I was reading that thread about the Palestinian toddler shot. Why can't the US just invade the region and stabalize it. I'm sure a general with a brutal streak could enforce martial law with an army. That would stop the fighting pretty quick if you ask me.
I would be afraid that both sides would unite to expel us from their Holy Land. While we may possess the firepower and personel to do this on paper, I don't think either side would allow us to occupy their land.
It wouldn't do much to prevent suicide bombings over there, and would more than likely cause some over HERE. It's bad enough we have to worry about Al Qaeda terrorists, don't bring in disgruntled Palestinian and Israeli ones too.
And the title of thread is "Seriously?" Ouch, ouch, the irony... Maybe when they run out of falafel, they could eat babies... "Seriously..."
let them kill each other, when they are all dead, make the holy land an international area, have UN troops stationed and no one lay claim to it.
When there is a problem of great magnitude the world looks to the US to solve it. That is why the job of brokering peace over there has fallen to us. Now you want to complain when somebody suggests that we enforce peace militarily while we get with the leaders and hammer out the details. Strange...
Refman, it's more like the problems of the world, that our allies instigated, get handed to us. Uncle Sam walks up to Vietnam: Bonjour, how are things? France: Ca-va. Comment dit-on, ehhh, coulda you, errr, standez here for un moment, s'il vous plait? -a decade later- Uncle Sam: *sigh* Uncle Sam walks up to Israel: What incredible injustice! Why are you guys fighting! Palestinians: They're colonialists, and have invaded our land. Israelis: The British said we could. -5 decades later- Uncle Sam: *sigh*
Achebe: We haven't exactly been sitting on our hands for fifty years. We've been pretty damned involved. Refman: There's a million miles between being looked to as a broker of peace and going in with guns pointed at everyone telling them to behave, as Nomar suggested. I sincerely doubt he was even serious. It's his way to sort of belch out a funnyish, extremist position. But let's be clear: while the world may look to us for monetary and military aid, you'd be hard pressed to find a handful of countries engaged in civil war or border disputes who'd appreciate us going in with guns blazing. The former Yugoslavia and Somalia are arguable examples. Israel/Palestine and England/N. Ireland and even China/Tibet are not. Does anyone but me remember the 2000 debates in which Bush proposed a return to isolationist policies? He called it returning humility to our foreign policy. He said we shouldn't be the policemen for the world. Remember? Anyone?
A lot has happened since then. Under world circumstances as they existed in 2000 it was a good plan. but the Middle East has situation has caused terrorism across the globe since then. as usual the world is looking to the US to be the world's enforcer.
Ref, I agree that a lot's changed since 2000. I absolutely disagree that the world's looking to us to be enforcers. When you say "the world" which of the hundreds of countries in the world are you talking about? Israel's one. I'll grant you that. Which are the others? I could have sworn we just had a devil of a time with the UN because "the world" didn't like the idea of us acting as enforcers. We may have convinced the other four countries on the S.C. with regard to Iraq but that hardly constitutes the world and the Iraq situation hardly constitutes a mandate for us to act as enforcers around the world or in Israel. Take a poll of world leaders or just the populations of every non-US country around the world. Ask them if they'd like us to be enforcers. Aside from Israel, you may be surprised to learn the answer is not no, but hell no.
Name me the last time that the UN wanted peacekeepers or whatever other euphamism they came up with for military muscle where they didn't look to the US to lead the charge. You can't because no such time exists. We had such a devil of a time with the UN because "the world" didn't want us acting alone. They wanted to be in control of the situation. It's understandable because if we had acted alone it would have set a precedent that would render the UN impotent. Now we are acting (should we act) under their terms and they are more than happy about it. You'd be very surprised if we polled world leaders. They most certainly would want the US to lead the charge any time there is trouble. We're good at it and the rest of the world largely isn't. Recall us bailing Europe out in the middle part of the 20th century? Not much has changed since then. Remember Somalia? Not much has changed since then. Remember Kosovo? Not much has changed since then.
Our disagreement here is semantic then, but it's an important one. The UN (or the world) absolutely does not want us acting as unilateral "enforcers." When it comes time that the international community believes that intervention is necessary (and please agree with me that that is a valuable function of the UN, no matter how you might feel about their efficiency), of course they'd like to have the world's only superpower (and member in good standing of the UN) lead the charge. That's very, very different than what Nomar suggested, though. His suggestion was downright bizarre. It would trigger WWIII immediately and there's not a single world leader or serious thinker who would support it. There's a difference between a powerful member of the UN being asked to lead the charge when necessary and believing that that power conveys the world's wishes for us to use it as we see fit.
It wouldn't trigger WWWIII immediately. Not too many countries want to commit suicide over the fate of Isreal and Palestine.
My assumption upon reading Nomar's post was that we'd be going in with the blessing and support of the UN. I am not a huge fan of the UN. They don't enforce their own resolutions. When they do decide to enforce one it is generally: "Hey US...you mind kicking some ass for us...we'll sit over here and make sure the croissants don't burn."
It would absolutely trigger immediate war with the Arab nation. Which means goodbye to all the precious oil. Sorry, but Alaska's supply won't last all that long. If it would, we'd never have fought Saddam in the first place. And war with the Arab nation would mean WWIII.
I have to side with Batman on this one. The Middle East is a pressure cooker. Too many folks with connections to nukes over there.
Why not allow the UN to form a millitary wing to give teeth to it's resolutions? Of course, in reality all we're doing is ripping off the our uniforms and slapping on some pansy European tailored one. Oh yeah, every other country can donate a tank or two so that the soldiers drilling won't be bored.... The UN is full of problems. It's idealism mired in reality. In an ideal world, a millitary wing would be great for stomping out horrible conflicts. Bosnia wouldn't have to be a ten year affair etc etc... But who is willing to foot the bill, give power to a foreign entity, or allow that foreign entity to infringe on our sovereign grounds? And so the chaos ensues. I think the general perception around the world is that Israel is America's pet b****... kind of like a Canadian desert. But they're a different people with very different ideas on "homeland security". Plus, they are our eyes and ears in the oil rich Middle East, and they have nukes in their arsenal. Even if you tried to cut off funding (funding has increased...) for Israel, they'd still be the predominant power in the region, and maybe they have their own ideas to end the conflict with nothing holding them back. Is the answer to this scenario call back in 20 years? It's already been 60. Maybe 100 is a nice round number.
