Posted on 01/20/2005 2:21:15 PM PST by Pokey78
Very declaritive, rather than; It should be our policy. This seems to signal some change in foreign policy and I flashed on Rush's foreign aid excrement list, which cuts foreign aid to those who give us crap.
I think he's a Freeper.
Disagree, completely. What defines "doing jack" about the Saudis or Paks in your book? Military action against them? Is not the fact that our insurmountable military power is multiplied by it's judicious application too slow a process?
Everyone knows the Saudis are the prime $$$ movers behind wahhabism, but not many give deeper thought to other realities within the Saudi regime. Their very timidness in the military world is a weakness; this has been clearly betrayed by their devils bargain with the islamist radicals wherein they "paid them off" to export their violence rather than direct it against them in their homeland. Witness how our successes in Iraq & Afghanistan have contributed to those fanatics striking out in Saudi, and witness how (albeit reluctantly...) the Saudis begin to take them on more forcefully.
The Saudis have money, oil, influence... but no backbone. Theirs is a society that - sitting upon all the countless wealth bubbling up beneath their feet - they chose to live a life of princely royalty... not earning their way or building their society, instead choosing the life of elitism and priviledge being catered to by their obvious inferiors. This is a fundamental weakness that it seems to me does not yet merit confronting militarily... especially when we know that we can clean them up when and wherever we so choose.
Pakistan, the other fermenting trough of terrorism, has been flip-flopped into supporting the war on terror. Yes, initially it was a reluctant change, but can anyone doubt that it is paying dividends at an increasing rate? I'm sure that Musharraf knew the game was up when 9-11 occurred - we needed bases to hit the taliban, Pakistan was closest, and as for not joining up with us/continueing to breed terrorists within their borders in defiance of the US??? A quick glance at our overwhelming military power coupled with nearby India surely convinced Musharraf that he'd better grab this bull by the horns, take advantage of this golden chance to rid himself of his radical opponents and move his country forward.
We're doing these things without recourse to military conflict - whereas Iraq definitely had it coming, and - an almost universally overlooked fact - we were already at war with them since among the 18-odd resolutions Saddam defied, the 5th or 6th one basically stated that the pre-existing condition of war which had been put on hold by the cease-fire was then reinstated due to Saddam's non-compliance with the cease-fire requirements.
Military strength lies not just in the successful application of might, but in the judicious and firm advancement of strategy that is backed up by military might. Defeating an enemy by force of arms is fine, but ultimately means that all other means of coercion short of bellic exchange have failed. Turning him into first an impotent enemy, then reluctant accomplice, finally an important asset contributing to your overall strategy is even better. The Saudis are now impotent, and the Paks are reluctant accomplices moving towards the latter category. I'd say that's pretty good for 3 years into this WOT.
CGVet58
Keith Olberman has on Craig Crawford, with Crawford offering up his rendition of the speech. Crawford just said this speech told him Bush is looking to attack Iran. He also misquoted what Cheney had to say today on Imus, about Iran. (always with Crawford, remember that in October, he boldly predicted Kerry would win).
Two-timer!
What will RUSH say???!! :>)
The Russians would have eventually beat the Germans. It would not have occurred by 1945 without American help but they fought the Krauts to a draw by early 1943 with out any substantial help from the outside. the American aid spigot didn't really get going until the supply lines through Iran were open and the Northern arctic convoys were getting past the Germans.
Hehehe. Always expect a pointy-headed intellectual to go metaphysical on ya! Remember Woody Allen's line? "I got caught cheating in a metaphysics class. I was looking into the soul of the student next to me."
If you want a scary look at what it's like to be a Saudi woman, look at Ted Dekker's novel, "Blink."
Your comments are right on. Tsun Tzu said the best victory is the one that comes at the least cost, and if you can get your enemy to commit suicide, so much the better---or words to that effect. While I don't think we've been as aggressive with SA as we should be, I fully understand the "one-enemy-at-a-time" approach. This was how the Mongols conquered most of the known world, not by simultaneously pissing off every one on every frontier.
I'd say it's 50/50 if Russia still wins without us in there---and a longer war very well could have led to an internal revolt vs. Stalin.
Kursk was in 1943. One way to look at the Russo-German war is to think of 1942 as a wash. The Germans ended up roughly where they started. Even if the Germans had won at Kursk, where would they have gone? They surely didn't have the ability to get to the Volga again.
In 1942, the whole western theater was a side show for the Germans. The American and British contribution in 1943 did allow the Soviets to really start kicking the Krauts butt. That said, the war would have dragged on for many more years without the Allies pushing from the west.
I'm not arguing that he should never do anything. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't. I'm just sayin', if you want to consider him as an idealist and a security-first realist combined, that idealist MUST address the injustice in S.A. and Pak. and the security-first realist has gotta know that those areas are practically impossible dreams for the short- and mid-range, given our past military sales there and current commitments. Perhaps saying 'he hasn't done jack' seems harsh, but the ol' idealist really hasn't done anything DIRECTLY in those countries beyond what he did before Iraq...unless it's provide a pressure valve for their extremists by making U.S. soldiers a target just over the borders.
Do NOT take that the wrong way--it has nothing to do with being against those soldiers' presence. I'm just saying that U.S. soldiers' presence just over the border doesn't really do diddly for the Saudis or for Pakistan except to help them AVOID change.
I think the best contention that Bush is remotely 'idealist' was that line by rw that "The fact that he supports regime change at all requires that he be called at least part idealist." But even that ultimately fails to convince, because Bush hasn't even stated he does support regime change in S.A. or Paki, which is what I was talking about. Even realists had to support regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq. No idealism need be applied.
As far as the argument CGV makes, I have to say that it's all based on the idea that indirect effects are the equivalent of action. And I haven't heard much in the indirect effects department that the Saudis or Pakistanis would have done differently from 3 years ago. Both regimes are still dictatorial. Both are still virulently aligned against freedom for women or freedom of religion. Both are suppressing Islamists in their country and helping them on their way out. CG, I recognize your argument. I just don't see the support for it you do in the Saudis' and Pakistanians' actions. That doesn't mean our presence nearby isn't valuable. It just means that, to a realist, there's probably a military resolution still to come with S.A. and Pakistan, no matter what we hope the indirect effects will be, because those countries have been supporters of the Islamists too long, and too many locals have gotten sucked into buying it.
China is a regional power but does not come close to super power status. Among other reasons, they cannot project power much beyond their borders.
You can't celebrate the law and blatantly ignore the Constitution as Lincoln consistently and brazenly did. As for sealing the borders, I of course meant to illegal immigration and defending ourselves abroad, pre-emptively if necessary. The President's inaugural today announced that big government is here to stay and even worse, we are now going to become interventionalist in the affairs of other sovereign nations. In any event, it was in large part full of hot air, as without doubt we will still be doing business with China, that paragon of freedom, as well as with our good friends the Pakistanis and the Saudis. If words mean things, he's going to have to back them up with actions. Hopefully they will be better thought out than this sad speech and with the ridiculous plan of dealing with illegals by granting them permits to be here. Being interventionalist abroad does no good at all when our northern and southern borders leak like sieves, cargo comes into the country virtually unchecked, our Transportation secretary Mineta won't allow for screening of airline passengers based on nationality and threatens legal action against the airlines that dare to try.
Slavery was well on its way to death regardless of Lincoln's actions. You can't mouth your respect for the law when you consistently flout it, by ignoring the Constitution at your whim and jailing those who dissent with you. I didn't say that sealing our borders and spreading democracy were mutually exclusive. But I don't see the section in the Constitution where it allows us or even encourages our Republic to export democracy. This is pre-emption carried to the extreme. Defense against invasion or imminent threat can be justified. Trying to mold the world in our image is not, either financially through confiscatory taxation nor through interventionalist foreign policy (with the use of American troops not ruled out.) Hopefully, this represents nothing more than a bit of sabre rattling to put the Saudis, Syrians and Pakistanis on notice that they'd better not step too far over the line.
Apparently the plan is to replace UN hegemony with US hegemony. We can definitely encourage the seeds of freedom in other countries and consistently criticize dictatorship and repression. But if so, we'd better be prepared to do more than mouth pretty words. I suspect, though that our trade with China will proceed unimpeded, even if they invade Taiwan next week. And if Musharaff decides to eliminate a few warlords, we will still turn a blind eye as long as he keeps up the pretense of hunting down bin Laden.
Again, though this presupposes that such advances as the jet weren't going to totally overwhelm the Russians tactically, which they would have. I don't think Hitler could have re-taken MOscow, but Stalin was already dispatching peace emmissaries as late as 1943 (!!), indicating that certainly HE was not all that confident, even WITH American support.
The only ones that brazenly violated the law were wearing grey.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Its those neocon JOOOOOOOOOOS. Bush got kidnapped and replaced by a Billy Kristol pod person. ;-)
Slavery was well on its way to death regardless of Lincoln's actions.
***Tell that to the guys in the south who conducted a civil war in order to maintain the institution, even going so far as to attempt to designate half the western states as slave states.
You can't mouth your respect for the law when you consistently flout it, by ignoring the Constitution at your whim and jailing those who dissent with you.
***I have no idea what you’re saying here. Please elaborate.
I didn't say that sealing our borders and spreading democracy were mutually exclusive.
***True enough, I stand corrected. You prioritized sealing the borders when you said, “Seal our own borders first if you are so concerned about security, then worry about promoting democracy abroad”. My position is that both go hand in hand, not one after the other.
But I don't see the section in the Constitution where it allows us or even encourages our Republic to export democracy.
***The entire realm of foreign policy was handed over to the President for the most part. That was because back then, you could send a nasty note to your adversary and he wouldn’t get it for 3 months, and vice versa. It was felt that the President would have minimal impact on foreign affairs and that our buffer of the Atlantic Ocean would help keep us out of trouble.
This is pre-emption carried to the extreme. Defense against invasion or imminent threat can be justified.
***At the time of GulfWarII, there was an extreme threat that Saddam was building WOMDs. Everyone was on board with that. Our sincere hope was that Saddam was a fool and just dismantled the programs, rather than shipping them lock, stock & barrel into Syria just before the start of the war. What kind of idiot dismantles his WOMD program and then doesn’t allow inspectors in for verification? He would still be in power today if he did that. So, yes, this pre-emption is a little on the extreme side if you remove the clarifying filter of WOMDs and worldwide terrorism. But it is the right kind of pre-emption. Just ask the ordinary Iraqi, Saudi, Persian, Kurd, and fill-in-the-blank citizen patriot whether he would prefer to have a democracy or oligarchy. This is the inset deep desire of the multitudes, and it also happens to make us safer as a nation. It’s the right policy.
Trying to mold the world in our image is not, either financially through confiscatory taxation nor through interventionalist foreign policy (with the use of American troops not ruled out.)
***I think this is a bit of an incomplete sentence. Please elaborate.
Hopefully, this represents nothing more than a bit of sabre rattling to put the Saudis, Syrians and Pakistanis on notice that they'd better not step too far over the line.
***It will have that effect as well. In the inaugural speech, Bush did mention that our resources are limited, so there is only so much freedom we will be able to engender.
Apparently the plan is to replace UN hegemony with US hegemony.
***UN hegemony has not worked at all. In prior incarnations, the US would install right-wing dictatorships and that didn’t work out either. This is the premium populist middle-of-the-road approach that most people will buy into.
We can definitely encourage the seeds of freedom in other countries and consistently criticize dictatorship and repression. But if so, we'd better be prepared to do more than mouth pretty words.
***I completely agree.
I suspect, though that our trade with China will proceed unimpeded, even if they invade Taiwan next week.
***Taiwan, unfortunately, seems to be a special case for this Bush version of the Monroe Doctrine. It’s probably because his dad was Ambassador to China. I think the unfolding policy is a mistake.
And if Musharaff decides to eliminate a few warlords, we will still turn a blind eye as long as he keeps up the pretense of hunting down bin Laden.
***That’s the old approach. The new approach is to support democracy. That sabre-rattling you mentioned would be applicable to Mushareff as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.