The Benevolence of the Intervener
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2011, 06:45 PM
RE: The Benevolence of the Intervener
When it comes to my opinion on foreign policy, I'm a strict non-interventionist. I believe our military should only defend our borders, trade openly with every country, and we'd likely then have the resources to welcome anyone that comes to our country seeking refuge.

I promise you when (and if) we pull out of the middle east, it will spiral right back into how it was before. Their culture doesn't allow modern ideas. They have 14th century ideals and are using 20th century weapons. Just my opinion.

Be polite.
Be efficient.
Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2011, 11:15 PM
RE: The Benevolence of the Intervener
Pull out? they're gonna stay there until the oil is siphoned to the last drop. The US isn't going to leave foreign assets alone. And it's possible that Zimbabwe might win the lottery after this settles some. The US occasionally goes and "helps" non asset countries to keep it looking nice. If only ideologies for this country could backtrack, politically this country devolved into a completely different giant.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2011, 04:13 AM
RE: The Benevolence of the Intervener
Why can't the UN use some of its funding to actually police the planet rather than allowing the politicians of various countries to pseudo-police the world in favor of their economic and geo-political strategies ?
So many soldiers die serving their countries and usually the leaders they swear loyalty to don't give a crap about them :
I think there was a quote from Kissinger saying the military were dumb animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 08:29 AM
RE: The Benevolence of the Intervener
Well two months have rolled onwards since this topic was brought up, and Libya appears to have escalated some. There is an issue with Resolution 1973 that was brought up in The House of Commons over here in the UK by Tory MP Rory Stewart, and i have no doubt also spotted by many that've read the Resolution.

While this is probably the first time i've seen (in my young age) the International Community act this responsibly intervening in the Arab world there are still some worrying areas and certainly some fallacies.

One of the issues exposed by Stewart was the very language used in the Resolution. While i'm definitely not saying intervention is a bad thing here, because if what has been reported was true, it would have been a humanitarian disaster for Benghazi and the rest of east Libya. One particular phrase that drew attention was this term "All necesarry measures." Which is rather vague and can be easily used as a mandate and justification for almost any action by NATO and the US. Surely it would have been much better to draw up (yes, while it is a changing situation) at least some better boundaries to keep to in what action is taken. Such as going over and bombing tripoli (which has caused un-needed casualties). There is also the fact of the matter Resolution 1973 said nothing about offering help to any one side. The proposed idea was about Sanctions, a no-fly zone and establishing humanitarian corridors. Yet NATO, now the no-fly zone has been established, goes further than that to try "break the stalemate". For seemingly benevolent intervention the lines in which to define appropriate action must be much clearer!

There is also the silly seeming idea that because the Arab League supports this interevention means that its some how got credability. Syria is currently holding presidency in the Arab League which we all know what Al-Assad is doing right now. Syrian officials being part of many other rather shady figures who are part of and are representatives in the league. The very people that which those involved in the Arab-Spring wish to be free of.

Though still, i guess its baby steps away from things like Iraq and such, where debatably positive consequences may have come (The kurds no longer being massacred) they were not used as a mandate for intervention. Good things can come of something that is driven by shady motives. Though things such as that should not or cannot be accepted as reasoning AFTER this has happened to say "its good we went in" or "this is why we went in".

Anyhow, that is my possibly over-sized two pence worth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: