Do you think that now the Cold War is over, we can just sit down and think that nothing else is going to challenge us? Radical Islam is the next major ideology that has challenged our Western form of government and lifestyle. Luckily now, they are confined to weak nations without any real power to challenge the West, but Communism was once just some crackpot theory thought up in students' bars and Nazism was once a bunch of drunks' views from a beer hall. Now obviously that doesn't mean we can continue the old policy of propping up any government but Communism/fundamentalist/whatever. That's how we piss more people off. The only way we can truly defeat this new threat is to go in there and show them why we're better. Not necessarily through military means, but through economic improvement. As soon as Israel bombed Lebanon, we should have gotten aid agencies right in there to rebuild before Hezbollah could. Once we teach them what we're really about, then they'll be less inclined to attack us.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm an isolationist. The victory over the threat of communism occurred nearly twenty years ago. Until then isolationism was not an option. Two major powers at polar opposite extremes of the political spectrum were battling to rule all. All legacy issues should have been cleared up by now. Interference in the political systems of other peoples is not fair and is now unnecessary. The West won. All major threats can now be contained given the fact only one superpower was left standing. The interference in the politics of other countries that the US (and other western countries) indulge in is far from principled. It is often extremely hypocritical in the way it conducts its international affairs. Personally I do not condone getting ahead by exploiting others or interfering in their affairs. That is upsetting the true ethos of free market capitalism by stacking the odds in favour of who has the biggest gun or who is the most unscrupulous: destined to lead to injustice.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Unfortunately You are incorrect in the false assumption you decide who is correct or in correct.
Do you dispute the fact that you are not the proctor ?
Its to late to decide who should and should not be involved in the middle east.
You are aware how long ago it was that Europe got involved there.
You must also be aware a lot of our involvement and inroads was to counter the USSR moves in the region.
They were a bigger threat.
Had we abstained and let The USSR have a free hand there it would have been of no great service to the people there.
I notice you side stepped my other observations.
Freedom: Vote, Protest, Free speech and they are allowed to Keep and Bear Arms,
so it seems they are a few steps up from you. Sorry.
In my opinion, Your grasp of the issue, though impressive to the very young is limited and provincial in scope and your sense of moral superiority is as transparent as it is miss placed.
The Iraqis should have the freedom to point their guns at each other, say 'I'm a Kurd from Kurdistan' or 'I'm a Shia from Basrastan' or 'I'm a Sunni from Baghdadistan' (apparently the general feeling in the country), they should have the freedom to say 'We don't want US troops here anymore' (apparently the prevalent mood in the country), they should have the freedom to say 'We want to ally with Iran' (apparently the mood amongst Sh'ias) - if the 'freedom' of which you speak was granted to them.
If the US had 'given democracy' to Iraq or 'gives' it to any other middle eastern nation then you can expect a raft of vehemently anti-US governments. That's why the US supports what are effectively dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I just love the way you can speak of 'freedom' and remain blind to the fact that a) they hate you and b) you're being hypocritical. It's funny how you speak of free speech when the US in fact banned several newspapers when they invaded and actually bombed Al Jazeera reporters whose co-ordinates they were given so as to ensure they would not be bombed. Your blindness to your own flaws is amazing.
The cold war is over son. Get over it.
Here's your fucking freedom for you! - http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, … 90,00.html
You have some points there. Political ideologies can go from the beer hall to the Reichstag. But there are better ways of handling the situation. We in the west are currently not building trust, being principled or setting a great example. You're right in that economic development is what will pacify all naysayers - the problem being how one achieves that. Private concerns in the west have too many vested interests in not letting these nations develop: problematic. Also - an efficient method of helping them develop has not been devised to my knowledge. A nation can get lazy and reliant on aid if it is allowed to.UGADawgs wrote:
Do you think that now the Cold War is over, we can just sit down and think that nothing else is going to challenge us? Radical Islam is the next major ideology that has challenged our Western form of government and lifestyle. Luckily now, they are confined to weak nations without any real power to challenge the West, but Communism was once just some crackpot theory thought up in students' bars and Nazism was once a bunch of drunks' views from a beer hall. Now obviously that doesn't mean we can continue the old policy of propping up any government but Communism/fundamentalist/whatever. That's how we piss more people off. The only way we can truly defeat this new threat is to go in there and show them why we're better. Not necessarily through military means, but through economic improvement. As soon as Israel bombed Lebanon, we should have gotten aid agencies right in there to rebuild before Hezbollah could. Once we teach them what we're really about, then they'll be less inclined to attack us.