Syria

[HeyYou]

Even if the UN DOES call for action in Syria, which I highly doubt will get past the Russian Veto..... I STILL don't think the US should be dropping bombs there. No one I have spoken with things we should be doing anything at all in Syria, which includes, sending any manner of aid to either side.

 

The US has a rather piss poor record on interventions...... Bush senior had it right. "No Viable Exit Strategy"..... Truly unfortunate that our government has super-glued its blinders on, and outright refuses to learn a damn thing from the past.

 

Should Obama decide to do something stupid, and stage a unilateral attack, I will be one of the first in line to sign the petition for his impeachment.

[sukeban]

@HeyYou

 

a) IMO, our problem arises because we view the entire world as "ours" to dominate and interfere in, no matter how geographically remote or removed from our core national interests a given conflict is. I think of it somewhat like that model of psychology, the Hierarchy of Needs. After our immediate needs are satisfied (no rebellion at home), we move on to the next most proximate need (making sure that Canada isn't a Chinese proxy), then the next (holding down Latin America and Europe), and the next (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, etc.), gradually ascending the pyramid into the esoteric. Since we have no true constraint on the height of our pyramid, we end up contriving a multiplicity of new levels--adding additional interests out of even the smallest imperfections that we perceive across the globe. Where other nations are content at having one or two levels (peace at home and friendly neighbors), we insist on building our pyramid ever higher... at the inevitable expense of everyone else.

 

b) Can I co-sign that petition???

Edited September 12, 2013 by sukeban

[Harbringe]

@HeyYou

 

a) IMO, our problem arises because we view the entire world as "ours" to dominate and interfere in, no matter how geographically remote or removed from our core national interests a given conflict is. I think of it somewhat like that model of psychology, the Hierarchy of Needs. After our immediate needs are satisfied (no rebellion at home), we move on to the next most proximate need (making sure that Canada isn't a Chinese proxy), then the next (holding down Latin America and Europe), and the next (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, etc.), gradually ascending the pyramid into the esoteric. Since we have no true constraint on the height of our pyramid, we end up contriving a multiplicity of new levels--adding additional interests out of even the smallest imperfections that we perceive across the globe. Where other nations are content at having one or two levels (peace at home and friendly neighbors), we insist on building our pyramid ever higher... at the inevitable expense of everyone else.

 

Putin in a letter to the NYT speaks directly to this point of America building hegemony in the world . In the letter there is a reference to the League of Nations and why it failed that i think is important . The Chinese a couple of weeks ago like wise issued a statement speaking to the same sentiment . This letter is an attempt by Putin to directly address the American people . Seeing as Speaker Boehner shut down the leaders of the Russian Duma (Parliament) from speaking to this in Congress (and the American people) . Americans should all read this , after all isn't hearing out what the other guy has to say, is what Democracy is supposed to be all about.

[Hardwaremaster]

 

@HeyYou

 

a) IMO, our problem arises because we view the entire world as "ours" to dominate and interfere in, no matter how geographically remote or removed from our core national interests a given conflict is. I think of it somewhat like that model of psychology, the Hierarchy of Needs. After our immediate needs are satisfied (no rebellion at home), we move on to the next most proximate need (making sure that Canada isn't a Chinese proxy), then the next (holding down Latin America and Europe), and the next (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, etc.), gradually ascending the pyramid into the esoteric. Since we have no true constraint on the height of our pyramid, we end up contriving a multiplicity of new levels--adding additional interests out of even the smallest imperfections that we perceive across the globe. Where other nations are content at having one or two levels (peace at home and friendly neighbors), we insist on building our pyramid ever higher... at the inevitable expense of everyone else.

 

Putin in a letter to the NYT speaks directly to this point of America building hegemony in the world . In the letter there is a reference to the League of Nations and why it failed that i think is important . The Chinese a couple of weeks ago like wise issued a statement speaking to the same sentiment . This letter is an attempt by Putin to directly address the American people . Seeing as Speaker Boehner shut down the leaders of the Russian Duma (Parliament) from speaking to this in Congress (and the American people) . Americans should all read this , after all isn't hearing out what the other guy has to say, is what Democracy is supposed to be all about.

 

 

You know, the more I think about it, the more the United States of America is beginning to resemble the Roman Empire in more ways then one. The Roman Empire was represented by an eagle, so is the United States, the Roman Empire was the largest superpower of its time, so is the United States, the Roman Empire had the largest and most powerful military in the world as does the United States. The Roman Empire had started out as a Republic, then became Democracy, the United States did as well. The Roman Empire had came into existence through rebellion against the Etruscan League, the United States came through rebellion against the British Empire. The Roman Empire had a senate and an Emperor, the Emperor couldn't act with out thee approval from most of the senators. The United States had fundamentally taken the senate concept, and, split it into the Congress the Senate and House of Representatives. However they still basically have the same function as the Roman Senate did, Roman senators represented the people of Rome and were suppose to keep the Emperors power in check. With the United States you have a President who needs congressional approval to do whatever he wants. Now that's all well and good, but what happens when the senators are bought off, like what happened with Caesar in the Roman Empire.

 

The Roman Empire had a multiethnical and multicultural population that came from many other races and nations, the United States does as well the only real difference being how they acquired them, the Roman Empire had used slavery, so did the United States. I'm sure if i so desired, I could think of more comparisons, such as, has anyone noticed all our sports games are played inside Colosseums and Circuses, while most of our games resemble Gladiator and Olympic matches, without all the blood and gore but people still sometimes do occasionally die. The biggest comparison I can find though is that of where our military bases are stationed. Which makes me wonder why America is policing the world, when everyone else is just a capable: such as the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, Spain, Poland or anybody at all. Most nations are also fully capable of handling their own situation with out any help.

 

The United States Military Map. :ermm:

 

 

 

http://filmandsoundcollaboration.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/us-military-bases-2001-03.jpg

 

 

 

The Roman Empire Military Map. :ohmy:

 

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman_Empire_in_210_AD.png

 

 

 

Anybody want to tell me whats wrong with this picture, considering this is the Information Age, not the Classical Age, whats the point. All these countries are so far removed from ours that they are thousands of miles away.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[HeyYou]

Seems to me, that our government thinks that everyone wants to be 'american'. Our biggest problem in Iraq/Afghanistan was, we didn't understand the people we were trying to 'liberate'. Our government assumed that they wanted democracy, and liberty, when that most certainly was NOT the case. In my opinion, the muslim nations NEED a strong leader (dictator....) to keep the various factions in line. Rule with an iron fist seems to be the only thing that keeps things in check. A idea abhorrent to american government.

 

@Hardwaremaster: Yes indeed, there are a LOT of similarities between the US, and the Roman empire. And I expect exactly the same outcome.

[Lisnpuppy]

We want them to vote their hearts and minds then are surprised when they do. Must be such a shock after how people vote here in the US.

[Mohamed2001]

the muslim nations NEED a strong leader (dictator....) to keep the various factions in line. Rule with an iron fist seems to be the only thing that keeps things in check. A idea abhorrent to american government.

 

 

No.

 

We need someone to boost our Industry.

 

Ever since Britain (And France) occupied, all countries dropped in Industry. A lot. Egypt was the best when it came to Industry, after it was sold out to the British, it's the worst.

 

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

 

 

-Mohamed

[JimboUK]

 

the muslim nations NEED a strong leader (dictator....) to keep the various factions in line. Rule with an iron fist seems to be the only thing that keeps things in check. A idea abhorrent to american government.

 

 

No.

 

We need someone to boost our Industry.

 

Ever since Britain (And France) occupied, all countries dropped in Industry. A lot. Egypt was the best when it came to Industry, after it was sold out to the British, it's the worst.

 

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

 

 

-Mohamed

 

 

Firstly you need long term stability, no one will invest without knowing what the future holds.

[HeyYou]

 

the muslim nations NEED a strong leader (dictator....) to keep the various factions in line. Rule with an iron fist seems to be the only thing that keeps things in check. A idea abhorrent to american government.

 

 

No.

 

We need someone to boost our Industry.

 

Ever since Britain (And France) occupied, all countries dropped in Industry. A lot. Egypt was the best when it came to Industry, after it was sold out to the British, it's the worst.

 

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

 

 

-Mohamed

 

 

Where do you suppose that industry is going to come from? So long as there are inter-faction rivalries that break out in violence on a regular basis, NO foreign nation is going to be even remotely interested in investing. In order to attract investors, you first need to have stability. (as mentioned in the quote below.) Look at Iraq, there is literlly trillions to be made there, but, you don't see a lot of foreign investment, and the security situation is the biggest reason. (and it is even flatly stated as such by many corporations.) The British et. al. have been out of the picture for a while now. Nothing much has changed. Stability was maintained by dictatorships. Overthrow those dicatator ships (with american backing.... that was bright on our part.....) and what happens? By and large, the next government is islamist, and the other factions don't like how they rule, and express themselves with suicide bombers, car bombs, attacking mosques, etc. Egypt is a beautiful example. Lybia as well. So far, there isn't a country that has gone thru the 'arab spring', that came out the other side, better than they were before. I fully expect the exact same outcome in Syria, as do most of the american population, and THAT is the primary reason only our politiicans seem interested in intervening there. The american people, for the most part, see any variety of intervention as a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" kind of thing.

 

Not to mention, that we (USA) TURNED ON OUR ALLIES in some cases. Mubarack was our allie. Right up until the rebels came on the scene, and suddenly, he wasn't our friend any more. That has just GOT to instill confidence in any other leader with their american 'allies'.......

 

In all reality, american foreign relations have taken some major hits in the last decade or so. It doesn't appear to be improving either. What I find the MOST amusing (in a scary sort of way) about the whole thing is, we now have our Nobel Peace Prize winner president calling for military action. Is that ironic or what?

 

 

the muslim nations NEED a strong leader (dictator....) to keep the various factions in line. Rule with an iron fist seems to be the only thing that keeps things in check. A idea abhorrent to american government.

 

 

No.

 

We need someone to boost our Industry.

 

Ever since Britain (And France) occupied, all countries dropped in Industry. A lot. Egypt was the best when it came to Industry, after it was sold out to the British, it's the worst.

 

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

 

 

-Mohamed

 

 

Firstly you need long term stability, no one will invest without knowing what the future holds.

 

[sukeban]

Mohamed is right on that, the economic backwardness of many Mid East countries is a huge reason why there's so much conflict going on right now. Egypt used to have the world's premier cotton crop as well as an emerging industrial base, but much of that was swept aside in the colonial period in favor of crude mercantilism. Nasser attempted to develop the country and industrialize, but this progress stagnated under Sadat and, especially, Mubarak, where corruption and inefficiency came to rule the day. Couple said inefficiencies with an unprecedented population boom (median age of many ME countries is like 19) and its resulting strain on natural resources, especially water resources, and you have a very unstable mix. Add to that the divide-and-rule policies of the former colonial powers (installing minorities to rule over large majorities) and the intentionally ahistorical borders drawn up by said powers (Egypt notwithstanding), and you have different religious groups/ethnicities squabbling over an increasingly inadequate economic pie.

 

Even more intractable is the problem of the nation-state as a concept, that is, a political idea that began in Europe, in response to European history and wars of religion, and that has since been cemented as THE defining characteristic of international order. The problem with this is that it presupposes a nationalism that in many cases simply CANNOT exist due to the way that many nations have been ahistorically "commanded" into existence rather than organically formed. Many Iraqis do not think of themselves as Iraqis because their primary group allegiance lies with their tribe rather than the state. Beyond the tribe, they may think of themselves as part of the larger Sunni movement, but the state itself is still irrelevant. When forced to cohabitate a state with members of other religions or ethnicities (Shiites, Kurds, etc.), with whom they have no historical affinity, the entire concept of a nation-state falls apart as there is no uniting bond, a state without a nation. These countries only "worked" because they had leaders willing to enforce an artificial and ahistorical nationalism through the use of force and terror, commanding obediance rather than allegiance or identification.

 

The ME does desperately need economic development, likely on the level of a new Marshall Plan. It also, as Jim says, needs stability, but that stability can't again be built on the backs of strong-men alone. In a world of nation-states, the ME needs nationalism--ideally secular--and for that it probably requires smaller, more ethnically/religiously homogenous states, at least for now. To facilitate development, the West needs to either actively help out or back off entirely, because its current manipulation and backstopping of regimes is what allows many countries in the ME to remain backward. The current Islamist wildfire will require at least a generation to burn itself out, but economic development will ensure that it doesn't swallow up anyone else. I don't have faith that our foreign policy can see past the next barrel of oil or childish contest with Russia or Iran, but if the West were serious about ME stability we would be promoting economic development there rather than endlessly attacking.