David:
I thought we might branch out into an area where neither of us has expertise, and talk a little about America's goals, or role, in the world today. With ISIS, the rules of war have changed. They aren't a country (more like a cancer), so what is the end goal in our battle with them? Interestingly, Hillary Clinton seems to be more of a hawk than the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
What do you see as our role in the world today, what should be our foreign policy goals, and how do we reach them?
Doug:
Like any good citizen of the world, we need to listen to our allies and work together. We should never again be reactionary; we should spend our lives, money, and energy in productive ways. We should not always look to the "hawks" to solve our problems, but embrace diplomacy where we can. We should stand-up for injustice, even if it doesn't make us money. We should use available resources, including the United Nations, and other international organizations.
David:
And the whole world should get along together and sing Kumbaya at least once a day. Unfortunately, as history shows us, there are more countries in the world bent on acquiring territory and resources from others than there are countries like us.
Doug:
What? That sounds scary! There are more countries that want to attack other countries than don't? No, that just isn't true. Perhaps catching your breath and singing a little might indeed give everyone a bit of calmness. I know the last 8 years have been different: we haven't invaded a single country!
David:
Perhaps you need to watch the news more. And pay attention to the "world news" section. In the past ten years there have been wars all over the world, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Darfur, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Niger, and Mali are only a few of the conflicts and wars that have occurred and are still ongoing. Did you not hear that Russia invaded Ukraine? Have you not heard that China is taking over the South China Sea, despite the protests of multiple other countries in the region? The Palestinians continue to shower Israel with rockets on a daily basis. Iran continues to thumb their nose at the UN and the rest of the world as they continue testing ballistic missiles in clear violation of UN resolutions. The world is a scary place. That's reality. And, it's history.
But what about ISIS? They are religious zealots following an extreme brand of Islam. Their own words lay out a plan to dominate the world. Their resources appear to be limited, but they certainly have enough supporters to continue to wreak havoc in the Middle-East, Paris, San Bernadino, and the rest of the world. Should we follow the Trump plan, and let those in the Middle-East deal with ISIS, or do we contribute to the fight, as Hillary Clinton suggests?
Doug:
What to do about ISIS? I have no idea. We should elect responsible people who will surround themselves with knowledgeable people, and do responsible things in light of specific circumstances. We have our own share of Religious Zealots right here in the good ole US of A. We just need to minimize the damage they can do all over the world.
David:
I think your first sentence is almost exactly what Donald Trump said he'd do. You're still talking in great, fluffy, happy-sounding words, that have little to no basis in reality. You're back to singing Kumbaya.
You sound as though you'd be happy just trusting the military to take whatever actions in the world they deem "necessary". That's an unusual position for one who leans as far left as you do, and feels all of our other wars were illegitimate.
Apparently you think Christians in this country voicing their beliefs is more dangerous, or on the same level as Radical Muslims beheading Christians because they aren't Muslims? Your theory of relativity falls well short of reality. Arguing that you don't want someone with a penis changing in the women's locker room with your daughter is not the same as killing transgender and gay people because they violate Sharia law..
What about Russian aggression? Putin walked through half of Ukraine, and continues to work to destabilize the rest of Ukraine. He's invaded a sovereign country. Should we take a harder line against him? Should we lead the UN in taking a stronger stance against Russian aggression? Or should we "reset" our relationship with Putin? President Obama has made many idle threats, without any substance. This has encouraged Russia, Iran, and China to do whatever they want in the world, to benefit themselves at the expense of other free nations. Putin has indicated numerous times he'd like to re-assemble the former USSR. To do this, he'll have to take over several other countries. If we don't stop him, who will? Greece? Spain? Any of the other socialist countries of Europe who now can't even pay their own debts?
Trump may be able to negotiate with Putin, but he intends to follow the Teddy Roosevelt gameplay: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Clinton is also inclined to use our military to force Putin to back down.
Doug:
We need to be consistent across the planet. That will help give the world stability.
David:
But all conflicts are not the same. In fact, almost all of them are very unique in their causes, and the motivations of the players. Each individual conflict takes a unique approach to solve. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to stabilizing the world. But it does take a fair and militarily strong authority to step in to stabilize these areas. That authority has traditionally been the US. Along with our NATO allies, we've largely kept the world peace since the 1940's.
Doug:
Your world view is filled with false dichotomies. Can we realistically work towards world peace? Yes. Does being consistent mean that we treat all conflicts the same? No. Perhaps you see attempting to live in a better, peaceful world as just fluffy sounding words that should be ridiculed. Perhaps it is easier to just do what humans have always done throughout history: fight. Or, perhaps we can actually work towards peaceful coexistence. How do we work towards peace? By electing rational, thinking people who understand history, but also can lead the world to a place we have never been: a peaceful place worthy of our children's future.
David:
You have never spoken truer words. Well, at least partly. Human nature is to fight. There will never be a time where everyone will get along peacefully. We can hope for that end, but to pretend it already exists denies history and human nature. Even in Socialist countries, those in charge ultimately become corrupt. Communism has led to more deaths in the world than any other ideology. Just like Orwell's book "Animal Farm", some animals see themselves as more equal than others, and when in power, we have seen "rational, thinking" people become just as corrupt and power hungry as every other dictator through history. There will always be "haves" and "have-nots".
Without a strong influence from the US in the world, bad actors and evil people will continue to advance against those who are weaker. To make the world a safer and peaceful place for our children, we have to exert our influence across the globe, as a city of light on a hill, to cower the darkness. Otherwise, history shows us the darkness will always try to conquer where it can.
I'm surprised that you don't have a better analysis of US foreign policy. Of course, President Obama has done just about everything he can to utterly destroy our ability to maintain a superior and able military (and I assume he's your model of a "rational, thinking" man). By doubling our national debt, and expanding entitlement programs, while at the same time pushing manufacturing jobs to other countries, we have little cash to maintain the military, and fewer factories to build equipment if we should need those resources. While he says he believes in American exceptionalism, he doesn't believe in any of the things that created American exceptionalism. He's big on rhetoric (like drawing red lines, and saying things like "Assad must go"), but lacks any actions to back those words. You said you wanted rational, thinking people who understand history to be in charge. Well, Obama got the sitting-around-and-doing-a-lot-of-thinking part down.
Well, either of the candidates likely to be our next president appears ready to take a much stronger and assertive stance on the world stage. The Donald says he will make NATO members contribute more, and will invest more resources in the military, and Hillary looks poised to flex American muscle around the globe. They both understand that the best way to avoid war in this complex world is to follow examples of great civilizations and minds through history: You achieve peace through strength.
To quote George Washington: "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."
I thought we might branch out into an area where neither of us has expertise, and talk a little about America's goals, or role, in the world today. With ISIS, the rules of war have changed. They aren't a country (more like a cancer), so what is the end goal in our battle with them? Interestingly, Hillary Clinton seems to be more of a hawk than the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
What do you see as our role in the world today, what should be our foreign policy goals, and how do we reach them?
Doug:
Like any good citizen of the world, we need to listen to our allies and work together. We should never again be reactionary; we should spend our lives, money, and energy in productive ways. We should not always look to the "hawks" to solve our problems, but embrace diplomacy where we can. We should stand-up for injustice, even if it doesn't make us money. We should use available resources, including the United Nations, and other international organizations.
David:
And the whole world should get along together and sing Kumbaya at least once a day. Unfortunately, as history shows us, there are more countries in the world bent on acquiring territory and resources from others than there are countries like us.
Doug:
What? That sounds scary! There are more countries that want to attack other countries than don't? No, that just isn't true. Perhaps catching your breath and singing a little might indeed give everyone a bit of calmness. I know the last 8 years have been different: we haven't invaded a single country!
David:
Perhaps you need to watch the news more. And pay attention to the "world news" section. In the past ten years there have been wars all over the world, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Darfur, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Niger, and Mali are only a few of the conflicts and wars that have occurred and are still ongoing. Did you not hear that Russia invaded Ukraine? Have you not heard that China is taking over the South China Sea, despite the protests of multiple other countries in the region? The Palestinians continue to shower Israel with rockets on a daily basis. Iran continues to thumb their nose at the UN and the rest of the world as they continue testing ballistic missiles in clear violation of UN resolutions. The world is a scary place. That's reality. And, it's history.
But what about ISIS? They are religious zealots following an extreme brand of Islam. Their own words lay out a plan to dominate the world. Their resources appear to be limited, but they certainly have enough supporters to continue to wreak havoc in the Middle-East, Paris, San Bernadino, and the rest of the world. Should we follow the Trump plan, and let those in the Middle-East deal with ISIS, or do we contribute to the fight, as Hillary Clinton suggests?
Doug:
What to do about ISIS? I have no idea. We should elect responsible people who will surround themselves with knowledgeable people, and do responsible things in light of specific circumstances. We have our own share of Religious Zealots right here in the good ole US of A. We just need to minimize the damage they can do all over the world.
David:
I think your first sentence is almost exactly what Donald Trump said he'd do. You're still talking in great, fluffy, happy-sounding words, that have little to no basis in reality. You're back to singing Kumbaya.
You sound as though you'd be happy just trusting the military to take whatever actions in the world they deem "necessary". That's an unusual position for one who leans as far left as you do, and feels all of our other wars were illegitimate.
Apparently you think Christians in this country voicing their beliefs is more dangerous, or on the same level as Radical Muslims beheading Christians because they aren't Muslims? Your theory of relativity falls well short of reality. Arguing that you don't want someone with a penis changing in the women's locker room with your daughter is not the same as killing transgender and gay people because they violate Sharia law..
What about Russian aggression? Putin walked through half of Ukraine, and continues to work to destabilize the rest of Ukraine. He's invaded a sovereign country. Should we take a harder line against him? Should we lead the UN in taking a stronger stance against Russian aggression? Or should we "reset" our relationship with Putin? President Obama has made many idle threats, without any substance. This has encouraged Russia, Iran, and China to do whatever they want in the world, to benefit themselves at the expense of other free nations. Putin has indicated numerous times he'd like to re-assemble the former USSR. To do this, he'll have to take over several other countries. If we don't stop him, who will? Greece? Spain? Any of the other socialist countries of Europe who now can't even pay their own debts?
Trump may be able to negotiate with Putin, but he intends to follow the Teddy Roosevelt gameplay: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Clinton is also inclined to use our military to force Putin to back down.
Doug:
We need to be consistent across the planet. That will help give the world stability.
David:
But all conflicts are not the same. In fact, almost all of them are very unique in their causes, and the motivations of the players. Each individual conflict takes a unique approach to solve. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to stabilizing the world. But it does take a fair and militarily strong authority to step in to stabilize these areas. That authority has traditionally been the US. Along with our NATO allies, we've largely kept the world peace since the 1940's.
Doug:
Your world view is filled with false dichotomies. Can we realistically work towards world peace? Yes. Does being consistent mean that we treat all conflicts the same? No. Perhaps you see attempting to live in a better, peaceful world as just fluffy sounding words that should be ridiculed. Perhaps it is easier to just do what humans have always done throughout history: fight. Or, perhaps we can actually work towards peaceful coexistence. How do we work towards peace? By electing rational, thinking people who understand history, but also can lead the world to a place we have never been: a peaceful place worthy of our children's future.
David:
You have never spoken truer words. Well, at least partly. Human nature is to fight. There will never be a time where everyone will get along peacefully. We can hope for that end, but to pretend it already exists denies history and human nature. Even in Socialist countries, those in charge ultimately become corrupt. Communism has led to more deaths in the world than any other ideology. Just like Orwell's book "Animal Farm", some animals see themselves as more equal than others, and when in power, we have seen "rational, thinking" people become just as corrupt and power hungry as every other dictator through history. There will always be "haves" and "have-nots".
Without a strong influence from the US in the world, bad actors and evil people will continue to advance against those who are weaker. To make the world a safer and peaceful place for our children, we have to exert our influence across the globe, as a city of light on a hill, to cower the darkness. Otherwise, history shows us the darkness will always try to conquer where it can.
I'm surprised that you don't have a better analysis of US foreign policy. Of course, President Obama has done just about everything he can to utterly destroy our ability to maintain a superior and able military (and I assume he's your model of a "rational, thinking" man). By doubling our national debt, and expanding entitlement programs, while at the same time pushing manufacturing jobs to other countries, we have little cash to maintain the military, and fewer factories to build equipment if we should need those resources. While he says he believes in American exceptionalism, he doesn't believe in any of the things that created American exceptionalism. He's big on rhetoric (like drawing red lines, and saying things like "Assad must go"), but lacks any actions to back those words. You said you wanted rational, thinking people who understand history to be in charge. Well, Obama got the sitting-around-and-doing-a-lot-of-thinking part down.
Well, either of the candidates likely to be our next president appears ready to take a much stronger and assertive stance on the world stage. The Donald says he will make NATO members contribute more, and will invest more resources in the military, and Hillary looks poised to flex American muscle around the globe. They both understand that the best way to avoid war in this complex world is to follow examples of great civilizations and minds through history: You achieve peace through strength.
To quote George Washington: "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."
To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
President George Washington
first annual address to Congress, January 8, 1790
"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
President George Washington
first annual address to Congress, January 8, 1790
President Obama now has the distinction of the president who has been at war the longest. Longer than FDR, longer than Bush, longer than even Lincoln.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?_r=0