US Foreign policy competition

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Sorry to any of my RHP friends over seas... but I don't like this game either. I could think of a nasty game or 2 to play with any country.

Phla-

ps. I hope bbarr comes in and says something good.

I bet you can and I appreciate it that you don't.
I wonder if we could imagine any other country in the world that would do it better than the US. It is very easy to criticize it as long as you have not the power yourself to dominate.
But being a super power you have to accept that whatever move you make you will move the whole world and it will always provoke reactions. Wise and stupid ones.

When Bush came to power it was clear that he favored a form isolationism and that he wanted to break with Clinton's international orientated policies. Bush wanted to focus on his own country and didn't want to bother about too many international agreements that only would frustrate the economy of his own country. Several international treatises were rejected in the first year of Bush junior. While the rest of the world was still wondering how to react, the 9/11 terror seemed to change all and everything for a while. The world in general reacted in sympathy towards the US and hoped it would create a chance for more cooperation. For a while there grew the hope that Bush was prepared to share decisions with the rest of the world when these decisions involved the whole world. But that was just on the surface. Bush didn't change and remained faithful to his own believes. Bush decided what he thought was best for HIS country and other countries had the choice to become allies or enemies.

That is the problem The present government of the US tends to ignore broad-shared opinions outside her own country. She seems to believe for whatever reason that she is not only the strongest but that she also knows best what is good, not only for herself but for the whole world.

This is what we have to debate. Does the world need a super power to which other countries have to listen. Or do we want and need a world where decisions are formed by consensus or by majority? And what can be done when a super power and the majority of the rest of the world disagree about such an question.

This is not a debate between the people of the US and the people outside the US. Neither should it become a game pro or contra the US.

Fjord.

Originally posted by fjord
This is what we have to debate. Does the world need a super power to which other countries have to listen. Or do we want and need a world where decisions are formed by consensus or by majority? And what can be done when a super power and the ...[text shortened]... Neither should it become a game pro or contra the US.

Fjord.

very well put, fjord!

to turn this into a US bashing enterprise, denies the very excellent principles and actions that that country was built on. politically, a country is only made up of its people and it is unfair to attack those people especially since they are by no means in agreement in the first place. this is more about the policy makers of the country - not the people in general.

the debate you propose is an interesting and universal one. is it better for there to be one leader who determines the conduct of others or is it better to have everyone involved with their diverse and often apparently irreconcilable perspectives?

i think there probably is a very simple answer, but as with many simple answers, it may be very difficult to find 🙂

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by fjord

But being a super power you have to accept that whatever move you make you will move the whole world and it will always provoke reactions. Wise and stupid ones.

Bush decided what he thought was best for HIS country and other countries had the choice to become allies or enemies.

That is the problem The present government of the US tends to ignore broad ...[text shortened]... and the people outside the US. Neither should it become a game pro or contra the US.

Fjord.

Good points, Fjord. By being the sole superpower by default, the US is either damned or praised whenever it reacts to world situations. Case in point: By freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam, we are cursed by the French and to a lesser degree by the rest of Europe. When the Yugoslavia fiasco developed, America gladly lent a helping hand even though you Europeans should have been 100% responsible for establishing peace as it was in your back yard. When Liberia was on the verge of collapse, who resonded? AMERICA. I don't recall hearing any negative responses from Europe because once again, the US taxpayer was paying for stability half a world away instead of Europeans. The US is still paying to keep our troops on your contnent when we should be getting the hell out of there so you can pay for your own defense. Was it right that we invaded Iraq? I won't say yes or no until the future of Iraq is more clear. However, I don't necessarily agree that we should have invaded unilaterally as we did. My commander-in-chief (Pres. Bush) saw clear and present danger in Iraq with regards to WMD and decided that the safety of the US was in peril without Iraq complying with UN mandates. Since 1991, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN without even apologizing or explaining his actions. At the least, the toppling of Saddam should allow Iraq to become a democratic Islamic nation (paradox?) instead of another Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Was the suspecting of WMD in Iraq enough reason to invade? I don't know...maybe not. Was the result of 9-11 enough reason to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban?...damn skippy it was!
Since America was the main target of 9-11 and with the most lives lost being American, Bush had to make a drastic decision and draw a line in the sand exclaiming that if you are not with us, you are against us...and that, my friend, WAS in the best interest of the United States. Does not France look out for Her interests above America's? You bet!! Your question about whether the world needs a superpower to which other countries should defer is a valid one, and I agree that the US should NOT be the world's policeman. However in the future, if and when the US's security is at stake and France is voting against the US, should we defer to France simply because they don't want to upset their growing Muslim population and have their secret ties to Saddam evidenced to the rest of the world? Hell no! In short, the answer to you last question is when the US feels threatened and so called "allies" such as France and Germany react against us, we shall take action that is in OUR best national interest where our security is concerned. And in closing, I wish to thank the people of Great Britain for standing by the US in these times of terror. Cheers

Originally posted by chancremechanic
What does that fact that the US proclaiming itself the "land of the free" have to do with how many oppresive regimes it has supported. OK, so we have have had some horrible leaders who have supported shitbirds like Baby Doc (now France coddles him), the South Vietnamese Govt of the 60s, the Shah of Iran, etc. Before you start slinging shit across ...[text shortened]... s clean up our proverbial "back yard" before we start pruning somebody elses trees. Cheers 😲

Agreed, but you missed the point, which was to talk about American foreign policy faux pas (what's the plural of 'faux pas' 😛?). The original poster did not deny that other countries have their issues of this sort. So start a thread about the heinous things that Brits, Frenchmen, Russians, Australians, Chinese, Rwandans, Bolivians, Lichtensteinians, etc. have done if you want consistency.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Agreed, but you missed the point, which was to talk about American foreign policy faux pas (what's the plural of 'faux pas' 😛?). The original poster did not deny that other countries have their issues of this sort. So start a thread about the heinous things that Brits, Frenchmen, Russians, Australians, Chinese, Rwandans, Bolivians, Lichtensteinians, etc. have done if you want consistency.

Disagreed...I don't give a rat's ass about consistency...that ain't the issue. If Ian is going to slam US foreign policy and not expect a rebuttal in order to make the post a point/counterpoint, or if YOU don't expect a rebuttal, then you are sadly mistaken......my friend. I don't want to start a thread about what other countries have done to perpetuate hegemony; I was simply replying to Ian's post about bad US foreign policy, and as you should have realized (did you?) in my reply that I did not deny that the US was innocent of bad foreign policy. I was simply implying to Ian to not throw stones since he lives in a glass house...consistency..schmincency...🙄

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Disagreed...I don't give a rat's ass about consistency...that ain't the issue. If Ian is going to slam US foreign policy and not expect a rebuttal in order to make the post a point/counterpoint, or if YOU don't expect a rebuttal, then you are sadly mistaken......my friend. I don't want to start a thread about what other countries have done to p ...[text shortened]... lying to Ian to not throw stones since he lives in a glass house...consistency..schmincency...🙄

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that someone cannot criticize just because he lives in a country whose government has been guilty of the same things. 'Hypocrisy' when leveled as an accusation against someone's argument, in the sense of 'you're not allowed to make that point, howvere valid, because of who you are', is absurd. To paraphrase Robert Pirsig: ''A fool shouting that the sun is shining doesn't make it dark out.''

Yours was not a rebuttal, but a non sequitor. We're not talking about that at the moment; the subject at hand is US foreign policy which you acknowledged yourself had serious defects. That every other country has serious foreign policy defects is not the issue.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Good points, Fjord. By being the sole superpower by default, the US is either damned or praised whenever it reacts to world situations. Case in point: By freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam, we are cursed by th ...[text shortened]... at Britain for standing by the US in these times of terror. Cheers

chancremechanic: "By freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam, we are cursed by the French and to a lesser degree by the rest of Europe."

You will be pleased to hear that you are mistaken. France is NOT Europe, not even France and Germany. European countries that also, along with the United Kingdom, joined the COALITION OF THE WILLING are Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Luthuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Crovatia, Slovenia, and the Ukraïne.

Another 27 countries joined the Coalition of the Willing from other continents.

The opponents of the Coalition of the Willing in Europe are: France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Greece.

Now thát changes the picture, doesn't it ?

Take a look on this site:

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

Originally posted by royalchicken
It is intellectually dishonest to claim that someone cannot criticize just because he lives in a country whose government has been guilty of the same things. 'Hypocrisy' when leveled as an accusation against someone's argument, in the sense of 'you're not allowed to make that point, howvere valid, because of who you are', is absurd. To paraphras ...[text shortened]... erious defects. That every other country has serious foreign policy defects is not the issue.

Wait a minute, Bucko!! I never said that Ian cannot make his statement about US foreign policy, so it is patently, insidiously, intellectually-abstractedly silly of you to even suggest that I did so. You are so "intellectual" that you fail to see the forest through the trees. You will make a great politician if you ever decide to take that path. But as you want to be a mathematician, I would suggest you start using logic when comment on someone's posts. As slick Willy said at a news conference: "Ah did not have sex with that woman"...🙄 😲

Originally posted by ivanhoe
chancremechanic: "By freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam, we are cursed by the French and to a lesser degree by the rest of Europe."

You will be pleased to hear that you are mistaken. France is NOT Europe, not even France and Germany. European countries that also, along with the United Kingdom, joined the COALITION OF THE WILLING are ...[text shortened]... sn't it ?

Take a look on this site:

http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

Ivanhoe...I stand corrected only because when I stated "Europe" I was in essence identifying France and Germany. France wants to be the supreme ruler of Europe. In no way was I diminishing the support of the other countries that you mentioned including your own. My apologies for the oversight. Thanks for your support...🙂

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Wait a minute, Bucko!! I never said that Ian cannot make his statement about US foreign policy, so it is patently, insidiously, intellectually-abstractedly silly of you to even suggest that I did so. You are so "intellectual" that you fail to see the forest through the trees. You will make a great politician if you ever decide to take that path. ...[text shortened]... posts. As slick Willy said at a news conference: "Ah did not have sex with that woman"...🙄 😲

Then what did you mean when you told him to 'clean up his back yard'? I didn't suggest that you suggested that Ian coldn't make his post. All I am saying is that the things you introduced are irrelevent. Ian was only commenting on US foreign policy. He didn't say that anyone else's foreign policy was any better, so there is no comparison to be made.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
In short, the answer to you last question is when the US feels threatened and so called "allies" such as France and Germany react against us, we shall take action that is in OUR best national interest where our security is concerned. And in closing, I wish to thank the people of Great Britain for standing by the US in these times of terror. Cheers

In the spirit of fjord's post, I'd just like to remind everyone that it is goverments which make decisions to go to war or not. I'm not sure about France or Germany, but if I recall correctly public opinion in the UK was generally anti-war until after the invasion. So in reality it is Tony Blair's government that deserves your thanks (or ire, depending on your take on things).

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Good points, Fjord. By being the sole superpower by default, the US is either damned or praised whenever it reacts to world situations. Case in point: By freeing 25,000,000 Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam, we are cursed by the French and to a lesser degree by the rest of Europe. When the Yugoslavia fiasco developed, America gladly lent a help ...[text shortened]... ish to thank the people of Great Britain for standing by the US in these times of terror. Cheers

The question is not who had the sharpest vision. Maybe the US had, maybe not. Such decisions arrive often from different interests in our society, like love for the country, personnel vendetta's, economic reasons, compassion for a suffering nation, fear for attacks, political profit (in random order).
The question I tried to bring up is how do we come to a decision when it concerns the whole world.

We have the international rule that a country has the right to take appropriate steps when it is threatened by another nation. But do you really believe that that was the case with Iraq? I do not know of any report that can support that view. Worse, some reports that seemed to support that view appeared to be out-dated, unprofessional, or purely invented. There were too many spin-doctors involved, I fear.

So it should have been the international community that should have decided about the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein. Unless you believe that a super power has the right to go her own way in international conflicts or when it sees injustice in another nation.

Your criticism on Europe has some good grounds and I can understand that it must irritate the taxpayers in the US. But irritation should not lead to unilateral actions. We cannot afford us to be irrational in such situations. With the deterrents we have now the US should understand that. What can otherwise prevent that countries like Pakistan or Israel will follow the same route as the US has done without the restraint the US showed?

You say that you don't want to be the international policeman. I agree. But whom do you want to give that task instead? Don't you think we need a strong international body that will be supported by the strongest countries of the world?

Fjord

Originally posted by fjord
The question is not who had the sharpest vision. Maybe the US had, maybe not. Such decisions arrive often from different interests in our society, like love for the country, personnel vendetta's, economic reasons, compassion for a suffering ...[text shortened]... l be supported by the strongest countries of the world?

Fjord

Fjord: "So it should have been the international community that should have decided about the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein."

The international community wás dealing with that question until France (NOT Europe !!) decided to block that road, stating that it would NEVER support a resolution that would contain an ultimatum and after that the use of military force. Now were does that leave the international community ...... The French blocked the road towards a solution within the framework of the United Nations. What would have been the correct course to take for the US/UK in order to force the Saddam regime to obey the will of the International Community ?

This last question is a question for all those who criticise the US/UK policies. I want to hear what your alternatives are.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Disagreed...I don't give a rat's ass about consistency...that ain't the issue. If Ian is going to slam US foreign policy and not expect a rebuttal in order to make the post a point/counterpoint, or if YOU don't expect a rebuttal, then you are sadly mistaken......my friend. I don't want to start a thread about what other countries have done to p ...[text shortened]... lying to Ian to not throw stones since he lives in a glass house...consistency..schmincency...🙄

you seem to be implying that people should not have the ability to disagree with bad government. ?????????

do you agree with democracy ?????????????????

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Fjord: "So it should have been the international community that should have decided about the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein."

The international community wás dealing with that question until France (NOT Europe !!) decided to block that road, stating that it would NEVER support a resolution that would contain an ultimatum and after that the use of ...[text shortened]... for all those who criticise the US/UK policies. I want to hear what your alternatives are.

A politician that uses the word "never" has lost his equilibrium
It was a very misplaced remark and it was a golden opportunity for the US government to put the blame on France.

But come on, Ivanhoe, we all know the flamboyant and rhetoric outbursts of that country. It was a stupid expression of frustration by the French minister of foreign affairs.
It was around the same time that France blundered by barking to East-European countries to shut up and to follow France. With the predictable effect that Eastern Europe was the only part of the whole world that had an overwhelming support for the US policy.

France was a good example that shows where frustration and irritation can lead.

But to parrot the US government that it was France that blocked international consult is ridiculous. I never heard the US government say they would accept the will of the UN in the first place.

Fjord