George Warmongerer Bush is at it again

[Park Kraken]

Heh. Threatening to start WW3 with Iran if it obtains nuclear weapons. What he should be worrying about is if Turkey deploys troops into Iraq to slaughtering the Kurds there, like they've been talking about doing. If they do so, and the U.S. defends the Iraqis, then the people may actually start to like us being over there. But not if we keep going around stirring up more crap than we can handle.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME

[Khendon Sevon]

Yeah; but, the US wouldn't stop the Turks if they decided to do it. The US would protest and ask the UN/Nato to do something.

Why? Because Turkey is a pretty friendly nation towards the US. They're just concerned that the Kurds in Iraq will cause problems in Turkey.

The US doesn't want to tango with Turkey on its own. Turkey has a legit military.

Just like the US doesn't want to put Iran on its dance card. They also have a legit, modern military.

It's all news hype.

The administration wants to come off as commenting on the security problems that they're going to be leaving for the next guy. They're just getting ready to bail. Lame. Duck.

[Mitch]

You do realize that there's more than one person who decides these things, right?

[Morgan Evanar]

He's the person who can ultimately say no, though.

[Peter McCoy]

Doesn't the Senate have to approve of any big decisions the President wishes to take action on?

[Khendon Sevon]

No, not exactly.

It's a bit more complex than that.

Morgan is right in that the president ultimately can say no. Or, not say anything and, thusly, let nothing happen (pocket veto and whatnot).

Bleh, the US government is such a sticky mess of precedents.

[Morgan Evanar]

Doesn't the Senate have to approve of any big decisions the President wishes to take action on?They're responsible for approving funding but that can get ugly very quickly.

The Executive in this country is out of hand.

[Zem-El Vymes]

Not really. Only if he takes formal actions. He can cut shades of grey however he wants these days.

[Jedieb]

Doesn't the Senate have to approve of any big decisions the President wishes to take action on?

:lol
That's a good one. When exactly was the last time the President went to Congress for a declaration of war? WWII I believe, and my look how peaceful it's been since then. It's a consequence of modern warfare and the nuclear age. The President doesn't have to jump through the hoops the Constitution laid out for him anymore.

[JediBeldarine]

You're right in that a formal declaration of war hasn't occurred since WWII, but Congress did authorize Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq. It may not be pretty, but they did authorize it. I know there's a debate raging right now, but if many in Congress had stood up for their beliefs then and vetoed the authorization of force we might not be in this position right now.

Personally, I'm a strict isolationist. I don't believe we should be screwing around with other nations. Pull our military out of foreign countries. Pull out of the UN, stop funding them and kick them out of NY. Let's take care of stuff at home before we go farting around with the rest of the world.

Jen

Strict Libertarian who hates all politicians equally.

[Morgan Evanar]

Pull our military out of foreign countries. Pull out of the UN, stop funding them and kick them out of NY. Let's take care of stuff at home before we go farting around with the rest of the world.
That's rather shortsighted. I somewhat agree in concept but it won't work.

[Khendon Sevon]

Pandora's box.

We can't just go back to the 1930's.

Besides, the US has always been "selective" in its isolationism.

Oh, and there's a little thing called globalism.

[Yog]

Bush already made US more isolationist. Look how that works out. I think the US should do the opposite of distancing themself from the UN. What it should do is work more closely with UN / NATO and use the military through international cooperation and practice a more non-interventionalist foreign policy.

As for US interferring militarily with Turkey, that would be utterly nuts. They are actually one of the closest allies to US right now. Their air fields are heavily depended on for operations in the middle east, and Turkey is a dedicated NATO member. They are trying hard to adapt to the west so they can become a EU member. What Turkey is doing is responding to PKK gurilla / terrorism attacks, much like Israel was responding to Hezbollah. I was in Turkey a year ago, and contrary to popular belief, it is for the most part a peaceful country. I spoke with a kurd living there, and he had no sympathies towards PKK. Some of the stories he told were quite horrible. The PKK is a terrorist organisation and they want no peace. Explain how it makes sense to fight Al-Qaeda on one hand, and on the other hand defend PKK?

I noticed the congress a week or so ago put out a bill condemning Turkey for stuff they did during WW1. Yeah, that was a smooth move bringing that up when the situation was already on the boiling point.. :rolleyes

[Park Kraken]

There should be some changes made in our deployments, no doubt about it. I don't see a reason for a continuing presence in Germany, and we could use those troops in Afghanistan. We could also aid the U.N. peacekeepers in the Darfur region, which are having a tough time. Although we do need to keep our Asian deployments in place, with China hovering over Taiwan and North Korea always in a potentially threatening posture.

[JediBeldarine]

Bush already made US more isolationist. Look how that works out. I think the US should do the opposite of distancing themself from the UN. What it should do is work more closely with UN / NATO and use the military through international cooperation and practice a more non-interventionalist foreign policy.


While you're all correct and I understand that pulling out of everywhere would be incredibly short-sighted, sometimes I feel like that's what we need to do. If we had closed down some of the bases and concentrated on Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden, we might not be where we are now (thanks a bunch, politicians!).

Personally, however, I detest the UN. I feel it's a childish organization (hello, people get up and leave whenever someone says something they don't like... can we grow up, please?) that is incredibly corrupt and tries routinely to enforce its will on the United States (hello, right to bear arms... and don't give me that lip service that Kofi Annan gave to "protecting the right to legal firearms" because that directly contradicts this quote from the 2006 conference: "Unless a reduction in the demand for small arms can be achieved, attempts to better control their supply are likely to be only partially successful. The Programme of Action calls for "combating this trade simultaneously from both a supply and demand perspective". However, measures on the demand side by which this commitment can be implemented in practice should be further elaborated by the Review Conference"). Over time I've come to believe that the ones in charge of the UN would like nothing better than a weakened US forced to submit to UN control.

I'm sure people in other countries see the UN differently but numerous polls conducted in the US sees the UN as a foreign body trying to intervene in our policy. One poll's statistics I've seen recently shows 70% of the public opposes the UN. While I believe that's a little on the high side, I'm sure it is a majority of the population.

Anyway, that's enough of the UN. Peace,

Jen

[Khendon Sevon]

Or, rather:

The US doesn't bend to the UN's will. Which, possibly, is one of the reasons everyone hates us, the UN is defunct (if the US doesn't have to do it, why should I?), and Americans hate the UN (Oh, what have they accomplished? Hmm? -- nothing, since America just likes to veto and not to respond).

But, whatever. The UN is broken in that it's not helping enough people. Of course, if the member nations don't want to help... that could explain why. Especially those nasty guys with veto power ;)

By the by, I don't think Bush made us isolationist. He simply pushed our allies away. That's not isolationism.

Isolationism would be banning American trade to/from any countries involved in the middle east (not sending our troops there) to ensure that we don't get involved.

Let's not confuse isolationism with turning away from good advice ("Don't invade IRAQ!!!!! You fools!!!").