Foreign Policy Disaster

[Popeye]

It is hawkish to live up security assurances we make? Hawkish to protect our allies? Did I call for an invasion anywhere? Not that you can cite.

If this makes me hawkish, then I am hawkish.

Would one of those allies that you feel there is such a dire need to protect, be Israel? Because really, when it gets down to it, much of the problem with Iran begins and ends right there.

 

[BigRob]

No, but a little diplomacy and common sense goes a long way...and my common sense tells me that we cannot continue to be the policemen of the world...forget the political arguments...it's draining our resources.

This is garbage. The benefits the United States gets from being the world leader far outweigh the costs.

And anyway, who cares how we "look" to the Iranians?

Well, the Iranians for one. Aside from that, our allies around the world will notice that we are now bailing on Eastern Europe, and will hardly rely on the US for security in the future. This most likely results in more nations pursuing nuclear weapons. It has shown the US has a lack of resolve, and for deterrence to work, you have to maintain a facade of resolve.

You think China is going to sit by and not retake Taiwan if they think we will not react? Caving on this gives them a signal that we are certainly willing to cave.

 

[BigRob]

Would one of those allies that you feel there is such a dire need to protect, be Israel? Because really, when it gets down to it, much of the problem with Iran begins and ends right there.

If we want to maintain hegemony, we have to care about rouge states and threats everywhere. Russia, as an emerging peer competitor, needs to be checked. Giving away Eastern Europe to them hardly does this.

In this case, the ally that we were protecting was Europe. There are other missile defense systems already in place in Israel.

Further, Israel is not the problem with Iran, the problem with Iran is proliferation.

 

[BigRob]

No, the point was that Obama was going to use diplomacy instead of force....that's certainly preferable. Anyway Iran, presently has no nuclear weapon...let me quote from the article:



Why the need to present some sort of tough front to the Iranians?...They are no threat..plenty of time for a diplomatic approach.

You are correct, Iran has no weapon. I invite you to examine the timeline of the known Iranian nuclear program however. Diplomacy is going nowhere in this case, read the timeline, Iranian plays the same game over and over again simply buying time to put the missile capability with the nuclear capability.

 

[Popeye]

Yes the shield is designed to protect against threats like North Korea and Iran. What is at stake is our credibility. If we cave now, we all but cede eastern Europe back to Russia, and it puts our security assurances under serious doubt. Once this occurs, this is a major proliferation problem.

Sure.."Major proliferation" is going to occur unless we go around threatening every one we don't approve of (like the bully we have been)...because after all, in the eyes of the hawks, we are the rightful judge, jury and executioner of the entire world.

People are tired of that kind of talk...and yeah, if you think that way, looking for any excuse to impose our will..you're a hawk.

 

[BigRob]

Sure.."Major proliferation" is going to occur unless we go around threatening every one we don't approve of (like the bully we have been)...because after all, in the eyes of the hawks, we are the rightful judge, jury and executioner of the entire world.

People are tired of that kind of talk...and yeah, if you think that way, looking for any excuse to impose our will..you're a hawk.

Just to make you aware, after the Iranian program was revealed the Egyptian foreign minister stated to the United States if one more nation went nuclear in the region, they would be forced to follow.

Saudi Arabia is looking to restart a nuclear program as well since the Iranian announcement. Why might you ask? Because regional hegemony is more important than Israel. A nuclear armed Iran is a major proliferation issue, not to mention the complete invalidation of the NPT should Iran test. You should examine a list of nations currently making moves toward nuclear programs. You would be surprised.

Trying to ensure the security of US interests abroad is hardly hawkish.

 

[Popeye]

You are correct, Iran has no weapon. I invite you to examine the timeline of the known Iranian nuclear program however. Diplomacy is going nowhere in this case, read the timeline, Iranian plays the same game over and over again simply buying time to put the missile capability with the nuclear capability.

Is this another doomsday scenario Rob? Mean old Iran is going (someday) to acquire nuclear weapons and, being the rotten irresponsible country the right assures us they are (we can only trust Israel in ME of course), will immediately commence to using them.

Why, if Israel is allowed to possess nukes, can't Iran?...and what gives us the right to dictate nuclear policy to the entire world? Remember, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war time is the good old trustworthy US.

 

[BigRob]

Is this another doomsday scenario Rob? Mean old Iran is going (someday) to acquire nuclear weapons and, being the rotten irresponsible country the right assures us they are (we can only trust Israel in ME of course), will immediately commence to using them.

No, in fact I doubt they would use them. Again, it is a proliferation issue.

Why, if Israel is allowed to possess nukes, can't Iran?...and what gives us the right to dictate nuclear policy to the entire world? Remember, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war time is the good old trustworthy US.

Because Iran signed the NPT. (Israel never did) I thought you believed countries should follow treaties they sign and ratify? Further, yet again, a nuclear Iran is a PROLIFERATION issue, as well stated quite bluntly to us by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you want the Saudi's to have a nuke, but rational people do not. It will be a Pakistan scenario all over again. A nuclear nation implodes, releasing nuclear warheads and technology to the highest bidder. Bad scenario all around. However, sadly, more and more likely.

 

[Popeye]

Because Iran signed the NPT. (Israel never did) I thought you believed countries should follow treaties they sign and ratify? Further, yet again, a nuclear Iran is a PROLIFERATION issue, as well stated quite bluntly to us by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you want the Saudi's to have a nuke, but rational people do not. It will be a Pakistan scenario all over again. A nuclear nation implodes, releasing nuclear warheads and technology to the highest bidder. Bad scenario all around. However, sadly, more and more likely.

First off, the NPT signing is just an excuse...similar to the excuse used to invade Iraq..the violation of a couple UN Resolutions...conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel has violated somewhere in the neighbor of 400 resolutions...

What do you mean "rational" people don't want the Saudi's to have a nuke? Who decides what countries have reached the "rational" threshold, so as to be granted the right to possess nukes? I would suggest that Israel's recent actions in Gaza, and the use of white phosphorous on civilians, sure doesn't seem "rational"...yet we encourage them to stockpile nuclear weapons.

I ask again.. what gives us the right to dictate nuclear policy to the entire world?

 

[BigRob]

First off, the NPT signing is just an excuse...similar to the excuse used to invade Iraq..the violation of a couple UN Resolutions...conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel has violated somewhere in the neighbor of 400 resolutions...

An excuse for what? Preventing proliferation? So from now on if I say the Geneva Conventions are just an "excuse", you will get off Bush's back?

What do you mean "rational" people don't want the Saudi's to have a nuke? Who decides what countries have reached the "rational" threshold, so as to be granted the right to possess nukes? I would suggest that Israel's recent actions in Gaza, and the use of white phosphorous on civilians, sure doesn't seem "rational"...yet we encourage them to stockpile nuclear weapons.

Rational in a Western perspective is what I mean. Yes, the Iranian program is rational from their point of view, but that hardly makes it any less of a proliferation, and security concern. Maybe you want a hated monarchy to stockpile weapons in a country that is the center of Wahabbism. (Saudi Arabia) I don't. Look no further than the Pakistani problem to see some serious downfalls to that plan.

Further, Israel's action is Gaza has nothing to do with proliferation, regardless of your views on their actions.

I ask again.. what gives us the right to dictate nuclear policy to the entire world?

If we are "dictating policy" we sure are not doing a good job, since we are being ignored.

You dismiss the NPT, but often speak out in favor of international law. You cannot have it both ways. The reason Iran getting a bomb is so terrible is as I have stated, it is a proliferation issue. It is made worse by the fact that we are committing suicide with our credibility during this process.

 

[BigRob]

For all those who still think Obama's letter was a good idea.

We have lost the 3rd site in Europe, permanently, and gotten nothing in return. Poland agreed to allow in interceptors (and we gave them a lot for it), but the Czech Republic does not really want sites in their territory.

When it comes up to a vote in the Czech Republic, it will fail, as Obama has just signaled to the world we do not really care about this site. So, why on Earth would a Czech government go along with this policy, when Washington tells them they do not even want it?

What does this mean?

1) The 3rd site is dead.
2) Russia gets exactly what it wanted, missile defense out of the area, and has to do nothing for it.
3) US credibility is damaged.
4) Iran continues to pursue a weapons program unchecked.

Joe Biden (so-called foreign policy expert) sure did a hell of a job on this one. Let us hope that Obama did this one on his own, which might be worse, since he just gave Russia everything they wanted for free. Great job.

 

[Andy]

First off, the NPT signing is just an excuse...similar to the excuse used to invade Iraq..the violation of a couple UN Resolutions...conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel has violated somewhere in the neighbor of 400 resolutions...

So we should be concerned about Israel violating UN resolutions, but not other countries? Sounds like a double standard to me.

What do you mean "rational" people don't want the Saudi's to have a nuke? Who decides what countries have reached the "rational" threshold, so as to be granted the right to possess nukes? I would suggest that Israel's recent actions in Gaza, and the use of white phosphorous on civilians, sure doesn't seem "rational"...yet we encourage them to stockpile nuclear weapons.

Those "civilians" are openly supporting, if not participated, in attacks on Israeli civilians. Why is one group of civilians important to you, while another group is not?

I ask again.. what gives us the right to dictate nuclear policy to the entire world?

Yeah, I can see how well we are 'dictating' policy.

 

[BigRob]

So we should be concerned about Israel violating UN resolutions, but not other countries? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Not to mention Israel ignores GA Resolutions which are not worth the paper they are printed on. Security Council Resolutions are the binding ones.