Close

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    DF VIP Member
    cronus71's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    7,081
    Thanks
    603
    Thanked:        746
    Karma Level
    1103

    Info US Foreign Policy

    I just saw the movie The Weight of Chains. Here's what the movie is about;

    The Weight of Chains" is a Canadian documentary film that takes a critical look at the role that the US, NATO and the EU played in the tragic breakup of a once peaceful and prosperous European state - Yugoslavia.
    And a trailer: http://www.weightofchains.com/video.html

    I decided not to make this a movie review, although I thought it was a good and interesting one. If I was to sum up the movie, it explains how the US and nations pro US foreign policies target a country, they use and manipulate organizations, global monetary and political elements which are supposed to be there for the greater good, to destroy a country's economy. They then carry on to use the same mechanisms to cause internal political and/or religious unrest turning one country man against the other. Which ever side then is pro US, will get the support from the US, money, political upper-hand and of course weapons. This support takes place either directly or indirectly by said pro US foreign policy countries. Once the targeted country is then in ruins, and it surely will be, as all the best resources, skills and greatest assets for export will be wiped out, the US then with its buddying countries buys out everything and takes ownership of its businesses of the country that is in ruins, at rock bottom price. Hence giving the US access to its resources and a big stake at how the country is managed. The word they used in the movie is "colonization", which seems to be a good word to describe it.

    So, why did I post this here then? Well, maybe just to get the views of others. I know this is a documentary, and as such like any other TV, news, commercials etc. the viewer can be manipulated to think one way, by taking things out of context and leaving out crucial details. But, I looked up a particular document which also was talked about in the documentary. The document was published by the Pentagon in 1992. It's no secret that I'm no fan of the US foreign policy, what sort of shit they get up to in their own back yard I don't care about, and I would suggest this is how the US should view the rest of the world. I googled for the document, and found extracts from it in New York Times. So, I'm sharing it here as it's quite worrying how they have thought. Aren't all these things essentially the results of only one mans greed and evil? I find it hard to accept that so many can think like this. Also what the documentary claims the US did in Yugoslavia, aren't they doing it time and time again, even as we speak?
    Here it is. (I highlighted a few things).

    Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'

    Published: March 08, 1992

    Following are excerpts ...
    This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace." . . . DEFENSE STRATEGY OBJECTIVES

    Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.


    There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.

    The second objective is to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems. These objectives are especially important in deterring conflicts or threats in regions of security importance to the United States because of their proximity (such as Latin America), or where we have treaty obligations or security commitments to other nations. While the U.S. cannot become the world's "policeman," by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking. . . .

    It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to U.S. and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come. Even in the highly unlikely event that some future leadership in the former Soviet Union adopted strategic aims of recovering the lost empire or otherwise threatened global interests, the loss of Warsaw Pact allies and the subsequent and continuing dissolution of military capability would make any hope of success require several years or more of strategic and doctrinal re-orientation and force regeneration and redeployment, which in turn could only happen after a lengthy political realignment and re-orientation to authoritarian and aggressive political and economic control. Furthermore, any such political upheaval in or among the states of the former U.S.S.R. would be much more likely to issue in internal or localized hostilities, rather than a concerted strategic effort to marshal capabilities for external expansionism -- the ability to project power beyond their borders.
    There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. But because we no longer face either a global threat or a hostile, non-democratic power dominating a region critical to our interests, we have the opportunity to meet threats at lower levels and lower costs -- as long as we are prepared to reconstitute additional forces should the need to counter a global threat re-emerge. . . . REGIONAL THREATS AND RISK
    With the demise of a global military threat to U.S. interests, regional military threats, including possible conflicts arising in and from the territory of the former Soviet Union, will be of primary concern to the U.S. in the future. These threats are likely to arise in regions critical to the security of the U.S. and its allies, including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and the territory of the former Soviet Union. We also have important interests at stake in Latin America, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases, the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hostile power. . . . Former Soviet Union

    The former Soviet state achieved global reach and power by consolidating control over the resources in the territory of the former U.S.S.R. The best means of assuring that no hostile power is able to consolidate control over the resources within the former Soviet Union is to support its successor states (especially Russia and Ukraine) in their efforts to become peaceful democracies with market-based economies. A democratic partnership with Russia and the other republics would be the best possible outcome for the United States. At the same time, we must also hedge against the possibility that democracy will fail, with the potential that an authoritarian regime bent on regenerating aggressive military power could emerge in Russia, or that similiar regimes in other successor republics could lead to spreading conflict within the former U.S.S.R. or Eastern Europe. . . .
    For the immediate future, key U.S. concerns will be the ability of Russia and the other republics to demilitarize their societies, convert their military industries to civilian production, eliminate or, in the case of Russia, radically reduce their nuclear weapons inventory, maintain firm command and control over nuclear weapons, and prevent leakage of advanced military technology and expertise to other countries. . . . Western Europe

    NATO continues to provide the indispensable foundation for a stable security environment in Europe. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs. While the United States supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO, particularly the alliance's integrated command structure. . . . East-Central Europe

    The end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union have gone a long way toward increasing stability and reducing the military threat to Europe. The ascendancy of democratic reformers in the Russian republic, should this process continue, is likely to create a more benign polcy toward Eastern Europe. However, the U.S. must keep in mind the long history of conflict between the states of Eastern Europe, as well as the potential for conflict between the states of Eastern Europe and those of the former Soviet Union. . . .
    The most promising avenues for anchoring the east-central Europeans into the West and for stabilizing their democratic institutions is their participation in Western political and economic organizations. East-central European membership in the (European Community) at the earliest opportunity, and expanded NATO liaison. . . .
    The U.S. could also consider extending to the east-central European states security commitments analogous to those we have extended to Persian Gulf states. . . .
    Should there be a re-emergence of a threat from the Soviet Union's successor state, we should plan to defend against such a threat in Eastern Europe, should there be an alliance decision to do so. East Asia and Pacific
    . . . Defense of Korea will likely remain one of the most demanding major regional contingencies. . . . Asia is home to the world's greatest concentration of traditional Communist states, with fundamental values, governance, and policies decidedly at variance with our own and those of our friends and allies.
    To buttress the vital political and economic relationships we have along the Pacific rim, we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. This will enable the U.S. to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon. . . . Middle East and Southwest Asia
    In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a strong role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security. . . .
    We will seek to prevent the further development of a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, we should work to have both countries, India and Pakistan, adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place their nuclear energy facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive U.S.-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavor to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns. . . . Latin America
    Cuba's growing domestic crisis holds out the prospect for positive change, but over the near term, Cuba's tenuous internal situation is likely to generate new challenges to U.S. policy. Consequently, our programs must provide capabilities to meet a variety of Cuban contingencies which could include an attempted repetition of the Mariel boatlift, a military provocation against the U.S. or an American ally, or political instability and internal conflict in Cuba.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...ted=all&src=pm
    Last edited by cronus71; 2nd September 2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason: typos
    “If I asked you to have sex with me, would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?”


  2. #2
    DF VIP Member Ginnerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Eutopia
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked:        262
    Karma Level
    320

    Default Re: US Foreign Policy

    I decided not to make this a movie review, although I thought it was a good and interesting one. If I was to sum up the movie, it explains how the US and nations pro US foreign policies target a country, they use and manipulate organizations, global monetary and political elements which are supposed to be there for the greater good, to destroy a country's economy. They then carry on to use the same mechanisms to cause internal political and/or religious unrest turning one country man against the other. Which ever side then is pro US, will get the support from the US, money, political upper-hand and of course weapons. This support takes place either directly or indirectly by said pro US foreign policy countries. Once the targeted country is then in ruins, and it surely will be, as all the best resources, skills and greatest assets for export will be wiped out, the US then with its buddying countries buys out everything from the country that is in ruins. Hence giving the US access to its resources and a big stake at how the country is managed. The word they used in the movie is "colonization", which seems to be a good word to describe it.
    And area 51 has an alien spaceship.. All a little too far fetched for me! America is responsible for religious unrest in a region that has seen sectarian violence for thousands of years!! LOL.. Really!! Infact if we believe this then all religious unrest in the world and political unrest for that matter is co-ordinated through US foreign policy!

    Just realised that Celtic fans may be on the US payroll!

    Another film maker with a blinkered axe to grind.. is Michael Moore behind this!

  3. #3
    DF VIP Member
    cronus71's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    7,081
    Thanks
    603
    Thanked:        746
    Karma Level
    1103

    Default Re: US Foreign Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginnerfreak View Post
    Another film maker with a blinkered axe to grind.. is Michael Moore behind this!
    ...the Serbian newspaper "Politika", the oldest daily in the Balkans, described Malagurski as the "Serbian Michael Moore"
    “If I asked you to have sex with me, would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?”


  4. #4
    DF Admin 4me2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    33,090
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked:        2,033
    Karma Level
    2253

    Default Re: US Foreign Policy

    Having spent many years working with Yugos from all ethnic backgrounds, I came to the conclusion that they are all very economical with the truth.
    There are 3 types of people in the world - those who make things happen, those who watch things happen; and those who wondered what happened.

    http://newsarse.com/

    Conservatives. Putting the 'N' into Cuts.


  5. #5
    DF VIP Member
    cronus71's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    7,081
    Thanks
    603
    Thanked:        746
    Karma Level
    1103

    Default Re: US Foreign Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by 4me2 View Post
    Having spent many years working with Yugos from all ethnic backgrounds, I came to the conclusion that they are all very economical with the truth.
    When I lived in Holland, I had to work 3 days in a prison. They had split the inmates in two blocks, the ones serving less than 5 years and then of course 5+. I can't say, or don't remember how many inmates they had but 65% of the ones doing 5+ years where from the former Yugoslavia.

    In contrast I managed two guys, both from Kosovo, one a Serb and the other Albanian, great guys, but they never spoke to each other.
    “If I asked you to have sex with me, would the answer to that question be the same as the answer to this question?”


  6. #6
    DF VIP Member Over Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,125
    Thanks
    3,975
    Thanked:        1,690
    Karma Level
    1251

    Default Re: US Foreign Policy

    Sounds a bit like pnac although that seemed to go quiet.

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for 6month insurance policy.
    By H4ss4n in forum Cars & Motorbikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 6th May 2003, 09:36 PM
  2. Learn to swear in foreign languages: Lesson 1: Welsh
    By brumbino in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd May 2003, 11:03 PM
  3. Police chiefs drop 'three strikes' cannabis policy
    By marcode in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th December 2002, 06:19 AM

Social Networking Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •