This statement implies that there is no need for policing the world. But is it really true? There are bad guys on the march all over the world, or do you even deny that? What should have been done with the Al-Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan? They are trying to take over countries now. What is your answer? Let them?
The statement implies that the world as it exists is not just one entity which has appointed America as it's police. There are numerous States whose own citizens are to deal with 'the bad guys'. If I were an American, I'd be disgusted that my country has to lose money and lives to solve the problems of other people across the world...in parts of the world where they don't like us or want us there.
And frankly, your characterisation of the events of the world, of those involving Israel and America, as simply a black and white cartoon where there are good guys and bad guys is too silly to take serious. Who decides who protects who, who attacks who, who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, when you can attack, etc?
I'm surprised at how nuanced you can be when it comes to Economic-related arguments where we acknowledge the world is not a utopia and hence the government shouldn't just butt in because it can...and yet when it comes to military engagement you become a government interventionist. And not even for your own country, but for others. And not even when its your country's problem with another country, but that of your ally (in this case Israel). Come on, you have to see the double-standards, surely.
And frankly, your characterisation of the events of the world, of those involving Israel and America, as simply a black and white cartoon where there are good guys and bad guys is too silly to take serious. Who decides who protects who, who attacks who, who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, when you can attack, etc?
I'm surprised at how nuanced you can be when it comes to Economic-related arguments where we acknowledge the world is not a utopia and hence the government shouldn't just butt in because it can...and yet when it comes to military engagement you become a government interventionist. And not even for your own country, but for others. And not even when its your country's problem with another country, but that of your ally (in this case Israel). Come on, you have to see the double-standards, surely.
If u wanna know how much AIPAC has influence.., just consider that the members of Congress have only agreed on or approved 14 new bills since the new term, but the new sanctions on Iran somehow gets in overnight , as if there ain't nothing more urgent in the U.S. lawmaking calender , and by god , it gets the "yes" vote by just about everyone except by some 20 heads ....talk about being an Israeli bitch...
And then who would in his right mind expect that these layers upon layers of sanction somehow get undone..improbable..i'd say they become obsolete long before U.S. actually undoing the sanctions...look at Cuba for instance..
And then who would in his right mind expect that these layers upon layers of sanction somehow get undone..improbable..i'd say they become obsolete long before U.S. actually undoing the sanctions...look at Cuba for instance..
indeed!as far as iran policy,and to a lesser extent the middle east policy,of the usa are concerned the vast majority of the u.s. house and senate members should be considered aipac foreign agents.they are so terrorized by aipac's threats against their re-election hopes that they would do anything for them.it's pure terror,bullying and extortion mafia style.i don't think even the soviet poplitburo,the great hall of the people in china or even the iranian parliament votes are ever this one sided on any non-internal issues.any anti-iran bill in the house or senate is a lock to get 90% of the votes without any objections or deliberations.just show the puppets where to sign.
indeed!as far as iran policy,and to a lesser extent the middle east policy,of the usa are concerned the vast majority of the u.s. house and senate members should be considered aipac foreign agents.they are so terrorized by aipac's threats against their re-election hopes that they would do anything for them.it's pure terror,bullying and extortion mafia style.i don't think even the soviet politburo,the great hall of the people in china or even the iranian parliament votes are ever this one sided on any non-internal issues.any anti-iran bill in the house or senate is a lock to get 90% of the votes without any objections or deliberations.just show the puppets where to sign.
Kaz, I am not following any dogma. I truly want what works. You say other states must deal with their own problems. I can't be agree more. But what if they are failed states? What was the lesson of Afghanistan post-Soviet invasion? Didn't everybody and their uncle bash Reagan for abandoning Afghanistan? Didn't that policy eventually lead to the rise of Al-Qaeda and 9/11? If AQ had decided to befriend the Taliban and stay in Afghanistan I would never say go get them. But when they use it as a sanctuary and their government isn't capable or willing to stop them, what is the choice? AQ is spreading in Africa. Is it THEIR problem? I am not even saying America should do it. Problem is often nobody else is willing to. I am really interested in your solution but I haven't heard one yet.
Well..Masoud jon..let me answer it this way...Sanctions have benefited many groups or nations except Iran..and I'd even say U.S...U may say U.S. has been tightening the nose bcuz she believes it keeps the IRI in check...may be...although the facts on the ground show that sanctions have hurt the public at large more than anything else and I myself would say, it has really hurt the Iranian industrial fabric to the core..
So, from my view..at least for a foreseeable future China is the big winner since no one else has the capital might and tools to do major investments in Iran's oil and mining sector...Chinese are making huge bets here..
Sanctions have already made huge profits for countries like Emmarites....but not any longer as they are under pressure to do away with Iran....Also Turkey has been the great beneficiary of Sanctions mostly due to their own smarts and our failure in helping our industries..
What I can not forgive U.S. as far as sanctions are concerned...is that they basically promoted the cultural of smugglers and theifs in Iran..bcuz we' ve been trying to deny the effects of Sanctions and go around them in every which way...I've seen this myself step by step....and it's like making sure the daughters of the next door neighbor become prostitutes just becuz u don't like the dad....this , IMO, is an unforgivable sin on the part of amoo sam.
So, from my view..at least for a foreseeable future China is the big winner since no one else has the capital might and tools to do major investments in Iran's oil and mining sector...Chinese are making huge bets here..
Sanctions have already made huge profits for countries like Emmarites....but not any longer as they are under pressure to do away with Iran....Also Turkey has been the great beneficiary of Sanctions mostly due to their own smarts and our failure in helping our industries..
What I can not forgive U.S. as far as sanctions are concerned...is that they basically promoted the cultural of smugglers and theifs in Iran..bcuz we' ve been trying to deny the effects of Sanctions and go around them in every which way...I've seen this myself step by step....and it's like making sure the daughters of the next door neighbor become prostitutes just becuz u don't like the dad....this , IMO, is an unforgivable sin on the part of amoo sam.
Flint, your own question can be put towards the states of your own country? And as I asked you, can't the same logic can be used for economics? You keep avoiding this discussion. What is the difference in ideology between the economic liberty of an individual and their political liberty? The kind logic you apply in denouncing the government for interfering in the economy can almost verbatim be used in the sphere of politics.
The solution is: people have to be responsible for themselves to as great of extent as possible. Even then its not all peaches for everybody - there is no utopia. The dilemma lies in: who decides who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter? Who is the vanquisher and who is the hero? These are important questions that simply can't be asked in a question framed to simplify the issue. As if there is always a desirable outcome possible or one that can be manufactured.
IMO when you look at history, you can't be intransigent or think state's don't change. People these days see failure or trouble in too much of a progressive mindset. By that I mean, they are so concerned with identifying the negative, that they want to proactively preempt it and try to find a 'solution' there. It's false logic as far as I'm concerned - applying a method to reason to bring about an end that is unrealisable. Again, there is no utopia.
Also, a lot of the preempting just creates more problems. If AQ or whoever are spreading, it is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in the world and it can't be fixed by countries trying to police the world without the permission of those sovereign states in those parts of the world. To borrow from libertarian ideology, the use of force ultimately leads to bad outcomes. Even if you have all the intentions to do good for someone, it doesn't mean you can force your goodness on them.
---
Now to relate it to the discussion: America is hated by many around the world, and especially in the middle-east, because of its interventionism. And a lot of that has got to do with its relationship with Israel, or the influence they have over America.
The solution is: people have to be responsible for themselves to as great of extent as possible. Even then its not all peaches for everybody - there is no utopia. The dilemma lies in: who decides who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter? Who is the vanquisher and who is the hero? These are important questions that simply can't be asked in a question framed to simplify the issue. As if there is always a desirable outcome possible or one that can be manufactured.
IMO when you look at history, you can't be intransigent or think state's don't change. People these days see failure or trouble in too much of a progressive mindset. By that I mean, they are so concerned with identifying the negative, that they want to proactively preempt it and try to find a 'solution' there. It's false logic as far as I'm concerned - applying a method to reason to bring about an end that is unrealisable. Again, there is no utopia.
Also, a lot of the preempting just creates more problems. If AQ or whoever are spreading, it is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in the world and it can't be fixed by countries trying to police the world without the permission of those sovereign states in those parts of the world. To borrow from libertarian ideology, the use of force ultimately leads to bad outcomes. Even if you have all the intentions to do good for someone, it doesn't mean you can force your goodness on them.
---
Now to relate it to the discussion: America is hated by many around the world, and especially in the middle-east, because of its interventionism. And a lot of that has got to do with its relationship with Israel, or the influence they have over America.
Last edited: