The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capatilism)

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • #51
23
0
Burnsys said:
If you call this war in irak "Liberating irak"
We should say that us support and Rumsfeld military aid to saddam in the 80 was "enslaving irak" ?
Call it what you like. Just make sure you're looking at the bigger picture. I can also say I'm enslaved to my boss, my familiy and my ambitions. I'm no buddhist, and Saddam's Iraq did not sell its soul to get some aid.
 
  • #52
23
0
Informal Logic said:
I agree that 9/11 has to be considered as an affect on US foreign policy. However, I disagree that the hatred is due to any vague notion of "dominance," or envy, or any other such claims.
I did not mean it in that sense. I meant the US is the major force powering modernisation in the Muslim world. It also has a very high profile - American civilians and officials are active in all corners of the globe. Every day there are massive numbers of individuals entering and exiting the US for a multitude of reasons. The protection given to US interests thus far was found inadequate.
Informal Logic said:
Also, I disagree that the US needs to take the fight "outside." A little better monitoring of who and what is allowed into the US would be a preferred route, and if the US would stop it's self serving interference in the world, it could win the hearts in minds of the world far better than trying to mold everyone into it's own image.
The fight always has to be taken outside if one wishes to avoid their own homes to be part of it. But let's end the cliches - it is a rule of thumb that passive measures such as stricter border checks and intelligence gathering do not guarantee success. One must attack the source, and the source in this case was found to be dependent on the support of several sovereign countries.
You cannot win the hearts and minds of these people. You are not fighting a democracy, where there is freedom of press and pluralism. You are not targetted because you sold weapons to these countries. There are several factors at work here and they each have their own reasons for attacking the US. Some of them hate you because you teach their women that they can be independent, that they can work and that they should not tolerate physical abuse. Some hate you because their children lose interest in their heritage and its morals, turning to alcohol and provocative movies. Others hate the US simply because they have been told to hate it. They are told all their suffering and misery is due to the US and they do not know any better. You cannot win the hearts and minds of oppressed people. However, the ones that the US is particularly targeting (and rightly so), hate the US because it weakens their power. As religion loses its hold to capitalism and other liberal concepts, religious leaders lose their hold on the masses. They are fighting your entire set of values. They wish to remain in the old world where they are the absolute power, while your very existence threatens that, since your prosperity and wealth draws the masses away from their religion and heritage.
The US cannot limit its own businesses from entering other nations. If an Arab entrepeneur wishes to start a fast food franchise or provide American TV programming, what right does the US government have to disallow that? These are the "self serving interests" they are so mad about, and to deny them is to lose your morals. If you deny them the opportunity to learn about western values you are aiding their tyrants. If you allow them that opportunity, you raise the wrath of those tyrants. Now these tyrants are using those very masses you meant to free to fight you.
Informal Logic said:
True. These countries are definitely using this as a new form of protection. It is unfortunate, but perhaps someone could suggest an alternative way for them to remain sovereign countries?
Their sovereignty is not challenged. It is the sovereignty of their leadership that is jeopardised by its abuse of human rights and aggressiveness to its country's neighbors.
Informal Logic said:
Or we could reword this as, Iraq was perceived as an easier target than capturing Osama Bin Laden?
No, Osama Bin-Laden was hunted simultaneously. The US isn't fighting a particular organisation, it's fighting a paradigm.
Informal Logic said:
Kadafi lost family in earlier bombings, so was already trying to keep a low profile. Iran is more powerful, but also very smart. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., well, they too will do their best to ride it out.
So do we agree the Iraqi situation has far-ranging global consequences and that Iraq was targeted partly as an example?
 
  • #53
23
0
Burnsys said:
Not only tents.. also rockets, weapons, tanks, and airplains.

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136770,00.html
"Our Integrated Defense Systems business again delivered strong revenue growth and outstanding profitability, and made significant progress on key programs," said CEO Harry Stonecipher

Lockheed profits take off
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 14:20 GMT 15:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2361539.stm
"US defence giant Lockheed Martin has turned in sharply higher profits, crediting strong sales of fighter jet equipment. "

Profits up at Northrop Grumman
January 28, 2003
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimor...27/daily10.html
"Together with the former TRW defense businesses, which completed one of their most impressive years ever, we are well positioned to benefit from increasing defense budgets and homeland security initiatives," Kresa said
------------------------------

Anyway if the vicepresident "Cheney" is corrupt and is using the war for make profits for his corporation what could you expect from the rest of the goverment..... And more when he isn't even put in trial for that....
That is a legal matter and I am not familiar with US laws. Corruption, however, is everywhere and I do not think any other nation has done any better in that sense, with the exception of some European countries. I still maintain the administrative and military mechanisms involved in the process of initiating a war would not allow for such interests to prevail. You can argue that about politicians, but someone who has served in the armed forces would certainly have a sense of duty and responsibility to his compatriots and especially those under his responsibility. I cannot see someone who fought in several conflicts send others to an unnecessary war for his own personal gain. Maybe I'm naive in that sense, but I think I have a little more personal experience with that type of life.

Burnsys said:
Now i posted about the Cia coup in iran in 1953 and all point that the coup was orchestated becouse the nationalist goverment was trying to nationalize the british owned oil company wich was reporting profits to england of 170 million in 1950 alone..
IMHO that was not a matter of a company trying to gain a financially lucrative contract, but one of a national interest in the form of a critical resource. The impact of an oil shortage would be felt by everyone, not just the oil tycoons. These governments are trying to preserve the quality of life for their citizens. It is very similar to the Suez Canal conflict in 1956.
Burnsys said:
Plus placing iran as the number one arms customer, accounting for $18.1 billion in weapons buyed directrly to Us corporations like Northrop and Texon between other.
Still, you haven't shown any proof that was the reason for the US and British intervention.

Burnsys said:
British foreign office told: 'Such a dictator' (shah) 'would carry out the necessary administrative and economic reforms and settle the oil question on reasonable terms'. (39)

If you have any proof that the coup where executed for other means.. then explain please...
As I mentioned before, in the case of oil, not unlike that of maritime shipping lines, there is a national interest. Once a particular event adversely affects all citizens in that country I think it's legitimate for the government to intervene to preserve the interest of its citizens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
fourier jr said:
why shouldn't americans apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others?
Good question - that's why I want to make the compairison and why I asked for the list. How do, say, North Korea (USSR/China) and South Korea (USA), resulting from the influence of the US and USSR compare? How about East and West Germany? Afghanistan (1980) and Afghanistan (2005)?

You'll be hard-pressed to find an example of Soviet incursion that worked out well for the country that was influenced. The US, on the other hand, created peaceful, stable, prosperous democracies. Everywhere? No - but an awful lot of them.
 
  • #55
58
0
but an awful lot of them.
Please give me a list of "peaceful, stable, properous democracies" the U.S. has created and don't include Iraq or Afghanistan please, that would be overkill.
 
  • #56
502
1
klusener said:
Please give me a list of "peaceful, stable, properous democracies" the U.S. has created and don't include Iraq or Afghanistan please, that would be overkill.
Iraq may not be a peaceful country though note it's because of terrorists, not the USA.

As for Afghanistan, why not? Afraid of the truth?
 
  • #57
58
0
No it's because, first of all it is not stable; secondly, it is not peaceful; finally, it is not properous and it's the largest opium producer in the world.
 
  • #58
23
0
russ_watters said:
The US, on the other hand, created peaceful, stable, prosperous democracies. Everywhere? No - but an awful lot of them.
It didn't just create some, it supported many more. Of course, the critics will claim by supporting these countries it made them dependent on its support.
 
  • #59
58
0
Give me a list.
 
  • #60
Art
russ_watters said:
If only such a world existed where your choices were between "good" and "better". Well unfortunately, that world doesn't exist, Art and your choices sometimes are between "bad" and "disastrous". The US made a lot of decisions that looked at individually can be considered questionable - even bad.
I see you are determined to have your 'we may be bad but they're worse' discussion regardless.
russ_watters said:
But keep your eye on the ball - you yourself claimed in the second part that the world would be a better place without us..
Not quite what I claimed Russ (not even as a Freudian slip) :smile: What I said was " the world etc..... without your interventions". I have no objection to your sharing the planet, I simply prefer if you would keep your military at home.
russ_watters said:
But the truth of the matter is that had we not made those decisions, we'd be watching the world be overrun by Soviet-style communism and the disaster that goes with it.
That is a purely subjective matter of opinion which many people in many of the countries who have been 'helped' by America would disagree with.
russ_watters said:
That is what dominated our foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Instead of military dictatorships and puppets of the USSR, we have a world where essentially all of Europe is free, prosperous democracies. Where our enemies from WWII are prosperous, contributing members of the world community.
Your sheer arrogance is breath-taking. Please do not tell me how you gave us democracy here in europe, you copied your system of democracy from us Have you ever considered that europe would be an even stronger more advanced group of nations if we hadn't suffered your input after WW2? If you check your history books you will find we had a thriving civilization in this part of the world millennia before your nation even existed.
The reason America rose to such prominence after WW2 were two fold, first your towns, cities and manufacturing base were still 100% intact and secondly because you charged your european allies for your help. It was two years before America joined the war and so while we in europe were expending men and materials America was racking up profits. Britain has so far still only managed to make a tiny dent in the massive debt plus interest charges they accumulated for the war time provisions you sold them.
russ_watters said:
A world where no two world powers have been at war in 65 years - for the first time in the history of the world.
That is because most of America's wars have been fought through proxies. So as not to risk destruction of the homeland.
russ_watters said:
A world with a UN where countries go to talk about problems instead of fighting about them That is the legacy of US 20th century foreign policy, Art - not some out of context list of individual actions.
I presume the irony of this reference to the UN is intended??
russ_watters said:
Yes, I grant you we've made a lot of bad decisions - but there isn't a country more responsible for the good things that have happened in this world in the 20th century.
Can you provide some examples of the good things and I don't mean just good for America.
russ_watters said:
So I absolutely disagree with your thesis: no, the world would not be a better place had US foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century been vastly different.
Maybe not for you Russ but for the rest of us I think it would. So as we are so ungrateful why not stop 'helping' us and just leave the rest of the world alone and leave us to our unimaginable fates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
Art
By the way Russ don't you owe the reporters at Newsweek an apology?
 
  • #62
Informal Logic
Because this is off topic, and more importantly because objectivity is clearly lacking, I will make only a few, brief replies:
Yonoz said:
The fight always has to be taken outside if one wishes to avoid their own homes to be part of it.
It has been debated fully that terrorism cannot be fought in a traditional, conventional way. The news today is about terrorists in Iran--no kidding! Like there are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt...ah, how about the US? Sure, take the fight "outside" to the entire world. Oh, but let's start with the enemies of Israel, right?
Yonoz said:
You cannot win the hearts and minds of these people.
As long as the US continues to be one sided in support of Israel, and holds a negative view of differing cultures/religions, and continues to interfere with countries by supporting leaders such as the Shah of Iran, Saddam, etc., you are correct that the US will not win the hearts and minds of these people.
Yonoz said:
There are several factors at work here and they each have their own reasons for attacking the US [etc., etc., etc.]...
Wow, this sounds like the same complaints of the religious right, and the lies from our government here in the US. Talk about state sponsored news agencies, like FOX News, and pressure on Newsweek to help improve the US image.
Yonoz said:
Their sovereignty is not challenged. It is the sovereignty of their leadership that is jeopardised by its abuse of human rights and aggressiveness to its country's neighbors.
Are you saying a country's leadership is not the basis of sovereignty? If these countries are allowed an iota of sovereignty, they choose to be Islamic theocracies like Iran, or dictatorships like Syria, monarchys like Saudi Arabia, none of which tend to be pro American. This really is the issue. As for human rights, are you saying the US has never supported leaders that abuse human rights? Once again, this has been debated fully, and such a claim is absurd.
Yonoz said:
No, Osama Bin-Laden was hunted simultaneously.
Did I say he was not? Though there were many reasons for invading Iraq (aside from the reasons claimed by Bush), including what has already been posted, the invasion WAS used to distract Americans from the capture of Osama that would not come quickly if ever.

There is a desire by the rest of the world for balance of power that does not exist at this time. This is the paradigm that is being fought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
502
1
klusener said:
No it's because, first of all it is not stable; secondly, it is not peaceful; finally, it is not properous and it's the largest opium producer in the world.
Dude it's just been friggin' three years. Those guys have had their FIRST elections EVER. The United States doesn't have magic in its hands. Give it a bit of time.
And it is currently a stable democracy. People are not planning to coup the President and install a religious fanatic.
 
  • #64
158
0
sid_galt said:
Dude it's just been friggin' three years. Those guys have had their FIRST elections EVER. The United States doesn't have magic in its hands. Give it a bit of time.
And it is currently a stable democracy. People are not planning to coup the President and install a religious fanatic.
Okay give eggsamples of "stable, prosperous, and what not democracies" which have been set up by the US and is going on for some time?
 
  • #65
502
1
chound said:
Okay give eggsamples of "stable, prosperous, and what not democracies" which have been set up by the US and is going on for some time?
Japan, South Korea, Germany(with help of UK and other allies).

Besides to the best of my knowledge, it was the first country to have a individual rights listed in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
Art said:
By the way Russ don't you owe the reporters at Newsweek an apology?
No, I don't.
 
  • #67
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
sid_galt said:
South Korea
South Korea is the quinticential example of the difference between the effects of US foreign policy and the effects of Soviet (and Chinese, in this case) foreign policy. THIS photo puts it in high contrast - literally. North Korea is easily identifiable as the dark spot above South Korea.
 
  • #68
Art
russ_watters said:
South Korea is the quinticential example of the difference between the effects of US foreign policy and the effects of Soviet (and Chinese, in this case) foreign policy. THIS photo puts it in high contrast - literally. North Korea is easily identifiable as the dark spot above South Korea.
You're still using that 'we may be bad but they are worse' defense of American policy. Can you formulate a rational argument to demonstrate how America's foreign policy standing on it's own, today (long after the demise of the USSR) is justified.
 
  • #69
Evo
Mentor
23,165
2,872
alexandra said:
Pengwuino, I am not accusing you of attacking me; I was actually asking that you not do personal attacks in general. But you should back up your arguments. What was the UN Resolution regarding Iraq? Didn't the US administration decide to go to war despite there being no supporting UN resolution? Where can I read what you mean by the UN resolution regarding the attack on Iraq?
Pengwuino didn't make a personal attack on anyone, he was referring to a list, not the same thing. Be careful of falsely accusing people.
 
  • #70
alexandra
Evo said:
Pengwuino didn't make a personal attack on anyone, he was referring to a list, not the same thing. Be careful of falsely accusing people.
Evo, this is what Pengwuino wrote:
Pengwuino said:
Wow, not sure how many times ive seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around.
Pengwuino was responding to Art, and my interpretation of the above was that Pengwuino was implying that Art (the author of the list) is not 'remotely familiar with history' and also that Art is 'ignorant' and capable of being 'fooled' (since he is the one who posted the list). I interpreted that as a personal attack on Art in the implications it was making and it would have been preferable if Pengwuino had actually addressed the items on the list and provided an argument to dispel what Art was writing (this is what I've been urging Pengwuino to do - provide evidence for his arguments).

It goes against my principles to falsely accuse anyone of anything as I have a very strong sense of fairness and social justice.
 
  • #71
Art
alexandra said:
Evo, this is what Pengwuino wrote: Pengwuino was responding to Art, and my interpretation of the above was that Pengwuino was implying that Art (the author of the list) is not 'remotely familiar with history' and also that Art is 'ignorant' and capable of being 'fooled' (since he is the one who posted the list). I interpreted that as a personal attack on Art in the implications it was making and it would have been preferable if Pengwuino had actually addressed the items on the list and provided an argument to dispel what Art was writing (this is what I've been urging Pengwuino to do - provide evidence for his arguments).

It goes against my principles to falsely accuse anyone of anything as I have a very strong sense of fairness and social justice.
Talking of fairness I've just received a warning from Evo for my reply to Penguino. I have responded to Evo pointing out neither of the two dictionary definitions of the word Ignorant a) lacking knowledge b) uninformed about a fact or subject, to my mind constitute a personal attack simply an opinion. Thus I took no offence from Penqwuino's post and presume he took none from mine
 
  • #72
Evo
Mentor
23,165
2,872
Mudslinging isn't allowed and people will appropriately be warned. A warning is to let you know that you need to stop a certain behavior.
 
  • #73
Art
I've now been exculpated :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
57
0
Yonoz said:
That is a legal matter and I am not familiar with US laws. Corruption, however, is everywhere and I do not think any other nation has done any better in that sense, with the exception of some European countries. I still maintain the administrative and military mechanisms involved in the process of initiating a war would not allow for such interests to prevail. You can argue that about politicians, but someone who has served in the armed forces would certainly have a sense of duty and responsibility to his compatriots and especially those under his responsibility. I cannot see someone who fought in several conflicts send others to an unnecessary war for his own personal gain. Maybe I'm naive in that sense, but I think I have a little more personal experience with that type of life.
I don't doubt that most of the military personel think they are doing good thinks and they are fighting for fredom and bla bla bla. but are politicians the ones who start wars, and all the military personel has to do what politician tell them, right or wrong. they have to obey...

IMHO that was not a matter of a company trying to gain a financially lucrative contract, but one of a national interest in the form of a critical resource. The impact of an oil shortage would be felt by everyone, not just the oil tycoons. These governments are trying to preserve the quality of life for their citizens. It is very similar to the Suez Canal conflict in 1956.
And who gives the rigth to US and england to overtrown goverments becouse they want to nationalize a british oil company??? and what about irani people gettin access to their OWN Oil..... if america needs oil then they must find someone to bought it from... but if they don't like the price, they just can't invade the country or overtrown the goverment.. off course. .killing people in the middle and training the puppet goverment military to suppress future disidents...
America need for oil is constantly increasing and oil reserves are constantly decreasing... should we expect more and more wars becouse US is "trying to preserve the quality of life for their citizens."???

For example in argentina we recently had an "Energetic Crisis", oil pricess rised becouse there wasn't enought oil... but oil companys keep exporting the same amount of oil that we consume... shall we pay the price for US oil shortage????. or maybe our goverment shall drop some bombs in america becouse it is trying to preserve the quality of life for their citizens.....


Still, you haven't shown any proof that was the reason for the US and British intervention. (Military contracts from iran puppet goverment to Us defence corporations)
No. maybe not the main reason but consecuence are there..

As I mentioned before, in the case of oil, not unlike that of maritime shipping lines, there is a national interest. Once a particular event adversely affects all citizens in that country I think it's legitimate for the government to intervene to preserve the interest of its citizens.
So suppose tomorrow eeuu decides no to sell oil to argentina.. is ok to my goverment to evertrown USA goverment and start a war with USA???
 
  • #75
Art
Burnsys post goes to the heart of the matter. How far is any country morally justified to go in pursuit of it's own interests?

Remember too America is not a country devoid of oil resources itself. It has large proven reserves in it's own territories which for strategic reasons it prefers to leave in the ground whilst demanding cheap oil from the middle east. 55% of the USA's oil is imported.

Of the 90 countries with proven oil reserves America lies 16th with 22.45 billion barrels. (source CIA world fact book 2002)

America's consumption of oil is the highest in the world at 20 million barrels a day, Japan who are second consume just 5.4 million
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capatilism)

Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
49
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Top