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

[Art]

By the way Russ don't you owe the reporters at Newsweek an apology?

 

[Informal Logic]

Because this is off topic, and more importantly because objectivity is clearly lacking, I will make only a few, brief replies:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[sid_galt]

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.

 

[chound]

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?

 

[sid_galt]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way Russ don't you owe the reporters at Newsweek an apology?

No, I don't.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Art]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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:

Wow, not sure how many times I've 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.

 

[Art]

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

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Art]

I've now been exculpated

 

[Burnsys]

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 government 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 government 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 government 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 government to evertrown USA government and start a war with USA?

 

[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