U.S. grand strategy

Regardless of who wins in November, what should America's foreign policy look like? In one phrase, explain what America should be trying to accomplish on the world stage. Here are a few options (or, invent your own.)


1. Contain Islamist fundamentalism

2. Contain Islam period.

3. Contain China/North Korea

4. Contain Russia

5. Regime change in selected countries, like Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, China, etc.

6. Control of the Western Hemisphere

7. Control of the Middle East

8. Control the world's oil

9. Control UN/EU.

10. Isolate from all foreign politico/military adventures.

12. Create a free-trade club of nations for mutual prosperity.

Most of your options begin with the word contain or the word control, and I have a problem with that.

Containing and controlling was the strategy during the Cold War; a complicated, dangerous and expensive time in our history. We used this strategy because another superpower used its influence to spread its power across the globe, and we, as well as they, used proxy governments and regions to test ideologies.

I believe a more direct, honest and simpler manner should be used. I believe that if you want to do your own thing as a nation, do it, just do not threaten us or our allies. If you do threaten or attack us aor our allies, you should be dealt with in the harshest manner possible. I think this should be our national policy and that this policy should be made clear and undestandable to all. There should be no waffling or politicing on this policy, lest it will be meaningless. After that, stay out of world affairs.

Honestly, I agree with you. I was playing some Pax Britannica w/ friends, and we started discussing this kind of thing.

Your attitude certainly sums up that of the nation's founders, and the principles of the constitution.

One of the critiques of that style of governance is that it forces the goverment into a reactive role, where we only respond to threats after they have become crises that the electorate will acknowledge.

For instance, there has been a lot of criticizing the Clinton admin's refusal to take out Saddam and OBL; but in the September 10th world, there would have been a massive uprising against that kind of thing, for the same reasons you just gave.

So are we doomed to suffer infamies like Pearl Harbor and 9-11?

And should it be that way? Maybe it's better for us to be the victim, before we develop a response?

What does that mean in a post-atomic world?

yeah...take that Iraq!!! that'll learn ya. You won't try THAT again!!!

hang on...what was it they were guilty of.

They (Iraq) were guilty of expelling weapons inspectors which they had agreed to as part of the 1991 cease-fire. That move was tantamount to a resumption of hostilities, since they abrogated the rest of the conditions of the cease fire, and began shooting at American and Brit planes that were policing the no-fly zones, if you will remember.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

They (Iraq) were guilty of expelling weapons inspectors which they had agreed to as part of the 1991 cease-fire. That move was tantamount to a resumption of hostilities, since they abrogated the rest of the conditions of the cease fire, and began shooting at American and Brit planes that were policing the no-fly zones, if you will remember.

Yes, all this may be true.

But when you look at the bigger picture, those no-fly zones and inspections were imposed on Iraq by the US and UN after the first Golf War which itself was triggered through a betrayal of our word to Saddam.
The word of our ambassdor, when directly queried on America's response to an invasion of Kuweit, has to hold some value doesn't it?

Saddam had legitimate issues with Kuweit, and we would not have intervened if our greedy chops weren't salivating over the Kuweiti oil fields we consider ours for all intents and purposes.

So from an Iraqi perspective, it is perfectly reasonable to resent the American intervention after the invasion of Kuweit, and perfectly reasonable to expect that Saddam would tire of subjecting himself to the humiliation and intelligence security breach of continuous inspections and no fly zone patrolling.

The man, regardless of how monstruous he has shown himself capable of being, had a country to run, with powers around him potentially being able to take advantage of the position the US and UN were putting him in to undermine his sovereignty.

The picture is far less clear cut than you make it out to be, and the invasion was not justified.

U.

sigh* I think I'll leave that. Oh ffs, a cease fire implies acessation of fire, which is certainly not what occurre as for 10 years the Brits and Americans pounded the Iraqi air defenses, and an economic battle raged which wiped out a further million or more Iraqi civilians. A MANUFACTURED cisis heralded the removal of the inspection teams by UNSCOMMS head Richard Butler, paving the way for the war to follow. The inspectors were "in the way", without their removal the US would not have had any excuse for what was to follow. You don't think the expulsion was manufactured, ask Butler, ask Ritter, ask any number of the inspectors. WhereTF are the WMDs. The USgovt is out of control. Bush is just a pawn. They'll likely use him as the fallguy for what is to happen to NorthKorea.

Seriously, dr_strangecraft, I'm no different to you. I probably don't even SEE half the # around me so don't take this the wrong way but your words exude American arrogance and selfrighteousness with no regard for the "oppositions" position. We are all guilty of it. Me as well.

That is my point. Saddam had a country to run.

I am definitely NOT saying the crisis was not manufactured, or trying to pretend that the US and it's "coalition of the willing" (which describes coyotes and vultures, too) were not belligerents.

On the other hand, you must admit that Saddam could have avoided hostilities on a hundred occasions, if he'd had the least interest or desire in doing so.

The economic sanctions you wrote about were the UN's idea, trying to coerce saddam into complying with the cease fire, which he never actually did.

Saddam could have simply dismantled his weapons program, and then given guided tours to arms inspectors. This would have cost him nothing (actually it would have saved his regime hundreds of millions). It would have meant the resumption of oil export, and egg on the faces of US and UK.

"Millions" of Iraqi's would not have 'starved to death.'

US would have gladly purchased his oil, at market rates, and made his nation wealthy on a par with any other petrostate.

The US actively betrayed its promises to the Kurds, in order to keep Iraq as a single unified state. If they had wanted to dismember Iraq, Turkey and Syria would have gladly helped.

Certainly, other belligerants in the world would have sold him conventional arms, which would have given his military new impetus. Then he could have sent the inspectors packing with a lot less fanfare.

Abandoning a covert weapons program HAS worked elsewhere, for Libya. Ghaddafi probably has a better hold on power now than any time since the early 80's, simply because he decided he didn't need WMD to feed his people.

As for Iraq, the reason Saddam chose to keep his nation impoverished, and fight a futile war with the west, is because it was the only way he could keep power. If he had done the things that would have avoided war, his absolutist society would have been open to the world, and his people could have formed dissedent groups, and staged the very kind of coup that brought Saddam to power.

For his "republic of fear" to exist, he needed to be an international pariah, leading a state with closed borders and no outside contact. NOT going to war would have opened him up to popular revolt.

I am a U.S. citizen. What's your nationality, romeo or upuaut?

+++++++++++++++

Anyway this thread was originally about America's global stance, and not the cassus belli of the most recent conflict.



[edit on 16-8-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

oops double posted.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

I am a U.S. citizen. What's your nationality, romeo or upuaut?

See, there you are again. There is no hope for a global community while Americans consider themselves seperate and superior. You can't help it, like the whites that considered enslavement of blacks their God given right... for how many generations. You find it difficult to think beyond the US. Its your education, both formal and from your parents. The next step is to leave home, spread your wings a bit. I remember being homophobic well into my adulthood because of the engrained attitudes of my father. Its just stupid. The world is not America and it looks like it may take a few years for you to see that. I'll write a list of American policy if you like but it won't be a masturbation of the repeated mantra.

I think I'd start with some goodwill gestures....you know, things like....kill the foreign debt imposed on already impoverished nations which lock there children into labour for nothing. Or how about aiding the removal of US landmines which are littered over no fewer than 70 countries!!, kill and maimindiscriminately, often children, cost about 3 bucks to manufacture but thousands to remove. Hey I know, what about spending the trillions on the war in Iraq on the concerted development of clean fuel for the world. Think kind, think global or stay an adholescent.

I think I'd start with some goodwill gestures....you know, things like....kill the foreign debt

I think my country should call in the debts that are owed us by other countries.

here is no hope for a global community while Americans consider themselves seperate and superior.

I don't know about "separate and superior" but if it's coming down to my butt or yours, I'm choosing mine.

The next step is to leave home, spread your wings a bit.

Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll stay put for now.

BTW, Romeo, what country did you say you were from?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Regardless of who wins in November, what should America's foreign policy look like? In one phrase, explain what America should be trying to accomplish on the world stage. Here are a few options (or, invent your own.)


1. Contain Islamist fundamentalism

2. Contain Islam period.

3. Contain China/North Korea

4. Contain Russia

5. Regime change in selected countries, like Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, China, etc.

6. Control of the Western Hemisphere

7. Control of the Middle East

8. Control the world's oil

9. Control UN/EU.

10. Isolate from all foreign politico/military adventures.

12. Create a free-trade club of nations for mutual prosperity.

GOOD LUCK ACHIEVING THAT AMERICA... Contain Russia, China like that ever gonna happen...

Originally posted by Romeo

I am a U.S. citizen. What's your nationality, romeo or upuaut?

See, there you are again. There is no hope for a global community while Americans consider themselves seperate and superior. You can't help it, . . . The next step is to leave home, spread your wings a bit. . . .

See, There YOU go again.

First of all, I offered my own nationality before asking you about yours. I'm not embarrassed about my citizenship.

Second, I asked you because you pretty much said that I'm a provincial rube, and that my politics are a product of my upbringing. So it's a fair question for me to ask about your own origins, and where you got your own particular brand of bigotry from.

Third, why would I want a global community? How does that serve my interests? A lot of nations hate Americia, and did so well before 2001. Some of them hate it because it is rich and powerful. Others hate it because it is free. Some even hate it because it doesn't support their religion. There are even a few former allies that hate America because it stands in the way of their own particular dream of empire.

Fourth, as far as leaving home goes, I have worked and traveled extensively in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. I lived in the Middle East for an extended period of time, and the woman I married is of Middle Eastern descent. So your impressions as to the forces that have shaped me show more about your own hangups than they do about mine. You've already decided the kind of person I must be, even before you finished reading my posts.

Fifth, you missed the direction I wanted to take with this thread. Personally, I believe that each political party ought to craft its own foreign policy template, and hold it up to public scrutiny. This way, when there is a breakdown in diplomacy, congress and the voters could decide how good of a job an individual diplomat has done at performing policy directives.

For instance, before Iraq invaded Kuwait in July(?) of 1990, supposedly Tariq Azziz recieved assurances from April Glasspie, the American envoy, that US had no standing agreements with Kuwait, and considered the nation as beyond US's sphere of concern. IF we had access to a republican policy blueprint from the period, we could investigate exactly where the breakdown was.

But to do that, you need to have some sort of global agenda. And THAT is what I was looking for on this thread, not another change for me to aggrandize american interests overseas, or another chance for you to attack American for continuing to respirate.

Actually you're doing me a huge favor, helping me re-evaluate my reasons for posting on this site, where everyone is spoiling for a fight, and anyone who isn't some kind of unidentified flying leftist is basically unwelcome.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
On the other hand, you must admit that Saddam could have avoided hostilities on a hundred occasions, if he'd had the least interest or desire in doing so.

He did try to avoid hostilities, otherwise he would not have cooperated AT ALL with inspections.

He also would not have sought to ascertain that the US would not intervene if he were to make a move against Kuweit.
I am a U.S. citizen. What's your nationality, romeo or upuaut?

Multiple nationalities. US and British.

Anyway this thread was originally about America's global stance, and not the cassus belli of the most recent conflict.

True, but Iraq is obviously the focus point of such a discussion right now...

U.

You please read your own posts and show me where you DON'T sound like a provincial rube. (my comments in italics)

why would I want a global community? How does that serve my interests?
...
1. Contain Islamist fundamentalism
2. Contain Islam period.
3. Contain China/North Korea
4. Contain Russia
5. Regime change in selected countries, like Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, China, etc. where such a change would benefit the US economically.
6. Control of the Western Hemisphere initially.
7. Control of the Middle East to control the flow of oil
8. Control the world's oil to control the world
9. Control UN/EU. to legitimise ANYTHING we choose to do
10. Isolate from all foreign politico/military adventures. that aren't profitable.
12. Create a free-trade club of nations for mutual prosperity. ..at the expense of those excluded

I apologise if I've taken you the wrong way but perhaps you should have prefaced your initial post with "These are not my views."

The citizenship thing is irrelevant , although your choice of words is interesting. Like many Americans you are participating in a global forum but just don't get it. The country of your citizenship has done many great but also many horrendous things. I fear until it matures sufficiently as a nation and seeks some sort of forgiveness and attempts to right some of the wrongs it is doomed. Why. Because the alternative is to build an ever greater fortress to protect itself from all those wronged. Its like the offense-defense arms race thing. Defense ALWAYS loses. Freedom hey.

ROFL.

Fair dinkum.



[edit on 16-8-2004 by Romeo]

Originally posted by Romeo

why would I want a global community? How does that serve my interests?
...
1. Contain Islamist fundamentalism
2. Contain Islam period.
3. Contain China/North Korea
4. Contain Russia
5. Regime change in selected countries, like Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, China, etc. where such a change would benefit the US economically.
6. Control of the Western Hemisphere initially.
7. Control of the Middle East to control the flow of oil
8. Control the world's oil to control the world
9. Control UN/EU. to legitimise ANYTHING we choose to do
10. Isolate from all foreign politico/military adventures. that aren't profitable.
12. Create a free-trade club of nations for mutual prosperity. ..at the expense of those excluded

1. This is what US is doing to Islamic fundamentalist with his war in terror.
2. The more it kills Arabs the more Islamic people are contained.
3. So far he has accomplished the containment of china and Korea because they have not strike anything yet.
4. Russia has been contained when US did not allow them to share contracts in Iraq.
5. So far US got Afghanistan and Iraq in a messy kind of way but has been done now I do not know about economical benefits so far this two-regime change is costing US more that it is getting in return. I do not think US can afford to change another regime.
6. Control of the western I though US already has accomplish that.
7. The control of the Middle East well I believe that the companies in the Middle East working in the oil fields are American.
8. Well we may not control the oil but big business group in US are making a lot of money on Oil and that includes the bush family and friends.
9.The UN well US slapped them in the face when it went into Iraq.
10.Humm any war is profitable in the private sector every time the federal budget gets bigger for national security and defenses somebody is profiting from it.
11.Well I guess US has been profiting from other in the private sector for a long time, chip labor outside the US big business in the US.

And this is my analysis and is just a personal opinion.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Actually you're doing me a huge favor, helping me re-evaluate my reasons for posting on this site, where everyone is spoiling for a fight, and anyone who isn't some kind of unidentified flying leftist is basically unwelcome.

I am sorry you perceive this place that way.
Not everyone is spoiling for a fight, but political discussion on topics such as this one do get heated. Thousands of people have lost their lives in Iraq, and some people feel strongly about that.

U.