Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
X = 10X with a bar over it = 10000ex. - XII with a bar over it is 12,000example of subtraction principle IX = 9
What do you think is the best approach?
To keep an open mind. And to realize that some things you learn may rub you the wrong way. IMHO, and as a beginner student, there's no way you can learn new things if you go in with preconceived notions and ideas.
Don't mind me, I'm just revising the question.I know there have been invading countries who removed a current government then setup their own government. But has there ever been a situation where an invading country removed the current government and let the country decide for and setup the government themselves?I guess another revision would go along the lines of: ... what have we done?!? 😮
Or is the situation in Iraq a first in history?
Please tell me that the answer to this question is no.
How do I put this? I'm referring to what's going on in Iraq's government now. Has a (newly established) government ever come into full effectiveness during a conflict? Or is the situation in Iraq a first in history?
According to this source http://www.ssefo.com/info/timeline.html the 'Fitz' was severely damaged (and repaired) a few times prior to her sinking.
1969September 6Internal and external damage occurs when the Edmund Fitzgerald hits ground near the Soo Locks. 1970April 30The Edmund Fitzgerald and the S.S. Hochelaga collide, causing damage for the second time in less than eight months. September 4The Edmund Fitzgerald is damaged when it hits a lock wall. This is the third time the Edmund Fitzgerald has been subjected to significant damage in only 12 months.
I wonder if this had anything to do with it.
Well, I think it's best to start with a presumption of inaction, meaning it's better not to be a “world policeman” than to be one......Getting into more specifics, I think if you are prepared to begin with a policy that America ought to be the "world police" then you must be prepared to state first and foremost how this helps accomplish the goal above.
I agree. But I think this is a role that has been handed to us, and isn't a choice we made. As much as there are some who blame America for world problems, there are probably more who request our help. Maybe using the term "world police" isn't really accurate. Perhaps 'caretaker'?
After all, you don't directly hurt the nation by not engaging in foreign conflict which doesn't directly affect you. From this we should take the arguments from both positions and determine which one is better, better for our goal. But what is our goal? Long term American peace and security? Intermediate term? Short term?
All of the above. Are the current events in Eritrea, for example, really affecting the national security of the United States? Probably not, but there should be some plan to deal with it...preferably through the use of international cooperation. (not 150,000 U.S. troops). IMO, labelling them a state sponsor of terrorism is very poor foreign policy. link
And then there's the question of why American resources need to be used when international channels are already available for this. Does a war between Ethiopia and Somalia really concern American peace and security that Americans should die in such a conflict? Why aren't economic or diplomatic measures taken in lieu of military measures? Will all three be used or just one? If only one, why not all three?As I see it international entanglements are messy things. If you don't have a systematic approach to them you're liable to be picking and choosing based on some unclear measure. Why did we intervene in Kosovo but not in Rwanda in the 1990s? It's these kinds of questions that remain with us.
What if those diplomatic means fail or are ineffective? (maybe one would have to define what failure is).From the little I know, I would say 'yes" a war between Somalia and Ethiopia does have a direct affect on American security. Especially if the war involves elements of al Qa'ida. As far as other African conflicts, there are many civil wars and cross-border wars going on that don't have a direct effect on us and can be put on the "back burner". However, they should be kept an eye on - mostly for human rights violations.(which is I think the logic behind creating AFRICOM) Again, international organizations should be the first and perhaps only ones to get involved, but what if they don't?
Another thing is that we simply don't have infinite resources to accomplish everything that we'd like to. Even if we can sustain a lot an any one point in time, prolonged commitments overseas will drain us of economic strength and lead to our long term demise. This is one of the problems I see with Iraq right now. There's no real timetable - at least not one which is public at the moment - so we really don't know how long we'll need to fund the rebuilding. This simply isn't practical over a really long term. Sure, we're able to do it so far, but it simply can't go on forever. Imagine what would happen if we were in the same situation in two additional countries, trying to fund their rebuilding. So I really think that in the end the economics must be considered in the equation.
I would add political and public support has as much to do with it as well. It isn't feasible to keep a large and expensive military campaign going on indefinitely. This is why, more and more, I am a proponent of small wars (counterinsurgencies). IE special (or specialized) forces and/or covert operations using a minimal number (as effectively as possible) of military and civilian personnel who work with and train the population to fight for themselves. This way there can be a long term presence without the negative press, negative political pressure to withdraw or defund, the need to garner public support from the U.S. (the only public support needed is from the local population you are training), or having to worry about getting (re)elected.
For example, it's not a "core" belief that America should or should not be a "world policeman", but so far prudence leads me to think one option is better than the other. At least at this point.
Could you comment further on this? I'm not sure what you are saying here.If I just assume what you mean by your comment, my response would be that being the world's police isn't a choice, it's just the way it is, and we need to learn how to handle that responsibilty.
Thank you for this advice. This is my problem all along. I never really separated ” core ideology” from the other things you are saying.Your last few sentences are thought-provoking. I can see many times when my core beliefs have been opposed and proven wrong and that has actually strengthened and challenged me to make me want to look into it further. Not all the time, but getting better. I know not everyone shares my strong foreign policy beliefs. But with many other issues there is just true and then there is just false. It's when I confront those types of arguments that I find my civillity is a little less..well..civil. But that's just an excuse.Then there are those times when people accuse each other of being what they're not (as is happening on the other place....heck, I probably criticize the Bush admin more than the Left does, but some call me a partisan neocon propagandist..if anything I'm trying to counter neocon propaganda). I think I've finally learned, as of yesterday, to not take it personal and that I don't have to "give it back" to them by calling them anti-American or whatnot. It is in my own and everybody else's who is reading it best interest to just back down.
