[YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)

[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.

[dogscoff]

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

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.

[kalthalior]

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.

[tesco samoa]

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....