First Discussion

[GeorgeSmiley]

Hope this works lol!
Do you think that geopolitical or ideological considerations should be more imporant in foreign policy?

[Mr.Vicchio]

I think both should be wieghed in, but each situation requires a case by case look at the pros and cons of the issue at hand.

Isreal, perfect example, if we were to pull full support of the Jewish state and leave them to thier own ends, that might make the Arab's happy on one hand, it would send a very bad message on the other.

[Logjam]

Quote by: GeorgeSmiley Hope this works lol! Do you think that geopolitical or ideological considerations should be more imporant in foreign policy?

While I think those who form our foreign policy should be aware of geopolitical and ideological elements they should consider our national interests first.

I also think that we should work hard to protect Amerian people and interests where ever they may be. So, if we decide that it's in our interest to form an alliance with a communist, for instance, we should not be constrained from doing so. Our alliance with the Soviets during WWII comes to mind. It was probably the right thing to do.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I think both should be wieghed in, but each situation requires a case by case look at the pros and cons of the issue at hand. Isreal, perfect example, if we were to pull full support of the Jewish state and leave them to thier own ends, that might make the Arab's happy on one hand, it would send a very bad message on the other.

We do not need to keep Arabs happy. Rather we should explain it to them that if they want to conflict with us we will smack them around. The Arab nations need to know that we will not mess around with them; and they must understand that it's to their best interests to agree with us.

Arabs, I believe, understand strength, and they belittle weakness.

[rcne]

As GeorgeSmiley mention, ideological considerations or culture comes to mind. It is our misunderstanding to think that everybody thinks as we do.

You mention logjam that 'Arabs, I believe, understand strength, and they belittle weakness.' is an example of that culture.

As a result we begin at a position of weakness when we become involved. Hopefully the military is investing the resources to train linguists and specialist in each region that is a hot spot in the world.

Special ops teams with the regional specialty would be our best option for protecting our interest.

[Logjam]

Quote by: rcne As GeorgeSmiley mention, ideological considerations or culture comes to mind. It is our misunderstanding to think that everybody thinks as we do. You mention logjam that 'Arabs, I believe, understand strength, and they belittle weakness.' is an example of that culture. As a result we begin at a position of weakness when we become involved. Hopefully the military is investing the resources to train linguists and specialist in each region that is a hot spot in the world. Special ops teams with the regional specialty would be our best option for protecting our interest.

Your imput sounds much more mature than did mine, I must admit.

As an old military guy, I don't think it's the mission of the army to pacify the enemy after he has been vanquished. That's the job of the State Department. GI's fight wars, that's all they are trained to do; after the shooting stops they either go home or act as guards.

Truthfully the after combat mission should be assigned to the UN. Sadly the UN is not capable of taking any meaningful action. The army can only do so much.

MacArthur did do good work in Japan after WWII, but I don't think that the situation in Japan is anything like the one in the Arab world today.

And btw: I believe strongly that it's ALWAYS advantageous to speak from a position of strength when negociating. Just consider how Carter delt with the Iranians after the kidnapping of our embassy people. He showed weakness and the Mullas wrapped him around their little fingers.

The day Reagan was put in office they let the hostages go.

See the difference?

[mr.perfecto]

The way I see it, ideology comes first. This becomes more clear if it were rephrased 'Do you think that geopolitical or moral/religious considerations...' because it is ideology that determines what our political goals are.

[Mia]

Logjam, why are all Arabs the enemy? In here, they were only brought up in the context of the Israel/Palestine topic. Do you not feel they have a side too?

And V, what about, instead of withdrawing all support for Israel (which I am not in favor of) we scale it back quite a bit until they stop commiting human rights offenses, so that we are not seen as hypocrits to not only Arabs, but many nations?

I'm not saying they shouldn't defend themselves, but we all know they go a lot further than that. We can't fully stand behind and endorse a nation engaging in acts no different from their terrorist enemies, and claim we are in a war against terror.