Bellicose foreign policy - what gives?
- Thread starter anathematics
- Start date
@ 2-0-Sixx – Well, you don’t have to necessarily agree with their "radical" new policy to support it – as you are doing implicitly with your tax dollars – assuming you pay taxes (no, that wasn’t an attack at you). It really is amazing though, since the, let’s say, Kennedy administration, probably more the Ford though, our government’s policies have been to combat Communism and revolutionaries in various countries from thwarting free trade and installing authoritarian/totalitarian regimes in regions that would directly affect our lives – and people are opposed to that. Granted, one would just have to take a look at our role in Latin American politics in the last century – we have a horrendous record. From botched regime coups, assassination attempts, questionable dealings behind Congress’ back, etc…the list goes on.
As far as Liberia goes, it seems pretty obvious what we have to do there (and I haven’t been following that situation too closely, for personal reasons) – Liberia was once a colony founded by emancipated slaves, so, their ties with the US government (if anyone hasn’t heard, Liberia’s capital was named after James Monroe) are genuine. Also, as I am sure some of you mentioned, anyone who supported the war with Iraq for humanitarian reasons would, logically, have to support action in Liberia. Apparently, a recent development in this case involves Bush sending 3 warships to help the war-torn region, however, their use would be limited and they are only going to be assisting the 15-nation African led force – known as Ecowas, or, Economic Community of West African States. In a brilliant stroke of diplomacy though, Bush has left any viable political solution up to the UN (as he should have).
Why Pakistan over India?
Thankfully, they have increased talks recently.
India, not necessarily a fledgling Democracy any more (it is actually the largest Democracy in the world) is probably our nearest ally in that region when it comes promoting various national security policies.
There are in a hotspot of evolutionary political change. Surprisingly, one of the nations that causes many of the political problems in that region is China vis a vis various totalitarian regimes it controls directly surrounding India – not to mention, supplying to the tune of billions, weapons and weapon systems to India’s sworn enemy, Pakistan.
Also, Pakistan – albeit, they have a decent record post 9/11 – but, to me, it’s akin to Syria’s record of appeasement (during the invasion of their neighbor, Iraq) is a known region for terrorist activity, and for years, their President Musharraf, has constantly abused his role as archbishop, prime minister, and has pleaded for monies that otherwise wouldn’t have been awarded were his mountains not teeming with terrorists. (Pakistan is at least $2 billion in debt with the US) and has recently been awarded a $3 billion economic aid package from Bush. Oh yes, Musharraf seized power in a coup in 1999 – his timing is impeccable.
Basically, India is constantly under attack from Pakistani militants in the Kashmir region, that’s where most of the skirmishes take place (in India-controlled Kashmir, that is). So, I haven’t a problem supporting a Democratic nation (India) attempting to pull it’s head out of a revolutionary quagmire – and we should be there to support them.
If anyone would like to start a thread regarding the questionable happenings in Latin America the last century, I would be more than willing to throw out my 2 cents.
As far as Liberia goes, it seems pretty obvious what we have to do there (and I haven’t been following that situation too closely, for personal reasons) – Liberia was once a colony founded by emancipated slaves, so, their ties with the US government (if anyone hasn’t heard, Liberia’s capital was named after James Monroe) are genuine. Also, as I am sure some of you mentioned, anyone who supported the war with Iraq for humanitarian reasons would, logically, have to support action in Liberia. Apparently, a recent development in this case involves Bush sending 3 warships to help the war-torn region, however, their use would be limited and they are only going to be assisting the 15-nation African led force – known as Ecowas, or, Economic Community of West African States. In a brilliant stroke of diplomacy though, Bush has left any viable political solution up to the UN (as he should have).
Why Pakistan over India?
Thankfully, they have increased talks recently.
India, not necessarily a fledgling Democracy any more (it is actually the largest Democracy in the world) is probably our nearest ally in that region when it comes promoting various national security policies.
There are in a hotspot of evolutionary political change. Surprisingly, one of the nations that causes many of the political problems in that region is China vis a vis various totalitarian regimes it controls directly surrounding India – not to mention, supplying to the tune of billions, weapons and weapon systems to India’s sworn enemy, Pakistan.
Also, Pakistan – albeit, they have a decent record post 9/11 – but, to me, it’s akin to Syria’s record of appeasement (during the invasion of their neighbor, Iraq) is a known region for terrorist activity, and for years, their President Musharraf, has constantly abused his role as archbishop, prime minister, and has pleaded for monies that otherwise wouldn’t have been awarded were his mountains not teeming with terrorists. (Pakistan is at least $2 billion in debt with the US) and has recently been awarded a $3 billion economic aid package from Bush. Oh yes, Musharraf seized power in a coup in 1999 – his timing is impeccable.
Basically, India is constantly under attack from Pakistani militants in the Kashmir region, that’s where most of the skirmishes take place (in India-controlled Kashmir, that is). So, I haven’t a problem supporting a Democratic nation (India) attempting to pull it’s head out of a revolutionary quagmire – and we should be there to support them.
If anyone would like to start a thread regarding the questionable happenings in Latin America the last century, I would be more than willing to throw out my 2 cents.
