Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My newest column (foreign policy)
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1699271" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Back to the column, I agree with the general premise, but be careful on treading a line into hyperbole. I don't think hypocrisy defines US policy, but it undermines it. Likewise, avoid meiosis such as using quotation marks around "defense". An action by a nation in defense of it's interests may be a poor method to accomplish it's goals, but that doesn't mean it's not a defense action. With Edmund Burke firmly in mind, I'd prefer that we engage rogue nations with political dialogue more and fall back on military intervention less. Brinksmanship leads to armed conflict far more often than necessary. </p><p></p><p>I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" diplomacy to our current style. We no longer "Speak softly and carry a big stick". We speak harshly and brashly, while simultaneously swinging big sticks in multiple directions. This actually threatens U.S. hegemony far more than it reinforces it. They already know we have the biggest sticks on the planet. We shouldn't have to use them so frequently if our foreign policies are sound. Many people would point to Reagan as the last president with sound foreign policy, but that's just because he hastened the fall of the Russian empire on the global stage. In fact, it was rather myopic and contained several gaffes that would cause problems down the road. </p><p></p><p>Nixon is often regarded as one of the better foreign policy presidents. He ended US involvement in the Vietnam war (though many didn't like how it ended), significantly improved relations with China (though in hindsight, that might not have been a good thing for the U.S.), initiated nuclear arms reduction treaties under SALT I, etc. Nixon told the Soviets: While he supported many of the ideals Kennedy held on the international front, I think he realized that we couldn't realistically afford to "“pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”, at least not across the entire globe. We simply cannot control global economies or the humanity of all nations. We can't enforce liberty for the whole world. We'd be better off partnering with other nations on commonly held views and attempt to contain the regional influence of rogue nations, through diplomacy and strong partnerships. </p><p></p><p>As far as Iran and their nuclear ambitions, of course we don't want them to acquire that capability and we should do what we can to prevent it. The question begs "at what cost" though? We've been in sustained conflict with Iran since the Carter administration. Our positions are entrenched, fortified and heavily defended. Have they worked? Can we simply waltz in there with a military strike without destabilizing the entire region? Do we risk reigniting the Cold War with Russia over it? Or worse yet, a hot war?</p><p></p><p>People booing Ron Paul for saying we should look at things from Iran's side is short sighted. We don't have to agree with their views, but we damn sure better understand them! Engaging in diplomacy and conflict from a position of ignorance is a recipie for failure. I probably have a unique view on this topic among those on this board. You were looking for opinions from servicemen, well I'm one of the few that's been in combat action against Iran. I was on the USS Samuel B. Roberts two days before it hit the mine in the Persian Gulf and I was directly involved in Operation Praying Mantis. </p><p></p><p>I'm opposed to initiating attacks on other nations without provocation. I think actionable provocation should be determined on a case by case basis, but that it should involve direct harm to the United States or <u>unprovoked</u> direct harm to an ally. I am against preemptory strikes based on a perceived threat. I'd prefer that we speak softly to them, all the while holding the big stick at the ready, should it become necessary.</p><p></p><p>Back to your column again, I think it would benefit from some background, history and sourcing in order to prompt the reader to educate themselves. Your column in this case would tend to reinforce the opinion of someone already predisposed to agree with your position. I doubt it would help sway the unsure unless they have little control over their thoughts. Hope this helps.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1699271, member: 1132"] Back to the column, I agree with the general premise, but be careful on treading a line into hyperbole. I don't think hypocrisy defines US policy, but it undermines it. Likewise, avoid meiosis such as using quotation marks around "defense". An action by a nation in defense of it's interests may be a poor method to accomplish it's goals, but that doesn't mean it's not a defense action. With Edmund Burke firmly in mind, I'd prefer that we engage rogue nations with political dialogue more and fall back on military intervention less. Brinksmanship leads to armed conflict far more often than necessary. I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" diplomacy to our current style. We no longer "Speak softly and carry a big stick". We speak harshly and brashly, while simultaneously swinging big sticks in multiple directions. This actually threatens U.S. hegemony far more than it reinforces it. They already know we have the biggest sticks on the planet. We shouldn't have to use them so frequently if our foreign policies are sound. Many people would point to Reagan as the last president with sound foreign policy, but that's just because he hastened the fall of the Russian empire on the global stage. In fact, it was rather myopic and contained several gaffes that would cause problems down the road. Nixon is often regarded as one of the better foreign policy presidents. He ended US involvement in the Vietnam war (though many didn't like how it ended), significantly improved relations with China (though in hindsight, that might not have been a good thing for the U.S.), initiated nuclear arms reduction treaties under SALT I, etc. Nixon told the Soviets: While he supported many of the ideals Kennedy held on the international front, I think he realized that we couldn't realistically afford to "“pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”, at least not across the entire globe. We simply cannot control global economies or the humanity of all nations. We can't enforce liberty for the whole world. We'd be better off partnering with other nations on commonly held views and attempt to contain the regional influence of rogue nations, through diplomacy and strong partnerships. As far as Iran and their nuclear ambitions, of course we don't want them to acquire that capability and we should do what we can to prevent it. The question begs "at what cost" though? We've been in sustained conflict with Iran since the Carter administration. Our positions are entrenched, fortified and heavily defended. Have they worked? Can we simply waltz in there with a military strike without destabilizing the entire region? Do we risk reigniting the Cold War with Russia over it? Or worse yet, a hot war? People booing Ron Paul for saying we should look at things from Iran's side is short sighted. We don't have to agree with their views, but we damn sure better understand them! Engaging in diplomacy and conflict from a position of ignorance is a recipie for failure. I probably have a unique view on this topic among those on this board. You were looking for opinions from servicemen, well I'm one of the few that's been in combat action against Iran. I was on the USS Samuel B. Roberts two days before it hit the mine in the Persian Gulf and I was directly involved in Operation Praying Mantis. I'm opposed to initiating attacks on other nations without provocation. I think actionable provocation should be determined on a case by case basis, but that it should involve direct harm to the United States or [U]unprovoked[/U] direct harm to an ally. I am against preemptory strikes based on a perceived threat. I'd prefer that we speak softly to them, all the while holding the big stick at the ready, should it become necessary. Back to your column again, I think it would benefit from some background, history and sourcing in order to prompt the reader to educate themselves. Your column in this case would tend to reinforce the opinion of someone already predisposed to agree with your position. I doubt it would help sway the unsure unless they have little control over their thoughts. Hope this helps. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My newest column (foreign policy)
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom