[QUOTE=Devodiere;30001150]The reason it hasn't changed much is because it's not about what we want to do, it's about what must be done. Libya is not our war but we can still take action in it. Think of the many pointless genocides that have occurred in Africa, who would willingly allow another to take place just because they want to score political points?
The strategy for Iraq is almost done with power being handed over to their new government while hedging their bets with a small force who can help in case the shit hits the fan. Afghanistan can be done nothing about unless you want a repeat of 1989 in which we leave the country war torn and a breeding ground for new extremists. They aren't about ideology because what is best for the country is what is wanted, partisan non-interventionalist ideals will just ruin it for them in favour of our own pride.[/QUOTE]
That is the rhetoric being made yes, but our actions are never at all consistent and interventionism only comes into play with countries that have resources such as oil. This is shown throughout history in that there have been many genocides that we have not gotten involved in simply because that country had nothing of value (take the example in the Clinton years). Humanitarian efforts are never humanitarian and there are very good reasons to be skeptical to support anything just on any kind of an emotional basis. To me, for justification of any kind of humanitarian efforts we must be consistent across the board and have an established plan as to how to react to such threat. The costs and potential to create blow back must be analyzed heavily as well.
There was a study about US troop garrisons and amount of extremists. It looked at a large amount of data and the study found that there is a direct correlation between US occupation and resistance regimes. The study found that when there was no US troop garrison that the amount of resistance averages is about 0. Osama Bin Laden initial appeared as a Freedom Fighter when he funded a resistance against Soviet occupation of their lands. The Taliban came about shortly after Dessert Storm after an occupation of their land in Saudi Arabia. The current fight between Israel and Palestine didn't come about till UN involvement. There was a large group of Jews who wanted to live traditionally and in the land that they ancestors resided in. Believe it or not, this process was peaceful and there was no conflict. Where the conflict came into play was when The UN demanded that Palestine give up their land to these Jewish immigrants, and the more extreme side of the Zionist movement supported this. This took the peaceful process and turned the civil and peaceful process of buying land into a process of "you must give up your land", which of course the Palestinians are not going to respond very well. The UN demand and involvement was not at all needed and is what caused the conflict because prior to that they were doing it by themselves by legally purchasing lands, and nobody was demanding for them to give up their land.
All terrorist groups have made it very clear that our intervention is why they have rallied against us, primarily when it has to do with occupation of their land. There is good reason as to why these conflicts and terrorist groups never existed before interventionism came into play. Trust me, I can go on and on with examples.
But does the strategic value of interventionism override the cost of terrorism?
(not to mention 'war on terror' is a great way to sell things to the people)
[QUOTE=Maurice;29988283]Just because "World Police" has a negative connotation to it, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing.
Like Obama said, something has to be done about people aiming to kill innocent civilians.[/QUOTE]
But the Americans have killed many more innocent civilians, shall we go invade them?
[QUOTE=Contag;30006730]But does the strategic value of interventionism override the cost of terrorism?
(not to mention 'war on terror' is a great way to sell things to the people)[/QUOTE]
It values the few. I used to be pretty skeptical about the war for oil, but after a number of leaked documents and the fact that US based cooperation are taking over the oil fields and other natural resources, I don't really think it can be questioned. The very rich are hugely benefiting from this. The largest special interest group in the US, our weapons makers, also make huge gains in any and every war. They are the only part of our economy that is booming and expanding. Certainly our strategic placement is of value to Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and the Federal Reserve. The Fed wins when any money is spent, and according to the recent partial audit of them, they loaned out money to the Libya's central bank, so they are now making a profit off both sides of that conflict. I'd be willing to say that our strategic positioning has little to do with fighting terrorism and has more to do with natural resources and creating more instability within neighboring regions to justify another occupation. The biggest pushers in Washington make the biggest gains in any war. Our means of fighting terrorism are obviously flawed, have failed, and only seem be there to instigate more terrorism. As I've said before, the terrorists exist because they want us off their land, so by being there there is no way we can argue that we are fighting terrorism when we are the cause.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.