Is the US's new Policy the right way?

[Jon Miller]

I would make this a poll

but I want thoughts

I really am not sure

Jon Miller

[SlowwHand]

In regard to what?

[Loif]

Could you be a tad more specific Jon? Or should I call you Joe Canadian?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Loif
Could you be a tad more specific Jon? Or should I call you Joe Canadian?

I think he means here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...S_Armed_Forces

[Capt Dizle]

I think that the best way to look at what Bush is proposing is (1)that America police the world in regard to nations engaging in or harboring terrorists, (2) that America police the world in regard to regimes that are developing WOMD.

America has of course been engaged across the world but this is a potentially huge change. It could entail an almost continuous use of American troops and huge expenditures of public funds.

In order to be sucessful it seems to me that America will have to enlist other developed nations to participate in nation building.

I am very hestitant to support this policy in its broadest interpretation. I would rather see dollars spent at home than abroad wrecking and rebuilding countries like Iraq.

The key is the level of technology that is available to tyrants like Saddam and terrorists organizations, now and in the future. If a credible threat exists I think we should act.

But there are limits to what any nation, even the world's most powerful, can do. A badly implenmented policy could end up doing what poor American policy has done so often in the past, create a well of bitterness in minds of the people of those nations we have run our political experiments on.

I am a skeptic in the long run. But I support the president in his policy of regime change in Iraq.

[Velociryx]

I think that US foriegn policy should be limited to responding to direct threats, and helping WHEN ASKED.

IMO, we should begin acting almost exclusively through the UN, and provide them the backing they need to really put some teeth into them. If we want the world to take the UN seriously (which would be a good thing, cos if they were taken seriously then their various proclamations would be adhered to), then WE need to make the first move there and start taking them seriously.

Does this mean that we should roll over and let an international council tell us how to run our country? Of course not! But it does mean abiding by international law.....just like we expect everybody else to.

Do that, and I'll bet we make a lot more friends on the playground.

-=Vel=-

[Faeelin]

I actually think there's a case with Iraq.

First America's told bny the world it should respect what hte UN decides. Then when America decides to invade a nation for building weapons of mass destruciton in violating of an armastice with the UN, the world condemns it.

A bit oversimplified, but esentially what's happening.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think that US foriegn policy should be limited to responding to direct threats, and helping WHEN ASKED.

IMO, we should begin acting almost exclusively through the UN, and provide them the backing they need to really put some teeth into them. If we want the world to take the UN seriously (which would be a good thing, cos if they were taken seriously then their various proclamations would be adhered to), then WE need to make the first move there and start taking them seriously.

Does this mean that we should roll over and let an international council tell us how to run our country? Of course not! But it does mean abiding by international law.....just like we expect everybody else to.

Do that, and I'll bet we make a lot more friends on the playground.

-=Vel=-

I fear that your thinking is behind the curve wherein Bush is thinking ahead. If indeed technological advancement is going to empower individual groups and unstable countries to posses WOMD then America risks much by taking the politically correct stance that you are advocating Vel. Heretofore, it has been a given that persons such as Bin Laden and Saddam have been only regional threats and even within their reach the damage they could inflict was limited. But are we not moving into a era where this will no longer be true?

For example, we have recently heard that a private company is going to go to the moon. They have been cleared by US government IIRC. If this is true then how difficult is it to believe that a worldwide terrorist group assisted by nations such as Iran can develop the capability to strike globally?

Certainly a powerful defense can be mounted that we have not yet reached that point. I have been extremely careful to listen to those who say that Iraq could not threaten the US with nuclear weapons even if he had them because he would lack the required delivery system.

However, I question any certainty that we might be able to know and act in advance of Saddam's acquistition of such capability. I question whether it is better wait than to act beforehand. In what way does no action enhance the security of anyone?

I place no credence in the ability of the UN to prevent terror or war or to provide security for America or for the world. I have never seen any compeling evidence to indicate that the UN can do any of these things.

Abiding by international law is a very high minded concept. But law is applied most often to bring the guilty to justice, not to prevent crime. Nor to prevent terrorist acts nor international aggression.

President Bush's intent is to develop a sort of preventitive deterent. By establishing the likelyhood that any attempt to acquire WOMD will result in a strong military response it is hoped that terrorists and tyrants will be denied the assistance they need from other sources. It will be necessary to establish that enitities, including soverign nations, will be held accountable if they harbor and aid terrorists. The UN will never be a vehicle for that and we all know it.

This issue may boil down to courage. Do we have the courage to do what we believe is right in the face of world condemnation? We might be right. Even if every country in the world opposes us, we might be right.

I do not know if the Bush doctrines will survive his presidency. I doubt it will. But I fear we may look back 20 or 30 years in the future and conclude that Bush was a man ahead of his time.

jt

[Velociryx]

Excellent post, JT! And it has caused me to expand the thinking of my earlier posting to include this:

I firmly believe in the things I mentioned above. America has really taken some blows on the chin where her credibility and intentions were concerned with past meddling.

In large part, this can be explained by saying that we were in the midst of the most dangerous war the world has ever known (Cold War) and we did what we had to do, for as long as we had to do it. In the end, it got us a checkmated Russia, whose economy finally caved in, and this led to such things as the Iron Curtain coming down, right along with the Berlin Wall.

It created additional problems, too, but on the whole, the West's (led by America) conduct during the cold war was as good as can be expected, given how high the stakes were.

Note here, I am NOT saying the US and the US alone was responsible for winning the cold war, or for the crumbling of the Iron Curtain, etc. We could not have done it without the help of our Nato allies and friends in the International community. It was truly a cooperative victory. Of all the nations that participated on "our side" of the Cold War tho, I think it's clear that America got her hands the dirtiest. That's okay, we were Russia's counterweight. It was our job to do the heavy lifting. Some of that heavy lifting included doing stuff we're not proud of.

Now we find ourselves in a world that's colored very differently than it was when the Cold War Mentality was looming over most everything we did.

Now requires a new kind of thinking.

Bush would have us believe that this new kind of thinking is best expressed by pre-emptive strikes on potential enemies. In that, I think he is incorrect.

More specifically, I think what is required is a heightened sense of diligence and preparedness, and an ever increasing level of cooperation with the international community. I say this for a number of reasons, but chief among them is the fact that our economy, in terms of global output, is shrinking. True, it's growing at a healthy clip, but the rest of the world (taken as a whole) is growing faster. Our portion of the world's total output has been chopped by more than half since its peak, and we can expect that trend to continue in the future. It's time, then, for those rising stars of the economy to help share the load.

America cannot afford, in the long term, to be the policeman of the planet. Nor should that be our primary objective.

Our future will be best served by conducting ourselves in such a way that we bind ourselves more closely with the world community, rather than pursuing policies that alienate and isolate us. Now is America's time (as the largest economic and military power in the world). We can choose to lead the world either by example (beginning with adherance with international laws, and active support of the UN), or as a bully (which will alienate us in the world community, lead to ever-increasing resentment, and ultimately, speed our economic decline, relative to the rest of the world).

If we pursue Bush's vision of global policy and begin pre-emptive strikes on potential threats (*potential* being the operative word), we must then ask the question "where does it end?" and that would be a fair question.

Preventing nations with proven belligerent track records from acquiring Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction....is this sufficient cause to go to war with that country to bring about a "regime change" (polite term for killing the current leader and installing some other form of government....presumedly one that's pro-USA).

And how long until that mindset comes back to haunt us on our own shores? How long until we begin arresting people who show an inclination toward violence, but who have committed no crime? Strike them pre-emptively before the do.....the very doctrine Bush would have us apply to the world at large.

Don't get me wrong....I think his goals are essentially good ones. Sadam is a bully and has a long track record of lying and gassing his own people, starving them to build up his military, etc, etc.

But what Bush is trying to implement amounts to thought control, with the USA in charge of determining what constitutes "proper thought." Anybody who falls out of line finds themselves under the gun.

We aren't wise enough. No nation on earth is wise enough to be in that position.

I'm no pacifist.....if somebody does wrong, I believe that punishment and reprisal should be swift and decisive. But just as we cannot arrest someone before they commit a crime, nor should we make pre-emptive attacks on other soveriegn nations before they have given just cause (this would include an attack on a third party who asks for our assistance).

What we should focus on instead, is aggressive intellegence gathering, non-military methodologies of preventing problems, and increased support of the UN. (Example: Have the UN put a global ban on the development of womd-cold war relics- anybody violating that ban would be in contempt of international law, and the GLOBAL community would be responsible for dealing with that nation).

Most importantly though, by shifting our focus from military to economic concerns, we can provide reasons for the terror attacks to end....the current trend of the world economy is one of coming together....the EU is but the first example of this. There will be others, and it is my hope we will join in that trend....and as the world's economies are bound more and more closely together, the benefits of that will spread to all participating corners of the world....it would be easy enough to make a pre-condition of joining one of the big, established economic blocks an absence of terrorist cells operating in a given nation's borders, regular policing of same, and pooling of intellegence regarding terrorist groups. That alone will create a huge incentive NOT to support terrorists....the economic gains would simply be too large to ignore.

-=Vel=-

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Velociryx If we want the world to take the UN seriously (which would be a good thing, cos if they were taken seriously then their various proclamations would be adhered to), then WE need to make the first move there and start taking them seriously.

/me gives a standing ovation.

[Urban Ranger]

So when will the US start invading Israel, a country that has:

1. developed weapons of mass destruction
2. violated UN resolutions
3. haboured terrorists

?

The answer is never, because Israel is an ally.

Again, the US doesn't care if a country does anything, as long as it is an ally. The aforementioned excuses are used to topple people whomever the Government of the Day doesn't like, for one reason or another.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

You make some good comments about the Cold War. Lets take a moment to give credit to the people of the former Soviet Union for the relatively peaceful transition in government. Note I said relatively.

I have a deep admiration for the Russian people who endured tremendous loss of life in war and the regime of Stalin. I offer my hopes and prayers for peace and prosperity for all the people of the former Soviet Union.

One of the consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union has been the power vacuum that was formed when the influence of Soviet Union waned. There is a strong likelihood that dangerous regimes will seek to take advantage of this vacuum in the future.

If history has taught us anything it is that we live in an ever-shrinking world where conflicts cannot be dismissed as regional and not worthy of global concern. And the world seems to be shrinking at an ever increasing and alarming pace as evidenced by the devastating attack on New York by Islamic terror.

History also seems to show that the global community is not sufficiently developed to deal with emerging threats. The UN has no power to provide leadership or direction in disputes between sovereign nations. Even in the clear crisis manifested in Iraq's aggression in the 1990s the UN could not act but only sanction the actions of its members as the US built a coalition and led a military effort to restore the peace.

The UN was unable to enforce post war sanctions against Iraq. This failure shows why it is not possible for the United States to effectively work within the UN framework and accomplish concrete results. The containment of aggressive regimes seeking to expand their influence militarily can only be accomplished in the world today by the United States. This is hardly debatable. What is open to debate, and is a fair question is whether the policy of containment should include pre-emptive strikes.

But lets make clear that a pre-emptive strike does not equate to aggression. When Saddam invaded Kuwait he occupied the country and declared it to be an Iraqi province. That’s aggression. America has no such intention. Idiotic assertions that America is the modern version of the Roman Empire or that Bush is a warmonger are not helpful. Wild speculation and ludicrous conspiracy theory contribute nothing of value to public debate.

Lets also deal frankly with the question of national sovereignty. Iraq has broken cease-fire agreements that it signed. Iraq is in violation of multiple UN resolutions. At what point does a nation forfeit its right of sovereignty?


But beyond that, is Iraq a nation in a true sense and does sovereignty even apply? I think not. Saddam is a ruthless dictator who maintains power by force. Only a tiny segment of the population supports him. He murders potential adversaries. He murders his people. He uses weapons of mass destruction against the Iraqi people. Restricted by UN trade sanctions he diverts oil profits from food purchases to fund many less critical needs. Such as "palaces" and weapons programs. And the children starve.

How can we allow such a man to hide behind the concept of national sovereignty? This is ludicrous. In my opinion it is a frank expression of moral and intellectual cowardice to do so.

When attacked in 1991 Saddam responded by launching missiles at Israel. Why? Why does Saddam provide financial rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? It is because terrorism is just another political tool that he uses. He is in essence a terrorist himself, not the head of a sovereign government.

Terrorism is not a crime. Terrorism for political purpose is an act of war. Terror is the current weapon of choice for Islamic elements that seek to expel Israel from the Middle East. Failure by world governments to strike preemptively at terrorism is an abrogation of government's responsibility to protect their citizens. This is no more and no less than a complete failure of the collective government of the entire world.

But it is nothing new. The world and the UN and yes, even the US has stood by and done nothing while despots have committed horrible human rights violations up to and including genocide.

So why act now? Why should the US depart from its previous doctrine and embrace a policy of preemptive strike? It is because the rapid of technology that has lead to nuclear proliferation and will lead to the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons unless the growing culture of terrorism is destroyed. WOMD in the hands of terrorists and dictators will become a reality as will the use of these despicable horrors. The only thing that stands in the way of unimaginable suffering and death is courage. The world is in dire need of leaders with the courage to refute the failed thinking of our past and establish that terrorism cannot be used to achieve political goals.

Vel, I agree with you that economic engagement is crucial to achieving world stability. However, you must understand that the culture of terrorism arising in the Middle East cannot be solved by economic means. The hatred of Israel, and by extension the US, stems from a territorial dispute caused by UN action. It has become an element of fundamental religious belief. Creatures such as Saddam will continue to exploit this bitterness to their own ends. Order must be achieved by force of arms and the peace maintained by police presence. How can it be otherwise in a land where one generation teaches the next to hate as a show of devotion to God?

Only after peace is imposed can economic means be brought to bear in an attempt to give those caught in the cycle of violence other options to pursue.

As for your comments that Bush is trying to institute thought control, I cannot respond. It makes no sense. I cannot find any foundation for the comment.

Your assertion that the US should increase its intelligence capability is spot on. It can be an invaluable tool to fight terror in a manner that will minimize the loss of human life. I hope the US government is as intelligent as you are on this point.

The US is not able to police the world. It is indeed not "wise" enough to determine for all people everywhere what their lives should be about. And the US certainly can't afford the cost of righting all it perceives and wrong on the globe.

And if we take this road that Bush has mapped for us we surely cannot see the end. Should this deter us? I say not. We must embark with courage to do what we can. To establish a worldwide deterrence against those who seek to use terror and mass murder as tools to gain their political goals.

jt

[Velociryx]

Another outstanding post JT! You keep raising the bar like that and I'm not sure I'll be able to keep up!

In my mind, the BEST point you raised in your latest post was that terrorism is an act of war. It is, in fact, a *type* of warfare.

If we use this as a place of beginning, then we find ourselves in a much different, much clearer position (and in a position in which our views coincide!). In this case then, we are not actually striking pre-emptively at all. Acts of terror have been perpetrated on us, and other countries. You rightly point out that these are acts of war, and in that case, we should respond in kind. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Further, we should respond with overwhelming force, not only against the terrorist organizations, but against those who keep them funded, supplied, and hidden from our sight.

Where we may differ (and most definitely where I differ with President Bush) is that we *cannot* afford to go it alone. Going it alone only serves to alienate potential allies and makes us appear to be the bully. This will only serve to increase anti-american sentiment in other corners of the world, and lead to further terrorist-style attacks, which will cause the circle of aggression to spiral outward in ever-widening waves. It will never end in this manner.

Only by building cooperative relationships and getting the backing of our neighbors in the shrinking global community can we be truly effective. Certainly, going it alone will solve the short term problem. We could, all by ourselves, and without input from any other nation, take Iraq on 1:1 and blow them to smithereens. No question about that. The problem is that in doing so....in putting out one fire, we spark several others, *especially* if we strike on our own, or with only the most limited backing from the world community.

You rightly point out that the UN is currently in no shape to do anything about terrorism.

I think the first, best move we can make in that regard is to give the UN sufficient teeth so that it CAN respond to terrorism, and other threats to global security.

How can we do this?

Here's what I'd recommend as a beginning:
1) Catch up on past-due UN dues immediately. Keep them current.

2) Begin abiding by UN resoluations and mandates. We expect the rest of the world to do it, and we need to lead by example if we are going to lead at all.

3) Dramatically increase the amount of troops we supply to the UN for various missions

4) Push through a new UN resoltion that enables the UN to do more than simply "peace keeping" missions. Let the UN begin to operate counter-terrorism units (which we, and other member nations can supply).

5) offer MFN status to ALL members of the UN.

6) Give any member nation of the UN that is currently supporting known terrorist organizations six months to expel and or arrest all known members of those organizations. Give them 30 days to shut off ALL funds to those groups. Nations that do not comply are simply booted out of the club. End of story (this causes them to lose their economic advantage).

7) Require all members of the UN to pool their intelligences re: terrorist cells, groups, and activities.

8) All non-member states of the UN are to be watched closely. If they persist in funding/training terrorists, then they stand in a state of war with the UN, and therefore, with all member states OF the UN.

9) Begin working with all members of the UN to help in the formation of economic trading blocks, beginning regionally, and then combining those, with the eventual, stated goal being economic unification of all member states. (granted, this may take a couple hundred years, but hopefully not).

These things would set the stage for a newly reinvigorated UN....one with the teeth to go after what is a global, not an American, problem.

It's really rather akin to game theory. We can set up a punishment system for those who further their ends via terrorism (invasion, military attack), and/or, we can set up a reward system for those who refrain from those activities.

Bush wants to go a 100% punishment route, and says nothing about a reward system.

I think this is short-sighted. Yes, it will accomplish the immediate goal of putting out the current fire, but at the cost of sparking new ones.

Long term, that's not what we're looking for.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Sadly, I can't see those 9 things happening Vel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

6) Give any member nation of the UN that is currently supporting known terrorist organizations six months to expel and or arrest all known members of those organizations. Give them 30 days to shut off ALL funds to those groups. Nations that do not comply are simply booted out of the club. End of story (this causes them to lose their economic advantage).

Um... you really can't start kicking countries out of the UN. It is almost impossible to make happen.

[Ned]

I ask you guys who support the UN, what international dispute has the UN solved by issuing a mandatory SC resolution?

If you are thinking about Kuwait, think twice. The Saudi's called Bush, not the UN, for help.

[Velociryx]

The US has tremendous pull with the UN, and no, *at present* you can't kick member states out of that organization easily.....but re-read what I said. I'm not talking about a cosmetic fix to the UN....I'm talking about a total overhaul. I'm talking about reorganizing it along "reward lines" for specific purposes, and doing it in such a way that it DOES have ready control over its membership, and so that it CAN deal with global threats.

The proper venue for dealing with threats to global security rests with a global body, NOT with any individual nation. With our influence in the UN, we could, if we choose to, make these changes happen.

We are the strongest single nation on the planet, and as such, we have an obligation to lead. We can either lead by brute force, or by example. Whatever we choose will shade the way the world sees us, and the way we see ourselves.

Given the ideals we were founded on, leading by example is the better way.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

"First strike" global strategy is nothing new, and exists sincethere are empires and wars.

The global aim of the US diplomacy is to complete the new world order begun by the fall of the USSR. While most countries accepted it, some countries don't want to play in a game where the rules are wriiten mostly by the US, a bit by its powerful allies (Europe, Russia, China, Japan. I'm talking both about military and economy)
The word "rogue states" is excellent IMO. These states don't abide by the rules, it doesn't mean they're inherently bad.

Like any ruler confronted to internal problems (slowing of Economy, financial scandals, tensions between communities), Bush wants to have a successful foreign policy for the US. However, even if the US is #1, it can't afford to have no support at all. Therefore, the US must gather support to start wars.

The "first strike" policy isn't intended for global security, since several allies of the US are much more dangerous than Iraq or Sudan.
Its goal is to justify US offenses to internal and foreign public opinions. Everytime a ruler wanted to justify a declaration of war, he told he was thwarting a threat. Curiously enough, the other side thought the attack was completely unprovoked.

Let me ask you a question : if Bin Laden tells he'll adopt a "first strike" strategy, and will attack countries which are potential threats in his opinion, how will you react ?

But there are limits to what any nation, even the world's most powerful, can do. A badly implenmented policy could end up doing what poor American policy has done so often in the past, create a well of bitterness in minds of the people of those nations we have run our political experiments on.

Jimmitrick, I rarely agree with you, but this time I give you a big . Add that these "political experiments" often means "bombing of cities", and you'd have drawn a complete picture.

[Spiffor]

About rebuilding economies :
It's absolutely needed, even when not asked. IF you don't want to add even more frustration to a population you just bombed, you'd better make help it rebuild.

But helping to rebuild is not the only thing to do. You must not spread the American way of life. I know many Americans think the American way is the best and should be spread around the world, but it's wrong. The American way is ONE way of life among others, no worse or no better.
As an example, many French people resent Americans because they bundled their rebuild help (for which we're thankful) with heaps of American culture. The intent at that time was to "Americanize" European societies. This has been partly failed in France, which explains why there is a cultural rivalry between the two countries.
Another example is the modernisation / Americanization of Iran during the Shah's rule, which led to massivee frustration which backed the Islamist revolution (back to original culture).

Most countries which will be targetted / rebuild are from the moslem world. This is a very different culture than the US. Trying to colonize their culture while rebuilding them will lead to the same problems as those we already know.

[Velociryx]

Total agreement re: economic rebuilidng. In reorganizing as proposed above, it's equally important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are some really good things we currently do....some things we should acknowledge as "best practices" and among them is the Marshall Plan. Good idea. It works (witness the state of the Japanese and German economies today).

Almost total agreement re: americanization of other cultures. Some of that simply cannot be helped. As cultures are exposed to other cultures en mass, the stronger culture can rightly be expected to exert at least a measure of influence over the weaker, intended or not. But as for force-feeding Americana....I agree with you.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

This policy is just ideological cover for the Iraq invasion: Bush can;t, wont actually follow it when it comes to anything besides Iraq:

S.Korea, japan and China would never allow a premeptive war with N.Korea- so don't expect anything ever to happen there:

Iran is a state of good standing with everyone but the US and Israel- its also very big- don't look for any US moves there. Syria is also in good standing, and too close to israel for the US to do anything: don't look for any action there.

The US talk about demanding democracy- don't expect any calls for democratization in Egypt, saudi arabia, or Pakistan. democracy is only good for people under regimes that hate u- not for our friends.

Finaly, the Bushies realy lack the fundamentl courage it takes to stay there: when one state has the best military in the world- and outspends all rivals, the using military force is not a courageous act- its a cheap, relatively inexpensive act. Whats 100 billion out of a 1.8 trillion dollar budget, especially when we are fine with deficits? And how many americans do we expect to die? Wow, we will sacrifice- well, not the admin, but someone, will sacrifice 100 american servicemen- what utter courage! please!

Real Courage- what it would take to stay in these state long tem- admit our falult and push for democracy within our friendly regimes- that type of courage this admin lacks completely; look how much we are dpoing to back our actions in Afghanistan? Are we willing to put 50k US troops throughout the entire state to maintain stability and allow aid workers to avert famine and tabilize the state? NO. Oh, how courageous of us....

[Ned]

I was struck how closely the new policy tracked the Atlantic Charter. The new policy is really Churchill's and Roosevelt's policy. Here is a partial quote:

"Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. "

[Vandal-1]

The eventual developement and use of a WOMD is a inevitability;NO WEAPON in the history of mankind has been controled to the extent that it has not been used to murder mankind. IMO I think it's simply a matter of time 'till this axiom once again proves itself.
Bushies may eliminate this Saddam or that Bin Ladin as individuals but more will rise in their place.While I do not advocate complacency ( or ridgid passivism) I am not satisfied to support the other extreme either. I speak of the kind of arogant military mania that has deseased the mind set of my countrymen.I do not believe that a peace coerced is a peace at all but a changed form of warfare a true peace would only arise from a free will that chose it The same truth applies universally to these dictators from with in their own vassals

[Capt Dizle]

Without a doubt the Israeli-Palestian question must be resolved in order to achieve stability and peace in the Middle East. It seems more and more likely that this can only be achieved by force of arms from outside the region.

[des-esseintes]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It seems more and more likely that this can only be achieved by force of arms from outside the region.

Exactly. Exterminate those fricken Moslims

[Illyrien]

jimmytrick
Which side should we support then?

But basically I agree, the isreal-palestine situations seems almost unsolvable

[Kontiki]

I don't think the Israel-Palestine situation is unsolvable at all. In fact, it's quite simple. All it would really take is for the US specifically and the west in general (along with Russia) to just say enough is enough, the Palestinians get an independent state with reasonable borders (say, close to those proposed in Oslo), a guarantee of security and a decent amount of aid to help build some infrastructure. Then, move in a few thousand troops to act as real peacekeepers. If Israel is not content to make the consessions necessary to allow the Palestinian state, ALL military and economic aid will be cut off. If the Palestinians continue to make attacks against Israel after the creation of their new independent country, then the peacekeeping force will be beefed up and martial law will be imposed, and the aid will be cut off.

The problem is, I can't see this actually happening.

[Chris 62]

I see lots of words...chitter-chatter...same old, same old...

US policy is now simple:

In the past, when little clowns threatened us, and postured, we laughed and said "Yeah, right".

Then the towers were destroyed.

So now, we will destroy anyone that even makes the threat.
Want to be safe?
Don't threaten the US, because you will now get what you asked for.

THAT is now US policy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I don't think the Israel-Palestine situation is unsolvable at all. In fact, it's quite simple. All it would really take is for the US specifically and the west in general (along with Russia) to just say enough is enough, the Palestinians get an independent state with reasonable borders (say, close to those proposed in Oslo), a guarantee of security and a decent amount of aid to help build some infrastructure. Then, move in a few thousand troops to act as real peacekeepers. If Israel is not content to make the consessions necessary to allow the Palestinian state, ALL military and economic aid will be cut off. If the Palestinians continue to make attacks against Israel after the creation of their new independent country, then the peacekeeping force will be beefed up and martial law will be imposed, and the aid will be cut off.

The problem is, I can't see this actually happening.

Actually, I think that Bush might actually do something like this after Iraq.

Bush is no Clinton. I think both sides will pay close attention to what he says. Agreement is probable - but we need first to get Iraq behind us.

[Vandal-1]

The' hot war' itself will not be as costly as maintaining the false peace'cold war' (and that is what the change in policy is a attempted enforcement of such a false peace which differs not from the protracted war we are currently fighting by and through Israel whether we admit to it or not.) If you are involved Pugnae Le Guere you fight as such.Infact I don't see any change of policy at all just different english intended to cloth old one and if followed through we will next speak of a free Iraqi state
with UN "peacekeepers" who are nothing more than beligerants that we employ to keep down beligerants that the Moslims will employ,so the war still exist yet we call it peace cause we don't see the subtle manuevering of CIA and Muslim hitmen or find the car bombings of embassies and barracks as threatning as full deployment operations.The point is we are already at war ( as we have been)and untill peace "true peace" breaks out we will be.Bush just wants to use mainline weaponry so he looks like he 's doing something so he looks like he's winning wars.I would ask all of you if you really believe it will solve any problems this "New US Military Doctrine" and how it really differs from the old maybe we're just admitting to something that some US hawks have worked toward all along,i.e. finishing openly what we left unfinished a decade ago and apparently can't finish quick enough by other means what's the hurry!