Is the US's new Policy the right way?

[Imran Siddiqui]

THAT is now US policy.

And if so, it is dumb. Frankly, I think most of it is rhetoric, so I'm not that concerned. If we were to attack any country that made a threat, we'd be in constant warfare and our military would make the military of the '80s look miniscule. And THAT would be the decline of the US.

[Mr. President]

I don't mind who we attack as long as we're honest about the reasons for it. So we should be saying "Iraq is our enemy and we don't like it's government so we're going to dismantle it" rather than "Iraq is really our friend but Saddam is a bad bad man so we want to free the Iraqi people from him".

[Chris 62]

I think the current line is WMD thing.

Although with saddam, you can pick from dozens of reasons to dump him.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Yeah, I'd say there's just about zero chance of that happening. Bush does not know how to make peace, only war. He's one of the worst statesmen to ever hold the Presidency.

The problem beyond that, though, is that I doubt any future president would have the balls to do something that radical, and it certainly won't be backed by congress. The US, for whatever reason you want to ascribe to it, simply will never threaten Israel with withdrawing aid and arms.

[Ned]

Kontiki, From what you say here, I assume you approve of Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

[Guardian]

Re: Is the US's new Policy the right way?

Originally stated by Winston Churchill

Americans always try to do the right thing. -After they've tried everything else.

[Roland]

"So now, we will destroy anyone that even makes the threat."

If you can. And you can't.

But it's a brilliant policy. Will speed up the decline of the US by maybe 20 years, or so.

Actually I found this funny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/international/middleeast/24IRAQ.html

"Three retired four-star American generals said today that attacking Iraq without a United Nations resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests."

Shalikashvili, Clark and Hoar.

Agh, those appeasing cowards.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Want to be safe?
Don't threaten the US, because you will now get what you asked for.

Well, some people don't "want to be safe".

Some people just want to screw you over and f**k you up any way they can, and they don't care what happens next as long as you're f**ked.

THAT is your problem, and if you're going to run around threatening to bomb anyone who even looks at you funny, there's a pretty good chance you'll be getting more of it, not less.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Illyrien
jimmytrick
Which side should we support then?

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

The US should lean heavily on Israel, get the UN to sanction a "once and for ever" boundary and US peacemakers should go in and stay there for the duration of human history. We've left forces in Germany and Japan since WW2. Why can't we have troops in the Middle East?

[Prometeus]

Is the US's new Policy the right way?

No.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, From what you say here, I assume you approve of Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

Huh? That's quite the leap in logic, since I never mentioned anything about appeasement or anything remotely close to it. But, for the sake of arguement, I'll play along.

Although I'm really not sure what you are getting at, I'll assume it's one of two things:

1. Attacking Iraq. Let's see, according to you, not attacking Iraq unilaterally = giving away land from soveriegn states because another leader demands them. Yep, that makes sense.

2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything.

[Jack_www]

The UN can't do anything really. Every time there is a crisis in the world, by the time they vote on the matter and act, all the killing has been done and it is too late. I have heard of peace keeping troops standing by as they watch people get killed or taken away, and God knows what happens to them. The UN is just as useless as the League of Nations that proceed it.

[Guardian]

Unfortunately, this is very often true, and it's more or less the reason why I couldn't be a Peacekeeper.

At some point, I would probably have ended up thinking "Rules and regulations be damned, I am NOT going to just sit here and watch this!"

...and then all hell would have been loose...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki



Huh? That's quite the leap in logic, since I never mentioned anything about appeasement or anything remotely close to it. But, for the sake of arguement, I'll play along.

Although I'm really not sure what you are getting at, I'll assume it's one of two things:

1. Attacking Iraq. Let's see, according to you, not attacking Iraq unilaterally = giving away land from soveriegn states because another leader demands them. Yep, that makes sense.

2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything.

Well, Kontiki, the question is what are we to do about Iraq? (The policy we can discuss later.) We have 11 years of defiance by Saddam, sanctions have not worked and only harm the Iraqi people. He has chemical and bio weapons, and is seeking nuclear - all in violation of UN mandates.

What do we do?

To cave into Iraq at this time, to end sanctions, to withdraw our no fly zones will certainly reward defiance and incent aggression. Undoubtedly, millions of Kurds will die as victims of chemical weapons in the short term. In the longer term, Israel is facing a preemptive first strike that could virtually destroy Israel. What do you think will happen if Iraq attacks - even if Israel gave them a chance, which I don't think would happen.

What do we do?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Does this mean that we should roll over and let an international council tell us how to run our country?

We already do, it's called the WTO.