Re: Fires of revolution sweep the Aran World
Because it is a zero sum game.. you are either advancing American interests or you are not. It is not in our interest to get involved in Darfur because Darfur has nothing to offer us. Additionally, intervention would establish precedent in which the world will look even more to the US to get involved in Darfur like situations in which there is nothing to gain.
Therefore, to intervene would be detrimental to American interests.
To not intervene (or do nothing), would advance American interests by not establishing such a precedent and not wasting time/money/life by getting involved.
You just cannot go to the negotiating table with nothing to offer outside of "work with us."
The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was not in the best interest of both nations in my opinion. It became so due to the "sweeteners" that we added.
As for your next question, I believe the Israeli-Egyptian situation was much like the North Korea-South Korea situation. In the absence of the peace treaty, a defacto state of war still existed and it played a huge role in tensions in the Middle East.
So, I agree that some countries can be fine in the absence of formal peace treaties, but I don't think this was one of those scenarios.
You are trying to have it both ways though. Unless we are fully prepared to refuse trade with other nations, then our "sweetener" will be viewed as automatic and will not be viewed as a "sweetener", thus defeating the purpose.
It probably does matter to them, but that is not my concern.
Fair enough, but unless we have a serious change in the government and how foreign policy is conducted in the US, I don't see that changing.
What is your definition of "diplomacy"?
I believe there are situations in which we need to support foreign dictators in the name of stability. That is a not a blanket endorsement of propping up dictators. I certainly won't disagree that it can create long-term problems, but it also helps with short-term solutions, which are very important.
Your argument is total hogwash, and there is historical evidence to prove it.
For example:
In 1958, Congress officially banned all futures trading in the fresh onion market. Growers blamed "moneyed interests" at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for major price movements, which could sink so low that the sack would be worth more than the onions inside, then drive back up during other seasons or even month to month.
But even after the nefarious middlemen had been curbed, cash onion prices remained highly volatile. In a classic 1963 paper, Stanford economics professor Roger Gray examined the historical behavior of onion prices before and after the ban and showed how the futures market had actually served to stabilize prices.
To this day, fresh onion prices still cycle through extreme peaks and troughs. According to the USDA, the hundredweight price stood at $10.40 in October 2006 and climbed to $55.20 by April, as bad weather reduced crop yields. Then it crashed due to overproduction, falling to $4.22 by October 2007. In April of this year, it rebounded to $13.30.
Essentially, futures trading can't drive up spot prices because the value of futures contracts agreed to by sellers expecting prices to fall must equal the value of contracts agreed to by buyers expecting prices to rise. Again, it merely offers commodity producers and consumers the opportunity to lock in the future price of goods, helping to protect against the risks of future price movements.
Contracts like what? The Egyptian-Israeli peace? Yes, the United States should be involved in securing agreements like that.
This argument has no merit in my opinion, as addressed above.
What a ridiculous question. I do prefer more stable prices, which is why I support the existence of a futures market. Regulating the futures market is a feel good regulation, nothing more.
That said, going on your argument here, if stable prices are the goal, why not just establish the price of gas (or whatever commodity) at $X and then proclaim it as great news because you have established a "stable price"?
Is that why our last large scale military action came against UN approval?
Those are SOME of the threats we face. We would be unwise to view them as our sole threats.
Our military is what protects and in many cases increases our economic capability.
