Foreign Policy

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

...
Lets look at the cultural background (excuse my spelling in this section). You have the Kurds, Azeri, Arabs and Turks in this region (I'm forgetting one forgive me). They are the predominant players in the region with regards to power politics. When you really look at it, there are surprising similarities between the ME and Europe prior to WWI. You have five major players all hankering for land and relative power and they pander to nationalism ...

One salient point is that these 5 major players are also subdivided by religious boundaries; Sunnis, Shiites, and other Muslims, as well as some Christians are all mixed into the pot.

The many many subdivisions and confused nature of the area is what I think is keeping the region from being stable. Other nations going in to try to democratize or organize or any other -ize just stirs them all up, and turns them against whichever group is trying to ize them. Then, when the izer has left, they return to their squabbles.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

You should try to make more sense of things. First you say "who are we to say theres a problem in the first place?". Then you say there should be a way to stbalize the region, from what, in accordance to whom?
You see something, you don;t know if it's a problem, you don't know if the eople involved in it aren't happy. Sounds like a good way to waste billions of dollars.

Haven't read back, have you?

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

Yes, I'm a Canadian and it automatically makes me a Liberal. With that logic then all Americans are Try answering instead of sarcsm

Before you start asking sarcastically about America telling the truth, you should start at home and work out YOUR Canadian Liberal government's "phenomenon" (hint, hint) with telling the truth. SIMPLE enough? Also, slow down a little bit when typing... you're dribbling...

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

One salient point is that these 5 major players are also subdivided by religious boundaries; Sunnis, Shiites, and other Muslims, as well as some Christians are all mixed into the pot.

The many many subdivisions and confused nature of the area is what I think is keeping the region from being stable. Other nations going in to try to democratize or organize or any other -ize just stirs them all up, and turns them against whichever group is trying to ize them. Then, when the izer has left, they return to their squabbles.

Yes, and Britain tagged the US to play stabilizer. France had her turn, too. I wonder who'll be next on the tag team?

You've got to figure Russia's running scared with China eyeing the oil/gas under the Siberian peninsula -- I'll bet you the US and its allies will tag team with Russia. Talking about shifting alliances/animosities, huh?

[fredjacksonsan]

It's all a mess; the more people there are stirring the pie, the worse it will get. If China eventually has their turn in the Middle East, it's going to get ugly.

[drewh4386]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

It's all a mess; the more people there are stirring the pie, the worse it will get. If China eventually has their turn in the Middle East, it's going to get ugly.

I posted in this thread a while ago butr refused since then until now.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

It's all a mess; the more people there are stirring the pie, the worse it will get. If China eventually has their turn in the Middle East, it's going to get ugly.

From http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html:

"The two countries with the highest rate of growth in oil use are China and India, whose combined populations account for a third of humanity. In the next two decades, China's oil consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year and India’s 5.5%. (Compare to a 1% growth for the industrialized countries). It will be strategically imperative for these countries to secure their access to oil.
<snip>
-- The U.S. will need to keep increasing American military presence in the region to ensure our access to the remaining oil. This will mean further U.S. embroilment in Middle East conflicts, more anti-American sentiment, and a deepening rift between the West and the Islamic world.
-- Tension between the U.S. and China due to growing Chinese intervention in the Middle East to ensure its own access to oil and Chinese arming of Middle Eastern countries hostile to the U.S. and its allies."
<snip>

Previous posts regarding our "involvement" (Raz, note that this word is different from "intervention") in the Middle East boiling down to OIL have been labeled cynical by both Republicans but mostly Democrats.

Since it is CLEAR and a FACT that the US and its allies aren't the only ones involved in the Middle East to get to the oil, I think it's about time we ALL band together to refocus our strategic needs: that is, consume less of the stuff.

Until we are able to be of one mind as to our priorities, discussions about the Middle East will continue to be finger-pointing, bi-partisan (and anti-American, for our foreign dependents) and non-productive. If you choose to remain hung up on technicalities (Iraq and the invasion are but a pimple on an elephant's *ss compared to what's coming up), then, you've missed the overall picture, in which case, okay, let's keep the status quo.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Haven't read back, have you?



Before you start asking sarcastically about America telling the truth, you should start at home and work out YOUR Canadian Liberal government's "phenomenon" (hint, hint) with telling the truth. SIMPLE enough? Also, slow down a little bit when typing... you're dribbling...

Can you possible look for any other scapegoats?
Yes Canada has a Liberal goverment....And?
America has a Republican goverment...So?
You wanna try telling me what your point is from all that?

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

Can you possible look for any other scapegoats?

You want ME to tell you who else could be possibly blamed for the Liberal Canadian government's ethical issues? Ummmm, Canadian Liberals?

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

Yes Canada has a Liberal goverment....And?
America has a Republican goverment...So?
You wanna try telling me what your point is from all that?

Ummm, America isn't the LOSER here?

Seriously, you've got to read back, man....

[moslerporschefreak]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Since it is CLEAR and a FACT that the US and its allies aren't the only ones involved in the Middle East to get to the oil, I think it's about time we ALL band together to refocus our strategic needs: that is, consume less of the stuff.

Glad we can agree on something here Franko, and yes that is the crux of the issue in the Middle East. They have something the rest of the world wants, and basically the rest of the world will put their short term needs over the long term stability in the region.

Several people here have already touched upon it, one of the reasons why the different ethnic groups can't seem to get any common agreement or long standing peace is that they keep having their systems shaken up or controlled by someone that doesn't really understand the problems in that region (as good as people like Silvan are, they can't beat the political minds in the Mid East). Because of that, while I support the liberalization (again this meaning the promotion of basic liberties, not the conventional "liberalism" that we know in the US) of the region, I support it in a non-militaristic fashion. While it might seem rational that if we want to reshape a country we should start from the ground up, this just doesn't work in the Mid East (I don't really feel like going into why).

Because of this view, I support incentive based programs to promote human rights. An example of this is the MCA (which I would like to learn more about but from what I've read it seems like a good start).

Anyways, just trying to steer the discussion away from personal bickering and more onto the track of if the Western world wants to ensure or lead the Mid East to greater human rights, what is the proper method by which to accomplish this?

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

Glad we can agree on something here Franko, and yes that is the crux of the issue in the Middle East. They have something the rest of the world wants, and basically the rest of the world will put their short term needs over the long term stability in the region.

Yes, but the sad thing about it is that if one nation does not put their short term needs over anything else, the leaders of that nation will be criticized and judged to have been derelict in their duties to their nation. At home and abroad, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

Several people here have already touched upon it, one of the reasons why the different ethnic groups can't seem to get any common agreement or long standing peace is that they keep having their systems shaken up or controlled by someone that doesn't really understand the problems in that region (as good as people like Silvan are, they can't beat the political minds in the Mid East).

I would tend to disagree with you on this because each ethnic group is out to protect their own interests themselves, although their primary interest isn't oil. Keep in mind that the modern "nation" of Saudi Arabia only came about in 1932 after 180 years of shifting alliances/animosities between tribes and/or neighboring nations/kingdoms of fellow "believers". Whether or not "infidel" outsiders get involved, they will still bicker/battle amongst themselves, although outside involvement definitely accelerates the events.

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

Because of that, while I support the liberalization (again this meaning the promotion of basic liberties, not the conventional "liberalism" that we know in the US) of the region, I support it in a non-militaristic fashion. While it might seem rational that if we want to reshape a country we should start from the ground up, this just doesn't work in the Mid East (I don't really feel like going into why).

I'm with you on liberalization of the region (YES, PLEASE!... see below) but the how is where it gets sticky.

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

<snip>
Anyways, just trying to steer the discussion away from personal bickering and more onto the track of if the Western world wants to ensure or lead the Mid East to greater human rights, what is the proper method by which to accomplish this?

You cannot have and enjoy human rights (as we know them) in environments that limit/prohibit the exercise of such because the most important tenets are missing: freedom and liberty (as in liberalization or to become more liberal as in "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms"). I.e., no-can-do in dictatorships, authoritarian states/monarchies, and banana republic-type governments. I guess that's why the US and its allies are trying something they know that works -- democracy.

[moslerporschefreak]

Originally Posted by Franko914

You cannot have and enjoy human rights (as we know them) in environments that limit/prohibit the exercise of such because the most important tenets are missing: freedom and liberty (as in liberalization or to become more liberal as in "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms"). I.e., no-can-do in dictatorships, authoritarian states/monarchies, and banana republic-type governments. I guess that's why the US and its allies are trying something they know that works -- democracy.

My problem with the immediate and total implementation of democracy (especially by an outside force) is that democracy is a state of mind. THat is, for a true republic to function citizens MUST have a sense of political efficacy. If a new system of government is just given to them, it's success is all but guaranteed.

Now here is where most people would throw the large percentages of Iraqi voters into the argument but here's what I have to say to that. While a large percentage in the first election is encouraging, to me the greatest indicator will be ten years down the line when someone tries to again manipulate the system (as the Baath party originally did). If the populus is able to lawfully vote this man out of power it will show a real sense of understanding and sense of efficacy towards the system. However this true test has yet to pass.

Also, while implementing a democracy sounds very noble, I do not believe the means justify the ends (see terrorism arguments and the whole 10-year commitment thing). Therefore, a more gradual process I belive is in order. THe way I see this is using economic and diplomatic relations (the latter perhaps being the least effective) to coax repressive regimes into laxing policies for trade benefits. The reason why I see an incentive based program as the only one that has a legitimate chance of working is that by using punitive measures we are only making sure that no forward progress is made by these nations.

I would like to support a quick fix to this problem, unfortunately I just don't see the quick solution as working well in the long run.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

My problem with the immediate and total implementation of democracy (especially by an outside force) is that democracy is a state of mind. THat is, for a true republic to function citizens MUST have a sense of political efficacy.<snip>

Yes, I agree that democracy is a state of mind which you are either "born into" (as in folks born in "free" states) or "grow into" (as in folks who have moved into "free" states). Political efficacy will come as people learn to exercise their freedoms more and more.

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

<snip> While a large percentage in the first election is encouraging, to me the greatest indicator will be ten years down the line when someone tries to again manipulate the system (as the Baath party originally did). If the populus is able to lawfully vote this man out of power it will show a real sense of understanding and sense of efficacy towards the system. However this true test has yet to pass.

Yes, and a journey of a thousand of miles starts with one step. Here we are almost 229 years later and we're still trying to manipulate the system.

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

Also, while implementing a democracy sounds very noble, I do not believe the means justify the ends (see terrorism arguments and the whole 10-year commitment thing). Therefore, a more gradual process I belive is in order.<snip>

The proof will be in the pudding. In ten years, I may well agree with you or you may have to say, "Now, I believe."

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

THe way I see this is using economic and diplomatic relations (the latter perhaps being the least effective) to coax repressive regimes into laxing policies for trade benefits.

Neither worked for Saddam, remember? The only folks who benefited were Saddam, his cronies, UN officials and esteemed businessmen from the US, France, England, Russia, etc.

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

The reason why I see an incentive based program as the only one that has a legitimate chance of working is that by using punitive measures we are only making sure that no forward progress is made by these nations.

With no malice or disrespect intended towards our Muslim brothers, one has to understand what "Imshallah" (God/Lord willing) means to them. If events turn out one way, it is because God willed it. If events turn out
another way, it is because God willed it. With Saddam gone, the majority of Iraqis who turned out to vote believed it was because God willed it; Iraqis from the other sect who chose not to vote did not believe then, but almost certainly do now, that it was because God willed it (hence their rush to be included in the democratic processes in post-election Iraq).

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

I would like to support a quick fix to this problem, unfortunately I just don't see the quick solution as working well in the long run.

Give democracy ten years, then. It's the best they have... no, they have ever had.

[moslerporschefreak]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Give democracy ten years, then. It's the best they have... no, they have ever had.

It seems the more you and I discuss this the closer you and I seem to get. however, I would disagree with you on the final statement you made and I find it an important historical note that (now that we are in Iraq) could hold a key lesson.

This note is that during Britain's decolonization following WWII, one of their withdrawals was from their "mandate" Iraq. During this period of time they attempted to democratize Iraq, considering that they wanted a friend in the region and something to point to following their decolonization. Now, the British started off with a huge advantage compared to the US and that is that they were a recognized and (to an extent) accepted power in the region. Unlike the US they had been there already and their presence was not a surprise.

However, ten years+ down the line, the Baath Party (in a manner reminiscent of Hitler's rise to power) was able to manipulate the system sufficiently to give them disproportionate power, and eventually the dictatorship. The reason for the Baath party's ascendence was largely because British advisors had become too involved with the shaping and running of the government, and with this wedge of distrust, the Baath Party was able to disenfranchise the foreign power and lobby popular support for themselves.

My fear is that the US, with a clear objective of establishing a "friend" in the region (not even the innocuous decolonization of the British) will follow a similar path and find a similiar result (unless we revert back to force). Can this be avoided? Sure, but unless we realize this possibility long in advnace, the chances of averting it are not so great.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

<snip>
However, ten years+ down the line, the Baath Party (in a manner reminiscent of Hitler's rise to power) was able to manipulate the system sufficiently to give them disproportionate power, and eventually the dictatorship. The reason for the Baath party's ascendence was largely because British advisors had become too involved with the shaping and running of the government, and with this wedge of distrust, the Baath Party was able to disenfranchise the foreign power and lobby popular support for themselves.

The Iraqis will have to learn from their own history, learn to fend for themselves as "Iraqis" rather than sectarian groups, and learn how to live free. You can lead a horse to water...

Originally Posted by moslerporschefreak

My fear is that the US, with a clear objective of establishing a "friend" in the region (not even the innocuous decolonization of the British) will follow a similar path and find a similiar result (unless we revert back to force). Can this be avoided? Sure, but unless we realize this possibility long in advnace, the chances of averting it are not so great.

The US has history in propping up puppet governments to support and protect US vested interests. So do the British, Spaniards, Portugese, Dutch, French, Germans, Russians, etc. I'm afraid that the mold has already been set and that what you fear may well come to pass. Sad, isn't it? But it does buy time. Rather than widespread chaos in the region that would encompass neighboring states, stabilization becomes the immediate priority.

[TRD2000]

thrasher you silly boy.... you know that these people don't care how many rag heads get killed in their own country to achieve US goals..... The US is fighting terrorists... and if the rest of the world won't help then the US will kill them too!