US foreign policy

[Firelord Zuko]

What are they doing right?

What are they doing wrong?

What would you do differently?

[Sailor Jerry]

Here we go again.....I'll reserve my comments until after a few posts!

[Firelord Zuko]

Alright, I'll start, and you can shit all over my ideas.

 

 

I believe that the USA should be much less involved on the world stage. We should drastically cut military spending, pull back our military projection massively, and find ways besides permanently occupying the middle east to keep the pipeline flowing. We should invest much more in systems for preventing/mitigating the damage of nuclear attacks using the extra funds we might have from cutting spending elsewhere.

[Sailor Jerry]

Sounds nice, but I don't think all the other kids on the playground would want to play by the same rules.  We pull back and cut spending, it won't be long before some other nation starts to impose themselves as the new world power.  And before those of you out there say..."Oh, that would never happen!!!!"  wake up, you're not in Oz or Never-Never Land or Fraggle Rock or any other little dreamy land you go to when your head hits the pillow feeling secure in the blanket of freedom that our great military has provided!!!!!!

 

 

Seriously though.  Middle East, sure, get us the "F" out of there....enough is enough already.  As to the power projection.....I think we still need to show the flag around the world via our navy and our troops that are stationed in bases in our allied counties.  We are pretty much the only "Super-Power" left....militarily speaking, why back off of that position.  Our government just needs to be a little smarter and little more up front on using it though.  Having a large force projecting itself as it does keeps a lot of other folks in check. 

[Firelord Zuko]

The thing is, we could halve our military spending.. and still be spending more than any other nation in the world on our military. Reducing our military spending will not allow china or russia to suddenly go and conquer the united states. Russia is a skeleton, with an obselete navy and nuclear arsenal, small military, and no force projection whatsoever. China hardly fares better. Despite what military-industrial complex scare tactics would lead you to believe, we are not at risk of falling behind the rest of the world in military strength or technology, and we won't be even if we cut our spending on a huge scale.

[Unnamed25]

The thing is, we could halve our military spending.. and still be spending more than any other nation in the world on our military. Reducing our military spending will not allow china or russia to suddenly go and conquer the united states. Russia is a skeleton, with an obselete navy and nuclear arsenal, small military, and no force projection whatsoever. China hardly fares better. Despite what military-industrial complex scare tactics would lead you to believe, we are not at risk of falling behind the rest of the world in military strength or technology, and we won't be even if we cut our spending on a huge scale.

I do remember a video stating that the US' airforce is getting outdated or something like that

[WISD0MTREE]

The thing is, we could halve our military spending.. and still be spending more than any other nation in the world on our military. Reducing our military spending will not allow china or russia to suddenly go and conquer the united states. Russia is a skeleton, with an obsolete navy and nuclear arsenal, small military, and no force projection whatsoever. China hardly fares better. Despite what military-industrial complex scare tactics would lead you to believe, we are not at risk of falling behind the rest of the world in military strength or technology, and we won't be even if we cut our spending on a huge scale.

China has 1.35 billion people. If they were to get a just cause for war, they could amass a huge army, even though they won't be trained as well. I'm not saying that they will, cause they won't (unless some politician screws up) because their exports to us make up such a huge amount of their economy. 

 

But we at least need to spend more on military than welfare. 

 

I do remember a video stating that the US' airforce is getting outdated or something like that

It is.*

​*With the exception of Predator Drones

[Karl Marx]

1. Reduce military presence in areas that don't need it, such as Western Europe, allowing us to save money.

 

2. Withdraw from the Middle East (but don't abandon using drones, see point four) so people can't complain about "muh U.S. imperialism".

 

3. Use the money saved in point one to equip Middle Eastern countries and their militaries with the resources to take up the fight themselves. Do not just give them money, as it will most likely be misspent. Do not just send guns n' ammo and expect to make a difference. Create meaningful diplomatic relations with them, allow them to determine their needs, and meet those needs. Essentially, go back to being the Arsenal of Democracy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_of_Democracy

 

4. Before ordering a drone strike, obtain the permission of the country where it will be carried out. Or, better yet, have a general agreement with said country regarding drones. Don't just run in and create the image of a country with no regard for the national sovereignty of others, as this just gives our enemies another reason to fight.

 

5. Assist Middle Eastern countries in developing their economies, raising the standard of living. "Why would I go off fight and die when I could live comfortably at home?"

 

Point one will never happen because we don't want an army that meets our needs, we want one that's THE BEST.

 

Points three and five won't happen because it means spending more. Democrats won't cut back in other areas in order to free up funds. Republicans won't approve the tax increases needed to fund such an undertaking.

 

Point four probably won't happen. Even the kind of president (our current one) who's liberal enough to claim he would close Guantanamo Bay has ordered covert drone strikes.

 

There's still hope for point two, as a lot of us are sick and tired of this war.

[WISD0MTREE]

Republicans won't approve the tax increases needed to fund such an undertaking.

Maybe if it wasn't just a tax on the rich, and all across the board, some might support. 

 

I agree with you on almost all points. We shouldn't completely withdraw from the Middle East, because there might be a small problem. Oh, what was that? Isis declared a new Islamic extremist country where their whole society is based off of destroying the USA and making alliances with other organizations with the same goal? 

"You are remembered by the rules you break, not by the ones you follow."

Well we screwed up already. No turning back.

[Ayayay]

I would, once more in fact, like to remind people that the F-22 was decommissioned not because it was out of date, but because it was completely overkill. No other nation can field anything that can compare to the F-22 and thus production has been halted in favor of a more balanced Aircraft.

 

Anyways, The thing with the Middle East is that, because of Israel, we are tied to it. Now the question is, is supporting Israel in our best interest when all it does is piss off everyone else in the region? I think not, best set up puppet rulers and when one gets overthrown we just call on the support of our other puppets to, "help us bring democracy."â„¢

 

Another main factor is the oil, they got so damn much available right now. True most of our oil comes from Canada but it might be more prudent to bleed the Middle East dry before using our own or our neighbors. Worst case scenario, everyone starts switching to electric and we don't end up using our oil. Best case is that we end up selling it for sky-high prices.

Edited July 2, 2014 by underlordgc

[Firelord Zuko]

China has 1.35 billion people. If they were to get a just cause for war, they could amass a huge army, even though they won't be trained as well. I'm not saying that they will, cause they won't (unless some politician screws up) because their exports to us make up such a huge amount of their economy. 

 

But we at least need to spend more on military than welfare. 

 

It is.*

​*With the exception of Predator Drones

That huge army would have no way to get across the ocean to the continental United States, and would be useless for messing with the US.

[Ayayay]

That huge army would have no way to get across the ocean to the continental United States, and would be useless for messing with the US.

China truly has shoddy power projection, The UK is far more able to project power than China can. Now if China wanted to attack Mongolia? Yea that would be easy since they got a land border. But overseas is a no go. the USA is able to project power so thoroughly because that has been it's primary objective since WWII and the problems they initially faced against the Japanese. I would go so far as to say that so long as America is in the picture, China would not be even able to invade Taiwan successfully.

[Sailor Jerry]

Alright, I'll start, and you can !@#$ all over my ideas.

 

 

I believe that the USA should be much less involved on the world stage. We should drastically cut military spending, pull back our military projection massively, and find ways besides permanently occupying the middle east to keep the pipeline flowing. We should invest much more in systems for preventing/mitigating the damage of nuclear attacks using the extra funds we might have from cutting spending elsewhere.

  

That huge army would have no way to get across the ocean to the continental United States, and would be useless for messing with the US.

So if we followed your plans/ideas in your first quoted post, how could we fund and have the navy/troops to keep your second quote from happening. As to our power projection......sounds like you'd like to turn our great navy into nothing more than boarder guards! If we did that, who would we look to to watch our backs......Canada and/or Mexico? Not sure how you can say the first quote and then say what you said in the second one.

[Firelord Zuko]

We would still have a navy, just a much smaller one. We wouldn't need to try to be everywhere in the world at once.

[WISD0MTREE]

We would still have a navy, just a much smaller one. We wouldn't need to try to be everywhere in the world at once.

Our trade ships in the Horn of Africa? What about our economy? Oh, I guess we aren't in a recession or anything like that. 

[Sailor Jerry]

We would still have a navy, just a much smaller one. We wouldn't need to try to be everywhere in the world at once.

So what about stuff like this: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us-navy-said-to-chase-pirates-off-somalia/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.  Granted this was back in '07, but I was on the Burke at this very time this was happening.  Sure, just let pirates and hijackers steal dangerous chemicals that can used against others who don't believe as they do.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Coach

[Jerry LeRow]

I do remember a video stating that the US' airforce is getting outdated or something like that

Well, Senate votes to keep A-10 Warthogs alive (I'd say retire them) and has less money for e.g. JSF F-35. So yes, it's partially getting outdated.

 

 

I believe that the USA should be much less involved on the world stage. We should drastically cut military spending, pull back our military projection massively, and find ways besides permanently occupying the middle east to keep the pipeline flowing. We should invest much more in systems for preventing/mitigating the damage of nuclear attacks using the extra funds we might have from cutting spending elsewhere.

Military spending doesn't need to affect world reputation and power imo. China has a far lower military budget, but is making friends not only by selling some weapons (e.g. DF*3 to Saudi Arabia), but also by funding countless projects that enhance the quality of life, e.g. in Africa (a China bank is second-largest funder of such projects after the World Bank).

 

In general, your military will be useless if you make enemies all around the world. I'm from europe, the vast majority of us hates you guys (I still like you, 'cause I don't forget what you've done for us in the last century) due to spying, TTIP/TTIS, NATO-expansion and making Russia aggressive, financial crisis,...

What I see now, especially in Germany, is that the leaders now use every incident (-> spying) for their own advantage, they shout it out to their people and the media and even expel CIA officers. Normally, such incidents were clarified in private room far away from the public, but this is obviously a very tempting tool to increase their own popularity at home.

 

The main mistake you americans make is that you, imo, overestimate yourself and underestimate others. You probably never thought breaking your promise to Russia, namely not expanding NATO into the east, would cause such a backlash from Russia and that Russia is so influential. For heaven's sake, yesterday I read in the St. Petersburg Times that Putin keeps the door for negotiations still open, is there any sane Senator who could grab the chance and normalize the relations with Russia again? Russia isn't that bad, compared to India or China, but you're about to lose Russia to China, India and Iran who will be the major powers in Asia.

 

Speaking of Asia; get out of there. Yes, make some friends, but forget regions like Arabia. I mean the Saudis get everything and sell everything, from everywhere to everywhere, they're not loyal to you. Maybe Qatar, it's often seen as the Geneva of the middle east, but forget about the rest. Instead, put some pressure on Ban Ki-Moon to allow a vote over Taiwan and help this small country. 

 

Rather than Asia, go to Africa. China has been there for a long time, and you're about to lose it to China. Also the former colonial powers, headed by France, are re-discovering their interest and obligations in this continent (Mali, Lybia,... or Desertec), so not much is left for you.

 

Summing up, it's always easy to gain influence by buying more weapons and having a military empire (which you have atm). I can understand no one in Congress wants USA to lose it's #1 spot, and therefore I understand your FP is mostly realistic. But be friendlier to other nations, help them, and yes, move some billions of the defense budget into foreign aid funds. You'll make far more friends and far more sustainable friendships if you help African countries to build schools, hospitals, infrastructure, energy supply,...., whatever. You also have to realize you did a lot of damage, often covered and unnoticed by the world, to many countries, and you gotta overtake responsibility for that. An isolationist way how it's proclaimed by Rand Paul would be a disaster for America.

[Shellhound]

I believe we could use our resources a lot more effectively for one, focus our military bases around areas that actually pose a threat, destroy the other bases, pull troops out of areas we don't need them and focus them in areas we do. I'd much rather see troops being put to use on the US-Mexico border than sending them to Western Europe. I'm not advocating that we downsize our military in anyway, we just need to make it more effective. I see no real reason to have 50 something bases in Germany and around 113 in Italy, not in this day and age. Want to put some in Eastern Europe to keep an eye on Russia? Go ahead, but do it under NATO and get some of the other countries to help with the bill.

 

Our military should be used to protect our interests, not to try and root out evil. If another country is !@#$ed up, let them be !@#$ed up. Somali Pirates bothering French ships around Africa? Let France figure it out. Somali Pirates bothering our ships? Send in some SEAL's and let them take care of it. We're far too involved with the rest of the world's problems. If it's affecting us, let's do something about it. If it's not and we don't think it will, why involve ourselves and inevitably piss people off?

[Don Juan]

 

Well, Senate votes to keep A-10 Warthogs alive (I'd say retire them) and has less money for e.g. JSF F-35. So yes, it's partially getting outdated.

There isn't really a replacement for the A-10s, though. I mean F-22s are great for Air Superiority, not that they're sharing, but the JSF F-35 will likely be outdone by the Russian PAK-FAs that are still under development. This, I think, will basically screw over Australia in the near future (on a semi-related note).

 

In general, your military will be useless if you make enemies all around the world. I'm from europe, the vast majority of us hates you guys (I still like you, 'cause I don't forget what you've done for us in the last century) due to spying, TTIP/TTIS, NATO-expansion and making Russia aggressive, financial crisis,...

What I see now, especially in Germany, is that the leaders now use every incident (-> spying) for their own advantage, they shout it out to their people and the media and even expel CIA officers. Normally, such incidents were clarified in private room far away from the public, but this is obviously a very tempting tool to increase their own popularity at home.

Guess who's not getting admittance to 5eyes now.

 

The NATO expansion was probably a misstep in US foreign policy though. At the moment, the relationship with Russia seems to heading back towards a Cold War mentality; I think the opportunity was missed to try and integrate them in a friendlier manner, for more than a decade. Georgia was probably the first significant backlash to NATO expansionism, in hindsight.

 

Summing up, it's always easy to gain influence by buying more weapons and having a military empire (which you have atm). I can understand no one in Congress wants USA to lose it's #1 spot, and therefore I understand your FP is mostly realistic. But be friendlier to other nations, help them, and yes, move some billions of the defense budget into foreign aid funds. You'll make far more friends and far more sustainable friendships if you help African countries to build schools, hospitals, infrastructure, energy supply,...., whatever. You also have to realize you did a lot of damage, often covered and unnoticed by the world, to many countries, and you gotta overtake responsibility for that. An isolationist way how it's proclaimed by Rand Paul would be a disaster for America.

Less drone strikes; more foreign aid. Give places where there are extremists something to lose and see if they still want to take you down. My bet is the answer would be "no".

 

That said, there will probably always be some hate from Arabs with the US supporting Israel in that polarising situation there. I don't really see an easy solution here, though.

[WISD0MTREE]

I believe we could use our resources a lot more effectively for one, focus our military bases around areas that actually pose a threat, destroy the other bases, pull troops out of areas we don't need them and focus them in areas we do. I'd much rather see troops being put to use on the US-Mexico border than sending them to Western Europe. I'm not advocating that we downsize our military in anyway, we just need to make it more effective. I see no real reason to have 50 something bases in Germany and around 113 in Italy, not in this day and age. Want to put some in Eastern Europe to keep an eye on Russia? Go ahead, but do it under NATO and get some of the other countries to help with the bill.

 

Somali Pirates bothering French ships around Africa? Let France figure it out. Somali Pirates bothering our ships? Send in some SEAL's and let them take care of it. We're far too involved with the rest of the world's problems. If it's affecting us, let's do something about it. If it's not and we don't think it will, why involve ourselves and inevitably piss people off?

Fixed for you.

 

I agree with everything, in general. If the world wants to be !@#$ed up, let them be. But, if they are !@#$ed up and sending terrorists in planes, we need to un!@#$ them. 

[Shellhound]

Personally I think shit like that happening is a direct cause of us getting far too involved in events that don't directly effect us, it's a chain reaction of our meddling and !@#$ing about in the middle east.

[Vincent]

The problem with US is they tend to start something and never quite end it the way it was intended to be. They lack the will power. It is proven in Iraq and again in Afhanistan. Yes the invasion is successful but holding on to what that is conquered isn't that successful as they think . They yankies back off and ask for withdrawal bcos the locals started suicide bombing and resistance or etc.....and US is quickly looking for exit strategy.... well if I am the Commander in Chief for US. I wont withdraw from Iraq neither will I pull out from Afhanistan.... instead I will pour more elite army to crush the resistance and weed out the extremist and talibans or whatever u have there..

 

By pulling out u will allow those unwanted element to regroup and retrain and when those !@#$ felt comfortable they will stage another 911 sort of event to show off and etc....by allowing them to regroup - that is the biggest mistake US can do. US must not listen to those would want to end war fast but to ensure the job is fully completed.....crush all the extremist....get rid of every single one of them.....deny them the opportunity to stage another 911....

[Vincent]

@shellhound - I don't think US is messing up in the middle east....they did the right thing...went there to deny those talibans and Al Qaeda their breeding ground....we cant have US pulling out before the job is done...otherwise the extremist will just regroup and strike when the time is right....

They will strike at anyone who doesn't believe in their hardcore militant theory.....so r u going to stay home and let them bring the war to you or do u rather cut them off before they have the chance to strike?

[WISD0MTREE]

Personally I think !@#$ like that happening is a direct cause of us getting far too involved in events that don't directly effect us, it's a chain reaction of our meddling and !@#$ing about in the middle east.

Nah. 

Quran: 

Excerpt K 8:012

Set 28, Count 62

make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 

 

Excerpt K 9:073

Set 44, Count 108

strive hard [Jihad] against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them...

[Ayayay]

8:012

Actual Verse: [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

The verse is saying that Allah said that to the angels, not commanding the Muslims to do it. That is downright bull%@#$.

9:073

Actual Verse: O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Talking about people who claim to be Muslims but refuse to follow any of the tenants of Islam(basically they say they are Muslims then proceed to undermine it). Also talking about the Qurish tribe(who they were fighting).

 

Earlier in the surah

9:12

And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

 

9:69

[You disbelievers are] like those before you; they were stronger than you in power and more abundant in wealth and children. They enjoyed their portion [of worldly enjoyment], and you have enjoyed your portion as those before you enjoyed their portion, and you have engaged [in vanities] like that in which they engaged. [it is] those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter, and it is they who are the losers.

 

Taking a few lines from a couple thousand ones, removing the context, then editing it is hardly a fair way to prove your point.

 

And look! I can do it too!

Maybe that is why I hate [America] with a passion.

Edited August 4, 2014 by underlordgc