Quote:
Originally Posted by raymr
I don't agree with everything in the Bricmont article, but he does reach some logical conclusions. It makes me ask why we eventually got so wrapped up with Israel anyway. Does the relationship hurt us more than help us?
Perhaps we should stop playing 'rich uncle', give the UN some more clout, and reach a world-wide agreement for all countries to funnel foreign aid contributions through th UN. That would put us in better standing in the eyes of the world, while also spreading the burden among the other wealthy nations. It would restrict our ability to call the shots but would also in one way, make the Jihadist's enemy stateless, right?
|
We did in the past because it was strategic. Life is not going to be a video game where you put another quarter and we start it over. At this point, Isreal is still a strategic place. It does keep the bunch of them in check with something else to worry about so it is a good thing. Even if we did stop today, assuming our strategic point doesn't get wiped out, they would still be our enemies so there is no going back.
Probelm is that the way the UN works is that something gets done ONLY if the major powers in it are not in disagreement. All it takes is 1 veto and the measure is done for. Yes, in theory, your answer would work. However, it would be like the story of
the little red hen. When it comes down to it, nobody would want to do the work. So, we did the only thing possible which is what we are doing right now with a little more clout. I doubt it would make the jihadist's enemies stateless. They would blame the countries that were contributing and what not so we have the issue still spread out. Also, that might mean we get buffeted to where the others want us irrespective of whether it is good for us or not. Just like Kyoto.