Oct 2nd 2012, 16:56:58
Originally posted by trumper:
So let me see if I follow you here. Central to your point is that US has engaged in meddlesome foreign policy that benefits its own national interests. Simultaneously you said if someone thinks Iran is more of a threat to the US than Korea or Pakistan than you should reconsider your political views. Rationalize for us how you see North Korea and Pakistan as more strategically valuable to the US national interests?
The U.S. and aligned "Western" bloc powers did support a number of shady governments in opposition to the Soviet Union and aligned "Eastern" bloc countries who similarly supported shady governments. However, that's not been the case in recent years where policy has changed rather abruptly in the other direction (Rose and Orange Revolutions, Libyan air support for rebels, et cetera).
The U.S. spends a very large amount of money on defense. But how do you see that negatively impacting the world's geopolitical balance? Would you prefer a drawback to Chinese level spending? Play out the scenario of what you think happens if the U.S. intentional draws down it's military might.
I think Israel is in the defensive position because they're surrounded by neighbors who geniunely don't care for them and have fought two wars against them (provocation is irrelevant when you think of "sides" in any conflict because you remember the "for you" and "against you" more so than the reasons). I think Iran's also in a defensive position, but I think they're more interested in the obtaining weapon's because they see it as a path to respect and power.
I am a bit short on time before class so I will be a bit more brief than what is ideal. In regard to Pakistan and Korea being of more strategic importance to the United States than Iran:
Iran has oil reserves and also connect the largest natural gas reserves in the world, the area under and surrounding the Crimean Sea to the Indian Ocean where it can be easily transported globally. In terms of petrol resources Iran is of much more strategic significance to the United States. On the other hand, most of the significance of Iran to the United States is portrayed by western mass media as one of military threat. In this regard, Pakistan and North Korea both have nuclear weapons and advanced missile technology. Both are significantly less stable than other nuclear capable countries. I would argue that Pakistan is less stable than Iran but I would also be speculating as I do not have enough knowledge about either to make such an assertion.
In regard to the Orange Revolution and the air support of rebels in Libya:
Muammar Gaddafi, the former dictator of Libya, turned Libya into the richest country in Africa. It was the only African nation capable of refining more oil than domestic demand. Gaddafi also build most of the current infrastructure of neighboring Chad. The infrastructure projects have completed ceased since the regime change there. Gaddafi is accused of human rights violations, similarly George W. Bush is also accused of human rights violations. I admit that I cannot quantify either. However, it is obvious that in the short run Libya is worse off without Gaddafi. The NATO air support in Libya leveled a vast amount of Libya's manufacturing and it is now estimated that the bombings set Libya back over 30 years in terms of lost infrastructure. There is ongoing violence in Libya and a power vacuum. You can look to nearby Iraq to see how long it may take for stabilization to occur. It has not yet occurred in Iraq nearly a decade after regime change or more appropriately regime decapitation.
In regard to the United States defense budget:
I could write quite about in response to this but will limit myself. The United States was able to elevate its defense budget to Cold War levels after the attacks of 9/11. I do not think that a war on terror is winnable, much like a war on drugs. I do not think that military spending ends terror. I also disagree strongly with the privatization of the United States military that has occurred in the past decade thanks in large part to fluff Cheney and company.
I agree with your fourth paragraph but think that in the end, Israel is more aggressive than its neighbors. Iran does seek recognition as you put it. Allowing Russia to enrich Uranium for them to have nuclear power plants was put on the table a year ago but western powers rejected the offer. This would have been a possible way for Iran to gain political recognition without the weapons angle. My opinion in this matter is speculative as I am not knowledgeable in the realm of plutonium refinement and nuclear weapons capability.
Hopefully this has addressed some of your questions Trumper.
iSigma: I do not believe that you looked over that list thoroughly. Some of those dictators were directly installed by the United States (see Pinochet of Chile).
SOF
Cerevisi
Cerevisi