|
Volkerball posted:Looking at the foreign policy of "America" as one solid, pre-determined path, is a simplistic outlook that refuses to observe the evolution of foreign policy, or the differences between each presidential administration, in favor of a more conspiratorial view that's easier to digest. I've got no time or tolerance for it tbh. Yup we're a lying bastard of a country - but who isn't? The world is a business
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
Pretending that America wasn't involved in the middle east before 2012 is not a good policy either. I know it's hard to accept America is not necessarily the shining light of moral virtue, but in fact a bringer of death and destruction time and time again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
The thing is Volkerball you seem to assume it is the manifest right of any American president to overthrow another country's leader when the need or mood suits, and Obama not wanting to overthrow another regime is somehow taken as a massive failing in foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153878/saying-one-thing-and-doing-another No one remembers this gag - I think it is way better than douche/turd sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The thing is Volkerball you seem to assume it is the manifest right of any American president to overthrow another country's leader when the need or mood suits, and Obama not wanting to overthrow another regime is somehow taken as a massive failing in foreign policy. My view has nothing to do with the US in particular. I just believe in the responsibility to protect. Sovereignty is conditional, and the condition is that a nation must protect its citizens. If it isn't doing that, then the burden of protecting its citizens falls upon the international community. And I advocate based along those lines as a citizen of a democratic nation with the strongest military on earth. Now whether or not a country is adequately protecting its citizens is subjective of course, but I do think at a certain extreme, there's not much debate to be had. I doubt anyone would say that it would have been violating Nazi Germany's sovereignty to attack it if the primary reason for the attack was based around the operation of concentration camps, because that position would be accurately described as pro-holocaust. So there's a line that everybody draws at a certain point. In my opinion, the Syrian government is on the wrong side of that line. That's the fundamental aspect that dictates that Assad's claim to rule Syria is no more legitimate than my own. That's not even close to saying the US should be allowed to act with impunity wherever it wants. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I know it's hard to accept America is not necessarily the shining light of moral virtue Who is the shining light of moral virtue? Is there such a place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Those foreign policy think tanks were on board with George Bush from day 1. They have always been the Stupid poo poo caucus. Those guys are just telling us to do what the gulf wants anyway. Be their gun against Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shias.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Who is the shining light of moral virtue? Is there such a place? There isn't one and there never will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:My view has nothing to do with the US in particular. I just believe in the responsibility to protect. Sovereignty is conditional, and the condition is that a nation must protect its citizens. If it isn't doing that, then the burden of protecting its citizens falls upon the international community. And I advocate based along those lines as a citizen of a democratic nation with the strongest military on earth. Now whether or not a country is adequately protecting its citizens is subjective of course, but I do think at a certain extreme, there's not much debate to be had. I doubt anyone would say that it would have been violating Nazi Germany's sovereignty to attack it if the primary reason for the attack was based around the operation of concentration camps, because that position would be accurately described as pro-holocaust. So there's a line that everybody draws at a certain point. In my opinion, the Syrian government is on the wrong side of that line. That's the fundamental aspect that dictates that Assad's claim to rule Syria is no more legitimate than my own. That's not even close to saying the US should be allowed to act with impunity wherever it wants. Nazi Germany invaded and occupied other countries, there is quite a striking difference there. Ghadaffi had not done that, and as far as I know Assad and Libya had not violated the sovereignty of other states. The difference between you, Volkerball, and Assad is that he is in fact the leader of Syria. By your metrics do you advocate America overthrowing the governments in Saudi Arabia, Khazakstahn and Bahrain?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:My view has nothing to do with the US in particular. I just believe in the responsibility to protect. Sovereignty is conditional, and the condition is that a nation must protect its citizens. If it isn't doing that, then the burden of protecting its citizens falls upon the international community. And I advocate based along those lines as a citizen of a democratic nation with the strongest military on earth. Now whether or not a country is adequately protecting its citizens is subjective of course, but I do think at a certain extreme, there's not much debate to be had. I doubt anyone would say that it would have been violating Nazi Germany's sovereignty to attack it if the primary reason for the attack was based around the operation of concentration camps, because that position would be accurately described as pro-holocaust. So there's a line that everybody draws at a certain point. In my opinion, the Syrian government is on the wrong side of that line. That's the fundamental aspect that dictates that Assad's claim to rule Syria is no more legitimate than my own. That's not even close to saying the US should be allowed to act with impunity wherever it wants. Shouldn't there be a debate when the "policing country" has no idea or ability to adequately fix the state they just destroyed? How about the population of this "policing country" isn't supportive of a action? How about if the decisions of the "policing country" is quite arbitrary including ignoring the plight of civilians being harmed by their allies? What happens when the "policing country" fucks up and leaves the country even worse off when they found it...multiple times? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Nazi Germany invaded and occupied other countries, there is quite a striking difference there. Ghadaffi had not done that, and as far as I know Assad and Libya had not violated the sovereignty of other states. So if the Nazis had kept the Holocaust a purely internal affair you'd be cool with it and opposed to American intervention?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
"Responsibility to protect" is not an obscure idea in foreign policy. Take some time. http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml If you're interested in the most ethical solution, strict isolationism definitely isn't that. It is rather clear that the US trips on this in both directions — obvious cases where the US ignores crimes against humanity, and obvious cases where the US interferes with the sovereignty of with legitimate governments — but international intervention in either Libya or Syria is not and was not at all difficult to justify. US foreign policy has sucked in many different ways; when overthrowing oppressive governments universally condemned by the international community happens to align with US interests, that's one of the few times you shouldn't be making GBS threads on US military action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So if the Nazis had kept the Holocaust a purely internal affair you'd be cool with it and opposed to American intervention? Stop the killing in Darfur Interventions have never been about principles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Nazi Germany invaded and occupied other countries, there is quite a striking difference there. Ghadaffi had not done that, and as far as I know Assad and Libya had not violated the sovereignty of other states. I tried to specify so you wouldn't make that first argument, but here we are. Assuming the Nazi's hadn't espoused aggressive expansion as an ideology, what then? Do you respect their sovereignty and let them do as they please with the Jewish people who were living within Germany? What about Rwanda? Should we have recognized their government as legitimate while it was a figurehead for the ruling militias that were out massacring people in the streets? They were in fact the leaders of Rwanda, after all. Not at this exact moment no, because one of the biggest lessons learned from Iraq is that nation-building from scratch is a difficult endeavor. There's rules, and limits, and none of those nations currently meets the criteria. As Bernard Henri-Levy talks about, there needs to be a point of "critical mass." Where the country has been thrown into chaos, and you have emerging political opposition. Then you can act, and do so in support of an existing movement, rather than attempting to create one on the fly. If mass protests kicked out in KSA tomorrow over domestic oppression, corruption, and lack of accountability in government, and the regime responded with mass violence, and tensions increased and the situation degraded, I would of course say that the government has lost all legitimacy and that the proper thing to do would be to aid the revolution and do what we could to empower the political opposition to establish control over the country, and create a political framework that allowed the freedom and reforms people were demanding. Whether or not that would include military intervention would depend on the specifics of each individual case, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to call for it if I thought it would provide a better solution for the Saudi people, and Saudi's were out in the streets calling for it like Syrians were. Ardennes posted:Shouldn't there be a debate when the "policing country" has no idea or ability to adequately fix the state they just destroyed? I have to give you props. Hannity would be jealous of how dishonest these questions are. No one said anything about stifling debate, and a plan of action should obviously include discussion about what can realistically be accomplished, as well as the potential to provide a better situation relative to the status quo of non-intervention. That's what debate is for. This is counter-productive to the goal of humanitarian intervention, and certainly not inherent to it. If you get involved in a country in some fashion while trying to establish a stable, representative government, killing innocent people is going to breed resistance, and you're shooting yourself in the foot. It's in the interest of the intervening nation to hold themselves accountable, and even so, they should be held accountable by their people, as well as the international community. What happens when upwards of a million people die in preventable violence due to the lack of any attempt to prevent it...multiple times? We have samples like Rwanda, where non-intervention was clearly the worst option, and we have situations like Bosnia and the NFZ in Iraq where intervention demonstrably provided a better situation, so whatever perspective you're coming from with this question is not based in fact. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
If you're trying to look out for number one you can't be locked in by garbage like "responsibility to protect" where it becomes a bludgeon where George Bush types find a justification to invade where they want anyway. If you do what the think tanks say, you're basically being the KSA/Israel's hired goon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:If mass protests kicked out in KSA tomorrow over domestic oppression, corruption, and lack of accountability in government, and the regime responded with mass violence, and tensions increased and the situation degraded, I would of course say that the government has lost all legitimacy and that the proper thing to do would be to aid the revolution and do what we could to empower the political opposition to establish control over the country, and create a political framework that allowed the freedom and reforms people were demanding. I think you know this would never happen - the Beltway would address it the same way they addressed Bahrain. Not to mention such a movement in KSA these days would likely become Daesh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I think you know this would never happen - the Beltway would address it the same way they addressed Bahrain. Not to mention such a movement in KSA these days would likely become Daesh. Yeah, I imagine liberals who spend a lot of their time preaching about the Saudi regime being a blight on humanity would begin to disparage the opposition as ~no angels themselves~ really drat quickly once things fell to poo poo, no matter what they were out protesting for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, I imagine liberals who spend a lot of their time preaching about the Saudi regime being a blight on humanity would begin to disparage the opposition as ~no angels themselves~ really drat quickly once things fell to poo poo, no matter what they were out protesting for. The entire Middle East is a blight on humanity. Obama posted:“A group like isil is the distillation of every worst impulse along these lines. The notion that we are a small group that defines ourselves primarily by the degree to which we can kill others who are not like us, and attempting to impose a rigid orthodoxy that produces nothing, that celebrates nothing, that really is contrary to every bit of human progress—it indicates the degree to which that kind of mentality can still take root and gain adherents in the 21st century.” Cancer is cured with radiation and heat. Stop the metastasis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, I imagine liberals who spend a lot of their time preaching about the Saudi regime being a blight on humanity would begin to disparage the opposition as ~no angels themselves~ really drat quickly once things fell to poo poo, no matter what they were out protesting for. Your friends in Project for a New American Century would probably say that exact thing. If there's a critical mass, enough for a revolution to work, then they'll be able to win the civil war without US intervention. Otherwise, you'll say we should've provided "security assistance" where the US props up whoever we want, destroying said faction's legitimacy and creating an unsustainable regime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Your friends in Project for a New American Century would probably say that exact thing. And if they don't or it stalemates, it's because they lack the proper proletarian spirit, if I remember your argument correctly. If they lack the ability to accomplish such a basic task as overthrowing an entrenched government and military that has spent decades building itself up while putting its people down to maintain control, they deserve to die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:And if they don't or it stalemates, it's because they lack the proper proletarian spirit, if I remember your argument correctly. If they lack the ability to accomplish such a basic task as overthrowing an entrenched government and military that has spent decades building itself up while putting its people down to maintain control, they deserve to die. Sounds like NovoRossiya
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Nazi Germany invaded and occupied other countries, there is quite a striking difference there. Ghadaffi had not done that, and as far as I know Assad and Libya had not violated the sovereignty of other states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I have to give you props. Hannity would be jealous of how dishonest these questions are. No one said anything about stifling debate, and a plan of action should obviously include discussion about what can realistically be accomplished, as well as the potential to provide a better situation relative to the status quo of non-intervention. I think all of those questions are perfectly fair considering what I was responding to. You didn't say stifling debate but rather "not much debate should be had" and then gave a presented a godwin. I actually don't have a problem with some forms of intervention, in particular, the US could have backed up UN operations in Bosnia and Rwanda if it wanted to, it didn't. The NFZ was defend able, but the sanctions of Iraq were ultimately not and if anything inflicted significant brutality on the Iraqi population. As far as Syria, I have no problem with US airstrikes against ISIS and/or cooperation with the Kurds. Ultimately, there are clear limits to what types of intervention work, and in particular regime change has a terrible track record, a track record bad enough that it should be openly be contested as a "goto" solution. The US has left a tremendous amount of wreckage behind in the name of regime change, and the public has rightfully soured on it. Your entire thesis is that the US is going to have a neutral hand in toppling regimes when it clearly doesn't and that the criticism of the international community is going to be enough to correct its eventual abuses on a occupied population when it very clearly isn't. Moreover, we have historical experience to point to and the US garnered a sizable rap sheet at this point. The burden of proof should be put on the side of interventionists that action is going to have a long term positive effect especially considering how often "things go wrong." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think all of those questions are perfectly fair considering what I was responding to. You didn't say stifling debate but rather "not much debate should be had" and then gave a presented a godwin. No, I said there was not much debate that could be had in that one particular extreme, in the furtherance of the argument that almost everyone would support one extreme scenario of intervention. The point being it's not the concept of intervention that is the issue. It's where you draw the line. Which evidently, you agree with. How you contorted that into "if you don't support intervention in every case, you're wrong and dumb and nobody should talk about it, and answer me this smart guy, what happens when the intervening coalition nukes the country it's intervening in?" is something I'm trying really hard to wrap my head around and it's not working out for me. Also you should correct this typo quote:rape sheet because I don't think we have one of those.  fakeedit: you already did, but i'm not changing my post because rape sheet made me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:No, I said there was not much debate that could be had in that one particular extreme, in the furtherance of the argument that almost everyone would support one extreme scenario of intervention. The point being it's not the concept of intervention that is the issue. It's where you draw the line. Which evidently, you agree with. How you contorted that into "if you don't support intervention in every case, you're wrong and dumb and nobody should talk about it, and answer me this smart guy, what happens when the intervening coalition nukes the country it's intervening in?" is something I'm trying really hard to wrap my head around and it's not working out for me. Probably because the entire dialogue has been about regime change in the first place? Yeah sure there is a sliding scale over intervention, but getting down to brass tacks it is about regime regime and its after effects. The ultimate issue is there is very broad differences in when intervention is called for and what extent a nation should be willing to go: supporting UN peacekeepers or banning armed sales is one thing but occupying a country for a decade is another. Most Americans (depends on which polls to a degree) now agree that we have pushed too far on more extreme end of intervention and hope for more of a isolationist position but nevertheless will probably support some intervention to a point but it is just to a far more limited degree than the past. Obama has sided for a relatively middle ground position all things considered on that spectrum, and certainly has moved into a more conciliatory position after Clinton left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Why doesn't the USA intervene to stop the actions of Israel against the people of Palestine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
My impression is that one of the main reasons the administration backed away from the Red Line was that Russia appeared unusually willing to support the Assad regime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I wouldn't disagree with that assessment in that there's an aura of uncertainty around every decision in foreign policy. That's why I try to avoid saying that an intervention in Syria would've ended with an ideal resolution. It would've provided a greater potential for a better resolution, but there's certainly no sure things when it comes to a situation as volatile as the Syrian civil war. The thing is, you can't shut out whatever doesn't jive with your perception and expect to make rational decisions, and that's exactly what Obama did. Sure, a lot of analysts were saying the end was nigh, and I'd say it was the most common perception in regards to Syria well into 2012, as every development was in favor of the opposition. But that wasn't so universal that dissenting voices weren't visible. Joshua Landis is one of the most prominent academics when it comes to Syria, and he gave many lectures and wrote many articles during that time period explaining why anyone who thought Syria was Egypt was kidding themselves. And the death toll cracked 1,000 and 2,000 really, really quickly, and at that point, there were a lot of voices saying "something is going to need to be done about this, or it's going to degrade quickly." My main memory of 2011 is how divided all my usual sources of information were on the path forward. In the opinion pages of every major paper you could find pieces by serious folk arguing to defend Mubarak, to let Iran waste lives and money in Syria, to repeat the Libyan intervention, how repeating a Libyan intervention was impossible. There was so much disagreement even basic assumptions of what America's interest was at the time. Yet there's one thing I never remember hearing; what comes next? That is I think at the heart of Obama's refusal to do stupid poo poo. What would an intervention achieve? End the violence? Force a coup by Alawite Officers? Simply enforce a no fly zone? What was the end game? How long could we expect to be involved? Nobody had answers. And that I think is what really held off a stronger intervention. Without clear objectives an intervention caries great risks without little hope of gain. And what was to be gained? In the Atlantic article Obama says the planned strikes in 2012 weren't even directed at defeating the Assad regime, but merely at limiting his ability continue launching chemical attacks. If the Assad government was defeated, what then? Would anyone be paying those engineers still running Syria's power plants? Would Russia today be bombing in the name of an Alawite rump state? Questions without answers. No target to aim for. In my opinion, American Middle East policy often undermines itself because it has three often contradictory goals: To defeat radical Sunni groups threatening America, to isolate and contain Iran, and lastly to promote Democracy and humanitarian goals. Iraq was such a disaster because we sought to accomplish all three at once, instead we achieved none. To succeed on one front we must concede defeat on the others. I believe in Syria Obama's early actions were directed towards bringing down the Iranian aligned Assad regime with an economy of force, he then de-emphasized that goal and turned more towards defeating radical Sunni groups as IS rose. In Yemen, America has tried to fight Al Qaeda and opposed the rise of Shia Iranian aligned forces, and has failed to accomplish anything against either. In Egypt Obama refused to use military funding as leverage against Sisi, probably because it's a bribe to keep the peace with Israel. Protecting Israel should probably rank above those other three American middle East policy goals. That was the priority, and concerns about about Democracy didn't compare. At least there's a clear focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
The reason that Syria is such a clusterfuck is because there are so many godamn factions, which all have their own agendas and which all have strong emotional and/or existential reasons not to back down. I think that's why Obama balked on intervention. He intuited that no matter what our best intentions were, we would fundamentally never care enough to be anything other than one faction or another's puppet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I tried to specify so you wouldn't make that first argument, but here we are. Assuming the Nazi's hadn't espoused aggressive expansion as an ideology, what then? Do you respect their sovereignty and let them do as they please with the Jewish people who were living within Germany? What about Rwanda? Should we have recognized their government as legitimate while it was a figurehead for the ruling militias that were out massacring people in the streets? They were in fact the leaders of Rwanda, after all. You always go on about Rwanda but you don't even know what happened. The Rwanda genocide ended prematurely. The US-supported RPF invaded and overran the country. Mission accomplished. It cost a lot less than a full blown US intervention where the USG would've had to prop up some kind of corrupt government in the interest of being "even-handed" to the perpetrators of genocide. They won the civil war, and lo and behold, Rwanda has a stable government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Why doesn't the USA intervene to stop the actions of Israel against the people of Palestine? Why doesn't your country?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Why doesn't your country? I wish it would, but the British government does not give billions of dollars a year to Israel in military funding as the USA does - which is just the tip of the ice berg with regards American support for Israel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I wish it would, but the British government If one were to assign social karma to governments, you lot have about another 5 million years to go to work off the global catastrophe that was the British Empire. Maybe find a more productive hobby to speed that along that isn't giving the slightest bit of a gently caress about American malfeasance. We are and always will be kiddy league in comparison to the monumental affront to basic human dignity that was British foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
I think Tony Blair is a war criminal who should be on trial for his actions in taking Britain to war with Iraq. The British empire was a very bad thing for a lot of people, I recognise this. But America is the one doing this poo poo today as the British empire really dissolved post WWII as America assumed the mantle of leading Empirical power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
We're all sinners
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The British empire was a very bad thing for a lot of people, I recognise this. But America is the one doing this poo poo today as the British empire really dissolved post WWII as America assumed the mantle of leading Empirical power. Free peoples of the world must unite to smash empiricism
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I think Tony Blair is a war criminal who should be on trial for his actions in taking Britain to war with Iraq. Nothing is better because you can sit down and go "Well yeah, maybe the entire world is currently in crisis entirely because my social antecedents got drunk and randomly rewrote the borders of nations because they couldn't be bothered to figure out what the gently caress was actually going on around them. Boy, wasn't that bad.". It's not like the world moved on from what you guys did. Why should you get to wash your hands of it and wag your finger at our, in comparison, giggling larks of foreign policy errors? I mean you actually have the balls to bitch about US involvement with Israel and Palestine when the British Mandate is basically the entire reason there *is* a problem in the first place. That's kind of impressive really. It's like saying we could have used more considerate language providing counseling to the woman you just raped. When you lot have fixed every single problem in the world that can be directly traced back to British incompetence, racism, and stupidity? Then you can start critiquing our performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
I agree, Germans should never be allowed to have opinions on the actions of other countries because of the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The USA heavily supported Mubarak since the early 1980s. Eh, I actually wouldn't go quite that far - or, more precisely, I'd say it's a little more complicated than that. I think the degree to which our leaders have usually cared about the well-being of the populace of these countries has been pretty low, but there was a rather naive, blindered narrative in which, regardless of how brutal the Pinochets or Mubaraks were/are, at least they're not Communists/Islamists. Therefore, the population in those countries will still somehow be better off, and we can deal with replacing those leaders or pressuring them to become truly democratic later. Who cares if tens of thousands die - you have to break a few eggs etc etc, and the Communists/Islamists would kill far more, wouldn't they? That's been the narrative, regardless of whether or not it's factually true, and it allows our leaders to feel good about the decisions they've made and sleep well at night. A few of them are outright sociopaths that don't care at all, but a lot of them genuinely think they're making the right decisions in backing these monsters - they just don't care enough to actually find out if that's true or not. e: I understand that that probably seems like I'm splitting hairs, but hey - it's a cultural mindset within the U.S. national security apparatus that does need to change, so I think it helps to pinpoint what the mindset actually is. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
Saudi Arabia is none too happy with this article, and has pretty much accepted that their relationship with Obama is done. http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/894826 quote:No, Mr. Obama. We are not “free riders.” We shared with you our intelligence that prevented deadly terrorist attacks on America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:26
|
|
