The last AFP thread “American Foreign Policy Sucks!” got so big that it was no longer entirely accessible, nor were the moderators able to manipulate it, so I closed it at 100 pages. Don’t worry, we’ll keep the bile and vitriol flowing in this thread… 
Hi Boys (shabab)!
I found the Quote button:
Tigerman[quote]I really don’t see what is so “complicated” about this matter. The Palestinians want to kill, destroy and vanquish the Israelis, and some of them do everything they can to reach that goal. The Jews want to live, and they do everything they can in order to do so.[/quote]
You should definitley get over there Tigerman and run that one by Colin and crew. What have they been thinking about all this time when it is as simple as that? What have the Palestinian parents been telling their kids all these years? What are those recalcitrant Iraqis doing firing rocket-propelled grenades at the occupying forces in Iraq? Hell Bush said the war was “over”, didn’t he? Why don’t they “get it”?
Wait and see folks, there will be a new form of doublespeak for the guys firing those grenades. Will it be:
a) grenadeer
b) Iraqi patriot
c) terrorist
d) remnants of the Baath party
e) rouge elements
f) guerrilla
Take your pick from the above! Watch CNN for the results!
Why are the pipelines a priority while Iraqis have no drinking water? There are two possible approaches to answering this question:
Answer 1, looking at the discrete activity (the facts in isolation): “So that the Iraqi people can get money to rebuild the infrastructure.”
Answer 2, looking at the big picture (the facts in context): "So that the United States can lesson its dependence on Saudi Arabian oil and consequently be in a position to increase pressure on said government to “do something about the terrorists”.
There is an interesting article in Today’s “Taipei Times” on page 9:
Resistance to US occupation of Iraq likely to continue
taipeitimes.com/News/edit/ar … 2003056445
Anyway, The United States’ current foreign policy is dragging the world into chaos.
I think that is a “fact” that is becoming increasingly accepted globally.
Dunc
“For every complex problem, there is a simple solution that is wrong”
George Bernard Shaw
For the crowd that keeps insisting that there ws ONE AND ONLY ONE reason for invading Iraq… Here’s another, that I have referred to umteen times:
[quote=“Thomas Friedman”]Students in Iran are rebelling against the Ayatollahs. Is there anything we can do to help? The truth is we have very few tools to influence events in Iran, and even if we had more it’s not clear we’d know how to use them. But there is one huge tool we do control that will certainly have an impact on Iran: It’s called Iraq.
Iraq, like Iran, is a majority Shiite country, with myriad religious links with Iran. If the Bush team could make a psychological and political breakthrough with Iraqi Shiites, and be seen as helping them build a progressive, pluralistic state in Iraq, it would have a big impact on Iran -much bigger than anything America alone could say or do.
No one should have any illusions that Iran’s Islamic theocracy is about to fold tomorrow. Iran’s clerical rulers are tough and ruthless and have a monopoly of power. But many of their people detest them. And while Iran will play out by its own logic, there is no question that if the other big, predominantly Shiite state in the region, the one right next door, the one called Iraq, were to become a reasonably decent, democratizing polity of the sort Iranians are demanding for themselves, it would pressure Iran’s clerics to open up.
A friend in Tehran sent me an e-mail message Thursday, saying, "The Iranian state-run TV is just reporting how Americans have failed in Iraq. [But] average people, like my grocer, actually think Iraq and Afghanistan have become heaven. It seems that they come up with the opposite version of what the government is trying to tell them. My grocer keeps on saying, `When are the Americans coming here? They fixed Afghanistan and Iraq and we are still miserable. . . .’ "
We do not want the story in Iran to be America versus the Ayatollahs. We want the story to be the Iranian people versus the Ayatollahs, and the best way to foster that is by showing Iranians that there is another way and it’s happening right next door. In short, America’s intervention in Iraq is a two-for-one sale: improve Iraq, improve Iran. Buy one, get one free. Mess up one, mess up the other.[/quote]
nytimes.com/2003/06/22/opinion/22FRIE.html
Why don’t you all stop pretending that there was only one valid reason for removing Saddam from Iraq? I know, admitting that there were other vital reasons destroys your entire argument regarding Bush and US foreign policy… but if you don’t think it important for Iraq… and Iran (and Syria… and Lebanon) to be reformed… and for a new Palestinian state to be created based on law and order and democratic ideals and institutions, if you don’t see how all this fits in and ties in with the war on terrorism and the effort to finally achieve a workable and lasting peace in that region of the world, then, IMO, you are either blind or stupid and or simply unable to admit that Bush actually has a plan, bold as it may be.
Sorry to put it in such terms. But that’s how I see it.
[quote=“Big Dunc”]Hi Boys (shabab)!
I found the Quote button:[/quote]
Good for you!
They’ve been telling them that the Jews are evil and should be killed? Don’t you read?
[quote=“Big Dunc”]What are those recalcitrant Iraqis doing firing rocket-propelled granades at the occupying forces in Iraq? Hell Bush said the war was “over”, didn’t he? Why don’t they “get it”?
Wait and see folks, there will be a new form of doublespeak for the guys firing those grenades. Will it be:
a) grenadeer
b) Iraqi patriot
c) terrorist
d) remnants of the Baath party
e) rouge elements
f) guerrilla
Take your pick from the above! Watch CNN for the results![/quote]
[quote=“Thomas Friedman”]While the U.S. forces in Iraq are meeting mounting resistance from the remnants of Saddam’s regime, these are primarily Iraqi Sunni Muslims who sense that their long hold on power in Iraq is over.
“The fact is, the Iraqi Shiites have clearly decided to give the Americans a grace period to see how they intend to rebuild Iraq,” says Yitzhak Nakash, the Brandeis University professor whose book, “The Shi`is of Iraq,” is one of the most important works on this subject. "Iraqi Shiite religious leaders have thus far not issued any fatwas against the U.S. troops. They have adopted a wait-and-see approach."
Just last week Abdelaziz al-Hakim, a key Iraqi Shiite leader, gave an interview to the newspaper Al Hayat in which he stressed that Iraqi Shiites were not under the control of Iran and had no intention for now of engaging in violent resistance to the U.S. forces in Iraq.
This grace period from Iraqi Shiites is the most important thing happening in Iraq, and the U.S. needs to take advantage of it. The U.S. could start, suggested Mr. Nakash, with President Bush apologizing for the fact that the U.S., in 1991, encouraged Iraqi Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and then abandoned them, leading to the slaughter of thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq. Visible gestures from the world’s only superpower - affirming the dignity of the Iraqi Shiites and their right to a share of power in proportion to their numbers - could help lock in this grace period and foster a mass base for moderate Shiite politics.[/quote]
So there.
It is? How?
Its either a fact or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what Big Dunk “thinks”.
Look, Sage Dunc, I never said that the problem was complex or that the solution was simple. I said that the problem is simple and I have argued that the solution [dealing with the entire region] is complex.
You guys who oppose Bush and US foreign policy are the one’s who refuse to admit that Bush is looking at the solution as requiring a complex mix of actions to take place. You guys are the one’s who erroneously, IMO, characterize Bush’s vision re the solution as a singular approach rather than as a multi-faceted effort hitting at several problems simultaneously.
You really don’t know, do you? 
islamic-world.net/youth/jihadpalestine.htm
I believe there are plenty of Palestinians who want a life in peace to live.
But my question is, what about the Palestinian refugees? They are in living in camps in Syria, Jordan, etc with no citizen rights. And they have no homes to go back to in Israel because someone has taken over their land. Wouldn’t you fight from being dispossessed of your land? I am pretty sure every American would fight tooth and nail if some foreigners tried to forcibly remove them from their homes.
As for every Palestinian telling kids that Jews are evil, that is a huge generalization. Before the State of Israel, and the influx of Ashkenazi Jews (and you might question that, after several centuries of living in Europe, what claim to Israel did they have, the Bible? we all have ancestral homes somewhere, but who the hell lays claims to it and tries to create a new country in place of an existing one), there were a lot of jews and arabs living side by side PEACEFULLY. and in parts of Israel-Palestine, there still are.
I might agree with you if you were talking about some in the refugee camps, because they are naturally more radical (as I am sure living in a refugee camp knowing someone has taken over your home would do).
As for the Iraq thing, aside from the baloney excuse Bush gave, I think the US has a really good chance to make something good out of this, and I hope it works out for everyone (except the Baathists). And I don’t think we are against US foreign policy per se, at least I am not. Just some specific examples, several administrations and leaders. (If only half of US voted for Bush, does that mean the other half cannot voice their dissent? Is it unamerican? is it unpatriotic?).
Kinda reminds me of some other argument I had about internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Few people seem to realize that, despite apologies, reparations and promises that it would never happen, the US Supreme Court never ruled out the Military’s prerogative to enact similar measures in future times of war. but that as they say is another thread.
I am so tired of hearing only about the Palestinians. There are Tibetans all over northern India. There are Lebanese (Christian) refugees streaming out of the country which is OCCUPIED by Syria. The Germans were kicked out of their former Eastern possessions, the Poles were kicked out of their former territories in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine (Vilna and Lvov), etc. etc. etc. and all we can discuss is the Palestinians. Millions and millions of refugees have been resettled successfully most particularly when among their brethren (India and Pakistan partition 1947, Bangladesh civil war 1971) yet the Palestinians which are among their Arabs brethren (no separate group for Palestinians until 1993 or 1994. They had Jordanian passports) are the only dispossed group in the world? Let’s look at Africa for starters and see how many more millions are there sitting in refugee camps.
There is no way Israel is going to let millions of Palestinians return. Not fair? Well then start with all the above problems and deal with them first since they have been around longer.
Also, a bit of a stretch but if the Arab world makes such a point of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, then the West should say that it will refuse to deal with the Arab world until Turkey pulls out of northern Cyprus and Syria pulls out of what used to be majority Christian Lebanon. All this pussyfooting around Arab sensibilities is ridiculous.
so basically you say might makes right, whoever can take over wins, and the refugees should just deal and move somewhere else like America.
yes, i realize there are other refugees in the world, other problems, but it’s very hard to talk all at once.
Is there any basis in Islam for saying that blowing up Jews by suicide bombing results in immediate admittance to heaven ? Is it in the Koran ? Did Mohammed actually say “Go out and kill Jews, and if you can blow yourself up in the process, so much the better”?
hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
[3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah’s way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;
[3.170] Rejoicing in what Allah has given them out of His grace and they rejoice for the sake of those who, (being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.
[3.171] They rejoice on account of favor from Allah and (His) grace, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers.
[3.172] (As for) those who responded (at Ohud) to the call of Allah and the Apostle after the wound had befallen them, those among them who do good (to others) and guard (against evil)shall have a great reward.
[3.173] Those to whom the people said: Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them, but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector.
[3.174] So they returned with favor from Allah and (His) grace, no evil touched them and they followed the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.
[22.58] And (as for) those who fly in Allah’s way and are then slain or die, Allah will most certainly grant them a goodly sustenance, and most surely Allah is the best Giver of sustenance.
Israel’s position is similar to that of Apartheid South Africa.
Hear me out:
South Africa:
Europeans colonized Southern Africa and suppressed the indigenous population. Peoples were divided by race. Homelands were set up. Whites controlled the best land and all the wealth. White South Africa would not give in, until “terrorism” and international sanctions (mainly implemented by the US and the UK and only in the late 80s-more on this later) became unbearable. A homeland for white people would never have been accepted during the transition from White rule to a democratic SA, as there was no reason for the West to support this.
Israel:
Europeans colonized Palestine and suppressed the indigenous population. Peoples are divided by religion. A homeland was set up for the Palestinians. The Jews control the best land and some factions support the continued settlement of Israelis on disputed territory. The United States supports Israel. The UN recognizes it as a State.
The two situations are remarkably similar and there is only one discrepancy, and that is that SA was once supported and was then alienated, and Israel is not.
Why is it? Well, the answer is simple. South Africa was once a strategic concern and Israel still is.
Once the Cold War had ended, America’s fight with Communism was over. White rule (read anti-Communist rule-the ANC is communist aligned) in SA was no longer a strategic concern: The US backed SA and Savimbi in their war against FRELEMO (a Soviet backed “terror” organization) in Angola during the 70s and 80s. We were being used just as South Korea and South Vietnam had been, and just as so many more. Is it such a coincidence that Apartheid ended soon after the Cold War.
Israel, situated in the Middle East, in the heart of the world’s richest oil producing area, is an important cog in the US’s economy, and therefore most other nations too. Israel is tolerated because of this and this alone.
The Jewish lobby failed last time and is not such an important demographic as it is sometimes made out to be. Once America is weaned of its oil-dependency, Israel will become another South Africa, and calls for a demographic country including Palestine will be heeded by the US; and Israelis, like White South Africa, will have to relinquish the lion’s share and be forced to be a minority. Though given their militancy and belief that they are God’s chosen, I fear a civil war.
Alley Cat:
I cannot believe that I am being dragged into a discussion of the Middle East but here goes.
First of all, whether fair or not, Jews were allowed to create a homeland in Palestine (which included Jordan at the time, West Bank, Gaza AND Israel). The Palestinians (which used to be just Arabs until 1993 with Jordanian passports) have most of the land already (jordan, west bank and gaza). The fact that they wanted it all sent them to war against Israel three to four times depending on which conflicts you count. Intifada No. 5? How many times do you lose a war that you start before you must suffer territorial losses?
In Germany’s case, WWI it lost territory, while gaining in the previous three wars with Austria, Denmark and France. Then in WWII some more. Other times nations forced into wars like Balkan nations have lost territory even though they have been forced to join one side or the other. Life is not fair. But considering the numerous other peoples that have suffered, I am curious as to why the Palestinians who have in one way or another started four to five conflicts are so deserving of world sympathy? Then again, why have they not been resettled in their Arab brethren’s territory as other nations have done? Finally, why did Jordan kick them out, Lebanon kick them out and Kuwait in 1991 to absolutely no criticism from the world “community.”
I cannot speak for South Africa, but it may be a bit too close to home since I do not see the parallel. Finally, anyone who can point to Israel and the U.S. defense of it as a strategic coup has me totally bewildered. If U.S. foreign policy was based on Kissingerian self-interest “realpolitik” the US would have cut Israel loose a long long time ago. What in the name of all that is Holy (deliberate choice of words) does the US gain from supporting 5.5 to 6.0 million Jews in a small territory with an economy of US$110 billion at the expense of its relations with the entire Muslim world?
Ask Truman, Fred. Oh shit, he’s dead.
The US does support Israel. You make a good point, but America holds Israel’s hand.
Alley Cat:
You probably know better than I do but at least for the Cape, surely there were no Bantu or Zulu in this area only Xhosa? In fact, was there not a lot of Black migration to South Africa (Johannesburg) from Malawi, Zambia to work the mines hence also not native to the area? The Malays for example have lived in Capetown since the what 1600s so do they have less of a right to live there despite living there longer because they are not Black or originally African? I have no opinion on this but would like to see how this argument pans out.
That’s an old pro-Apartheid argument.
The Cape, by all accounts when colonized in the mid 1600s by the Dutch was sparsely populated by Koi San people, Hottentots, who are related to Bushmen.
White settlers, who left the Cape, when the British abolished slavery in 1834, went north, and their descendants, the Afrikaner, argue that the black tribes the Voortrekkers met were just as recent as they were.
Malays were Dutch slaves. And for Omni, they are the essential ingredient if a colored women is to be beautiful, in my opinion that is.
Hi boys (shabab)
[quote]Tigerman
I never said that the problem was complex or that the solution was simple. I said that the problem is simple and I have argued that the solution [dealing with the entire region] is complex.
[/quote]
Que? Pardon? Elaborate?
Bush’s vision:
I see myself out on the river, a couple of fly cold ones. Me and the boys reminiscing about the good old days. Gosh, what a blast that was. Kidding the world that we “cared” about the people in the Middle East, when all we really cared about was getting that darn 2004 election in my back pocket and getting the economy back on track.
Hell, there was a while there when all those attrocities in Africa and HIV was garnering a lot of attention. But screw Africa, what the hell can that nation offer us homeboys, eh? As long as my Texan oil men were getting at that stuff over there, we were very happy to ignore the fact that these guys were as bent as Saddam. Hey, pull that boat over, I need a leak.
Dunc
America’s foreign policy is derided mainly because of what it is: It’s American politics, with politics defined as being who gets what, meaning that the US’s interests are always first and foremost.
Thus with America being the world’s policeman, there is a conflict of interest, as when it polices, like in Iraq, its own interests are paramount.
Things will only worsen over the next year as Bush does more and more for his constituents, the American people, in his bid to be re-elected.
Can it be this simple?
Yes, when you think that so many countries rely on a healthy US economy, that the policeman, that the US is, is almost unrestrained.
Can we afford though to have a law enforcer such as this? Who or what will reign him in when it is necessary.
Will we have the tools to do so?
The weapons? No.
Economic clout? No.
A moral argument? (What’s that?)
Assuming that this would happen and we’d be at the mercy of US interests for some time to come, is American imperialism such a bad thing?
Spot on Alleycat!
The US’s foreign policy is based on its own interests. (Even Tigerman agrees with this)
Quite frankly, it doesn’t give a damn about the stuff going on in Africa and it actively supports dictators if that dictator is of strategic value, which is determined by that nation’s value to:
a) the domestic politcal situation in the United States
b) the economic situation in the United States
Until the United States’ leaders show true leadership and be more proactive rather than reactive in helping those who suffer on a daily basis, it will continue to spawn terror. We can already see the fruits of Bush and Co’s approach. Terrorism is on the increase.
So when kids are dying in the Congo, and the kids in Palestine miss out on education and micro-nutrients – and the United States turns a blind eye to this, and fails to condemn these attrocities and show some compassionate leadership – people start to lose hope.
The United States has done nothing thus far to change this particularist policy. It is about time it did, before it screws it up for everybody.
Dunc
[quote=“Big Dunc”]Spot on Alleycat!
the US’s foreign policy is based on its own interests. (Even Tigerman agrees with this)
Quite frankly, it doesn’t give a damn about the stuff going on in Africa and it actively supports dictators if that dictator is of strategic value, which is determined by that nation’s value to:
a) the domestic politcal situation in the United States
b) the economic situation in the United States
Until the United States’ leaders show true leadership and be more proactive rather than reactive in helping those who suffer on a daily basis, it will continue to spawn terror. We can already see the fruits of Bush and Co’s approach. Terrorism is on the increase.
So when kids are dying in the Congo, and the kids in Palestine miss out on education and micro-nutrients – and the United States turns a blind eye to this, and fails to condemn these attrocities and show some compassionate leadership – people start to lose hope.
The United States has done nothing thus far to change this particularist policy. It is about time it did, before it screws it up for everybody.
Dunc[/quote]
Thanks Dunc, but there is no true philanthropy. We should look where the US may find interest for itself and then it may help. New markets for instance.
Until there is a borderless world state then the US (or rather what it will become in a world order) will never be a true leader.
Perhaps, there is hope for Africa but if there is I do not see it nor can I be bothered to concern myself yet again with the matter. Is that because I am cruel and heartless? No it is because I have made 15 extensive trips to Africa over the past 17 years. The only countries I have not been to are Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Mauritania and Chad. I have seen things get worse and worse and worse over these 17 years and the aid money still flows but the problems get worse and worse and worse.
As I see it the world community goes back in to nation build which means recolonizing the whole continent all over again or the world leaves Africa to come up with solutions on its own. Am I missing something here that would give one hope for the continent?