| Author | Message | ||
     Cato Nova Citizen Username: Cato_nova Post Number: 392 Registered: 12-2003 |
Only a rabid moron would legitimately argue that either Kerry or Bush could tell his ••• from his elbow in foreign policy. So enough of partisan candidate bashing. Let's assume that you were the next President, and that domestic politics was not a concern. Given the current situation (and we will assume that nothing radical is different between now and the time you assume office), what would you do vis-a-vis Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorism? What is the rational approach? Please support your proposed policy with some kind of evidentiary reasoning. | ||
| Crazyguggenheim Citizen Username: Crazyguggenheim Post Number: 674 Registered: 2-2002  |
I'd git my guns all polished up and go in like a fightin' man, because I am a fightin man and I intend to go down in history as a fightin man... -Yosemite Sam | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 809 Registered: 6-2002 |
Foreign Policy Plan: I would appoint you, Cato Nova, as the US Ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would also create a cabinet level position for a terrorism czar and appoint you to that position as well. Rational To use your words: I have frequently stated, I am far smarter (and better educated) than most MOL posters, and most Americans. Then, I would load your ••• on a jet heading for Baghdad and tell you to report back in two weeks with your plan. I think that the only reason you want people to answer your question is so that you can mock their answer. | ||
| Heybub Citizen Username: Heybub Post Number: 346 Registered: 2-2004  |
How about you go first, Cato the Omniscient? Can't wait to hear your rational approach to dealing with irrational savages. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 343 Registered: 12-2003 |
I like how everyone gets challenged to clean up Bush's mess except Bush. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1112 Registered: 6-2003  |
Machiavelli said that one of the ways to secure a conquest was for the Prince to take up residence in the new possession (with a suitable entourage, of course). The fringe benefits of this policy could be quite appealing. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2469 Registered: 8-2003 |
Please explain what you had in mind that was appealing? | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1113 Registered: 6-2003 |
Read the book, which is available online at http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/ | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 967 Registered: 12-2001 |
But who will bell the cat? I almost don't have the strength for the prospect of "dealing with Iraq" in terms of endless political attacks that will come no matter who wins. It's a real booby prize to be president. If Kerry wins, look for a congress that suddenly has an acute interest in all the little details of Iraq policy. Suddenly nothing will be good enough. He can't be allowed to seem to succeed. If Bush wins, a few things might begin to catch up with him. Can't say "Clinton recession" forever. Also, the big post-election push in Iraq will be a bloodbath. We have the limited, 75% elections in Jan, then what? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 858 Registered: 1-2003  |
This one got me thinking. What would I do... First I'd realize that terrorism is a major global concern and that the terrorists we need to defeat are radical islamic extremists. OBL and Al-Quaeda are a subset of radical islamic extremists, but they are by no means the only group that is fomenting terror against the US or the Western world. There are many many radical islamic extremist groups that would love nothing more than wounding America and our allies. Jemaa al-islamiyaah, Hamas, Hizbullah, Egyptian Islamic jihad, and mony others based all over the middle east. I'd realize that OBL and Al Quaeda are high on the list, but they do not make up the list. Then I'd embark on a mission to radically change the ideologies of the states that foment radical islamic extremists. I would pour money in to developing these countries, but I'd first break the back of dictatorial governments (through sanctions, support of revolutionaries, or outright invasion) then help rebuild them as open democracies. Because pouring money in to terrorist supporting governments is useless unless they first embrace liberty for their people. I'd realize that building schools or hospitals or foodbanks is worthless compared to giving people liberty freedom and self-determination. I'd realize that free states where their citizens have the ability to grow and develop and flourish don't foment terrorists and build global relationships that break down walls that prejudices built. I would move the US embassy to Jerusalem and reccomend that Israel give the Palestinians exactly what they want... a state. I'd recommend that Israel pull out of both Gaza and the West Bank, leaving settlers that won't go to defend themselves with the understanding that they are no longer in Israel. Then I'd reccomend that Israel complete the wall, and cut all ties to "Palestine". Then I'd wait until the Palestinian people either revolt and build a democratic government worthy of our help, or a new tyrant takes power needing the remedy as seen above. In Iraq, I would work hard for debt relief for the new country, Train the Iraqi police and guard, work toward elections and support the duly elected government. I would commit to keeping a US presence there until the elected government feels no need for it. And I would make sure to make the US's help visible to every Iraqi and arab in the world. I wouldn't do much different in Afganistan. Then I'd let Iran, Syria, Saudi, Yemen, Oman, Sudan, Egypt, and any others I'm forgetting know that they are on the list. They better implement serious human and social rights reforms or we will give it to their people. Then I'd Announce that we are withdrawing all funding and support for any UN projects, and using that money to build a new "League of Democracies" where any democratic state can join and we will extend trade benefits, humanitarian aid, security arrangements, and other benefits to joining the group. I would make it my goal to promote freedom and democracy around the world. | ||
| JMF Citizen Username: Jmf Post Number: 31 Registered: 9-2004 |
Michael Janay, A pretty well thought out post, but the "League of Democracies" sounds a lot like how the UN started , and its predessesor "League of Nations". | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 102 Registered: 7-2003 |
Janay, the idea of a "League of Democracies" sounds great, until you realize that a lot of democracies (i.e. the Europeans) like to deal with dictatorships. The Euroweenies never had a problem with Iraq as long as Saddam was in power. Now that we've thrown him in jail, they suddenly seem to have discovered human rights. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 347 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris has a point. No American government would ever deal with a dictator.  | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 969 Registered: 12-2001 |
Janay- where would you get the troops for all this? Draft? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 859 Registered: 1-2003 |
The League of democracies is an idea that has been floated around quite a lot recently. It would simply be a group of nations with the same beliefs that work with each other on security and prosperity and aid. Much like NATO or the OAS or the WTO; but the main requirement for eligibility would be democracy in their government. The league of Nationa and the UN lets almost anyone in and gives them equal say. Libya on the Human Rights Council... ridiculous. The USSR (when it existed) and China on the Security council... Ridiculous. Where would I get the troops? Lets see... we have about 1,500,000 active soldiers in our armed forces right now. I'd use them, and pull most if not all out of Europe. I'd propose a massive reorganization of the military to make it more focused on todays warfare. Lighter, Quicker, and more specialized at the platoon level, while more diverse in skills and self sufficient at the Battalion level. No draft would be needed, as none is needed now... unless Kerry gets elected and really measns it about increasing overall troop strength. There is more than enough manpower in our military right now to fight 4-5 major wars at any one time. It does however need to be used more efficiently. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1114 Registered: 6-2003 |
Let’s look at Michael’s proposal one step at a time: First I'd realize that terrorism is a major global concern TRUE and that the terrorists we need to defeat are radical islamic extremists. ONLY TRUE IF ONE IGNORES TERRORISTS SPONSORED BY RUSSIA, THE U.S. (IN LATIN AMERICA), SIKH NATIONALISTS, BASQUE SEPARATISTS, ETC. ETC. OBL and Al-Quaeda are a subset of radical islamic extremists, but they are by no means the only group that is fomenting terror against the US or the Western world. TRUE There are many many radical islamic extremist groups that would love nothing more than wounding America and our allies. THIS IS A MEANS TO AN END, NOT AN END IN ITSELF, BUT LET’S ACCEPT IT AS A PREMISE. Jemaa al-islamiyaah, Hamas, Hizbullah, Egyptian Islamic jihad, and many others based all over the middle east. I'd realize that OBL and Al Quaeda are high on the list, but they do not make up the list. TRUE Then I'd embark on a mission to radically change the ideologies of the states that foment radical islamic extremists. WILDLY UNREALISTIC. THE IDEOLOGIES ARE BASED IN RELIGION. EVEN VERY SECULAR STATES LIKE BRITAIN AND FRANCE DERIVED MUCH OF THEIR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY FROM CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. THE SOVIET COMMUNISTS WERE UNABLE TO ERADICATE EITHER CHRISTIANITY OR JUDAISM DESPITE 60 YEARS OF ALMOST TOTAL POWER. I would pour money in to developing these countries, SAUDI ARABIA SEEMS TO HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY. but I'd first break the back of dictatorial governments (through sanctions, support of revolutionaries, or outright invasion) then help rebuild them as open democracies. THE BRITISH AND THE FRENCH, WHO TOOK OVER GOVERNMENTS IN MANY COUNTRIES, WERE ULTIMATELY FORCED TO WITHDRAW, AND THE DEMOCRATIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT THAT THEY LEFT BEHIND WERE NOT ALWAYS MAINTAINED. BESIDES, INVASION OF ANY MORE COUNTRIES IS OUT OF THE QUESTION WITH CURRENT U.S. FORCE LEVELS Because pouring money in to terrorist supporting governments is useless unless they first embrace liberty for their people. IT WILL ALSO BE USELESS IF THEY EMBRACE LIBERTY (WHATEVER THAT MEANS), SINCE A FREELY ELECTED GOVERNMENTS ARE ALSO CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING TERRORISM, EITHER DIRECTLY, OR BY ALLOWING THEIR FREE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT IT (BECAUSE IF THEY COULDN’T DO IT THEY WOULDN’T BE FREE, RIGHT?). THE U.S. ALLOWED THE IRA TO RAISE MONEY TO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE U.K., JUST ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES. I'd realize that building schools or hospitals or foodbanks is worthless compared to giving people liberty freedom and self-determination. THIS IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY THAT PRESENTS A CHOICE BETWEEN AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT AND A LIST OF CONCRETE ITEMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH IT. I'd realize that free states where their citizens have the ability to grow and develop and flourish don't foment terrorists and build global relationships that break down walls that prejudices built. FALSE. I would move the US embassy to Jerusalem and reccomend that Israel give the Palestinians exactly what they want... a state. LET’S ACCEPT THIS AS A PREMISE. IT’S WITHIN U.S. POWER TO MOVE THE EMBASSY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL IS FREE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT. I'd recommend that Israel pull out of both Gaza and the West Bank, leaving settlers that won't go to defend themselves with the understanding that they are no longer in Israel. LET’S SUPPOSE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ISRAEL DOES THIS. Then I'd reccomend that Israel complete the wall, OKAY. and cut all ties to "Palestine". SUCH A MOVE WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE ISRAELI ECONOMY. IT WOULD ALSO BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR PALESTINE TO SHIP GOODS THROUGH ISRAEL, FOR PALESTINIAN CUSTOMERS TO BUY ISRAELI PRODUCTS, FOR AIRCRAFT TO TRAVERSE EACH OTHERS AIRSPACE, ETC. THERE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE AGREEMENTS ON THE USE OF SHARED RESOURCES LIKE WATER (IT’S CALLED THE WEST BANK FOR A REASON!) IT IS UNLIKELY THAT AN ISRAELI GOVERNMENT WOULD CUT TIES COMPLETELY. Then I'd wait until the Palestinian people either revolt and build a democratic government worthy of our help, THEY MAY NOT NEED U.S. HELP. SAUDI ARABIA, IRAN, IRAQ (BECAUSE IT WILL BE FREE, RIGHT?) MAY HELP INSTEAD. or a new tyrant takes power needing the remedy as seen above. THIS ASSUMES THAT THE “ABOVE” IS A REMEDY, WHICH IT ISN’T. In Iraq, I would work hard for debt relief for the new country, DEBT RELIEF IS GENERALLY REQUIRED WHEN FOREIGN INVESTMENTS CANNOT BE REPAID FROM NEW REVENUE GENERATED IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY (OR RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH TAXES). IN PRACTICE, IT SHIFTS THE REPAYMENT FROM IRAQI TAXPAYERS TO AMERICAN, BRITISH, FRENCH, GERMAN, AND RUSSIAN TAXPAYERS (AMONG OTHERS). Train the Iraqi police and guard, THIS IS PART OF EVERYONE’S PROGRAM FOR IRAQ AND WOULD BE A SOUND MOVE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. work toward elections and support the duly elected government. I would commit to keeping a US presence there until the elected government feels no need for it. AN ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT WOULD PROBABLY WANT THE U.S. TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. And I would make sure to make the US's help visible to every Iraqi and arab in the world. THIS IS A GOOD IDEA FOR SEVERAL REASONS UNRELATED TO THE GENERALLY TERRIBLE IDEAS ADVANCED SO FAR. I wouldn't do much different in Afganistan. IN PRACTICE, THIS WOULD MEAN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL AND HANDING OVER OF POWER TO LOCAL STRONGMEN. Then I'd let Iran, Syria, Saudi, Yemen, Oman, Sudan, Egypt, and any others I'm forgetting know that they are on the list. THE COUNTRIES YOU HAVE NAMED HAVE OVER 250 MILLION PEOPLE IN COMBINED POPULATION. THEY PRODUCE A COMMODITY ON WHICH MOST OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD DEPENDS, AND THEIR INVESTMENTS IN WESTERN NATIONS ARE ENORMOUS. EGYPT HAS A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT THAT HAS SURVIVED SEVERAL ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS. IT ALSO HAS A THRIVING MEDIA INDUSTRY AND 2.3 MILLION INTERNET USERS (OUT OF A POPULATION OF 80 MILLION). IT WAS EXPELLED FROM THE ARAB LEAGUE FOLLOWING THE CAMP DAVID AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL AND ONLY READMITTED IN 1989. DOES “PUTTING THEM ON THE LIST” MEAN WARNING THEIR GOVERNMENTS THAT THE U.S. WILL BOMB OR INVADE THEM IF THEY DON’T CHANGE THEIR INTERNAL POLICIES TO SUIT THE DEMANDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? They better implement serious human and social rights reforms or we will give it to their people. THIS SOUNDS ALMOST LIKE JIMMY CARTER. Then I'd Announce that we are withdrawing all funding and support for any UN projects, and using that money to build a new "League of Democracies" where any democratic state can join and we will extend trade benefits, humanitarian aid, security arrangements, and other benefits to joining the group. THE DEMOCRACIES THAT ALREADY PARTICPATE IN THE G-8 WILL BE PLEASED TO HEAR THAT THEIR TRADE ISSUES WITH THE U.S. CAN BE RESOLVED SO SIMPLY. THE DEMOCRACIES THAT PARTICIPATE IN NATO (AND INCLUDE FRANCE HERE) WILL BE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT THEIR SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE SO AGREEABLE. THE NATIONS THAT RECEIVE U.S. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE WILL BE ESPECIALLY PLEASED BY THIS NEW GENEROSITY (AND THE RAISING OF U.S. TAXES TO PAY FOR IT). ACCORDING TO THE OECD, THE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, THE US GAVE BETWEEN $6 AND $15 BILLION IN FOREIGN AID IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1995 AND 1999. IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, JAPAN GIVES MORE THAN THE US, BETWEEN $9 AND $15 BILLION IN THE SAME PERIOD. BUT THE ABSOLUTE FIGURES ARE LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN THE PROPORTION OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP, OR NATIONAL WEALTH) THAT A COUNTRY DEVOTES TO FOREIGN AID. DENMARK IS TOP OF THE LIST, GIVING 1.01% OF GDP, THEN NORWAY, 0.91%; THE NETHERLANDS, 0.79%; SWEDEN, 0.7%. THE US RANKS TWENTY-SECOND OF THE 22 MOST DEVELOPED NATIONS. APART FROM BEING THE LEAST GENEROUS NATION, THE US IS HIGHLY SELECTIVE IN WHO RECEIVES ITS AID. OVER 50% OF ITS AID BUDGET IS SPENT ON MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WITH ISRAEL BEING THE RECIPIENT OF THE LARGEST SINGLE SHARE. I would make it my goal to promote freedom and democracy around the world. THEN YOU SHOULD THINK THIS THROUGH AGAIN AND MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT IS LOGICALLY COHERENT AND SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTED FACTS. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2482 Registered: 8-2003 |
Monty, give us once again the finer points of surrender. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1117 Registered: 6-2003 |
Once again we get an irrelevant and off-topic response from someone who has no real argument. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 3778 Registered: 5-2001  |
"FOREIGN AID. DENMARK IS TOP OF THE LIST, GIVING 1.01% OF GDP, THEN NORWAY, 0.91%; THE NETHERLANDS, 0.79%; SWEDEN, 0.7%. THE US RANKS TWENTY-SECOND OF THE 22 MOST DEVELOPED NATIONS." Monty - Where did you get this info? | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1119 Registered: 6-2003 |
Recent data can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which maintains the most authoritative collection of national economic statistics. The summary is in a PDF document entitled Final Figures for Net Official Development Assistance in 2002. The URL to reach this page doesn't work on MOL, but you can go the main OECD web page and search for it. |
