re: #24 Destro

OK, let’s pretend that you have a serious interest in this discourse, rather than in just repeating knee-jerk the “Bush is a retard”, “Bush is evil”, “Americans are boorish louts who bring their own deaths upon them” cliches, and take your points, such as they are, in order:

Point 1:
a. Please explain, with historical references, the basis for your suggestion that the United States only first pursued a “you are with us or against us” strategy in its foreign relations beginning with and during the Bush presidency.

b. Please explain, with factual and historical references, the basis for your assertion that no one listens to the U.S. unless we bomb or bribe them during periods when the U.S. is engaged in power politics in the international arena. Please explain, in particular, why the popularity of the United States among the newly democratized states of Eastern Europe in the post-Cold War ear does not undermine your thesis.

c. Please furnish the factual basis for your assertion that it is only the U.S.’s pursuit of a “you are with us or against us” policy in international relations that leads “to dead Americans”. Were Americans never killed by our adversaries when we pursued a more conciliatory approach to foreign affairs? How does the plummeting standing of the U.S. in the Muslim world under the current administration support or undermine your thesis.

d. Why does the fact that the U.S. does not currently have a contending and equal superpower mean that the United States cannot pursue its interests, supporting its allies and opposing those whose policies and worldviews are inimical to that which we promote?

Point 2:

a. Please explain what you mean by the term: “dictat[ing] policies to other nations sometimes based on American domestic politics.” To what “domestic politics” do you refer?

b. And why is it inappropriate for the United States, a representative republic, to pursue a foreign policy that reflects the desires of its poplulation as determined through the process of “domestic politics”?

c. Please explain, with references to specific policy prescriptions (your own or those propounded by others), what, in your view, it would mean to “be a “Solomonic” power and act as an honest broker to all sides”. We are all, after all, familiar with the story of Solomon proposing that a baby be split in two. By “Solomonic” do you mean dictating to the parties a 50-50 split between their positions, even if that is not an appropriate resolution? Or do you simply mean “wise”, with the word “wise” meaning what the “underdog” Palestinians demand.

Point 3:

a. Yes, that is exactly what you said. It is inherent in your positing a duology between “”dictat[ing] policies to other nations sometimes based on American domestic politics”, which is what you have repeatedly claimed on this web site is what the U.S. does with reference to the desires of Israel and its “domestic supporters”, and “acting as an honest broker”.

b. I will grant you that the Jerusalem Embassy Act is for domestic political purposes and, even, largely for purposes of pandering by politicians (of both political parties). However, while you would place the authority for foreign policy entirely in the hands of the executive branch (unless, presumably, the White Hosue is occupied by “right wing kooks” or a “retard” Republican) the Constitution created a system of checks and balances even with respect to foreign affairs. Among other things, it gives the power of the purse solely to Congress, and that is precisely what Congress elected to use here. Moreover, there is nothing wrong, for reason I lay out in Post #7, above, with Congress, as the people’s elected representatives, taking the position that the U.S. government should enforce its own declared policy that our embassy be in the capital of each country.