Middle East

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Prior to WWII we were strongly isolationist as a country. the attack in Pearl Harbor changed that. As the war concluded it became obvious that the Soviet Union was becoming a threat to Western countries. Some of our generals proposed war to destroy that threat.
As an alternative, John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Sec. of State established the "containment" plan to surround the Soviet Union with military bases in countries friendly to us. This was the beginning of the cold war. We now have military bases in over fifty countries.

I take it you are not for this policy? Then would you have supported the other alternative - war with the Soviet Union? Or to just ignore the problem?

Originally Posted by randolph

The revolution in Egypt is bound to have major effect on our policies. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of our words. And the fragility of our client states. It's about time we really support Democracy not just empty rhetoric.

For now the revolution in Egypt has brought in military rule. Their other alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt either option is a democracy. Remember the Lesson of Barack: Change isn't always good.

If the protests in Libya succeed they will almost certainly change their government for the better.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I take it you are not for this policy? Then would you have supported the other alternative - war with the Soviet Union? Or to just ignore the problem?

For now the revolution in Egypt has brought in military rule. Their other alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt either option is a democracy. Remember the Lesson of Barack: Change isn't always good.

If the protests in Libya succeed they will almost certainly change their government for the better.

We shoulda nuked them when we had the chance (not really). The containment worked and set the stage for the cold war. Was there an alternative? With Stalin in power, I doubt it. Russia was held together with brute force and massive insane purges of millions of Russians. Also, paranoia regarding the U.S.

We are entering a period of extreme uncertainty. Africa and the Middle East are coming unglued. People want freedom and equal rights. Can they get it or will one despot be replaced with another? It depends a lot on whether leaders emerge from the mob. The uprisings seem to consist primarily young people that are savvy on communicating and want a secular democratic government, i.e. a western style government. They are not a bunch of religious fanatics(thank God). Military rule may provide temporary control and stability. However, it is very tempting for generals to hang on to power. It is essential that there is joint civilian military leadership during the transition to full civilian leadership.
The critical question is the Western democracies are up to the task of helping these countries make the transition? History is not promising in this regard.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

We shoulda nuked them when we had the chance (not really). The containment worked and set the stage for the cold war. Was there an alternative? With Stalin in power, I doubt it. Russia was held together with brute force and massive insane purges of millions of Russians. Also, paranoia regarding the U.S.

Well you go on and on about the "military industrial complex" and here you're saying there wasn't really any other way.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by randolph

We shoulda nuked them when we had the chance (not really). The containment worked and set the stage for the cold war. Was there an alternative? With Stalin in power, I doubt it. Russia was held together with brute force and massive insane purges of millions of Russians. Also, paranoia regarding the U.S.

.

Hindsight is always 20-20. I'm so pleased that six months ago Hillary said the mis-east countries were so stable.
Whatever comes from the mid-east, it will not be to our favor.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Hindsight is always 20-20. I'm so pleased that six months ago Hillary said the mis-east countries were so stable.
Whatever comes from the mid-east, it will not be to our favor.

Hindsite is better than foresite by a damnsite

The impression I have is that the Obama administration is in a state of shock. Fifty years of foreign policy is going down the drain and they(we) have no idea what to do about it.
Oh wait, we just approved 50 billion for refueling planes to feed strike fighters. Yes indeed this will help us against our enemies. Err, lets see, what enemies will strike fighters protect us against? Oh, well we will think of somebody, just give us a little time.

[TracyCoxx]

While the UN is about to condemn Qaddafi, the UN's Human Rights Council is about to release a report praising Lybia's human rights record.

This is while Lybia's citizens risk death to protest against their ruler and try to over throw him.

This speaks volumes about the UN's legitimacy.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

While the UN is about to condemn Qaddafi, the UN's Human Rights Council is about to release a report praising Lybia's human rights record.

This is while Lybia's citizens risk death to protest against their ruler and try to over throw him.

This speaks volumes about the UN's legitimacy.

The revelations coming out of Libya show how clueless the UN was regarding it's human rights. We need to take out Gaddafi immediately before he causes any more damage.

[Buddy]

The UN does have legitimate purpose, like bringing in the "Good" drugs through diplomat pouches. Throughout History, WAR is the way you get things done, and without war, world peace is a poker game with 5200000cards. This is a great opportunity to take Ghadaffi out, and I think you'll see a no fly zone put on Labia{sic} if the UN palms get greased.
History is a product of the glands, don't sweat it. Ignore this message.