U.S. Foreign policy
- Thread starter Noone special
- Start date
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
In the end, the will of Kashmiri people is what matters. Kashmir will be liberated from India as an unjust occupation cannot last forever.
Kashmir is just one battleground for self-determination of Muslims from foreign rule. Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia will come back to their rightful owners, Inshallah. Injustice and oppression cannot last forever.
Kashmir is just one battleground for self-determination of Muslims from foreign rule. Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia will come back to their rightful owners, Inshallah. Injustice and oppression cannot last forever.
Yeah the border is in between
Considering they just blow up or hang elected leaders and have gone through one military dictator after another, I don't see how Pakistan has any notion of self determination. The Kashmiri people include the Kashmiri Pundits who precede Islam in the region and I find it extremely odd that your notion of Kashmir is "Muslim" self determination. Perhaps they should move to Mecca and see how the Saudis will treat them there. Or even Pakistan where the "mujahirs" are a distinct community.
Last edited:
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
This is just one battle for Muslim self-determination which being denied to us in the world. We have had enough of brutality and oppression.
Kashmir does not belong to India and never will. LONG LIVE KASHMIR FREE FROM INDIAN OCCUPATION.
Kashmir does not belong to India and never will. LONG LIVE KASHMIR FREE FROM INDIAN OCCUPATION.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Hmm what happened to the Kashmiri language Koshur? Why are they using Urdu? I smell a Pakistani plot
Kashmiri language uses the same Persian script similar to Punjabi, Sindi, Pashto, and Balochi.
Interesting stuff. I knew nothing of the Waga Strut. I find it very entertaining, in a Monty-Pythonesque sort of way. But back to Noone special's class project:
How's it coming? I stamp my foot and demand a report. If there's no followup soon, I'll shake my fan-head and... (please don't make me do it) so help me, I'll flash the thumbs down!
How's it coming? I stamp my foot and demand a report. If there's no followup soon, I'll shake my fan-head and... (please don't make me do it) so help me, I'll flash the thumbs down!
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Nope, I know Kashmiris, it uses the Sharada script. Or did until recent times. Apparently, its an endangered language now. Strange, isn't it?
Muslims of Kashmir have used Farsi script for thousands of years. It's similar to Punjabi, Sindi, and Pashto.
Diamond, I suggest you start reading more history and less propaganda. It will better serve you and others of your ilk. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your own faults. And you have a very over stated view of your importance. Suprise, the world does not revolve around you. As I said, Kashmir is of no interest to the United States. If I get your position, you think that the United States should not be friendly with anyone you dislike. Well, frankly, your ego greatly exceeds you. As I said, Kashmir is a matter for India and Pakistan to resolve. And frankly, I see no historical support for your positions, and you have failed to provide any...emotional fluff is no subsitute for fact and reality.
The United States is also home to a significant Islamic community. And guess what, miracles of miracles, we live together in peace. The United States attacked Afganistan because we were attacked. It was and remains a legitmate action. Iraq is another story. Our leadership lied to the people of the United States. And guess what, the citizens of the United States are removing the jerk and his party from office. Just like you should do if you are unhappy with your government.
Again you can always second guess what would and should have been. I think of Vietnam. Should the United States have ever become involved? Truman could have averted the whole war at one point. On its face, it appears Vietnam was a total waste. But maybe it was necessary. Maybe there was something that was learned. I caution you about being self righteous. I caution you about blaming others for your problems. Jesus is quoted as saying, before you complain about the the splinter in your neighbors eye, take the log out of your own. You need to look at yourself before you go after others.
I personally do not agree with United States policy in Israel. The Muslims of that area have legitimate issues. And Israel has not been fair. But murder and terrorism really play into the hands of your enemy. Now I have explained this to a number of Muslims, but it just goes over their heads. I expect the same with you. But never the less, I give it another try. Violence is not the answer to all problems. Emotional yelling and complaining is not the answer. YOU NEED TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. DO NOT EXPECT THE UNITED STATES TO ARRIVE ON YOUR SHORES AND ENFORCE YOUR WILL UPON YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS. YOU NEED TO SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY WORKING WITH EACH OTHER...NOT BY POINTING FINGERS AT OTHERS OR INSISTING THAT OTHERS DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO.
Maybe you mean Kennedy or Johnson?
Your "Truman could have averted the whole war at one point" is more interesting but I have never heard anybody say that. Should Truman have threatened war against France?
France was a defeated power. Truman conceeded far too much to the French. Post WWII there was only one Super Power. There was only one nation with the atomic bomb, and that was the United States. Truman chose not to exercise the power he had. He gave far much to the Soviets, which later led to the Cold War.
Ho Chi Minh led an independence movement prior to the end of WWII in Vietnam. He petition Truman for independence on several occasions but was
ignored.
"After the August Revolution (1945) organized by the Việt Minh, Hồ became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a declaration of independence that borrowed much from the French and American declarations.[6] Though he convinced Emperor Bảo Đại to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry Truman for support for Vietnamese independence,[7] citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman never responded.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
Truman was not a very strong president and not very popular. He made what is in retrospect a lot of very serious foriegn policy mistakes post WW II. Vietnam was one of those. Instead of granting Vietnam independence, he gave it back to the French.
Noone special
Registered Member
Well Hypewader, an update I will shew forth.
Really, I have until thursday to complete a power point on this issue, and it seems like I've taken rather a large bite (broad subject matter)
So I decided that I'm just going to read an in depth 700 page American history book on the 20th century (also including the all important Spanish-American war) And I have read about 300 pages on it.
Friends, from what I have read so far, it seems as if America has changed its foreign policy over the years. Early on, we were almost openly imperialistic and war hungry. Just see how Teddy Roosavelt dominated the Gulf and much of the South American dealings (especially the coersion of events for the Panama Canal)
However, as time has gone on, it seems that imperialism has become somewhat "taboo" in the world scene. Now we have to come up with alternative reasons for invasion, but secretely we are imperialistic, and honestly, I don't know that I blame America. I really think every nation is looking out for it's own interests, looking to expand, though it must cover up it's intentions to the rest of the world.
Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?
I would really like to hear arguments for and against intervention or expansion (violent or peacable), political theory et cetera.
Really, I have until thursday to complete a power point on this issue, and it seems like I've taken rather a large bite (broad subject matter)
So I decided that I'm just going to read an in depth 700 page American history book on the 20th century (also including the all important Spanish-American war) And I have read about 300 pages on it.
Friends, from what I have read so far, it seems as if America has changed its foreign policy over the years. Early on, we were almost openly imperialistic and war hungry. Just see how Teddy Roosavelt dominated the Gulf and much of the South American dealings (especially the coersion of events for the Panama Canal)
However, as time has gone on, it seems that imperialism has become somewhat "taboo" in the world scene. Now we have to come up with alternative reasons for invasion, but secretely we are imperialistic, and honestly, I don't know that I blame America. I really think every nation is looking out for it's own interests, looking to expand, though it must cover up it's intentions to the rest of the world.
Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?
I would really like to hear arguments for and against intervention or expansion (violent or peacable), political theory et cetera.
Foriegn policy of a nation evolves as times change. An isolationist policy never really made sense for a nation...look at pre-comunist China. And isolationism makes even less sense today, as technology expands and actions by one country wither intentionally hostile or not affect another. Polution is an international issue. Global warming is an international issue. Today, a lot of the issues mankind faces are global in nature. We cannot solve global issues by sitting in our neck of the world and refusing to interact with others. We need to work with each other in order to solve our problems. And in typical human fashion, the discourse will not be always friendly nor straight forward and clean. But ultimately, and historically we have, been able to solve the issues we face.
I disagree that the foriegn policy is imperialist in nature. Imperialism sought to outright/direct of control people of foriegn countries...look at the British and India, Eurpoean powers and Africa. Imperialsim does not work...ultimately it becomes too expensive for the imperial power in terms of blood and money. Post imperialism allows countries self government and is far more efficient and profitable.
Today, national boundaries are becoming less and less relevant. We live in a world of corporate dominated foriegn policy where large corporations and groups of corporations or economic interests that transcend national boundaries orchestrate foriegn policies not only of nations but of groups of nations...look at the European Economic Union and other regional economic alliances such as the North American Trade Organization which is to ultimately lead to a North American Economic Union. So I would not call it Imperialism, I would call it commercialism.
Last edited:
Noone special: "...as time has gone on, it seems that imperialism has become somewhat "taboo" in the world scene. Now we have to come up with alternative reasons for invasion, but secretely we are imperialistic, and honestly, I don't know that I blame America. I really think every nation is looking out for it's own interests, looking to expand, though it must cover up it's intentions to the rest of the world."
I have a differing view, that Shock and Awe and military imperialism has been steadily losing effect. International and interpersonal relations are not only analogous, but closely related. Just as forcing your neighbor to give up what you want has become unacceptable in society, so it is evolving in the international sphere.
It isn't mere idealism to observe that nations are evolving beyond self-serving aggression, by necessity. Would-be empires can no longer assert with authority that resistance is futile. In response to this growing awareness, the nationalistic emotions are threatened, eliciting all sorts of psychological defense-mechanisms. As it becomes increasingly obvious that "superpowers" are increasingly dependent on co-operative (and not coerced) international relationships, more primitive instincts will increasingly agitate for regression into wars of domination. Reviewing history over the very long term, tribes and nations are evolving into a more civilized community, and barbaric behavior is finding less and less reward within the community of nations. A barbarian might bristle at becoming civilized, and an imperialistic-nationalist will do the same, but a progression away from brutal domination continues because it is necessary for the survival of the species.
"Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?"
Isolationism is not possible for any developed nation, because of the global nature of resources and services. As more nations come up economically, the concept of "world power" will lose meaning. "World Power" is just an expression of imperialism, that is becoming obsolete/unsustainable. The more this inevitability becomes obvious, the more nationalists will beat their chests. For all of us who have been programmed/educated to assume Manifest Destiny or nationalist superiority, there will be confused emotions, but reason and reality will overcome them. Within the community of nations, it's becoming apparent that bullies are neither needed nor wanted.
I have a differing view, that Shock and Awe and military imperialism has been steadily losing effect. International and interpersonal relations are not only analogous, but closely related. Just as forcing your neighbor to give up what you want has become unacceptable in society, so it is evolving in the international sphere.
It isn't mere idealism to observe that nations are evolving beyond self-serving aggression, by necessity. Would-be empires can no longer assert with authority that resistance is futile. In response to this growing awareness, the nationalistic emotions are threatened, eliciting all sorts of psychological defense-mechanisms. As it becomes increasingly obvious that "superpowers" are increasingly dependent on co-operative (and not coerced) international relationships, more primitive instincts will increasingly agitate for regression into wars of domination. Reviewing history over the very long term, tribes and nations are evolving into a more civilized community, and barbaric behavior is finding less and less reward within the community of nations. A barbarian might bristle at becoming civilized, and an imperialistic-nationalist will do the same, but a progression away from brutal domination continues because it is necessary for the survival of the species.
"Who thinks that a world power must hold an isolationist policy?"
Isolationism is not possible for any developed nation, because of the global nature of resources and services. As more nations come up economically, the concept of "world power" will lose meaning. "World Power" is just an expression of imperialism, that is becoming obsolete/unsustainable. The more this inevitability becomes obvious, the more nationalists will beat their chests. For all of us who have been programmed/educated to assume Manifest Destiny or nationalist superiority, there will be confused emotions, but reason and reality will overcome them. Within the community of nations, it's becoming apparent that bullies are neither needed nor wanted.