[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I'm confused how we got to the point that foreign policy is solely for serving American interests.

Originally Posted by custar

What else would be the point of U.S. foreign policy?

custar

Beat me to the punch.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by custar

What else would be the point of U.S. foreign policy?

custar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_wa...ne_and_Aquinas

Originally Posted by Aquinas' Just War Theory

-First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power.
-Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
-Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence

I would extend war to all foreign tactics (embargoes, blockades, etc).

[barrel roll]

How we got to this point... interventionism. Interesting question, that one. When were the seeds planted? Who planted them? I honestly don't know.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

Both sides are dirty and terrorist supporters.

I think we should give the rebels humanitarian aid and may-be military intel but thats all. That way way we continue to support teh Truman doctrine and (this is going to cynical) we prolong the war letting both sides kill more of each other. Which will eat up the resource that they (both sides) would have filtered to Hezbollah and other terrorists networks.

Both sides are terrible but once the fighting is over, the winner isn't going to change. If the FSA comes out on top, they we still do despicable things and it will come back to bite us in the *** in the long run like everything else has. At this point in time, you need a strong dictator over there that is willing to do what is necessary to hold power. The ME isn't ready for any sort of intervention from the outside world. You can't emplace a democracy over there. They don't want it. Until then, you need someone to roll with an iron fist. It's a ****ed up way of looking at it, but if any of you would like me to PM some videos on liveleak, on the FSA, I'll be more than willing to.

[custar]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_wa...ne_and_Aquinas



I would extend war to all foreign tactics (embargoes, blockades, etc).

Interesting. I did not peg you as "policeman for the world" type. I agree with the third in a Klingon way.

custar

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by custar

Interesting. I did not peg you as "policeman for the world" type. I agree with the third in a Klingon way.

custar

Ultimately, I can't say I hold that position strongly. Haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about it. So I guess it would be better to say that I agree with Aquinas' unjust war theory. I believe it is wrong to declare war for any other purpose than of overall peace. No man should ever die for "national self interest". Going over to Iraq and killing to raise oil pries is no less immoral than shooting a man and taking his car.

Does that make sense? I am sort of spit balling here (although I think that's a good thing).

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I want legitimate answers.

Let me rephrase one of them.

What was wrong with Gaddafi that required us to assist his usurpers and in what way did this serve American interests?

1. Gaddafi was a terrorist supporter and he even had his government conduct state run terrorist operations.
2. He was a ruthless dictator.
3. While he did 'give up' his WMD program it was only through threat of economic sanctions and military action.

Getting rid of him was a good thing and getting rid of him without costing US lives or $ billions of dollars even better.

What way does promoting democracy serve the American people?

Our government runs on a social contract with the American people and people in general like to feel that they are "good" so therefore they want their Government to also be "good" and do "good things". Now don't get me wrong the government does lots of bad things but at the end of the day we pat our backs and say "we're the good guys, we help people be free" and then we sleep content in our little beds.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I want legitimate answers.

Let me rephrase one of them.

What was wrong with Gaddafi that required us to assist his usurpers and in what way did this serve American interests?

The Libyan government was going to topple with or without out intervention.

Libya is major supplier or European oil. Without access to that oil, Europe is forced to look to other sources, which either means get it from where the US gets it, or worse potentially getting it from the Russians, furthering their influence in Europe. By jumping on to assist the rebels, we get in their good graces and the likelihood that the new regime will be friendly toward western oil ventures/sales and continue to supply it consistently is increased. That is why France and Britain were so willing to go about it.

A huge reason for our presence in the Middle East is an attempt to maintain oil sales to Europe, preventing them from having to access it from our sources, and prevent the strengthening of Russia, which is still one of our primary foreign policy goals.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

1. Gaddafi was a terrorist supporter and he even had his government conduct state run terrorist operations.
2. He was a ruthless dictator.
3. While he did 'give up' his WMD program it was only through threat of economic sanctions and military action.

Getting rid of him was a good thing and getting rid of him without costing US lives or $ billions of dollars even better.

What way does promoting democracy serve the American people?

Our government runs on a social contract with the American people and people in general like to feel that they are "good" so therefore they want their Government to also be "good" and do "good things". Now don't get me wrong the government does lots of bad things but at the end of the day we pat our backs and say "we're the good guys, we help people be free" and then we sleep content in our little beds.

1. This I could see as being a legitimate cause.
2. Illegitimate
3. Also illegitimate.

The second portion: That doesn't explain why promoting democracy is important. Doing "Good" could just as easily be done in any form of government. "Free" is as poorly defined as it is understood. I'll leave that one alone.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

The Libyan government was going to topple with or without out intervention.

Libya is major supplier or European oil. Without access to that oil, Europe is forced to look to other sources, which either means get it from where the US gets it, or worse potentially getting it from the Russians, furthering their influence in Europe. By jumping on to assist the rebels, we get in their good graces and the likelihood that the new regime will be friendly toward western oil ventures/sales and continue to supply it consistently is increased. That is why France and Britain were so willing to go about it.

A huge reason for our presence in the Middle East is an attempt to maintain oil sales to Europe, preventing them from having to access it from our sources, and prevent the strengthening of Russia, which is still one of our primary foreign policy goals.

I was shooting for a non moralized answer. I didn't think I was going to get one from anybody. Thank you.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I was shooting for a non moralized answer. I didn't think I was going to get one from anybody. Thank you.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

.

[custar]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Ultimately, I can't say I hold that position strongly. Haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about it. So I guess it would be better to say that I agree with Aquinas' unjust war theory. I believe it is wrong to declare war for any other purpose than of overall peace. No man should ever die for "national self interest". Going over to Iraq and killing to raise oil pries is no less immoral than shooting a man and taking his car.

Does that make sense? I am sort of spit balling here (although I think that's a good thing).

This isn't school, so spitballing is allowed.

I understand where you are coming from, and in a perfect world I would agree with you for the most part. Here are some conundrums for you. I am heading out to a paintball game for the weekend, so I won't be able to see your responses until Sunday in all likelihood.

1. Was Hussein killing his own citizens and Kurds enough of a reason to go into Iraq? Disregard any considerations of WMD, oil, etc.

2. Should we (then or now) intervene in the genocidal wars in Africa where we as a nation have little to no economic interest but people have been killed in the tens of thousands?

3. Assuming we could identify who perpetrated the act, should the U.S. intervene militarily to punish those who attack an embassy or other U.S. holding and kill U.S. citizens? I am thinking more of a situation like that in Beirut than Benghazi on this.

4. If a country (say randomly the Philippines just to pick a name) nationalized all American holdings within its boundaries, would we as a country be justified in using military force to rectify the situation?

I am not trying to throw out politically loaded situations, so please don't take it that way. I am really asking for clarification on what is a just war and what makes it just enough (pun intended) for the U.S. to send troops into harm's way.

custar

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

.

Interesting theory. I submit that it is valid so long as there is an "other"

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by custar

This isn't school, so spitballing is allowed.

I understand where you are coming from, and in a perfect world I would agree with you for the most part. Here are some conundrums for you. I am heading out to a paintball game for the weekend, so I won't be able to see your responses until Sunday in all likelihood.

1. Was Hussein killing his own citizens and Kurds enough of a reason to go into Iraq? Disregard any considerations of WMD, oil, etc.

2. Should we (then or now) intervene in the genocidal wars in Africa where we as a nation have little to no economic interest but people have been killed in the tens of thousands?

3. Assuming we could identify who perpetrated the act, should the U.S. intervene militarily to punish those who attack an embassy or other U.S. holding and kill U.S. citizens? I am thinking more of a situation like that in Beirut than Benghazi on this.

4. If a country (say randomly the Philippines just to pick a name) nationalized all American holdings within its boundaries, would we as a country be justified in using military force to rectify the situation?

I am not trying to throw out politically loaded situations, so please don't take it that way. I am really asking for clarification on what is a just war and what makes it just enough (pun intended) for the U.S. to send troops into harm's way.

custar

As you will be gone (and so will I), I probably won't respond in here, although I will try to remember to PM you about this. I am interested in having this discussion.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

As you will be gone (and so will I), I probably won't respond in here, although I will try to remember to PM you about this. I am interested in having this discussion.

Make a thread in RP. I am interested as well.

[2pipes]

Hate to see any mud slinging, but that is what BOTH parties do. I am personally voting REPUBLICAN because the DEMocrats were in charge President and both houses.... We got debt, failed stimulus, and things are not better. In my opinion it's time to give the other guys a shot at fixing it.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by 2pipes

Hate to see any mud slinging, but that is what BOTH parties do. I am personally voting REPUBLICAN because the DEMocrats were in charge President and both houses.... We got debt, failed stimulus, and things are not better. In my opinion it's time to give the other guys a shot at fixing it.

The problem of vastly over-simplifying things is that sometimes the details are very important...

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by 2pipes

Hate to see any mud slinging, but that is what BOTH parties do. I am personally voting REPUBLICAN because the DEMocrats were in charge President and both houses.... We got debt, failed stimulus, and things are not better. In my opinion it's time to give the other guys a shot at fixing it.

The stimulus worked and a ton of things got better when both houses and the presidency were Democratic. Everything went to **** once teabagger Republicans got ahold of the House.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

The stimulus worked and a ton of things got better when both houses and the presidency were Democratic. Everything went to **** once teabagger Republicans got ahold of the House.

Now I have to go pull up your quotes about how the house R minority kept the D majority from doing everything they should have. This crap is difficult from a telephone.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by 2pipes

Hate to see any mud slinging, but that is what BOTH parties do. I am personally voting REPUBLICAN because the DEMocrats were in charge President and both houses.... We got debt, failed stimulus, and things are not better. In my opinion it's time to give the other guys a shot at fixing it.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

The problem of vastly over-simplifying things is that sometimes the details are very important...

Agreed.

I have several friends who are voting for mitt Romney because of reasons that 2 pipes mentioned. A lot of people really do not understand stimulus, its impact, or its costs, so in their mind all stimulus is failed unless it is more tangible such as war. The debt is totally reasonable complaint, although I don't think people understand that either.

In addition Romney has painted himself as a centrist, a perfect antithesis of what is wrong with Obama. Another oversimplification, but as he appeared a moderate in the debates many voters are deceived. He will lose in his home state which is most telling.