Hello Baal, you said
I think Bush did too much damage. But nothing that can not be fixed. If the US was to do a hit-&-run in Zimbabwe like they did in Serbia, or concentrated on beating Taliban in Afghanistan, or gave some hard-time to the janjaweed, then critics would be drowned. But as long as the States does not hit any of the more popular targets the voice of critics will raise higher.
In my original post I mentioned the reaction to the Kosovo intervention, the bombing of a factory in Sudan and the first Gulf war. None of these acts were done under G W Bush's watch but mainstream opinion in the UK and Europe was that it was just more gung ho bullying by the Yanks.
I think if you look at the Somalia debacle, the recent intervention in Haiti and the toppling of the Taliban you will see the same trend of opposition and condemnation.
This has a lot to do with anti-Americanism and only a little bit to do with Bush. Bush just gave haters of America a reason to turn up the volume on their rhetoric but the rhetoric was already there in abundance. I fear that Obama is doomed to be branded as a house negro, uncle tom etc by the majority of Brits and Europeans if he does anything but stomp on Israel and mothball the troops.
For the majority of left leaning people outside of America this is the only American foreign policy that they will accept.
Yes they are our allies. Since none of their neighbours will have them and they have been burned long enough by their theocracy. However a little bit of Gunboat policy will be necessary on the iranian military. The iranian people as well as the iranian military have to fully understand that the iranian people are not defenceless.
So are you agreeing with me or not? I'm not sure what you are saying. "Hands Off Iran" or gunboat diplomacy? Also you say "the Iranian people and military need to understand that the Iranian people are not defenceless" I'm not quite sure what you point is here either.
Put the Iranian military in it's place or empower the Iranian military?
Unfortunately what will happen, will be the American military bombing the iranian infra-structure so the company can get some nice lucrative contracts to rebuild it. This will be Obama's test, will he go for the long term victory, or will he go for the lucrative rebuilding contracts.
This is classic Chomskyesqe conspiracy theory. Of course there is and always has been cynical war profiteering going on but I'm not one of those who believes American presidents start wars to wet their beaks and keep the share holders of Haliburton happy.
Yes. And like in any other conflict zone, anyone who does not speak the local language dialect, is to be kicked out or marked for monitoring and investigation (foreign soldiers included). IMO most terrorists will not inflict the worst harms on their own people, but will readily sacrifice foreigners for their divine ideals. You will find things will get much better one you deport the 'afghanis' who speak very bad afghani and perfect Arabic. But yes, we need to defeat it militarily.
Sorry Baal but I found this paragraph rather confusing. Not sure what your getting at but I agree that the first thing to do is go after the Arab, African and Pakistani fighters but considering the Taliban is made up mostly of these foreign fighters I think that we are already working towards this. Although I fear the noises coming out of Afghanistan sound like the Coalition and the Afghan government are willing to negotiate maybe even cave in to the Taliban which would be a disaster.
It would say to extremists worldwide that god was really on their side and that the world was their oyster plus it would plunge Afghanistan back in to the 7th century.
America went into Iraq for some economical reason. However they also had a Secondary objective to 'americanize' Iraq. In america, people from all colors and religions are free to believe anything they want yet still they work together. So the military assumed if you just go in and destroy the 'bad banana government', then people will do what is natural to them and cooperate together. Unfortunately, the bad bananas were the glue keeping those people together. The military should have went against the iraqui theocrats not the iraqui bananas. But how can the American military go agianst an ideology when at home, people are free to have their own ideology?
Yes economics came into it. Oil is important and believe it or not the West does need to look out for it's interests. Fighting for oil is sometimes a necessary evil. No America didn't cynically attack Iraq only because of oil and there is no policy of Americanisation.
You are right they made a big mistake underestimating the level of hostility between the different groups in Iraq which is criminal. Even I knew that sectarian strife would be ubiquitous once Saddam was removed but I'm glad Saddam was removed.
Of course we should not forget what America did to destroy the way of the warrior and deny the Japanese emperor his privilege to be worshipped.
Yes I agree but the circumstances are different. The Japanese had fought almost to a standstill and then got nuked twice. Who wouldn't be willing to surrender after that?
The only way to defeat a guerrilla army is to be brutal and committed. The west is not committed and the public would not allow America and it's allies to be as ruthless as they need to be. So the spirit of the terrorists will never be broken and no matter what you think of America they will not unleash nuclear warfare.
Topic: Obama- American foreign policy. Is pacifism the only acceptable way?