 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm sure glad you don't run foreign policy.  |
Shall we can infer that you fear that America cant act independently from other countries? Should we ask permission before we protect our interests? Please Mr. Annon may we go and kill Al Queda?
quote:
The ally structure the US has built up is essential to it's position of dominence. Without it, the US has problems in the future. |
Its easier to take action with help, but its not imperative in any way.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Thats true, of course, but the UK-US alliance/friendship has lasted for more than 50 years. I cant think of any other two modern countries with such a relationship. |
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
*cough* US/Canada, US/Australia, US/(West) Germany, etc, etc. |
Cough all you want. Neither Canada nor Australia has the same relationship with the US as the UK does. Germany doesnt even come close. Aside from NATO, our relationship with Germany is on par with our relationship with France.
It may be argued that Canada and Israel are Allies of the US but I would point out two things: the growing anti-US sentiment in Canada over the tariffs and other issues, and that our close support of Israel has really only been in place since Carter-Reagan. Since that time there have been several publicized accounts of Mossad activities in the US that IMO are not the actions of an ally.
[/QUOTE]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
If one thinks back to the post WWI era, Britain acted pretty much as we do today under Bush. It, with its close ally France, set the agenda in world affairs. It and France (with Poland) alone declared war on Germany. However, they had Roosevelt as a silent partner. I do not recall Britain first obtaining Roosevelt's consent for a declaration of war. Clearly, had they asked, Roosevelt would have had to say no. Fully 76% of the American people opposed American involvement in the European war.
The problem of our invovlement then was that the Brits and the French were colonial powers. They were not perceived to be acting for higher principles, such as democracy or human rights.
But, as events unfolded (manipulated by Churchill and Roosevelt) the US did eventually join the British-French alliance. But we did so with the understanding that we were fighting for democracy. We wanted to destroy dictatorships and to break up the Japanese Empire. As a condition of our support for Britain and France, we asked the same of them - that they give up their empires. They agreed to it.
This new, pro democracy alliance is the same alliance that we find today, but with France dropping out to a degree. The British and the US today set the agenda virtually as much as Britain and France did before WWII.
But, there was a time prior to G. W. Bush that we failed to truly lead. Bush's father was dragged into the Gulf War, and ended up leaving Saddam in power and pulling the plug on the Kurds and Shi'tes because of the insistence of the Arab members of the Gulf War coalition. Clinton was dragged into Yugoslavia by the Euro's. In testimony before Congress, Clinton's sec. of state testified that they could do no more than shoot a few cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan because we had concluded that we could not build a consensus for a ground war.
In my view, the multi-lateral approach of Bush Sr. and Clinton, while popular among the Europeans, is ultimately ineffective. Coalitions can be manupulated by the opponent so that any action will be muted to keep the "weakest" link part of the coalition. The better approach appears to be that taken by Britain prior to WWII and by the present alliance of Bush and Blair - lead. State clear objectives. Ask that others join us, but do not condition action on their consent.
In a recent poll, the American people approve of Bush's Iraq policy by a whopping 68% approve to 18% disapprove. He has also lined up the UN 15-0, and now has obtained the unanimous support of Nato.
Bush must be doing someting right.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mark my words, invading Iraq unilaterally (or even just with Britain and some minor countries) will bite us in the ass. |
This is an interesting comment in light of what's being said these days Imran.
The buzz that our diplomats have been leaking is the OFFICAL arab line in anti-invasion, anti-US action, while the PRIVATE line is almost 100% "please kill Hussein, he's a danger to us all".
quote:
Not in the short but DEFINETLY in the long run. |
I disagree, especially if it's a quick invasion, followed by a rapid withdrawl.
quote:
Hell, it's only a matter of time before nuclear weaponry falls into the hands of an Arab state. |
It already has, Pakistan.
Well, not EXACTLY arab, but Muslim.
quote:
I sure wouldn't like to piss them off before that happens. |
I can't disagree more strongly with "Man in the arab street' stuff, history shows us the man in the arab street usually toes the line his government puts out, if the US acts as it's been, this will be favorable (Bush has followed international law all the way, the hysteria has always been that he would not).
As for this so called "revenge someday", are you kidding?
Your willing to gamble Saddam is OK, and let the Iraqis continue to suffer under this ***** because you fear that someday some OBL-like nut will retaliate for this "imagined" slight?
I wouldn't exactly call that a desirable postion Imran.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2002 02:20
.
, and the democratic govenmental system that come with it. 
|