Who Loves American Foreign Policy?

[YSSMAN]

So, apparently Danoff and I are at it again. Disagreements and such on American foreign policy likely are dependent on where you are, what you believe in, and of course how exactly you are effected by it. So, let this be the start of a wonderful trip down the lane of American Foreign Policy discussion/debate/whatever.

I do not aim to make this a debate about the Iraq war specifically, although it is certainly a part of the discussion to some extent. I am to make this a discussion of AFP in general, 1776-present.

====

I'm not exactly sure how to open up this discussion, so I suppose we can do it with a round of questions:

- Do you view America's foreign policy favorably or negatively? Explain.

- What specifically worries you about American policy? Or, what do you feel Americans need to focus more on? Explain.

- Historically speaking, would you view America's policies in a positive or negative light? Something that has gone from one to the other? Variable? Explain.

- Other thoughts, comments, discussions?

===

I will happily admit that for quite a long time I was very happy about the decisions that my government had made throughout its history. However, as time went on and my education over specific events had increased, I too have increasingly become rather frustrated over what has been done in the past 230+ years.

- How do I favor AFP?

Its more of a disappointed feeling right now. There are very obvious successes in our foreign policy, specifically actions in both world wars, aid to peoples across the globe, defending democracy and supporting revolution. At the very same time, one is very disappointed in the way that we have handled ourselves in many other situations. Current foreign policy under the Bush administration seemingly blows that out of the water, and consequently, we are left behind without the popular support of others on the global scale.

Certainly there are times when we need to act alone, but much more can be accomplished by speaking rationally with our "enemies," using trade and other economic incentives to solve some of our issues, and furthermore, just understanding what the "enemy" has issues with and attempting to adjust (without major losses in American capital) to make things better. We, very easily, could be more responsible with the way we handle ourselves.

- What bothers me?

More than anything its the "cowboy" nature that AFP has taken as of late, and furthermore, the rather shady dealings that appear to happen in the background because of it. Simply put, America does what it wants because it can... And again, while that has worked for a long time, as others wise up to it, it will only hurt us more in the long run. This is why Chavez (no matter how much I hate him) is worried about the US in Venezuela, why we continue to look like absolute idiots with our dealings in Cuba, set ourselves up for more trouble in the Middle East, and God knows what will happen with China.

There is a lot of "we can do this, but you can't" rationale that dominates AFP as well, but I suppose that comes with being the hegemon that rules the world. Responsible, fair, and otherwise "nice" FP is nothing that we haven't done before. Even Bush himself had campaigned on that promise eight years ago.

We are a kind, giving nation full of people who generally do care about the world; Problem is, our government doesn't seem to represent that any longer.

- History Lessons?

Without question, America has done both good and bad. My first real foray into the "WTF?" nature of American Foreign Policy happened earlier this year while studying Central and South American politics. Of particular interest was the Guatemala story:

- 1901: US controlled United Fruit opens up shop in Guatemala
- 1920-1921: US interests threatened with election of CMUP, US overthrows and installs military government
- 1931: Ubico elected in military government, runs the show like Hitler
- 1944: Ubico overthrown
- 1940s: Roughly 70% of land was owned by 2% of the people, United Fruit Company owning a large portion, using only 8% of it for Bananas. Bananas made up 41% of Guatemalan exports.
- 1945: Arevalo democratically elected, moderate candidate seeking to reform and modernize Guatemala. Sought to abolish forced labor, allow unions, raise minimum wage to $0.26 a day, create a social security program, force out US Oil trusts and secure oil for Guatemalans, make Guatemalan economy independent.
- Over 24 attempts to overthrow Arevalo, US squeezes economy
-1950: Arbenz democratically elected, sought to continue reforms by Arevalo, sought to re-distribute land, create highway system, expand public works, give away personal land.
- 1953: Takes land from United Fruit, reimburses them for $600,000. United Fruit says its worth $15 million. Guzman says "pay taxes on $15 million then." A board member of the United Fruit Company and US Secretary of Defense, John Dulles sends the CIA into Guatemala.
- 1954, US enacts "Operation Success" with help of Somozas (dirty buggers) and others... Chase Arbenz out of country. United Fruit Company seats given to CIA head Allen, and General Wlater Bedell Smith.
- 1954: US installs Castillo Armas, spends $90 million to support him. Armas takes back expropriated land, illegalizes unions, kills thousands of citizens, many more "disappear."

This isn't just an isolated incident, it has happened all over the western hemisphere.

Sure, we've done many great things and consequently became very popular in the world we live in. But the simple fact of the matter is that we've managed to squander a good amount of that away with our policies.

Until a rational figure is re-installed into the White House, I fear the worst for our country. Some may feel differently, and this is where we discuss it.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, my responses to your questions. Then my responses to your Bush-Bashing criticisms.

- Do you view America's foreign policy favorably or negatively? Explain.

Such a difficult open-ended question. Currently? Favorably. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I see why we're doing what we're doing and that for the most part it's the right thing.

- What specifically worries you about American policy? Or, what do you feel Americans need to focus more on? Explain.

I get very concerned about the amount of aid we give to other countries. The billions of dollars we spend on Africa each year - for example - is largely counterproductive. I very much feel that we should be doing far less interfering there, and we could save a lot of money in the process.

Americans need to focus more on private charity rather than relying on government charity - especially in places like Africa. Private charity is going to be far more efficient and effective.

- Historically speaking, would you view America's policies in a positive or negative light? Something that has gone from one to the other? Variable? Explain.

Positive. But that's a broad brush to paint with. We've made a few mistakes. But generally speaking I think we get the big ones right. Everyone we've gone to war with has been justifiable. And we don't go seizing territories - unlike so many other countries have attempted throughout history, and would no-doubt be engaged in were they in our situation.

- Other thoughts, comments, discussions?

People are going to hate America - especially if it stands up for itself. If we refuse, for example, to let our foreign policy be dictated by a panel of other nations, suddenly we're evil - as though somehow they had an inalienable right to control American foreign policy. The problem is that we're strong and since the end of the cold war - basically alone in that strength, and people always root for the strong one to fall.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ok, my responses to your questions. Then my responses to your [strikethrough]Bush-Bashing[/strikethrough] criticisms.

Whether or not its directly Bush related isn't the issue. I'm still a Republican, certainly supported going into Iraq, but I'm a bit disenfranchised over the way hes handled things. But this isn't just about Bush either...

Quick note: I left topics broad to encourage discussion in any direction. Take them as you please, I'm sure we can go somewhere with just about anything.

Such a difficult open-ended question. Currently? Favorably. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I see why we're doing what we're doing and that for the most part it's the right thing.

On principle, I agree with you. Its the way we've gone about doing it thats the problem. Its alright to say "yes, Democracy is clearly better" and so on, but it isn't the reason to start a war. I'm very interested to see what happens in Iraq, and clearly, we are committed to see what happens. However, our current policy of "don't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with you" isn't working either.

I get to meet the Syrian Ambassador to the US on Monday, it should be interesting to see what he has to say about the current issues.

I get very concerned about the amount of aid we give to other countries. The billions of dollars we spend on Africa each year - for example - is largely counterproductive. I very much feel that we should be doing far less interfering there, and we could save a lot of money in the process.

Americans need to focus more on private charity rather than relying on government charity - especially in places like Africa. Private charity is going to be far more efficient and effective.

No major arguments here either. Its been proven far too often that private means of aid are generally more efficent, and consequently, its why the US continues to donate more money in that fashion than anything else. That being said, far economic investment would be a nice thing to see happen once in a while...

Positive. But that's a broad brush to paint with. We've made a few mistakes. But generally speaking I think we get the big ones right. Everyone we've gone to war with has been justifiable. And we don't go seizing territories - unlike so many other countries have attempted throughout history, and would no-doubt be engaged in were they in our situation.

I generally agree here as well. There are some darker sides to most wars we've been in, but yes, generally they have been for a somewhat decent reason. But, it still hard to ignore the assignations of random otherwise progressive and non-hostile leaders, blowback, etc.

People are going to hate America - especially if it stands up for itself. If we refuse, for example, to let our foreign policy be dictated by a panel of other nations, suddenly we're evil - as though somehow they had an inalienable right to control American foreign policy. The problem is that we're strong and since the end of the cold war - basically alone in that strength, and people always root for the strong one to fall.

I don't know if its necessarily that way, and I think most westernized folks would agree. The problem likely is that much of what we do is on the "shoot first, ask later" basis that has gotten us in trouble many times before. One could argue that its our greatest short-coming, ever. We never look to the long-term, only to the short-term, and it certainly is a problem.

Should we be relatively fair, reasonable, and otherwise "sane" with our policies, I think we'd see a lot less resistance towards what we suggest doing. Granted, its only a matter of time before the Chinese overtake us in world power, but if we are to be able to counter-balance them, we'll need friends to do it... And unfortunately, our "friends" aren't too happy.

 

[Joey D]

I don't like America's foreign policy, I see no reason for us to try and "police the world". This isn't just a Bush thing either, several other presidents have done the exact same thing. The Cold War is over, we can quit fighting it any time now. All we are doing is spending stupid amounts of money outside the country when we should be focusing on issues here at home first.

I also don't like how we try and export democracy, well our style of it anyways. The most recent example I can think of is in Cuba when Fidel stepped down. Bush said it was time for Cuba to start working towards democracy, so in other words be exactly like America. Our government system is far from perfect and I don't really think we have the right to force our views on other people. Who's to say the democracy and capitalism is the best way of doing things? I would say a huge majority of us have never experienced anything else and what we think we know about other forms comes from the media.

I do not like this country and I do not want to live here, I'm not sure where else I would like to live but I am looking at other options. My feelings really wouldn't be hurt if I left and never came back.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, before I even get to fully respond to the initial post, gotta get a few points in.

Its alright to say "yes, Democracy is clearly better" and so on, but it isn't the reason to start a war.

I've told you multiple times - it isn't the reason we went to war with Iraq.

However, our current policy of "don't talk to anyone who doesn't agree with you" isn't working either.

Give me an example of that policy in action.

The problem likely is that much of what we do is on the "shoot first, ask later" basis that has gotten us in trouble many times before.

Give me some examples of that policy in action.

All we are doing is spending stupid amounts of money outside the country when we should be focusing on issues here at home first.

We are focusing on issues at home first. After that, we're spending money elsewhere. Are you saying that until life is perfect in America we can't have foreign policy?

Who's to say the democracy and capitalism is the best way of doing things?

Basic fundamental human rights. If you recognize human rights, you recognize that representative government and free markets are the only solutions that acknowledge them. Your question here is at odds with pretty much everything justice is based on.

 

[Joey D]

We are focusing on issues at home first. After that, we're spending money elsewhere. Are you saying that until life is perfect in America we can't have foreign policy?

Not like we should. Our health care system is awful, education is iffy, the economy is failing, our money is becoming more and more worthless by the day, and we are barely focusing on renewable energy that doesn't require fossil fuels.

How much do we spend on conflicts with other countries? How much do we spend protecting Israel? It's quite substantial and as a tax payer I don't think my money should have to go to that.

Basic fundamental human rights. If you recognize human rights, you recognize that representative government and free markets are the only solutions that acknowledge them. Your question here is at odds with pretty much everything justice is based on.

Socialism does the same thing, human rights are respected because no one does without and everyone has what they need.

Sure democracy is good, but I don't think America's version of it is worth a damn.

 

[Keef]

I only have a basic college-level knowledge of American history, and knowing that I feel positively about what the US has done across the world throughout its history. We've made many good decisions that have liberated our own people and those of other countries. I think our involvement in World War One and Two was wholly positive. There's quite a few small conflicts, but the enormous impact of the big stuff outweighs those in my mind.

But as for the current policies, I'm not happy about it. I don't understand exactly what all those other governments think about us, but it seems the majority of individuals around the world dislike our country. In our current predicament we have to be tough and show our enemy who is boss, but because of that everyone else is getting frustrated. I can't come up with any solution besides trying something new and seeing how it works. I wonder what a sudden change to pacifism would do.

Socialism does the same thing, human rights are respected because no one does without and everyone has what they need.

Do they have what they need? Maybe. It's definitely not a yes. I'd be dissatisfied with having what I need. I'd rather have what I want, and everybody should be allowed to seek what they're after. The best way to do that is with a free market.

Also, there are people on top making the decisions in a socialist society. That puts them blatantly above the common man. Although out laws concerning that sometimes go unappeased, we do have those laws in place that say everyone should be prosecuted equally.

 

[Joey D]

Do they have what they need? Maybe. It's definitely not a yes. I'd be dissatisfied with having what I need. I'd rather have what I want, and everybody should be allowed to seek what they're after. The best way to do that is with a free market.

It's the way you were brought up, almost everyone in America was. We think we have to have everything, which there is nothing wrong with. But ask someone who is living on the street and actually trying to make a living and is truly in poverty, socialism doesn't sound like such a bad idea to them.

Under a socialist system everything is provided by the state, you have everything you would ever need to live and exist. I can't comment on whether or not it would be satisfying because my mind, like most American's minds, can not comprehend what it would be like.

Either way you do it you are going to damn someone, it's either going to be the wealthy or the poor.

Also, there are people on top making the decisions in a socialist society. That puts them blatantly above the common man. Although out laws concerning that sometimes go unappeased, we do have those laws in place that say everyone should be prosecuted equally.

I'm talking about 100% pure socialism, not what the Chinese and the former Soviets did.

 

[Keef]

We could damn the poor because rich people fit Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, or we could screw the rich because they have everything I want and, dammit, I'm jealous.

 

[YSSMAN]

To answer Danoff's questions:

Points at which not talking to our enemies doesn't work:

I'd say Syria and Iran are both great examples as to why our policies aren't working. As two of the most-powerful states in the region, sorting our our differences and having their backing with proposed actions not just in Iraq but also in Israel/Palestine would be critical to gain popular support for our policies in the Middle-East. Truthfully, Iran should be a no-brainer. They are generally very Western-oriented, many of the people being pro-US, but of course bad apples in the government (sound familiar?) ruin it for everyone.

Or, take for example our policies that we had towards North Korea for some time. Not talking to them had them shooting missiles over Japan, and although one could certainly argue that our peace talks with them have been less than stellar at times, we've made progress, and consequently East Asia is certainly more safe than it was a few years ago.

Talking, more often than not, gets more done than dropping bombs and shooting bullets. Sure, with a generally uncooperative fellow it may be more easy to go that route, but in the end, you end up giving up far too much blood and treasure to make it worthwhile.

On our "Shoot First, Ask Later" policies:

One could easily make the case that Afghanistan and Pakistan are both great examples. In both countries we managed to fund what we thought to be citizens who were pro-western, anti-communist forces. We trained them, gave them our weapons, and more than anything gave them money to help defeat our enemies to the north. In the end, we get more terrorists than ever before as the books and lessons we gave them are turned from the Soviet invaders to the American (and European) infidels who have corrupted their society.

One could make a similar arguement for Vietnam, as at least as far as I'm concerned, its hard to say that anything close to the domino effect would have occurred should Vietnam have fallen to the relatively moderate Communists. Then we get into the installations of political leaders in the "defense of democracy" throughout Latin America, Asia, etc that wind up being bigger messes than we had originally planned them to be.

We've gotten better about thinking a bit before pulling the trigger, but like the one historian said (I forget the name), we tend to have a 20 year focus, and more often than not, it gets us intro trouble. Oddly enough, even Toqueville recognized the problem in the early 19th century.

 

[frestkd]

Just nuke'em all ...

 

[Omnis]

Socialism does the same thing, human rights are respected because no one does without and everyone has what they need.

Sure democracy is good, but I don't think America's version of it is worth a damn.

Wow, really? I'm pretty sure socialism is coercive and violates my rights by stealing from me to give to another.

Pure democracy is also bad. I don't want mob rule. "America's version" is rule by law. Okay, sometimes the laws stink, but that's why we have jury nullification which, by the way, is waiting to be remembered.

The big thing I don't like about our foreign policy is how the police-action loophole is so easily exploited to carry out war according to the executive. As most of you are aware, I think all acts of war should be defined and renewed by Congress, leaving the President to execute the laid out goals. I think merely authorizing the executive to make the rules can be dangerous and isn't responsible.

I also don't think our government should be giving away any foreign aid at all. If they're going to take money out of the congressional districts, that money better get back to the districts or not leave at all. I think our assistance is a crutch for other countries. There's no reason for them to be like a 2nd-class citizenry in their reliance on us. Plus, I think the withdrawal of aid would work to spark capitalistic trends in developing nations (i.e., African countries) and nations that would have to facilitate a healthy economy to maintain themselves (i.e., Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia).

The biggest challenge in the middle east is going to be dealing with Al Qaeda and how they want to attack and take over their home nations. I think the best thing the US can do is to just issue those letters of marque and reprisal to take out the people on our Wanted DoA list. Rolling over and sanctioning nations is counter-productive to anti-terrorism efforts and galvanizes militant fundamentalism.

So, other than that, our problems all have to do with money.

 

[Sage]

Socialism does the same thing, human rights are respected because no one does without and everyone has what they need.

Human rights are respected? Like my right to not have the government hold a gun to my head so that they can steal my money for supposedly worthy causes?

Sure democracy is good, but I don't think America's version of it is worth a damn.

Pure democracy is not good. Take a look at Danoff’s signature.

 

[YSSMAN]

The biggest challenge in the middle east is going to be dealing with Al Qaeda and how they want to attack and take over their home nations. I think the best thing the US can do is to just issue those letters of marque and reprisal to take out the people on our Wanted DoA list. Rolling over and sanctioning nations is counter-productive to anti-terrorism efforts and galvanizes militant fundamentalism.

Exactly. If we took the time to just take out the people we need to, no need to disrupt the country, we'd likely be in much less of a mess than what we are right now. Hard to say for certain, but of course, it is hard to say.

So, other than that, our problems all have to do with money.

At the risk of sounding like a Marxist, its slowly becoming obvious what kind of pull the MNCs are having on our politics.

If we only would have listened to Ike!

 

[niky]

Errh... holding a gun to your head... all governments charge you tax... whether they're democratic, socialist or communist.

The Differences are: In the US, you are not charged as much to subsidize free services. Services which cater to the needy.

In a socialist state, you are charged to subsidize things like health care... but as a result, health care is so good that even the rich use it. They're not complaining because they benefit. In the US, people do complain because it doesn't benefit anyone directly except the poor, and the level of support does not make it extensive enough to satisfy the needs of those citizens who are relatively well off. The big problem with this system is if there are enough poor people, the system may collapse under the weight of escalating costs without enough "rich" taxpayers to support it.

In a communist state, you don't really get a choice, or an opinion, and you'll take whatever we give you, thank you.

Personally, what works best is dependent on local conditions. A democracy is only as good as its voters. Which means I have no hope for our local democracy, because many voters in the Philippines are utter idiots. I've never seen a total communism work... though authoritarianism sometimes works, if the monarch in question is one who actually cares about the country.

-----

Personally, I've been very negative in terms of American Foreign Policy, simply because I've been on the other end of it. I'm an American Citizen, yes, but I see foreign policy from the outside, and how it affects the rest of the world. Actually, I'd say US interventionism and foreign policy has been 50:50.

Foreign aid is not merely doling out. It's a political weapon that allows one country to dictate terms to the other country, on everything from trade to foreign policy. This country has received billions in aid, but is saddled by billions in debt, and has, until recently, played host to American military facilities, in exchange for that aid. Personally, I didn't agree with the pull-out of those facilities, as the Philippines doesn't have jack-**** in military hardware, and being next-door neighbors to China, which walks all over us with impunity, is very unsettling... but the meddling that both the Chinese and the US have done in local politics is, frankly, quite tiresome. Ferdinand Marcos (hubby of Imelda Marcos of the 2000 shoes) was funded and supported by the US government because he was a strong opponent of the local Communist movement. Any local president since then who has been hard on Communists has had the blessings and favor of the US... whether or not they're corrupt or moral/immoral, etcetera... let's not forget the very short and one-sided Philippine-US war... where our revolutionary forces, who had been severely hurting the Spanish before the US "won" the Philippines after the US-Spanish War, were shut out of the independence government, then destroyed by the US Army...

Korea? That was good... and successful. And the current standoff against NoKor.... great... wear the pompous sucker down, and let evolution take its course. Vietnam? 50:50... good that they were trying to stop the communist invasion... bad in that it was in support of a corrupt regime... a fact that doomed the effort, as the communists were able to create grassroots support for themselves.

US policy in the lower Americas has been spotty... the infamous Contra thing... the Cuba problem, etcetera. It's greated a groundswell of bad feelings against the US, which has helped populist leaders rise to power.

The standoff policy towards Russia? Bad in the way it spilled over into other regions (but that was mostly the USSR's fault), good in that forcing the game into a non-combat standoff destroyed the Soviet Empire.

In the Middle East... Kuwait was good... removing the Russians from Afghanistan was good. (too bad the Taliban turned out to be such bad ex-partners) Removing the Taliban was good. Invading Iraq? 50:50. Good that Saddam is gone... bad execution... in that the invasion created its own problems, not the least of which is the creation of a breeding and recruiting ground for Al-Quaeda... Saddam is only human, and sooner or later, he would have fallen.

Iran? I like things the way they are now. Maintain a stand-off, but don't force Iran's hand. Not yet.

With a country like the US, whose leadership swings from Dem to Repub at the flick of a switch, you can't paint foreign policy as simply as "it's always been bad" or "it's always right". But a series of missteps over the past few decades has created a strong anti-US sentiment in certain sectors. At the end of it all, US Foreign Policy is dictated by a small group of men in power. Men who oftentimes put the good of the country as paramount, but there are times when private, selfish concerns (reference YSSMAN's first post... ) influence their decisions.

The United States is the lone remaining superpower... but its influence is waning, and its military might is dependent upon its strong economy... there will come a time when a less stand-off-ish and aggressive foregin policy will have to be adopted... one which respects the opinions and needs of other parties. Until then, the current aggressive US foreign policy will keep on creating its own opposition.

Yes, a strong offense is a strong defense... but only if you have a big, powerful enemy to exert it upon. In this modern age of terrorism, where your enemy is a diffuse, scattered group of individuals who are more flexible and dangerous than a single country, the way we interact with other governments to combat these problems HAS to be more diplomatic. There are no easy solutions to complicated problems, and forcing these "easy" solutions on everyone else creates new problems and new tensions.

 

[Joey D]

Human rights are respected? Like my right to not have the government hold a gun to my head so that they can steal my money for supposedly worthy causes?

All government steals your money, the US is famous for this. I made thousands of dollars in the stock market last year, enough to buy a brand new car, pay for school, and spend almost two months abroad in Europe. However, even though I made the money the government is taking a large chunk of it even though they did nothing to contribute to it. The way I look at it the US government is taking money they didn't earn and blowing it on something stupid. I hate taxes and I really think it's ridiculous to pay them when you see where the money goes.

Wow, really? I'm pretty sure socialism is coercive and violates my rights by stealing from me to give to another.

That's actually not socialism at all. Granted here in the United States we were founded under a capitalist system so we are ingrained to follow it. Switching now wouldn't work. Yes to start it now you would have to give up your stuff, unless of course it was made so everyone had nice things...which is possible under a true socialist/Communist system.

If we would have start out from day one as a socialist society and stuck with those ideals no one would be stealing from you and you would have everything you need for basic life. Sure you probably wouldn't have fancy cars or big houses but everyone would be equal barring the leaders didn't become corrupt.

Pure democracy is also bad. I don't want mob rule. "America's version" is rule by law. Okay, sometimes the laws stink, but that's why we have jury nullification which, by the way, is waiting to be remembered.

Rule by law isn't democracy though, we are forced to obey the law no matter how unjust it is. Like I said I think paying income tax on money I made through smart financial moves is something I do not want to do because our government will squander it on something inane. I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I actually seen some improvement to the country, but all I see is us pissing off the Arab world with a meaningless war and our over protection of Israel.

 

[Danoff]

Still chipping away at the mountain.

If we would have start out from day one as a socialist society and stuck with those ideals no one would be stealing from you and you would have everything you need for basic life. Sure you probably wouldn't have fancy cars or big houses but everyone would be equal barring the leaders didn't become corrupt.

Everyone being equal is a clear violation of human rights. I don't know how to put it any more plainly. Different individuals have impulse to work different amounts. It is unjust to force them to either give away this additional productivity, or dictate that they work less than they wish. Your goal, equality, is fundamentally evil. It is unjust because it violates human rights. It's akin to slavery.

Rule by law isn't democracy though, we are forced to obey the law no matter how unjust it is.

That's right, we don't live in a pure democracy (which is also a system that ignores human rights). We live in a limited republic.

Exactly. If we took the time to just take out the people we need to, no need to disrupt the country, we'd likely be in much less of a mess than what we are right now.

A messy situation that has the potential for freedom is preferable to a clean dictatorship. But that's not the justification for the war either.

To answer Danoff's questions:

Points at which not talking to our enemies doesn't work:

I'd say Syria and Iran are both great examples as to why our policies aren't working. As two of the most-powerful states in the region, sorting our our differences and having their backing with proposed actions not just in Iraq but also in Israel/Palestine would be critical to gain popular support for our policies in the Middle-East. Truthfully, Iran should be a no-brainer. They are generally very Western-oriented, many of the people being pro-US, but of course bad apples in the government (sound familiar?) ruin it for everyone.

Catering to the most powerful interests in the region is unprincipled. You seem to think that our foreign policy should be entirely results-based, whereas I think we've lost all credibility if we don't stick to principle.

Or, take for example our policies that we had towards North Korea for some time. Not talking to them had them shooting missiles over Japan, and although one could certainly argue that our peace talks with them have been less than stellar at times, we've made progress, and consequently East Asia is certainly more safe than it was a few years ago.

This shows a great deal of ignorance on the topic of NK. Appeasing them would have been far worse. It was critical that we get the support of others in the region - and get them involved in those talks. Just like you say we should have done with Iraq. It's like you're not thinking this stuff through and just shooting off whatever criticism sounds reasonable to you. As though you approach it from the mindset of "obviously whatever we're doing is wrong".

Talking, more often than not, gets more done than dropping bombs and shooting bullets. Sure, with a generally uncooperative fellow it may be more easy to go that route, but in the end, you end up giving up far too much blood and treasure to make it worthwhile.

You say "uncooperative" like it's a minor issue that can be easily overcome if we just keep saying "please" and giving in to whatever he demands. Sometimes foreign policy involves guns, and sometimes that's the right choice to make. You're making this out to be entirely too simple.

On our "Shoot First, Ask Later" policies:

One could easily make the case that Afghanistan and Pakistan are both great examples. In both countries we managed to fund what we thought to be citizens who were pro-western, anti-communist forces. We trained them, gave them our weapons, and more than anything gave them money to help defeat our enemies to the north. In the end, we get more terrorists than ever before as the books and lessons we gave them are turned from the Soviet invaders to the American (and European) infidels who have corrupted their society.

This is not a shoot first scenario. Try again.

One could make a similar arguement for Vietnam, as at least as far as I'm concerned, its hard to say that anything close to the domino effect would have occurred should Vietnam have fallen to the relatively moderate Communists. Then we get into the installations of political leaders in the "defense of democracy" throughout Latin America, Asia, etc that wind up being bigger messes than we had originally planned them to be.

Vietnam is definitely not a "shoot first" scenario. It's an example of weak decision making and appeasement - exactly the sort of thing you've been advocating. I'm all in favor of the goals in Vietnam. The problem there was execution.

It's the way you were brought up, almost everyone in America was. We think we have to have everything, which there is nothing wrong with. But ask someone who is living on the street and actually trying to make a living and is truly in poverty, socialism doesn't sound like such a bad idea to them.

Because you're offering them stolen goods. Of course it sound like a sweet deal.

Under a socialist system everything is provided by the state few who produce, you have everything you would ever need the bare minimum to live and exist until the system collapses.

Fixed that for you.

Either way you do it you are going to damn someone, it's either going to be the wealthy or the poor.

Explain to me exactly how the poor are damned in a capitalist society.

Socialism does the same thing, human rights are respected because no one does without and everyone has what they need.

I'm starting to think you have no idea what human rights are. You do not have a right to be provided with your needs. You cannot have that right because it requires that others be made into slaves (which is a violation of real rights).

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm talking about 100% pure socialism,

Doesn't exist. Never has, never will. Karl Marx himself recognized that fact because humans have a natural desire to want. Eventually someone somewhere will become greedy and abuse the system. Usually that eventually translates to immediately.

Short of everyone becoming Buddhist monks 100% socialism will never exist. You could try to make it happen but you would have to rule by force.

I made thousands of dollars in the stock market last year, enough to buy a brand new car, pay for school, and spend almost two months abroad in Europe. However, even though I made the money the government is taking a large chunk of it even though they did nothing to contribute to it. The way I look at it the US government is taking money they didn't earn and blowing it on something stupid. I hate taxes and I really think it's ridiculous to pay them when you see where the money goes.

1) Were you investing to make money quick or for long-term purposes? If for long-term you need to change your strategy. My investments won't be taxed until after I retire.

2) If you think paying taxes for the crap that government pays for in America what do you think you will find in another country?

Yes to start it now you would have to give up your stuff, unless of course it was made so everyone had nice things...which is possible under a true socialist/Communist system.

Define nice. A true socialist system would not provide everyone with fancy cars and video game systems. The math doesn't work out that way, unless you make it global socialism and so economies don't come into play. And of course then people will still argue over whether they should have gotten red or blue cars.

If we would have start out from day one as a socialist society and stuck with those ideals no one would be stealing from you and you would have everything you need for basic life. Sure you probably wouldn't have fancy cars or big houses but everyone would be equal barring the leaders didn't become corrupt.

But they would. And what if I want a fancy car or house? What right do you have to tell me I can't work harder to achieve that?

but all I see is us pissing off the Arab world with a meaningless war and our over protection of Israel.

There is a lot more to see but I think the red from your disgust at a couple of things has hidden them. This comment is similar to people that say all religion does is cause wars.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this one Danoff - any system that demands one man's productivity be "redistributed" to someone who hasn't done anything to earn it totally and completely devalues not only the man doing the production or the essential worth of what he's produced, but just as blatantly attempts to destroy the human object of the redistribution. Tell the poor that they have some 'right' to the fruit of another man's labor, and what incentive is there for them to strive to become more productive or well-off in the first place? For that matter, what incentive is there for the man who is already a proven producer to continue to produce if he's not allowed to profit by his labor? On the surface, it's a happy delusion to think that "the good of mankind" is enough of an incentive, but (a) that's just not part of observable human nature, as a whole, and (b) the good of mankind, historically, is ALWAYS better served when the men most capable to produce the greatest achievements and advances are allowed to do so free of any sort of coercion with regard to their work or the application of its fruits.

With regard to foreign policy, I do tend to split in some regards. I agree with you insofar as I believe the U.S. Government should always act on its own behalf on a principled basis, even if the principles are unpopular.

What I take issue with are the principles we often employ when making those decisions. It should be historically obvious, as several people here have pointed out, that almost every U.S. venture into regime-toppling (and rebuilding) throughout history has been a miserable failure in the long run. While it may produce short-term benefits, in almost every case, it's created long-term enemies out of those who otherwise would have left us alone. I think it was YSSMAN who used Afganistan as an example - a temporary allegiance with the Taliban to expel the Russians seemed, on the surface, a fine idea, but no effort was put into considering the principles of the organization we were aiding. Put another way, we assumed that the enemy of our enemy was our friend, when in fact, that "friend" hated us just as much and disagreed with our fundamental social ideals just as stridently as the 'enemy' we aided them in fighting. This carries over to Iraq - yes, now there may be a strong Al Qaeda presence there, but the reason it's there is because we are there. There's not a shred of evidence to point to the fact that there was an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we toppled Saddam's regime, and I think it's reasonable to assume given past experiences that the regime we've replaced it with, 20 years down the road, is going to look no better to us than Saddam did in 2000, if it even lasts 20 years, which seems doubtful at present. No, Al Qaeda was probably not the 'real' reason we invaded Iraq. Nor, though, should the unsupportable intelligence suggesting the presence of WMD's have been the justification. I don't pretend to know the minds of the decision-makers behind the invasion, but I can't believe the actual justification would be so flimsy, especially considering that when a dictator just as evil proved to actually HAVE developed nuclear capabilities, the same decision-makers took a much more reasoned, measured and ultimately successful approach to handling the situation.

I don't mean to suggest that we should ignore cruel dictatorships out of fear of what may come after them - by no means should they be tolerated - but let's face it, with regard to U.S. foreign policy, the middle east is the "hotspot" now and for the forseeable future. This is a region in which the people, even those "allied" with us, fundamentally disagree with our worldview. Until they exert clear and ill-intentioned force on us or those that we are philosophically allied with, it seems to me both immoral and impractical to attempt to solve their problems, which are only indirectly our problems, by means of removing their leadership and instituting our own. We don't fully grasp their worldview, and they surely don't grasp ours. It comes down to the old but valid idea that this is a 4000-year-old conflict that in fundamental terms doesn't involve us, and as such can not be solved by a policy of toppling any regime that makes a threatening move. We don't do that as of now with any regularity either - if so, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and yes, even Israel, would be overrun with U.S. troops. We seem to pick the situations where it best serves VERY short-term interests and apply military force in those areas, while ignoring and treating as "allies" national leaders who are far greater threats and are very likely secretly (or not-so-secretly) supportive of our REAL enemies -the situation in Pakistan is a primary example.

Is this to say the U.S. is characterized by constant F.P. failures? No, certainly not. North Korea was handled relatively well, all things considered. The current situation in Afganistan, while messy, was and continues to be morally justifiable as there was actionable knowledge of their support of terrorists, the presence of which lingers (and in fact grows stronger) in many regions of the country. All I mean to suggest is that it's a bit of a rose-tinted view to think that we generally act on justifiable principles with regards to foreign policy, even if you grant that there have been a "few" missteps. We don't, generally - nor do many other nations. What we DO need to do, as the most influential global power, is to adopt a clear, consistent, morally tenable philosophy of foreign policy that can be applied universally after careful consideration of specific situations.

 

[Danoff]

but I can't believe the actual justification would be so flimsy, especially considering that when a dictator just as evil proved to actually HAVE developed nuclear capabilities, the same decision-makers took a much more reasoned, measured and ultimately successful approach to handling the situation.

Of course the WMD argument doesn't justify invasion either, or every other country on the planet would be justified in invading us. It was justified by a violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. Any such blatant violation of a US treaty is serious in terms of our diplomatic relations with every other nation on earth.

All I mean to suggest is that it's a bit of a rose-tinted view to think that we generally act on justifiable principles with regards to foreign policy, even if you grant that there have been a "few" missteps.

Well, I'm talking about war here, not all US FP. I struggle to think of a war that we've engaged in where we weren't justified in doing so. The American-Indian war might qualify - but I'm not totally sure that's categorized as foreign policy.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Of course the WMD argument doesn't justify invasion either, or every other country on the planet would be justified in invading us. It was justified by a violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. Any such blatant violation of a US treaty is serious in terms of our diplomatic relations with every other nation on earth.

I would definitely grant you that - it's a severe breach of treaty and requires a response. My question then would be why it wasn't clearly stated as the primarily justification for invasion instead of sketchy WMD fearmongering, and why a regime change, which again almost never proves successful as a long-term solution to anything, would be the appropriate response. Bush Sr.'s administration stopped short of toppling the regime in response to a direct invasion of an "ally", which I would argue is much a more serious offense. That proved successful - it quelled Hussein's agression for what, in the region in question, is a surprising amount of time (nearly a decade), and from a practical standpoint, left in place the only real buffer against the factional violence that we now see, and the only buffer between Iran and the MASSIVE instability in the rest of the middle east. It seems to me that if a similar course were taken here, we'd have created FAR fewer problems for ourselves and the people in the region. As draconian a leader as Hussein was, it seems likely that the current unstable regime will either turn just as, if not more corrupt, or collapse under the vitriolic factional pressures from all sides and give way to another regime equally as oppressive as Hussein's. This is the eventual result of all previous U.S. efforts such as this, and I'm not sure I see any indication that this situation will be any different.

Well, I'm talking about war here, not all US FP. I struggle to think of a war that we've engaged in where we weren't justified in doing so. The American-Indian war might qualify - but I'm not totally sure that's categorized as foreign policy.

That's a good question, although it's hard to argue against the fact that, whether "foreign" or not, it was a pretty systematic and evil application of force.

This is where we get into the field of pure opinion, but as for wars we weren't or aren't justified in, I would argue that given the nature of the current situation in Iraq, that qualifies. Had it been carried out as I suggested above - in a spirit of containment and properly measured response - we'd have been justified even without the support of our true allies. In Afghanistan we were faced with no moral alternative aside from eliminating, by military force, a regime that clearly sponsored direct violence against the U.S, and it's interesting to note that in that case, we WERE supported by all of our major ideological allies, if not materially, at least in spirit. While again, I don't feel that our actions MUST be sanctioned by anyone other than ourselves, in the realm of international F.P. and war it's a big point to consider. That does tend to suggest that perhaps the situation in Iraq didn't require quite the extremity of commitment that Afghanistan did, and while Hussein was clearly evil and held no love for the U.S., given the nature of the situation there were a plethora of other avenues that could and probably should have been traveled short of all-out war.

My opinion on Vietnam is fairly similar - I don't think our alliance to South Vietnam was based on firm ideological agreement or any moral mutual interest - their ruling structure wasn't made of the nicest guys on the world political stage, by any means, and though a titular democracy, there's a lot to be said for the view that they were as immoral as the N.V. regime in many ways. I think our alliance with S.V. was a pragmatic alliance, which we defended for pragmatic reasons - reasons which, in the end, proved not to be so sound as we expected. There was no "cascading domino" effect, and communism didn't sweep the region. Was the invasion by the NVM a good thing for the world? Certainly not. Was it justifiable? That's arguable, but I also think not. Were we justified in getting involved? I really don't see how. It's fine to say that they violated a defensive treaty we signed in good faith with the South Vietnamese, but I don't think "good faith" existed on either side of that treaty, and unlike the situation in Iraq, we had no previous direct quarrel with North Vietnam, aside from differing ideas on political structure and their allegiances to another enemy, the Soviet Union. We reversed the idea I put forth earlier - we assumed the friend of our enemy was also our enemy. That can be true in many cases, but not in this one. It should have fallen to the American leadership to weigh the moral cost of the deaths of countless American soldiers in defense of a shaky ally in a militarily untenable scenario against whatever moral benefits may arise. The "falling domino" theory, I don't think, even without the benefit of hindisght, should have tipped that scale.

The same scenario happened with the Russians in Afghanistan, which can logically be linked to Vietnam. Russia was there and probably shouldn't have been, and as a response, so were we, and we obviously shouldn't have been. In the short term, Afghanistan ended badly for the Russians; Vietnam ended badly for us. In the long term, both ended up badly for both nations. I don't think either nation should have been all that surprised about it.

 

[Danoff]

I would definitely grant you that - it's a severe breach of treaty and requires a response. My question then would be why it wasn't clearly stated as the primarily justification for invasion instead of sketchy WMD fearmongering,

Politics.

and why a regime change, which again almost never proves successful as a long-term solution to anything, would be the appropriate response.

Here we deviate from the moral justification and look at the payoff for the US. The idea was that we'd create a free society in a region that badly needed one. Freedom, it was argued, is the enemy of terrorism because free people who have the ability to pursue their own success do not resort to suicide bombing. Religious ideology aside I think that's actually a fairly true assessment. Bush was looking really far ahead (perhaps too far) with this one. He saw the opportunity to rectify a wrong. Saddam should never have been put in power, or left in power. Here he was with the moral justification for removing Saddam from power (treaty violation) and putting Iraq (a country that has obvious access to wealth) on the road to prosperity in a region that needed it. Win win win right? Well, the devil is in the details of course.

As draconian a leader as Hussein was, it seems likely that the current unstable regime will either turn just as, if not more corrupt, or collapse under the vitriolic factional pressures from all sides and give way to another regime equally as oppressive as Hussein's. This is the eventual result of all previous U.S. efforts such as this, and I'm not sure I see any indication that this situation will be any different.

One can hope. I'll never say that I'd prefer that Saddam had remained in power over giving the Iraqis at least an opportunity at self-governance.

That does tend to suggest that perhaps the situation in Iraq didn't require quite the extremity of commitment that Afghanistan did, and while Hussein was clearly evil and held no love for the U.S., given the nature of the situation there were a plethora of other avenues that could and probably should have been traveled short of all-out war.

Regardless of the outcome, the justifications were there. The ends, of course, can never justify the means. Only the beginnings can do that. Again, we were looking long term in our commitment to improving the region. Perhaps too long for the tastes of the American public.

My opinion on Vietnam is fairly similar - I don't think our alliance to South Vietnam was based on firm ideological agreement or any moral mutual interest - their ruling structure wasn't made of the nicest guys on the world political stage, by any means, and though a titular democracy, there's a lot to be said for the view that they were as immoral as the N.V. regime in many ways.

Vietnam is actually a very similar situation - where the justification and the reason for action are two completely separate things. The justification is basically the evil nature of communism and the fact that "free" (I use that term very loosely here) people were fighting against it. I think we're justified in aiding anyone who is fighting communism. The magnitude of our response was more than really necessary, but the ideals were in place. The reason the magnitude was overboard is because we had other reasons to be in the region. We were concerned about the spread of communism (don't look at it from our point of view now, look at it from their point of view then). Protecting ourselves against a perceived Russian spread was the reason, defending "freedom" fighters was the justification.

Here again the devil is in the details. There we fought a war of containment for fear of provoking Russia. That's a really poor way to fight a war.

I'll grant you we had a much more iron-clad reason to be in Iraq than for Vietnam.

 

[Rykon Zero]

I don't like a lot of the american foreign policies. if you can somehow say it disrupts american freedom you get to have the navy bring down thier mighty bann hammer on whatever little podunk country it is. and if the navy brings down the hammer on the wrong place or didn't lay it down hard enough, it never happened. Ever wonder why the hawaiian islands are a part of america? a handful of american buisness men wanted to set up shop in hawaii but the queen wouldn't let them because she was busy trying to put down revolts and wanted to keep things clean. the navy comes along bombards her palace until she agrees to give up power. the cleaner way would be to send troops in and help her put down revolts and everyone (almost) would be happy. the way the navy did it only 2 sets of people were happy: the buisnessmen and america... way to go freedom....

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Politics.

Well yeah... I suppose that goes without saying

Here we deviate from the moral justification and look at the payoff for the US. The idea was that we'd create a free society in a region that badly needed one. Freedom, it was argued, is the enemy of terrorism because free people who have the ability to pursue their own success do not resort to suicide bombing. Religious ideology aside I think that's actually a fairly true assessment. Bush was looking really far ahead (perhaps too far) with this one. He saw the opportunity to rectify a wrong. Saddam should never have been put in power, or left in power. Here he was with the moral justification for removing Saddam from power (treaty violation) and putting Iraq (a country that has obvious access to wealth) on the road to prosperity in a region that needed it. Win win win right? Well, the devil is in the details of course.

I definitely agree with you that Hussein never should have assumed or maintained power, and unlike many of Bush's critics I would tend to agree with you that he probably had good intentions, but as you say, the devil is in the details - in this case in one very important detail. The people we sought to free don't grasp democratic freedom in the same way that we do, certainly don't practice it as such, and don't even really seem to want it. I would think it would be forseeable from the outset that thrusting it upon them would prove disastrous - because in essence, that's what we did. The Iraqi people made no overt pleas to us to topple their regime - we employed force to do so without their consent.

One can hope. I'll never say that I'd prefer that Saddam had remained in power over giving the Iraqis at least an opportunity at self-governance.

An understandable position without a doubt, and I'd like to see them practicing willing self-governance as well. I'm afraid it won't work though, at least not now.

Regardless of the outcome, the justifications were there. The ends, of course, can never justify the means. Only the beginnings can do that. Again, we were looking long term in our commitment to improving the region. Perhaps too long for the tastes of the American public.

I guess that's the primary difference in our takes on this - we agree that the goal, however couched or pitched, was to improve the region. I just don't know that anything we do can be predicted to do anything other than further destabilize the situation, but I hope I'm wrong.

Vietnam is actually a very similar situation - where the justification and the reason for action are two completely separate things. The justification is basically the evil nature of communism and the fact that "free" (I use that term very loosely here) people were fighting against it. I think we're justified in aiding anyone who is fighting communism. The magnitude of our response was more than really necessary, but the ideals were in place. The reason the magnitude was overboard is because we had other reasons to be in the region. We were concerned about the spread of communism (don't look at it from our point of view now, look at it from their point of view then). Protecting ourselves against a perceived Russian spread was the reason, defending "freedom" fighters was the justification.

Here again the devil is in the details. There we fought a war of containment for fear of provoking Russia. That's a really poor way to fight a war.

I'll grant you we had a much more iron-clad reason to be in Iraq than for Vietnam.

Yeah... Vietnam is a hard one to call. It's extremely hard to tell what we know with benefit of hindsight and what we would have done at the time under the same circumstances. I think I'd have made a different choice, but of course I can't know - nobody can know - what we'd have done stripped of historical perspective.

 

[Tornado]

I've personally always been bothered by the American stance of telling other countries to not do things that we then turn around and do. The Iraq War is in my eyes largely a non-issue (especially because I more or less agree with the principle, and Vietnam is the same way to me) compared to the meddling we have done in other countries to suit our needs at the expense of theirs.

 

[YSSMAN]

...but I'm not totally sure that's categorized as foreign policy.

One recalls that the constitution identifies the Native Americans as separate nations, treaties to be addressed by congress with them. That, in effect, makes it foreign policy.

===

The concept of hegemony, in the end, is the ultimate deciding factor in what ends up being done. The question largely is, should the US be responsible for the rest of the world, or responsible for itself?

I'd largely make the arguement that it is the responsibility of the US only to become involved when the need for action is too great for that of others. That being said, that does assume to a large extent that others are capable of handling situations in a given theater. The fact of the matter is, the US has pretty much propped up the big guns of Europe and Asia (well, Japan) with our own weapons and our own forces, and weather or not they could handle themselves against *insert enemy here* is questionable at best.

Take for consideration what occurred under the watch of President Clinton in 1995. The massacres in Rawanda were absolutely brutal, dreadful, and one of the worst missteps in foreign policy for any nation. In that regard, we knew what was going on, and yet, we didn't lift a finger... Because it was not in US interests (one could argue Somalia curbed it as well). This of course, gets into the arguement of "what exactly is in US interests?" and that of course is a very deep rabbit-hole.

With the realist perspective in mind, I tend to think that power can easily be achieved and maintained with a fairly positive outlook on foreign policy. That is, increased diplomacy despite tensions/disagreements, continued trade and negotiations during times of "crisis," and of course making rational decisions on policy that take into account not only current events, but also historical and future factors as well.

Maybe that places too much faith in our leaders, but it seems as though things such as this can be achievable. Responsible, yet powerful foreign policy shouldn't be something that we struggle to deal with... If anything, it should have been our policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Taking the time to know and understand our "enemy" would be a HUGE first step, furthermore, taking into considerations what the possible ramifications may be in the future for our decisions.

No, not all foreign policy has been bad. We've had a pretty decent batting average for a young-gun... But there certainly is some cleaning-up that needs to be done, something that I do hope to eventually be a part of.

 

[a6m5]

I like the American Foreign Policy overall. It could be a lot better, I don't think there is any doubt about that. But look at the people who we have in charge(politicians), and don't believe for second that everything about Foreign Policy politics is right & wrong. Everytime something like "Iraq" happens, certain people make unbelievable amount of money, and they will do what they can do to make it more profitable for them, even if it meant pushing their country into conflicts.

How much do the bullets, rockets & other munitions cost? How about the "rebuilding"? There are tons of way to make billions of U.S. dollars in a war, if you are connected and are in the right business.

I was just starting off about the pros of the foreign policy, but I just finished the cons, too. Bottom line, I guess my stance on the American Foreign Policy is that while it's nowhere near perfect, it's not bad at all. People complain, and they have every right to. But from my perspective, it used to be; do I want to live under Imperial Japan/Nazi Germany rule, or under American influence? And more recently; do I want to live under USSR/China rule or under American influence?

I think I'm being very realistic. We can whine all we want about perfect world, pure socialism, whatever, that's not the world I live in.

And props to Niky:
1) Foreign aid in the way is an investment. Most of them are needed, and they work out. Sometimes, you owe it to them(even if it doesn't make any sense to people like us who get their info from news papers & TV), sometimes it might not work out. But it's rarely free money.
2) It's a mistake to expect perfect consistency from the American Foreign Policy. Leaders change, they all have different ideas, agendas.

 

[FoolKiller]

a temporary allegiance with the Taliban to expel the Russians seemed, on the surface, a fine idea, but no effort was put into considering the principles of the organization we were aiding.

I am constantly amazed at some of this mindset that people are still stuck on the fact that Afghanistan was us handing guns and training Taliban just to stick it to the Russians.

As a lot of the decisions and goings on are still classified because it was done covertly, but what is available shows it started as a humanitarian effort to stop what was turning into a situation that bordered on genocide. The fact that the Russians were involved just gave an extra drive to politicians that otherwise didn't want to do it. Charlie Wilson's War does a good summary of how things happened, because America's initial stance was to stay out of it until civilians saw the images of the children and began pushing politicians to do something. For some politicians it took visits to the region to see what was going on. The general stance was to stay out because it was Russia. The risk of starting a war with Russia was too great for most people to even contemplate the idea of helping.

They didn't hate us before and our problem wasn't that we helped. Our problem was that when Russia pulled out so did we. We said how much we wanted to help, but after the violence was over and images children being maimed and killed were gone no one cared anymore. Out of sight, out of mind. We left them to fend for themselves and they turned on us. When fanatics began taking over the government almost immediately after the conflict we didn't lift a finger to help those that we had buddied up to.

What we did when Russia invaded Afghanistan was good and justified. We probably prevented slaughter. But how we handled the situation after is bad.

I would definitely grant you that - it's a severe breach of treaty and requires a response. My question then would be why it wasn't clearly stated as the primarily justification for invasion

I encourage you to read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

That is the first five paragraphs, all referring to the cease fire agreement and their disregard of it. The breach of treaty is the first (primary?) reason given.

Ever wonder why the hawaiian islands are a part of america? a handful of american buisness men wanted to set up shop in hawaii but the queen wouldn't let them because she was busy trying to put down revolts and wanted to keep things clean. the navy comes along bombards her palace until she agrees to give up power. the cleaner way would be to send troops in and help her put down revolts and everyone (almost) would be happy. the way the navy did it only 2 sets of people were happy: the buisnessmen and america... way to go freedom....

1) That's how it became a republic, it became a state 66 years later.

2) It was Marine troops, not Navy ships.

3) And they were sent because a committee of American citizens (compromised of the businessmen) requested protection. The president was not aware it was a power play on the part of the businessmen because reports of violence against Americans had been coming out of the islands.

Now if you do want to talk about the islands becoming a territory, Congress did that without request of the islands, but it was a political play to get the businessmen out of government without violence because it allowed any Hawaiian citizens born in Hawaii from then on to have all the rights of Americans. This led to the voting power for Hawaiians to reclaim control of their local government and then request statehood. Statehood was a peaceful and mutual decision.

 

[Danoff]

One recalls that the constitution identifies the Native Americans as separate nations, treaties to be addressed by congress with them. That, in effect, makes it foreign policy.

Ok. I'll call that our worst period in foreign policy.

The concept of hegemony, in the end, is the ultimate deciding factor in what ends up being done. The question largely is, should the US be responsible for the rest of the world, or responsible for itself?

I think that question has an obvious answer.

I'd largely make the arguement that it is the responsibility of the US only to become involved when the need for action is too great for that of others.

That's close to my answer, but not correct. The US should act morally and in accordance with it's own interests. The "need" for action by "others" is not a reason to act. It can be a justification, but not a reason. Because if it were a reason, we'd have to pretty much act all over the world.

That being said, that does assume to a large extent that others are capable of handling situations in a given theater. The fact of the matter is, the US has pretty much propped up the big guns of Europe and Asia (well, Japan) with our own weapons and our own forces, and weather or not they could handle themselves against *insert enemy here* is questionable at best.

Another example of how we're helping maintain peace and freedomishness (that could be a word).

Take for consideration what occurred under the watch of President Clinton in 1995. The massacres in Rawanda were absolutely brutal, dreadful, and one of the worst missteps in foreign policy for any nation. In that regard, we knew what was going on, and yet, we didn't lift a finger... Because it was not in US interests (one could argue Somalia curbed it as well). This of course, gets into the arguement of "what exactly is in US interests?" and that of course is a very deep rabbit-hole.

I agree with us staying out of rwanda (see above). I think we'd have be justified in intervening if we'd identified a party that was acting in a moral way, but without US interest in the matter, I don't see a good reason to spend taxpayer dollars on it.

With the realist perspective in mind, I tend to think that power can easily be achieved and maintained with a fairly positive outlook on foreign policy. That is, increased diplomacy despite tensions/disagreements, continued trade and negotiations during times of "crisis," and of course making rational decisions on policy that take into account not only current events, but also historical and future factors as well.

Something that general is impossible to disagree with. It's like you wrote "I think US foreign policy should be done well". No kidding.

Maybe that places too much faith in our leaders,

Yes

Taking the time to know and understand our "enemy" would be a HUGE first step, furthermore, taking into considerations what the possible ramifications may be in the future for our decisions.

I'd argue that we've tried on both accounts and, to a certain degree, have recently failed. But trying is what you're advocating, so I think we've met your criteria here.

At the very same time, one YSSMAN is very disappointed in the way that we have handled ourselves in many other situations. Current foreign policy under the Bush administration seemingly blows that out of the water, and consequently, we are left behind without the popular support of others on the global scale.

Fixed.

Other than implying that anyone with an education (you mentioned education in your previous paragraph) would be disappointed with our FP, this pretty much just says Bush is a bad guy without giving any details. I'll move on.

Certainly there are times when we need to act alone, but much more can be accomplished by speaking rationally with our "enemies," using trade and other economic incentives to solve some of our issues, and furthermore, just understanding what the "enemy" has issues with and attempting to adjust (without major losses in American capital) to make things better. We, very easily, could be more responsible with the way we handle ourselves.

Here you are with your "placate the enemy" dreamworld foreign policy advocacy. Giving concessions to the enemy is not at all useful unless you get something back. And even then you have to be careful of the moral implications of your concessions. Iraq was not a case where concessions were possible. We had a treaty, they had to conform. The treaty was the concession, the lack of conformance on their part was them renigging on their part of the bargain in that concession.

More than anything its the "cowboy" nature that AFP has taken as of late, and furthermore, the rather shady dealings that appear to happen in the background because of it. Simply put, America does what it wants because it can... And again, while that has worked for a long time, as others wise up to it, it will only hurt us more in the long run. This is why Chavez (no matter how much I hate him) is worried about the US in Venezuela, why we continue to look like absolute idiots with our dealings in Cuba, set ourselves up for more trouble in the Middle East, and God knows what will happen with China.

Still too general. Give me specific policies you disagree with, not regions you think we're botching in general.

There is a lot of "we can do this, but you can't" rationale that dominates AFP as well, but I suppose that comes with being the hegemon that rules the world.

Give me an example of "we can do this but you can't" in action. Try to make it recent since the very next sentence implied that the Bush administration has fallen into this behavior.

We are a kind, giving nation full of people who generally do care about the world; Problem is, our government doesn't seem to represent that any longer.

Blah blah genearlities blah we're evil blah Bush. Seriously, I need a real example of something the Bush administration has done or is doing that you think justifies this stance. And you're gonna have to tackle my argument that a treaty violation eventually (after much warning) started the Iraq war if you want to use Iraq as an example.

- History Lessons?

Without question, America has done both good and bad. My first real foray into the "WTF?" nature of American Foreign Policy happened earlier this year while studying Central and South American politics. Of particular interest was the Guatemala story:

- 1901: US controlled United Fruit opens up shop in Guatemala
- 1920-1921: US interests threatened with election of CMUP, US overthrows and installs military government
- 1931: Ubico elected in military government, runs the show like Hitler
- 1944: Ubico overthrown
- 1940s: Roughly 70% of land was owned by 2% of the people, United Fruit Company owning a large portion, using only 8% of it for Bananas. Bananas made up 41% of Guatemalan exports.
- 1945: Arevalo democratically elected, moderate candidate seeking to reform and modernize Guatemala. Sought to abolish forced labor, allow unions, raise minimum wage to $0.26 a day, create a social security program, force out US Oil trusts and secure oil for Guatemalans, make Guatemalan economy independent.
- Over 24 attempts to overthrow Arevalo, US squeezes economy
-1950: Arbenz democratically elected, sought to continue reforms by Arevalo, sought to re-distribute land, create highway system, expand public works, give away personal land.
- 1953: Takes land from United Fruit, reimburses them for $600,000. United Fruit says its worth $15 million. Guzman says "pay taxes on $15 million then." A board member of the United Fruit Company and US Secretary of Defense, John Dulles sends the CIA into Guatemala.
- 1954, US enacts "Operation Success" with help of Somozas (dirty buggers) and others... Chase Arbenz out of country. United Fruit Company seats given to CIA head Allen, and General Wlater Bedell Smith.
- 1954: US installs Castillo Armas, spends $90 million to support him. Armas takes back expropriated land, illegalizes unions, kills thousands of citizens, many more "disappear."

This isn't just an isolated incident, it has happened all over the western hemisphere.

Let's try to stay focused on the big stuff rather than get bogged down in the details of every US business or congressman. Yes there are bad people in every country, corrupt politicians, and even stupid mistakes. But if you're going to give me that example (which you've given me before) and claim that it's representative of our interactions all over the world and that's why everyone hates us, you're going to have to give me quite a few more local conflicts.

Sure, we've done many great things and consequently became very popular in the world we live in. But the simple fact of the matter is that we've managed to squander a good amount of that away with our policies.

Generalities blah Bush blah. Give me something that Bush did that "squandered" the popularity we achieved.

 

[YSSMAN]

I agree with us staying out of rwanda (see above). I think we'd have be justified in intervening if we'd identified a party that was acting in a moral way, but without US interest in the matter, I don't see a good reason to spend taxpayer dollars on it.

Problem is, 800K people were killed in the process. If that isn't some kind of blunder, I don't know what is...

Still too general. Give me specific policies you disagree with, not regions you think we're botching in general.

Lets look at Cuba in general... Why in the hell are we the ONLY country in the world that refuses to deal with them? We continually complain that they "refuse to repay damages" to those who lost property in the revolution, and yet Cuba has offered to repay on more than one occasion (1977 comes to mind), and the US refused. As the Cold War ended, we had a HUGE opportunity to go into Cuba and turn things around, and yet, we withdrew and isolated the state further. We threatened corporations, other nations, and slowly our allies walked away.

We, again, have a significant opportunity to go back into Cuba with Fidel stepping down. For the lack of a better description, I'm under the personal assumption that throwing money at Cuba would likely spur democratic revolution far sooner than economic/diplomatic isolation.

Give me an example of "we can do this but you can't" in action. Try to make it recent since the very next sentence implied that the Bush administration has fallen into this behavior.

This has been an ongoing problem post-WWII, not just a Bush thing. Very obviously it comes from the hegemonic stance that we once had (I'd argue we're in a tri-polar system, the US, China and the EU). The trade of arms, economic policies, among others all have a small piece of the double-standard in mind. Granted, it doesn't seem to be as strong as it was before, but it nevertheless has been a problem.

Much of the reason why I assume it has been quelled over the years is that we don't carry nearly as much economic power as we once have. My estimation is that slowly we're going to end up seeing China do much of what we did in the later half of the 20th century, but that of course, depends on their own foreign policy (of which I have admittedly very little time in understanding).

Blah blah genearlities blah we're evil blah Bush. Seriously, I need a real example of something the Bush administration has done or is doing that you think justifies this stance. And you're gonna have to tackle my argument that a treaty violation eventually (after much warning) started the Iraq war if you want to use Iraq as an example.

Its not just a Bush thing, lets make this clear... He has done a lot to squander our stance in the world, but this has been a slippery slope that has been a long and dusty trail. Not even taking the time to listen to our allies in whats going on seems to be a problem as of late.

Afghanistan was completely justifiable and I continue to support that campaign, but come on, even the Israelis warned us not to go into Iraq.

Americans are upset because Europe finally realized that they have enough economic power to stand up to us. So be it. They deserve to have their word when their interests are under threat as well. Do I believe the UN would have solved anything? No, not likely. Do I believe that we should have spoke to France and Germany a bit more before going in? Yes, post-game I think that would have been a better thing to do.

We've managed to alienate our friends by not taking their word into consideration anymore. Like it or not, what we do in Country X is likely going to effect people in Country Y, even though if the link is not direct.

You can easily go both ways, and if often depends on what theater you're discussing as to who likes our policies and who does not. Personally, I'm thankful that China and the EU finally have figured out that they can take matters into their own hands as well. Maybe that means we avoid more conflict, maybe not.

Let's try to stay focused on the big stuff rather than get bogged down in the details of every US business or congressman. Yes there are bad people in every country, corrupt politicians, and even stupid mistakes. But if you're going to give me that example (which you've given me before) and claim that it's representative of our interactions all over the world and that's why everyone hates us, you're going to have to give me quite a few more local conflicts.

I use the example because its something (sadly) that most Americans are unaware of. All of this mess over Bananas?

Like I've said, we've done a lot of good and we've done a lot of bad. Its not about hating America as an American, its about just being downright disappointed in our policies. People don't hate Americans, they hate our government, and that too is something that we're going to have to understand as we move forward with our policies in the world.

Generalities blah Bush blah. Give me something that Bush did that "squandered" the popularity we achieved.

Without question, the post 9-11 world gave us a monumental oppertunity to size power and leadership and ultimately take on our adversaries with monstrous amounts of popular support. Without question the majority of nations we're behind our stances, but the problem is, without taking into considerations their ideas/positions/whats at stake, we've managed to go out quietly behind the shed and shoot ourselves in the foot.

Again, this gets to the question of collective action. I'm under the assumption that if we had a better justification for being in Iraq, we'd likely be in a better position in the world. We could likely do more to help people in Africa, not spy on people (including our own citizens), rendition programs tend to be an issue, etc.

Its messy, and of course it depends on your stance on the issues. A fair bit of what Bush has done is justifiable just by the mention of "sovereignty," but at this crucial time in world history, I personally think its time we think with a bit more of an internationalist perspective, and finally work with both our allies and our enemies to create something better.

Yes, I realize that is likely too much to ask for.