truth on hold Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) You can add Libya to the mix now and if you want to consider short term successes that look more questionable now add in supporting Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Russians and the operations against Mossadegh in Iran- on the other hand balkanizing nation-states and creating entities hostile to but ultimately ineffective against the US may be the actual goal of our foreign policy, ensuring robust returns for our military-industrial-governmental-financial-complex. Ironic how the foreign policy of a largely Christian nation has taken such a toll on the historic Christian communities of the mideast: ISIS Forces Last Iraqi Christians to Flee Mosul By ALISSA J. RUBIN JULY 18, 2014 BAGHDAD — By 1 p.m. on Friday almost every Christian in Mosul had heard the Sunni militants’ message — they had until noon Saturday to leave the city. Since 2003, when Saddam Hussein was ousted, Mosul’s Christians, one of the oldest communities of its kind in the world, had seen their numbers dwindle from over 30,000 to just a few thousand, but once ISIS swept into the city in early June, there were reports that the remaining Christians had fled. Interviews on Friday with Christian elders and leaders suggest that in fact many had hung on, hoping for an accommodation, a way to continue the quiet practice of their faith in the city that had been their home for more than 1,700 years. Chaldeans, Assyrians and other sects, including Mandeans, whose Christianity is close to that of the Gnostics, could still be found in Iraq, and many made their home on the plains of Nineveh in the north of the country, an area mentioned in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. A YouTube video shows ISIS taking sledgehammers to the tomb of Jonah, something that was also confirmed by Mr. Hikmat. The militants also removed the cross from St. Ephrem’s Cathedral, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox archdiocese in Mosul, and put up the black ISIS flag in its place. They also destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, according to Ghazwan Ilyas, the head of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, who spoke by telephone on Thursday from Mosul but seemed to have left on Friday. http://www.nytimes.c...WT.nav=top-news Edited July 19, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) As I read through the above posts as well as those in other threads, I'm again stunned by the arrogance of the politicians who "lead" the US in foreign affairs. Do they really think that our simplistic prescriptions for peace and tranquility (as defined by above-named politicians) will stick to the wall in countries where tribal and religious factions have battled for centuries? Teddy R seemed to have it right with the "...walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach. Edited July 19, 2014 by Keukasmallies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 As I read through the above posts as well as those in other threads, I'm again stunned by the arrogance of the politicians who "lead" the US in foreign affairs. Do they really think that our simplistic prescriptions for peace and tranquility (as defined by above-named politicians) will stick to the wall in countries where tribal and religious factions have battled for centuries? Teddy R seemed to have it right with the "...walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach. Yes, they do think so...because they're still grounded in the geopolitics of a bipolar or multi-polar world of nation-states. The very idea of factionalized low-intensity or asymmetric conflict independent of national borders is completely alien to them. The Bush administration probably came closest to understanding it in recent memory, but only because it was forced on them by 9/11, and even then, to the degree the administration DID understand it, practical considerations left them absolutely beholden to concepts of nations. Given the Obama administration's complete inability to form any sort of coherent policy with regards to ISIS, I don't think it's ever occurred to anyone that people can have interests outside national interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster? You know what I'd do if I was a major political political party ? I'd run a recently resigned Secretary of State, who continued multiple policy failures, added several of her own , while having no accomplishments to point to after five years. and I'd expect her to win because of her sex. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostbitmic Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 We just need more of the "you're either with us, or against us" policy. If you aren't with us you get all aid to your country cancelled. Then we can give that aid to Israel. Foreign policy fixed .... You're welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster? You know what I'd do if I was a major political political party ? I'd run a recently resigned Secretary of State, who continued multiple policy failures, added several of her own , while having no accomplishments to point to after five years. and I'd expect her to win because of her sex. And because she knows what it's like to be broke and poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) And because she knows what it's like to be broke and poor. C'mon man, she came real close to being forced to have her chauffeur drive a junior aide down to the local department of social services to pick her up an application for food stamps. Can you imagine the hardships she must have endured to almost come to the point of having her private secretary fill out the application for her?!? Edited July 19, 2014 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 We did exit Vietnam. Two years later, South Vietnam imploded from within while North Vietnam invaded. I can't really see how anyone would be stupid enough to call that "reconciliation." and american interests were not affected in any significant manner except that american families stopped losing young men and women to war...for a little while, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 As I read through the above posts as well as those in other threads, I'm again stunned by the arrogance of the politicians who "lead" the US in foreign affairs. Do they really think that our simplistic prescriptions for peace and tranquility (as defined by above-named politicians) will stick to the wall in countries where tribal and religious factions have battled for centuries? Teddy R seemed to have it right with the "...walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach. Would that be the same Teddy R who oversaw the biggest build up of US naval forces, provoked a war with Spain, and commandeered Panama to further US commercial interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 As I read through the above posts as well as those in other threads, I'm again stunned by the arrogance of the politicians who "lead" the US in foreign affairs. Do they really think that our simplistic prescriptions for peace and tranquility (as defined by above-named politicians) will stick to the wall in countries where tribal and religious factions have battled for centuries? Teddy R seemed to have it right with the "...walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach. Would that be the same Teddy R who oversaw the biggest build up of US naval forces, provoked a war with Spain, and commandeered Panama to further US commercial interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 As I read through the above posts as well as those in other threads, I'm again stunned by the arrogance of the politicians who "lead" the US in foreign affairs. Do they really think that our simplistic prescriptions for peace and tranquility (as defined by above-named politicians) will stick to the wall in countries where tribal and religious factions have battled for centuries? Teddy R seemed to have it right with the "...walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach. Would that be the same Teddy R who oversaw the biggest build up of US naval forces, provoked a war with Spain, and commandeered Panama to further US commercial interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Would that be the same Teddy R who oversaw the biggest build up of US naval forces, provoked a war with Spain, and commandeered Panama to further US commercial interests? It wasn't Teddy who provoked war with Spain. It was Pulitzer and Hearst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 and I'd expect her to win because of her sex. And last name. Don't forget how important that is. Also, don't be surprised if Monica Lewinsky eventually ends up running the country. Her "successes" are about as impressive as Hillary Clinton's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 We just need more of the "you're either with us, or against us" policy. If you aren't with us you get all aid to your country cancelled. Then we can give that aid to Israel. Foreign policy fixed .... You're welcome That's pretty much our policy now. How's that working out? Let's try taking it away from them and then maybe we have peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster? Egypt/Israel To John Kerry's Mediation Offer --'Please God, NO!' Convinced that their region has suffered as much Obama administration meddling as it can possibly stand, Israel and Egypt took the extraordinary step earlier this week of jointly rejecting requests by US Secretary of State John Kerry to involve himself in ceasefire talks with the terrorist group Hamas. Israeli and Egyptian diplomats both claim Egyptian efforts to mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas collapsed as a direct result of Secretary Kerry’s announcement he was prepared to join the talks. He apparently made the announcement without first consulting either of the parties. The diplomats are convinced that their own ceasefire discussions might have born at least some fruit if Kerry had either stayed out or at the very least kept his mouth shut. More at the link: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 And last name. Don't forget how important that is. Also, don't be surprised if Monica Lewinsky eventually ends up running the country. Her "successes" are about as impressive as Hillary Clinton's. Anita Hill for Supreme Court. Hillary won't win because of her sex. She'll win, if she wins, because of her connecitons and name. I'd be surprised if she can win though. The electorate is good and sick of the same old thing. If the Dems run an insider like Hillary, the Reps would be smart to run a moderate new face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Anita Hill for Supreme Court. Hillary won't win because of her sex. She'll win, if she wins, because of her connecitons and name. I'd be surprised if she can win though. The electorate is good and sick of the same old thing. If the Dems run an insider like Hillary, the Reps would be smart to run a moderate new face. To be honest, I just don't see her losing, unless she absolutely implodes are some other candidate really catches fire. I'd say as of right now she stands a good 75% chance of winning....Where did I get that number? Straight out of my ass, but that's what I'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Would that be the same Teddy R who oversaw the biggest build up of US naval forces, provoked a war with Spain, and commandeered Panama to further US commercial interests? Hence the comment"...big stick..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 t To be honest, I just don't see her losing, unless she absolutely implodes are some other candidate really catches fire. I'd say as of right now she stands a good 75% chance of winning....Where did I get that number? Straight out of my ass, but that's what I'd think. I'll bet your ass said the same thing in 2006. I can't believe I just wrote that sentence. The point is, she was inevitable then also. As Mister Adams correctly points out, there is a fair amount of "Hillary Fatigue" out there. and more importantly, as Politico noted in a recent article. “She wants to be president; she doesn’t want to run for president,” another Clinton veteran told us. “The worst part of running for president for her, clearly, is dealing with the press.” Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz387MAuVJC . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Anita Hill for Supreme Court. Hillary won't win because of her sex. She'll win, if she wins, because of her connecitons and name. I'd be surprised if she can win though. The electorate is good and sick of the same old thing. If the Dems run an insider like Hillary, the Reps would be smart to run a moderate new face. She has sex? Now that is a damned repugnant image for certain. Wasn't that what Monica was for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts