Foreign Policy


Well-Known Member
May 30, 2007
My ideas seem to be going over everybody's heads because of the reasonably cynical view we have of Iraq/Iran and the ME. It seems as though we are suggesting we make moves without even attempting proper diplomacy procedures (aimed at reconciliation). No matter how impossible it seems, attempts are mandatory. Communication is the only means towards resolution. We can't avoid such talks because we are aghast, for this will only prolong the problem itself. We are going to have to swallow our pride and talk to opposing forces respectfully. President of Iran and Mughtada Al Sadr are two leaders that we could talk to. Hitler-memories make us skeptical, so we need to approach peace talks in a different, more effective manner. Our current government seems incapable of doing this, for their reputations have broken any potential agreements.

ME is afraid they are not going to benefit from our invasion, therefore it is our duty to convince them that they will, or else they will rebel our presence.

People say these people are all sacrificial maniacs as thought they are speaking on behalf of the whole ME. Maybe part of the reason opposing forces attacked US was because they were so upset that the world was starting to show signs of unipolarity, revealing no intentions towards equalizing power. As a result, confused rebels devised a scheme that sought to change this, thus diffusing power. Suicide-bombing, to them, probably seemed/seems to be the only effective way of doing so,therefore, those in charge brainwashed others into sacrificing themselves for the good of Islam.

As for Iran's president... if he believes Mahdi is involved in a future salvation when the world is utterly rock-bottom decadent, who are we to belittle this? Maybe we should find someone with equally lucid spiritual experience to discuss this with him in an attempt to open each others minds to a universe beyond this world that is not set in hierarchy, but purposed in the end of day's to bring salvation. If we realized that "together we are the messiah," maybe then we could set aside our differences. Regardless, we shouldn't speak lowly of Allah/God. We should, however, dispute flawed beliefs that promote hatred, violence and hastening the process of Revelation, for this is against the will of God. Although we condemn Admadinajad for fueling such hateful convictions, there are Americans, especially secret societies that seek to do the same in an attempt to resurrect Jesus.

"They kill women and children for Allah."

Well they (those guilty of such terrifying crimes) are brainwashed and it should be in our policy to rehabilitate their minds, not kill them and torture them so as to make the situation worse. It is only just to kill when it is truly in defense of the innocent. Finding a safe zone for these people should be part of the strategy in which we should discuss with Al Maliki.

Equally closed-minds debilitate the peace-making process.

Demeaning or denouncing all of our current adversaries on the basis of belief is disrespectful and does nothing for the common good. This is partially what is meant by separation of church and state. (church being separate of course from spirituality and the will of God)

No, there is no separation of church and state in these religious states, but there is here and if we desire to change erroneous policy, the flaws in our policy cannot be understated and guised, nor can their policy be ignored and neglected. Regardless of illicit policies, we must show respect, otherwise change will be restrained by our disdain as well as theirs.

"Radical Islam has proven that they are unable or unwilling to talk about peace. They are simply the scum of the earth."

This outlook gets us no where, for it views diplomacy as impossibility even when allied with the current military pressure already in place. Loss to Islam is loss to humanity as well. The ultimate test of humanity is to stand together and overcome sin (thus overcoming sickness and death, bringing forth the true presence of God); the problem is, various religious methods and systems yield nothing close to this unity, for such systems or methods have the tendency to provoke contention in the wide diversity of beliefs separate to the one fueling the chosen policy. We need to talk about this together, acknowledging that progression requires unity with warring convictions.

Zachary Scott McBride