reply to post by seabag
Your opening post deserves more thoughtful replies than it has received, and I'm sorry for that. This could have been (may still be?) a forum for a
serious foreign policy discussion. May I offer some thoughts?
One poster said
We would still respond to egregious human rights violations, genocides, and other conflicts that threaten good people who have
done nothing wrong. You make it sound like we would go from being the bully to being the nerd getting beat up (to use a bad analogy). The way I see
it, we would go from being the bully to being the teacher who steps in when the nerd needs defending.
This position would require us to be
involved in at least three times the number of places we are now. Most of Africa would require our attention, the Middle East has a terrible record
of human rights abuses, China, North Korea, we'd probably go into Mexico to protect the "nerds" that need defending from drug cartels. I
understand that the death rate of civilians in Chihuahua (a Mexican state) is at least six times that in Afghanistan.
"But we can make do with diplomacy" We have seen what diplomacy did for Mubarak, Gadahfi, Ahmadinejad, Hussein. Diplomacy must have the option of
teeth, just as the police must have the option of firearms. Shall we fight genocide or protect our national interests through the UN? The question
And what do we do for bases that are needed for intelligence gathering, drone launches, special ops, supply depots, and peace keeping in areas such as
Korea? Do we get rid of our naval bases, requiring our ships to go out then come back quickly for fuel or supplies?
Is all our fighting to be conducted by drones launched from Colorado? They won't be interfered with by other countries and captured, will they? Of
course they don't have the necessary range, either, but that's ok, all the troublesome countries are close.
Speaking about close, how close do we let trouble come? Iran is making deals with Venezuela, should we let South America go radical Muslim with no
attention on our part? How about if China takes Taiwan and moves into South Korea and the rest of Asia? And if Russia takes Europe is our answer
diplomacy, but nothing else because we don't want foreign entanglements like NATO?
The world is a bar without rules. It needs a bouncer or two. It's best to stop trouble early and far away.
I don't know if any of the above makes sense, but you've launched an important discussion and we need more than bumper sticker slogans.