It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Great article about role of America in this current conflict

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
I'm ususally not one to post an article and split, but this is a great read discussing our foreign policy, options, leverage, etc...

Enjoy! What do you guys think? What should America's role be in this increasingly volatile situation?

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Cutwolf]

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:22 PM
This article is a great example of people expecting to much from the U.S.
When the U.S. gives too much people scream, when they don't give enough, people scream. It is the burden of being an anounced super power.

"The upshot is that Israel is now warring against or about to go to war against two groups that were once mere terror organizations, Hamas and Hizbullah, but are now part of elected governments. If Israel does indeed hold the Lebanese government responsible for Wednesday's incident—as it has Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah for the acts of various Hamas factions in Gaza—then we could see a regional war with Iran and Syria drawn in rather than the isolated actions against terrorists that we saw in the past. The situation cries out for decisive U.S. intervention, at the very least a high-profile American envoy. There is none, and as Sen. Jack Reed told me earlier today: "The administration has been deliberately disengaged in terms of providing a broker." Instead, Bush has either quietly underwritten Israel's efforts to isolate and starve Hamas, or he has deferred Mideast matters to the multilateral Quartet, consisting of the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and Russia."

What is the U.S. supposed to do? If we go in too soon people will flip, and since were not going on people are screaming.

I say let them scream, I think the U.S. is staying on course and playing its cards right.

At this point, even after the U.S. was on the verge of screaming invade Iran, the U.S. says diplomacy will work. That is an example of the U.S. playing its cards, the U.S. knows diplomacy wont work but it claims it will untill it makes it realised that diplomacy wont work and then takes action with the support of many countries claiming it is the only option.

Sure we rushed into Iraq too fast but we had to, Iraq was too strategic of an area to not go in if we are going to deal with Iran.

Don't worry, the U.S. will quit playing soon and then it will be all out.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:33 PM
bush it seems cannot win in america, i wonder what that geezer wrote when america went into everything head on.

the problem is he is right is saying that america needs others with them, or it just seems like america is the world police.

one thing is for sure, america will have its hands full, with what is happeneing in israel at the mo.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:39 PM
ally think that the US should do absolutely nothing. This is not our fight, we don't have religious ties, and it is not our land. This conflict has been going on for decades, and we should not get involved. But of course we will because:

a) we are a superpower
b) oil = necessity
c) because we have the means
d) Israel is our "ally"

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:39 PM
Deleted duplicate post

Since I mind as well say something in this post, I want to say that I am 100% with dark sided on this one. At least he (she) seems to have common sense and a drive for peace at the same time.

[edit on 13/7/06 by Mouth]

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:40 PM
Ya I agree, this is a little too much armchair quarterbacking for my taste. What is wrong with going along with the European led diplomatic process with Iran? So the US needs to jump in and mix it up instead, which is basically stepping on the toes of our allies who are trying to do some very tough work in negotiations? That seems a bit silly to me.

What is the US supposed to do about North Korea? Tell them how it is or else? The US doesn't have any leverage over North Korea unless the US is going the military route or the concession route. To avoid those routes, you get everyone involved and let the process work.

The real problem I have with the piece you posted though is the 'need to rush in and save the day' mentality, as if the US isn't doing enough because Americans aren't charging in to save the world. Thank God the US isn't doing that. Where exactly is the urgency, is Iran going to nuke us tomorrow? Is North Korea going to launch missiles on the West Coast next week? Looks like typical Newsweek 'fear of the unknown' speak to me.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:43 PM
Don't direct the disagreement at me! I didn't give me opinion. Simply said its a good article and makes you think. What SHOULD our role be?

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:54 PM
yey but, america seems to have some sort of timetable they are working to. maybe there is some plan to get these things sorted in a rough amount of time.

i always remember hearing jordan maxwell saying his sources in the military were saying things needed to be sorted around by 2008 or so. what he meant i do not know, but there may be some sort of timetable when these things should be sorted by.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:55 PM
I agree with Mouth... we should stay on the sidelines in this one. Our (additional) presence in the region is only going to make matters worse. There are several factions in this mix spoiling for a fight. For our own good we need to stay out this time. I'm a semi-geezer myself (from the era of regular air raid drills and duck-and-cover). This situation is volatile in the extreme and among the most potentially serious developments I can recall. Everyone needs to pause and take a deep breath before it all gets horribly out-of-hand.

new topics

top topics


log in