Bombing Somalia

I think it's a tough balance to maintain. On the one hand, I basically believe that "if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone." We are surrounded by oceans and a long way from most of the countries that we have such tensions with us--they wouldn't pay us any attention whatsoever if we weren't in their backyards. That being said, it's completely unrealistic to believe that a country with our size, wealth and impact on the world could ever be disengaged from the world's most critical geopolitical regions, like the Persian Gulf for example. Engagement seems to inevitably lead to friction, and the answer clearly can't always to be to just run away and give in to whoever is dissatisfied with our policies. Sometimes we may have to stand up for our interests, for our allies and for our beliefs, even 10,000 miles away from our shores. In today's world, what happens in Shanghai affects Hong Kong, London, NY and Detroit, what happens in Tehran affects Paris, Caracas, Washington, and so on.

Since there's no real civil framework for resolving int'l disputes, violence is unfortunately inevitable. I think we should be as diplomatic and cautious as possible, but I also recognize that, in the absence of a global system of laws, courts and police, sometimes we have to duke it out.

Everything you say is right, but it's not the whole picture. In Africa, it was in fact the end of the Cold War and the withdrawal of American influence that truly led to chaos; across the continent civil war spread like wildfire once we determined that the USSR was no longer a threat and abandoned most of our "allies" there. In East Asia our security umbrella over Japan and S Korea has squashed post WWII tensions in that region and has prevented China from invading Taiwan. In Europe, our intervention in the Balkans helped suppress brutal civil war and establish the fragile peace we see there now, and of course more importantly for 50 years our presence prevented a Soviet attack into Europe that would have potentially caused WWIII. Finally, in the middle east our military presence is widely credited with having maintained stability there for decades. Not only did we contain Saddam's efforts to build and empire, but also, by securing the energy resources and waterways of the Gulf, we effectively enhance stability worldwide. Were we to withdraw support from Qatar, the UAE, the Saudis, etc., and pull our navy out of the Gulf, you would likely see $300 barrel oil, a global economic collapse and war as far as the eye could see.

So, I agree that our foreign policy has been inconsistent at times, immoral quite often and downright contrary to our own long-term strategic interests on way too many occasions, but that is not the entire picture. The real unfortunate thing is that we have in fact embraced short-term stability as a strategic goal, rather than long-term stability in the form of democracy, human rights and modernity. In an ideal world, while creating short-term stability in Africa during the Cold War and in the middle east, we would have been helping those countries the way we did with Japan and Germany. That being said, such a thing is far, far easier said than done, as we are witnessing first hand today. Bush in fact embraced this very kind of idealistic transformation of foreign policy, only to be brought rudely down to earth.

Again, there are going to be times when a critical ally of ours is attacked, an enemy makes a power grab in a vital region, or a non-governmental organization ("terrorist") murders our citizens here at home, and at those times we can't just back down in order to avoid confrontation. We do have to stand up for ourselves, but I think you and I are both in agreement that our approach towards engagement should be far more weighted towards long-term interests, diplomacy and peace, than it always has been.

doctorj wrote:
[quote=escap]
Since there's no real civil framework for resolving int'l disputes

Bollocks. It's the US that opposes the International Criminal Court, not to mention unhelpfulness in relation to the UN in general. You don't go forwards by clinging to the militarism of the past, you do it by building and strengthening the civil framework for resolving international disputes.

I didn't say that there shouldn't be any real civil framework, just that there isn't one. Of course I'm aware that it's the US that has been one of the strongest opponents of developing such a framework, and I have always said that this is a huge error on this country's part. I have lots of issues with the U.N., but I think it's in America's best interests to strengthen and create civil international institutions that help establish a system for peaceful dispute resolution between countries.

I was just stating the fact of our current situation: if, for example, America wanted to charge Kim Jong Il with violating the non-proliferation agreement, we don't have the option of suing him in court and calling on the international police to go arrest him and throw him in jail. Likewise for this thread's main topic, we can't sue the Sudanese govt for human rights abuses and have a UN police force show up and enforce international law.

doctorj wrote: Really? I would have said not inflaming the irrational was a first step to getting the situation under control and more level-headed.

Yeah, you're right. "Irrational" was the wrong word, because let's face it: even blowing yourself up is perfectly rational if you truly believe that your reward for doing so is assured. So replace "irrational" with the adjective of your choice, although "perfectly rational" kinda grates now that I look at it. "Thuggish?" Nah, that'll upset some people. I'll work on it.

Anyway, I'm fine with the rest of what I said.

and the country is on course to take its rightful place in the world... as number four not number one.

Just so long as we're ahead of Canada.

If the separate states of your country and mine could band together and create federal governments generations ago spanning entire continents, and if in our generation we've seen sovereign nations climb over each other to hand over power to the EU, I see no reason why the UN, IMF, ICC, WTF, etc. can't evolve during our lifetimes into a representative world federation responsible for trade, security, international law. I don't know how fast it will happen or whether the US will be a leader or a laggard, but I believe the world has to go this direction. I think it will be rapid economic integration and global risk management that ultimately leads to greater political integration. People will insist on it.

They choose Ghana instead.

Boygabriel wrote: Last time he visited Africa he made it a point to not visit Sudan and it was a significant diplomatic slap in the face.

I can relate to that. Last time I visited Africa I made it a point not to visit Sudan. But I don't think anyone noticed.

Boygabriel wrote:
Yeah but are you still importing 10% of your crude oil from Sudan? You divested right?

They don't seem to be a major crude producer, so divesting was easy. Sesame and peanut oil, on the other hand...

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=doctorj]They don't seem to be a major crude producer, so divesting was easy. Sesame and peanut oil, on the other hand...

I can't believe you'd support genocide just to get your peanut oil fix.

/sarcasm

Jokes aside... I could have Sudanese sesame oil in the kitchen and I wouldn't know. Not likely, since they mostly export to the EU, but still...

If I bought the oil before the genocide started, am I allowed to finish the bottle?

Am I allowed to trade in Sudanese oil futures in the expectation that in order to make a profit I will need the price to rise because the fighting will have stopped?

One problem is that someone else has to be selling the futures on the expectation that the war will continue and prices will fall, and they might have a vested interest in continuing hostilities.

On the other hand, if they're also primary stockholders, they might only be selling those derivatives as risk management, a form of insurance, because they stand a lot to lose if the war continues.

If only ordinary Sudanese were more heavily invested in their own market and had access to a broad range of financial instruments. They'd soon see that genocide hurts everyone, and beat their swords into brokerage terminals.

When I say 'Sudanese oil' I mean the producers, who are affected by being in a warzone, as opposed to the product, which is, as you say, fungible.

Though somehow I doubt Petrodar is open to investment and derivatives trading by the moms and pops of Sudan.