> If the US didn't poke its nose? Well, states would be sovereign, the way they're supposed to be. I guess what I'm getting at when I posed that question was, if we just simply do what many people demand and withdraw from world affairs, pulled out everywhere, you'd see things fall apart in a real big hurry. Wars would erupt all over the place very quickly, and across the globe. Within a year, you'd have India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea blowing up big time, Iraq and Afghanistan falling into anarchy and civil war and a general Middle East war not far behind. All this would have worldwide fallout--figurative and literal.
Give the world some credit, the US isn't the glue that keeps it all together. Would there be wars? Probably, but There are wars anyway. The US is in a war right now, that's not any better than if it were another country.
1) We're a large nation and by definition have national interests that go far beyond our borders. Interests that have to be promoted and defended worldwide. They include such things as free trade and open sea lanes, as well as the safety and security of our citizens. We can't defend those from inside our own borders. And if somebody starts threatening those, asking nearby states or UN for permission to defend them is a loss of *our* soveriegnty.
Free trade is not a right, it's a privilege. If it were a right Free Trade Agreements wouldn't have to be signed. It's not a right defendable by war, it's a privilege earned. Granted it can also be stolen by force, by invading a country, taking its leader and keeping its oil, for example. But most countries would consider that unethical. Security? Sure, who can blame you for wanting security for your citizens. Afghanistan was like "We hoped it didn't come to this, but, well, they got it coming after 9/11"; even if for every people that died in 9/11 several died in Afghanistan. Iraq isn't and never was about security and/or 9/11. There were no weapons of mass destruction (and arguing over that would be a moot point if the US government themselves has finally accepted that there weren't, and that they knew from the start), there were no links to Al Qaeda, nothing. What Iraq has is oil, lots of it. Sure, the more childlish version that Bush wanted to finish what his dad started is also a posibility, but money speaks louder than bloodline. At the begining of Bush's term oil prices were, adjusted to inflation, lower than before the OPEC was founded; because of that the OPEC was declared a failiure. What's a quick and certain way to raise oil prices? War. Invariably whenever there is a war oil prices go up. The longer you keep the war the higher prices get. And what better than to start a war with a country that supplies lots of that oil? Why buy out the competition when it can just be taken over by force? But again, most countries don't think that ethical. Sea lanes are a source of conflict since the dawn of civilization, sadly.
2) We have allies we are responsible for defending. There's Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Israel that are all under the American Aegis (never mind Iraq and Afghanistan)... and that's not even counting NATO. You could say that they did ask for our help, but we can't *just* defend them without also being able to control the seas, having nearby bases, trade agreements, etc.
Well, sure, if South Korea, Kuwait or Israel ask for your help it's only logical they'll let you place bases there.
3) You just can't take actions on the basis of public opinion--whether they want you there or not. You do that, you're just pandering to opinion polls and have no right to call yourself a leader either at home or abroad; will find yourself impotent will you really *do* have to assert your will and defend your interests. A few examples:
The rest of the world doesn't call the US a leader. A true leader is someone people follow naturally, if the leader has to use force for people to follow him it just becomes dominance. Invading a country for economic reasons... well, isn't that what Germany was doing when WWII started? It's not right.
The US used to be a true world leader though, its people have many admirable features, but the actions of the government that you seem to be defending have pretty much wiped that image
Reagan's hard-line stance and refusal to withdraw nuclear missiles from West Germany was very unpopular at the time but went a long way towards bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war.
Regan was a very belicose president, yes. The Soviet Union collapsed from within, the system went bankrupt and fell by its own weight. Of course external factors had significance, but it mainly came from within, at least in my opinion.
Our 1986 attack on Libya (and subequent covert campaign against terrorist training camps) was condemned by many, but put a virtual end to what had been rampant unchecked terrorism in Europe in the 1980s.
Terrorism in Europe Did not end. The most recent evidence that it didn't is 3/11, but there are more examples throughout the 90s that it didn't.
In the 1990s, over both domestic and virulent foreign opposition we finally stepped in and ended and ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign in the Balkans.
It hasn't ended. The US came, destroyed everything and left. Nothing improved there. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, ask pegla whose father is from there and who's been there since the US devastated it. If the US makes 90% destruction, and then 30% reconstruction it doesn't even out. it's like having a leg amputated over an ingrown toenail.
Confronting and going to war with Hussein in 1990 was definitely not popular, but if we hadn't... he would have taken over the Gulf, gained a strangehold over the region's (and thus world's) oil reseves and gone to war with all his WMDs against Israel. Use your imagination as to the kind of bloodbath that would have resulted.
Not everybody is out to get Israel, even if it may seem that way. I imagine Hussein taking over some surrounding countries, yes. Blood being shed, very likely. More or less blood than is being wasted right now? Not necesarily. It most likely wouldn't be American blood, and the point where we both agred there may be a legitimate case to be nosey is to protect the nationals' security.
I really don't think Chavez needs much US help to have riots and rebellions, given the class warfare he's been trying to provoke. He's authoritarian, a marxist and anything but a friend of democracy and human rights.
If he doesn't need the US help for riots and rebelions then why is the US giving that help? Help that even his oppressors have not asked for. They rather have their own authoritarian than a US puppet. Of course they may prefer to kick Chavez out themselves and elect their own next president.
> Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P On this we agree. When we do good nobody remembers, but when we do bad nobody forgets...
Yeah, but the good comes with big strings attached. In the 1800s Mexico was at war with France (that is what 5 de Mayo is all about, BTW). The Mexican president before France invaded, Benito Juarez, was offered military help by the US to kick the French out. That's mighty nice of the US, isn't it? Well, kind of. There's a very 'thin' part of Mexico between the two oceans The US wanted unrestricted access to that zone for some number of years, I think 200. Comercial and military traffic, and more than that he wanted Mexicans not to have access to that zone. A Mexican trying to go through that part of Mexican territory would need a passport and permission from the US (a sort of Visa). Granted, this was told in advance and it was up to Juarez to go for it or not (for the record he did, but the US congress took so long to sign the bill or whatever it was that the war was nearly over and so the deal called off by then) Of course there was Panama... It's not always this clear, like when the US, or its "world" bank offers money to a country, but then for years to come orders to stop subsidizing on essentials the people need like milk and food.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 04:00 am (UTC)I guess what I'm getting at when I posed that question was, if we just simply do what many people demand and withdraw from world affairs, pulled out everywhere, you'd see things fall apart in a real big hurry. Wars would erupt all over the place very quickly, and across the globe. Within a year, you'd have India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea blowing up big time, Iraq and Afghanistan falling into anarchy and civil war and a general Middle East war not far behind. All this would have worldwide fallout--figurative and literal.
Give the world some credit, the US isn't the glue that keeps it all together.
Would there be wars? Probably, but There are wars anyway. The US is in a war right now, that's not any better than if it were another country.
1) We're a large nation and by definition have national interests that go far beyond our borders. Interests that have to be promoted and defended worldwide. They include such things as free trade and open sea lanes, as well as the safety and security of our citizens. We can't defend those from inside our own borders. And if somebody starts threatening those, asking nearby states or UN for permission to defend them is a loss of *our* soveriegnty.
Free trade is not a right, it's a privilege. If it were a right Free Trade Agreements wouldn't have to be signed.
It's not a right defendable by war, it's a privilege earned. Granted it can also be stolen by force, by invading a country, taking its leader and keeping its oil, for example. But most countries would consider that unethical.
Security? Sure, who can blame you for wanting security for your citizens. Afghanistan was like "We hoped it didn't come to this, but, well, they got it coming after 9/11"; even if for every people that died in 9/11 several died in Afghanistan.
Iraq isn't and never was about security and/or 9/11. There were no weapons of mass destruction (and arguing over that would be a moot point if the US government themselves has finally accepted that there weren't, and that they knew from the start), there were no links to Al Qaeda, nothing. What Iraq has is oil, lots of it. Sure, the more childlish version that Bush wanted to finish what his dad started is also a posibility, but money speaks louder than bloodline.
At the begining of Bush's term oil prices were, adjusted to inflation, lower than before the OPEC was founded; because of that the OPEC was declared a failiure. What's a quick and certain way to raise oil prices? War.
Invariably whenever there is a war oil prices go up. The longer you keep the war the higher prices get. And what better than to start a war with a country that supplies lots of that oil? Why buy out the competition when it can just be taken over by force?
But again, most countries don't think that ethical.
Sea lanes are a source of conflict since the dawn of civilization, sadly.
2) We have allies we are responsible for defending. There's Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Israel that are all under the American Aegis (never mind Iraq and Afghanistan)... and that's not even counting NATO. You could say that they did ask for our help, but we can't *just* defend them without also being able to control the seas, having nearby bases, trade agreements, etc.
Well, sure, if South Korea, Kuwait or Israel ask for your help it's only logical they'll let you place bases there.
3) You just can't take actions on the basis of public opinion--whether they want you there or not. You do that, you're just pandering to opinion polls and have no right to call yourself a leader either at home or abroad; will find yourself impotent will you really *do* have to assert your will and defend your interests. A few examples:
The rest of the world doesn't call the US a leader. A true leader is someone people follow naturally, if the leader has to use force for people to follow him it just becomes dominance.
Invading a country for economic reasons... well, isn't that what Germany was doing when WWII started? It's not right.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 04:09 am (UTC)Reagan's hard-line stance and refusal to withdraw nuclear missiles from West Germany was very unpopular at the time but went a long way towards bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war.
Regan was a very belicose president, yes.
The Soviet Union collapsed from within, the system went bankrupt and fell by its own weight. Of course external factors had significance, but it mainly came from within, at least in my opinion.
Our 1986 attack on Libya (and subequent covert campaign against terrorist training camps) was condemned by many, but put a virtual end to what had been rampant unchecked terrorism in Europe in the 1980s.
Terrorism in Europe Did not end. The most recent evidence that it didn't is 3/11, but there are more examples throughout the 90s that it didn't.
In the 1990s, over both domestic and virulent foreign opposition we finally stepped in and ended and ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign in the Balkans.
It hasn't ended. The US came, destroyed everything and left. Nothing improved there. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, ask
If the US makes 90% destruction, and then 30% reconstruction it doesn't even out. it's like having a leg amputated over an ingrown toenail.
Confronting and going to war with Hussein in 1990 was definitely not popular, but if we hadn't... he would have taken over the Gulf, gained a strangehold over the region's (and thus world's) oil reseves and gone to war with all his WMDs against Israel. Use your imagination as to the kind of bloodbath that would have resulted.
Not everybody is out to get Israel, even if it may seem that way.
I imagine Hussein taking over some surrounding countries, yes. Blood being shed, very likely.
More or less blood than is being wasted right now? Not necesarily.
It most likely wouldn't be American blood, and the point where we both agred there may be a legitimate case to be nosey is to protect the nationals' security.
I really don't think Chavez needs much US help to have riots and rebellions, given the class warfare he's been trying to provoke. He's authoritarian, a marxist and anything but a friend of democracy and human rights.
If he doesn't need the US help for riots and rebelions then why is the US giving that help?
Help that even his oppressors have not asked for. They rather have their own authoritarian than a US puppet.
Of course they may prefer to kick Chavez out themselves and elect their own next president.
> Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P
On this we agree. When we do good nobody remembers, but when we do bad nobody forgets...
Yeah, but the good comes with big strings attached.
In the 1800s Mexico was at war with France (that is what 5 de Mayo is all about, BTW). The Mexican president before France invaded, Benito Juarez, was offered military help by the US to kick the French out.
That's mighty nice of the US, isn't it?
Well, kind of. There's a very 'thin' part of Mexico between the two oceans
The US wanted unrestricted access to that zone for some number of years, I think 200. Comercial and military traffic, and more than that he wanted Mexicans not to have access to that zone. A Mexican trying to go through that part of Mexican territory would need a passport and permission from the US (a sort of Visa).
Granted, this was told in advance and it was up to Juarez to go for it or not (for the record he did, but the US congress took so long to sign the bill or whatever it was that the war was nearly over and so the deal called off by then) Of course there was Panama...
It's not always this clear, like when the US, or its "world" bank offers money to a country, but then for years to come orders to stop subsidizing on essentials the people need like milk and food.