Who Loves American Foreign Policy?

[Danoff]

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

Not our blunder.

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.

This seems to be your solution to everything. Wipe the slate clean, offer some carrots, try to make nice. You seem to be under the impression that everyone will warm up to the nice guy in town. That hasn't been the case so far, and it kinda goes against basic human nature.

This has been an ongoing problem post-WWII, not just a Bush thing.

I asked you to specifically address Bush because you specifically attacked him.

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.

Ok, we're starting to get to direct criticism here (however vaguely stated). Am I interpreting this correctly that you seem to think it's a double-standard for us to try to stop other nations for wanting to develop nuclear arms while we have the majority of the world supply? You're aware that these nations have signed a treaty saying they won't develop them right?

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).

China is still 50+ years behind us.

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.

uh... no. Americans are upset because Europe seems to think they can control us, not because we want to control them.

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 did. They refused to play ball. We moved on.

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.

Which is why France wasn't on board with anything we wanted to do in Iraq. They got a large supply of oil from Iraq. That doesn't change our justification or desire for results. I'm glad we didn't let France dictate our FP decisions.

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.

They hate both. They hate our government because we don't let them control us, and they hate us because we're much more individualist and proud.

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.

We had a choice. Let Iraq continue to make our treaties worthless and call our military bluff, or lose what little bit of attention that France and Germany used to pay us. I'm glad we chose the stronger position.

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.

Ok, here's your big beef with the Bush administration. We went to war without the consent of every European nation, and we did so only based on repeated treaty violations and blatant refusal to even work with us on the matter of compliance.

At this point I'd like to point out that we are an independent country, fully capable of enforcing our treaties without the consent of the french or germans. And the way in which Iraq was violating our treaties was seriously compromising our foreign policy in much more dangerous area (NK). Neither of those criticisms of the Bush administration are valid. Try again.

And BTW, the domestic spying is a reaction to 9/11, not Iraq.

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.

At this crucial time in world history (aren't they all), we need to act in a principled, moral fashion in our own self-interest. The rest of the world can try taking their own advice and mind their own business.

 

[YSSMAN]

Good points on all perspectives, as always. Still, nevertheless, it appears we disagree on basic principles. Wind the clock back for me about three years and I'd agree with you on almost every point, but times change, and so do opinions.

We're stuck with what we're in, and unlike most anti-war folks (who I now consider myself to be a part of), I do support the idea that we need to finish the job... And of course, continue to do what we need to do to get things done... However, I do concede to them that we need to do a bit better to talk our allies into it.

Its a one hand in, one leg out deal, and I doubt we're going to see any kind of rational, balanced solution any time soon. Unless of course someone uses the "ultimate reset button," and sparks some big war. Then things may change a bit. Maybe not.

I liked Bush at the start, he had some great ideas and policies to begin, but stuff went wrong. It happens a lot, and I doubt things would have been much different with Gore or Kerry in office. Oh well. We'll try better next time...

 

[CraftyLandShark]

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 argue that we didn't prevent slaughter in the long term, we enabled it. Russia eventually pulled out of Afganistan the same way we left Vietnam - after long and bloody attrition that would have likely occurred regardless of our involvement. It's easy to argue on a practical level that the Taliban didn't directly hate us until we withdrew our support - but the fact that our help dried up is no justification for their current attitude - we had no direct moral obligation to offer them our help in the first place. Beyond all that, my stance regarding Afghanistan is based on moral/philosophical grounds, not practical or strategic grounds. Whether they were "friendly" to us in the beginning or not is debatable. What isn't debatable is that it should have been very clear, even at the time, that their ideals and social aims ran contrary to the spirit of American democracy. Was slaughter occurring? Yes. What makes that any different from Rwanda in the mid-nineties? Short-term political gain to be had.

By the same token, assuming your logic, one could just as easily argue that the Russians were equally justified in providing military aid to North Vietnam in opposition to the "unjust occupation of traditional lands" by the South Vietnamese - your position and that argument both hold the same ground in that they're based on short-term talking-points which conceal essential long-term moral and idealogical correctness.

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


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.

The first breach of treaty ocurred in 1991 and was resolved by the first Gulf War. It's "double-jeopardy" on a global scale to suggest that punishing Saddam for something that we'd already punished him for was the driving justification. Likewise, it was mentioned first because it occurred first, chronologically. If I'm reading correctly, the other 4/5th of the proclamation cites breach of treaty on grounds that they prevented inspectors from finding weapons that didn't exist.

 

[KSaiyu]

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

Generally, negatively. Speaking only about actions purpetrated in my lifetime it seems to have been led overwhelmingly by naivety. Of course it's easy to quickly jump on the Iraq bandwagon (and just as easy to dismiss those as anti-war hippies), but the situation and future looks to be an indictment rather than victory for American (and to an extent our) Foreign Policy

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

I'll keep it short; meddling and supporting/exacting double standards.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would argue that we didn't prevent slaughter in the long term, we enabled it. Russia eventually pulled out of Afganistan the same way we left Vietnam - after long and bloody attrition that would have likely occurred regardless of our involvement.

As, if memory serves (I was young you know), the Afghani resistance had no response for helicopters, I doubt Russia would have been as quick or willing to pull out. Giving them the ability to fight off helicopters allowed ground troops the ability to hold their ground when they had to run before.

I admit, it was our involvement in Afghanistan that resulted in the Taliban. But I am saying it was not our helping them, it was our sudden decision to quit helping them. If I recall that is a precedent this country, and the UN, has set way too many times of going in to stop/prevent violence and then leaving the remnants to new tyrants and fanatics. Now, in Iraq we are not just leaving, but are trying to clean up and everyone is equally pissed.

Leave once the goal is accomplished and fanatics fill in where a strong government was once left standing - we are evil. Stay and prevent the fanatics from controlling while a proper government with equal rights gets into place - we are evil.

We can't win and no matter what we do everyone, including Americans, thinks that America is evil. It is a wonder we don't go 100% isolationist and do what everyone wants by not getting involved in any way whatsoever. Of course, they would probably call us evil.

The first breach of treaty ocurred in 1991 and was resolved by the first Gulf War. It's "double-jeopardy" on a global scale to suggest that punishing Saddam for something that we'd already punished him for was the driving justification. Likewise, it was mentioned first because it occurred first, chronologically.

Huh what? It starts by setting up the historical point of what the treaty is. The treaty was from 1991 as a cease fire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War.

If I'm reading correctly, the other 4/5th of the proclamation cites breach of treaty on grounds that they prevented inspectors from finding weapons that didn't exist.

No, the other 4/5ths are explaining that Iraq violated teh treaty explained in the first part by kicking inspectors out for trying to check the treaty and having some evidence that there possibly were treaty violations.

In other words, Iraq violated the treaty by attempting to hide treaty violations.

And as for didn't exist:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
This would be the third or fourth time I have posted this on GTP.


And of course later the resolution does go on to show how their domestic issues have been in violations of UN resolutions and how they attempted to assassinate a United States public official, which if I recall is considered an act of war.

But hey, trying to assassinate presidents really should just get a harsh warning, right? Maybe some economic sanctions? Starve the already starving poor. That'll teach them.