Sula,
Military spending is apart of the whole international aid issue because international security, international trade, and humanitarian aid are all connected in some ways. Despite the USA's lack of funding on humanitarian aid, it needs to be emphasized what the USA does for the world in terms of international security and the beneficial effect that US consumers have on the global economy.
While many countries around the world have a cynical view of US's role in providing international security in many area's, they have or can have that view about ANYTHING the USA does on an international basis. Even providing more humanitarian aid could be cynically viewed as simply protecting USA interest. Maintaining impartial justice in a certain part of the globe could actually be very benefitial to longterm US business interest if the results of such impartial justice were stability and as a result, increased economic development attracting US businesses.
I'm not nearly as knowledgable about Indonesia as you , but obviously Kissinger did the best he could with a bad situation. Of course, if you have a superior alternative policy approach to what happened that would safeguard the region from Communist expansion and insure security and stability in the region in a better way, then I'd be interested to hear it. Its important not to think inside a box about the events in Indonesia and realize the greater context of the Cold War in which these events are taking place.
I suppose you do not like the fact that the USA supported Stalin during World War II? Suharto was a mouse compared to Stalin. Again, its important to not look at a particular event or situation inside a box, but to look at the broarder context under which these events are happening. Its unforunate what happened to the people of East Timor just as it is unfortunate that 20,000 French civilians were killed in the initial bombing for D-Day in June 1944. But if you do not think that US policy in Indonesia was simply making the best of a difficult situation in the region similar to other regions and events in history, then I'd like to hear your solution if you had been Secretary of State at the time realizing the larger context under which regional events happen.
Your criticism of US military internvention not being evenhanded seems to stem more from the fact that the USA does not involve itself in every single conflict taking place inside countries around the world. Even if that would be a desirable goal, the USA does not have the ability to do that, and must pick in choose where to use its finite military resources. Of course, if our allies would contribute more to defense, the ability of the USA to involve itself in more area's of the world could increase. It is not in the interest of the USA to have people in any region of the world be slaughtered or die of starvation, and if we had more resources and help, and could prevent these things from happening without compromising more vital and important international security objectives, we would.
Even if there are several specifically unfair practices that can be pointed out in regards to USA trade with the third world, USA consumption of nearly 2 trillion dollars of goods and services from other countries is a NET benefit to the Global economy! Several other first world countries have much higher barriers to free trade than the USA.
Military spending is apart of the whole international aid issue because international security, international trade, and humanitarian aid are all connected in some ways. Despite the USA's lack of funding on humanitarian aid, it needs to be emphasized what the USA does for the world in terms of international security and the beneficial effect that US consumers have on the global economy.
While many countries around the world have a cynical view of US's role in providing international security in many area's, they have or can have that view about ANYTHING the USA does on an international basis. Even providing more humanitarian aid could be cynically viewed as simply protecting USA interest. Maintaining impartial justice in a certain part of the globe could actually be very benefitial to longterm US business interest if the results of such impartial justice were stability and as a result, increased economic development attracting US businesses.
I'm not nearly as knowledgable about Indonesia as you , but obviously Kissinger did the best he could with a bad situation. Of course, if you have a superior alternative policy approach to what happened that would safeguard the region from Communist expansion and insure security and stability in the region in a better way, then I'd be interested to hear it. Its important not to think inside a box about the events in Indonesia and realize the greater context of the Cold War in which these events are taking place.
I suppose you do not like the fact that the USA supported Stalin during World War II? Suharto was a mouse compared to Stalin. Again, its important to not look at a particular event or situation inside a box, but to look at the broarder context under which these events are happening. Its unforunate what happened to the people of East Timor just as it is unfortunate that 20,000 French civilians were killed in the initial bombing for D-Day in June 1944. But if you do not think that US policy in Indonesia was simply making the best of a difficult situation in the region similar to other regions and events in history, then I'd like to hear your solution if you had been Secretary of State at the time realizing the larger context under which regional events happen.
Your criticism of US military internvention not being evenhanded seems to stem more from the fact that the USA does not involve itself in every single conflict taking place inside countries around the world. Even if that would be a desirable goal, the USA does not have the ability to do that, and must pick in choose where to use its finite military resources. Of course, if our allies would contribute more to defense, the ability of the USA to involve itself in more area's of the world could increase. It is not in the interest of the USA to have people in any region of the world be slaughtered or die of starvation, and if we had more resources and help, and could prevent these things from happening without compromising more vital and important international security objectives, we would.
Even if there are several specifically unfair practices that can be pointed out in regards to USA trade with the third world, USA consumption of nearly 2 trillion dollars of goods and services from other countries is a NET benefit to the Global economy! Several other first world countries have much higher barriers to free trade than the USA.
as bastards,
