..about US foreign policy
-
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_118390,00120001.htm[^] The writer is a former foriegn affairs secretary of India. -------------- My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_118390,00120001.htm[^] The writer is a former foriegn affairs secretary of India. -------------- My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: US foreign policy There's a policy? Where? Has anyone checked to make sure GWB has read it yet? Maybe explained it with pretty pictures? Or is it just as a simple as "kill everyone, let god/allah/buhhda sort them out?"
The answer is no, whatever the question is. You can't have it, you don't need it, and you'll break it in five minutes if I give it to you.
-
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_118390,00120001.htm[^] The writer is a former foriegn affairs secretary of India. -------------- My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
I'd have to agree with the author that Country A does not have the right to tell Country B to disarm or else (especially when Country A is heavily armed itself). However, Country A has an obligation to protect it's citizens (at home and abroad) and it's allies from Country B. Especially when Country B has made aggressive actions toward Country A and it's allies (whether the actions are direct [war] or indirect [terrorism]). If the UN had ANY leadership or power or authority, it would be the most logical 'entity' to tell Country B to disarm. But since the UN doesn't have any of the three, Country A has to take the lead... The only way the UN will ever have any of these is if other countries give them to the UN. Another reason I think that the US is being somewhat 'aggressive' in going after Iraq is because Bush understands that if Saddam isn't removed quickly, MILLIONS of people will die (not could, but WILL) when the next major conflict occurs. Earlier this year (or maybe last year), Israel announced that it won't sit back and be bombed and not respond like in '90-'91. The next time Israel is bombed by one of it's neighbors, it will respond in a nuclear fashion in an overwhelming show of force. As it's neighbors continue their arms build-up, Israel's advantage (mainly that it has nukes) is diminishing, and it recognizes that it's neighbors don't want peace, they want Israel's destruction. Israel will not be destroyed without taking out it's neighbors with it (the Samson option). This is a huge deterant for anyone thinking about attacking them. I'm not sure how much other media outlets reported this, but Iraq, Syria, and Israel were less than an hour away from a nuclear exchange back in Feb of 2001. Not sure why, but none of the major US media reported it... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21833[^] In the above article, Iraq could've been simply testing the new US President, evaluating which of (and how) Israel's allies would respond, and how long all of this would take. But you don't usually run tests unless you're planning to take some course of action...and make sure it succeeds. _"No one goes to hell because of their sin, but because of rejecting God's method of salvation: His Son's life for yours..."
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but_
-
I'd have to agree with the author that Country A does not have the right to tell Country B to disarm or else (especially when Country A is heavily armed itself). However, Country A has an obligation to protect it's citizens (at home and abroad) and it's allies from Country B. Especially when Country B has made aggressive actions toward Country A and it's allies (whether the actions are direct [war] or indirect [terrorism]). If the UN had ANY leadership or power or authority, it would be the most logical 'entity' to tell Country B to disarm. But since the UN doesn't have any of the three, Country A has to take the lead... The only way the UN will ever have any of these is if other countries give them to the UN. Another reason I think that the US is being somewhat 'aggressive' in going after Iraq is because Bush understands that if Saddam isn't removed quickly, MILLIONS of people will die (not could, but WILL) when the next major conflict occurs. Earlier this year (or maybe last year), Israel announced that it won't sit back and be bombed and not respond like in '90-'91. The next time Israel is bombed by one of it's neighbors, it will respond in a nuclear fashion in an overwhelming show of force. As it's neighbors continue their arms build-up, Israel's advantage (mainly that it has nukes) is diminishing, and it recognizes that it's neighbors don't want peace, they want Israel's destruction. Israel will not be destroyed without taking out it's neighbors with it (the Samson option). This is a huge deterant for anyone thinking about attacking them. I'm not sure how much other media outlets reported this, but Iraq, Syria, and Israel were less than an hour away from a nuclear exchange back in Feb of 2001. Not sure why, but none of the major US media reported it... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21833[^] In the above article, Iraq could've been simply testing the new US President, evaluating which of (and how) Israel's allies would respond, and how long all of this would take. But you don't usually run tests unless you're planning to take some course of action...and make sure it succeeds. _"No one goes to hell because of their sin, but because of rejecting God's method of salvation: His Son's life for yours..."
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but_
Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. Now, Musharraff positioned Pakistan as an Al-Qaeida enemy to gain US acceptance for his military coup - which it has successfully done. There are no debates about the future ramifications of these alliances in the general media. I think that if the reasoning for removing Saddam is purely a human rights and security reason, and the UN passes a resolution to safeguard all existing commercial contracts of all countries, why would anyone have been in Saddam's favour anyway? But, the economic part of the equation causes opposition. US made that reference to respecting existing deals in regards to Russia and France, to secure their support. In the end, if US wants to earn goodwill, it has to make intentions clear in all respects; particularly when Saddam and a large part of the Muslim world accuses US acting to get control over Iraq's oil. It has to make clear what it plans to do after a war, when it says that we are prepared for a unilateral war. If US does not want goodwill of the people around the world, there will always be serious security threats to US citizens abroad, and also in the US. The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. Now, Musharraff positioned Pakistan as an Al-Qaeida enemy to gain US acceptance for his military coup - which it has successfully done. There are no debates about the future ramifications of these alliances in the general media. I think that if the reasoning for removing Saddam is purely a human rights and security reason, and the UN passes a resolution to safeguard all existing commercial contracts of all countries, why would anyone have been in Saddam's favour anyway? But, the economic part of the equation causes opposition. US made that reference to respecting existing deals in regards to Russia and France, to secure their support. In the end, if US wants to earn goodwill, it has to make intentions clear in all respects; particularly when Saddam and a large part of the Muslim world accuses US acting to get control over Iraq's oil. It has to make clear what it plans to do after a war, when it says that we are prepared for a unilateral war. If US does not want goodwill of the people around the world, there will always be serious security threats to US citizens abroad, and also in the US. The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. Well said.
-
Thomas George wrote: US foreign policy There's a policy? Where? Has anyone checked to make sure GWB has read it yet? Maybe explained it with pretty pictures? Or is it just as a simple as "kill everyone, let god/allah/buhhda sort them out?"
The answer is no, whatever the question is. You can't have it, you don't need it, and you'll break it in five minutes if I give it to you.
Just.Me. wrote: There's a policy? Where? Has anyone checked to make sure GWB has read it yet? You make the assumption that he's literate. Just.Me. wrote: Maybe explained it with pretty pictures? Oh, nevermind... Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. Now, Musharraff positioned Pakistan as an Al-Qaeida enemy to gain US acceptance for his military coup - which it has successfully done. There are no debates about the future ramifications of these alliances in the general media. I think that if the reasoning for removing Saddam is purely a human rights and security reason, and the UN passes a resolution to safeguard all existing commercial contracts of all countries, why would anyone have been in Saddam's favour anyway? But, the economic part of the equation causes opposition. US made that reference to respecting existing deals in regards to Russia and France, to secure their support. In the end, if US wants to earn goodwill, it has to make intentions clear in all respects; particularly when Saddam and a large part of the Muslim world accuses US acting to get control over Iraq's oil. It has to make clear what it plans to do after a war, when it says that we are prepared for a unilateral war. If US does not want goodwill of the people around the world, there will always be serious security threats to US citizens abroad, and also in the US. The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
I agree -- why Iraq and not Pakistan or North Korea? IMO, the Pakistan vs India and NK vs ?? conflicts are not as imminent or potentially large-scale as the Middle East vs Israel. If India and Pakistan have a nuclear exchange, most likely it will be isolated to those two nations (and maybe a few small others). But if the Middle East goes nuclear (no matter who starts it), the entire WORLD is at risk, because of both oil and entangling alliances. While I love my country, I dislike it's government's foreign policy because it's too dependent on unpredictable leaders/nations and oil. When people speak of Armaggedon (whether they know it or not), they're speaking of a large valley north of Jerusalem (the Jezreel Valley) in which the armies of the entire world will go up against one another and Israel. Regardless of your religious beliefs, this scenario is more probable everyday b/c of the screwy alliances and oil. Israel is at the axis of 3 continents and if there's anything the Middle East has in common, it's the region's dislike/hatred of Israel. At the same time Russia, the US, and a number of other nations are selling arms to Israel and the rest of the Middle East like crazy, we're telling them NOT to use them and to maintain peace! To make it worse, we fund nations who hate the West and Europe by our oil dependency. What do we expect will happen? If we really want peace over there, we'd disarm the entire region and stop importing oil, instead of arming them and enriching dictators. _"No one goes to hell because of their sin, but because of rejecting God's method of salvation: His Son's life for yours..."
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams_
-
Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. Now, Musharraff positioned Pakistan as an Al-Qaeida enemy to gain US acceptance for his military coup - which it has successfully done. There are no debates about the future ramifications of these alliances in the general media. I think that if the reasoning for removing Saddam is purely a human rights and security reason, and the UN passes a resolution to safeguard all existing commercial contracts of all countries, why would anyone have been in Saddam's favour anyway? But, the economic part of the equation causes opposition. US made that reference to respecting existing deals in regards to Russia and France, to secure their support. In the end, if US wants to earn goodwill, it has to make intentions clear in all respects; particularly when Saddam and a large part of the Muslim world accuses US acting to get control over Iraq's oil. It has to make clear what it plans to do after a war, when it says that we are prepared for a unilateral war. If US does not want goodwill of the people around the world, there will always be serious security threats to US citizens abroad, and also in the US. The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. I think the Pakistan situation is exactly why Iraq must be disarmed. With Pakistan, US is too late. Disarming Pakistan today is nuclear war for sure. Disarming Iraq today *may* prevent nuclear war. Why may? I know the feelings in Israel today, and any WMD attack will trigger overhelming response. Disarming Iraq may already be too late, but any time later it wont be feasible. Thomas George wrote: The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. Removing arab tyrans is the best action of goodwill. While they hold power, US will be regarded as satan. When people hear "Death to America" all day, even dropping candy from the sky wont help.
-
Thomas George wrote: Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. I think the Pakistan situation is exactly why Iraq must be disarmed. With Pakistan, US is too late. Disarming Pakistan today is nuclear war for sure. Disarming Iraq today *may* prevent nuclear war. Why may? I know the feelings in Israel today, and any WMD attack will trigger overhelming response. Disarming Iraq may already be too late, but any time later it wont be feasible. Thomas George wrote: The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. Removing arab tyrans is the best action of goodwill. While they hold power, US will be regarded as satan. When people hear "Death to America" all day, even dropping candy from the sky wont help.
From some of the books I've read about the Middle East and heard from friends, most people in the Middle East are decent and hospitable and are curious about the West and America. However, their leaders (gov't & religious) are very anti-West and anti-Semetic -- if any of these countries were democratic, would these leaders be in power?? Heck no!! When you're a tyrant running a country with many of it's people living in poverty, a way to keep the populace 'happy' with you (and hopefully stay alive!) is to shift the focus off you and put the blame another race or country -- or better yet -- BOTH!! "The reason you're starving is because the US is buying billions of $$$ of our oil every year!!!" :wtf: _"No one goes to hell because of their sin, but because of rejecting God's method of salvation: His Son's life for yours..."
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams_
-
Just.Me. wrote: There's a policy? Where? Has anyone checked to make sure GWB has read it yet? You make the assumption that he's literate. Just.Me. wrote: Maybe explained it with pretty pictures? Oh, nevermind... Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: You make the assumption that he's literate. Just.Me. wrote: Maybe explained it with pretty pictures? Oh, nevermind... Hmm, I guess that even a picture book wouldn't work[^] :-D:-D
The answer is no, whatever the question is. You can't have it, you don't need it, and you'll break it in five minutes if I give it to you.
-
Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. Now, Musharraff positioned Pakistan as an Al-Qaeida enemy to gain US acceptance for his military coup - which it has successfully done. There are no debates about the future ramifications of these alliances in the general media. I think that if the reasoning for removing Saddam is purely a human rights and security reason, and the UN passes a resolution to safeguard all existing commercial contracts of all countries, why would anyone have been in Saddam's favour anyway? But, the economic part of the equation causes opposition. US made that reference to respecting existing deals in regards to Russia and France, to secure their support. In the end, if US wants to earn goodwill, it has to make intentions clear in all respects; particularly when Saddam and a large part of the Muslim world accuses US acting to get control over Iraq's oil. It has to make clear what it plans to do after a war, when it says that we are prepared for a unilateral war. If US does not want goodwill of the people around the world, there will always be serious security threats to US citizens abroad, and also in the US. The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
It may be possible that there is no way to be popular and face Saddam at the same time. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, Bush has firmly committed to never allowing this to ever happen again. The best way to prevent a surprise attack is to launch a pre-emptive strike first. Unfortunately, this breaks one of the rules of civility which is to never hit first. Only bullies hit first, and that's what the US looks like. The US looks like a bully. So should the US give up it's pre-emptive strike strategy? Let's say the US did. Saddam would quietly build up his nuclear weapons, and use them to bully other countries. Perhaps to re-invade Kuwait? If Saddam ever developed an ICBM, Saddam could hold the US hostage by threatening to destroy a major US city. It seems that Bush is faced with an either-or choice. Be a popular world leader or be a global policeman.
-
Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. Now, Musharraff positioned Pakistan as an Al-Qaeida enemy to gain US acceptance for his military coup - which it has successfully done. There are no debates about the future ramifications of these alliances in the general media. I think that if the reasoning for removing Saddam is purely a human rights and security reason, and the UN passes a resolution to safeguard all existing commercial contracts of all countries, why would anyone have been in Saddam's favour anyway? But, the economic part of the equation causes opposition. US made that reference to respecting existing deals in regards to Russia and France, to secure their support. In the end, if US wants to earn goodwill, it has to make intentions clear in all respects; particularly when Saddam and a large part of the Muslim world accuses US acting to get control over Iraq's oil. It has to make clear what it plans to do after a war, when it says that we are prepared for a unilateral war. If US does not want goodwill of the people around the world, there will always be serious security threats to US citizens abroad, and also in the US. The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration USA was the first country that provided technology to Pakistan during early 70s to build nuclear power plants. May be you are unaware of that.
-
Thomas George wrote: Think about Pakistan. CIA tells us that they provided nuclear material to N Korea. There is not even a statement from the Bush administration; and what has happened is a cover-up. Why does Bush administration believe Musharaff is not capable of what Saddam has done, if there is a threat to his power? This is the same principle based on which Saddam became US ally - being the common enemy was Iran. The secular nature of the man did not make him any better. I think the Pakistan situation is exactly why Iraq must be disarmed. With Pakistan, US is too late. Disarming Pakistan today is nuclear war for sure. Disarming Iraq today *may* prevent nuclear war. Why may? I know the feelings in Israel today, and any WMD attack will trigger overhelming response. Disarming Iraq may already be too late, but any time later it wont be feasible. Thomas George wrote: The homeland security, intelligence, military are all reactionary approaches. I believe that there has to be concerted efforts to acquire the goodwill of the people of the region. I do not know how to do this, but Bush is duty-bound to find ways; atleast to try - because the people elected him to make their lives better, i suppose (correct me if I am wrong). That is the only lasting way to make security feasible. Removing arab tyrans is the best action of goodwill. While they hold power, US will be regarded as satan. When people hear "Death to America" all day, even dropping candy from the sky wont help.
Felix Gartsman wrote: With Pakistan, US is too late. Disarming Pakistan today is nuclear war for sure. Why talking about disarming Pakistan and not India?? Is there no extremism in India. Has India not fought wars with China and Pakistan. Has India having no tension along the borders of Bangladesh ??? Is there no extremism inside India??
