[YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)

[Tolstoy]

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 ]

[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.