PDA

View Full Version : James Clapper- the US can’t fix the Middle East



Peter1469
05-14-2016, 06:44 AM
James Clapper- the US can’t fix the Middle East (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-cant-fix-it-james-clapper-on-americas-role-in-the-middle-east/2016/05/10/377666a8-16ea-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html)

The problems there are too "local" for the West to impose a solution. A Wide Area Stability Operation in the Middle East would require hundreds of thousands of Western forces for not the decades we used in Germany or South Korea, but over a century in order to totally remake a tribal Arab culture.

See the other thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/62815-Time-for-the-Army-to-say-no-to-wide-area-security-operations)on Wide Area Stability Operations.


“I don’t have an answer,” Clapper said frankly. “The U.S. can’t fix it. The fundamental issues they have — the large population bulge of disaffected young males, ungoverned spaces, economic challenges and the availability of weapons — won’t go away for a long time.” He said at another point: “Somehow the expectation is that we can find the silver needle, and we’ll create ‘the city on a hill.’ ” That’s not realistic, he cautioned, because the problem is so complex.

I asked Clapper whether he shared Obama’s view, as expressed in Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/), that America doesn’t need the Middle East economically as it once did, that it can’t solve the region’s problems and that, in trying, the United States would harm its interests elsewhere. “I’m there,” said Clapper, endorsing Obama’s basic pessimism. But he explained: “I don’t think the U.S. can just leave town. Things happen around the world when U.S. leadership is absent. We have to be present — to facilitate, broker and sometimes provide the force.”

MMC
05-14-2016, 07:05 AM
James Clapper- the US can’t fix the Middle East (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-cant-fix-it-james-clapper-on-americas-role-in-the-middle-east/2016/05/10/377666a8-16ea-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html)

The problems there are too "local" for the West to impose a solution. A Wide Area Stability Operation in the Middle East would require hundreds of thousands of Western forces for not the decades we used in Germany or South Korea, but over a century in order to totally remake a tribal Arab culture.

See the other thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/62815-Time-for-the-Army-to-say-no-to-wide-area-security-operations)on Wide Area Stability Operations.


I don’t think the U.S. can just leave town. Things happen around the world when U.S. leadership is absent. We have to be present — to facilitate, broker and sometimes provide the force.”.....snip~



He should have told the Peep that when he wanted to cut and run from Iraq. Don't ya think?

I read that Goldberg piece. Its not just BO's failures which have compounded things and made it worse. Its not having a coherent policy for the ME.



In the past, United States officials saw the Islamist groups’ abundant resources as the main draw for recruits, said Steven Heydemann, a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, which works with the State Department.

“The strategy is based on the current assessment that popular appeal of these groups is transactional, not ideological, and that opportunities exist to peel people away by providing alternative support and resources,” he said.

Mr. Heydemann acknowledged, however, that the current momentum toward radicalism could be hard to reverse.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1


As you can see.....they have had the strategy wrong from the get go. Doesn't matter who Left or Right.

Bottomline.....it never was transactional and it was and is always Ideological.

zelmo1234
05-14-2016, 08:04 AM
I actually agree we can't fix the problems, but we can kill them.

We just need to adopt their tactics for a while

The Sage of Main Street
05-14-2016, 02:34 PM
I actually agree we can't fix the problems, but we can kill them.

We just need to adopt their tactics for a while They need to go back to the Stone Age poverty, primitive medicine, depopulation, and war of all against all that they belong in. The only solution is to seize their oilfields and evict them back to the desert.

Peter1469
05-14-2016, 03:35 PM
They need to go back to the Stone Age poverty, primitive medicine, depopulation, and war of all against all that they belong in. The only solution is to seize their oilfields and evict them back to the desert.

If people paid attention (http://www.energyvictory.net)we would be going on 10 years towards that goal by now.

donttread
05-14-2016, 06:30 PM
James Clapper- the US can’t fix the Middle East (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-cant-fix-it-james-clapper-on-americas-role-in-the-middle-east/2016/05/10/377666a8-16ea-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html)

The problems there are too "local" for the West to impose a solution. A Wide Area Stability Operation in the Middle East would require hundreds of thousands of Western forces for not the decades we used in Germany or South Korea, but over a century in order to totally remake a tribal Arab culture.

See the other thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/62815-Time-for-the-Army-to-say-no-to-wide-area-security-operations)on Wide Area Stability Operations.

Wow a public official admitting the obvious . Not only can we not fix it but we need to stop breaking worse each day

The Sage of Main Street
05-15-2016, 02:09 PM
If people paid attention (http://www.energyvictory.net)we would be going on 10 years towards that goal by now. Zubrin is a Trekkie treehugger, so his book should be categorized as scifi, not economics.

Peter1469
05-15-2016, 02:49 PM
Zubrin is a Trekkie treehugger, so his book should be categorized as scifi, not economics.

Engineering. Not economics. He does look to the future as well. He wrote a series of books about how to colonize Mars.

Ransom
05-15-2016, 04:05 PM
The can't fix it crowd needs to understand that also means we couldn't break it either. We're often blamed by the naïve for 'breaking' the ME, it's been a disaster for centuries.

Cannot fix our own country.

Peter1469
05-15-2016, 04:47 PM
The can't fix it crowd needs to understand that also means we couldn't break it either. We're often blamed by the naïve for 'breaking' the ME, it's been a disaster for centuries.

Cannot fix our own country.

That is another argument against occupation and imposing Jeffersonian Democracy at the point of a bayonet on tribal Arabs.

Ransom
05-15-2016, 08:48 PM
That is another argument against occupation and imposing Jeffersonian Democracy at the point of a bayonet on tribal Arabs.

The invasion was limited to few countries, you were involved on one of them. And the purpose wasn't to 'fix' the ME when you did it, the invasion in 2003 wasn't meant to fix the ME either. But neither invasion 'broke' the ME as is often offered for sale in here.

The Sage of Main Street
05-16-2016, 09:42 AM
Engineering. Not economics. He does look to the future as well. He wrote a series of books about how to colonize Mars. I'm all for re-colonizing the Third World, but not for wasting money on a childish Trekkie thrill ride.

donttread
05-16-2016, 01:28 PM
The can't fix it crowd needs to understand that also means we couldn't break it either. We're often blamed by the naïve for 'breaking' the ME, it's been a disaster for centuries.

Cannot fix our own country.

Google yourself some 1960's pics from the Me and compare then to say... now

Peter1469
05-16-2016, 05:10 PM
I'm all for re-colonizing the Third World, but not for wasting money on a childish Trekkie thrill ride.

The Apollo Program had a rate of return of 26:1. And there was no mining effort. A waste of money? lol.

The Sage of Main Street
05-17-2016, 08:52 AM
The Apollo Program had a rate of return of 26:1. And there was no mining effort. A waste of money? lol. That money could have been put directly in those bonuses; the childish Trekkie joyride was not necessary to produce those advances. If you want faster computers, invest in that. Don't wait until you can tie it to some geek "Wow! Cool!" escapism.

Peter1469
05-17-2016, 03:40 PM
That money could have been put directly in those bonuses; the childish Trekkie joyride was not necessary to produce those advances. If you want faster computers, invest in that. Don't wait until you can tie it to some geek "Wow! Cool!" escapism.

Most of those spin offs were from advances and discoveries in order to get to the moon. Which ones would someone have developed independently around the same time frame?

Ransom
05-18-2016, 08:46 AM
Google yourself some 1960's pics from the Me and compare then to say... now

Does 1967 count?


http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/21/99921-004-D0EDFD59.jpg

Ransom
05-18-2016, 08:48 AM
Google yourself some 1960's pics from the Me and compare then to say... now

As well, the "1960's pics" that you makes analogies to......are a mere 20 years after western intervention carving up the ME.

Don't you mean 1860's......while we're too involved in our own Civil War?

Ransom
05-18-2016, 08:48 AM
http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dead-Egyptian.jpg

Ransom
05-18-2016, 08:49 AM
The ME in the 1960's

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YYMeAu4i7gA/SvZ-NVFDdKI/AAAAAAAAGVs/GKI1MY5d9D0/s1600/israeli-tanks-golan-heights-six-day-war-1967.jpg

The Sage of Main Street
05-18-2016, 11:17 AM
Most of those spin offs were from advances and discoveries in order to get to the moon. Which ones would someone have developed independently around the same time frame? Whichever ones would be useful in other areas should have been developed specifically for those areas and not for some useless NA$A spectacle. The saying,"We can put a man on the moon but we can't do X" evades the conclusion that if we hadn't wasted money and talent on nerdy Trekkie escapism and put that money on X, we could have done X instead.

The Sage of Main Street
05-18-2016, 11:35 AM
http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dead-Egyptian.jpg Needs a dash of pig's blood.

Ransom
05-18-2016, 01:26 PM
http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold_War/d_Brezhnev_Era/e_Nixon_73_74/media/dd_YomKippurWar/Golan/777px-Yom_Kippur_War_1%5B1%5D.jpg
The Yom Kippur War of 73, don't know if we're allowed to use this, have to ask donttread.

Ransom
05-18-2016, 01:27 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44630000/jpg/_44630809_82_refugees_afp_466x282.jpg

Terrible pics to use and I apologize but....this is the Israeli 1982 occupation of Lebanon...

More of the "peace and stability" before US occupations.

Ransom
05-18-2016, 01:29 PM
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vQgrDJhXws8/UcC6lDAvuTI/AAAAAAAAB8Q/49T-FfbdQmg/s1600/IraqIran1980sWar.jpg

Ransom
05-18-2016, 01:29 PM
You were saying....[MENTION]donttread[MENTION]?

Peter1469
05-18-2016, 02:36 PM
Whichever ones would be useful in other areas should have been developed specifically for those areas and not for some useless NA$A spectacle. The saying,"We can put a man on the moon but we can't do X" evades the conclusion that if we hadn't wasted money and talent on nerdy Trekkie escapism and put that money on X, we could have done X instead.

Luddite. :smiley:

The Sage of Main Street
05-19-2016, 08:34 AM
http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold_War/d_Brezhnev_Era/e_Nixon_73_74/media/dd_YomKippurWar/Golan/777px-Yom_Kippur_War_1[1].jpg
The Yom Kippur War of 73, don't know if we're allowed to use this, have to ask donttread. Won almost singlehandedly by Gen. Ariel Sharon after Queen Golda's femininny incompetence left Israel in the lurch.

I suspect that the preview of 9/11 earlier in the year had something to do with Israel's timidity. The Israelis had shot down an offcourse Libyan airliner because they had info that jihadi hijackers would use one as a bomb. The New York Times and other self-hating Yellow Jews savaged Israel for being a trigger-happy loose cannon. No longer macho, the Israelis had to rely on the magnificent Sharon to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat.

The Sage of Main Street
05-19-2016, 08:36 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44630000/jpg/_44630809_82_refugees_afp_466x282.jpg

Terrible pics to use and I apologize but....this is the Israeli 1982 occupation of Lebanon...

More of the "peace and stability" before US occupations. Needs a whole gallon of pig's blood.

The Sage of Main Street
05-19-2016, 08:39 AM
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vQgrDJhXws8/UcC6lDAvuTI/AAAAAAAAB8Q/49T-FfbdQmg/s1600/IraqIran1980sWar.jpg Reagan's idea. And a good one. Sectarian suicide.

The Sage of Main Street
05-19-2016, 08:43 AM
Luddite. :smiley: Pyramids. Astrology. Alchemy. Philosopher's Stone for stoned philosophers. Escaping into imaginary worlds.

Peter1469
05-19-2016, 12:42 PM
Pyramids. Astrology. Alchemy. Philosopher's Stone for stoned philosophers. Escaping into imaginary worlds.

That other stuff aside, the Moon and Mars are not imaginary worlds. They are our future whether you would wish otherwise or not.

Ransom
05-19-2016, 01:03 PM
Feeling a little let down donttread

You asked for pics.....I provided some....no comment?

:biglaugh:

That lesson will burn for awhile, lil ointment and what not, keep it clean and dry. You'll be fine.

donttread
05-19-2016, 06:27 PM
Feeling a little let down @donttread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=922)

You asked for pics.....I provided some....no comment?

:biglaugh:

That lesson will burn for awhile, lil ointment and what not, keep it clean and dry. You'll be fine.

Kinda looks like Chicago huh. I was referring to the modern dress that even woman sported ,

donttread
05-19-2016, 06:45 PM
Feeling a little let down @donttread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=922)

You asked for pics.....I provided some....no comment?

:biglaugh:

That lesson will burn for awhile, lil ointment and what not, keep it clean and dry. You'll be fine.


Google "pics of 1970's Iran and you'll immediatel see what appear to be college students dressed in bright colors , with the women even , Allah forbid" showing some skin

Peter1469
05-19-2016, 06:50 PM
Google "pics of 1970's Iran and you'll immediatel see what appear to be college students dressed in bright colors , with the women even , Allah forbid" showing some skin


In Istanbul today you will see a Turkish women in a mix of western and Islamic dress. But the western dress is long pants and nice tops. Not much in the way of shorts and halter tops.

donttread
05-20-2016, 08:01 AM
In Istanbul today you will see a Turkish women in a mix of western and Islamic dress. But the western dress is long pants and nice tops. Not much in the way of shorts and halter tops.


Maybe that's because we didn't interfer enough Turkey's leadership and infrastructure so that the zealots could come in and take control

The Sage of Main Street
05-20-2016, 09:39 AM
That other stuff aside, the Moon and Mars are not imaginary worlds. They are our future whether you would wish otherwise or not. Hollywood's present is not our future.

The Sage of Main Street
05-20-2016, 09:47 AM
Google "pics of 1970's Iran and you'll immediatel see what appear to be college students dressed in bright colors , with the women even , Allah forbid" showing some skin More recent history proved that those costumes were unnatural for them.

Ransom
05-20-2016, 10:46 AM
Google "pics of 1970's Iran and you'll immediatel see what appear to be college students dressed in bright colors , with the women even , Allah forbid" showing some skin

Let me get this straight.....you want to use pictures....of Iran in the 1970's? You do realize.....Iran was sinking into a civil war in the 1970's the Shah kicked out by 1979, our embassy run over in 1980?

Pictures?

Tell us of the Islamic Iranian Revolution, donttread...of the 1970s. The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini in exile in Iraq at the time, by the end of the 1970's he's in power.....that's right kids.....the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini takes power in Iran after an Islamic Revolution torching off conflict with the West.....but you want me to look at pictures during the Revolution's rise and take note of the color dresses being worn?

I mean...you cannot f'n make this up

Ransom
05-20-2016, 10:48 AM
So I submit pictures of the ME in the 1960s.....and get ignored.....I'm then told......wait a sec...I meant pictures of dresses Iranian women were wearing in the 1970's...look at those.

f'n wholesale winging it.

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 04:24 PM
Maybe that's because we didn't interfer enough Turkey's leadership and infrastructure so that the zealots could come in and take control

Or maybe not.

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 04:25 PM
Hollywood's present is not our future.

Colonies on Mars, the Moon, and elsewhere in space is our future.

donttread
05-20-2016, 07:26 PM
Or maybe not.

They seem to follow us, taking power where we have been. The ME has regressed under our modern interventions.

donttread
05-20-2016, 07:32 PM
So I submit pictures of the ME in the 1960s.....and get ignored.....I'm then told......wait a sec...I meant pictures of dresses Iranian women were wearing in the 1970's...look at those.

f'n wholesale winging it.

OK Ransom . Is the ME more or less stable in general than it was 50 years ago. If the answer is "NO" or even "not much" then the interventions have failed.

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 07:49 PM
They seem to follow us, taking power where we have been. The ME has regressed under our modern interventions.

You are completely off base. Your knowledge of history seems to be 3 decades and thats it.

I have explained it to you before but you insist on sticking with this narrative.

donttread
05-20-2016, 08:54 PM
You are completely off base. Your knowledge of history seems to be 3 decades and thats it.

I have explained it to you before but you insist on sticking with this narrative.

And I have attempted to explain to you that memes like "we've always done it this way so we must consider to do so" or " we have to play world police because long dead men signed a document a century ago" . Past actions do not have to dictate current actions. In fact if they did the world would never change. At all. And we should occasionally evaluate our actions by the actual facts: Like the fact that war has deepened our debt crisis , we've lost many lives and the "enemy of the day" has lost even more. And, oh yeah, the ME is a train wreck.
How does anything pre-1979 change any of that?

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 09:02 PM
And I have attempted to explain to you that memes like "we've always done it this way so we must consider to do so" or " we have to play world police because long dead men signed a document a century ago" . Past actions do not have to dictate current actions. In fact if they did the world would never change. At all. And we should occasionally evaluate our actions by the actual facts: Like the fact that war has deepened our debt crisis , we've lost many lives and the "enemy of the day" has lost even more. And, oh yeah, the ME is a train wreck.
How does anything pre-1979 change any of that?

You miss the point.

You are cherry picking points in history without understanding the larger picture. Recall the historical arch discussion.

Dr. Who
05-20-2016, 09:40 PM
And I have attempted to explain to you that memes like "we've always done it this way so we must consider to do so" or " we have to play world police because long dead men signed a document a century ago" . Past actions do not have to dictate current actions. In fact if they did the world would never change. At all. And we should occasionally evaluate our actions by the actual facts: Like the fact that war has deepened our debt crisis , we've lost many lives and the "enemy of the day" has lost even more. And, oh yeah, the ME is a train wreck.
How does anything pre-1979 change any of that?
I think that you argue that the axiom of US "manifest destiny" and by extension "world police" has long since stopped being an economic or political advantage to America, which is certainly true in the case of the Middle East. However, the reason why it has been a failure in the middle east is also important to know and understand. If you predicate foreign policy on experience in only one context, without understanding why it failed, you are making policy based on ignorance. The history and present culture of the middle east makes the democratization of the ME by force a virtual impossibility unless you want to babysit for at least 50 years. In a different situation and in a different place, the population may be ready and willing to have the existing government removed to allow them to enjoy a democratic form of government. Such a situation might well be of benefit to America and that country and it's people, so one cannot rule out intervention for both the humanitarian and economic benefit of all.

In general, however, I agree that playing world cop does not generally benefit the majority of the American population, however knowing why intervention will not work is as important as identifying the instances where it will be of benefit.

Ransom
05-21-2016, 07:16 AM
OK Ransom . Is the ME more or less stable in general than it was 50 years ago. If the answer is "NO" or even "not much" then the interventions have failed.

May I suggest that your answer here lies so much further than your current parameter of the colors of Women's dresses in 1970s Iran.... or 'pics in the 60s?'

Ethereal
05-21-2016, 07:18 AM
Ransom's knowledge of the ME is based on watching TV and attending neocon think-tanks full of chickenhawk desk-jockeys.

Ransom
05-21-2016, 07:38 AM
You can nuance all you want. We cannot stand idle while others abroad plot our destruction. We can argue occupation, intervention, isolation, we'll not remain immune to threat regardless of policy chosen. The thread topic concerns fixing the ME, I'm not sure that's anyone's policy, nor is there any 'fix.

Ransom
05-21-2016, 07:39 AM
Ransom's knowledge of the ME is based on watching TV and attending neocon think-tanks full of chickenhawk desk-jockeys.

Morning Ethereal.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 07:43 AM
You can nuance all you want. We cannot stand idle while others abroad plot our destruction. We can argue occupation, intervention, isolation, we'll not remain immune to threat regardless of policy chosen. The thread topic concerns fixing the ME, I'm not sure that's anyone's policy, nor is there any 'fix.

You look at all national interests and you allocate resources as necessary. We can't do everything that we wish we could.

Ethereal
05-21-2016, 07:47 AM
Morning Ethereal.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

The Sage of Main Street
05-21-2016, 08:26 AM
Let me get this straight.....you want to use pictures....of Iran in the 1970's? You do realize.....Iran was sinking into a civil war in the 1970's the Shah kicked out by 1979, our embassy run over in 1980?

Pictures?

Tell us of the Islamic Iranian Revolution, donttread...of the 1970s. The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini in exile in Iraq at the time, by the end of the 1970's he's in power.....that's right kids.....the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Mūsavi Khomeini takes power in Iran after an Islamic Revolution torching off conflict with the West.....but you want me to look at pictures during the Revolution's rise and take note of the color dresses being worn?

I mean...you cannot f'n make this upAn important but neglected fact, as revealed by former C"I"A director Admiral Stansfield Turner, is that the teenage mob previously had taken over the Embassy but left after a day. That made Peanut Butter Jimmy think that it was just a harmless expression of the jihadis' democratic leanings towards freedom of speech and other Dhimmi values.

The Sage of Main Street
05-21-2016, 08:29 AM
Colonies on Mars, the Moon, and elsewhere in space is our future. You're showing symptoms of an overdose of popcorn.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 08:39 AM
You're showing symptoms of an overdose of popcorn.

No butter. Obscene amounts of salt.

Ransom
05-21-2016, 10:03 AM
You look at all national interests and you allocate resources as necessary. We can't do everything that we wish we could.

We can go much further than merely wishing concerning those national interests, Peter. While no one except you is arguing your 'do everything' straw man, your Uncle Ransom is directing artillery at the 'do nothing' theories of realism and isolationism. You're arguing in another thread that a Taliban government in Afghanistan shouldn't be any concern to the US, that theory if consistent wouldn't have considered a democratic socialism in 1930s Germany relevant either.

Inaction, Pete...... is what I abhor. The standing idle and doing nothing. We witnessed it here during the rise of ISIS...... some 4 years ago we witnessed the NOPD theories. We also had theories that you'd best confront this crisis..... because you'd have to confront it either sooner. Or later. Later being much more expensive in numerous ways. Now...... what side of that equation were you, Pete, I forgot?

You've got voters.... and we got forum members...that wouldn't know a national interest if one crapped on their front lawn.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 10:14 AM
You are all over the place.


We can go much further than merely wishing concerning those national interests, Peter. While no one except you is arguing your 'do everything' straw man, your Uncle Ransom is directing artillery at the 'do nothing' theories of realism and isolationism.

You miss the point. Let's put it this way. For the decade plus period of time that the rabid Neocons had the US military tied down in the Middle East (a side issue) Russia rose. When I say we can't do everything at once (limited resources) this is what I mean. Focus on what matters. Use less resources for peripheral matters.



You're arguing in another thread that a Taliban government in Afghanistan shouldn't be any concern to the US, that theory if consistent wouldn't have considered a democratic socialism in 1930s Germany relevant either.
Except that isn't really what I argued. And you again compare a land locked tribal / dysfunctional nation to 1930s Germany as if you actually believe that the Taliban will launch attacks and take over much of the world within the decade if we "don't do something." Get real. This is where Neocons go off the reservation. A dose of realism would cure that sickness.



Inaction, Pete...... is what I abhor. The standing idle and doing nothing. We witnessed it here during the rise of ISIS...... some 4 years ago we witnessed the NOPD theories. We also had theories that you'd best confront this crisis..... because you'd have to confront it either sooner. Or later. Later being much more expensive in numerous ways. Now...... what side of that equation were you, Pete, I forgot?

You've got voters.... and we got forum members...that wouldn't know a national interest if one crapped on their front lawn.

I hate inaction as well. However, flailing about with peripheral matters isn't the answer. Focus.

Ransom
05-21-2016, 10:18 AM
An important but neglected fact, as revealed by former C"I"A director Admiral Stansfield Turner, is that the teenage mob previously had taken over the Embassy but left after a day. That made Peanut Butter Jimmy think that it was just a harmless expression of the jihadis' democratic leanings towards freedom of speech and other Dhimmi values.

Instead, the incident dominated elections at home and relations with Iran to this day.

Iran. It's population relatively young, it's economy struggling. Iran's primary enemy of course.... free will..... suppressed during elections, information restricted in Iran. Given that, this is an historically well educated nation. We know their electorate yearns for more freedoms. The Iranians are Persian, not Arab who they've warred with for millennia. Now imagine.....someone inserts a successful Republic on one of it's borders. A Republic that elects it's representatives, a Republic that eventually trades openly with the West.

Why...... it's nothing less than the death knell to the Iranian Mullah oligarchy. Much like the death knell sounded for the Communist outposts of North Korea. Time.......... will see a united and democratic Korea. Some on this forum may see it in their lifetimes, some may not. Inevitable though.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 10:24 AM
Instead, the incident dominated elections at home and relations with Iran to this day.

Iran. It's population relatively young, it's economy struggling. Iran's primary enemy of course.... free will..... suppressed during elections, information restricted in Iran. Given that, this is an historically well educated nation. We know their electorate yearns for more freedoms. The Iranians are Persian, not Arab who they've warred with for millennia. Now imagine.....someone inserts a successful Republic on one of it's borders. A Republic that elects it's representatives, a Republic that eventually trades openly with the West.

Why...... it's nothing less than the death knell to the Iranian Mullah oligarchy. Much like the death knell sounded for the Communist outposts of North Korea. Time.......... will see a united and democratic Korea. Some on this forum may see it in their lifetimes, some may not. Inevitable though.

You will need to travel a 1700 kilometers west of Iran t (http://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-israel-to-iran)o find people suited for democracy. (And a republic).

Take up a collection of private funds if you want to continue the neocon fetish of bringing Jeffersonian democracy to the Arab tribes.

donttread
05-21-2016, 04:31 PM
You miss the point.

You are cherry picking points in history without understanding the larger picture. Recall the historical arch discussion.

I"M NOT missing the point Peter . I'm saying that it doesn't matter one tinkers damn what happened pre-1979. Fifty years of failure is plenty . There is no historical perspective that archs that. What we did before then may have been necessary, justified and effective. But our actions are no longer any of those things . No historical perspective justifies 50 years of failed meddling in an entire region.
But if you can't let go of that concept , please describe how Sykes-Picot should be more important in dictating our present and future actions that 50 years of fucking chaos?

donttread
05-21-2016, 04:35 PM
I think that you argue that the axiom of US "manifest destiny" and by extension "world police" has long since stopped being an economic or political advantage to America, which is certainly true in the case of the Middle East. However, the reason why it has been a failure in the middle east is also important to know and understand. If you predicate foreign policy on experience in only one context, without understanding why it failed, you are making policy based on ignorance. The history and present culture of the middle east makes the democratization of the ME by force a virtual impossibility unless you want to babysit for at least 50 years. In a different situation and in a different place, the population may be ready and willing to have the existing government removed to allow them to enjoy a democratic form of government. Such a situation might well be of benefit to America and that country and it's people, so one cannot rule out intervention for both the humanitarian and economic benefit of all.

In general, however, I agree that playing world cop does not generally benefit the majority of the American population, however knowing why intervention will not work is as important as identifying the instances where it will be of benefit.

The only way to successfully control a people is to kill the shit out of their civilians until their military surrenders. Like WW 2. I sure as hell don't want to go back to that and I hope I'm not alone. So we go into everyone of these Middle East "interventions" knowing, perhaps even counting on the fact that their is no way to really win, one more reason not to get involved in the first place.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 04:39 PM
I"M NOT missing the point Peter . I'm saying that it doesn't matter one tinkers damn what happened pre-1979. Fifty years of failure is plenty . There is no historical perspective that archs that. What we did before then may have been necessary, justified and effective. But our actions are no longer any of those things . No historical perspective justifies 50 years of failed meddling in an entire region.
But if you can't let go of that concept , please describe how Sykes-Picot should be more important in dictating our present and future actions that 50 years of fucking chaos?

You are incorrect.

Sykes-Picot portioned the Ottoman Empire between France and England. The eventual nation-states carved out set the stage for the next century of history. You completely ignore that and jump into the middle and then come to a conclusion. That is why as I say upfront, are incorrect.

It is like butting into the middle of the argument and without hearing everything proclaim a solution and say that you are right.

donttread
05-21-2016, 05:08 PM
You are incorrect.

Sykes-Picot portioned the Ottoman Empire between France and England. The eventual nation-states carved out set the stage for the next century of history. You completely ignore that and jump into the middle and then come to a conclusion. That is why as I say upfront, are incorrect.

It is like butting into the middle of the argument and without hearing everything proclaim a solution and say that you are right.

EPIC fail on my request to tell me WHY or HOW plans drawn up one hundred years ago should stop us from abandoning 50 years of failure. I think going back 50 years is amble time to evaluate the situation. Should we also let the Crusades dictate western policy in the ME as well? Things change, times change and we need to change with them. There is almost certainly no one alive today who divided the ME into pizza slices and put us in charge. There documents and plans should not be binding on those of us alive today

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 05:15 PM
EPIC fail on my request to tell me WHY or HOW plans drawn up one hundred years ago should stop us from abandoning 50 years of failure. I think going back 50 years is amble time to evaluate the situation. Should we also let the Crusades dictate western policy in the ME as well? Things change, times change and we need to change with them. There is almost certainly no one alive today who divided the ME into pizza slices and put us in charge. There documents and plans should not be binding on those of us alive today

Correct with your first two words.

donttread
05-21-2016, 06:00 PM
Correct with your first two words.


Peter you got nothin, or you'd of posted it by now. The fact is the past 50 years of American intervention in the ME have failed both the American people and the ME people. Although they have helped some 1% get richer

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 06:11 PM
Peter you got nothin, or you'd of posted it by now. The fact is the past 50 years of American intervention in the ME have failed both the American people and the ME people. Although they have helped some 1% get richer


Those actions can't be understood in a vacuum no matter how hard you try.

donttread
05-21-2016, 06:22 PM
Those actions can't be understood in a vacuum no matter how hard you try.

I don't want to "understand them in a vacuum" , I simply want to stop repeating the same mistakes time and time again . Whatever justification existed should no longer bind us. Whatever "roles of peace makers and policemen" can be taken on by others .
But I suspect that's where the rub is. WE don't assist, act as a small piece of an operation or turn over things. We seem to suffer from control freakism as an entire nation.
All you are doing is repeatedly alluding to a one hundred year old document somehow justifying following 50 years of failure with 50 more

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 06:30 PM
lol

The document shouldn't be your focus.

Peter1469
05-22-2016, 06:39 AM
Here is a good primer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHOg7RPBDqc&feature=youtu.be

donttread
05-22-2016, 08:33 AM
Here is a good primer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHOg7RPBDqc&feature=youtu.be

Naw, not today anyway, but I may watch it sometime. In the meantime how about you actually give a reason why Sykes-Picot justifies pursing 50 years of failed action with more of the same kind of failed actions ? Or how it should be binding to those of us alive today? The thing is that if there was anything in there that boiled down to justification for our current interventions , a man with your writing skills would of posted it by now. Therefore the only logical conclusion I can come to is that even you can't find such justifications for so long a period of ineffective meddling.

Peter1469
05-22-2016, 08:38 AM
Naw, not today anyway, but I may watch it sometime. In the meantime how about you actually give a reason why Sykes-Picot justifies pursing 50 years of failed action with more of the same kind of failed actions ? Or how it should be binding to those of us alive today? The thing is that if there was anything in there that boiled down to justification for our current interventions , a man with your writing skills would of posted it by now. Therefore the only logical conclusion I can come to is that even you can't find such justifications for so long a period of ineffective meddling.
lol

Historical arch discussion. Revisit it. The Sykes-Picot era is collapsing. So reset your historic cherry picking when you complain about the ME later.

donttread
05-22-2016, 12:14 PM
lol

Historical arch discussion. Revisit it. The Sykes-Picot era is collapsing. So reset your historic cherry picking when you complain about the ME later.

Well there it is , another post where you can't tie justification of our current actions to .. anything, deeply reinforcing what I have been saying.
Let me put it this way. In your opinion, exactly how does pre 1979 history justify our actions today?

donttread
05-22-2016, 12:19 PM
I think that you argue that the axiom of US "manifest destiny" and by extension "world police" has long since stopped being an economic or political advantage to America, which is certainly true in the case of the Middle East. However, the reason why it has been a failure in the middle east is also important to know and understand. If you predicate foreign policy on experience in only one context, without understanding why it failed, you are making policy based on ignorance. The history and present culture of the middle east makes the democratization of the ME by force a virtual impossibility unless you want to babysit for at least 50 years. In a different situation and in a different place, the population may be ready and willing to have the existing government removed to allow them to enjoy a democratic form of government. Such a situation might well be of benefit to America and that country and it's people, so one cannot rule out intervention for both the humanitarian and economic benefit of all.

In general, however, I agree that playing world cop does not generally benefit the majority of the American population, however knowing why intervention will not work is as important as identifying the instances where it will be of benefit.

As I have said before. Any 1st year cultural anthropology student knows enough to realize that our actions had no chance to change the ME for the better

Peter1469
05-22-2016, 02:17 PM
Well there it is , another post where you can't tie justification of our current actions to .. anything, deeply reinforcing what I have been saying.
Let me put it this way. In your opinion, exactly how does pre 1979 history justify our actions today?

Asked and answered. All of you questions have already been answered.

donttread
05-22-2016, 02:37 PM
Asked and answered. All of you questions have already been answered.

Where? Is it in fine print? Will I need my reading glasses? You have thrown out the general concept that all of this is being based upon the Sykes -Picot agreement, but I must of missed the part where you told me why we should continue to act in accordance with that document and/or on our expensive, failed interventionist course. Are we bound forever? Will our grand children's grand children be having this debate after another 50 years of failure?

The Sage of Main Street
05-22-2016, 02:43 PM
No butter. Obscene amounts of salt. Is that why women call you "saltpeter"?

The Sage of Main Street
05-22-2016, 02:57 PM
Instead, the incident dominated elections at home and relations with Iran to this day.

Iran. Its population relatively young, its economy struggling. Iran's primary enemy of course.... free will..... suppressed during elections, information restricted in Iran. Given that, this is a historically well educated nation. We know their electorate yearns for more freedoms. The Iranians are Persian, not Arab whom they've warred with for millennia. Now imagine.....someone inserts a successful Republic on one of its borders. A Republic that elects its representatives, a Republic that eventually trades openly with the West.

Why...... it's nothing less than the death knell to the Iranian Mullah oligarchy. Much like the death knell sounded for the Communist outposts of North Korea. Time.......... will see a united and democratic Korea. Some on this forum may see it in their lifetimes, some may not. Inevitable though. If the Iranians wanted a democracy, they could have had one when they overthrew the Shah. They also would have overthrown Mosaddegh. They are an evil people; not much can be expected from them except to destroy the Sunni threat to mankind, such as the Neo-Condis' Wacky Iraqi artificial state. As for ourselves, we need more Spartans to confront them.

Peter1469
05-22-2016, 04:39 PM
Where? Is it in fine print? Will I need my reading glasses? You have thrown out the general concept that all of this is being based upon the Sykes -Picot agreement, but I must of missed the part where you told me why we should continue to act in accordance with that document and/or on our expensive, failed interventionist course. Are we bound forever? Will our grand children's grand children be having this debate after another 50 years of failure?

No. The era of Sykes-Picot started to fall apart. How many times does that have to be said. The ME is in the process of being remade and you are babbling on about 1979 and the late 1950s.

You are focusing on a small piece of the puzzle.

Peter1469
05-22-2016, 04:39 PM
Is that why women call you "saltpeter"?

How did you know?

donttread
05-22-2016, 06:38 PM
No. The era of Sykes-Picot started to fall apart. How many times does that have to be said. The ME is in the process of being remade and you are babbling on about 1979 and the late 1950s.

You are focusing on a small piece of the puzzle.


So then how does Sykes-Picot falling apart justify our current doomed interventions ? Please answer that with specifics rather than vague comments . You're basically just attacking my perspective because I think that half a century is long enough to to declare the plan failed, even if it was partially successful prior to the 70's. The world changes and we must change with it. And then your best argument is that the ME is being reshaped and what.. we need to be in on that? But so far the ME is being reshaped in a very negative way. Our interventionism hasn't worked and it will not work no matter how long we intervene for. And we both know that almost none of these factions should be trusted.
And BTW , thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead MEasterners , including women and children and trillions of dollars be a "small piece" of anything?

Peter1469
05-22-2016, 07:09 PM
So then how does Sykes-Picot falling apart justify our current doomed interventions ? Please answer that with specifics rather than vague comments . You're basically just attacking my perspective because I think that half a century is long enough to to declare the plan failed, even if it was partially successful prior to the 70's. The world changes and we must change with it. And then your best argument is that the ME is being reshaped and what.. we need to be in on that? But so far the ME is being reshaped in a very negative way. Our interventionism hasn't worked and it will not work no matter how long we intervene for. And we both know that almost none of these factions should be trusted.
And BTW , thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead MEasterners , including women and children and trillions of dollars be a "small piece" of anything?

Because everything the US did, everything the Iranians did, everything the Iraqis did, etc were all within a historical framework. You totally blow all that off. Without understanding the underlying currents your suggestions are just uninformed opinion.

I get that you are an isolationist. But that is theory. The US is not isolationist, and won't be going back to that part of our past. You are trying to impose theory on reality completely divorced from any historical context.

donttread
05-23-2016, 06:32 AM
Because everything the US did, everything the Iranians did, everything the Iraqis did, etc were all within a historical framework. You totally blow all that off. Without understanding the underlying currents your suggestions are just uninformed opinion.

I get that you are an isolationist. But that is theory. The US is not isolationist, and won't be going back to that part of our past. You are trying to impose theory on reality completely divorced from any historical context.

"Because of everything the US did and because of everything the Iranians did" ? Would you accept that as serious opinion support from someone you were debating with? Of course you wouldn't because not once have you told me what those "everythings" were and why they should still matter all this time later.
Even if I wasn't an isolationist I wouldn't advocate for chasing faled policy with more lives and money. In fact that is what creates some of our biggest problems.

The Sage of Main Street
05-23-2016, 08:31 AM
So then how does Sykes-Picot falling apart justify our current doomed interventions ? Please answer that with specifics rather than vague comments . You're basically just attacking my perspective because I think that half a century is long enough to to declare the plan failed, even if it was partially successful prior to the 70's. The world changes and we must change with it. And then your best argument is that the ME is being reshaped and what.. we need to be in on that? But so far the ME is being reshaped in a very negative way. Our interventionism hasn't worked and it will not work no matter how long we intervene for. And we both know that almost none of these factions should be trusted.
And BTW , thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead MEasterners , including women and children and trillions of dollars be a "small piece" of anything? Sykes-Picot prevented the jihad from erupting after the weakening of the Allies during and after World War I. It began to fall apart with the rest of the European empires after the self-destruction of the West caused by World War II and the Cold War.

donttread
05-24-2016, 05:59 AM
Sykes-Picot prevented the jihad from erupting after the weakening of the Allies during and after World War I. It began to fall apart with the rest of the European empires after the self-destruction of the West caused by World War II and the Cold War.

Cool, but how does that justify today's actions which have been proven failures for decades? Specifically? I understand most people aren't as close to the isolationism end of the spectrum as I am, but even if you support intervention wouldn't you want to somehow not repeat the same types of interventions that have repeatedly failed?

Ransom
05-24-2016, 06:28 AM
Cool, but how does that justify today's actions which have been proven failures for decades? Specifically? I understand most people aren't as close to the isolationism end of the spectrum as I am, but even if you support intervention wouldn't you want to somehow not repeat the same types of interventions that have repeatedly failed?

Break out your pics of Women's dresses in the 70s under the rule of the 'Shaw' of Iran argument again.

:biglaugh:

donttread
05-24-2016, 08:49 AM
Break out your pics of Women's dresses in the 70s under the rule of the 'Shaw' of Iran argument again.

:biglaugh:

Quiet , people with real communications skills are involved in a heated debate without running each other down all the time . This is how adults carry on discussions . Be quiet and pay attention , it may yet be possible for you to learn.

The Sage of Main Street
05-24-2016, 11:38 AM
Cool, but how does that justify today's actions which have been proven failures for decades? Specifically? I understand most people aren't as close to the isolationism end of the spectrum as I am, but even if you support intervention wouldn't you want to somehow not repeat the same types of interventions that have repeatedly failed? I advocate a return to conquest. You're falsely associating the failure of weakling imperialism with the real thing. A half-measure drives Isos into taking no measures at all to destroy Islam.

Render therefore unto Caesar. Annex the oilfields and evict the natives back to the Stone Age existence they belong in. Since they are so hostile to the modern world, deprive them of our medical science and let them depopulate back in their own primitive lifestyle. Like pit bulls, they'll be happiest thrown back into the pit of their own unevolved nature. Without oil money, which is the real problem, not the Koran, they'll have to fight us with sticks and stones. That jihad won't happen.

donttread
05-24-2016, 12:05 PM
I advocate a return to conquest. You're falsely associating the failure of weakling imperialism with the real thing. A half-measure drives Isos into taking no measures at all to destroy Islam.

Render therefore unto Caesar. Annex the oilfields and evict the natives back to the Stone Age existence they belong in. Since they are so hostile to the modern world, deprive them of our medical science and let them depopulate back in their own primitive lifestyle. Like pit bulls, they'll be happiest thrown back into the pit of their own unevolved nature. Without oil money, which is the real problem, not the Koran, they'll have to fight us with sticks and stones. That jihad won't happen.

That would be one way to find out if the UN and rest of the world in general are just our puppets or actually have any balls or teeth?

The Sage of Main Street
05-25-2016, 09:04 AM
That would be one way to find out if the UN and rest of the world in general are just our puppets or actually have any balls or teeth? The UN is a Hate America petting zoo. It is also too weak to stop the major powers from uniting in partitioning the Third World and its resources, which only advanced nations have a right to because only they can develop the resources.

Peter1469
05-25-2016, 02:55 PM
The UN is a Hate America petting zoo. It is also too weak to stop the major powers from uniting in partitioning the Third World and its resources, which only advanced nations have a right to because only they can develop the resources.

International organizations only have power over nation-states to the extent nation-states play along with it.