[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I prefer strength.[/quote]
Would you call our current situation in the middle east a position of “strength”?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Would you call our current situation in the middle east a position of “strength”?[/quote]
I would.
Especially in light of the answer to the question “what is the alternative?”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m sorry, but how can one believe that our actions in the Mid-East don’t make us a target? You’re telling me that paying off dictators, who the vast majority of a nation hate, doesn’t produce the type of individuals most likely to be recruited and indoctrinated by Jihadists?
Just by involving ourselves…well, we’ve involved ourselves. We now become another target in what should just be the crazy internal struggles of the Mid-East.
The world is too small in this age of travel and instant communication. Everyone is involved with everyone else. Add oil to the equation and there is no way not to be involved. We can operate from a position of strength or weakness. I prefer strength.[/quote]
Ok. But, you’re not really disputing “blowback” with your response. Which is fine, actually. People can respectfully disagree as to what our response to anti-american hatred should be, I suppose. I think neutrality and a hands off approach will be cheaper, cost less American lives, and still provide…oil.
I’m not really concerned with oil, myself. That is, if we actually practiced a non-interventionist foreign policy. Someone, whoever is running things, is going to want to sell that oil.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m sorry, but how can one believe that our actions in the Mid-East don’t make us a target? You’re telling me that paying off dictators, who the vast majority of a nation hate, doesn’t produce the type of individuals most likely to be recruited and indoctrinated by Jihadists?
Just by involving ourselves…well, we’ve involved ourselves. We now become another target in what should just be the crazy internal struggles of the Mid-East.
The world is too small in this age of travel and instant communication. Everyone is involved with everyone else. Add oil to the equation and there is no way not to be involved. We can operate from a position of strength or weakness. I prefer strength.
Ok. But, you’re not really disputing “blowback” with your response. Which is fine, actually. People can respectfully disagree as to what our response to anti-american hatred should be, I suppose. I think neutrality and a hands off approach will be cheaper, cost less American lives, and still provide…oil.
I’m not really concerned with oil, myself. That is, if we actually practiced a non-interventionist foreign policy. Someone, whoever is running things, is going to want to sell that oil. [/quote]
And by buying that oil and selling our tradegoods with that person we would be supporting him and we would experience blowback from his enemies.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Would you call our current situation in the middle east a position of “strength”?
I would. [/quote]
Let’s see how long you can keep it up.
Getting the $%#@ out of there.
Ben Laden is on the loose. Iraq is in shambles and turned into a terrorist breeding ground. You make enemies by the day. You’re arming and supporting some of the most oppressive regimes on Earth, then invade countries in the name of "democracy.
Face it; Iranians are mad at you for what you did to them in the 50s, Taliban rule is a consequence of your interventionism in the region, and you still are unable to learn.
The alternative is to quit being a bully.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m sorry, but how can one believe that our actions in the Mid-East don’t make us a target? You’re telling me that paying off dictators, who the vast majority of a nation hate, doesn’t produce the type of individuals most likely to be recruited and indoctrinated by Jihadists?
Just by involving ourselves…well, we’ve involved ourselves. We now become another target in what should just be the crazy internal struggles of the Mid-East.
The world is too small in this age of travel and instant communication. Everyone is involved with everyone else. Add oil to the equation and there is no way not to be involved. We can operate from a position of strength or weakness. I prefer strength.
Ok. But, you’re not really disputing “blowback” with your response. Which is fine, actually. People can respectfully disagree as to what our response to anti-american hatred should be, I suppose. I think neutrality and a hands off approach will be cheaper, cost less American lives, and still provide…oil.
I’m not really concerned with oil, myself. That is, if we actually practiced a non-interventionist foreign policy. Someone, whoever is running things, is going to want to sell that oil.
And by buying that oil and selling our tradegoods with that person we would be supporting him and we would experience blowback from his enemies.[/quote]
How many countries are targeted for buying oil though?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m sorry, but how can one believe that our actions in the Mid-East don’t make us a target? You’re telling me that paying off dictators, who the vast majority of a nation hate, doesn’t produce the type of individuals most likely to be recruited and indoctrinated by Jihadists?
Just by involving ourselves…well, we’ve involved ourselves. We now become another target in what should just be the crazy internal struggles of the Mid-East.
The world is too small in this age of travel and instant communication. Everyone is involved with everyone else. Add oil to the equation and there is no way not to be involved. We can operate from a position of strength or weakness. I prefer strength.
Ok. But, you’re not really disputing “blowback” with your response. Which is fine, actually. People can respectfully disagree as to what our response to anti-american hatred should be, I suppose. I think neutrality and a hands off approach will be cheaper, cost less American lives, and still provide…oil.
I’m not really concerned with oil, myself. That is, if we actually practiced a non-interventionist foreign policy. Someone, whoever is running things, is going to want to sell that oil.
And by buying that oil and selling our tradegoods with that person we would be supporting him and we would experience blowback from his enemies.[/quote]
Sure, like Luxembourg and Finland and Denmark and Belgium…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And by buying that oil and selling our tradegoods with that person we would be supporting him and we would experience blowback from his enemies.[/quote]
Don’t be stupid. Buying oil is fine. It is directly financing tyrannical regimes, selling them bundles of weapons, and toppling democratically elected government that people are mad about.
Why did the Iranians storm the American embassy and not the French one? Why did 9/11 take place in the US and not in Beijing? Everybody buys oil, but not everybody is hell-bent on world domination through secret ops and proliferation of military personnel around the world.
Obviously, not all the blame falls on the US, but your depiction of your country as the victim that has no choice is ludicrous. You reap what you sow, and trust me, these last 8 years have put the next couple of American generations in a lot of trouble.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And would you be more worried about Clinton’s appointees for SecDef and Homeland Security than you would about Huckleberry’s?[/quote]
When talking about Hillary and Huckabee, I will always consider Hillary to be the evil of two lessers.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Getting the $%#@ out of there.[/quote]
Lixy, I wouldn’t ask for your geopolitical advice in a game of Risk.
You’ve been educated on the nature of post-Cold War politics - the nature of how power is projected and must be organized in light of totalitarianism and technology - and you have learned nothing. Your gripe is the same old yarn as when you started posting your blather here - and I think you have actually gotten dumber.
Foreign policy involves deciding what is “least worst” based on probabilities, as compared to certainties. Whiney ideologues can’t wrap their minds around that simple fact - and that is why you remain on the sidelines of seriousness.
All this is the predictable Marxist hogwash you peddle no matter how many times you get sent home with your tail between your legs - all aggression and evil done by Middle Easterners is part of one big “reaction” to meanies in the West. But for our actions, all these people would be peace-loving gardeners tolerant of all peoples and cultures and beating their swords into plowshares.
Reasonably smart people have gotten over this churlish fantasy as a starting point to dealing with the problem - even people that disagree on the means.
Repeating your ideological script over and over and over has no effect on its lack of truth, no matter how many times you bleat it.
The Middle Eastern peoples aren’t being “picked on” - never forget, Islamists aren’t trying to get the West out of the ME because the West “oppresses” Muslims, they want the West out of the ME because the Western influences stand in the way of a harsher, less free form of society they want to impose.
Whether the US should be there is a question to consider in terms of strategic or pragmatic concerns, but we aren’t “oppressing” anyone by our presence. Muslim radicals want to “liberate” Muslim nations not from oppressors, but apostates - and they would be doing that completely independent of our foreign policy choices.