Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who Are Our (US) Allies?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Just wondering some of your opinions on who we can consider our true allies in the War on Terror.

Of course there are the obvious ones, Britain, Israel, and Australia. From Asia, I think that Japan and South Korea can be considered allies.

As for the Middle East...I don't know that Egypt and Jordan can truly be considered allies, but they at least behave. And, in the Middle East, a country that behaves is about as good as we're gonna get. Egypt is having some political turmoil right now though, so I can definitely see them becoming an enemy in the future. I think our only true ally from the region is Turkey, and I'm hesitant even to include it because of their reluctance to let us use their airspace in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I'm undecided on India...I tend to think that they are an ally because of their issues with Pakistan. I think India has an obvious interest in seeing the demise of political Islam. I also think that WW3 ever breaks out, that India would end up siding with us against China, North Korea, and Russia. If you throw Pakistan into the Axis side, then I have no doubt that India would turn out to be a strong ally.

I haven't studied this kind of stuff as much as I would like, but I plan to as soon as I graduate and no longer have school to worry about. For now, I'd just like a critique of my all-too-amateur assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering why you put Russia in the same class as North Korea and China?

In answer to your question, I don't know if we really have (or need) any "allies" at all in this war, but of course Isreal and the U.K. provide a tiny bit of support to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia conducted a joint military exercise with China a few months ago. They also sell weapons and nuclear technology to Iran. Russia is an enemy.

I definitely think we need allies. America, strong though it may be, can't take on the entire Islamic world by itself, especially if Iran ends up being a military conflict. Iran's military is nothing to be scoffed at, like the Iraqi military was. I agree that world opinion shouldn't matter when we decide what to do, but the bottom line is that no country, no matter how strong, can stand against the whole world without something bad happening to it. I think Israel and Britain provide more than just a little support...they are both pretty staunch allies.

What is your opinion on India?

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your opinion on India?
It's not a question that can be answered in simple terms. India will support some things the US does and will not support others. Most Indians, and the Indian government, do not think the US should be in Iraq. On the other hand, most Indians, and the Indian government, see Islamic terrorists as evil people and wouldn't condone them.

On the other hand, most Indians and the Indian government are more friendly toward the Palestian "cause" and against Israel. India is negotiating with Iran to build an oil pipeline which will run from Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to India (how do you spell "short-sighted"). Like most people in the world (including many Americans, I might add) a majority of Indians think that if Iran wants nukes, the US has no right to "interfere".

In the recent move to refer Iran to the UN security council, India objected and the US has been putting pressure on India to vote with the US rather than with Iran.

In a nut-shell, India is like many of the middle of the road countries in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Historically our strongest ally has probably been Austrailia, with England probably taking 2nd place. Ireland and Israel are also probably fairly dependable. Norway and Denmark are a tiny bit iffy, but they may be of help if things go to hell. I'm not fully writing off France as an enemy, but their behavior has been nothing short of troubling. Germany and Italy are a mixed bag, they are our allies so long as certain political parties maintain power. Spain is not an ally with it's current government, and by virtue of their last election, their people are weak and not to be depended upon as friends if things go awry.

Some of Eastern Europe may indeed be good allies, but they need more time to form individual identities before I can count them as seasoned allies. Russia is not an ally, though many of it's former satelites can probably be depended upon. Sweden is not an ally because it is not a military nation. Switzerland is to be considered an accessory to terrorism (if not an outright enemy) by virtue of it's banking deals with terrorist states.

Everyone whom I haven't mentioned I'm either not sure about or the answer is otherwise obvious in the negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone whom I haven't mentioned I'm either not sure about or the answer is otherwise obvious in the negative.

Oh America, is there no room in your heart for your little brother to the north? Notice us, please! You mention Norway and Denmark (what have they ever done? Nothin' fer nobody!) but you don't even give a passing thought to us Canadians.

Remember the first time you left home to smash all of Saddam's toys? We were there. We brought like, 3 boats with us and everything. Oh how we laughed! Remember how we laughed together, America?

Or that time in Kosovo when Milo started playing a little too rough? We were there. We had some really really stern words for that guy. You were all like, "we're gonna bomb you back to the stone age, Milo!" and we were like, "damn right they will!" Weren't those good times, America? Didn't we have fun that day?

And then there was that time you took one on the chin, America. While you weren't looking some bearded jerk came from behind and sucker-punched you. We winced when we saw that and we were hurting for you and while you picked yourself up and shook it off we took in all those planes that had nowhere to go. Then you went and thanked Mexico. We thought "ouch, America," but we marched to Afghanistan with you, though and damn it if we're not trying to impress you there.

So yeah, maybe our toys aren't as fun or as new as yours and our helicopters don't always fly right and our submarine occasionally catches fire. Maybe we're not strong, or tough and don't have much to brag about but damn it, America, don't be ashamed to tell people you know us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to your question, I don't know if we really have (or need) any "allies" at all in this war, but of course Isreal and the U.K. provide a tiny bit of support to us.

[Patriotic Rant]How dare you! We Brits didn't spend the last few centuries running around the world killing people (particularly the French) just to be dismissed like that! Our military is one of the best in the world, Argentina still trembles in their boots after our glorious victory in the Falklands! (not Malvinas).[/Patriotic Rant]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh America, is there no room in your heart for your little brother to the north? Notice us, please! You mention Norway and Denmark (what have they ever done? Nothin' fer nobody!) but you don't even give a passing thought to us Canadians.

Remember the first time you left home to smash all of Saddam's toys? We were there. We brought like, 3 boats with us and everything. Oh how we laughed! Remember how we laughed together, America?

Or that time in Kosovo when Milo started playing a little too rough? We were there. We had some really really stern words for that guy. You were all like, "we're gonna bomb you back to the stone age, Milo!" and we were like, "damn right they will!" Weren't those good times, America? Didn't we have fun that day?

And then there was that time you took one on the chin, America. While you weren't looking some bearded jerk came from behind and sucker-punched you. We winced when we saw that and we were hurting for you and while you picked yourself up and shook it off we took in all those planes that had nowhere to go. Then you went and thanked Mexico. We thought "ouch, America," but we marched to Afghanistan with you, though and damn it if we're not trying to impress you there.

So yeah, maybe our toys aren't as fun or as new as yours and our helicopters don't always fly right and our submarine occasionally catches fire. Maybe we're not strong, or tough and don't have much to brag about but damn it, America, don't be ashamed to tell people you know us.

Apologies sir, I neglected to mention Canada, although I'm not really sure about that business of satelite dishes being banned up there. Do you guys still support free speech up there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we do... just not Howard Stern's.

Um...then Canada doesn't acknowledge the right to free speech because it applies equally to everyone except those that use it to make threats. Unless you were just being sarcastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure we do... just not Howard Stern's.

By this post I will assume that this was serious and not just sarcasm, if it was a joke, disregard this response.

As a practicing Catholic I can't stand Howard Stern, however, I'm not one to resort to government force in order to shut someone up whom I don't like, my preferred method of dealing with garbage is either turning off the radio, changing the channel, or trying to show someone the error of their ways through principled debate. Your country's various news outlets and media have every right to deny anyone air time (this of course would provide that they are privately funded, which obviously they aren't), but your government has no right to deprive people of their right to hear whatever speech they wish to hear.

The problem also is that Howard Stern is not the only person your censoring with a ban on satelite dishes. You are also interfering with commerce between corporations of other countries who may wish to gain some Canadian customers, and certain news outlets such as Fox News (like them or not, they are of a different opinion than the mainstream media) provide perspectives that many of your citizens (mostly outside of the major cities) want to see.

Free speech either applies to everyone or it doesn't exist.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this post I will assume that this was serious and not just sarcasm, if it was a joke, disregard this response.

I was being quite serious. For a number of years Howard Stern's broadcast was banned in Canada because, I think, he had a habit of insulting French-Canadians. It's only now that he's on satellite radio (where the CRTC, our version of the FCC, i believe, has no jurisdiction) that he'll be heard in this country again.

The problem also is that Howard Stern is not the only person your censoring with a ban on satelite dishes. You are also interfering with commerce between corporations of other countries who may wish to gain some Canadian customers, and certain news outlets such as Fox News (like them or not, they are of a different opinion than the mainstream media) provide perspectives that many of your citizens (mostly outside of the major cities) want to see.

Free speech either applies to everyone or it doesn't exist.

I agree.

The thing about Canada is that we love your culture but we're also terrified that it will stiffle our own (whatever it may be). As such, we're fiercely protective of our hazy, ill-defined 'national identity'. This has resulted in Canadian content requirements and other government-imposed means of artificially preserving a supposed culture to which the average citizen pays little more than lip service. However, although American satellite broadcasters are forbidden to do business in Canada most of the channels they offer (including Fox News) are distributed through Canadian satellite providers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being quite serious. For a number of years Howard Stern's broadcast was banned in Canada because, I think, he had a habit of insulting French-Canadians. It's only now that he's on satellite radio (where the CRTC, our version of the FCC, i believe, has no jurisdiction) that he'll be heard in this country again.
Howard Stern has regularly derided most Americans, the difference is that alot of us (though clearly not all of us) are not as thin-skinned about it. Granted, the FCC is acting as a fascist agency by stating that Howard Stern should be forced into obscurity by way of law. And Nationalism (Canadian or otherwise) is never a healthy thing, I'd suggest less of it and a little more common sense in your diet.

There is a fellow in South Carolina named Bob Jones III who runs a university by the same name and regularly refers to the Pope as being the anti-Christ and the Catholic Church as being the occult. This obviously would imply an insult and an attack on my identity as a practicing Catholic, but I am not going to seek to censor his opinions (though distorted and clearly erronius) through censorship, partly because censorship never sticks to being an attack on what one man considers indecent, it comes back to haunt everyone.

The thing about Canada is that we love your culture but we're also terrified that it will stiffle our own (whatever it may be). As such, we're fiercely protective of our hazy, ill-defined 'national identity'. This has resulted in Canadian content requirements and other government-imposed means of artificially preserving a supposed culture to which the average citizen pays little more than lip service. However, although American satellite broadcasters are forbidden to do business in Canada most of the channels they offer (including Fox News) are distributed through Canadian satellite providers.

I'm not going to lie and say that America has been perfect on this issue either, but on principle, this is exactly the wrong way to go about preserving a National identity. The best way to do such things is to drop the government controls, and encourage commerce with other countries without unneccesary government filters. I come from the school of thought that "no one can do everything well, but everyone can do something well", all Canada would need to do is find it's stock-in-trade and you'll have yourself an established identity (although that alone does not determine it). Besides, protectionism is more likely to hurt Canada's economy than help it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard Stern has regularly derided most Americans, the difference is that alot of us (though clearly not all of us) are not as thin-skinned about it. Granted, the FCC is acting as a fascist agency by stating that Howard Stern should be forced into obscurity by way of law. And Nationalism (Canadian or otherwise) is never a healthy thing, I'd suggest less of it and a little more common sense in your diet.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding. I'm with you 100%. I've never listened to Stern because I never turn on the radio but whatever it was he said that pissed off everyone, it was wrong of the CRTC to ban his program.

Making fun of french-Canadians is a pretty touchy affair in this country, though. We're a very vocal minority and when the english take shots at us we tend to respond with epic indignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I think there may have been a misunderstanding. I'm with you 100%. I've never listened to Stern because I never turn on the radio but whatever it was he said that pissed off everyone, it was wrong of the CRTC to ban his program.

2. Making fun of french-Canadians is a pretty touchy affair in this country, though. We're a very vocal minority and when the english take shots at us we tend to respond with epic indignation.

1. I think there has been one, because I was under the impression that you were in agreement with Canada's current policy towards Howard Stern and Satelite Television. This not being the case, I think we've both made our points and can move on to a different subject.

2. I'm not one to condone making fun of any group of people because it pre-empts the belief that people of one race, religion, or other association are automatically of a monolithic being, which is the absurdity of all absurdities as far as I'm concerned. However, if others choose to believe such nonsense, the worst thing to do by means of correcting them is pointing a government gun in their face and telling them to shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically our strongest ally has probably been Austrailia, with England probably taking 2nd place. Ireland and Israel are also probably fairly dependable. Norway and Denmark are a tiny bit iffy, but they may be of help if things go to hell. I'm not fully writing off France as an enemy, but their behavior has been nothing short of troubling. Germany and Italy are a mixed bag, they are our allies so long as certain political parties maintain power. Spain is not an ally with it's current government, and by virtue of their last election, their people are weak and not to be depended upon as friends if things go awry.

Switzerland is to be considered an accessory to terrorism (if not an outright enemy) by virtue of it's banking deals with terrorist states.

Everyone whom I haven't mentioned I'm either not sure about or the answer is otherwise obvious in the negative.

Ireland is fairly dependable? It is a neatural country which only commits itself to peace-keeping nations and which has supported, for almost eighty years, terrorism in Ulster and mainland Britain.

So in what way can that be seen as different to Switzerland?

Norway and Denmark? Of what support have they been to America over the past sixty years?

Germany has been one of America's staunchest allies since the end of the Second World War, any difference they now find with America is only due to an attempt to maintain the neutrality imposed on them, and drummed into them, in the sixty years since.

If a country does not have a foreign policy that matches America's, it does not make it an enemy. In the same way that other people's goals and desires might not match yours, they are not all enemies - they may be short-term allies, competitors and they may even simply not have anything to do with you.

Surely it is the right of every country to have its own policies, and they should have the right to have policies that do not match America's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it is the right of every country to have its own policies, and they should have the right to have policies that do not match America's.
Leaving aside the use of the term "rights" for a country, rather than an individual, what you say here is true but not complete. Country's may not legitimately do anything they want, and variance from what the American government does is a non-essential criteria.

Using your terms, countries have the "right" to do that which defends the rights of their citizens and do not have the right to do that which does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the use of the term "rights" for a country, rather than an individual, what you say here is true but not complete. Country's may not legitimately do anything they want, and variance from what the American government does is a non-essential criteria.

Using your terms, countries have the "right" to do that which defends the rights of their citizens and do not have the right to do that which does not.

Ok, surely the democratically elected representatives of persons of other countries have a right to follow a foreign policy which does not match America's, if that is the will of the people who have elected them?

Because it seems to me countries are being as "not allies" on this forum where it is simply that their foreign policy does not match America's point-for-point.

Edited by Dan Bidewell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really straying from the central topic of the thread. However...

Ok, surely the democratically elected representatives....
Democracy is not a fundamentally "good thing" in politics. Mobs do not have the right to do what they like, nor have their elected representatives do so in their name. A lot of Iraqis want a theorcratic slant to their government. They do not have the right to have such a government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, all of these other countries of the world do NOT have the right to initate the statist policies that they do. No matter what the "will of the people is". Countries do, do this of course--just not by "right". There is no such "right to enslave", and the United States does NOT have to recognize *any* other of these slave nations of various degrees "rights" if and when we deem it in the nation's self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ireland is fairly dependable? It is a neatural country which only commits itself to peace-keeping nations and which has supported, for almost eighty years, terrorism in Ulster and mainland Britain.
Being someone whom is of 75% Irish ancestry and has a fairly good sense of history, I will tell you that Ireland had it's reasons for engaging in Guerilla warfare with your country, going all the way back to the time when my ancestors were forced out of their homes by the potato famine. From your point of view Ireland has been a terrorist nation, and by their point of you England has been a collective Liege Lord whom has plundered their nation's wealth for centuries. Whether or not they send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan is not my primary concern, I'm more interested in their economic developments, which are far more Capitalistic than Socialist Britain. I've been tempted to move there because I'd have a lower income tax rate if I did.

So in what way can that be seen as different to Switzerland?

Ireland is not offering to open bank accounts and hold assets belonging to Iran to help shelter them from economic sanctions for developing nuclear weapons. You may be a bit worried that a plastic bomb might be set off by an IRA splinter cell on your island and injure or kill a few dozen people (and I by no means support the IRA), but Iran seeks to wipe out the entire country of Israel. You do the math on which country is doing more to injure America and the rest of the world.

Norway and Denmark? Of what support have they been to America over the past sixty years?
Norway's trade with America (particularly Oil) has been rather good, and they did send troops to aid in Afghanistan and Iraq. And although their government is proving to be a tiny bit weak on first Amendment issues, their press is clearly showing some signs of moral strength by defending their right to cover the news, no matter who it offends.

Germany has been one of America's staunchest allies since the end of the Second World War, any difference they now find with America is only due to an attempt to maintain the neutrality imposed on them, and drummed into them, in the sixty years since.

My criticisms of Germany have less to do with their lack of a foreign policy and more to do with the way they structure their government. I don't hold high stock for countries that have regularly voted their socialist party to power. I don't care how much they kiss our fannies, no socialist party is a friend of the US, and I will never acknowledge a socialistic country as a greater ally than one that is more economically free.

If a country does not have a foreign policy that matches America's, it does not make it an enemy. In the same way that other people's goals and desires might not match yours, they are not all enemies - they may be short-term allies, competitors and they may even simply not have anything to do with you.
I don't approve of America's current foreign policy, so this is falling on deaf ears. And I'm not a person whom really cares what anyone in any other country thinks of me or anyone else, I am who I am, you can take it or leave it. But I will tell you that my country has been philosophically deteriorating for the past 150 years because of people in Europe (Germany in particular) who took pen and paper and wrote despotism into the laws of reason. Considering the philosophy that is taught in many European schools, all of them could be made to be my enemy, because their erronius views of the rights of the individual are contagious and will eventually be visited upon me.

Surely it is the right of every country to have its own policies, and they should have the right to have policies that do not match America's.

The issue has nothing to do with rights, because no state or country can possess rights, only individuals can. Collective opinions, held for their own sake, amount to nothing more than mob rule, be it American or otherwise. The American state has the obligation to protect the rights of the people it represents, it is the servant, not the master, or the citizens it holds.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...