It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US foreign policy stinks

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The Center for American Progress (a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America) recently released a survey which heavily criticizes the current administrations foreign policy amongst other things. The survey members included former CIA and National Security members along with experts in terrorism. The overall consensus is that the "vast majority think that the world today is more dangerous for the American people" and that they also "have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the U.S. national security apparatus".

A lot of neo-cons on this site will lament about the fact that is 'just another inconclusive survey' but the survey members are not just random people. The members are people who have worked for the US government in terms of handling security and intelligence. They are experts in their respective fields.


"Fewer than two in 10 believe the United States is winning the war on terror. More than eight in 10 believe we are likely to face a terrorist attack on the scale of September 11 within the next 10 years."



"They give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a score of 2.9 out of 10 in its functions related to national security"



"Furthermore, specific U.S. policies are cited by experts as contributing to our lack of progress in winning the war against terrorist networks. Majorities believe that the war in Iraq (87 percent), the detention of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo and elsewhere (81 percent), U.S. policy towards Iran (60 percent), and U.S. energy policy (64 percent) have had a negative impact on our national security."


source: www.americanprogress.org...

Just to add, one of the questions on the survey was:



Q.18 Which SINGLE country would you say has produced the largest number of global terrorists? (OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE)

Saudi Arabia 62% total (of which a whopping 71% from conservatives)


The obvious question remains. Why the hell is Saudi Arabia not being dragged into the War on Terror or part of the Axis of Evil. If that doesn't spell out OIL buddies I don't know what does. Weren't a vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists of Saudi decent. Pathetic.


Poll source: americanprogress.org (pdf file)

[edit on 15-6-2006 by brill]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by brill]

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 20-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Bump
What no comments from the neo-cons ?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
What did you expect..?


This is an administration that has been spending 8 dollars for each it takes in. That cuts domestic aid to build the worlds largest embassy and military base in Iraq. That violates the constitution and laughs at the sheep supporting them...

The truth hurts.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
1. No
2. Vaguely
3. A lot


That’s a question I would like to put to the American people because I bet the vast majority of peoples answers would be between the “No” and “Vaguely” ones. And even if you asked them more on what they thought U.S policy was about I bet the feedback you would get would probably be contradictory in the extreme.
I ask: doesn’t the fact that so few people understand U.S foreign policy mostly remove it of its democratic responsibility?
I don’t understand U.S foreign policy. I know it has a lot to do with Israel, oil, and security but I don’t understand it.

I’ve never understood why a country of less than 7 million people (Israel) has the right to hold the foreign policy of a population of nearly 300 million (United States) by the balls en.wikipedia.org... .

The war on terror is a joke. For a start Guantanamo Bay should be closed even if it was to be rebuilt several places elsewhere in all but name. This is a logical decision; this is an affordable one for a country that spends over 400 billion dollars per year of defence spending news.bbc.co.uk... . Maybe it's too logical? Maybe a government well educated in the art of spin wants Muslims world wide to hate us?
Ether that or it’s almost like there must be something “sacred” (for global foreign policy planners) about using a place where so many abuses are rumoured to have taken place. On close inspection Guantanamo Bay should never have been filled (at least not with so many blatantly innocent people). Then again on close inspection the war on terror is a bit of a sham as it implies you can use weapons to defeat a mental concept. This is deceiving because the only way it rings true is if genocide were almost exclusively used.

Amazingly most people do not know what the goals of al Quadra are according to this website www.infoplease.com...
“The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.”

1. Americans out of our countries
2. Destroy Israel
3. Topple western dictatorships in other Arab countries

Well when you look at it that way it doesn’t that unreasonable. Their methods are as dump as dung. I mean just look at how our leader’s popularity rockets every time these people attack us. But their objectives still seem quite reasonable.

Could we compromise on the first objective (after all not many Americans in the Middle East anyway), drop our support for Israel (just why do we subsidise it with loans anyway) and 3 spread our apparent support for democracy beyond our perceived enemies? I think not
Even so I still don’t see why so much of the war on terrorism is directed towards massive defence spending against very few people. Surely the money would be better spent instead if it was directed towards a massive PR exercise instead? America badly needs a war on bad PR and a few dollars spent here and there could save many Arab lives, perhaps help build a few Mosque’s and massively improve America’s image. Of course none of this could completely work as long as we continued to supply Israel with cheap loans, and state of the art weapons. Therefore is this what the war on terror is really about; to enable us to support Israel with as little blood cost-“retaliation” to our own people as possible?
And how many of the Arab dictatorships we support would stop supplying oil to the global markets if they’re government was to mirror their own people a bit more? I'm pretty confident that any Arab government would supply oil to the world market, and would even let us have a share in it if we granted them their existence.

So yeah on close inspection even the war on terror lacks a lot of sense, and in U.S foreign policy I think the War on Terror is about as logical as it gets. But so long as most ordinary U.S people are in the dark on what their government’s foreign policy does or is even for; I guess at least they won’t be fully morally or even democratically responsible. But ignorance is not strength as it takes ignorance to decieve anyone. Therefore only deception is a true strength (as wicked as that is).


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

mod edit to fix links

[edit on 20-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
The Center for American Progress (a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America)...


I stopped right there. What a ding-bat. Non-partisan, eh?

"• developing a long term vision of a progressive America,
• providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals,
• responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives, and
• communicating progressive messages to the American public."

Progressive is the communists new undercover label. Soros prolly owns it. According to their own mission statement they are there to oppose conservatism and that means American values. See, they start with the biggest morons they can find until they reach half the population, then they try to say THEY are the mainstream.

I disregarded your post in its entirity because you lied to my face before the first sentence was finished. Ba-bye.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earlybird
Progressive is the communists new undercover label.


Wow. I was with you until this point.

No, "progressive" is another term for "liberal." Which means that, while it's strictly true that this think tank is "nonpartisan" (in that there is not much to choose between the two major parties for a liberal/progressive), it is not loosely true (in that the the tank does have a political agenda -- just not one identifiable with either of the major parties).

So it's necessary to recognize that agenda and apply grains of salt accordingly.

But anyone who says that "progressive" means "communist" is confusing liberals with communists, and should be taken with a small salt mine.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   


original quote by:Earlybird
I disregarded your post in its entirity because you lied to my face before the first sentence was finished. Ba-bye.


I'm not sure you are correct in your accusation that he lied. You obviously saw the AboutUs page enough to quote The Center For American Progress's stated objectives.
My point is that in the opening paragraph of the page it shows the following


What We're About

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all. We believe Americans are bound together by a common commitment to these values and we aspire to ensure our national policies reflect these values. Our policy and communications efforts are organized around four major objectives:

• developing a long term vision of a progressive America,
• providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals,
• responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives, and
• communicating progressive messages to the American public.

We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." We believe in honoring work, building strong communities, fostering effective government and encouraging free and fair markets.
original source


let me show you this:



original quote:brill
The Center for American Progress (a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America)


now compare to this:

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America


It appears to me that brill wasnt lying to you he was taking the sites word as its bond.




original quote by:Earlybird
Progressive is the communists new undercover label. Soros prolly owns it. According to their own mission statement they are there to oppose conservatism and that means American values. See, they start with the biggest morons they can find until they reach half the population, then they try to say THEY are the mainstream.


Progressive is the communists new undercover label?-please support this statement with some kind of reference as to WHO makes this connection of terms.

Soros is who? whom?



original quote by:Earlybird
they are there to oppose conservatism and that means American values.


While Conservatism is one part or group, of American's values; it certainly is not the entirety and Argueably not even the Majority. I am a proud American as well sir, But Ill not have you put conservatism any higher than liberalsim-both have equal value and neccessity in our nations political structure. Personally I try to remain objective of both; since there are points in each that I can agree/disagree with. If brill is guilty of partisanship; then you are just as guilty Earlybird.



original quote by:Earlybird
I disregarded your post in its entirity because you lied to my face before the first sentence was finished. Ba-bye.


It is a shame that you didnt even take the time to read the page. Even if in your interpretation that it is a biased organization; there is still truth to be found there.
You chose instead to come-in and tear apart the author of the thread with a preset agenda and thusly you have not gained from this kernel of knowledge that brill was just trying to share.

When you only open your right eye or only open your left; you never see the whole picture. Blind affiliation is a very bad trap to fall into no matter what arena you are in(political, financial, social, etc)

*note to MODS:I apologize if this goes too off topic but I felt a few things needed to be addressed- please be merciful



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Thanks tone23 that's exactly what happened. I was using the sites own statements as part of my header, it was not my own interpretation.


The interesting and almost expected part is the absolute dismissal of the Saudi connections. I still have yet to see anyone here (who is for the Iraqi occupation) explain why Saudi Arabia has not been named as a terrorist haven & supporter. The facts are there.

brill



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join