http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/letter-to-democrats-on-u_b_45075.html
Of a rather long list of foreign policy issues requiring close attention, none seems more urgent than the United States' relation to Russia.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
This is political, EdEKit, and belongs in the Political Forum...and you know it.
SASSY, LOOK AT THE HEADING OF THIS THREAD. IT IS IN POLITICS. WHY DON'T YOU GET YOURSELF A GOOD PAIR OF GLASSES?quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
This is political, EdEKit, and belongs in the Political Forum...and you know it.
At the moment the first page of the News Forum has four articles posted by me, this forum has 7. I DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, AND FIND YOUR WHINING TO BE AN IRRITATION. There are moderators on this forum. I will accept their decisions.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
This is political, EdEKit, and belongs in the Political Forum...and you know it.
EdEKit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/letter-to-democrats-on-u_b_45075.html
Of a rather long list of foreign policy issues requiring close attention, none seems more urgent than the United States' relation to Russia.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Great analysis from Hart. Shows he was always presidential material. A lot better then what we have seen.
I disagree with his praise of Jean Kirkpatrick but that's another issue. His point was we can still work with Russia in not only strengthen our own economic interests but are political interests and world peace.
It's no surprise to see the Bush administration be so aggressive and arrogant but usually the Council on Foreign Relations is more practical, but not always. They are the US wealthy and elite's that shape US policies to fit their interests.
Good article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/letter-to-democrats-on-u_b_45075.html
Of a rather long list of foreign policy issues requiring close attention, none seems more urgent than the United States' relation to Russia.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Great analysis from Hart. Shows he was always presidential material. A lot better then what we have seen.
I disagree with his praise of Jean Kirkpatrick but that's another issue. His point was we can still work with Russia in not only strengthen our own economic interests but are political interests and world peace.
It's no surprise to see the Bush administration be so aggressive and arrogant but usually the Council on Foreign Relations is more practical, but not always. They are the US wealthy and elite's that shape US policies to fit their interests.
Good article
Pogo, Among my personal friends is a Hungarian Ex Pat who has retired from a career in high level international relations in the Private sector. Let us call this man XN. I will put you in contact with him through a voice/video chat program if you wish, but I am not going to expose his identity beyond that.quote:Originally posted by Pogo142:
EdEKit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/letter-to-democrats-on-u_b_45075.html
Of a rather long list of foreign policy issues requiring close attention, none seems more urgent than the United States' relation to Russia.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Great analysis from Hart. Shows he was always presidential material. A lot better then what we have seen.
I disagree with his praise of Jean Kirkpatrick but that's another issue. His point was we can still work with Russia in not only strengthen our own economic interests but are political interests and world peace.
It's no surprise to see the Bush administration be so aggressive and arrogant but usually the Council on Foreign Relations is more practical, but not always. They are the US wealthy and elite's that shape US policies to fit their interests.
Good article
I asked him to explain the relationship between the USA and Russia in the Middle East, and to help me better understand Hart's article.
The Cold war was an economic war. The objective was to isolate the Soviet, Communist, economy from world markets. XN tells me that in the Middle East, Arabia, Persia, Pakistan and India the isolation was less effective than it was in Europe, Africa, South America and the Far East.
Cuba was a Soviet Foothold in the Western Hemisphere that Kennedy effectively kept from becoming a Soviet Military base, but was aligned economically with the Soviets.
Afghanistan resisted, with military action, Soviet occupation. They are now resisting American Occupation. The Soviets did not attempt a political or military takeover in Iran, Iraq, or Lebanon. Those countries were politically and economically aligned with Europe and the United States.
Soviet influence was strong, but not overwhelming in Syria.
From sources other than XN, Notably "Janes Weekly" Der Speigle, and Le Mond, I have learned that Russia is providing a Nuclear Umbrella for Syria, which indirectly aligned Lebanon with Russia through Syria during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Iran is now being driven, according to XN, into alignment with Russia. The Iranian government is buying technology and weapons platforms from Russian suppliers.
Russian Natural Gas and petroleum products are supplying much of Europe. Russia has HUGE oil reserves extending from the Chechneya region of the Caspian sea all the way to the Arctic Ocean. Those resources are shipping to China and Japan in limited quantity through the Mediterranean.
This routing requires the tankers to travel from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean and through the Suez Canal to reach the Indian Ocean and then China.
A secure pipeline, through either Iran or Afghanistan would cut nearly 6 days off the travel time, and would reduce shipping costs. This reduction in shipping costs would increase Russian Profit, and strengthen the Russian Economy.
Much of the oil production in Alaska is exported to China Japan and Korea. Russian oil competes with this oil.
There are other economic sectors involved, but Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya are single resource economies. They are oil producers.
The Constant assertion that the War in Iraq is not about oil is deliberately misleading. It is absolutely about oil, because oil is the driving force for most if not all other economic sectors. All war is about economics. Not some war, ALL WAR. If a nation is trying to expand its territory, it is about the economic resource called LAND. That is colonization. The Indian Wars in North America were about colonization. South America was not "colonized" it was plundered of gold, but the invaders did not make new territory their priority. We don't have any reason to colonize the Middle East, though Israel is effectively a colony of Europe, or, as Australia was for England, a Prison Colony where undesirable are sent. I know that the Israeli immigrants are going there voluntarily, but they are going there because they have faced terrible consequences in Europe. The Holocaust was real.
The issues are all tied together. The Israel Palestine conflict is about colonization. Israel is trying to expand it's territory, drive out the indigenous people, and settle the land with Jewish immigrants from Europe and North America.
Stop discrimination against Jews in Europe, the United States and Canada. You end the pressure to colonize in the Middle East. Maintain the discrimination, you maintain the pressure. Defend the Colony of Israel and you create a flash point in the Middle East. Create a flash point in the Middle East and you have an emotional issue for war.
Pay attention to the propaganda. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So we are told. Then we are told we must destroy Iran so we have a place OUR Jews can go so they are out of our banking system. Israel/Palestine becomes the Causus Belli for an invasion or regime change in Iran.
The real causus belli is the oil in Iran, and the transport route from the Caspian to the Gulf of Arabia to China for RUSSIAN oil.
The Cold war was an economic war. The objective was to isolate the Soviet, Communist, economy from world markets. XN tells me that in the Middle East, Arabia, Persia, Pakistan and India the isolation was less effective than it was in Europe, Africa, South America and the Far East.
Cuba was a Soviet Foothold in the Western Hemisphere that Kennedy effectively kept from becoming a Soviet Military base, but was aligned economically with the Soviets.
Afghanistan resisted, with military action, Soviet occupation. They are now resisting American Occupation. The Soviets did not attempt a political or military takeover in Iran, Iraq, or Lebanon. Those countries were politically and economically aligned with Europe and the United States.
Soviet influence was strong, but not overwhelming in Syria.
From sources other than XN, Notably "Janes Weekly" Der Speigle, and Le Mond, I have learned that Russia is providing a Nuclear Umbrella for Syria, which indirectly aligned Lebanon with Russia through Syria during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Iran is now being driven, according to XN, into alignment with Russia. The Iranian government is buying technology and weapons platforms from Russian suppliers.
Russian Natural Gas and petroleum products are supplying much of Europe. Russia has HUGE oil reserves extending from the Chechneya region of the Caspian sea all the way to the Arctic Ocean. Those resources are shipping to China and Japan in limited quantity through the Mediterranean.
This routing requires the tankers to travel from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean and through the Suez Canal to reach the Indian Ocean and then China.
A secure pipeline, through either Iran or Afghanistan would cut nearly 6 days off the travel time, and would reduce shipping costs. This reduction in shipping costs would increase Russian Profit, and strengthen the Russian Economy.
Much of the oil production in Alaska is exported to China Japan and Korea. Russian oil competes with this oil.
There are other economic sectors involved, but Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya are single resource economies. They are oil producers.
The Constant assertion that the War in Iraq is not about oil is deliberately misleading. It is absolutely about oil, because oil is the driving force for most if not all other economic sectors. All war is about economics. Not some war, ALL WAR. If a nation is trying to expand its territory, it is about the economic resource called LAND. That is colonization. The Indian Wars in North America were about colonization. South America was not "colonized" it was plundered of gold, but the invaders did not make new territory their priority. We don't have any reason to colonize the Middle East, though Israel is effectively a colony of Europe, or, as Australia was for England, a Prison Colony where undesirable are sent. I know that the Israeli immigrants are going there voluntarily, but they are going there because they have faced terrible consequences in Europe. The Holocaust was real.
The issues are all tied together. The Israel Palestine conflict is about colonization. Israel is trying to expand it's territory, drive out the indigenous people, and settle the land with Jewish immigrants from Europe and North America.
Stop discrimination against Jews in Europe, the United States and Canada. You end the pressure to colonize in the Middle East. Maintain the discrimination, you maintain the pressure. Defend the Colony of Israel and you create a flash point in the Middle East. Create a flash point in the Middle East and you have an emotional issue for war.
Pay attention to the propaganda. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So we are told. Then we are told we must destroy Iran so we have a place OUR Jews can go so they are out of our banking system. Israel/Palestine becomes the Causus Belli for an invasion or regime change in Iran.
The real causus belli is the oil in Iran, and the transport route from the Caspian to the Gulf of Arabia to China for RUSSIAN oil.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree the Cold War divided the world between super powers and had many different levels playing out. And all wars are always about economic interests, resources and empires. The cold war was fought out in the 3rd world where the resources are that we want. US imperialism has been on the march since the country was founded. Today it's Corporate Globalization enforced by the Iron Fist of US militarism.
The wars in the Mideast are for control of the region and the oil. Countries are looking for sources to feed growing economies. US also has it's sites on South America and Africa. Control the oil and you control the world.
Israel was always a colonial movement originally backed by the British to undermine the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region before the first world war. The Zionists movement was another colonial land grab. The majority of the Jewish people believe in the country which gives it idealistic purpose and strength but it was a land grab. They continue to ethnically cleanse the land of it's inhabitants, the Palestinian people, as they steal more land.
US uses Israel as a "proxy army" to protect it's interests in the region. It is a Western colony.
It's not so much that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map" as it is they, as well as many Palestinians, westerns and even some Jews, don't recognize the right of the UN, to give land that the Palestinians have been the majority people in since the 7th century, to other Europeans.
They are not calling for the extermination of the Jews but the end of the "Jewish State" in Palestine and the creation of one country with equal rights for all.
The Arab League once again reaffirmed it's offer of peace with Israel if it will abide by international law and withdraw from the land they stole in their 1967 invasion and allow the war refugees their legal right to return to their homes in Israel.
As far as Hart's letter about the foolishness of reviving the cold war it could be for many reasons. The idea that Bush wants to place missiles and our "defensive shield", in countries like Poland and other former Soviet Bloc countries is a strategy of encirclement. We are also trying to do the same to China.
These wars are not necessary but I am reminded of former CIA agent John Stockwell's Book, "In Search of Enemies" where he points out, as others have also, that the US is a war based economy and always needs enemies to feed military spending. The military Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of is in place and dictating policy. It is not in the interests of the American people.
Cuba was a Soviet Foothold in the Western Hemisphere that Kennedy effectively kept from becoming a Soviet Military base, but was aligned economically with the Soviets.
Afghanistan resisted, with military action, Soviet occupation. They are now resisting American Occupation. The Soviets did not attempt a political or military takeover in Iran, Iraq, or Lebanon. Those countries were politically and economically aligned with Europe and the United States.
Soviet influence was strong, but not overwhelming in Syria.
From sources other than XN, Notably "Janes Weekly" Der Speigle, and Le Mond, I have learned that Russia is providing a Nuclear Umbrella for Syria, which indirectly aligned Lebanon with Russia through Syria during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Iran is now being driven, according to XN, into alignment with Russia. The Iranian government is buying technology and weapons platforms from Russian suppliers.
Russian Natural Gas and petroleum products are supplying much of Europe. Russia has HUGE oil reserves extending from the Chechneya region of the Caspian sea all the way to the Arctic Ocean. Those resources are shipping to China and Japan in limited quantity through the Mediterranean.
This routing requires the tankers to travel from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean and through the Suez Canal to reach the Indian Ocean and then China.
A secure pipeline, through either Iran or Afghanistan would cut nearly 6 days off the travel time, and would reduce shipping costs. This reduction in shipping costs would increase Russian Profit, and strengthen the Russian Economy.
Much of the oil production in Alaska is exported to China Japan and Korea. Russian oil competes with this oil.
There are other economic sectors involved, but Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya are single resource economies. They are oil producers.
The Constant assertion that the War in Iraq is not about oil is deliberately misleading. It is absolutely about oil, because oil is the driving force for most if not all other economic sectors. All war is about economics. Not some war, ALL WAR. If a nation is trying to expand its territory, it is about the economic resource called LAND. That is colonization. The Indian Wars in North America were about colonization. South America was not "colonized" it was plundered of gold, but the invaders did not make new territory their priority. We don't have any reason to colonize the Middle East, though Israel is effectively a colony of Europe, or, as Australia was for England, a Prison Colony where undesirable are sent. I know that the Israeli immigrants are going there voluntarily, but they are going there because they have faced terrible consequences in Europe. The Holocaust was real.
The issues are all tied together. The Israel Palestine conflict is about colonization. Israel is trying to expand it's territory, drive out the indigenous people, and settle the land with Jewish immigrants from Europe and North America.
Stop discrimination against Jews in Europe, the United States and Canada. You end the pressure to colonize in the Middle East. Maintain the discrimination, you maintain the pressure. Defend the Colony of Israel and you create a flash point in the Middle East. Create a flash point in the Middle East and you have an emotional issue for war.
Pay attention to the propaganda. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So we are told. Then we are told we must destroy Iran so we have a place OUR Jews can go so they are out of our banking system. Israel/Palestine becomes the Causus Belli for an invasion or regime change in Iran.
The real causus belli is the oil in Iran, and the transport route from the Caspian to the Gulf of Arabia to China for RUSSIAN oil.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree the Cold War divided the world between super powers and had many different levels playing out. And all wars are always about economic interests, resources and empires. The cold war was fought out in the 3rd world where the resources are that we want. US imperialism has been on the march since the country was founded. Today it's Corporate Globalization enforced by the Iron Fist of US militarism.
The wars in the Mideast are for control of the region and the oil. Countries are looking for sources to feed growing economies. US also has it's sites on South America and Africa. Control the oil and you control the world.
Israel was always a colonial movement originally backed by the British to undermine the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region before the first world war. The Zionists movement was another colonial land grab. The majority of the Jewish people believe in the country which gives it idealistic purpose and strength but it was a land grab. They continue to ethnically cleanse the land of it's inhabitants, the Palestinian people, as they steal more land.
US uses Israel as a "proxy army" to protect it's interests in the region. It is a Western colony.
It's not so much that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map" as it is they, as well as many Palestinians, westerns and even some Jews, don't recognize the right of the UN, to give land that the Palestinians have been the majority people in since the 7th century, to other Europeans.
They are not calling for the extermination of the Jews but the end of the "Jewish State" in Palestine and the creation of one country with equal rights for all.
The Arab League once again reaffirmed it's offer of peace with Israel if it will abide by international law and withdraw from the land they stole in their 1967 invasion and allow the war refugees their legal right to return to their homes in Israel.
As far as Hart's letter about the foolishness of reviving the cold war it could be for many reasons. The idea that Bush wants to place missiles and our "defensive shield", in countries like Poland and other former Soviet Bloc countries is a strategy of encirclement. We are also trying to do the same to China.
These wars are not necessary but I am reminded of former CIA agent John Stockwell's Book, "In Search of Enemies" where he points out, as others have also, that the US is a war based economy and always needs enemies to feed military spending. The military Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of is in place and dictating policy. It is not in the interests of the American people.
In 1937 when FDR became president the US Air Corps had 125 airplanes. They were all built before 1925. There were two operating armored vehicles within the borders of the Unites States.
By December 7, 1941, the United States was Armed, and was providing arms and ammunition to the Europeans and Russians. THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT IN THE NATION'S HISTORY DID THAT. Today the conservatives say the Democrats are weak on defense.
To say the USA is the only superpower is to LIE.
Russis still has a nuclear arsenal, in working order, that is capable of ending all life on earth. Since about 1983 Russia has devoted most of its national budget to peaceful programs, but it has not prevented them from developing a guided, maneuverable Intercontinental missile. Or a high speed torpedo, or maintaining a standing army, navy and air force.
Cold war is like a hostage standoff. Both sides have guns, either side can start shooting, innocent people die if either sides does start shooting.
BUSH HAS CREATED THAT SITUATION IN THE WORLD AGAIN. He did not start the encirclement of Russia, but he did start the isolation back up.
Russia has a problem today because of their reduced military spending. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY IN THEIR TREASURY. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070409/63372832.html
By December 7, 1941, the United States was Armed, and was providing arms and ammunition to the Europeans and Russians. THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT IN THE NATION'S HISTORY DID THAT. Today the conservatives say the Democrats are weak on defense.
To say the USA is the only superpower is to LIE.
Russis still has a nuclear arsenal, in working order, that is capable of ending all life on earth. Since about 1983 Russia has devoted most of its national budget to peaceful programs, but it has not prevented them from developing a guided, maneuverable Intercontinental missile. Or a high speed torpedo, or maintaining a standing army, navy and air force.
Cold war is like a hostage standoff. Both sides have guns, either side can start shooting, innocent people die if either sides does start shooting.
BUSH HAS CREATED THAT SITUATION IN THE WORLD AGAIN. He did not start the encirclement of Russia, but he did start the isolation back up.
Russia has a problem today because of their reduced military spending. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY IN THEIR TREASURY. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070409/63372832.html
EdEKit :
In 1937 when FDR became president the US Air Corps had 125 airplanes. They were all built before 1925. There were two operating armored vehicles within the borders of the Unites States.
By December 7, 1941, the United States was Armed, and was providing arms and ammunition to the Europeans and Russians. THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT IN THE NATION'S HISTORY DID THAT. Today the conservatives say the Democrats are weak on defense.
To say the USA is the only superpower is to LIE.
Russia still has a nuclear arsenal, in working order, that is capable of ending all life on earth. Since about 1983 Russia has devoted most of its national budget to peaceful programs, but it has not prevented them from developing a guided, maneuverable Intercontinental missile. Or a high speed torpedo, or maintaining a standing army, navy and air force.
Cold war is like a hostage standoff. Both sides have guns, either side can start shooting, innocent people die if either sides does start shooting.
BUSH HAS CREATED THAT SITUATION IN THE WORLD AGAIN. He did not start the encirclement of Russia, but he did start the isolation back up.
Russia has a problem today because of their reduced military spending. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY IN THEIR TREASURY. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070409/63372832.html
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The democrats are always accused of being weak on defense because they tend to be more cautious of wasteful spending. Still, it is really just a ploy used by the republicans. Many democrats rubber stamp anything the the military wants.
I use to follow this a lot closer in the 80's and 90's and would get a lot of useful information on waste from the Center for Defense Information. An organization made up of retired military people who would expose how money was thrown away on weapons that were not needed and how corruption led to overcharging, cost over runs and weapons that didn't work. Center for Defense Information - (http://www.cdi.org/)
The generals are sometimes want every new "toy" but they are not always needed.
As you point out Russia reduced it's military spending but still remains a world power with the ability to deter attacks and invasions from other superpowers. Still, it's military superiority, which relies on an "Iron Fist" policy of military might, repression and atrocities has not been able to over come the rebels in the break away republic of Chechnya. just like our huge military did not prevent terrorist attacks in America or enable us to occupy and control Iraq.
I did follow events in Russia closer in the 1990's then I do now and at this I am preoccupied with other things to do research. It's an important subject we can debate at another time.
I know the changes in Russia have created an oligarcgy. I am not sure of the arguments of how to spend this suprlus is being debated in Russia and alternatives to the article you posted but would need to do a little research.
I know that our own infrastructure is crumbling and the needs of the American people in health care and a sound and stable economy are pushed aside to pay for our huge miliary budget. The majority of the money goes to the corporate military industrial complex, it's CEO's and shareholders. It is not an efficient way to spend money that could be more useful elsewhere. We could cut the military budget by a third to in half and still have an adequate defense. Our planes and missle do little agianst suicide bombers.
The war in Iraq is also costing us.
In 1937 when FDR became president the US Air Corps had 125 airplanes. They were all built before 1925. There were two operating armored vehicles within the borders of the Unites States.
By December 7, 1941, the United States was Armed, and was providing arms and ammunition to the Europeans and Russians. THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT IN THE NATION'S HISTORY DID THAT. Today the conservatives say the Democrats are weak on defense.
To say the USA is the only superpower is to LIE.
Russia still has a nuclear arsenal, in working order, that is capable of ending all life on earth. Since about 1983 Russia has devoted most of its national budget to peaceful programs, but it has not prevented them from developing a guided, maneuverable Intercontinental missile. Or a high speed torpedo, or maintaining a standing army, navy and air force.
Cold war is like a hostage standoff. Both sides have guns, either side can start shooting, innocent people die if either sides does start shooting.
BUSH HAS CREATED THAT SITUATION IN THE WORLD AGAIN. He did not start the encirclement of Russia, but he did start the isolation back up.
Russia has a problem today because of their reduced military spending. THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY IN THEIR TREASURY. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070409/63372832.html
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The democrats are always accused of being weak on defense because they tend to be more cautious of wasteful spending. Still, it is really just a ploy used by the republicans. Many democrats rubber stamp anything the the military wants.
I use to follow this a lot closer in the 80's and 90's and would get a lot of useful information on waste from the Center for Defense Information. An organization made up of retired military people who would expose how money was thrown away on weapons that were not needed and how corruption led to overcharging, cost over runs and weapons that didn't work. Center for Defense Information - (http://www.cdi.org/)
The generals are sometimes want every new "toy" but they are not always needed.
As you point out Russia reduced it's military spending but still remains a world power with the ability to deter attacks and invasions from other superpowers. Still, it's military superiority, which relies on an "Iron Fist" policy of military might, repression and atrocities has not been able to over come the rebels in the break away republic of Chechnya. just like our huge military did not prevent terrorist attacks in America or enable us to occupy and control Iraq.
I did follow events in Russia closer in the 1990's then I do now and at this I am preoccupied with other things to do research. It's an important subject we can debate at another time.
I know the changes in Russia have created an oligarcgy. I am not sure of the arguments of how to spend this suprlus is being debated in Russia and alternatives to the article you posted but would need to do a little research.
I know that our own infrastructure is crumbling and the needs of the American people in health care and a sound and stable economy are pushed aside to pay for our huge miliary budget. The majority of the money goes to the corporate military industrial complex, it's CEO's and shareholders. It is not an efficient way to spend money that could be more useful elsewhere. We could cut the military budget by a third to in half and still have an adequate defense. Our planes and missle do little agianst suicide bombers.
The war in Iraq is also costing us.
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
This is political, EdEKit, and belongs in the Political Forum...and you know it.
LOL! OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU HAVE PROVED YOUR BLINDNESS! This might explain why you think the far right is on your side.
pogo, your comments are always refreshing. I am driving at a problem I see in American Policy.
I am and have almost always been in favor of the US being able to deter or repel any attack. And I have been opposed to the US starting a war of aggression. I would have thought that the Vietnam experience would have demonstrated the futility of trying to maintain a colonial position. Vietnam, without foreign dominance is in fine shape and getting better. China, free of dominating foreign influence is also doing great. France and Germany proved, by their position on the war in Iraq that the USA is unable to dominate them, despite our military presence on their land. Being strong enables exploitation of the weak, but it does not mandate it.
Old Cliche, "A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." The same holds true for nations. To bad we have to treat the "developing" nations like they were as strong as we are. Instead we use our money and power to bleed them instead of helping them to grow.
I am and have almost always been in favor of the US being able to deter or repel any attack. And I have been opposed to the US starting a war of aggression. I would have thought that the Vietnam experience would have demonstrated the futility of trying to maintain a colonial position. Vietnam, without foreign dominance is in fine shape and getting better. China, free of dominating foreign influence is also doing great. France and Germany proved, by their position on the war in Iraq that the USA is unable to dominate them, despite our military presence on their land. Being strong enables exploitation of the weak, but it does not mandate it.
Old Cliche, "A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child." The same holds true for nations. To bad we have to treat the "developing" nations like they were as strong as we are. Instead we use our money and power to bleed them instead of helping them to grow.