rabel22 wrote:Whats this garbage about France, Germany and Russia. Ronald Regan and Bush senior are the ones who put Saddum in power and supplied him with his weapons. Some people have very short memories.
and now Bush Jr. has removed him from power. I don't see your point.
I think rabel's point was obvious to anyone that might not be obtuse. His point was that we used him when it suited our interest and he was the same person then as he later was.
You say that like there is something wrong with that.
McG, unless your tongue is firmly planted, I would add : .... and we wonder why the world does not trust or respect us.
International politics is all about using people and countries for what's best for your own country. Most of the time, what's best for you, is also best for them and it works out quite well for everyone. sometimes, however, you get a rogue who decides what's best for them is NOT what's best for you. If you have the power, you step on them and get back to doing what's best for you.
Examples: Iran represented a situation that was not in the best interests of the US, so we backed Saddam Hussein. Eventually Saddam proved himself to be unworthy of American trust and we stepped on him because we have that kind of power.
Russia represented communism awhile back and they attempted to invade Afghanistan. we backed the natives that could repel the Russian invasion. Then, they decided to not be cooperative anymore, we stepped on them.
Russia once represented the greatest threat to the US, we fought them on many fronts. Now, it is in our best interests to embrace Russia as a friend. We have done so and now we have wonderful relations with Russia where just 40 years ago we almost started a nuclear war with them.
Foriegn policy must adjust itself with the times. We can not afford to keep a stiff policy, it must remain flexible. So, stating that we put Saddam in power so many years ago has no bearing what-so-ever with the foriegn policy decisions of today. People and governments change.
situational ethics? would that be like re-interpreting the constitution to match the current events? sorta like Judicial Activism.
No re-interpreting anything. Just what's best for the country. It must be working, becuse hated or not, the US is a beacon of hope and the sole super power.
McG wrote "Foriegn policy must adjust itself with the times. "
I basically agree with this, regarding specific situations, but basic principles have to come into play as well (e.g. trust, honesty, etc) and they do not change with the times.
I do not agree with what I think you're saying regarding individual national interests. It cannot and should not always be "what's best for us" before anything else. Compassion and moral obligation often ask that we consider others in greater need.
Of course there are often situations where mutual interest and mutual benefit come into play, and that's great. It's the other issues, however, the ones not so cut and dry in terms of benefit, that ask us to look at the bigger picture, the long term, etc.
I would also add that, compassion and moral obligation notwithstanding, it is more often than not practically beneficial to work together. Example: We (in the US) need as many allies as we can get in the very real war against terrorists. It is not practical to alienate ourselves from foreign nations because of arrogant, dismissive, unitaleral policy. Additionally, it is highly impractical to needlessly create a situation (allow ourselves to be painted as invading, anti-Muslim imperialists) that terrorists can use against us to fuel their ranks.
The Regan government armed iraq through the illegal Iran contra government operation that caused a bunch of Regan officials to go to jail. This is the reason that Husen was able to stay in power for all those years. The US backed him with arms even though we knew he was a rat. Bush senior was the head of the CIA at the time. Bush attacked Husen after Husen attacked Kuwati. Husen made the mistake of getting between Bush and his oil. If not for that he would still be in power. Noone in the present government would have cared if he were killing thousands of his citizens a day. And as an aside Bush pardoned many of the Regan government officials that were convicted of crimes as he left office when he lost the presidency.
Wow. Very insightful Rabel.
Quote:International politics is all about using people and countries for what's best for your own country.
That's right, neocon. Other countries are just tools to be used.
Man.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:If not for that he would still be in power. Noone in the present government would have cared if he were killing thousands of his citizens a day.
I completely agree. This 'humanitarian' line that conservatives are taking now that there are no WMD to be found is bullsh*t and they know it.
Cycloptichorn
LOL!
I know! Can you imagine a countries government actually wanting whats best for its people instead of the people in a different country!?
Here's an idea: how about a government that wants what is best for EVERYONE? Regardless of whether they are in your country or not.
But, I can guess that just seems like a silly idea to you.
Cycloptichorn
Are you suggesting the US should become the world's government? Hmmmm... I never figured you for a tyrant.
McGentrix wrote:International politics is all about using people and countries for what's best for your own country. Most of the time, what's best for you, is also best for them and it works out quite well for everyone. sometimes, however, you get a rogue who decides what's best for them is NOT what's best for you. If you have the power, you step on them and get back to doing what's best for you.
Examples: Iran represented a situation that was not in the best interests of the US, so we backed Saddam Hussein. Eventually Saddam proved himself to be unworthy of American trust and we stepped on him because we have that kind of power.
Russia represented communism awhile back and they attempted to invade Afghanistan. we backed the natives that could repel the Russian invasion. Then, they decided to not be cooperative anymore, we stepped on them.
Russia once represented the greatest threat to the US, we fought them on many fronts. Now, it is in our best interests to embrace Russia as a friend. We have done so and now we have wonderful relations with Russia where just 40 years ago we almost started a nuclear war with them.
Foriegn policy must adjust itself with the times. We can not afford to keep a stiff policy, it must remain flexible. So, stating that we put Saddam in power so many years ago has no bearing what-so-ever with the foriegn policy decisions of today. People and governments change.
I do not believe that is the way our government operates. If it did, then we deserve to be hated. I think that simply Reagan and Ollie Mr " I don't recall" committed crimes and basically got away with it.
That's the way most governments work. Show me a government that allows another countries population to be more important and I will show you a failed government.
McGentrix wrote:That's the way most governments work. Show me a government that allows another countries population to be more important and I will show you a failed government.
How about this: I have some trash in my house. My house is more important to me than your house, so I take my trash and dump it in your dining room window. Later, I run out of beer. I need beer and you have it so I come to your house, walk into your kitchen and take your beer -- enough for me and my friends.
It is possible for a country to look after it's own interest without harming the interests of others.
FreeDuck wrote:McGentrix wrote:That's the way most governments work. Show me a government that allows another countries population to be more important and I will show you a failed government.
How about this: I have some trash in my house. My house is more important to me than your house, so I take my trash and dump it in your dining room window. Later, I run out of beer. I need beer and you have it so I come to your house, walk into your kitchen and take your beer -- enough for me and my friends.
These are poor examples. Are you paying me to store your trash? Are you paying for the beer? If not, your gonna have a war on your hands because I will look out for my house.
Quote:It is possible for a country to look after it's own interest without harming the interests of others.
Yes it is and I have not said otherwise. Most interactions between countries ARE mutually beneficial. we buy oil from saudi Arabia, in return Saudi Arabia gets lots of money and it's population is rewarded. Saddam invaded Kuwait, we defended Kuwait and drove him back home.
I don't know whwere you got the idea that It's not possible to have mutually beneficial foreign relations.
rabel22 wrote:The Regan government armed iraq through the illegal Iran contra government operation that caused a bunch of Regan officials to go to jail. This is the reason that Husen was able to stay in power for all those years. The US backed him with arms even though we knew he was a rat. Bush senior was the head of the CIA at the time. Bush attacked Husen after Husen attacked Kuwati. Husen made the mistake of getting between Bush and his oil. If not for that he would still be in power. Noone in the present government would have cared if he were killing thousands of his citizens a day. And as an aside Bush pardoned many of the Regan government officials that were convicted of crimes as he left office when he lost the presidency.
You are wrong again to a point. Regan did help arm Iraq against Iran, which we wouldn't have had to do if Carter hadn't let the Islamofascists take power in Iran. We had to side with Iraq because of the radicals that took power in Iran were causing to many problems in the ME.
Bush Sr. wasn't the head of the CIA at the time he was the VP. Saddam made the mistake of invading allies of ours so he paid the price. Did you also forget that we had the approval of the UN back in 90 to remove Saddam from Kuwait?
On the issue of the Bush pardons, it is no different if not worse then Clinton granting Pardons to people that were involved in all of his scandals. So far the only president that hasn't granted political pardons is Bush.
