| Forum Home | | Log in | | Signup | | My Page  | |
Rules | | FAQ | | Boards | | Members | | Search |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The above list shows replies to the following message: |
|
Msg. 15299 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 15298 by nxtflatpanel) |
|
179 uk soldiers died in the us' voluntary war in iraq and 447 in afghanistan in response to 911. i'm beginning to think us news reporting does great damage to us foreign policy. a population that knows nothing cannot make informed judgements. it appears you don't know that countries like the uk, australia and canada are almost always standing alongside the us in its military escapades. or that it was at allied behest that countries like japan and germany have restricted military profiles. perhaps you want the world to arm itself again rather than relying on the collective efforts of a number of countries with common interests - interests which include ideas like the rule of law. i might once have added moral authority to a list of virtues, but western countries threw their moral authority away by employing policies such as secret rendition and torture and running prisons like abu ghraib and gitmo. perhaps like many of the folks who foolishly exalted war in iraq you now counsel the opposite extreme of total disengagement? i don't remember your history. at least your underlying assumption seems to be that the us interest in nato is for convenience only. or that when china rattles its sabre over some japanese islands and the us shrugs its shoulders, this doesn't contribute to chinese aggression and japanese rearmament in the future. perhaps you think that the us is sealed off from events elsewhere in the world. much like folks imagined when the kaiser invaded northern france or when germany invaded poland in 1939 or on september 10th 2001. perhaps you want the us to "lead from behind" as it did in libya? a thing which is easy to do when the confrontation is with a pipsqueak; but that looks a touch more yellow when doing so against the second most powerful military in the world. perhaps when confronted by a substantial foe, the us runs scared and wants to be led by cheese eating surrender monkeys. perhaps you could explain why us involvement in nato is optional and why the optional principle you describe does no harm to us interests? it's kinda damaging to the us if it treats treaties the way you do. people will think a us alliance is one-sided. it takes when it wants in places like iraq and afghanistan. but it gives nothing back. so folks will think "why the heck bother?". the us can be on its own in future. there's value in mutual guarantees and a great deal of harm in not honouring them. the ukrainians agreed to set aside their nuclear weapons because the us, uk and russia guaranteed their territorial integrity? russia is obviously the worst actor in this drama. but given their response, who will make that deal with the us and uk in future? this is a connected world. we already know what happens to the us when wars begin in europe. the trick is to stand together before the bad actors get up a head of steam. as we did in yugoslavia. it's cheaper and safer in the long run. whereas a fractured nato harms us all. the most successful treaty of the last 100 years is nato. ensuring the safety of europe by nato countries has been enormously effective both for europe and for the us, in terms of lives and treasure. it's tragic to see us people turn against the things it has done right because of the things it has done wrong.
i think crimea has a fairly linear relationship with syria. putin saw obama as weak. he's acting on that basis. projecting weakness isn't an effective policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Webpage Design Copyright 2003-2011 http://www.atomicbobs.com/
|