Waiting for a response from BoP so intelligent debate can ensure, if I'm capable of such a thing.
Last edited:
U.S. offers Yemen help (Inconsistency in US foreign policy)
- Thread starter dmytryp
- Start date
Sure. But 'exiled the rest to the four corners of the empire' is an almost a perfect description to the response to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.
The destruction of the Second Temple was a tragic event - but it certainly didn't trigger a mass forced exile.
Neither event, however, was seven years later !
Mac
What you and Semi are not seeing imho is that US foreign policy has always been inconsistent, and that you were perfectly happy with the Bush Admin's handling of the ME when it suited your agenda, despite the fact that it was not in the US' best interests overall. Our foreign policy - flagrant in recent years - has been about clout and payola. That's why Saudi Arabia is an "ally." Thus I have no problem with the Obama administration taking a less threatening posture toward the ME in general and extending a helping hand on occasion and taking the long view. I didn't see any reward in the Bush Admin's ME policy, which was all bluster and threats and a war that's nothing more than an enormous boondoggle. . . .
As per recent developments - assuming this is what you're talking about - the land being settled by Israelis is not considered Israeli land by the international community. I don't care what's considered or not considered "Jewish." Judaism is a religion. Israel is a nation. I make that distinction.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Nice to try and ascribe to me views I don't hold. From the post you yourself quoted
Bolding added. With Bush I understood the overarching strategy. Here, I don't.me said:
As for you having no problem of US occasionally extending a helping hand, here is what you said in response in a thread where I posted a letter from Central European dignitaries asking Obama not to abandon them and suggesting ideas as to how to maintain cooperation in the mutual benefit of US and their countries
Rather inconsistent, I'd say.you said:
ETA: you trying to present that I somehow supported all of Bush's foreign policy or that I ever claimed he had done everything right is laughable. Bush did plenty of blunders and things that didn't benefit neither US nor Israel. We'd probably disagree what those were, but that doesn't make my positions somehow overly supportive of Bush.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Jews are also a nation with language and history. But I suggest you and Semi take the debate about Israel to another thread. I specifically refrained from bringing this aspect of Obama policy in order not to have another debate over this.
Sarpedon
Banned
My impression with the Yemen problem is that its related to the Somalia problem: Piracy on the world's most important sea lanes. I've read that while the bulk of the pirates in the gulf of Aden come from Somalia, a growing number are using Yemen as their base.
Yemen is a troubled country, having relied too much on its limited oil resources, and failed to diversify its economy. Therefore, US aid to Yemen is seen as a preventative measure; a way of nipping such piracy in the bud, and strengthening the economy and rule of law in that country. This will benefit not only US interests, but that of all maritime nations in the region and throughout the world. We don't want Yemen to become another Somalia.
I fail to see why US policy needs to follow some arbitrary concept of 'consistency.' We act according to our needs, and according to the situation. And forgive me, I find your summary in the OP of US policy choices as rather incomplete and naive.
Yemen is a troubled country, having relied too much on its limited oil resources, and failed to diversify its economy. Therefore, US aid to Yemen is seen as a preventative measure; a way of nipping such piracy in the bud, and strengthening the economy and rule of law in that country. This will benefit not only US interests, but that of all maritime nations in the region and throughout the world. We don't want Yemen to become another Somalia.
I fail to see why US policy needs to follow some arbitrary concept of 'consistency.' We act according to our needs, and according to the situation. And forgive me, I find your summary in the OP of US policy choices as rather incomplete and naive.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Interesting. As i said, I don't see a problem with this situation per se
Why consistency is an arbitrary concept? Yes, US acts according to its needs. What needs are served by the rift with Honduras? And isn't one of US needs to at least appear to be the champion of democracy?
I know what purpose is suposedly served by going back on missile defense installation in Central Europe. I think what US thinks is going to happen not at all what is going to happen in reality, but that's an open question.
I also know what the supposed justification behind the weakness of support expressed towards iranian protesters, but I don't buy it (I don't just think that it isn't correct, but that it is disingenious).
As for my summary being incomplete and naive. *shrug* certainly it isn't complete. I didn't try to make a comprehensive list. Naive? I don't think so. As I said, it appears to me that this admin is trying to maintain the status quo. At least mostly. I think this come from either timidness and inexperience or from incorrect assumptions (in my view).
Sarpedon
Banned
The situation in Honduras is more complex than you seem to think; basically, you have a popular president being removed by a military junta because he called for one more (non-binding) referendum than was allowed by the constitution. Quite frankly, I consider that slender grounds to overthrow an elected leader. The proper response would have been: "No mr president, you cannot hold this referendum," and using the legal apparatus of the state to prevent it from happening. Not putting tanks on the streets, declaring martial law, forcing the man out of the country, and putting some military officer in charge of the country. That is a bit extreme, wouldn't you say? Mr Obama and Mr Chavez, as well as others, agree with this assessment. I fail to see why being against a military coup is contrary to democracy. The courts and the army are controlled by the elite of the country, as is true in so many central and south american countries; There are many countries in these regions that are undergoing upheaval because the majority of the people, being economically and racially discriminated against by the elite for centuries, are finally starting to assert themselves. Mr Chavez and Mr Morales and Mr Zelaya are some populist leaders who have come to prominence in that region recently as a result of this change. It is your apparent failure to understand this underlying social conflict which leads me to consider your views naive.
And as far as the missile defense: it doesn't work, it isn't particularly popular with the countries its going in, its expensive, and it pisses off Russia. What's not to like about it?
And as far as the weakness of our support for Iranian protesters, let me tell you: US or Israeli endorsement is the kiss of death for any Iranian politician. They don't really like us much over there. I forget which election it was over there, it might have been when Khatami lost and Ahmednijad (sp) came to power, but after the fact it was said that the former lost points because of a perceived over-friendliness with the west. I think our policy of not commenting on Iranian internal politics is the correct one. I fail to see what we could have done that would have helped the protesters more. Do you have any ideas?
Note: I am not in any way endorsing Mr Chavez or his policies. I am merely noting that he has come to power as a result of a particular social phenomenon.
And as far as the missile defense: it doesn't work, it isn't particularly popular with the countries its going in, its expensive, and it pisses off Russia. What's not to like about it?
And as far as the weakness of our support for Iranian protesters, let me tell you: US or Israeli endorsement is the kiss of death for any Iranian politician. They don't really like us much over there. I forget which election it was over there, it might have been when Khatami lost and Ahmednijad (sp) came to power, but after the fact it was said that the former lost points because of a perceived over-friendliness with the west. I think our policy of not commenting on Iranian internal politics is the correct one. I fail to see what we could have done that would have helped the protesters more. Do you have any ideas?
Note: I am not in any way endorsing Mr Chavez or his policies. I am merely noting that he has come to power as a result of a particular social phenomenon.
Last edited:
The Honduras president attempted to place a removal of term limits on the ballot. Their constitution defined that as an impeachable offense. The military removed him from office and the next in line, from the same party even, took office. That's a far cry from a military coup.
Sarpedon
Banned
Point of order: the referendum was not "Vote to Change the Constitution." It was "Would you like the constitution to be changed?" It was a non-binding referendum. Now, of course one could say that he was using such a ballot to drum up support for future unconstitutional action, but if a large majority of the population is in favor of change, why not change?
Constitutions can be changed in democratic countries. As I observed before, the power elite controls the institutions, and wrote the constitution to suit their needs.
There are two sides to this argument, and both have their points. Which is why saying that he was simply 'constitutionally removed' is naive.
Constitutions can be changed in democratic countries. As I observed before, the power elite controls the institutions, and wrote the constitution to suit their needs.
There are two sides to this argument, and both have their points. Which is why saying that he was simply 'constitutionally removed' is naive.
I just pmed you (Mac H.) what I originally posted here to keep from getting more off topic.
Last edited:
If you want to actually discuss it, I'd be happy to in PM or in another thread, because the "international community" also didn't recognise Jordan's occupation in 1948. But if you want to discuss it, please PM me or start another thread. I don't want to further derail dmytryp's discussion.
Agreed.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,746
- Reaction score
- 247
Sarpedon
Banned
Those facts are not in dispute.
But I ask this: If his deposition was entirely legal and non-controversial, why the martial law, and why the order of exile? Is that in the constitution too?
The fact that such measures were deemed necessary by the government indicates that they do not enjoy popular support.
You are correct that the coup followed the letter of the law. But if the letter of the law is the will of the people, why would military force be needed?
My whole point is that there is much more at work here, and you need to acknowledge that there is another side to this question, and that is that the government and military are controlled by political elites who use the letter of the law-the law that they wrote, to enforce their will on an unwilling majority.
But I ask this: If his deposition was entirely legal and non-controversial, why the martial law, and why the order of exile? Is that in the constitution too?
The fact that such measures were deemed necessary by the government indicates that they do not enjoy popular support.
You are correct that the coup followed the letter of the law. But if the letter of the law is the will of the people, why would military force be needed?
My whole point is that there is much more at work here, and you need to acknowledge that there is another side to this question, and that is that the government and military are controlled by political elites who use the letter of the law-the law that they wrote, to enforce their will on an unwilling majority.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
I think that you are the one slightly misinformed here. The Honduran Supreme Court said Zelaya couldn't hold the referendum. After Zelaya persisted in his intentions, the supreme court and the parliment ordered the removal of Zelaya. The government remains civillian there, not military junta. Now, I think that throwing his butt out of the country was over the top (though they might have a fear of problems with his supporters). The country is also divided between supporters and non-supporters.
The interim president is a civilian from Zalaya's own party, not any military officer. There are also open and free elections planned soon, which US threatened not to recognize. As for martial law and tanks, I don't know enough to tell whether this is true and if it is whether it didn't come after an attempt to reinstall him. I seem to remember riots caused by the stunt supported by other states to bring him back and even a threat of war when there was a possibility of him returning from Costa Rika with the support of the local army.
a. None of this makes any point as to why this is advantageous to US (the point you tried to make).
b. Calling me naive when you characterise Chavez this way is rather laughable. Yeah, he started out as a populist. Today he represses opposition, removed obstacles to be president for life (which Zelaya tried to emulate) etc. etc.
Pardon? Any support for the claim it doesn't work or that the countries in question don't want it? I posted a letter from former leaders of these countries that say it is extremely important to continue with the installation (especially for the purpose that US is prepared to stand up to Russia if need be).
A lot of things piss off Russia. It is trying to expand its influence into its former sphere and it doesn't like states there being overly pro-western. I don't really see it as a valid reason to back down. Especially since US isn't going to get anything in return.
Oh, please. This is the standart line. I don't buy it. The idea that US support would have been of any impact on the protesters while the regime is violently cracking up on them is rather illogical. similarly to the claims that an organisation chopping off people's heads would gain more supporters because of relatively mild transgressions from US military. Actually, Israel had openly stated its position and it didn't seem to hurt the protesters at all. Germans and Brits did, too. The regime tried to blame them, but no signifficant amount of people bought it. And again, the idea that the regime actually needed any pretext to blame anything on the West is illogical.
As to what could be done -- first of all, a clear statement of support can go a long way as former polish dissidents attested about similar statements by Raegan (and they didn't much like US in Poland at the time, either). Imposition of stronger sanctions (even without Russians and Chinese) could send an appropriate message, too. Are you really claiming that there are no diplomatic arrows in US quiver? If so, we are all in trouble.
Sorry, didn't see this earlier. I am well aware of how Chavez came to power. I am also well aware of what he had become since. Are you suggesting that it is in US best interests to allow a friendly Honduras to become something similar?
Bottom line, there will be open elections and US should have jumped on this opportunity instead of trying to impose Zelaya back and twist Honduras' arm.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Look, this debate is all fine and dandy, but the point remains. Obama and many of his supporters made a lot of hay about not meddling in other countries' affairs, respecting them etc. etc. While they keep to this in some cases, they don't in other cases. And somehow it is always turns out ito the direction of upholding the status quo (that in much of the world usually favors not very nice guys)
Sarpedon
Banned
It is my view that the USA is in general, in favor of popular governments over those that are controlled by elite groups. While the popular movements in Central and South America have brought forth a number of troublesome leaders, such as mr Chavez, we are in general in favor of the forces that put them there; the vote of the majority of the population, especially such groups that were facing enormous racial discrimination under the old regime. Does this further our interests? Perhaps not. But we take this as a moral imperative. The fact is that many of the atrocities committed against the people of these regions have occurred at the hands of governments that were supported by the USA. This is something that we don't want to continue, and its not as if its Obama's idea, it started long before him.
As far as Zelaya in particular, yes, the conservative forces perhaps had good reason to fear him as another Chavez, who might become a dictator. However, the use of military force in his ouster was out of line and a poor precedent. A country where the military routinely overthrows the democratically elected president can't really be seen as democratic, even if it continues to follow the forms.
I thought the general ineffectiveness of the missile defense system is relatively common knowledge. I believe that they were finally, after billions over budget, able to hit their dummy target, but questions about their ability to distinguish warhead from decoy and their ability to deploy quickly remain. I realize that Israel has had some success with defense against ballistic missiles from Iraq, but the press here has been saying that the system is ineffective, and there have been numerous accusations of fraud.
As far as support in Poland and Czc Rep go, here's a quote from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
The same link also explains some of the objections to the system.
And I am aware that the governments of these countries do support it. The population seems to be far more lukewarm.
I also note that the stated purpose of this system is NOT to target Russia. No one really believes this, of course.
I for one, am not all that gung-ho about demonizing russia these days. Yeah, Putin the Poisoner is not a nice man. However I think there are plenty of people who are trying to reignite the cold war for their own purposes. I don't blame Israel for doing that; a small nation must play big countries off against each other to survive and thrive, and I certainly acknowledge Israel's masterful playing of this game. However, I am not interested in continuing to play this game when it is no longer necessary. I consider NATO's policy towards Russia these days to be a correct mixture of firmness and accomodation. I am pleased that Nato has a number of capable leaders, because President Obama has been justly criticized for the weakness of his diplomacy.
As far as Zelaya in particular, yes, the conservative forces perhaps had good reason to fear him as another Chavez, who might become a dictator. However, the use of military force in his ouster was out of line and a poor precedent. A country where the military routinely overthrows the democratically elected president can't really be seen as democratic, even if it continues to follow the forms.
you don't buy it. I do. I think in the Islamic world in general, there is an enormous double standard; Anything the USA, Israel, or the west is does is bad, while the excesses of Islamic regimes are excusable. I think you probably agree with this general sentiment. Whether what we do has any effect or not internally to Iran is a matter of opinion, I'll agree with you there. However I think that political rhetoric is generally pointless. We registered our disapproval of the repression, and we continue to work with the de-facto government. I mean, why pretend that Iran was ever a real democracy? Its always been just for show.
I thought the general ineffectiveness of the missile defense system is relatively common knowledge. I believe that they were finally, after billions over budget, able to hit their dummy target, but questions about their ability to distinguish warhead from decoy and their ability to deploy quickly remain. I realize that Israel has had some success with defense against ballistic missiles from Iraq, but the press here has been saying that the system is ineffective, and there have been numerous accusations of fraud.
As far as support in Poland and Czc Rep go, here's a quote from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
The same link also explains some of the objections to the system.
And I am aware that the governments of these countries do support it. The population seems to be far more lukewarm.
I also note that the stated purpose of this system is NOT to target Russia. No one really believes this, of course.
I for one, am not all that gung-ho about demonizing russia these days. Yeah, Putin the Poisoner is not a nice man. However I think there are plenty of people who are trying to reignite the cold war for their own purposes. I don't blame Israel for doing that; a small nation must play big countries off against each other to survive and thrive, and I certainly acknowledge Israel's masterful playing of this game. However, I am not interested in continuing to play this game when it is no longer necessary. I consider NATO's policy towards Russia these days to be a correct mixture of firmness and accomodation. I am pleased that Nato has a number of capable leaders, because President Obama has been justly criticized for the weakness of his diplomacy.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
This is an interesting point, especially given your stated positions about the unrest in Iran
Look, bottom line, US, after making very loud points about not interfering in other countries' affairs, decided to basically trample the rule of law in a fairly moderate democratic pro american country. It publically challenged the Supreme Court of said country and basically said it knows the constitution of Honduras better. I see this as hubris and arrogance. It also tried to reinstall a relatively hostile would be dictator and came down on the side of US enemies like Chavez and Castro. It didn't just voice an objection, it went to full scale diplomatic war -- something it doesn't do to countries both hostile to US and undemocratic.
I think I am fairly fluent in how ME operates
I tend to stick with empirical evidence. Gov's in ME stoke anti-americanism and anti-israeli sentiments regardless of reality, because it serves them. In case of Iran, they blamed US, Israel and UK (who actually did come out strongly against the crack down and is considered with similar animosity there as US). Yet people didn't buy it this time, because they saw the brutal reality.Obama's reactions were slow off the mark, and for much of the time appeared indifferent (especially the first one). What's even worse, you could just sense the underlying irritation at the fact that this unrest intereferes with the grand plans of "engagement".
So, here we are, with the Iranian gov expelling every component that could have been considered "moderate", completely ready for confrontation and feeling the weakness on the side of the West. And US doesn't "continue to work with the de-facto government". It doesn't know how to proceed. It sees that "engagement" wouldn't happen or at most would be Iran playing for time. Russia and China are dragging their feet on the sanctions, watering the already weak sanctions down even more. The ayatollahs are laughing their ass' off and working hard to be able to circumvent the sanctions when they do come (specifically working to increase their refinery capacities and moving their car fleets to natural gas).
You'd be wrong.
There are several pretty good aemrican and israeli systems, and better ones in the pipeline (intercepting higher, earlier etc). There are also systems for mid and close range rockets. By 2012 Israel is planned to have a multi layered missile defense from mortar shells to ballistic missiles. sure the systems aren't hermetic and wouldn't be able to handle thousands of cutting edge Russian rockets, but they aren't supposed to.
Yes, I know about the mixed feeling of the populations, but the bottom line, the govs feel they want and need it.
I disagree. These systems would never be able to handle even medium scale Russian offensive. The main point is to place first line of alert radars to detect the launch earlier and to allow the best chance of interception.
Russia is a pretty paranoid country with both illusions of grandure and complex of inadequacy (speaking from personal experience here
) There is no need to demonize them, but there is a need to realize that they have their own goals, and those goals many times are conflicting with the western ones. The basic problem here is that US got exactly nothing in return for this. And not going to get anything because it gives Russia no reason to give it anything. US tried to get Russia on board with sanctions towards Iran in return for the radars, and Russians expressly said they wouldn't do this. The whole nuke disarmament thing doesn't benefit US at all. If anything it benifits Russia, since it has a more obsolete and inferior arsenal.