Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The Current Unravelling of US Foreign Policy

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 12:07:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some thoughts on "the Libya crisis" by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

"What's going on here is the unraveling of a value-free foreign policy and its unintended consequences. The whole reason that the streets in Libya are not safe and the country is ruled by roving gangs of militias is because the U.S. bombed the country last year. In an unconstitutional act of war, the president alone ordered the bombing. It destroyed the Libyan military, national and local police, roads, bridges, and private homes. It facilitated the murder of our former ally Col. Gadhafi and ensured the replacement of him by a government that cannot govern.

The consulate attack defies the claims of the president, articulated loud and long during this presidential campaign, that because he killed Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda is dead or dying, and the terrorists are at bay. Thus, in order to be faithful to his campaign rhetoric, the president has been unfaithful to the truth. I personally have seen excerpts from intelligence cables sent by American agents in Libya to Washington on Sept. 12, the day after the attack and four days before Rice's TV appearances, acknowledging the dominant role played by al-Qaeda in the attack.

So who is to blame here? The president. He is responsible for destroying the government in Libya, and he is responsible for the security of U.S. personnel and property there. He is accountable to the American people, and he is expected to tell the truth. Instead, he has leaked the possibility of more bombings in Libya. These bombings would be more than a month after the Benghazi consulate attack and would attack the very government that Obama's 2011 bombs helped to install."

Current American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, is totally unraveling. After trillions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Iraq war, the Iraqi government is increasingly autocratic, terrorism is surging, and Baghdad is now friendlier with Tehran than it is with Washington. In Afghanistan, Taliban leaders know American troops have to leave and are simply waiting us out. Two thousand dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Afghans later Afghanistan will return to the state it was in before 2001, more or less, except possibly less stable. Due in part to the huge surge in drone strikes, our relationship with Pakistan is dysfunctional. When it comes to Iran, Obama doesn't have the balls to firmly tell Netanyahu to stfu and let America concern itself with its own interests, meanwhile the sanctions are doing nothing but destroying the economy and making it harder to get good medicine, which ruins life (or ends it) for innocent people but does nothing to change the Supreme Leader's mind about Iran's (currently non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

And then of course there is the aforementioned situation in Libya which is just disastrous, to say the least. This is a textbook case of the unintended consequences of our interventionist foreign policy where an apparently brutal government is deposed, everyone's cheering and the effort seems cheap, efficient, and successful... But no thought is given about the government that will replace it, and that one ends up causing even more problems and instability in the region than the one before it. Will we have to bomb Libya again to depose of the militias that we supported and armed against Gaddafi just a year ago? We got rid of Gadhafi but left behind a broken country, and everyone knows it. The war in Libya was an utterly unnecessary but severe failure.

Sources:
http://original.antiwar.com...
http://original.antiwar.com...
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:47:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rand Paul had a nice piece on using cost benefit analysis with foreign policy. He also has a long list of countries where there is no benefit and great cost.

Funny thing is, there are loads of countries who detest our presence in the world, and hate who we are for what we do, but if you actually corner them and agree with them, that we should withdraw completely, they get very uncomfortable. I had this discussion with Volkov, a Canadian, who agrees with us that we shouldn't be doing what we do, but when it comes to us withdrawing, not so fast. Much of the world would be happy for us taking the lead on world affairs, as long as we don't actually decide what that role is, and how it's to be done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:47:16 PM, innomen wrote:
Rand Paul had a nice piece on using cost benefit analysis with foreign policy. He also has a long list of countries where there is no benefit and great cost.

Funny thing is, there are loads of countries who detest our presence in the world, and hate who we are for what we do, but if you actually corner them and agree with them, that we should withdraw completely, they get very uncomfortable. I had this discussion with Volkov, a Canadian, who agrees with us that we shouldn't be doing what we do, but when it comes to us withdrawing, not so fast. Much of the world would be happy for us taking the lead on world affairs, as long as we don't actually decide what that role is, and how it's to be done.

If our foreign policy really is about world security, then why is the US the ones stuck with the bill? Why isn't the rest of the western world doing their fair share?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:09:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 12:07:25 PM, jat93 wrote:
Some thoughts on "the Libya crisis" by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

"What's going on here is the unraveling of a value-free foreign policy and its unintended consequences. The whole reason that the streets in Libya are not safe and the country is ruled by roving gangs of militias is because the U.S. bombed the country last year. In an unconstitutional act of war, the president alone ordered the bombing. It destroyed the Libyan military, national and local police, roads, bridges, and private homes. It facilitated the murder of our former ally Col. Gadhafi and ensured the replacement of him by a government that cannot govern.

The consulate attack defies the claims of the president, articulated loud and long during this presidential campaign, that because he killed Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda is dead or dying, and the terrorists are at bay. Thus, in order to be faithful to his campaign rhetoric, the president has been unfaithful to the truth. I personally have seen excerpts from intelligence cables sent by American agents in Libya to Washington on Sept. 12, the day after the attack and four days before Rice's TV appearances, acknowledging the dominant role played by al-Qaeda in the attack.

So who is to blame here? The president. He is responsible for destroying the government in Libya, and he is responsible for the security of U.S. personnel and property there. He is accountable to the American people, and he is expected to tell the truth. Instead, he has leaked the possibility of more bombings in Libya. These bombings would be more than a month after the Benghazi consulate attack and would attack the very government that Obama's 2011 bombs helped to install."

Current American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, is totally unraveling. After trillions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Iraq war, the Iraqi government is increasingly autocratic, terrorism is surging, and Baghdad is now friendlier with Tehran than it is with Washington. In Afghanistan, Taliban leaders know American troops have to leave and are simply waiting us out. Two thousand dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Afghans later Afghanistan will return to the state it was in before 2001, more or less, except possibly less stable. Due in part to the huge surge in drone strikes, our relationship with Pakistan is dysfunctional. When it comes to Iran, Obama doesn't have the balls to firmly tell Netanyahu to stfu and let America concern itself with its own interests, meanwhile the sanctions are doing nothing but destroying the economy and making it harder to get good medicine, which ruins life (or ends it) for innocent people but does nothing to change the Supreme Leader's mind about Iran's (currently non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

And then of course there is the aforementioned situation in Libya which is just disastrous, to say the least. This is a textbook case of the unintended consequences of our interventionist foreign policy where an apparently brutal government is deposed, everyone's cheering and the effort seems cheap, efficient, and successful... But no thought is given about the government that will replace it, and that one ends up causing even more problems and instability in the region than the one before it. Will we have to bomb Libya again to depose of the militias that we supported and armed against Gaddafi just a year ago? We got rid of Gadhafi but left behind a broken country, and everyone knows it. The war in Libya was an utterly unnecessary but severe failure.

Sources:
http://original.antiwar.com...
http://original.antiwar.com...
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com...

Ahahaha, of course it is. Iraq has a Shiite majority. A politician called Ahmed Chalabi gave us false information about WMDs in Iraq, so we would topple Hussein's regime and give Iran more influence in the region. Iran's goal is to have a large sphere of influence in the Middle East; not to make nuclear weapons.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:10:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:50:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:47:16 PM, innomen wrote:
Rand Paul had a nice piece on using cost benefit analysis with foreign policy. He also has a long list of countries where there is no benefit and great cost.

Funny thing is, there are loads of countries who detest our presence in the world, and hate who we are for what we do, but if you actually corner them and agree with them, that we should withdraw completely, they get very uncomfortable. I had this discussion with Volkov, a Canadian, who agrees with us that we shouldn't be doing what we do, but when it comes to us withdrawing, not so fast. Much of the world would be happy for us taking the lead on world affairs, as long as we don't actually decide what that role is, and how it's to be done.

If our foreign policy really is about world security, then why is the US the ones stuck with the bill? Why isn't the rest of the western world doing their fair share?

They helped with the invasion of Iraq.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:27:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:10:15 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:50:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:47:16 PM, innomen wrote:
Rand Paul had a nice piece on using cost benefit analysis with foreign policy. He also has a long list of countries where there is no benefit and great cost.

Funny thing is, there are loads of countries who detest our presence in the world, and hate who we are for what we do, but if you actually corner them and agree with them, that we should withdraw completely, they get very uncomfortable. I had this discussion with Volkov, a Canadian, who agrees with us that we shouldn't be doing what we do, but when it comes to us withdrawing, not so fast. Much of the world would be happy for us taking the lead on world affairs, as long as we don't actually decide what that role is, and how it's to be done.

If our foreign policy really is about world security, then why is the US the ones stuck with the bill? Why isn't the rest of the western world doing their fair share?

They helped with the invasion of Iraq.

only UK and austalia were major players, and I don't believe they released as many troops per capita than the US.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:41:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
although, i stand corrected. The UK sent more troops per capita than the US. 718 per 1 million UK citizens were in Iraq, while in the US, 476 per 1 million US citizens were sent to Iraq.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:56:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:50:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:47:16 PM, innomen wrote:
Rand Paul had a nice piece on using cost benefit analysis with foreign policy. He also has a long list of countries where there is no benefit and great cost.

Funny thing is, there are loads of countries who detest our presence in the world, and hate who we are for what we do, but if you actually corner them and agree with them, that we should withdraw completely, they get very uncomfortable. I had this discussion with Volkov, a Canadian, who agrees with us that we shouldn't be doing what we do, but when it comes to us withdrawing, not so fast. Much of the world would be happy for us taking the lead on world affairs, as long as we don't actually decide what that role is, and how it's to be done.

If our foreign policy really is about world security, then why is the US the ones stuck with the bill? Why isn't the rest of the western world doing their fair share?

This is where so much of the outrage falls. If you look at the Bosnian fiasco it's a perfect example of what Europe would have. For two years we said it was a European problem, and Europe spent that time discussing the problem in Brussels. Meanwhile 250,000 people were killed, most civilians, most out of ethnic genocide. When the US stepped in, under the guise of NATO, finally progress was made, but it was all in accordance with the Europeans leading the US via their policy.

I believe that the UN would be happy dictating the US military throughout the world, and yeah, we pay in both dollars and lives, and they'd be really okay with it. Look at South Korea, why are we there?