America's foreign policy

[Henrik]

I think NATO's present general secretary's citat to keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down shown be a beacon for America's foreign policy. It should cooporate closely with NATO and Great Britain to keep the world safe, democratic and peaceful. US should support NATO with air force and carriers and NATO should hold Europe clean from german's and support US's military. NATO, including Germany, and US should take stand against Russia and China for human freedom and diplomacy. NATO and US should work with Canada, Asia and Australia to destabilize religios militant organizations and common organizations in the middle east. It should also work for diversity and immigration from The Third World. US have fought many wars and intervened military and should countinue to do so for their values, but this time with their allies.

What is your opinion?

 

[Disir]

NATO has become more of a detriment and in fact has caused more civilian deaths to occur. It has outlived its usefulness. If there is too much in the way to see this clearly now then return to the Kosovo War.

Further, our foreign policy has nothing to do with "freedom" or any other bs.

 

[Henrik]

What do you mean? NATO haven't taking many battles or killed a huge amonut of people eaither.

America should be able to intervining miliary with NATO's consent in the way US did during the Korean War. US and NATO should take stand against China and Russia for liberalism, freedom, private ownership and capitalism the way NATO did against the Warsaw pact during the cold war.

NATO and US should intervene military for these values in the way in Bosnia, Iraq and Syria with a useful outcome. US should also intervene the way they did in the invasion of Iraq but with less human life's lost. The invasion of Iraq was a failure in my opinion.

 

[Disir]

Exactly what I said. NATO operated unilaterally. There seems to be a continued question of when the use of force should be used. During the Kosovo conflict NATO escalated the violence and the killing of civilians primarily because of the airstrikes which was.............dumb, dumb, dumb. Furthermore, the KLA had been listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department and then they were super cool. Cool enough to arm and train.

They lost credibility with this one.


NATO is responsible for the escalation of violence in Libya more recently.

 

[Henrik]

The Republican Party has always advocated a strong national defense and should continue to do so. The defense must be able to uphold defense to fight on two fronts. The Republican Party should intervene military worldwide but further with their allies in the name of UN, United Kingdom, Europe and even China and Russia. The Republican Party should also intervene for America's values and interest. They should promote and apply democracy and diplomacy. Work for capitalism, private ownership, freedom and diplomacy the way in the Operation Urgent Fury. Avoid a escalating like a cold war that followed that with diplomacy and democracy. America should promote a buildup of the US army the way Reagan did becouse the world is so hateful against America. US should also apply "national buildning" the way President Bush did. The world should be able to intervene the way US did during the Invasion of Iraq.

 

[waltky]

Pakistan, Lebanon take American foreign aid while providing terrorists safe havens...

Major US Aid Recipients Pakistan, Lebanon Among ‘Terrorist Safe Havens’ in State Dep’t Report
July 20, 2017 – Countries identified as “terrorist safe havens” in the annual State Department terrorism report released Wednesday include major recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, including military aid. Pakistan and Lebanon stand out, since in both cases the report indicates that their governments’ approaches towards terrorism are part of the problem.

Although several other key U.S. aid recipients, notably Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan, are also listed as “safe havens,” in those cases government efforts battling terrorists are noted. Other “safe havens” include countries where large areas are ungoverned, such as Libya and Yemen. The State Department’s 2016 evaluation does not reflect well on Pakistan in particular, as the report reinforces long-held concerns that while Islamabad combats some terrorist groups it coddles others, allowing their leaders to address supporters and fundraise openly. Pakistan has long been among the biggest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. In the FY 2017 budget request it was fifth-biggest recipient, behind Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan and Jordan. Since 2001 U.S. taxpayers have contributed more than $33 billion to Pakistan, either in direct aid or as reimbursements for counterterrorism efforts.

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act authored by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and passed unanimously last week, requires the administration to certify that Pakistan is not providing military, financial, or logistical support to any terrorists operating in Pakistan or Afghanistan – a step Poe said “forces Pakistan to make a long overdue choice: either go after terrorists or lose millions of dollars of American aid.” The term “terrorist safe haven” in the report applies to “ungoverned, under-governed, or illgoverned physical areas where terrorists are able to organize, plan, raise funds, communicate, recruit, train, transit, and operate in relative security because of inadequate governance capacity, political will, or both.” The report states that “numerous terrorist groups” continued to operate from Pakistani territory in 2016, including the Haqqani Network (HQN), Lashkar e-Toiba (LeT), and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). All three are U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). HQN, a Taliban faction, is viewed as the most effective terrorist group in the region, and frequently targets U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Despite a $10 million U.S. reward offer, Lashkar e-Toiba founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed moves freely in Pakistan. Here he is seen addressing a Ramadan iftar at an Islamabad hotel​

Among others, HQN is accused of a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan in 2009, in which seven CIA employees were killed. A declassified Defense Intelligence Agency cable claimed that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency paid the terrorists to carry out the attack. The other two groups cited, LeT and JeM, were established in Pakistan in the 1980s and 90s and primarily target India. After being supposedly banned in 2002, LeT changed its name to Jamaat ud-Dawa (JuD). It is led by Hafiz Saeed, a U.N.-designated global terrorist, wanted by India for masterminding a terror attack in Mumbai in 2008, in which six Americans were among the 166 victims. The U.S. and India have been calling on the government to act against Saeed for almost a decade, and he is the subject of a $10 U.S. reward offer.

Pakistani authorities’ approach towards LeT received particular attention in the new report. It said JuD and another LeT wing, Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FiF), were “able to openly engage in fundraising, including in the capital” and that Saeed “continued to address large rallies.” It acknowledged that Pakistan had, in February this year, proscribed Saeed under anti-terror legislation, “thus severely restricting his freedom of movement.” However, it said the government has not publicly reversed a 2015 declaration to the effect that neither JuD nor FiF is banned. Last January it place both “under observation” which while short of a ban does allow the government to scrutinize their activities. The report also said when Pakistan’s National Counterterrorism Authority late last year published a list of banned organizations it did not include JuD, but put it in a separate “under observation” section. The report did recognize that Pakistan has continued military operations against safe havens in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, but added that “their impact on all terrorist groups was uneven.”

Iran’s proxy thrives in Lebanon