have come about directly as a result of, as JMI termed it, US meddling.
- Other than the Soccer War (which was only 6 days and only killed about 2000 people) Latin America has not seen an interstate war since the end of WWII and it saw very few before that. Thats an amazing thing and directly the result of American acting as a "balancer" (or whatever term you want to use) for the region.
- We've talked India and Pakistan out of war on multiple occasions.
- We brokered the Dayton accords that ended the Yugoslav civil war and our Kosovo campaign saved tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of ethnic Albanians.
- We brokered the Camp David Accords (peace between Egypt and Israel), the Israel-Jordanian peace, the Good Friday Agreements (Northern Ireland).
- How bad off would the Palestinians be without us restraining the Israelis? I think a fence would be the least of their worries.
- We've protected the Kurds for over a decade. From Provide Comfort, through the No Fly Zones, up to the present day.
- We talked the Russians out of Georgia.
- We sheperded South Korea, Taiwan, and several other Asian countries from military dictatorship and poverty to democracy over the course of decades. All to the benefit of their people and world prosperity.
- We saved the people of Kuwait (and the world economy) from an Iraqi hegemony.
None of these are perfect accomplishments. Far from it. But in every case, the "proactive" actions of the US resulted in people being alive who wouldn't have been and, in many cases, the world being a more stable and prosperous than it would have been. Sometimes you've got to measure success as disasters avoided rather than things accomplished.
Also, I think you're thinking of Alec Baldwin (great comic actor, lousy human being) as "father of the year."
First, when I say "proactive" foreign policy, I'm not just talking about military expeditions. JMI was finding fault with all kinds of "meddling," not just military.
Good because neither am I.
You actually think we talked India and Pakistan out of war? Or merely pointed out what their collective losses might be to include international sanctions and sanctions imposed by the United States. And just because they did not go to war does not mean we were responsible, history has recorded centuries of saber rattling between nations and it’s turned out to be nothing more than that, grandstanding. Sean Penn just went down to see his buddy Hugo Chavez, do you think we should put Sean in for a Nobel peace prize for adverting a war between the US and Venezuela? Your argument is academic at best.
The Camp David Accords (peace between Egypt and Israel), was a joke. You see yourself as an educated individual and actually think jimmy carter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel? That’s just like saying peace was brokered between Cuba and the United States of America and we’re sure glad the Cubans didn’t decide to test the war waters. Did you forget who fought in the six day war and who was the victor? jimmy carter did nothing but tell Israel to leave Egypt alone or stand to lose billions in US aid. Egypt (and every other middle eastern nation) craps their pants every time Israel launches a warplane. The Camp David accords were nothing more than political grandstanding on an international scale. (we obviously don’t get our intel from the same sources.)
There are many readers on here that have no idea who fought the six day war, the outcome and the tensions that are still reside today. Just last month Syria was attacked by Israeli warplanes, and what did they do? Nothing. Why, because Syria knows it would be national suicide mission to attack Israel. Another example of Israel being on a short leash held by the United States was during the first gulf war, they had every reason to destroy iraq but never fired a shot, simply because we told them to stand down, or else.
Second, its always an unprovable thing to argue counterfactuals
I disagree, history and time has usually proven who was actually responsible and what actions they took during a particular crisis, when jimmy carter is laid to rest I’ll bet a whole slew of facts will be placed on the table for all to view. One I will predict is jimmy and his spineless foreign policy is what led to the islamic terrorists becoming more emboldened. Yeah, on the Palestinian issue, wasn’t jimmy carter the first president to shake hands with a known terrorist, even helped him secure the presidency if I recall correctly, brilliant. I’ll bet the same happens when slick willie aka bill clinton is laid to rest.
We must be talking about a different Somalia.
But in every case, the "proactive" actions of the US resulted in people being alive who wouldn't have been and, in many cases, the world being a more stable and prosperous than it would have been
Again, academic. I would retort with the reason African countries are currently slaughtering each otehr by the thousands is because they view America as quick to react but having no resolve and will continue to slay each other until only one side exists because they do not fear any international coalition meddling in their wars. BTW have you read that extreme islam is the fastest growing “religion” in the world? I wonder who we have to thank for the current spread of extreme islam in Africa (and worldwide)…….
What I will finish with is; there are two sides to our international intervention, one is the story we tell the media the other is the actual reason we took action. Not all is open for public scrutiny, nor will it ever be due to relationship concerns.
And while there is only a handful privy to some of the decisions, (most have top secret clearances), some, like Sandy Berger, will risk jail to change the view a nation might take on a former presidents stand (or as probably written on the stolen documents the lack of a spine) on terrorism and what he should have done.
Also, I think you're thinking of Alec Baldwin (great comic actor, lousy human being) as "father of the year."
Yeah, +.05
x-factor
11-18-2007, 20:49
You actually think we talked India and Pakistan out of war? Or merely pointed out what their collective losses might be to include international sanctions and sanctions imposed by the United States. And just because they did not go to war does not mean we were responsible, history has recorded centuries of saber rattling between nations and it’s turned out to be nothing more than that, grandstanding. Sean Penn just went down to see his buddy Hugo Chavez, do you think we should put Sean in for a Nobel peace prize for adverting a war between the US and Venezuela? Your argument is academic at best.
Sometimes thats all diplomacy is, making the other side(s) aware of the costs and using those costs to make an argument to influence them. Its the same thing you might do with a g-chief in the field. You're not lying to the guy, but you're influencing his decision. And I'm not saying we're wholey responsible, but in that case our diplomacy on both sides has been a contributing factor.
Besides, comparing the India-Pakistan situation to the US-Venezuela situation is more than a little incongruous. As is comparing Sean Penn to the Secretary of Defense.
The Camp David Accords (peace between Egypt and Israel), was a joke. You see yourself as an educated individual and actually think jimmy carter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel?
The Israelis and Egypts could have gone on in their own little Cold War like Syria did, but they didn't. Is that peace built on Israel's deterrent strength? Sure, just about all peace starts with mutual respect, but peace is more than just the absence of war. Compare Israel's relations with Egypt and Jordan to Israel's relations with Syria. The relationships are vastly different.
jimmy carter did nothing but tell Israel to leave Egypt alone or stand to lose billions in US aid.
So US influencing of Israel was part of the equation in the peace deal?
Egypt (and every other middle eastern nation) craps their pants every time Israel launches a warplane.
And who gives/sells them those warplanes? Keeping Israel militarily strong is part of our "proactivity."
Another example of Israel being on a short leash held by the United States was during the first gulf war, they had every reason to destroy iraq but never fired a shot, simply because we told them to stand down, or else.
Second, its always an unprovable thing to argue counterfactuals
I disagree, history and time has usually proven who was actually responsible and what actions they took during a particular crisis,
Yes, you can prove who was responsible for an event that actually happenned, but you can't ever prove what would have happenned if you change a factor from history. My point was that, admittedly, alot of this argument is, as you say, academic since we can never really know what events would have unfolded minus certain historical US actions.
Again, academic. I would retort with the reason African countries are currently slaughtering each otehr by the thousands is because they view America as quick to react but having no resolve and will continue to slay each other until only one side exists because they do not fear any international coalition meddling in their wars.
I'd agree with that. They believe that American "proactivity" has limits and they're right, but that was never the question. The question is, on the whole, does American "proactivity" have a positive or negative effect on the world?
Bringing up Africa actually helps make the point. We are not (or have not been) as proactive in Africa as in the rest of the world and that can be viewed as a contributing factor to Africa being the most unstable, poverty stricken continent.
BTW have you read that extreme islam is the fastest growing “religion” in the world?
I hadn't seen that statistic, but I don't doubt it. What we consider "extreme Islam" has historically always had a pretty substantial following going all the way back to the first generation of Muslims.
I wonder who we have to thank for the current spread of extreme islam in Africa (and worldwide)…….
There's not enough space on the server for that list.
What I will finish with is; there are two sides to our international intervention, one is the story we tell the media the other is the actual reason we took action. Not all is open for public scrutiny, nor will it ever be due to relationship concerns.
I agree that there's a ugly, messy side to even the most successful policy that few understand. But there are real positives and real progress made and real costs avoided too, its not all smoke and mirrors.
I feel like we're arguing slightly different questions. Its not my position that things ever go as well as the policymakers would have us believe.
The strength of a nation is its knowledge. -Welsh Proverb
X
Are you hitching your horse to this saying? :rolleyes: Does experience, wisdom, and integrity not factor in to the strength of a nation? How important is Wales in the modern world?
Pat
x-factor
11-18-2007, 22:19
Of course knowledge isn't the only component to strength. Its just an interesting little proverb that I like partially because my heritage is Welsh. Are you trying to pick a fight or what?
Of course knowledge isn't the only component to strength. Its just an interesting little proverb that I like partially because my heritage is Welsh. Are you trying to pick a fight or what?
Actually, it was in relation to your argument in this thread.
Don't get my Irish up! :D
Pat
No, I simply asked if any of my conclusions were getting close.
Bullshit~!
I think you're full of crap.
So yeah, I am upset and angry.
This has been interesting reading, the other people's post. Your quote, pretty much sums up how you come across. I am not sure how many countries you have been in, or why you where there.
Foreign policy is simple in that, those who make it, are promoting their own self interests. That, I believe, goes for all countries in the world.
Personally our, USA, domestic policies are not much better. A city manager one sum it all up for me , by saying, "It depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Ideally it would be much better if other countries would all have great domestic policies and can manage their own affairs in peace and tolerance to others. I don't see it happening, it hasn't happen yet.
BTW, nothing in the general media ever makes sense. Reporting the news has become less and less reporting of the news and more like editorializing or promoting some partisan political agenda.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
11-19-2007, 05:54
Bullshit~!
I think you're full of crap.
That's enough! State your position without throwing a tantrum or take your ball and go home!
3SoldierDad
11-19-2007, 10:04
Bullshit~!
I think you're full of crap.
JMI, I just watched the classic movie "12 Angry Men" with Henry Fonda the night before last. You ought to go out and rent the flick. You might see yourself in one or more of the characters. Not to pick on you, but I know I see some of my own uglier traits in one or more of the characters.
Don't take this wrong, but in my opinion what you are expressing and how you are expressing it are exactly what is wrong with this world and its lack of sensible people and nations.
You're losing credibility. You've broached a very interesting subject, but the way you communicate undermines the points you would hope to make.
Getting nasty is not necessary. I believe you owe CosaNostraUSMC an apology.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
.
Getting nasty is not necessary. I believe you owe CosaNostraUSMC an apology.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
.
Instead of posting about the subject matter he decided to post about me, and I took offense. He did it to get a rise out of me, and it worked. I took the bait.
Originally Posted by CosaNostraUSMC
You mentioned the bulldozing of structures by Israel. I take it you're a Palestinian sympethizer? PLO supporter?
What about some of the other "misunderstood and oppressed groups" of our planet; Abu-sayef, RIRA/PIRA, Basque separtists, Chechyn rebels, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Fatah...are they all righteous citizens, merely trying to champion their State oppressed brothers and sisters?
You typify the, "Anti-establishment, big brother's watching, Rage Against The Machine, fight the power, down with government" type.
That's enough! State your position without throwing a tantrum or take your ball and go home!
I apologize, Sir.
CosaNostraUSMC
11-19-2007, 19:04
You know, when I was a young man in the Corps, green behind the ears and away from home for the first time, I thought that some of the things going on around us in foreign places (where we were at those times) was not reality and that there must be something to boot behind all of it. I thought, man these people are all fucked up...the poor sons of bitches. And that wasn't all that long ago, either.
When I came home I decided to pursue a degree in the topic at hand, POLIT-SCI, thinking that it would help me to make sense of what we had done; why we were there, why couldn't those governments address their own issues, why were they so far behind us in every way, what was their futures if any, this that and the next thing.
It gave me great insight into how government people, shake hands, pat backs, and pad political pockets. It showed me how to link present events, to past ones and have a better understanding of the future ramifications.
That, coupled with my time on the ground in places, showed me a lot of things as well, so I can see things from the books now, as well as the field. Showed me why some places are in the predicaments they're in, why they're a 3rd world nation and gave me clarity (not total understanding) to see how the reality came to be.
The thing is, that, the situations and things going on around us...yesterday, today, tomorrow...it's all reality and relevant in regards to political science.
Physics tells us, that, every action has a positive and negative reaction. At least I think it did...I never took physics.
Political Science is no different. Military/Political actions are one in the same...that's the conclusion that my degree has afforded me. Each one affects the other and they're inseperable. They are, in fact, dependent bi-products of one another, as history has shown us.
Some will disagree, Im sure, but it's the opinion I have come to based on seeing it from both sides of the fence.
Our world is pretty jacked up at the moment. But is it really? Are we any worse of now than say, 50 or 100 years ago?
When the Byzantines and Romans were conquiring whole continents, it was at the behest of Polits as well.
God was crucified under a Polit...Ponteus Pilot.
I'm in no way saying, that, politics are right or wrong, or military arms of the polits are right are wrong. I'm merely saying it's, reality.
I would sum the topic up, this way, and anyone can quote me on this...
Everything in politics is about the generations before the present, and the future generations. Nothing is about you or me, the here and now. The only thing that is about the here and now is military actions at that moment.
x-factor
11-19-2007, 19:53
Physics tells us, that, every action has a positive and negative reaction. At least I think it did...I never took physics.
I think you mean "an equal and opposite reaction."