Is the US's new Policy the right way?

[Ned]

I ask you guys who support the UN, what international dispute has the UN solved by issuing a mandatory SC resolution?

If you are thinking about Kuwait, think twice. The Saudi's called Bush, not the UN, for help.

[Velociryx]

The US has tremendous pull with the UN, and no, *at present* you can't kick member states out of that organization easily.....but re-read what I said. I'm not talking about a cosmetic fix to the UN....I'm talking about a total overhaul. I'm talking about reorganizing it along "reward lines" for specific purposes, and doing it in such a way that it DOES have ready control over its membership, and so that it CAN deal with global threats.

The proper venue for dealing with threats to global security rests with a global body, NOT with any individual nation. With our influence in the UN, we could, if we choose to, make these changes happen.

We are the strongest single nation on the planet, and as such, we have an obligation to lead. We can either lead by brute force, or by example. Whatever we choose will shade the way the world sees us, and the way we see ourselves.

Given the ideals we were founded on, leading by example is the better way.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

"First strike" global strategy is nothing new, and exists sincethere are empires and wars.

The global aim of the US diplomacy is to complete the new world order begun by the fall of the USSR. While most countries accepted it, some countries don't want to play in a game where the rules are wriiten mostly by the US, a bit by its powerful allies (Europe, Russia, China, Japan. I'm talking both about military and economy)
The word "rogue states" is excellent IMO. These states don't abide by the rules, it doesn't mean they're inherently bad.

Like any ruler confronted to internal problems (slowing of Economy, financial scandals, tensions between communities), Bush wants to have a successful foreign policy for the US. However, even if the US is #1, it can't afford to have no support at all. Therefore, the US must gather support to start wars.

The "first strike" policy isn't intended for global security, since several allies of the US are much more dangerous than Iraq or Sudan.
Its goal is to justify US offenses to internal and foreign public opinions. Everytime a ruler wanted to justify a declaration of war, he told he was thwarting a threat. Curiously enough, the other side thought the attack was completely unprovoked.

Let me ask you a question : if Bin Laden tells he'll adopt a "first strike" strategy, and will attack countries which are potential threats in his opinion, how will you react ?

But there are limits to what any nation, even the world's most powerful, can do. A badly implenmented policy could end up doing what poor American policy has done so often in the past, create a well of bitterness in minds of the people of those nations we have run our political experiments on.

Jimmitrick, I rarely agree with you, but this time I give you a big . Add that these "political experiments" often means "bombing of cities", and you'd have drawn a complete picture.

[Spiffor]

About rebuilding economies :
It's absolutely needed, even when not asked. IF you don't want to add even more frustration to a population you just bombed, you'd better make help it rebuild.

But helping to rebuild is not the only thing to do. You must not spread the American way of life. I know many Americans think the American way is the best and should be spread around the world, but it's wrong. The American way is ONE way of life among others, no worse or no better.
As an example, many French people resent Americans because they bundled their rebuild help (for which we're thankful) with heaps of American culture. The intent at that time was to "Americanize" European societies. This has been partly failed in France, which explains why there is a cultural rivalry between the two countries.
Another example is the modernisation / Americanization of Iran during the Shah's rule, which led to massivee frustration which backed the Islamist revolution (back to original culture).

Most countries which will be targetted / rebuild are from the moslem world. This is a very different culture than the US. Trying to colonize their culture while rebuilding them will lead to the same problems as those we already know.

[Velociryx]

Total agreement re: economic rebuilidng. In reorganizing as proposed above, it's equally important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are some really good things we currently do....some things we should acknowledge as "best practices" and among them is the Marshall Plan. Good idea. It works (witness the state of the Japanese and German economies today).

Almost total agreement re: americanization of other cultures. Some of that simply cannot be helped. As cultures are exposed to other cultures en mass, the stronger culture can rightly be expected to exert at least a measure of influence over the weaker, intended or not. But as for force-feeding Americana....I agree with you.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

This policy is just ideological cover for the Iraq invasion: Bush can;t, wont actually follow it when it comes to anything besides Iraq:

S.Korea, japan and China would never allow a premeptive war with N.Korea- so don't expect anything ever to happen there:

Iran is a state of good standing with everyone but the US and Israel- its also very big- don't look for any US moves there. Syria is also in good standing, and too close to israel for the US to do anything: don't look for any action there.

The US talk about demanding democracy- don't expect any calls for democratization in Egypt, saudi arabia, or Pakistan. democracy is only good for people under regimes that hate u- not for our friends.

Finaly, the Bushies realy lack the fundamentl courage it takes to stay there: when one state has the best military in the world- and outspends all rivals, the using military force is not a courageous act- its a cheap, relatively inexpensive act. Whats 100 billion out of a 1.8 trillion dollar budget, especially when we are fine with deficits? And how many americans do we expect to die? Wow, we will sacrifice- well, not the admin, but someone, will sacrifice 100 american servicemen- what utter courage! please!

Real Courage- what it would take to stay in these state long tem- admit our falult and push for democracy within our friendly regimes- that type of courage this admin lacks completely; look how much we are dpoing to back our actions in Afghanistan? Are we willing to put 50k US troops throughout the entire state to maintain stability and allow aid workers to avert famine and tabilize the state? NO. Oh, how courageous of us....

[Ned]

I was struck how closely the new policy tracked the Atlantic Charter. The new policy is really Churchill's and Roosevelt's policy. Here is a partial quote:

"Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. "

[Vandal-1]

The eventual developement and use of a WOMD is a inevitability;NO WEAPON in the history of mankind has been controled to the extent that it has not been used to murder mankind. IMO I think it's simply a matter of time 'till this axiom once again proves itself.
Bushies may eliminate this Saddam or that Bin Ladin as individuals but more will rise in their place.While I do not advocate complacency ( or ridgid passivism) I am not satisfied to support the other extreme either. I speak of the kind of arogant military mania that has deseased the mind set of my countrymen.I do not believe that a peace coerced is a peace at all but a changed form of warfare a true peace would only arise from a free will that chose it The same truth applies universally to these dictators from with in their own vassals

[Capt Dizle]

Without a doubt the Israeli-Palestian question must be resolved in order to achieve stability and peace in the Middle East. It seems more and more likely that this can only be achieved by force of arms from outside the region.

[des-esseintes]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It seems more and more likely that this can only be achieved by force of arms from outside the region.

Exactly. Exterminate those fricken Moslims

[Illyrien]

jimmytrick
Which side should we support then?

But basically I agree, the isreal-palestine situations seems almost unsolvable

[Kontiki]

I don't think the Israel-Palestine situation is unsolvable at all. In fact, it's quite simple. All it would really take is for the US specifically and the west in general (along with Russia) to just say enough is enough, the Palestinians get an independent state with reasonable borders (say, close to those proposed in Oslo), a guarantee of security and a decent amount of aid to help build some infrastructure. Then, move in a few thousand troops to act as real peacekeepers. If Israel is not content to make the consessions necessary to allow the Palestinian state, ALL military and economic aid will be cut off. If the Palestinians continue to make attacks against Israel after the creation of their new independent country, then the peacekeeping force will be beefed up and martial law will be imposed, and the aid will be cut off.

The problem is, I can't see this actually happening.

[Chris 62]

I see lots of words...chitter-chatter...same old, same old...

US policy is now simple:

In the past, when little clowns threatened us, and postured, we laughed and said "Yeah, right".

Then the towers were destroyed.

So now, we will destroy anyone that even makes the threat.
Want to be safe?
Don't threaten the US, because you will now get what you asked for.

THAT is now US policy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I don't think the Israel-Palestine situation is unsolvable at all. In fact, it's quite simple. All it would really take is for the US specifically and the west in general (along with Russia) to just say enough is enough, the Palestinians get an independent state with reasonable borders (say, close to those proposed in Oslo), a guarantee of security and a decent amount of aid to help build some infrastructure. Then, move in a few thousand troops to act as real peacekeepers. If Israel is not content to make the consessions necessary to allow the Palestinian state, ALL military and economic aid will be cut off. If the Palestinians continue to make attacks against Israel after the creation of their new independent country, then the peacekeeping force will be beefed up and martial law will be imposed, and the aid will be cut off.

The problem is, I can't see this actually happening.

Actually, I think that Bush might actually do something like this after Iraq.

Bush is no Clinton. I think both sides will pay close attention to what he says. Agreement is probable - but we need first to get Iraq behind us.

[Vandal-1]

The' hot war' itself will not be as costly as maintaining the false peace'cold war' (and that is what the change in policy is a attempted enforcement of such a false peace which differs not from the protracted war we are currently fighting by and through Israel whether we admit to it or not.) If you are involved Pugnae Le Guere you fight as such.Infact I don't see any change of policy at all just different english intended to cloth old one and if followed through we will next speak of a free Iraqi state
with UN "peacekeepers" who are nothing more than beligerants that we employ to keep down beligerants that the Moslims will employ,so the war still exist yet we call it peace cause we don't see the subtle manuevering of CIA and Muslim hitmen or find the car bombings of embassies and barracks as threatning as full deployment operations.The point is we are already at war ( as we have been)and untill peace "true peace" breaks out we will be.Bush just wants to use mainline weaponry so he looks like he 's doing something so he looks like he's winning wars.I would ask all of you if you really believe it will solve any problems this "New US Military Doctrine" and how it really differs from the old maybe we're just admitting to something that some US hawks have worked toward all along,i.e. finishing openly what we left unfinished a decade ago and apparently can't finish quick enough by other means what's the hurry!