Read through your classmates' posts. Pick a post to respond to that you do not agree with. Read their candidates' statement. Write a post that critiques both the candidate & your classmate's post. Please quote from the candidate & your classmate directly so we can know what you are referring to.
Remember the goal is for everyone to get a response. Please do not respond to someone's post if they already have more than 1 response. Please attack the ideas/argument of the person & not the person her/himself. Also, please respond in a manner which fosters rather than shuts down dialogue. Lastly, it is important to respond to people's posts in a way that fosters dialogue & is respectful. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
To: Whelan08
You stated that you agreed and disagreed with parts of McCain’s foreign policy platform. I would say that I disagree with McCain on most issues. I agree with you about McCain’s plan of continuing the war. I do not think that his statement that “employing every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool” to fight terrorism is such a good idea when the war is already unpopular and costly (1).
You also stated that you supported McCain’s plan for the environment. In this area, I do not completely agree with you. I support his plans of reducing emissions and energy use; they do not really stand out from the ideas of the other candidates as no candidate would want to say that he/she did not want to decrease pollution. The part that I do not agree with is his stance on nuclear power. McCain states that he “will greatly increase the use of nuclear power, a zero-emission energy source” (1). I do not think creating more nuclear power plants will be a wise path for our country. Not only do plants require multi-billion dollar investments (although I will admit that any type of alternative energy is expensive), but they also create nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste is very reactive and dangerous even in the smallest quantities and safe disposal is difficult. The power plants and waste also present a security threat as radioactive materials could get into the wrong hands. Consequently, security for the power plants would present a significant cost in addition to the large cost of building the plants. I would think that someone as concerned with terrorism as John McCain would not want to create any more opportunities for threats (2). Nuclear power is also not renewable as it requires uranium mining (also detrimental to the environment), so I think that a renewable alternative energy source would be a better investment. There are also the risks of safety and accidents to look at when considering nuclear power (3).
As for your third point about uniting the world’s democracies, it is hard to agree or disagree when McCain offers such vague information. Based on what he has said in his statement, I do not think that creating a League of Democracies would be completely necessary. The proposed league seems that it would do the same job as the United Nations and it seems rather idealistic (1). I agree with you, however, that without a clear plan of how this group would operate, it is hard to evaluate. He does not specify how it would be a “handmaiden of freedom” or “work for peace and liberty.” Would it spread democracy and peace in the same way we are trying to liberate Iraq? If so, I do not think that the other democracies of the world would be eager to join.
Overall, I dislike McCain’s foreign policy ideas and likely will not support his presidential aspirations.
(1)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
(3)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4778344.stm
To Eric Mortenson
I have to say I disagree with you and Mitt Romney on many of the points made in the statement.
The thing that I most disagree with is the fact that he wants to, as you said, “reinvest in modernizing and bolstering our current military status.” Romney proposes spending “an additional $30 to $40 billion annually over the next several years” on defense, and adding 100,000 more troops. I don’t think that this is a good plan because I do not believe that we should continue the war, and I do not think that creating more weapons and soldiers will be the solution to any problem. There are a lot of other ways we could use these billions of dollars.
I do agree with you that the US should use more renewable sources of energy so we can reduce our dependence on oil and help the environment. I did not, however, find Romney’s argument for this satisfactory. He was very vague, saying what he wanted done and the benefits that the US would receive, but gave very few details as to how it would be achieved. I do not expect him to outline his entire plan for this in one statement, but it makes me think that he does not have any unique ideas on the subject. Any candidate could have said “…we need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative.” I am also extremely opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I do agree with your point that “…drilling in ANWR would not relieve a significant enough amount of foreign dependency to justify the repercussions.”
Lastly, I think that his idea of creating “…a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam” is kind of hypocritical. Earlier in his statement, he said, “A growing population and a lack of jobs create fertile ground for radical Islam.” If he already said that he believes poverty to be the problem, and I don’t understand how a creating this “strategy” would be effective.
In conclusion, I disagree with most of what Mitt Romney has to say regarding US foreign policy.
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p40/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
To: Alex Z
I agree with some of the statements John McCain makes about foreign policy and disagree with some of the points you made about his foreign policy.
McCain says that “defeating radical Islamist Extremists is the national security challenge of our time (1).” You do not agree with this statement and say that “all religions have extremists yet the United States has not waged any wars against them.” I agree with you that all religions have extremists, but most of those religions are not attacking us. Most if not all of the terrorists that have attached us in recent years are Islamist extremists. For example, the terrorist attacks of 9-11 and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 were all done by Islam extremists (2).
Next you mention that “all he [McCain] can worry about is the challenge that China represents to the US.” You say that McCain is worried about the United States losing its world supremacy to growing countries like China. China’s economy and industry has grown at such a rate that it cannot be compared to any rise in a country that has happened in the history of the world. In 25 years it is expected that Chinese oil imports will equal those of the United States (3). This will create competition for oil between the U.S. and China and cut into our supply of it. Their massive consumption of oil will slow out already faltering economy. China also produces two times more sulfur dioxide from coal than the U.S. and it may grow to as much as five times our production of it in the near future. All of this sulfur dioxide is having major effects on the climate, not only in China but also across the entire world (4). I don’t know about you but I’m a little worried to have a country like China supreme over the United States.
Finally, I do agree with your dislike of McCain’s plan to “ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge” by giving them more weapons (1). There is not way that giving weapons to an ally of ours in the Middle East is going to create peace in the region. Everyone knows that the increased number of weapons in the region will only help to create more turmoil and violence. I would like to add to your argument that we should go so far as cutting off all aid to that region of the world until they can achieve a respectable level of peace. I think that the U.S. should stop “policing” the world and focus much more on the problems we have here at home.
(1)http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-
mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.htmlblogger
(2)http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html
(3)http://www.iags.org/china.htm
(4)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/31/archive/
main178697.shtml
To: Lauren Vann
First, I want to acknowledge how difficult it was to sift out Mr. Guiliani's direct opinions on many issues. When he talked about the "need to win early battles," I assumed he was referring to late 2001 and early 2003 when we had begun our attacks on Afganistan and Iraq (1) respectively. I agreed because these attacks were very successful. After all, the Taliban lost official power about two months after British and American forces began their air strikes (2). However, more reading suggests that he considers all actions of the last six years early battles. If the goal of winning these 'early' battles is to "gain strength in the Middle East," I question what Guiliani wants to do with this strength in the longer war (3). Your comment "if we did not succeed in early battles the nation would appear weak and vulnerable to defeat" is correct if you define early battles as the ones that took place in the first few months of a war. However, in perspective, if we had been truely victorious in Guiliani's early battles, we would probably not be facing this dilemma that divides our nation so deeply. I agree with you that troops need to be withdrawn, but we have reached that conclusion in very different ways.
The second policy point you chose was rebuilding the nations military, which you disagreed with. I would actually increase our military strength, but not necessarily the way Guiliani would. At the end of the Cold War, one way we lowered international tensions was to reduce our forces(1). I believe the time has come to increase them again because there are very real threats at home and abroad. I will be a happier person when America can speak softly and carry a big stick again. Guiliani focuses most on increasing our technological resources to deter attackers. While this can have worthwhile results, an immediate response of increasing education and health benefits for veterans would be much more effective. This way, we can "worry about citizens" and increase recruiting at the same time to reach Guiliani's ten brigade goal(3). We need to treat our soldiers like the important part of society that they are.
On the issue of diplomacy, I agree with many of the generalizations you make, but I believe Guiliani's reasoning is flawed (3). He relies on the effectiveness of the silent treatment to encourage compromise. I believe that diplomacy is one of the most important parts of being an evolved nation, and Guiliani writes it off much too quickly.
Although his opinions are difficult to decipher, I found that I disagreed with Guiliani on many issues. However, you and I agreed and disagreed with Guiliani about equally, but on different issues and for different reasons.
My sources are:
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p30/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
2. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/timeline/timeline7.html
3. http://2008presidentialrace-meredith.blogspot.com/2007/11/1115-post-5-is-due.html
Response to Katie Wutchiett
I would have to say I disagree with Katie’s interpretation or opinion on Senator Obama’s foreign policy.
The first issue I would like to address is the war in Iraq. Katie agrees with Obama in saying that attacking Iraq was foolish. I do not agree on the mere fact that not only did we capture Saddam Hussein while in Iraq, but we also have been fighting terrorism dead on since our invasion. Although we are not certain we are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, we are battling those rebels who do wish to kill Americans, and those rebels who mistreat women, and those rebels who fight Sunnis because they are not Shiites. I believe sooner rather than later, Iraq would have had to been dealt with. The war in Iraq may seem regrettable now because we have not had major success, but really how can he say that when we captured one of the world’s worst dictators and are continuing to fight for what is right. If we pull out now from the war we created then we would be the cause of a civil war and genocide, personally I cannot settle that within myself. I find that in fact it is our duty to not be a quitter and to finish what we started.
The next issue of how Obama wishes to build our military is all hazy to me. Senator Obama wishes to pull out of Iraq and then continue to build our military to make peace. That is a bit contradictory especially since rumor is he wishes to invade Afghanistan. So he wants to pull out of a war that had no direct evidence to attack in the first place, build our military, promote peace through our military power, and then invade Afghanistan based on that we ‘think’ Osama bin Laden is there somewhere. I agree with Obama that continuing to build our military is necessary, but I think rather than for peace we should build it for national security. Having a strong military makes us a threat which is better than being seen as vulnerable. Sadly, by having strong weapons it does prompt peace. Strong military makes foreign countries afraid of us and therefore they probably will not attack us. But building our military also causes countries like North Korea increase their military to make sure they can protect themselves against us. And North Korea, I think everyone can agree with, is dangerous and needs to reduce their weapons of mass destruction.
On the topic of the United Nations, Obama feels that it is their responsibility to promote peace, create alliances, stop danger, etc. I would say though that the United Nations has good ideas, they are way too slow and have too little impact. I think the UN has potential to be great, but instead they try to make good but in small ways so that every single person is pleased. It is honorable for what they try to accomplish, but if the UN really had some power I think the defeat of terrorism would be much further ahead and I think the genocide in Darfur would have been stopped or prevented long ago. So I agree with Katie in that the US needs to build foreign relations, but I personally think if we want to attain peace it needs to be done in more swift and powerful ways than the UN can do.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Foreign_Policy.htm
Tenzin I'm answering to your post!
I totally agree with you Tenzin when you say that in order for the world to have peace the US should not give weapons to israel and also it should think about its actions. However, I disagree that democracies don't tend to fight with each other. I don;t necessarily think that democracies are more peaceful, I would argue that if a country is a democracy no other democracies will start wars with them because they won;t have anything to spread. I also agree with you when you say that the reason why Iraq will face an inevitable civil war is because of US presence. Many scholars argue that when the US maintains hegemony first it causes the US to be more susceptible to attacks and second, it creates more terrorism because many groups want to see the US out of the Middle East. Because of this, I disagree with any candidate that think we should remain in Iraq to spread democracy when like you said the road towards democracy is filled with bloodshed.
I also agree with you when you say that the US should use its power for good. The US will remain to be one of the superpowers among China, India and Europe and because of this it should be able to use this power to actually help other countries in need.
I was really surprised that Mr. McCaine is willing to talk about Africa when the Republican party has refused to talk about or actually commit to African countries. President Bush has promised money to African countries since his first term in office but not a lot of that money has actually gotten to the people. Also the US is funding called PEPFAR ( president's emergency plan for aids relief) where the US teaches people who live in Africa about abstinence. I did not see a mention of PEPFAR in John Mccain's foreign policy report. If he wants to stop the spread of AIDS, how does he plan in doing it when the US will continue funding a program that does not work for everyone.
What I really agree with in your post is that Sen. McCain puts himself in a double-bind when he says that he wants to stop genocide and also continue US' occupation of Iraq.
What I really dislike about most candidates is that they say they want to help African countries but none of them actually have a plan on how they should do it. Where will the money, resources and people come from when our military is over-stretched and the Iraq war is costing the US billions of dollars?
Responding to Elise
I would have to say that when it comes to Obama’s foreign policy plan I am not so sure that I agree. I do believe that we should help other countries that are in trouble but, the National debt also has to be taken into consideration. As a nation we have way over spent our budget, we help many other countries but, many do not have the financial aid to return the help that we may need at some point in the near future. I do believe that nuclear weapons are a problem but that if we try to control other countries we are only limiting trust and causing problems so I guess that I would agree in that area. I also agree with strengthening alliances but am not sure of what the best action to do this will be. Over all I am at the same point as I am with most candidates I disagree and agree with parts of there foreign policy plans.
To Mia Howard
After reading your post about John Edward’s foreign policy positions, I have found that both he and Obama believe that strengthening our allies is necessary to move this nation forward. Primarily, the two say that these relationships can help the US economically and in the war on terrorism.
Edwards states that we need to help India now in order to aid our economy in the long run. Obama also advocates cooperation to keep the US competitive. Providing aid to developing nations such as India makes these nations sympathetic to the US, and this can have additional benefits as well.
One of these other benefits is preventing terrorism. Both say that poverty in developing nations is a major cause of terrorism. However, while Edwards wants to fight terrorism, he thinks that the “war on terror” is akin to false hope; he says that it has failed, and is just a meaningless slogan substituted for real action (1).
Obama wants to give aid to developing nations with “strings attached,” so that they will have to comply with reforms that the US proposes. In addition, Edwards and Obama agree that our more- developed allies can help defeat terrorism by using their clout on nations such as Iran, forcing Iran to agree to not have nuclear weapons. Obama wants a “strong international coalition” for this purpose, and he also calls for “tough economic sanctions” on Iran (2).
Obama extends these benefits of strengthening our allies by saying that it would help the environment. He argues that the US could influence China to take more environmentally-friendly measures in it rapid industrialization. Edwards also addresses China, but in an economic manner. He states that its relationship with the US is “a delicate one”: we are competing for resources, but are at the same time important trading partners (1).
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p10/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
(2) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
In response to Meghan Miller’s post:
First you talk about how we need to avoid looking at only one country when we attempt to solve for terrorism on the global scale. I agree with you that terrorists aren’t going to be coming from one country in the world. However, I have two things I’d like to say against that. Primarily, if we can both agree that terrorists aren’t going to come out of one country, I don’t see Obama’s stance on securing the Middle East as being very different (1). All he’s done is expanded the view that terrorists will all come from one region, in contrast to one country. Secondly, however, I think we need to be able to address the fact that our presence in Iraq and other countries of the Middle East could be contributing to the terrorism movement. An article in the International Herald Tribune published in August found that US intervention and occupation had contributed substantially to providing terrorist groups willing recruits (2). This actually leads very well into your second point.
I somewhat disagree with you here. I think you’re right that nation building via military means is dangerous and has the potential to lead to conflict. The thing is, I think you misinterpret what Obama’s ideas are on this issue. From what I understand, he doesn’t approve of military use to build nations either. In fact, Obama has stated his preference for diplomatic efforts as a whole instead. For example, in his Foreign Affairs writing, he stated “Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran” (1). He also seems more intent on putting economic and political pressure on leaders in Iraq and countries surrounding Iraq, versus military. This method I can approve of, relatively anyway. I believe in a state being allowed full sovereignty over its people, but in the name of human safety, I can approve of political pressure.
Onto the issue of forcing a democracy upon Russia. Firstly, I don’t think this is what Obama is suggesting either. I think he’s more stating that we need to look past the simple desire of making Russia democratic and cooperate with the country in the name of eliminating nuclear weapons(1). I think you’re right that it would probably be a bad move on the part of the United States to try and force Russia into a democratic society, but it seems almost like the status quo is bringing Russia into a more democratic realm already (3). Actually, I strongly appreciate the fact that Obama is willing to work with countries that aren’t necessarily what we’d call democratic because he can see that there’s more important things to address other than simply spreading democracy in the world.
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
2.http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2569805140&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2569805146&cisb=22_T2569805145&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8357&docNo=2
(If you have problems with the link, let me know)
3.http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2570128696&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2570129303&cisb=22_T2570129302&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10962&docNo=2
(There may or may not be a problem with this link too Let me know if you have problems)
To Christina R
I disagree with Giuliani about the war in Iraq. He mentions several possibilities of what could happen if the United States withdrew, but does not mention the cost that the United States will incur if we stay (1). Giuliani is on a path that would lead to the United States policing the world. Part of the difficulty with terrorists in the region is that the United States’ troops give the terrorists’ a cause to rally behind: getting United States troops out of the Middle East (3).
I agree that Iran is a possible threat, but for reasons different than yours. I do not disagree with your statement that “The threat of Iran gaining a foothold in Iraq if we left right away is very real.” Iran is heavily disliked by many countries, so even if President Ahmadinejad does have controversial views, I am skeptical if he would be able to act upon those views and “gain a foothold in Iraq.” I also partially disagree with Giuliani in his opinion that Iran would “use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today (1).” Does Iran direct terror towards the United States or is it just different view points? Even the experts on this issue do not know if Iran is building a nuclear bomb so it is difficult to tell if Iran is a viable threat or if it will become one in the near future (5).
I disagree with you and Giuliani concerning the Patriot Act. Giuliani praised the Patriot Act as something that America needed and I cannot more strongly disagree (4). I read an interesting article that said the people who died on 9/11 were sacrifices for democracy. The article basically stated that if citizens want democracy in its true form, without limitations such as the Patriot Act, then there will be sacrifices because of the right to privacy. The loss of lives on 9/11 is the price that American citizens must pay if they want to be in a true democratic nation (2). I found this to be an interesting concept that probably neither you nor Giuliani would agree with, but would be something to bring up with the discussion of the right to privacy and the Patriot Act. I believe that American citizens should not lose basic rights, such as privacy, because of one act by terrorists which was plotted outside of the United States. The Patriot Act fuels distrust among American citizens and it is unnecessary for the “war on terrorism.” Giuliani states that “At the core of all Americans is the belief that all human beings have certain inalienable rights that proceed from God but must be protected by the state (1).” This does not fit at all with the Patriot Act, which limits those inalienable rights of the people.
Sources:
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
2. The Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 2007
3. The Nation, Nov. 2007
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110900784.html
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112500577_2.html
Responding to John Perkins
I was very unimpressed with Giuliani’s views on foreign policy. For the first several paragraphs, he rambles about achieving a “realistic” rather than idealistic peace. First of all, any peace involving military action is an oxymoron. When are politicians going to realize that peace cannot be achieved through warfare? Pointing guns at each other only makes it acceptable to point guns at each other. I also found it very interesting that Giuliani tried to compare the war in Iraq to that of Vietnam in a positive light, seeing as Lyndon B. Johnson is infamous for initiating and continuing one of the most pointless military escapades our country has ever seen. Personally, I find a comparison to Vietnam in no way helpful for someone advocating the war in Iraq. Most comparisons to the Vietnam War are opposing the war in Iraq, and for a good reason, for it is a much better argument.
Giuliani’s plan also demands resources that our country cannot afford to contribute to defense. As our national debt climbs and funding is being cut for social programs right and left, Giuliani wants innovation and expansion. Not only are these things expensive, but I feel as though any successes in these areas would work against us. Increasing the size of our army or creating new technological systems would only encourage our “enemies” to expand as well. I don’t think a nuclear weapons detection system would stop any aspiring terrorists; any barrier placed in front of them is something they can work around, in most cases making them stronger. Any advances made, especially in the field of technology, never stops things. These advances only accelerate the intensity of the fight. The “anything you can do, I can do better” mannerism definitely applies here.
I did find myself partially agreeing with Giuliani, as you did, on international relations. I do find it important for the U.S. to maintain a positive morale with other nations, and keeping ourselves involved in world affairs would be a great way to start. The way Giuliani approached this seemed a little more self-motivated than the way I am seeing it, though. The U.S. should be driven by self-interest, but that shouldn’t be the primary reason for building alliances with other nations. Giuliani’s reasoning came off as slightly selfish; the motives for building alliances should be to keep good relationships with people we are forced to share the world with. Any pay offs we get in the future should be merely a bonus factor, not a reason to play nice.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
To: Christina R.
While Rudolph Giuliani makes some decent points in his essay for Foreign Affairs, I’d have to say that overall, I disagree with him. He starts out about how the United States needs to be more unified, and that unity would in turn, help protect the United States. I agree with all of this, but I saw no clear plan to unify a United States where so many people have different views and the politics is so polarized.
Later, he goes on to talk about how we must “win the early battles of a long war”. He states that the United States should not withdraw our military from Iraq until there is a stable government. This is one place where I disagree with Giuliani. While I too hope that Iraq may soon have strong government, I do not feel it is the United States’ job to create it. While ideally, the only people getting hurt in Iraq would be terrorists, this simply is not true. This war is causing many casualties of all walks of life, whether it’s a U.S. soldier or an Iraqi civilian. I do not feel that our lingering presence in Iraq will somehow unite it’s people. Indeed, the U.S. should try to help Iraq find a system of government that works well, we can not force democracy upon them.
One place I agree with Giuliani is that we should not attack Iran. Preemptive strike is not the way the United States should protect itself.
However, I disagree with Giuliani, and therefore agree with you that we do not need to increase defense spending. As you said, “A new missile defense system will be very costly, and I do not think that America could realistically fund this new program and the war in Iraq.” I also think we should not increase missile defense because “the terrorists” is not a stationary missile target or a city that can be bombed, it is a group of people dispersed through out the world.
I also disagree with Rudolph Giuliani on the Patriot Act. While terrorists are a very real problem, I feel the Patriot Act interferes with our Constitutional rights and should be deemed unconstitutional. Once the United States’ government starts to ignore the Constitution there is little to limit it’s power.
Overall, while I do not agree with most of Rudolph Giuliani’s stances on foreign relations. I do, however, see that his ideas are well thought out and backed by historical examples. While his plans are good, I believe the United States should have different priorities: strong defense rather than preemptive strike, constitutional rights as a higher priority than the Patriot Act.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
Candidate Critique:
After reading John McCain's platform on foreign policy I found that I disagree with many of his foreign policy stances. McCain believes that this is an “American war” and must not only end, but end with a complete win over the opposers. His extremely right wing stance with the war is different than my own . I believe that peace can be achieved with withdrawal of U.S troops. I don't think that in order to win( does “winning” entail killing thousands?) the United States has to remain in Iraq.
McCain also states that in order to keep Iran from becoming a superpower we must limit their political and economic sanctions, and if the United Nations fails to help we should break off with different countries to keep Iran at bay. I completely disagree that forming our own little “anti- Iran” group would accomplish what a reorganization of the United Nations could. Leaders forming different factions is a recipe for more disagreement and fighting among nations.
Lastly, I found his plan for the “friendly Muslims” confusing. McCain states that he will defeat the terrorist and prevent the coming generation from joining the fight, yet he also promises to aid the “friendly Muslim states” to help establish a tolerant community for them. I wonder how he plans to defeat one generation, get the respect of the next ,and aid the “friendly Muslims”, all while sanctioning their society. I disagree with many of McCain's plans for the United States, and believe that other candidates would be a much better fit for our nation.
Student Critique:
I think you brought up many of McCain's foreign policies and clearly stated your opinion on the subject, but I would elaborate a bit more. You state that, “ I do not however agree with McCain's plan for the war. I believe that there other ways that the war could be ended rather then sending in more troops”. Clarifying exactly what McCain's plan for the war is would provide an opportunity for you to better state your own position and what you believe should be done. Providing more information opens the door for points of disagreement/agreement.
You also said that his plan for uniting democracies was a good idea. I find that it contradicts his plan to break away from the failing UN with like minded countries to defeat Iran. I also think that reorganization within The United Nations would be more efficient and worthwhile versus forming an entire new “League of Democracies” to complement the established worldwide organizations. Another bureaucratic association will only add to the confusion.Simplification and reorganization are a better path to follow.
sources used:ttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p20/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom
To Liz Palin
I disagree with your and Hillary’s analysis of how we must end the war. I believe for us to have done any good at all we must stabilize the situation in Iraq before pulling out. I believe that pulling out now would only lead to further unrest in Iraq leaving only the innocent citizens to deal with the violent uprising of the insurgents. I also believe that leaving Iraq without a stable and safe government would be a grave mistake that this strategy is guilty of. I do however believe that leaving Iraq will be the only way we can restore the world’s view of our country and think that we should accomplish as much as we can for the safety of innocent Iraqi’s as quickly as possible in order to return to a state of peace and diplomacy.
I strongly agree with Clintons strive towards statesmanship and diplomacy with our adversaries and think she has good ideas on how we should handle the situations in Iran and North Korea. It is obvious that our next president will have to be skilled in negotiations because of our current state of affairs. I believe Hillary has a good plan to strive towards these goals.
I also agree that rebuilding relationships is key to the proliferation of the United States and I think Clinton is on track in this area as well.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p40/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
Response to Tony:
In reading the critique of John Edward’s foreign policies platform, I agreed with most of your points; I do, however, question your reasoning as to why the United States should not improve relations with China and Russia. You said that the only reason we should reach out to these nations is to keep an eye on them and to try to spread democracy. I am very weary of such remarks because of the ramifications of such ideas in practice. The United States is in no position to preach to other nations about the benefits of democracy. We are not in good standing with most of the world and pushing our form of government onto nations such as China, which is quickly becoming a top world power, could easily be seen as arrogant and laughable. Currently our democratic policies have invaded and torn down a country for weapons we did not find—not something most countries wish to aspire to do. In addition, we are at a time that building international relationships is a much better strategy than condemning the governmental structures of other countries. If we are to continue to compete and remain an important influential nation, we need to foster constructive communication and relations with other countries—especially countries that are growing and gaining power so quickly.
To: Katie Wutchiett
I generally agree with your analysis of Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy statement. His stance on the Iraq War is one of the most concise I have read. I believe he is completely correct in saying that the war was started for the wrong purposes. Many people who agreed with the war in the first place were misinformed. Peace in Iraq is no longer in our hands, and perhaps wasn’t to begin with.
On other issues, however, he seems to change this stance. He has stated that he believes we as a nation are responsible for establishing peace in the Middle East. I agree with your belief that it is more apt for the United Nations or other such organizations to work together in aiding the Middle East. The United States should not be solely responsible for being a guiding light to the rest of the world. In fact, the idea is kind of ridiculous.
Strengthening the military to strengthen peace seems entirely counter-productive from where I stand. Senator Obama’s previous mentions of invading Pakistan have also left a lot of Democrats doubtful as to whether he would really represent the country well. So while I agree with his stance on Iraq, the rest of his foreign policy is either a little iffy, or just downright poor planning in my opinion.
To Josh:
I agree with most of what you stated in your post on Rudy Giuliani. I especially agree with your belief that we will not be able to form friendships with other countries by forcing democracy upon them. However, I disagree with your statement on not using force against terrorists. I’m not really sure how we would be able to prevent terrorism without using some force. If we sit and allow terrorists to attack us, the terrorists will have no fear of attacking us since they know that we will not strike back. I feel that we need to show terrorists that we will not accept them attacking us. I do not think simply befriending other countries will really be able to get this job done unless we befriend countries that are hiding terrorists or have connections with terrorists. Terrorists are not going to forgive the United States after all the history we have had. Now, that does not mean I believe that we should recklessly use force to try and stop the terrorists. I don’t think sitting back and waiting is the perfect approach either. However, I do think if we used a balanced approach where we calculate the correct opportunities to exert our force, we would be able to productively stop and capture some terrorists.
Sources:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
In response to The Beautiful Princess Caitlin Mitchell:
I agree with most of your points concerning Obama’s foreign policy stances. He does seem to stress a more multilateral approach to world problems, which is a nice respite from the bullheaded approach taken by the current administration. It was wrong to disregard the authority of the UN and invade Iraq, and I do believe that Obama will focus on multinational approaches to foreign problems if elected. However, I was unclear about his point concerning “Anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War”. Is he advocating an anti-Islamic alliance? Taking his words in context, he seems to mean that he proposes grassroots movements to end acts of jihad and religious extremism, but this is with much guesswork and assumptions. While the word ‘vague’ has been thrown around a lot in the past few months, I do believe he was a bit ‘indistinct’ on this point. I do applaud him, however, for articulating a clear policy on combating climate change, as you did in your post.
Caitlin, you did a stellar job in your last post! Keep up the superb work, you first-rate student.
-Silas “Suck-Up” Berkowitz
This is in response to Michelle Ludwig’s post regarding the foreign policy statement of John McCain. On November 15, 2007 the US House of Representatives passed a measure grating $50 billion of President Bush’s proposed $200 billion for military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reported, “It provides the tools to our troops so they can get the job done. It also presents a strategy that will bring them home, responsibly, honorably, safely and soon.” Though the bill, which also sets a December ’08 target withdrawal date, is not expected to pass in the Senate, House members are sending a clear message to the President on behalf of the nation-we are ready to be out of Iraq (1). Despite John McCain’s intentions of prolonging our occupancy in order to, “Win in Iraq,” I support the House initiative to begin withdrawing troops from this country (10). It is my further opinion that there is nothing to be won, per say, in this fruitless war. The comment was made that our soldiers ought to remain in Iraq to give their service purpose; this is a statement I wholly disagree with. There is no reward to be sought in this situation and no reward that will be earned with our prolonged occupancy in Iraq. Frankly, this is no reason to extend fighting and aggression between nations of the world.
As the situation relates to Afghanistan and Pakistan, I again find myself in disaccord. Though President Bush spoke confidently in 2002 about our progress in Afghanistan, our present predicament is not as certain. “We’re tough, we’re determined, we’re relentless. We will stay until the mission is done,” he said. True, we successfully conquered Afghanistan of many of its Taliban forces in 2001, but we did not stay to ensure that the job was truly done. As Al Qaeda members have slipped back into the country, US and NATO forces alike are re-battling for redeveloped territories (2). Though McCain sites, “Our recommitment,” to Afghanistan, his proposals include various domestic improvements to be made by universal aids (10). While I can agree that these measures are crucial, I believe that the US needs to take stronger leadership in helping this country rebound. With regards to Pakistan, McCain promotes safe haven areas and increased aid (10). The US, however, has already contributed, “At least $10 billion in Pakistan since 9/11,” roughly 60 percent of which goes directly tot the Pakistani military. Only 10 percent of these funds go towards growth and charitable assistance (3). I would like to see more of our resources going towards developing the country as a whole, rather than isolating safe zones as McCain suggests.
My final points of contention fall in the category of worldwide relations. Though McCain supports an increase in cultural education within our school system, he promotes this for a furthered military expertise (10). As countless other nations adapt to the popular English language, it is important for our country to maintain an edge on other nations as well. Currently, an estimated 1 billion people are learning English worldwide, including an astounding 89 percent of the European Union’s schoolchildren, and about 30 percent of the world can speak or understand our language (4,5,7). There are more people in China learning English as a second language than there are native speakers in America (6). Coincidentally, Mandarin Chinese is said to be the language of the future, growing in popularity and maintaining the most native speakers with around 874,000,000 (7). With one of the fastest growing markets to boot, educating about foreign cultures like China may be in American interest beyond the military. Finally, on the subject of McCain’s proposed League of Democracies, I feel that this program would be entirely detrimental to the efforts of NATO and the UN. "This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations,” McCain states. “It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future," (9). This purpose is indeed retracting from the strength and purpose of the United Nations, which is stated as the goal, “To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,” (11). A separate entity is not needed to achieve these agreeable goals.
Though I respect the viewpoints illustrated by Mr. McCain and Michelle alike, I support a different means by which to achieve a stable and cohesive state within the world.
Sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/washington/15cong.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Afghanistan
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/world/asia/06diplo.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Afghanistan
4. http://esl.about.com/od/englishlearningresources/f/f_eslmarket.htm
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#English_as_a_global_language
6. http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/4030
7. http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language_1.htm
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language
9. http://www.nysun.com/article/63551?page_no=2
10. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
11. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
Thank you, Silas, for your kind remarks. I too believe that you are a superb scholar and I encourage you to follow your dreams! Do note that your stunning good looks are enough to get you an A.
To: Megan Brown
I agree with many of your assessments regarding Senator McCain's foreign policy platform. I, like you, believe that the war in Iraq has developed into a quagmire, and that the resources that we continue to dump into the conflict will not benefit either the Iraqis or ourselves. I think that McCain is slightly out of touch with the reality of the situation there in believing that this is a war that can be won. He also believes that the recent troop surge has been beneficial to the situation over there, while the assessment of the Iraqi civilians is to the contrary-- most believe that it has worsened the security situation (1). McCain states that the consequences of losing would be catastrophic-- to that, I would reply that the costs, to the US and to Iraq, of pursuing victory are equally monumental. Especially when that victory is becoming more and more difficult to attain as time passes and public opinion turns against the war.
I also agree with your assessment of the hypocrisy of providing weapons to Israel-- if we are going to invade Iraq under the pretense of locating WMDs, then providing them to a different nation in the same area is illogical. I think the situation parallels to the US's actions in the past, where we provided weapons to Saddam Hussein and other Middle Eastern dictators, to resist the Soviets. We are currently reaping the fruits of our past actions and I would think that by now, we would have learned from those mistakes.
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p10/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
Response to Christina R.:
The one point that I want to address is in your last paragraph of your original post. You state that you agree with Giuliani's support of the USA PATRIOT Act. And I must say that I disagree with both you and Mr. Giuliani. Although the PATRIOT Act is seen as a safety precaution for our country, I see it more as a violation of civil liberties that citizens of this country are entitled to. I see the PATRIOT Act as a way of the government gaining more control and regulation of what the american people do. The PATRIOTAct is just a government reaction of fear. After September 11th our country was in a state of fear and the fear of not having control. This Act was created so that there would be an illusion of control and safety. In conclusion, although I agree with the stated "intentions" of the PATRIOT Act, overall I disagree with what has become of those "intentions". I disagree that protecting American citizens is the main intention of the act. (hope that made sense...) The PATRIOT Acte is just an ego boost to me so that the government can say "hey look we are make this a better place."
To Lauren!
First of all, I would have to say that I disagree with Guiliani on much of his positions on foreign policy. However, I agree with you on most of your foreign policy views. After reading Guiliani’s foreign policy statements, I was kind of confused on some of his policies. When he said, “winning the early battles”, I decided to conclude that he meant battles that happened at the start of the war and those that are currently occurring (1). In reference to the war as of now, I would have to agree when he says that “The purpose of this fight must be to defeat the terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan” (1). However, I believe that we shouldn’t be in Iraq at all. To me, the war has been pointless. It has cost too many lives and too much money. With all this fighting, it is pretty clear that we are accomplishing almost nothing. So, I agree with you when you say that you think it is important for our troops to leave the area. I also like how you say that the troops should retreat in “a timely manner”.
The next thing that I disagree with is when Guiliani says that we need a larger military. If we establish a larger military, we will increase our government spending on defense by incredible amounts. Guiliani says, “Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits will outweigh the costs“ (1). In contrary, I think that the costs will outweigh the benefits. Increasing the army will plunge the country deeper into debt than it already is. At the moment, our economy is in trouble (and not many people are realizing it). I like how you say that we need to worry about rebuilding our economy.
When Guiliani talks about “determined diplomacy”, he says that, to gain international peace, the world “requires international cooperation, and cooperation requires diplomacy” (1). I agree and disagree with this. I think that this world needs a strong leader, especially in negotiations, and the United States can most likely provide that. On the other hand, I believe that we must not think that of our country as the “best” country in the world. We should make choices that are in best interest for the country, but we also need to look beyond the big picture and analyze what would be best for other countries as well.
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p20/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
This is in response to Jazmyn’s post on Mitt Romney’s foreign policy. I thought that when I first looked at the post I might agree on some policies by Mitt Romney, but I was wrong. I found myself being drawn in by the easy to understand and very clear writing as well as the reasons behind his choices for foreign policy. The first part of Jazmyn’s reason was on the building of the military. Romney believes in building up the military. I agreed with Jazmyn when she said that we aren’t exactly military experts and informed enough to know how exactly our military needs to be equipped. However, I think I ended up agreeing more with Romney than Jaz on this one. I know in theory it sounds good to disarm, but I honestly just don’t know if that is safe at all in this world. I think we should at least give the soldiers fighting for us the best equipment possible. I found it interesting that Romney said, “As President Reagan once said ‘There have been four wars in my lifetime. None of them came because the US was too strong’.” Jazmyn commented on the fact that Romney wants to spend 4% of the GDP on the military. It’s Romney’s next sentence that I really hope he follows through on: “Increased spending should not mean increased waste, however.”
The second part that Jazmyn focused on was alliances. Romney, like many others, believes that we need to strengthen NATO and restructure the United Nations. I don’t think very many people would say that the UN has been effective. Jazmyn and I agree on that. Romney lists human rights abuse in Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, and Sudan as evidence. The thing that intrigued me about Romney’s policy is that he liked the idea of the Marshall Plan, which I thought was a good antidote to terrorism.
For the third part I chose to look up a different part of Romney’s policy than Jazmyn chose, just to switch it up. Energy independence was the topic. I found it strange that it was the smallest section in Romney’s foreign policy, since it is such an important issue to the voters. According to Romney, we use 25% of the world’s oil, but we actually have only 1.7% of the oil. Romney does mention that we need to conserve energy in his policy, but he also seems to only vaguely state ways to do this. I was left with many questions after reading this area of his policy. This was unusual, since I found the rest of his foreign policy clear.
So in trying to find someone I would disagree with, I ended up very much agreeing with Romney and mostly with Jaz as well. At least I found another candidate to add to my list to consider for 2008.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p30/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
To: John Perkins
Although we both did Giuliani's statement, the interpretations and the ideas behind the interpretations were different. First of all, I agree that winning the war on terror was the first point that Giuliani made. However, I interpreted that Giuliani greatly emphasized winning the early battles of the war in order to bolster cnfidence in our country. I agree with your statement that is important to win the battles because it is important to realize the violent ideology of our enemies in these countries. Also, we both interpreted that Giuliani wants to create a stronger national defense and spend more money to increase the size of the military and increase intelligence capabilities of the government. Giuliani also wants to develop a national missile defense system. I do not agree with increased military spending or a national miisile defense system. I don't agree with icreased military spending because the military budget requested for 2007 was about $532.8 billion. With our nation already 700 billion dollars in debt, I really believe that government should cut back on military spending in order to avoid higher taxes or an economic recession. A national missile defense system simply makes me uncomfortable because if other countries know we have this, they may create more powerful nuclear weapons. Finally, the last point was interpreted differently. I thought Giuliani said we needed to be able to make negotiations with other countries and not to accept bad negotiation offers.
www.foreignaffairs.org
www.wikipedia.org
Response to Judy Ly’s Post:
While Barack Obama may have good motives and is well spoken, he lacks a realistic sense of the war. The situation in Iraq seems to be looking upwards, and Democrats are starting to have to change their points of view. Since the escalation of troops, security has improved, and Obama’s adviser even admits that it would be a mistake not to acknowledge the change (NYT). Yet, Obama still calls for the abrupt withdrawal of troops from Iraq. In Baghdad, there are new signs of hope finally emerging after four years of hostility (Newsweek). Obama shouldn’t be so quick to decide that we need an immediate pull out of troops, especially with things actually starting to improve in the Middle East. If Obama truly wants to harness the kind of decision-making power and insight that he credits to Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy, he should focus on the realities of the American presence in all parts of the world- both negative and positive. As far as his stance on Israel, I think it would be wise to seriously consider our long-standing relationship with Israel and how the change of support from our troops in Iraq to Israel would affect Americans and other parts of the world.
Newsweek Magazine
www.newyorktimes.com
Response to Andy O
I agree with your comments on John Edwards’ foreign policy statement. I would also like to add on to your argument that Edwards’ comments sound good, but may be hard to carry out. Edwards’ ideas of providing universal primary education and relief for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria victims are both examples of his good intentions that will be difficult to complete.
In his statement on foreign policy, Edwards describes how he would like to promote universal primary education. Along with donating to UNICEF to promote this, he goes on to say, “…I will also pursue reform of the school systems in developing countries, working to eliminate school fees and required expenses for books and uniforms, which effectively bar millions of children from enrolling; investing in teacher education, classroom expansion, and teaching materials; and helping to provide safe and hygienic facilities for all students.” I believe that this will be very difficult to implement considering there are many education budget and funding problems in the U.S.
Also in Edwards’ statement, he acknowledges the seriousness of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. “As president, I will concentrate on reversing the spread of these three deadly diseases by guaranteeing universal access to preventive drugs and treatment by 2010.” This I believe would be very difficult to carry out. I believe that the US has a responsibility to help provide relief to people in other countries who are suffering, but I just can’t believe that it can be done in that short amount of time.
John Edwards’ ideas are something our country should be working towards but I just cannot see them happening in such a short time span. Though, perhaps Edwards being elected will set up his good ideas for success .
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
I am responding to Alex's post. Although I also do not agree with all of Senator McCain's views, I disagreed with some of your statements about his foreign policy. You wrote, "...the United States occupation has and is the reason for the terrorism that took hold in Iraq." I disagree with this statement because there is known evidence that there was terrorist activity in Iraq before the America got involved. Information from the Council on Foreign Relations notes that Suddam Hussein had been supporting terrorists before we got involved. An example is that he supported the terrorist group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (1).
You also wrote that "All religions have extremists yet the United States has not waged any wars against them." It is true that all religions have extremists, but from what we know, Islamic extremists have been the most active and effective in international terrorism and large-scale terrorist attacks. For example, in a Heritage Foundation list of more recent foiled terrorist attempts in America, most incidents involve a connection to radical Islam. Some examples of this are the Virginia "Jihad" network (2003), the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (2007), and the Lackawanna Six (2002), where all six men involved went to an Al-Qaeda "jihadist" camp (2).
I agree with your ideas on what starts terrorism to a certain extent. The reasons you gave are valid (oppressive regimes and occupations, etc.). However, I disagree with your idea that McCain is wrong for thinking religion is a cause of terrorism. I think religion plays a large role for radical Islamic terrorists. This is because these terrorists practice and interpret Jihad in a different way than moderate Muslims. They feel Jihad is a holy war against infidels (non-believers), but not just in a spiritual way (3). They also believe they will be rewarded for sacraficing their lives for Jihad.
I also agree with McCain's idea of aiding moderate Muslim states to oppose extremists (4). You wrote that "...this idea only works if one assumes all terrorists are extreme Muslims." I disagree, I think that radical Islamists make up a significant number of terrorists. Therefore, trying to deal with that specific group of terrorists would be effective in reducing the amount of terrorist activity.
I also don't think McCain is narrow-minded for thinking a large number of terrorists are radical Islamists. He would be narrow-minded and ignorant if he had said all Muslims are radical Islamists.
1. www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
2. www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
3. www.thefreedictionary.com/jihad
4.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
Response to: John Perkins
While it may be appealing to say that "winning the War on Terror" will solve all of our problems with terrorism, I don't believe that we can necessarily "win." Keeping with Mr. Giuliani's realist view, I do believe we need to be more realistic with our enemies. As he says, "The first step toward a realistic peace is to be realistic about our enemies." It's also important, I believe, to be realistic about fighting the War on Terrorism in the first place. Is it realistic that we can "win" in the Middle East? Our intrusion into their region is merely stirring up more hatred toward America, creating a breeding ground and calling center for more terrorists. Perhaps if our demand for foreign oil could disappear, through either alternative fuels or self-sufficiency, then we could leave the region to itself.
Most of the rest of your points you stated from Giuliani I agree with; like maintaining strong international ties with our allies and strengthening the national defense.
I question, however, the increase in the size of the military. Interest in the military has certainly gone down since the Iraq War, evidenced by the increasing amount of army desertions since 2001(2). The army is also currently operating at an all time low in the level of recruits from 2006 to 2007(3). An increase in military size may be difficult with dwindling recruits, and could ultimately lead to a Draft, which I'm sure many, many people are opposed to, including myself.
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p20/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
(2)http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/11/military_desertions_071115w/
(3)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_zHgVIY5V8W88_zLgAQ3XgbrYwwD8SKFA6O0
To Elise:
I mainly agreed with your/your candidate’s views. This is probably due to the fact that Obama and I are both Democrats. For sake of response, however, I could try picking at a few nuances that I disagreed with.
I believe that his nuclear policy is admirable, yet should not be placed at the forefront of his foreign fears. Nuclear missiles are surely devastating, but there are other weapons that are capable of just as much devastation as a nuclear weapon. We could try to regulate all of our weapons through international treaties, but that would leave us with little leverage. We are a munitions superpower, and I believe we should at least try to hang onto that shred of power that we still have. Having a weapons’ treaty with China would not serve us well: China poses an economic not military risk. The countries that we have to worry about (Iran, Pakistan) would most likely not agree to these treaties anyway. We do have some missile defense systems (Patriot missiles). I definitely do not advocate stockpiling nor global arms policing, but I do think we should just avoid nuclear weapons altogether. It does not seem like a country would actually use a nuclear weapons, because of the obligatory response. Time will tell, I suppose.
I mostly agree with his international treaty policy. Economic pressure is an excellent way to elicit the response we seek. The best part is that it is nonviolent. I don’t know if I completely support his aid to foreign countries policy. Sure, that is a fundamentally good idea, but, in the short run, I think our country needs more focus. The US may have to relinquish the global driver seat, while we fix our economic and military problems. A semi-isolationist foreign aid policy might not be the worst idea.
Finally, his Asian Union idea seems to make sense. The European Union has done remarkable things and united the area. An Asian Union may be able to promote stability and prosperity. However, I don’t think that the US should be involved, directly, in setting up this Union. It should be the work of the United Nations. Our presence is imposed around the world and performing this act may be seen as an unwelcome intrusion. We could very well propose the idea, but rely on all of the global powers to come to a consensus.
Sources
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
To: K shir
From: Michelle Ludwig
I strongly agree with your views on Rudy Giuliani’s stances for foreign policy. I thought it was very interesting how he stated that “The most effective means for achieving these goals (course for victory in Iraq, strengthen international system, and extend benefits of the international system) are building a stronger defense system, etc.” Then, he goes on to state “Using all three, the next president can build foundations of a lasting realistic peace.” I thought this was somewhat hypocritical for him to say, because it sounds like he wants to have peace and he wants other countries to trust each other, but that he’s still not willing to trust the other countries. Also, I thought this was interesting because of his second point with strengthening the international system. I feel as though increasing our defense would further show that we want to have the ability to get involved in other countries affairs and have that stronger power over them to do so, and I feel that doing so would put a further damper on us trying to win back some support from other countries. Plus I strongly disagree with how much more money and focus he wants to put into the army. With so many other problems going on in our country, I simply do not feel that the army should be our number one concern and that it will honestly get us into more trouble.
One thing I do agree with him on is his stance with the war. He feels as though we need to spend time helping stabilize their government and reduce violence within the city, and he also feels that more and more responsibility should be given to the Iraq leaders slowly rather then us pulling out right away. I also agree with what he says about our success in Iraq: “We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one -- larger, richer, and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today.” I’m not saying that I support the war, but I still feel like leaving it unstable is simply going to make going in there an even bigger waste of time because we will have nothing to show for our actions.
I completely agree with what you are saying about Giuliani making fun of the United Nations. I really don’t understand why making fun of a group dedicated to help unite countries and bring more peace is going to help with his plan to strengthen the international system. Finally, I also agree with what you said about how Giuliani needs to understand that our country needs to work with other leaders. I felt that his quote, “Our economy is the strongest in the developed world. Our political system is far more stable than those of the world's rising economic giants. And the United States is the world's premier magnet for global talent and capital,” was almost arrogant in a way. To me it seemed as though he was saying how much better our country is than all the others, and I feel that that is exactly the attitude we don’t need right now, because we do need help from other countries and I don’t think that’s going to get us what we need.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p0/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
Response to: Georgia
I agree with you that Senator Barack Obama seems to have the clearest foreign policy stances and exemplifies that he is capable of carrying out such policies. However, there are two specific aspects of your post where I must disagree with you.
I would first like to address the comment you made about the Israel and Palestinian conflict. You stated, “The next thing Sen. Obama would like to see happen is the U.S having talks with Israel. He believes that Israel should get some help in finding good allies that are looking for peace. What intrigued me was that he does not mention the Palestinians at all. I would have expected him to actually support the Palestinians because he is the one candidate who preaches peace all the time.” Your assumption that the Palestinians are the more peaceful faction of the two confuses me for many reasons. The number of suicide bombings that the Palestinians have carried out on Israel numbers in the thousands. According to the MFA report, 1,137 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000. Furthermore the number of Kassam rockets fired at Israel numbered to be 1,726 in 2006 (1). These numerous attacks exemplify that the Palestinians are not attempting to achieve peace. Peace will not be achieved in the Middle East until the Palestinians want it and continuation of suicide bombings will not bring about this. The Palestinians do not hope to achieve peace with the Israelis. Rather, they hope to obtain the land that they believe is rightfully theirs. This is why I can understand where Obama, being the “candidate who preaches peace all the time,” would not support the Palestinians. I do understand that the Israeli response to the suicide bombings is, in return, truly horrific. However, I feel that peace will not be achieved until the Palestinians stop initiating the attacks.
The second point I wish to address is the comment you made about security in airports. You stated, “I also strongly disagree with his policy on homeland security. He [Obama] wants tougher searches in airports. If anyone has been in an airport since 9/11 they know that going through the search process can be very cumbersome. They search everywhere and they start to profile people after seeing hundreds of faces everyday. I don’t think we should be tougher in airports. If we continue what we’re doing and we get out of the “War on Terror” then I don’t think we will be afraid of terrorist attacks anymore.” I disagree with this statement. I share Obama’s belief that we should have more security in airports. I believe that the “cumbersome” process of increased security in airports is worth the hassle if we are able to ensure the safety of those who fly. A recent case displayed that airport security is not tough enough. It was just discovered that bomb parts that are able to make liquid explosive devices are able to get through airport security. The General Accountability Office stated that, “the tests clearly demonstrate that a terrorist group, using publicly available information and few resources, could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers by bringing prohibited IED and IID components through security checkpoints.” If explosives are carried inside bottles with non-contraband labels, they are not given a second look (2). This displays that, if anything, airport security is not tight enough. I would certainly much rather stand an extra hour in line at the security checkpoint as opposed to running the risk of sitting next to a terrorist on an airplane. I strongly feel that our safety is the number one important issue especially with the world we live in today.
1. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm
2. http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/59365
3. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-ob
To: Eric Mortensen
I disagree with your support for Governor Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions. I do not support Romney’s strategies for US involvement in foreign affairs regarding: (1) strengthening the military, (2) decreasing energy dependence with ethanol/biodiesel, and (3) using worldwide alliances with law enforcement to end genocide.
Governor Mitt Romney advocates increased military spending. He stresses the necessity to “add at least 100,000 troops and make a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense (1).” The United States does not have the proper resources and funds to “to give the military a long overdue staff and equipment boost,” as claimed in your post (2). The US defense discretionary budget is a staggering $419.3 billion dollars (8), and a Gallup poll indicated that “43% of Americans believe the government is spending too much for national defense and military purposes... its highest level in more than 15 [sic] years (3).” In addition to a lack of public support for increased military spending, the national debt is too high to support more borrowing. The current national debt is $9,130,889,561,057.31 (4). The government, already stricken with debt, cannot increase military spending that the public disapproves.
Increasing energy independence is a major focus of Romney’s foreign policy position. He believes that “the United States must become energy independent...it will also mean increasing our domestic energy...[with] more ethanol, more biodiesel (1).” The Joint Service Pollution Prevention and Sustainability Technical Library list several disadvantages to using ethanol/biodiesel, also known as E85. First, only two percent of vehicles on the road are compatible with E85. Second, E85’s energy content is lower than gasoline. Third, fueling stations are limited outside the Midwest. Fourth, the fuel’s production, storage, and distribution is limited. Finally, E85 needs completely different fueling technology than gasoline to work properly (5). It would not be beneficial for the US to use ethanol/biodiesel for a future energy source due to the fact that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. In response to your claim that “drilling in ANWR would relieve a significant enough amount of foreign dependency (2),” National Center for Policy Analysis Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett claimed that “ANWR would provide a 6 [sic] month supply only if we stopped getting oil from every other source – no imports, no domestic production, nothing else,” said Burnett. “Understood in proper context, ANWR’s potential supply is not small potatoes (6).” Ethanol and biodiesel are not good selections to foster energy independence in the US.
Governor Romney proposes that increased global alliances will lead to a decrease in genocide. He claims that “The challenges we now face...genocide...require global networks of intelligence and law enforcement (1).” Education is the key to end genocide, and the proposition in your post that “it is time we started to repair our image in the world and repair relationships in the world in order to consolidate an effective effort to end mass genocide in the world (2)” will not aid the effort to end the tragedy. Dr Juergen Zimmerer, president of the International Network of Genocide Scholars, specifies that “The prevention of events such as the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide...lies in education (7).” Education, rather than alliances and law enforcement, will end genocide within the world.
In conclusion, the US cannot handle and does not desire more spending inside the defense department. Ethanol and biodiesel do not present good sources for energy independence. Education, rather than Romney’s plan, will end genocide. I disagree with Governor Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions.
Sources
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p40/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
(2) https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3517027344084016002&postID=5098233142961493371&isPopup=true
(3) http://www.gallup.com/poll/26761/Perceptions-Too-Much-Military-Spending-15Year-High.aspx
(4) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
(5) http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/issues/emergemar2006/index.html
(6) http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/anwr-inclusion-good-sign-for-energy-future
(7) http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,2217393,00.html
(8) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/defense.html
I’m not going to lie: I am somewhat weary of the topic of foreign affairs. It is such a hot topic right now and it seems like it is all anyone is researching on both sides of the political spectrum. To be honest, don’t know a large amount about it. But I do know for a fact that next to no one can have a clear and accurate view on the war. Really it’s what you believe in. Statistics can be turned to say anything and with thousands of sources available for research it’s pretty impossible to get the whole truth.
Having said that, I chose to respond to Sophie and Liz on their stances on Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy.
I agree that not all of our interactions with other countries (preferably very few) should be military based. I think Senator Clinton is correct is saying that sometimes the military is essential in protecting ourselves. I don’t agree with her stance on Iraq. She wants to rebuild Iraq and I don’t think very many people it to collapse. However, I’m not sure how she is planning on doing this in such a short time period, seeing as she is planning on withdrawing the troops immediately. She does say that she will use Special Forces to kill terrorist and I do agree with a more focused action. She says that we should be giving aid to the Iraqi people, not the government. While I agree that some of our aid should go directly to the people, I don’t see how it would help rebuild the entirety of Iraq. I also don’t think that rebuilding a country and its economy is possible in the time frame Clinton seems to be looking at. That makes me think that she is either lying about the time frame in which she will pull the troops out or she is planning on letting Iraq collapse.
There are couple things in Clintons plan that I thought were good ideas but impractical for application. I agree that it would be nice to provide a better educations for kids and people who don’t get them in other countries. I also absolutely support helping our veterans. But I can say that our budget isn’t exactly balanced. I do think we should allocate money to veterans. However I think it is foolish to put money into the educations of kids abroad when we have kids of our own to worry about who aren’t getting a good education. I would love to aid everyone else in everything and spread the love and money. Realistically it would be impossible to correct all the horrible things going on abroad. We can’t even correct everything in the U.S and I think that should be our first priority.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p20/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
In response to Michelle Ludwig’s post concerning John McCain’s foreign policy, I disagree on the majority of what makes up his policy, but like Michelle I do agree with small parts. The issue that I disagree with most is his stance on the war in Iraq and what steps need to be implemented within the next few years. I very strongly opposed to war of any kind, especially the one currently going on in the Middle East, and so it is no surprise that I do not support McCain’s plan to continue to fight and increase the amount of troops and military spending in the war.(1) Although he also does not agree with the reasoning for the Iraq invasion by the US, he does want to continue occupying Iraq. McCain believes in staying in Iraq until the Iraqi government is able to stand on their own two feet and defend themselves against outside threats.(1) Basically he wants to stay until everything is made right again. Though that is the ideal situation in which to pull out of, it is a very unrealistic one.
I feel that our financial efforts have aided Iraq enough and that this country needs to start looking elsewhere into where they are spending money. Why keep going after terrorists and dictators in the Middle East when they are internationally spread around the world like in Africa. Why should we continue to send American soldiers to die and American funds to support a war that has no definite end and no real definite solution? I believe that we need to direct our aid to other places in the world besides war. We need to get out of the war state of mind everyone in Washington seems to be in and focus on other pressing matters such as global poverty, global warming, and Darfur. Even though we were in the wrong in starting this war we as a country need to evaluate how worth it it is to continue sacrificing things in order to fix decades worth of damage and problems in this country. Our money could be better spent elsewhere than on our military.
Michelle Howard
(1) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
In response to Giuliani's Foreign Policy:
First reading his statement, I already knew Mr. Rudolph Giuliani and I would disagree on many things. His opening page talked about preserving American's idealism of peace. One statement that stood out to me was, "Preserving and extending American ideals must remain the goal..." I somewhat disagree with this. I don't believe it is the job of the U.S. to spread it's idealism and to make the rest of the world follow our customs. Mr. Giuliani defends his stance of stay in the war with continually using the phrase "realistic peace."
Describing how we need to increase our defenses, Mr. Giuliani believes we need to build up our army. He agrees that the rebuilding of our army will not be cheap, but he believes in the end it is worth it. I agree that our army has taken a pretty hard hit and needs building. But from the way it was described, it sounded more like Mr. Giuliani was building up the army on the offense.
Naturally, we have all gone through 9/11. It effected everyone. The center of Giuliani's campaign seems to be focused on 9/11. He continually refers to it and uses it as a campaign strategy. I believe there is more to the campaign then contiually looking back into the passed. Mr. Giuliani needs to let go of the glory he received during 9/11 and focus on what he can do in the future for us.
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p40/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
To Kendra,
I found your post very interesting, as I would not have suspected you to support Senator Obama.
Although I certainly disagree with the current occupation of Iraq, I'm not really sure if pulling out all troops in a timespan of a few months is the correct path to take. If that decision, to pull out by March, was permanent, would we still abide by it if there was a sky-rocketing rate of attacks close to the deadline? I think that we need more confidance in the abiliy of the Iraqi government to control its population before we pull out all troops.
However, I do not support permanent bases or troops that are there as a military force. Instead, I only agree with troops there as a training force.
I particularly enjoyed reading your statement concerning global warming. I completely agree with you, I think it's absurd that the United States government continues to emit such pollution while refraining from joining things like the Kyoto Protocol. If we look to the recent overthrow of the prime minister of Australia, we can predict that the United States will be the only industrialized nation to not have signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is embarassing! We continue to contribute mass amounts of pollution to the world, continue to mindlessly consume the world's resources, and yet refuse to make an effort to correct our wrongs.
I can't say that Barack Obama is my favorite candidate. However, I thought your analysis on him and his policies was thought-provoking and intersting.
To Christina R:
I disagree with Giuliani on many points, but what I most take issue with is his support for the PATRIOT Act. Although people often bring up the "ticking bomb" scenario, such an example is fallacious because we can't be sure that such restrictions on civil liberties will actually help us prevent terrorist attacks. Additionally, when we ignore civil liberties, we ignore a fundamental part of being American. At what cost do we wish to protect ourselves?
The PATRIOT Act greatly inflates the power of the executive and removes oversight of over the exercises of those powers. Certain provisions allow for the ability to detain immigrants suspected of terrorism indefinitely. This goes against the principle of habeus corpus. The Department of Justice recently admitted to detaining more than 1,100 immigrants after 9/11, not one of whom were charged with a crime. It creates the overly broad definition of "domestic terrorism," which could be used to license the criminalization of political dissent. Even protests could fall under this definition. It also vastly increases search and surveillance powers, potentially curtailing our privacy.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I tend to agree.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ViC49z8oQL0C&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA369&dq=PATRIOT+act&ots=d7siEubToF&sig=wL0_bUmTIeJMOkld2Bpohv3DLMg#PRA1-PA372,M1
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html
To Eric :)
I am sorry to tell you I disagree with you and Mr. McCain's views on the war on terror in Iraq. I think it is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the United States to add more troops, especially a large number like 100,000. It would only give the world a more negative attitude towards the U.S. than they already have, and many think going to war with Iraq in the first place was a mistake. Many also think by fighting there we have caused more harm than we have done good so we need to start taking troops out, not adding more. I do agree with you, though, when you say McCain's energy policies are inconsistent. digging in ANWR for more oil and than supposedly wanting to reduce carbon emissions completely contradice eachother. A candidate should either want to help the environment or not.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
To vincetheprince
First and foremost please allow me to compliment you on your exemplary post. With this said, I disagree with many of your viewpoints and in turn Rudy Gulliani’s, but I also agree with some stances. I looked into Gulliani’s position and under all his ambiguous beating around the bush and “9/11’s”, I found much of his policy to be faulty and contradictory. In his foreign policy statement, he promotes defense as the key, offense as a problem of the current presidency, but then states we must mobilize. Then, to reinforce his defense stance, Gulliani uses numerous past military instances where a connection is questionable and he uses hypothetical outcomes as backing for his obscure strategies. In the defense stagey he maintains that we require more “submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in flight refueling tankers”, most of which seem to be unnecessary to goals against conventional sources of terrorism (or at least the sources he states). Then again he returns, against his policy of a defensive military, to say the United States must undermine Iran’s popular support for their regime, damage the Iranian economy, weaken Iran’s military, and destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. In concurrence with this, Gulliani endorses the Patriot Act and rejects delaying policies, and calls Congress talking of views not in direct support the White House “undermining diplomacy”. Not only do I find the principle behind the Patriot Act to be shady, but also Gulliani says the previous statement in his stance, and also says “civilization must stand up and combat the current collapse of government”, of which I see the two to be in opposition of one another. Once again Rudy comments that defense needs to be strengthened, but supports an economic policy with lowered taxes, which should only further our national deficit. Although I am reluctant in the practice of nation building, I do agree that to help a country one should invest in a nation and not just give money to it. I also agree with Gulliani that assimilation from a market perspective promotes bridging from with cultural and other aspects. However, this view seems to once again contradict what Gulliani said before as he wished to damage the Iranian economy. I agree with vincetheprince (and disagree with Rudy Gulliani) that one must not use force in this instance to build national alliances, but rather “leave the region unless our assistance is requested”, as we must use diplomacy and negotiate common goals.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p60/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/
To: Macall
I agree with Edwards when he says that we have to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Our presence is only deteriorating the conditions of the people inside Iraq and also overstretching the military. However, I don’t agree with his analysis that there needs to be control zones for different countries. This sounds too much like what the Imperialists did with Africa after WW1. They divided the continent of Africa in various ways that only perpetuated the violence and created social structures that lead to genocide.
I agree on protecting homeland and his analysis on the other countries monopolizing on our unpopularity. For example, Hugo Chavez is gaining huge momentum in Latin America as he stokes the passion of the people who feel marginalized because of the West’s specifically America’s foreign policy actions.
To me, it seems that America’s foreign policy has two problems. Either, we involve ourselves where we are not needed for political reasons and also the lack of involvement in places where our economic might can do good for the world. Because we ignored Latin America’s need for real assistance for too long, Chavez was able to fill up the power vacuum.
When you say that we should focus on democracy promotion, I don’t agree. American democracy promotion usually goes hand in hand with the military. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. We can see this in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and various Latin American countries. I like democracy but I don’t think the ends justify the means.
With foreign aid, I do think that richer countries have an obligation to help developing nations with their excess wealth. We spend money on space militarization and our efforts in Iraq are not succeeding. At the point where we spend billions of dollars on this, I think we can reallocate the funds to more effective programs. I don’t believe that saying we can’t solve everything is a valid point. Nothing would get done if people thought this way.
To Kelsey:
I agree with you disagreements that were stated in your spectacular post. Rudy Guliani has a strategy for safety thats sounds good at first; strong defenses, good peace talks, and strong military presence. This policy is, like you stated, contradictory because it is very hard to have a strong military presence in the world and have peaceful relations with other countries that we have tensions with. As you stated, he also does not realize the fiscal situation of the country. The nation is in a large amount of debt and we cannot afford a shiny, new defense system and we cannot afford to pay the troops that it would take to secure the whole world. His plan is not possible in a real world because he does not take into account many outside factors such as the countries that do not like our country and the fact that fighting all of the threats to our security is not economically possible.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p60/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/
To: Victor Victor Bo Bictor Banana Fanna Fo Fictor,
It appears we both like the same things about Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy. You brought up a good point about Obama setting a date for complete withdrawal from Iraq. You said it shows leadership, and that is something I had not yet considered. It is easy for anybody to say “President Bush’s approval rating is ridiculously low, therefore I hate the war.” But it is another thing to say “The war is a problem, here’s how we will solve it, and here is when it will be solved.”
One thing I did not like about your post is that you say it seems like Obama would pick tens of thousands of troops out of midair, and of course this is ridiculous. We all know people will not just sign up because Barack Obama tells them to. However, I feel that Obama knows that trust must be renewed in the government, and I feel he will be much like President David Palmer in the first few seasons of 24. Although I hate to say it, public speaking is extremely important in gaining the trust of Americans. David Palmer was great at it, and so is Barack Obama. I feel that with a high amount of trust, the President will have more troops sign up. Whether or not we reach his goal of over 60,000 more troops remains to be seen, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past him at this very early stage.
I agree strongly with your third point about Barack Obama as well. I love the fact that he knows the president needs to be trusted. I think if Barack Obama were to (hypothetically) drop to about 5% approval rating during his presidency, he would understand that America does not like him, and he would do something about it. He knows that America’s government is nothing without the backing of America’s citizens, and he would be great at hearing what “irrelevant” people have to say to him.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p60/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
To Michelle R
Though I can see where you are coming from, I find my opinion at odds with that of Giuliani on most of his foreign policy. I agree with you that pulling out Iraq too quickly could be damaging. There is a civil war there for which America provided the catalyst, so just saying, “Well, we’re done, so good luck with that,” would not only lead to more death and chaos in the Middle East but would also damage the United States’ already injured position on the world stage. However, Giuliani’s view on the situation tends to run more toward the black-and-white, something I feel is unsafe when this is such an unusual war—meaning the fact that al Qaeda is not a regional organization, unlike the “enemy” in most of the other conflicts Giuliani cites as pulled-out-too-soon affairs—and the current Administration is already thinking in this terms, to disastrous effect.
I find it appalling that Giuliani would use the Vietnam War as an example of backing out of a war too early. If this is what he believes, I truly fear for the safety of America and America’s troops under his power. I might have an incorrect sense of the situation, but I believe there is nationwide consensus that the Vietnam War was a bad idea, got worse, and could not have been “won.” The treatment of the troops upon their return was little better, and from the examples Sophie provided, it doesn’t sound like the current Administration is establishing a much better track record. Claiming the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam too soon is insensitive and—as far as I can tell—impractical, since he will lose a lot of moderate votes that way.
I mostly agree with you about Giuliani’s weapons policy—building up our own arsenal while telling other countries to get rid of WMDs is hypocritical in the extreme. I can understand why this might seem like a good idea, but really, who says the U.S. is going to be any more moral than any other country? What do we honestly need a ton of weapons for? The only thing building up an arsenal will do is lose support for the U.S. from foreign countries, give al Qaeda more ammunition to gain followers, and possibly set the stage for another arms race. I don’t feel that there is any particular peaceful use for missiles. Keeping the ones we have, I understand, but developing new weapons does not seem the best use of an already woefully unbalanced budget. However, I believe support of the Proliferation Security Initiative is a good idea. Stockpiling weapons is one thing, selling them is quite another.
I would like to state my admittedly biased opinion about the PATRIOT Act, since you mentioned it in your post. Basically, the act uses national security as an excuse to ignore basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This has been detailed in several other people’s responses, so I won’t expand on this issue too much, but I don’t believe it is acceptable to wage war on terrorists by destroying the principles our government is supposed to stand for. It’s kind of a “letting them win” scenario. The costs outweigh the gains. If the system needs reform, Congress should pass a different law to achieve that end.
I don’t agree that choosing not to talk to other countries will help matters. While, yes, diplomacy will not always solve everything, refusing to meet with the leaders of other countries will do very little. Unless the U.S. has a clear advantage in talks already, there is little to be accomplished by ignoring nations that may already be wary of compromise. True, there should be goals for every meeting. Talking back and forth without achieving anything, or giving in too much, would stagnate matters just as easily as a refusal to talk. “Compromise,” I think, is the key word here. It indicates that both sides will get something they want, but not everything. Compromise does not mean bending over backward to make others happy. That is appeasement. On the other hand, compromise is not an ultimatum, either.
Sources: Foreign Affairs article, Michelle’s post, Sophie’s post
My response is to Miss. Liana Bratton.
After reading your assessment of Obama’s foreign policy, I agreed with most of what you had to say. His ideas present a more realistic ways of achieving peace and stability in Iraq and around the middle east region. As well as reshaping the sentiment about America around the globe as well as capping terrorist activities. What I disagreed with you on was this statement you made “ I see a fundamental flaw in his logic: the Iraqi government does not want U.S. troops in Iraq so I do not foresee them bowing to Washington’s wishes to meet U.S. standards only to keep the troops there for a longer period of time.” I believe there is some sense in his logic. In this statement he made “we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country,” Obama recognizes what the Iraq war has turned into, a civil war between the Shiite and the Sunni Moslems. However, because the United States essentially provided the “fire” to start this conflict, it must remain in Iraq to put it out. No matter how much the Iraqi government dislike the presence of U.S troops in Iraq, they know how vital the presence of U.S troops in Iraq is. The Iraqi government is not equipped to handle this conflict alone, and therefore will compromise with the U.S to bring stability into Iraq. But as Obama said, only the Iraqi government can stabilize the country in the end, and that’s why he says “We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.” He does not necessarily mean the troops are going to do it alone as you implied in your post, but by training Iraqi security forces, he hopes they can foster an end to this war.
Overall your assessment is in accordance with mine, although we may disagree on minimal things.
To: Caitlin Mitchell
Although I agree with several of Senator Obama's plan's for the presidency, there are some issues that I feel could be better handled based on your analysis. First of all, I agree with his emphasis on global warming and its importance. He states that, “Binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions,” are needed in order to battle this problem. I agree with you that he is right about America needing to be a leader in the fight against climate change.
On the other hand, Obama seems to focus almost entirely on foreign affairs. Although the issues of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction are important, I feel as if he doesn't discuss his plans for the country at the national level enough. Like you said, “Obama makes clear his opinion that the increase in nuclear weapons worldwide is presently the most pressing threat to the United States.” If we as a country and Obama as a president are to believe that, as you said, “It is important that we take action to locate and eliminate these dangerous weapons,” is it not hypocritical of us to continue to possess our own nuclear weapons? Of course they pose a great threat to the world but starting wars to, in Obama's words, “Secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons,” should not be the ultimate goal. Also, you stated that, “Obama encouraged direct action against Iran and North Korea specifically to prevent nuclear terror from erupting in either region.” I agree with your hesitation to support Obama's view in this area. He claims little support for the war in Iraq, which was arguably started for the purpose of preventing nuclear terror, yet he wants to engage in conflict with other countries after ending our current war. My question for Obama is: What next? After the threat of Iran and North Korea are eliminated (which is unlikely to happen anyway) then what? Do we engage in war with every other country who possesses similar threats?
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
To Alyssa Vongries:
I read your post about Giuliani's plan for foreign affairs. Two things caught my eye. You said, "...his comparison of thw Vietnam War to the Iraq war is valid, and causes of faliure in the Vietnam War are good to take note of when deciding course of action in the Iraq war." I disagree in validating a comparison of the two wars. The war in Iraq is not trying to stop communism, the U.S. is there to assert our dominance under the so called "brilliant" leadership of G.W. Bush. I strongly disagree that the causes of these two wars are remotely similar.
The second point that stuck out to me was when you said, "America (for the most part) is not hated because of its message, but the way the message is portrayed in other countries." I understand the logic behind the way America is being portrayed but I disagree with you that people hate us because of how their country portrays us. I believe that the materialistic and superior message that is broadly sent out to the world is true about America. Its a sick reality but its what is true, actions speak louder than words. Its how those people see what the U.S. is doing and they make of it what they please.
Post a Comment