The Challenge to Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

52244130
 
Oklahomahawk said:
I agree Bedell, isn't this sort of thing Christians are supposed to do? The Pope is calling for this in Europe, but Christians everywhere should be doing more of this sort of thing and less "politicking" IMO.
Click to expand...

I know how many of our churches in this area helped the Hmong during the Boat-people crisis and Katrina victims. It's what we should do. We don't always do it well, but I'd rather do, well or not, than not do.
 
Coredor said:
A couple of things. Bedell asked if some could come here. I read that the U.S. does accept a limited number of asylum seekers. I forget the exact number, but it was less than 100K a year and it is for the entire world not just from this situation.

As far as whether it is a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is in part. It's also related to what has gone on with the embargo of Assad in Syria. The weakness of the Iraqi and Syrian governments and also the unrest in recent years dating back to the Arab Spring has caused a power vacuum in the middle east which has caused the rise of Isis. It's a difficult situation. I think in the future when we do get involved or try to weaken a regime, we need to think very hard about what will happen if we're successful. I do feel very strongly though that the middle east is far worse off than it was 15 years ago despite our numerous interventions.

Ok after a bit more research the U.S. has a refugee quota of about 70K this year with 33K allocated to the near east. This number is generally presented by the President to congress. I don't know if that might be modified, but given what is going on it's a fairly low number. As a comparative figure Germany is expecting to take about 800,000 this year which is significantly more than other European countries.
Click to expand...

Thanks Coredor! That's such a low number!! Hope it can change.
 
50PoundHead said:
William Tecumseh Sherman summed it up best when he stated unequivocally that "War is hell." The image of the fallen youngster on the beach is truly tragic, but then so is this image of a toddler with birth defects springing from the US's use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

7389430_orig.jpg


At any rate, we can go round and round on the Middle East. I find it a bit ironic, in some sense, that Christians in Syria look to Assad and not the rebels for protection. So what happens if the US leads a coalition to topple Assad. We all saw what happened in Egypt with the election of the Muslim Brotherhood. The old saw "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't work in the Middle East right now.

I really got a hearty ho-ho-ho when someone was decrying the Iran deal because of the message it sent to our supposed allies; the Saudis. You mean the same Saudi Arabia that was the birthplace of 15 or the 19 terrorists that brought massive amounts of death and destruction to our homeland on 9/11? The same Saudi Arabia that has been implicated in support for Al Queda and is the home for the most radical sects of Wahhabism?

I don't agree with Rand Paul much, but when he contended that maybe the US should have been a bit more discerning before toppling Saddam and embracing the Arab Spring, I think he makes some very solid points.

The West--including the US--has been d*cking around in the Middle East for over a century now and it certainly hasn't done all that much for the betterment of the region. I still find it so puzzling that no one truly understands why the Iranians hate the US so much. Could it be we overthrew their democratically elected government in the early-1950s and installed the repressive Shah? It can't be that for heaven's sakes!

We live in very complicated times. I'll be the first to admit as one of his supporters that Obama has dithered in foreign policy. But trying to clean up the mess he was left with was not an easy task. There's no question he has guessed wrong in several instances, but if he had gone into the Middle East with a big stick, the longstanding results of such actions would likely have been negative.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this 50. But let's all be honest, this President also did the same sort of thing with the Colonel in Libya - and we've got Libyans in the mix as well. As for ME Christians siding with dictators - aren't the dictators in ME about the only ones who have, for right or wrong, who have been able to keep the militant from the sort of actions we see from ISIS?
 
sturg33 said:
It's a weak challenge. Interventionist policies have caused almost all of our foreign problems... It's not a good strategy to double down
Click to expand...

Doubling down on dumb is well... Being open to helping during major conflicts seems, well, good, loving, responsible. Just my opinion of course.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
So do we listen to Bedell the humanitarian or Hannity, et al., and the other power/attention whores? Both may be right. Which way should we go on this?
Click to expand...

I think both sides have a point. We have real refugees fleeing from real danger including women and children. We also no doubt have some who are just seeking jobs or to disrupt or worse in the places they are going. I mean, why are there so many single men? The issue - like most - is very complex, very messy. And Xenophobes and Gullible Humanitarians need to be exceedingly careful. There's got to be some vetting. But there also has got to be offers of safe haven and help.
 
BedellBrave said:
I agree with most of this 50. But let's all be honest, this President also did the same sort of thing with the Colonel in Libya - and we've got Libyans in the mix as well. As for ME Christians siding with dictators - aren't the dictators in ME about the only ones who have, for right or wrong, who have been able to keep the militant from the sort of actions we see from ISIS?
Click to expand...

No clean hands here including Obama's. I've always thought Glen Beck to be around the bend, but he predicted the ME meltdown so accurately (nice to get at least one right) that it's spooky. In the absence of a functioning democracy, the best one can hope for is non-oppressive stability. Granted, the ME dictators are not, for the most part, benevolent, but they did ensure stability. The Arab Spring was simply too much, too fast for those societies to handle. No disrespect to the masses in those societies, but to expect a functioning democracy to flourish in the time frame laid out was kind of like expecting a 300-pounder to run a four-minute mile after a week of training. The transition time simply had to be longer. As for the Christians in the ME, who can blame them? But I don't know how McCain and company seemed to think siding with rebels to topple Assad wasn't going to cause some very real problems for a lot of segments of society; particularly Christians (many of whom are educated and live in urban areas). People tend to forget that Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's top advisors, was a Chalden Catholic.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
So do we listen to Bedell the humanitarian or Hannity, et al., and the other power/attention whores? Both may be right. Which way should we go on this?
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to receiving emigre, provided that they are reasonably vetted and subsequently monitored (to some degree). That's our basic human responsibility, and my view is that we are more than obligated to open our gates given the circumstances.

Having said that, American military intervention in Syria is long overdue -- and the conditions for a legitimate international coalition could literally not be any stronger. The Germans are under intense political pressure, as are the British, and we've even seen ripple effects all the way down in Australia. There's simply no other effective or timely option on the table.

The major problem, now, that did not exist before, is Russia. Although it hasn't been reported much in the Western media, Putin is very invested in the conflict there -- heavily arming al-Assad for the greater part of half a year (which should have some significance to anybody that even menially follows IA). Hell, the Guardian is reporting today that Russia is even trying to set up a military base in-country.
 
Hawk said:
I'm not opposed to receiving emigre, provided that they are reasonably vetted and subsequently monitored (to some degree). That's our basic human responsibility, and my view is that we are more than obligated to open our gates given the circumstances.

Having said that, American military intervention in Syria is long overdue -- and the conditions for a legitimate international coalition could literally not be any stronger. The Germans are under intense political pressure, as are the British, and we've even seen ripple effects all the way down in Australia. There's simply no other effective or timely option on the table.

The major problem, now, that did not exist before, is Russia. Although it hasn't been reported much in the Western media, Putin is very invested in the conflict there -- heavily arming al-Assad for the greater part of half a year (which should have some significance to anybody that even menially follows IA). Hell, the Guardian is reporting today that Russia is even trying to set up a military base in-country.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and Bedell that we should help those people, but also that they may not all be "people" but a few may well be "plants" sent here to do bad things. So, what next? Do we help them? Do we reject them like we did with boat load (and I mean really BIG boats) of Jews just before WWII started? Do we trust our government to "vet" them? I wouldn't trust them to vet you or me let alone people they can't find their dossier on. I just hate that this sort of thing will get used in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I have already seen how Hannity and the Huckster are lining up over this, and I can't see how we can possibly survive even 4 years of a pair someone mentioned (I think it was you) earlier of Cruz/Walker. I really don't like the thought of Biden/Hillary but I think even they are worlds better than those 2 scumbags, I mean you can even see the strings showing on those 2.

Bernie's foreign policy makes me nervous, but if we don't do something about our domestic situation we're screwed anyway. Even Trump would, IMO, be better than what we've got now or have had since about midway through Clinton's 2nd term. I realize he didn't make the economy great back then but at least he didn't eff it up just so the rich could get a little bit richer.

Basically I think we're just screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top