<p>
[quote]
The Middle East is a much more critical region to U.S. interests than SE Asia was in reality, the domino theory was flawed, as hindsight shows us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Didn't Cambodia and Laos succumb to Communism shortly after the Vietnam War? What about China, North Korea, and its attempt to annex South Korea? Hell, North Korea is believed to be still sending their agents and proponents into South Korea; there were incidents and events of infiltration, and during the 60s or 70s, a group of N. Korean forces tried to assassinate the S. Korean president.</p>
<p>Then again...there's Cuba...I have no clue how Cuba could or ever did influence its neighbors into Communism.</p>
<p>As for the civil war, it's possible but not yet obvious; it's too early to tell.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you flipped them. good for you. Now deal with the fact that he is still president and work with him to accomplish something instead of bickering. Did you even vote in 06?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure we'll work with him just like the Republican Congress worked with Bill Clinton in 1996. Oh, wait, they set aside working for the good of the country in favor of spending taxpayer money to go on a fishing expedition to persecute the president. Who was the president, and a good one (despite his personal failings as a husband), so deal with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
George W. Bush is the President. Deal with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the founding principles of this nation is that we don't have to just "deal with it". We all have a voice, we don't need to, nor should we, just blindly follow someone because he was elected. If you want to live in a nation where you're forced to follow the commander and chief (a dictatorship) I would suggest going to China or North Korea.</p>
<p>Not to mention that Clinton (during his 1st administration) did work with the Republicans - passing numerous centrist legislation (which peeved the left-wing of the Democratic Party).</p>
<p>Funny how Bush only now asks for both parties to work together (where was the working together idea for the 1st 6 years?).</p>
<p>Not to mention how the parties have basically switched identities. </p>
<p>Under the Republicans - corruption, mad spending of govt. $$ (can we say the "bridge to nowhere"?), expansion of govt, reckless attempts at nation-building, ballooning budget deficit, etc.</p>
<p>The Vietnam War wasn't confined to Vietnam, it passed over the border to significant areas of Cambodia and Laos. Both these countries had weakening governments because of the conflict dragged past their borders; the U.S. set them up for a fall after its withdrawl.</p>
<p>I guess what all these U.S. foreign policy blunders have in common is that the threats they suposedly posed were incredibly exaggerated. Some SE asian countries, like Thailand, resisted communism.</p>
<p>What's with all this indignant, "deal with it" trash? The new congress has been in session for what? A week? I think everyone is dealing with it. Unless you're a prophet, there's no way you can know for sure how congress will treat all of Bush's proposals.</p>
<p>I'm 17, so no, I couldn't vote in the November elections, shastarasta. I don't understand your point.</p>
<p>The extensive U.S. interference into other soveriegn nations' domestic affairs is simply unacceptable. And hey, have you noticed a pattern in U.S. foreign policy? </p>
<p>South Vietnam, North Vietnam (of course, united 2 years after US withdrawal)
South Korea, North Korea
China, Taiwan</p>
<p>It seems that the foreign policy makers in washington often prefer the "policy of division," slicing up other nations just to make them more dependent on U.S. support. Interesting.</p>
<p>If Bush is really keen on solving defeating the rising Taliban movement in Afghanastan and catch the guy who murdered thousands of innocent civilians on U.S. soil, I think it'd be wise to send a bit more troops to Afghanastan to stabilize the current situation (rather than always throwing the job of catching Osama to his somewhat fed-up NATO buddies in afganastan...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The extensive U.S. interference into other soveriegn nations' domestic affairs is simply unacceptable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This depends on your view of international relations. Some realist international relations scholars would say that because IR is anarchic, it's just what a hegemonic power does: maintains itself.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't know that every case of interference has been that bad. Let's consider the criteria that Keohane sets up: "States advocating preventive war should be subjected both to ex ante and ex post accountability. Ex ante, they must be able to persuade other states of the merits of their case for military action. Ex post, their actions must be subjected to scrutiny and potential sanctions." </p>
<p>Many actions the US has undertaken have been internationally supported in one way or another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
South Vietnam, North Vietnam (of course, united 2 years after US withdrawal)
South Korea, North Korea
China, Taiwan
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting that you ignored the Soviet/Communist bloc's role in this as well. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems that the foreign policy makers in washington often prefer the "policy of division," slicing up other nations just to make them more dependent on U.S. support. Interesting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, this is largely just a remnant of the Cold War. Y'know, that time when there were two hegemonic powers? The USSR deserves some blame here, y'know. So does the PRC...</p>
<p>Would I support intervention in Darfur? In a heartbeat.</p>
<p>Would I support intervention in Saudi Arabia over human rights offenses? Probably not.</p>
<p>Would I support intervention in the UK over a bad policy by the Tories or Labour? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>You have to look at each situation on its own merits before coming to a conclusion. Because international affairs is inherently anarchic and without overarching structure, there are no hard and fast rules to live by.</p>
<p>Well, perhaps there are a few general rules each nation is encouraged to abide. </p>
<p>For instance, the policy of cooperation, negotiation, mutual respect, and of course, patienice. International ielations is not about one side raising its demands and the other side unconditionally accepting them in full. Is America truly honoring these values right now? I hope so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, perhaps there are a few general rules each nation is encouraged to abide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what if they don't? We use sanctions? Those haven't been proven effective. We tell them they're bad and ask them to stop?</p>
<p>Should we really just stand by and watch genocides occur because of sovereignty? Should ruling regimes really be considered legitimate enough to have the protection of sovereignty if they engage in gross violations of human rights?</p>
<p>When does sovereignty cease to be a protective shield?</p>
<p>
[quote]
International ielations is not about one side raising its demands and the other side unconditionally accepting them in full.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Based on about 300 years of inter-nation state relations, I think it's pretty safe to say that most international relations is about two states making demands of one another.</p>
<p>It's nice to apply moral and hypothetical arguments to the international realm, but when you don't have any authority to say anything one way or another, it's just not that simple or well defined.</p>
<p>"And what if they don't? We use sanctions? Those haven't been proven effective. We tell them they're bad and ask them to stop?"</p>
<p>I personally don't think it's wise to pick out others' faults to justify your own action. Before saying "you're wrong, and we're gonna use our 21st century super weapons to destroy you," we need to critically review our own perspective of the matter, and determine whether or not we have done anything inappropriate on our side. Things in this world don't just happen for no reason. Sometimes, we become too overly critical of others' actions and overlook our own faults. In this era, it is not our job to "change the world from an American perspective," but to embrace change, and change ourselves in order to adapt in this vibrant 21st century international community.</p>
<p>Calm down, I never said that the United States of America should allow the current situation in Africa to continue as it is. Of course, that needs intervention with the support of the UN. UCLAri, it is you who brought up the "genocide, Rwanda, Somolia, Darfur issues." </p>
<p>All I'm suggesting is a GENERAL strategy of relations with other nations: mutual respect, cooperation, and patience. As for my last post, I'm specifically referring to the U.S.-China trade negotiations last december....</p>
<p>Calm down, and please, try to think better of others before making flabbergasted accusations.;)</p>
<p>I didn't realize that my post sounded like I was in need of calming...:confused:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, that needs intervention with the support of the UN.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about when UN members are benefiting from the status quo, like China with Sudan (Darfur)? Or when there's no willingness or interest in doing something multilaterally?</p>
<p>I don't think you recognize just how hard it is to get the UN to do...well...anything. And while Russia and China bluster, people die.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I'm suggesting is a GENERAL strategy of relations with other nations: mutual respect, cooperation, and patience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, international relations is a constant case of anarchy and the prisoner's dilemma game. Where do those ideas come from in that environment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calm down, and please, try to think better of others before making flabbergasted assumptions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's the difference between an assumption and a flabbergasted one, anyway?</p>
<p>I didn't assume anything. I was seriously confused by your rhetoric, so I asked.</p>
<p>Morality has no place in IR. The United States must look out for its own interests.
We care about genocides and human rights violations but not to a large extent. We knew about Iraq's treatment of the Kurds and Shias in the '80s yet made no complaint against it.</p>
<p>Mutual respect, cooperation, patience? - Those guidelines can not be applied to all of our enemies and rivals. Should we continue to be patient with the Chinese after they have repeatedly refused to let the Yuan float?
Should we respect Kim Il-jong, the crazy dictator?</p>