[YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)

[Krsqk]

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. 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." )

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

[Zarix]

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.

[tesco samoa]

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?

[Tolstoy]

Krsqk:

It'z all cool

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..

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 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.

[Zarix]

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.

[dogscoff]

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.

[Krsqk]

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.

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.