| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Foreign Policy: Four More Years. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
Foreign Policy: Four More Years
by w1ld at 7:06 pm EST, Nov 8, 2004 |
] The Doomsayers suggest that Bushâs second term is
] likely to produce further military interventions
] overseas, along the lines of Iraq in 2003. Perhaps Syria
] may be the next target of U.S. military power, they
] suggest, or Iran. They believe that the neoconservatives
] (that is, officials such as Deputy Secretary of Defense
] Paul Wolfowitz), who were the driving force behind the
] Bush administrationâs preventive war against Iraqi
] leader Saddam Hussein, will have even greater power and
] influence, now that the president has won reelection.
] âSecretary of State Colin Powell is not staying for a
] second term,â? warned one Foreign Service officer,
] writing under the byline âAnonymousâ? on Salon.com
] last month. âWhen he goes the last bulwark against
] complete neoconservative control of U.S. foreign policy
] goes with him.â?
]
]
] The Skeptics contend that Bushâs foreign policy in his
] second term will turn out to be more cautious and less
] belligerent than his first, if not by choice, then by
] compulsion. Whatever some hawks might like to do, the
] reality is that the Bush administration will face a
] series of constraintsâmilitary, diplomatic, political,
] and economicâthat will curb its ability to launch new
] preventive wars. Moreover, say adherents of the Skeptic
] school, the power of the neoconservatives inside the
] administration will probably be diminished, not
] augmented, during Bushâs second term. |
| |
RE: Foreign Policy: Four More Years
by Decius at 10:51 pm EST, Nov 8, 2004 |
w1ld wrote:
] ] The Skeptics contend that Bush's foreign policy in his
] ] second term will turn out to be more cautious and less
] ] belligerent than his first, if not by choice, then by
] ] compulsion. I strongly agree with this conclusion. I've heard Syria and Iran tossed around on several occasions in the past week by people who are cock sure that they know what they are talking about. I think both suggestions are outlandish. Syria? Who cares about Syria! And Iran? The Iranian nuke question was resolved by Bush's election. There is no need for further action. The constraints are immense. The danger in Iraq has put tremendous pressure on Military recruiting. They are going to have to increase salaries and benefits, and costs. We have a perfect economic storm brewing. Our entitlement programs are totally unsustainable. Our private sector debts are tremendous and they are coming due, and as the Baby Boomers mature they are going to being pulling money out of the market. Our diplomatic strategy on Iraq has loped a huge amount of federal debt onto the pile. The expense of our healthcare system is impacting our international competitiveness. Meanwhile, all Al'Q could muster for this election was a video tape. Bold action is required domestically, not internationally. I'm glad that Bush is focusing first on Social Security. That is one of our most critical problems. My opinion is that we need both the right and left solutions applied here and I hope we see them. The reds are right: We need to create more incentives for people to save money. People can earn interest as individuals more effectively then the government can, as the government cannot invest the retirement savings without controlling the economy. Getting this money out of a dead weight trust fund and into the economy will stimulate growth both of the economy and the fund. But the blues are also right: We cannot continue to operate a wealth redistribution system that redistributes wealth from poor people to rich people. It makes sense to increase the retirement age. And if there are no safeguards to prevent investment losses from crushing people, then there is no point. Its social security, not central retirement planning. After thats done Bush promises to tackle taxes. I'm not convinced that the complexity of the tax system is truly the pox on America that these people claim, and this isn't an attempt to shift the tax burden. They've already shifted it some towards the middle. Its also not as pressing as healthcare and medicade. I wish they've tackle that, but as yet they don't seem to have a proposal. (I agree that tort law needs fixing, but I also agree that this won't fix the healthcare problem.) In general, I don't feel like round 2 is going to result in a lot of new military adventures. We've got quite enough on the plate as things stand. |
|
| | |
RE: Foreign Policy: Four More Years
by Elonka at 11:31 am EST, Nov 9, 2004 |
Decius wrote:
] w1ld wrote:
] ] ] The Skeptics contend that Bush's foreign policy in his
] ] ] second term will turn out to be more cautious and less
] ] ] belligerent than his first, if not by choice, then by
] ] ] compulsion.
]
] I strongly agree with this conclusion. As do I, though for some other reasons than are mentioned. But yes, I too have heard some Kerry supporters that I know, who are wringing their hands, and saying that Bush's re-election means that we're going to attack Syria and Iran. But I think that the possibilities of that are extremely remote, and would require some extremely aggressive behavior from those countries towards us (like shooting at us), before that would even be a possibility. With Iraq, there was a much more serious problem that had gone on for many years, with a wide variety of other types of solutions that had already been tried: U.N. resolutions, encouraging revolt, taking Saddam out via covert action, etc., and none of those had worked. Plus let's not forget that Iraqis were regularly *shooting at us* over the no fly zones. Another thing that made me support the Iraq invasion, was the knowledge that Saddam's neighbors were unanimous in saying that he had to go. With Iran and Syria though, the situations are *extremely* different. There are many other types of political and diplomatic solutions that remain, and there's not a clear "Remove this dictator" situation. Plus of course, they're not shooting at us. Bush has also gone on record saying that Iran is trying to work out its own problems, and that he's willing to respect that and give them room. As things stand, speaking for myself, there is no way that I would support an invasion of Iran or Syria. And I think that most of the rest of the American public would agree. |
|
|
|
