[YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Here's the basic discussion I'd like to initiate. These statements do not necessarily reflect my opinion; they are intended to provoke thoughtful discussion.

- Military: The US has the largest, most powerful, and most widespread military in the world, possessing bases in many countries. They have been involved in many conflicts worldwide in this century, which has undeniably provoked anger in some circles. They have also played a major part in stopping the aggression of some pretty major threats in the two World Wars.

- Politics/Alliances: The US has been involved in two major international Groups (NATO and UN). They have also supported one group or another in many smaller international, and even national, squabbles. Many times, they have supported arguably evil people because they were against another arguably evil person who was unfriendly to US interests. While sometimes US involvement was welcomed and/or prevented the spread of evil, it has also brought about resentment and the perception of the US as an "empire-builder."

- Wealth: The US is the wealthiest country on earth. Its citizens partake of a lifestyle of which most the world has never dreamed. It also spends a large percentage of its wealth on foreign aid, has forgiven substantial debts owed it by other countries, and has invested billions to rebuild countries which intended its destruction. Some resent US financial involvement, saying it is another means of establishing an American Empire; few, however, deny that they envy the financial ease of the American lifestyle.

One other thing I've been hearing more of recently is the following view: "All right--the US will pull its military out of places that don't want us; we'll stay out of neighborhood disputes; we won't engage in conflicts such as Iraq; we'll basically cease our international military involvement--and we'll cut off all our international financial involvement, as well. It's all or nothing." I'm sure there will be a lot to be said about that viewpoint.

The poll covers your opinions on US military involvement, political involvement, financial involvement, and overall involvement. You are choosing what you think it should be, not what you think it currently is. I realize there probably isn't an option in the poll for some of your views. Please pick the point on the scale you feel most closely reflects your opinion.

[ April 01, 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Plenty of voting, but no discussion. Does the poll really say it all? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Quite frankly, I'm more interested in Canada's foreign policy, but I'm not really interested in what foreigners think of it-- in fact, they are not invited to discuss our policy.

No, I didn't vote in this poll.

Kim

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Wrong
Right
Wrong

Wrong, Military:The US has the most powerful and widespread military, but not the largest. WWI was not an attempt at world dominace, it was over trade routes and the assassination of the Kaiser.

Right, Politics

Wrong, Wealth: How do you define the wealthiest? The US has neither the highest per capita income nor the highest standard of living. If you mean that the Federal Govt. has financial resources beyond the means of any other country then you're right, but being that you referred to it as if on a per capita scale "a lifestyle others never dreamed of", I can only assume you are talking about per capita wealth and/or standard of living, which it barely makes the top 10. As far as building back countries that intended our destruction you have to understand that whenever a nation is defeated or intimidated by the US, or there is a power struggle, that is an opportunity for the US to put a pro-US person in power, and what better way to help "ourselves" than to rebuild a powerful nation, and place someone that likes the US in power to do our bidding. As far as financial ease of the American lifestyle, I have no idea what you're talking about. If I didn't work, I'd be homeless, starve to death, and live under a bridge until I did so. Our social security system is worthless compared to the programs of other, even less fortunate nations.

In any case, your post asked what I thought it should be. Be like Iceland, problems solved.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

I don't usually post to these political threads but this one isn't too heated so are here some thoughts.

Military: USA is the strongest country in this area in the world. A country that uses huge loads of money in military is always taking a risk because military build up is always a sign of plans to attack somewhere. Luckily, there are currently few nations like Irak and North Korea that are good targets so others don't have to worry. If the targets would disappear countries like China and Russia would surely start a military build up of their own and we would be a step nearer to another world war. People are starting to forget WWI and WWII and their influence on politics are dinimishing.

Politics/Alliances: The US doesn't have many allies. UN and NATO are both filled with nations that don't agree with current US actions and most of those nations that are on the same side with US aren't really doing much to help US. Of course, US doesn't need any allies because it has the strongest military in the world.

Wealth: Because US is using so much money in military things like welfare are getting less money than before. If you compare condition of the poor in Finland and USA the biggest difference is that the US system makes it hard for children from poor families to get rich. Education costs a lot in US and a student with average talents is in trouble if he/she doesn't have money. Also the US military personel is mostly from the poorer half of the people. This might result in internal conflict if the economy turns bad. Internal conflict in USA would be even more dangerous than a world war because of the huge weapons arsenal in USA.

The current leaders of USA aren't really popular but I think their actions are the best that can be done in current situation. If US hadn't started war with Irak the international relations could be much more difficult than they are today.

edit: fixed typos

[ April 01, 2003, 08:06: Message edited by: Zarix ]

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

RE: foreign opinion on policy--Well, since US policy does seem to be open to outside criticism, I thought I ask you all how things should be.

RE: why the US is hated--I didn't mean to over-simplify; it seems every group has a different reason to dislike the US. My motivations weren't patriotism or government propaganda, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was referring more to the recent criticism from other Western nations.

RE: debts/investments--WWII, the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and the waiving of the war debts from those countries (granted, they probably never would have been able to fully repay). Of course the US gained something from the rebuilding, but so did Germany and Japan. Japan, at least, was even able to compete with the US economically through the 80's and into the 90's. (See Ray Stevens' song "We're Getting Taken over by the Japanese." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

[ April 01, 2003, 15:09: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Tolstoy, if the US cared enough about pollution, it could force most countries to stop polluting with money. Those who wouldn't stop with money would stop if US decided to use weapons. I meant that US doesn't currently need any allies for war.

It is better that the US points its guns at Irak and North Korea. If the gun weren't pointed there, they would be pointed at Russia and China and that might have pretty bad consequences.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

From Dailykos. A Question worth thinking about...

Finding a way out
When the Democrats take the White House in 2004, they will face a daunting task -- a government in DEEP red, starved of tax revenues by the irresponsible borrow and spend Republicans. They will face a hostile word, uniting in opposition to US interests, regardless of their legitimacy. They will need to deal with joblessness, a double-dip recession, and corporate scandals.

But most daunting of all, they will need a solution to the Iraq mess.

For purposes of this thought experiment lets assume the most probably outcome -- a relatively quick takeover of Baghdad and Basra, 2-6 weeks from now. A restive population, suicide attacks against our forces, a massive army of occupation, unrest in the Arab street, and skyrocketing costs to hold and rebuild Iraq.

So what's the solution? I have given this some thought, and am in the process of formulating my "solution" (in other words, the best of a series of bad options). But I want to hear what you guys have to say.

So pretend you are a presidential candidate. It is November of this year. Iowa is a few short months away and Iraq is the issue dominating the news. You are asked: "What's your plan for Iraq"?

How do you answer?

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Krsqk:

It'z all cool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I've been debating this issue in general on all the Boards and forums that I frequent, and I be damned... my first post on this board is about this damn war. And now I'm commenting on it again. I must be insane.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I should be playing Space Empires IV instead though.. no wait.. Bush and Saddam should be playing Space Empires IV and sort it out, instead of having innocent disposed off in various ways.. heh

Zarix:

...if the US cared enough about pollution, it could force most countries to stop polluting with money.

The US should start caring about the enviroment, in my honest opinion. Saying no to the Kyoto-treaty was a big mistake. When politics and democracy is about who's got big buck in their backpocket.. it is bad!

Those who wouldn't stop with money would stop if US decided to use weapons.

I think that you are grossly overestimating your country's resolve. An attack on another industrialised "western" nation is suicide. US would be "nuked" in minutes. And you (US) are far from being invincible. Threatening other nations is far from being diplomatic. This isn't Space Empires http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Think of the consequences globally!!

"I meant that US doesn't currently need any allies for war.

Yeah, I've seen Fox too.. and I agree. Technologically, they are superior. HOWEVER... this war is just as much about PR too. That US (and a few other countries) have gone into this war *on their own* is blatantly stupid and will only help Al Queda. Bush made a gigantic mistake, and he will be remembered for that, nothing else. It would have been much much better for USA to go into Iraq with allies, IF there had to be a war in the first place. Going in alone is suicide.

"It is better that the US points its guns at Irak and North Korea. If the gun weren't pointed there, they would be pointed at Russia and China and that might have pretty bad consequences."

Your country is not invincible. Don't think for a minute that Russia or North Korea wouldn't retaliate. The US is pointing its guns at Iraq for whole different reasons. And it is not about saving Iraq from a brutal dictator. Not at all. Also, the US would fall too if they were ever to go into a war with Russia.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Some comments...

Zarix:

Of course, US doesn't need any allies because it has the strongest military in the world.

You must be kidding! Only Bush believes that... and the entire Fox news cast perhaps.

On a global scale the United States do need input, information, councelling - call it what you want - from other nations. Recently WTO (World Trade Organisation) condemned (or vetoed) the US tax on foreign steel as imposed by Bush, because it was against international law. The US is dependent on trade as well. Don't think for a second that the US can totally isolate themselves and be completely independent. They can't. At least not on the scale that they are running now.

And what about polution... The Kyote-treaty (sp.?)... what if the Americans were dying from global polution, and countries like Germany, China, Russia and France and their respective industries were the cause of it, somehow? Don't you think that allies would be a good thing to have, in order to propose a *global* treaty to reduce polution?

And this war against Iraq? Why do you think that Colin Powell adviced Bush to take it to the UN? Because without the support of the UN, more criticism and hatred will be applied to the US in the Middle Eastern region if they were to go to war on their own.

BUT... to late. Bin Laden must be clapping in his hands right now, as the number of fanatics and fundamentalists will rise in number to join his organisation of terror, the Al-Queda. More blood will be spilled.. also on US soil, because of the unilateral foreign policy of the United States.

The war is suicide, plain and simple.

Krsqk:

I agree with your assesment of the military state of your country. The US has the most advanced and deadliest military in the world today, albeit not the largest (infantry-wise), I believe.

"... Many times, they have supported arguably evil people because they were against another arguably evil person who was unfriendly to US interests. While sometimes US involvement was welcomed and/or prevented the spread of evil, it has also brought about resentment and the perception of the US as an "empire-builder."

They have fought what they percieved to be evil. They have also fought against "evil" with "evil".

Your perception of why people (non-americans) hate or dislikes the United States is wrong (if not, you're avoiding this issue entirely), in my opinion. I am not from the States myself, but I believe that I can better comment on why this is.

First, you need to pretent not to be so full of patriotism (if you have are), and focus on matters of fact, rather than government propaganda. The fact that people in Iraq (whether free from Saddam or not) dislikes the United States so much is that they feel betrayed. They feel left behind. The US government, your government, didn't support the rebels in what became *their* struggle back in 90/91. US withdrew their forces and pretended it never really took place.

Whether US betrayed the rebels in so much as described above, is completely irrelevant, the point is that the Iraqi people feel betrayed, and that is why this war is complete and utter suicide. They see a Jewish-Christian coalition, they see government that betrayed them and so on... the US are blind to this fact! They see themselves as liberators, which is ludicrous. What's to liberate? Only the anger of millions of millions of people, and more and more fanatics. We'll have another bloody 11th September on our hands.

[i]"The US is the wealthiest country on earth. Its citizens partake of a lifestyle of which most the world has never dreamed. It also spends a large percentage of its wealth on foreign aid, has forgiven substantial debts owed it by other countries, and has invested billions to rebuild countries which intended its destruction."

That the US is the wealthiest country on Earth is more or less certain (however not when it comes to annual income per citizen - Luxemborg is #1, I believe).

Also, please present these statistics of which you speak of.. forgiven substantial debts(!), investments, etc.

The "funny" thing is, that while the US government has used many billions to go to war, they have yet to present a budget or at least a plan for what is going to happen after the war. Is the US going to pay? Or..?! The Iraqi people perhaps? Food/shelter for oil-agreements? Way to liberate...

[ April 01, 2003, 12:59: Message edited by: Tolstoy ]

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

Tolstoy, I am from Finland and I don't have Fox (I guess you are refering to the tv channel). I think you have missunderstood what I have said. Securing a steady oil source is important because oil is what keeps the economy going. Ecomomical growth is the thing that keeps peace in capitalistic countries. This is pretty bad situation but at least I haven't heard any ideas how this could be changed. However, things might get better when fusion replaces oil as the main power source.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

From where I'm sitting, the current US foreign policy in all matters (Iraq, environmental policy everything) seems to be "We're the US, we're bigger and therefore better than you, we'll serve our own interests and screw the rest of the world."

Now maybe it is more complex than that in reality, but that's how it looks and the rest of the world doesn't like it. I think we can expect a global swing in public opinion away from the kind of US-worship that has dominated for the Last 60 years, especially as the potential of the EU starts to be realised.

I'm not sure what Blair is doing lately- whether he's trying to keep America out of isolation or whether he's just sniffing for truffles up Bush's backside but either way I think he needs to embrace Europe and let the US do it's own thing.

Only when the world's consumers start rejecting McDonald's, Disney, Coca-Cola, MTV and the thousands of other flagship brands (and the associated lifestlye) of US economic superiority will America actually realise that maybe it's time to change its attitude. It's a hard lesson but they will have to learn it for themselves.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would more than likely precede a change in US policy. I don't think it's likely to happen, though; the rest of the world seems as enamored with the US lifestyle as the US is.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This has certainly been true for a while- since 1945, more or less. However, I think it's going to change. As the US becomes less popular for its policies and the rest of the world starts to catch up (and overtake) economically, people will look elsewhere for their cultural influences- either inwardly, reviving some of the culture that has been assimilated and homogenised into the Great Consumerism Collective, or they will find a replacement: The EU is one possibility, as european nationals start to rediscover one another in the light their new shared currency and start a wave of euro-trendiness. Various eastern cultures provide another (more probable) alternative, since their traditional cultures are even more fundamentally different.

Personally I really hope we start to see less emphasis on mindless consumption and blind obsession for "economic growth", which is by definition unsustainable on our finite planet. Now that we are starting to see technologies that can increase co-operation and efficiency and put more power into the hands of individuals, I think an alternative model of some kind should be viable.

BTW I don't blame the US for creating today's rampant consumerism, but it has championed it for the best part of a century and now it's time for a change.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

So when will the rest of the world catch up with the US economically, Dogscoff? US GDP has gone from $6 trillion in 1995 to over $10 trillion in 2001, 30% of world GDP. The second largest economy is Japan's, at $3 trillion. Europe, as a whole, is around $8 trillion, and growth in the US is perennially at a higher rate. Also, what finite resources are you refering to? Both production and known reserves of almost every conceivable resource have expanded over the Last 50 years.
Example: oil production, in millions of metric tons -- 1950=523, 1973=2,858, 1998=3,450. Known reserves in 1950 were about 1 trillion barrels. That has quadrupled to 4 trillion barrels in 2000.

For nearly every other known mineral resource, there is a similiar story to be told.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

the rest of the world seems as enamored with the US lifestyle as the US is.

I think that 2 /3 's of the world feels that because of their broken backs that the us life style can occur.

But when you say US life style do you mean North American ??? For Canada and US is very similar. And i would almost say that Canada has a higher standard of living than the US. Not as high as finland but close....

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And therefore causing massive drops in american stocks, causing the new depression, where it will surely bring about chaos and unemployment, of all places, not just america, but Europe?

I don't what kind of world you live in, Dogscoff, but in this one, what happens in one market, impacts the other. And when a huge market such as the American market falls, the European and the Asian ones soon follow.

[ April 05, 2003, 05:05: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

- Military: The US has the largest, most powerful, and most widespread military in the world, possessing bases in many countries. They have been involved in many conflicts worldwide in this century, which has undeniably provoked anger in some circles. They have also played a major part in stopping the aggression of some pretty major threats in the two World Wars.

China currently has the largest military, or rather, the largest army. It's navy and it's Air Force is rather small and obsolete compared to the American navy and Air Force.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

military: i agree that the US has the most advanced military at this point, but technology will only go so far in a war. if the other side is willing to die in order to kill our soldiers then our tech will not necessarily help us, just look at the suicide killings. as far as the part about it being a good thing that the US weapons are pointed toward Iraq as opposed to other countries, i fear that regardless of what happens with Iraq the politicians will always find someone else to point the guns at in order to right some injustice or something along those lines. i dont like the idea of our soldiers being used as police forces in other countries, i feel they should be allowed to kill themselves off if thats what they feel like doing. i know this is callous, after all what about the civilians, but why should we put our people in harms way for others that will generally continue to dislike us for interfering in the first place, or for religious differences. (side rant, i feel that organized religion is one of the best con jobs put over on the people, politics and religion have caused more pain and suffering than anything else in history). i also know that a plan of isolationism wont work or that if the world situation is not monitored then things can go bad very quickly but why should we put our friends and family at risk if what is happening in other countries does not harm us.

politics: (politics is the 2nd biggest con job put over on the people). the US is supposedly a democracy, yeah right, a Republic is more accurate. in reality i would say big business and the rich are in control of this, behind the scenes of course. what is this war really over? is it to liberate the Iraqis from Hussain, or is it over Oil and the people come 2nd. there is no such thing as a perfect government but despite the flaws in ours it works very well. despite my lack of enthusiasm for politics.

opinions of other countries: so the other countries are not very fond of us at this time, it will not stop us from assisting them if it is needed and i hope it would not stop them from assisting us if needed. cant we all just get along, live and let live, peace prosperity and long life, nanoo nanoo? regardless of what the US does it will always piss somebody off about something, that that goes about other countries also. (ok so maybe this didnt go anywhere)

in regards to the influence the US has over other countries culture: that is good for a laugh, ok so there is now a Mcdonalds in almost every country. over all the US takes its styles, culture and whatnot from other countries and combines them into itself, after all we are the melting pot (supposedly). just look at the language of the US. officially its English, but should be named American since the British say we dont speak properly, but there is quite an lot of influence in the form of slang and whats in if you look at todays kids. with the internet i think that despite the political and geographic boundries that all the cultures will influence each other and maybe, just maybe, the world stands a chance of coming out better in the future. technology and communications are making the world a much smaller place and hopefully a better place. (BESIDES THE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM SEEM TO GENERALLY PUT ASIDE MOST PETTY DIFFERENCES AND ENJOY A VERY GOOD GAME SO WHY CANT EVERYONE ELSE). maybe we should invent a game and instead of doing war in real life, have the disputing countries duke it out in virtual reality.

Re: [YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)
 

I didn’t vote in the poll, it was much too leading as far as the available answers were concerned. My feelings are that the US military will always be very large, there are too many times when America has been called upon to prevent aggression in the far parts of the world. As for our foreign policy, it is poor, has always been poor, and will always be poor. We are just not very good at long term planning, and much too impatient when trying to work out difficulties. Our Constitution often ties our hands in situations dealing with human rights.

The lifestyle in the US is good, but it could be much better. We have a bad situation developing
in that we are about to have a large part of a generation entering adult life without the skills
needed to compete in the economy of the 21st century. The jobs that these people used to fill,
no longer exist here. Right now our economy is very stagnate, this is a result of many things,
such as the uncertain nature of the cost of energy, the low demand for borrowed money, and
the failure of several large corporations. Many of these companies were raided from within by
the management during the relaxed reporting rules of the Last administration. Also the attack on
the WTC has had a very negative effect on the recovery. It should be noted that this attack was
planed during the Last administration, and should be laid right at the feet of their budget and the
cuts in human intel that it caused. Now we are involved in a long campaign against terrorism
and the States that support it. Iraq will not be the Last battle in this war, America will aggressive seek out and kill it where ever we are able to track it down. When the war in Iraq is over, the price of oil will again decline, and should stabilize around 24 to 26 dollars a barrel. This reflects the production costs of the major exporters. In the short term it will hurt North American production, and actually shut down some production in the gulf area of America as well as the shale production in Canada. But in the past, the world economies have thrived at 26 dollars a barrel. And, if we really make the effort to build a stable federalist government in Iraq, one that invests the wealth of their oil revenues for the good of the people, then the Arab world will have an example of how to build a better life for their people.

As to our allies, America needs them and wants them. And they need us. What has happened
leading up to Iraq is diplomacy at it’s worst. Anyone with any military knowledge knew that we
were going to war. An Army of that size can not live in tent cities for any length of time. Once
they were deployed, we were at war. The Germans issues were political, and the Social Democrats are now beginning to soften their stance in the face of falling popularity. France on the other hand, was desperately trying to protect their economy. Their trade with Iraq when taken with what they were getting for banking the food for oil program was the strongest sector of their economy. If they loose it all, they will be in recession, and they have a history of political remakes during difficult economic times. Russia, well Russia is Russia. They have a lot
invested with Saddam, and Iraq will probably suggest that they collect it from him personally.
Plus, Russia is still the same country that stood opposite the US during the cold war, and they
see this as another public display of failed Soviet foreign policy, which was to control the majority of the world reserves this time. It is also a public display of failed American policy, we should have finished this the Last time we were there.

What does this do to future foreign policy in the world, I have no idea. It will make people take
a fresh look at American military strength. It will make the Islamic world hate us in the short
run, but that could change. And based on the Palestinian reaction, it could reduce their position in the negotiations that are soon to restart with Israel. At the UN, it will lessen the influence of the body as a whole. And it will decrease the influence of several security council members. I expect that two countries will soon embark on military build ups, and several others will look for ways to build down. One oil exporter will have to rethink their strategic plans, they will no longer control enough production to make inroads into controlling to world markets, and OPEC will have to decide how to proceed with a new government in Iraq. An Iraq that will care more about revenue in the short term than OPEC does.

With the war in Iraq all but over in less than a month, That short chubby guy in N. Korea will be
able to get some front page time now. But he may not really want it so bad after the showing
that his buddy Saddam just gave. His economy will demand that changes be made, and I doubt he will have much of a market for weapons in Iraq now, as well as reduced demand from the Arab states that privately feared Saddam. Also, the economic situation in Cuba is very bad, and is caused by a similar situation. Both Cuba and N. Korea would be good places for the UN to regain some of it’s lost prestige. But before that happens, I think some people will have to accept the fact that it is time for a shake up within the UN, and a return to it’s original mandate. Or, like its predecessor, it will die off as the world power brokers find other ways to debate their problems. It should be noted that the UN has almost always been unable to sway the super powers from their courses of action. And in the cases where it supported military action, the wars were already well under way. When the cold war ended, we went from having basically three teams. East vs. West, with the third world having to decide what was best for them. Now we have America, the second world and the third world. Also we have the remains of the Soviet client empire. They are not third world, and they are not second world. Their problems are some of the most severe in the world, and they are having the hardest time adapting to the new situation.

[ April 05, 2003, 06:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]