Obama: US, Not China Should Control Future

[dichoi]

hopefully not. 30% of alibaba is owned by Japanese.

You are right, smart Chinese a Japanese could support US to be police of this world now and in future too, so they can save their own money.

 

[TheTruth]

You are right, smart Chinese a Japanese could support US to be police of this world now and in future too, so they can save their own money.

US is a corrupt cop that's too pussy to really push things with either China and Japan.

They're not scared of smaller countries though.

 

[dichoi]

US is a corrupt cop that's too pussy to really push things with either China and Japan.

They're not scared of smaller countries though.

Its good when corrupt cop take care about cash of big boy only.

 

[Aepsilons]

You are right, smart Chinese a Japanese could support US to be police of this world now and in future too, so they can save their own money.

The US does a good police job , imho.

 

[TheTruth]

The US does a good police job , imho.

iyho the ISIS outbreak was a good thing?

 

[Huaren]

iyho the ISIS outbreak was a good thing?

To be honest sometimes I believe the world would be much safer if Saddam is still there.

 

[Aepsilons]

iyho the ISIS outbreak was a good thing?

That was a failure in various parties in funding Al Nusra, FSA, and other radical cells in Syria. The United States is not alone in this failure in strategic depth , but other nation states in aforementioned region -- in an attempt propel their individual nationalistic agenda(s).

To be honest sometimes I believe the world would be much safer if Saddam is still there.

I agree with you. However, we cannot cry over spilled milk. In diplomacy and statecraft, the words "could have, should have, better have" carry no weight. It is a progressive apparatus, there are no room for regressive thought processes.

 

[TheTruth]

That was a failure in various parties in funding Al Nusra, FSA, and other radical cells in Syria. The United States is not alone in this failure in strategic depth , but other nation states in aforementioned region -- in an attempt propel their individual nationalistic agenda(s).

The outcome depended on one thing only, and that was America's invasion of Iraq. That was the policeman's major police action this decade. The last one was Vietnam, which killed 2.5 million Vietnamese or more and achieved nothing.

I thought you liked the Vietnamese!

Even before that they threw out a democratic government in Iran that was much more friendly to the policeman than the current one.

I don't believe Huaren is so much longing for the past but saying that analysis of what happened tells us a lot about American foreign policy objectives and how realistic the reasoning behind them are.

 

[Huaren]

I agree with you. However, we cannot cry over spilled milk. In diplomacy and statecraft, the words "could have, should have, better have" carry no weight. It is a progressive apparatus, there are no room for regressive thought processes.

lol where did I say anything about "diplomacy and statecraft"? Its just plain common sense, and the satement is neither about saddam alone, but the same pattern of so called "world police" fanning more fire around, again and again. You can keep your act as ignorant apologist and see the circle repeat itself from one place to another.

 

[Aepsilons]

lol where did I say anything about "diplomacy and statecraft"? Its just plain common sense, and the satement is neither about saddam alone, but the same pattern of so called "world police" fanning more fire around, again and again. You can keep your act as ignorant apologist and see the circle repeat itself from one place to another.

Its not common sense since the premise you offered is not a solution to the quagmire in the Middle East. Please offer a solution instead of merely verbalizing your angst towards a failed policy.

Let it be known that I was against the invasion of Iraq. The Americans did not plan for a clear exit strategy. They should have considered the scenarios, however, that is beyond us now since it has been 12 years since the invasion.

 

[TheTruth]

Let it be known that I was against the invasion of Iraq. The Americans did not plan for a clear exit strategy. They should have considered the scenarios, however, that is beyond us now since it has been 12 years since the invasion.

I'd say the problem goes far deeper than that alone. It wasn't even Americans but a tiny clique of powerful old men who manufactured the whole thing. I don't believe the problems in the Middle East have a military solution, but America doesn't believe in solutions that don't involve killing millions of people.

 

[Aepsilons]

The outcome depended on one thing only, and that was America's invasion of Iraq. That was the policeman's major police action this decade. The last one was Vietnam, which killed 2.5 million Vietnamese or more and achieved nothing.

I thought you liked the Vietnamese!

Even before that they threw out a democratic government in Iran that was much more friendly to the policeman than the current one.

I don't believe Huaren is so much longing for the past but saying that analysis of what happened tells us a lot about American foreign policy objectives and how realistic the reasoning behind them are.

It is not within the capacity of any government to have a clear 20/20 vision of the future outcomes of any national foreign policy. It is through hindsight aperture that we are able to see what policies resulted in failure, success, in human rights violations, and the antithesis of that.

In regards to Vietnam; well it was the political paradigm of the day -- as what Eisenhower noted it, "the communist domino theory" was the centerpiece in US foreign policy. It was the very reason why the US intervened in the Philippines during the 1950s Hukbalalahap War , in Thailand, Vietnam, and before that Korea.

 

[TheTruth]

It is not within the capacity of any government to have a clear 20/20 vision of the future outcomes of any national foreign policy. It is through hindsight aperture that we are able to see what policies resulted in failure, success, in human rights violations, and the antithesis of that.

In regards to Vietnam; well it was the political paradigm of the day -- as what Eisenhower noted it, "the communist domino theory" was the centerpiece in US foreign policy. It was the very reason why the US intervened in the Philippines during the 1950s Hukbalalahap War , in Thailand, Vietnam, and before that Korea.

But many people, if not the majority of people, in the US gov't were screaming at the top of their lungs that Iraq was going to be a disaster like Vietnam. But for some reason a bunch of psychopaths got their way.

The same with Vietnam ... a lot of the American people did not want that war, and even when it was failing horrifically the government refused to cut its losses until millions of Vietnamese were dead.

The policeman can't be a good one without good judgment.

 

[Aepsilons]

I'd say the problem goes far deeper than that alone. It wasn't even Americans but a tiny clique of powerful old men who manufactured the whole thing. I don't believe the problems in the Middle East have a military solution, but America doesn't believe in solutions that don't involve killing millions of people.

The Middle East is a sensitive region. History vindicates that premise. I agree that military intervention is not the answer , but may be the contributor to any radicalization of local demographics. The solution is a multifactorial based apparatus. There needs to be an economic, religious revolution. One that will cater to the wider sectarian, ethnic, religious lines.

AFAIK.

 

[TheTruth]

The Middle East is a sensitive region. History vindicates that premise. I agree that military intervention is not the answer , but may be the contributor to any radicalization of local demographics. The solution is a multifactorial based apparatus. There needs to be an economic, religious revolution. One that will cater to the wider sectarian, ethnic, religious lines.

AFAIK.

I think I probably agree with you on most points. The thing is the MidEast hasn't traditionally been more sensitive than Europe was. Europe has done a lot of "sensitizing" with the US and EU throwing arms like expensive candy all around. A lot of the troubles in the MidEast seem to be structured on a grand scale that strictly benefits the West, which leaves me curious ...

I think China, Japan and Korea could do a lot to stabilize the region by building infrastructure as neutral parties. Hopefully the people will benefit and be absorbed in new jobs and building their lives.

As an aside I can't see how anyone supporting US foreign policy without reservation can be justified on moral terms. That's my main qualm with Japanese foreign policy, even if Japan has long been a pacifist nation that has contributed significantly to regional development in recent decades.