The United States
aeroripper
Join Date: 2005-02-25 Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-02-25 Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A force for good in the world, or for the bad?</div>I figured this would make for an interesting discussion. How do you see the United States and its place in the world? Is it a force for the greater good, or for the greater evil (or somewhere in between?).
Comments
Thus said: Provide your POV.
Like every other nation of the world that has a slight modicum of preservation the United States is a self-serving, money-driven juggernaut. This tends to lead to a poor world-image, since whenever you do something it inevitably has a noticeable effect on the world market - and unfortunately the major politicians decide much of national policy, so they tend to also go for endeavors that will make them / their main supporters rich (...like in nearly every country).
I'd say in the world view the US tends to be bad, because it has more weight to throw around militarily and economically than it really should (not should have but should throw around). But I also feel that's an unfair assessment, because nations like to get pissed and gang up on the big/strong/militaristic/etc. guy (see Britain's giant empire, see France's giant empire...not necessarilly ganging up with military action, however). That said, when the actual citizens press for it (which is exceptionally rare), the US does actually do a lot of beneficial stuff with limited expectations of a return (disaster relief, occasional peace-keeping in places that don't have oil, giving the world a world leader to laugh at, etc.).
I suppose the short answer: the country is no worse than the current administration and policies governing it, which are often self-serving to the incumbents and therefore often ...not good.
The US war on terror will depend more on world opinion than on tanks and bombers. Maybe Muslim extremists who want to hurt the western world will be with us a couple of generations still. It's quite possible we just have to learn ways to live with it and do damage control instead of bombing/invading more countries like Iran. The Iraq war must have been a wet dream for Usama, getting rid of a secular government in Iraq and becoming the most efficient recruiting campaign for new terrorists ever.
I wonder how the next US President & cabinet will do on foreign policy. The western world dissatisfaction seems to me to be directed on Bush & co, not as much on the US in general. Muslim anger is probably directed more at Western/US culture in general, which might take "forever" to change.
Yes, I am using the general sense of 'good' as defined by western values. I'm defining evil as things generally considered 'bad. I dislike having to use the term "good and evil" because of its religious connotations, although I kind find another pair of words that people would pick up on easier.
So, from my POV, this would be the 'good' and the 'bad'.
<u>Good</u>
- Concentration on promoting human rights, as embodied in our constitution.
- The spread of self determination and democracy, or at the least, the idea that people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their life.
- Providing large scale economic means for a peaceful way for the world to grow more wealthy, with ideally the standard of living raised for everyone.
- Giving economic aid\military aid for countries that are trying to promote democracy under tyranny, although this is an arguable good.
- Support of a foreign policy and international institutions that promote peace rather than war.
- The condemnation of genocide and the excesses of war.
<u>Bad </u>
- A militaristic foreign policy that promotes global reach of US military power and culture. A new kind of imperialism.
- The abuse of seemingly benign international institutions with the goal of spreading U.S. dominance. Namely, giving out giant loans to 3rd world countries to build infrastructure that benefits the wealthy, then taking control of their economy\resources when said debt is unable to be paid.
- Promoting ethnic strife\upheaval in sovereign nations around the world with the purpose of undermining a democratically elected government. Installing dictatorships that benefit U.S. interests but brutally punish the people.
- Giving monetary and military support to nations that oppress their people's desires for sovereignty, for the promotion of short-midterm U.S. goals in the region.
Our country, as with other influential nations before it, is one of double standards. At times we promote peace and human rights, and others we promote war and destruction. I see our presence as a global power as promoting peace and common values among western nations, and sowing hatred and discontent with 3rd world countries. Arguably, we have become so absorbed with protecting our own security, that it becomes a detriment to any people who might stand in the way of our desires.
FWIW, I believe we have lost our moral high ground, and the authority to speak on the atrocities and genocides going on around the world when we have either directly or indirectly helped those flourish throughout our modern history. The issue of Iraq is a continuance of a power play in the region, rather than the surface ideal of spreading democracy. Not sure if we want the discussion to center around just Iraq though. Our behavior around the world is unbecoming of a constitutional republic, and the values we 'represent' as a people.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The US war on terror will depend more on world opinion than on tanks and bombers. Maybe Muslim extremists who want to hurt the western world will be with us a couple of generations still. It's quite possible we just have to learn ways to live with it and do damage control instead of bombing/invading more countries like Iran. The Iraq war must have been a wet dream for Usama, getting rid of a secular government in Iraq and becoming the most efficient recruiting campaign for new terrorists ever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We helped give rise to Al-Qaeda nearing the end of the Cold War, now its coming to bite us in the ass. Although, the issue of jihadism isn't entirely our fault either. Invading Iran would be a huge mistake, although I wouldn't be surprised if the government sent in covert attempts to overthrow their government. Although at least this time they can say its a oppressive theocracy (and therefore not fully democratic as we define it) unlike it was in 1954 when we did it the first time to install a brutal dictator.
The US of the past is one built on war. War against the English, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the English again and meanwhile killing and driving off the native inhabitants of their continent. A US that projects its power throughout north, central and south america not only to keep European interests out (the monroe doctrine) but also to keep any form of development on these two continents not directly favourable to the US in check. The United States of America have never not been at war.
All empires fall sooner or later, I just hope for the sake of all of us the fall of the US is a cushioned one so that hopefully the new nuclear weapons currently developed and deployed will never be used. I fear a new Dark Age.
Well, it has a lot a freedoms, but some things like how sex < violence is stupid.
Seems like the lack of a central governing head in most systems results in more problems than it erases...
I can't really say I'd be comfortable with Canada being annexed by the US to be honest, but I'm really not sure I'm in love with the current system of things, where someone starts genociding some obscure people group for no apparent reason off somewhere, and everyone just shrugs their shoulders going "oh well, none of my business!"
Here in Australia voting is compulsory. It increases the chances of "donkey votes", people that just number the boxes consecutively, but that's generally mitigated by random positioning of the candidates on the voting slip. Personally, I just vote for whoever my girlfriend tells me to vote for. She's the politically-minded one.
The separation of church and state and business and state are two incredibly important things. Both seem to have fallen by the wayside in modern times, in America at least.
--Scythe--
Seems like the lack of a central governing head in most systems results in more problems than it erases...
I can't really say I'd be comfortable with Canada being annexed by the US to be honest, but I'm really not sure I'm in love with the current system of things, where someone starts genociding some obscure people group for no apparent reason off somewhere, and everyone just shrugs their shoulders going "oh well, none of my business!"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It depends on who's benefiting who. If you want to just live your life and not have a country that thinks they know what's best for you, then its a bad thing. If a country is under the threat of imminent invasion from another power, the establishment of U.S. military bases for defense could be a good thing for the short term.
Canada would not need to be annexed in the traditional sense. With stuff like NAFTA going on, the U.S, Canada, and Mexico are becoming less sovereign, and more of a continental union. As for the example of the genocide going on in Darfur, there is no benefit for the U.S. to intervene other than a humanitarian one (which could help repair our imagine on the world stage, or just make more enemies). Although even with that, we stick our hand in another cookie jar and get entangled with peacekeeping. This is where the international community should really be picking up the slack but are too busy bickering amongst each other to make any major efforts to stop it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The whole idea of companies effectively sponsoring political candidates with "campaign donations" sickens me to no end. It's essentially big business paying for favourable legislation. The will of the people, those that the politicians are supposed to be representing, comes second place to whoever can pony up the most cash to sponsor yet another ticker-tape parade. I find it equally pathetic and sickening that whichever candidate can sell themselves the best is generally the one that gets elected. Someone with good hair, a charming smile and an expensive advertising campaign is far more likely to get elected as they're the one that can encourage people to actually get up out of their seats and vote than the other candidate who might just merely have some good policies. That said, I'm actually in favour of what Arnie's doing for California.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I find it out that democracy in this country no longer seems to be about who has the best arguments or ideas, but who can shovel in the most cash (although I'm sure there's evidence out there that proves this was always true in one fashion or another). Not only that, but big business collusion with the military apparatus and decision making can lead to dangerous consequences for our democracy and our foreign policy. Namely, look at how many big business good 'ol boys who just jumped from places like Enron and Halliburton into this administration to help mold our foreign policy.
Although the argument could be made that this was inevitable for our country, along with our eventual downfall and the rise of another world power in our place.
Well, like every other answer in here I'll keep this relatively short:
Like every other nation of the world that has a slight modicum of preservation the United States is a self-serving, money-driven juggernaut. This tends to lead to a poor world-image, since whenever you do something it inevitably has a noticeable effect on the world market - and unfortunately the major politicians decide much of national policy, so they tend to also go for endeavors that will make them / their main supporters rich (...like in nearly every country).
I'd say in the world view the US tends to be bad, because it has more weight to throw around militarily and economically than it really should (not should have but should throw around). But I also feel that's an unfair assessment, because nations like to get pissed and gang up on the big/strong/militaristic/etc. guy (see Britain's giant empire, see France's giant empire...not necessarily ganging up with military action, however). That said, when the actual citizens press for it (which is exceptionally rare), the US does actually do a lot of beneficial stuff with limited expectations of a return (disaster relief, occasional peace-keeping in places that don't have oil, giving the world a world leader to laugh at, etc.).
I suppose the short answer: the country is no worse than the current administration and policies governing it, which are often self-serving to the incumbents and therefore often ...not good.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think many people in the States realise that this worldwide negative view of the United States is a very recent thing. Its post 9/11. Before that? sure people had their gripes about this and that, but it was rare. Clinton came to my country and people were thronging to see him. Now, its a very very different story.
After 9/11 came the blatantly transparent propaganda, which was overdone to the point of frustration. Thats when people around the world started opening their eyes and they saw the real story. I won't go into details, but as a foreigner who's had 25 years of terrorism on my doorstep it was agonising to see such utter mistakes, errors and lies being doled out on an almost daily basis.
As I traveled around Europe, its almost hard to put into words how, just about everyone, unanimously loathes the Bush administration. Its almost over now, but its been like witnessing the school bully stomp around the yard stealing everyone's sweets, beating kids up, lying, stealing, then standing up in front of everyone and patronising them about morals and values.
I think people in the US will see a huge change in the world opinion of them once the Bush administration is gone and so long as he isn't replaced by some religious extremist who believes the Sun goes around the Earth then there is hope for the future.
September 2001 didn't change much except for prompting Europe to help out.
[Edit] I think it's important to say however that the federation USA and it's leadership and their policies, and the people of the US are two different points. I have nothing against Americans in general (just as I have nothing against Iraqis or Swedes or Vietnamese) unless they support the policies and actions of the USA I find detestable.
That doesn't mean we don't occasionally screw things up, but as always, when something bad happens, people don't look to the UK, France, Russia, China, India, or Germany to get things right. They look at the US.
The amount of international public goods that the US has dumped out on the world is incredible. We're basically acting as the new British empire. Except we're in power by proxy through numerous NGOs that the US funds, created, and supports.
The USA doesn't seek fights, but it won't hesitate to retaliate and then some. If you look at the history of the United States in the 20th century, we've been dragged into every major conflict and only when somebody asked us to.
The United States is the most magnanimous international power in the history of mankind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hah hah. hardly. how about a pax americana? not possible, because you need a good healthy <i>war</i> every once in a while, granted its usually fought by proxy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That doesn't mean we don't occasionally screw things up, but as always, when something bad happens, people don't look to the UK, France, Russia, China, India, or Germany to get things right. They look at the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, when something gets screwed up people look at the one who is to blame. youre right about people looking at the u.s. more often than not in those cases, but in the light of the preceding sentence what does that really say about your nation?
thats right, you just cant seem to be able to stop ###### this world up with your ######-ups
All of our military interventions have taken place in, surprise, unstable failed states that would have gone to hell even if we hadn't gone in.
The USA is simply the most visible, engendering envy from the European right and outrage from the European left.
The United States is the most magnanimous international power in the history of mankind.
That doesn't mean we don't occasionally screw things up, but as always, when something bad happens, people don't look to the UK, France, Russia, China, India, or Germany to get things right. They look at the US.
The amount of international public goods that the US has dumped out on the world is incredible. We're basically acting as the new British empire. Except we're in power by proxy through numerous NGOs that the US funds, created, and supports.
The USA doesn't seek fights, but it won't hesitate to retaliate and then some. If you look at the history of the United States in the 20th century, we've been dragged into every major conflict and only when somebody asked us to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is so much wrong with this statement I don't know where to start.
I'll start by looking into a brief negative (but true) history of the United States in the 20th Century..
36 year war on drugs
Invading two countries, airstrikes on a third country, rendition, torture, murders, secret prison in response to a terrorist attack by men of a fourth country which is on friendly terms with the United States
More bombs dropped on Laos and Cambodia than used in the entirety of World War 2
Coups arranged or backed by the USA (since 1949) in..
Syria, Greece, Cuba, Iran, British Guyana, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Haiti, Laos, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Bolivia, Zaire, Ghana, El Salvador, Chile, Liberia, Chad, Fiji, Venezuela (2002) and Haiti 3 years ago
Stated reasons like communism, terrorism, human rights, freedom, liberation, weapons of mass destruction, etc. However the real reasons? business interests, access to resources, markets, military bases, strategic value, political support. Its called 'foreign policy', every country does the same to some extent.
Selling more weapons to dictators than any other nation in the world. For the past five years, the U.S. had sold an average of $10 billion in weapons to developing nations; 84% of those weapons went to non-democratic nations.
Constantly and consistently vetoing the United Nations, here are some examples..
The first number is the number of countries FOR the proposed resolution..
The second number is the number of countries AGAINST the proposed resolution..
and yes, that 1 each time, that is the United States..
Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
For 134, Against 1 (United States)
Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
For: 120, Against 1 (United States)
Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
123-1
Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
126-1
Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
109-1
Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 135-1
For the ratification of the convention on the suppression and punishment of apartheid.
124-1
To promote international action against apartheid.
141-1
Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
111-1
Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space.
138-1
Development of international law.
113-1
Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
146-1
Implementation of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
141-1
Concerning the adequacy of facilities of the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. 132-1
Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
146-1
<b>Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
131-1</b>
There are at least 60 more, it just makes depressing reading.
I could write pages and pages of this stuff, but you know what, you don't need to hear it all. I could write pages and pages of 'bad stuff' about China or Russia, but the issue here is the United States.
This is not an attack, it is simply a counter to the view that the United States "is the most magnanimous international power in the history of mankind."
I don't think many people in the States realise that this worldwide negative view of the United States is a very recent thing. Its post 9/11. Before that? sure people had their gripes about this and that, but it was rare. Clinton came to my country and people were thronging to see him. Now, its a very very different story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A newspaper I hold cited last month an international survey with 45,000 participants from countries all over the world, asked now and in 2002 about their opinions about some of the larger countries of the world. People who were positive to the place the US had in the world dropped severely from 2002, in Germany dropping from 60% to 30%, together with a majority of world opinion. The US was not alone though, as approval of Russia and China took a drop, Russia especially in Europe. Not a surprise about Russia, with Putin maintaining a more authoritative rule and his use of withholding petroleum for political gain.
Not only has this administration been increasing the budgetary deficit and human lives, it has also cost us dearly in worldwide support.
Although the US has done a great number of misdeeds against humanity this last century, there is probably not much to be gained by lingering in the (lacking) guilt of past mistakes, as they're practically unknown/forgotten/ignored by most people, and laying a decent course for the future is the major concern now. We shouldn't expect to much though, as elections select for the same breed of people then as now.
<!--quoteo(post=1638210:date=Jul 10 2007, 09:05 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jul 10 2007, 09:05 PM) [snapback]1638210[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The United States is the most magnanimous international power in the history of mankind.
That doesn't mean we don't occasionally screw things up, but as always, when something bad happens, people don't look to the UK, France, Russia, China, India, or Germany to get things right. They look at the US.
The amount of international public goods that the US has dumped out on the world is incredible. We're basically acting as the new British empire. Except we're in power by proxy through numerous NGOs that the US funds, created, and supports.
The USA doesn't seek fights, but it won't hesitate to retaliate and then some. If you look at the history of the United States in the 20th century, we've been dragged into every major conflict and only when somebody asked us to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Historically, there are lot of great civilizations we can admire for their power, but are horrible in how they treat both citizens and foreigners.
Power in in itself doesn't demand our respect, respect good use of power.
Your litany of nations in which we supplied aid and materiel is also amusing, considering almost all of them are banana republics with nominally democratic governments and highly corrupt bureaucrats. The fact that you even include Greece in it is especially telling.
Your accusations of material support is also amusing. Considering that we controlled 90% of the world's oil reserves (we <b>owned</b> the fields in Saudi Arabia) right after WWII, we sure were in it for natural resources, alright. The military-industrial complex (after WWII) is <b>exclusively</b> domestic. Business interests lobby for contracts, grants, and lenient regulation. They don't lobby for war.
You did hit the nail on the head with military bases, though. Almost every country that has had American boots on the ground has a military base on it. Some nations, like France requested us to leave and we did. We have treaties with their governments, if South Korea or Japan or Germany wanted American troops out, then they could just say so. Oh wait.
Ultimately, for a state to improve, there must be internal change. To think that the UN is the holy of holies is retarded. The UN is just about worthless. The USA never meddles in the affairs of developed and stable nations. The UN can only send inept and corrupt peacekeepers and bureaucrats to failed states where all they do is "observe". Witness the Srebrenica massacre, for example.
Sorry, but the fact that you even listed all those resolutions simply means you've been indoctrinated into the ever popular school of <b>anti-Americanism</b>, where you refuse to acknowledge the great public goods the US has bestowed upon the world and focus on a highly biased and selective information in order to demonize this great nation.
This is precisely the case with the United States. There are so many bad generalizations about Americans. We've become the world media's whipping boy. Americans are fat, lazy, greedy, materialistic, puritanical religious zealots, hedonistic, and have been characterized with much more negative attributes. Our nation itself is decadent, impulsive, arrogant, overbearing, self-serving and forever advancing American interests at the expense of others.
It actually sounds a lot like those people who believe Jewish bankers secretly control the world. Except in our case, the US is so powerful and its power is actually real.
The truth is, the American people aren't remarkably different than anybody else. We want to be left alone, but that can't be the case for such a conspicuous superpower. But the characterizations, deserved or not, constantly plague the media. People simply don't like America, it may be our economic clout, military power, cultural ubiquity, or a combination of all three. Nobody likes people who meddle. And America by necessity, for better for worse (but usually for better), meddles a lot.
Plenty of relatively unbiased information exists about the United States. But foreign people are so fixated about their own image of Americans that they don't care to access such information. I can't believe the number of times that the words "cowboy" and "sheriff" appear in the European media, but it's there. So apparently our politicians are all rowdy cowboys and sheriffs. This is the impression I get when occasionally perusing European sources.
Ultimately, people don't appreciate the USA until they have a conspicuous and immediate need of our assistance. It was our CVBGs that first arrived on the scene to distribute clean water and supplies after the 2004 tsunami. People wanted us to intervene in Darfur and Rwanda but criticize us when we step in to repair the ######ups that the UN and Europe did in Kosovo. When things are going good, people expect things to stay that way. And when something bad happens, people need to fix blame on something. The large profile of the USA is the perfect for inept democracies (Latin America), apathetic developed nations (Western Europe), corrupt dictatorships (Zimbabwe, North Korea), and envious would-be great powers (China, India, Russia).
Edit:
lolfighter, if you do live in Germany, or lived in Germany, I can't believe that you would have the nerve to deride American foreign policy. It was our M48s that stared down Soviet T-55s in the 60s and 70s. We guaranteed West Germany's sovereignty, rebuilt your wartorn nation, prevented the Soviets from pushing further than Berlin, and airlifted the Western part of Berlin during the Soviet blockades. The USA has done so much for your nation, and yet I've seen stories in which rowdy Germans rioted and, at their apex, threw rocks and even molotov cocktails at the very bases that protected them from the Soviet Union.
Your litany of United Nations resolutions vetoed by the United States is amusing, especially considering that many nations in the UN are currently ruled by repressive dictators. You're forgetting who founded the UN and the plurality funder of said organization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There have many more United Nations resolutions solely vetoed by the United States. These go back to the 70's. Reagan introduced a policy of supporting Israel in the UN with no strings attached and that does account for many of the vetos. I would like to see a list of the nations in the UN that are currently ruled by repressive dictators. I have a strange feeling that sane democratic states greatly out-number them. Countries of the world voting on issues, its like some kind of global democracy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your litany of nations in which we supplied aid and materiel is also amusing, considering almost all of them are banana republics with nominally democratic governments and highly corrupt bureaucrats. The fact that you even include Greece in it is especially telling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not 'my' litany of nations. Its history. America has backed or arranged coups in these countries. Go read the released pdf documents from the CIA, its just fact. Greece, 1949, elected communist government was against US political and economic interests. How is that especially telling? If I said America had sold ice-cream in these countries I have a feeling you'd firmly deny it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Your accusations of material support is also amusing. Considering that we controlled 90% of the world's oil reserves (we <b>owned</b> the fields in Saudi Arabia) right after WWII, we sure were in it for natural resources, alright. The military-industrial complex (after WWII) is <b>exclusively</b> domestic. Business interests lobby for contracts, grants, and lenient regulation. They don't lobby for war.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take British Guyana for example in 1953, that was mainly about sugar and bauxite. Panama? the Panama canal, you should think beyond oil. Haliburton don't lobby for war they simply make astounding profits when it does happen. I'll give you a simple example, what happens in Saudi Arabia is incredibly important to the United States, the main reason? money/resources.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
You did hit the nail on the head with military bases, though. Almost every country that has had American boots on the ground has a military base on it. Some nations, like France requested us to leave and we did. We have treaties with their governments, if South Korea or Japan or Germany wanted American troops out, then they could just say so. Oh wait.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup quite right, Uzbekistan said no more, and the US is leaving, no argument there.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Ultimately, for a state to improve, there must be internal change. To think that the UN is the holy of holies is retarded. The UN is just about worthless. The USA never meddles in the affairs of developed and stable nations. The UN can only send inept and corrupt peacekeepers and bureaucrats to failed states where all they do is "observe". Witness the Srebrenica massacre, for example. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its very easy to fault the UN. I agree that it has been very ineffectual in alot of cases. However, joining the Fox News crowd and completely slamming it for being utterly useless is a pure case of self interest. The United States has had alot of problems with the UN simply because it wants one law for itself and another law for others. Landmines, protection of children, nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, war crimes and so on.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Sorry, but the fact that you even listed all those resolutions simply means you've been indoctrinated into the ever popular school of <b>anti-Americanism</b>, where you refuse to acknowledge the great public goods the US has bestowed upon the world and focus on a highly biased and selective information in order to demonize this great nation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I knew the second I pointed it out up would crop the term "anti-american". Its a strange phrase alright. I mean I don't like the Irish government at all, and I've sat in pubs and we've had political discussion lambasting the amount of corruption and negligence in the country, yet noone has ever called me "anti-Irish". Imagine if you said critical things about Italy and I called you "anti-Italian".
I said it wasn't an attack I was simply pointing out the negative side of the United States. My friend has married a Chinese girl, and I was talking to her about Tibet. She absolutely steadfastly believes that Tibet was some kind of rogue state that was trying to undermine China. I'm a foreigner, I am pretty impartial to these things and I tried to explain what really happened, she just laughed, said it was nonsense, there is no convincing her. So I just left it at that.
There have many more United Nations resolutions solely vetoed by the United States. These go back to the 70's. Reagan introduced a policy of supporting Israel in the UN with no strings attached and that does account for many of the vetos. I would like to see a list of the nations in the UN that are currently ruled by repressive dictators. I have a strange feeling that sane democratic states greatly out-number them. Countries of the world voting on issues, its like some kind of global democracy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have always had a historical tie with Israel. The effect of the concentration camps on the average GI and American leaders were deeply impacting, to say the least. It did much to reverse the anti-Semitism in the US.
Countries voting on issues in the General Assembly is not democracy. The people appointed by their nations are just that. Appointed. Not elected. And it doesn't matter whether 50 nations say yes and we say no. The vast majority of states in the world are "democracies". But nominally. The corruption in the bureaucracy of many "democracies" would far outstrip the scandals that we see about the US government.
Put it this way, Saddam held elections. He had 99% of the vote. Do you expect me to say Saddam was democratically elected?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its not 'my' litany of nations. Its history. America has backed or arranged coups in these countries. Go read the released pdf documents from the CIA, its just fact. Greece, 1949, elected communist government was against US political and economic interests. How is that especially telling? If I said America had sold ice-cream in these countries I have a feeling you'd firmly deny it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, the Soviet Union supplied the Greek commies. We supported the opposition. Oh, and by the way, Greece was ruled under the auspices of the British government. Our support was given at their request. I won't deny that we sent tons of weapons and aid to Greece. But don't expect me to say that it was immoral or wrong to do so.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Take British Guyana for example in 1953, that was mainly about sugar and bauxite. Panama? the Panama canal, you should think beyond oil. Haliburton don't lobby for war they simply make astounding profits when it does happen. I'll give you a simple example, what happens in Saudi Arabia is incredibly important to the United States, the main reason? money/resources.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yawn. 10k US soldiers were stationed their during the Gulf War at the request of King Fahd. There are less than 500 now. We <b>owned</b> the Saudi Arabian oil fields in the 50s, by the way. Do you really think we were in it for the money when we traded them back their oil fields? Oh, and in case you forgot, the USA <b>liberated</b> Panama from Colombia, built the goddamn Panama Canal, and then even gave them full autonomy in 1999. You're missing the forest for the trees, dude.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its very easy to fault the UN. I agree that it has been very ineffectual in alot of cases. However, joining the Fox News crowd and completely slamming it for being utterly useless is a pure case of self interest. The United States has had alot of problems with the UN simply because it wants one law for itself and another law for others. Landmines, protection of children, nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, war crimes and so on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We need landmines to protect American bases worldwide. The Korean DMZ is also another notable example. We shut down a base in the Phillipines when the indigenous population got hostile. When that truck exploded in Lebanon, we had to pull out. The fact is an American military presence will inevitably be hostile to some person. And in order to effectively protect our boys overseas, we need landmines. As for nuclear/bio/chem weapons, besides Japan in WWII, when have we used them on a population? Some kid getting their limbs blown off by a landmine is regrettable, to be sure, but the USA must protect its interests and its citizens and its soldiers. In the eyes of the US government, a citizen of the USA is more valuable than a kid in some impoverished failed state. The same rings true for any other state. I didn't say we were altruistic. We simply serve our own interests that happen to benefit many other interests as well.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I knew the second I pointed it out up would crop the term "anti-american". Its a strange phrase alright. I mean I don't like the Irish government at all, and I've sat in pubs and we've had political discussion lambasting the amount of corruption and negligence in the country, yet noone has ever called me "anti-Irish". Imagine if you said critical things about Italy and I called you "anti-Italian".
I said it wasn't an attack I was simply pointing out the negative side of the United States. My friend has married a Chinese girl, and I was talking to her about Tibet. She absolutely steadfastly believes that Tibet was some kind of rogue state that was trying to undermine China. I'm a foreigner, I am pretty impartial to these things and I tried to explain what really happened, she just laughed, said it was nonsense, there is no convincing her. So I just left it at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was born in China. True story. And every time I go back and every time I go abroad I can't wait to get back to the USA. I'm Chinese by birth, but American in heart. And here's the thing: when you bring up ultimately <b>irrelevant</b> information (our refusal to sign bans on landmines, for example) to criticize the USA, that's anti-American. Criticizing our Iraq policy because it's ineffective and may have increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack isn't, that's rational criticism.
Talking about our funding of Greeks who didn't want a communist government is irrelevant and anti-American. Discussing the impacts of American led globalization and reduction of tariffs and their potential economic impact (whether positive or negative) is not, it's rational.
Anti-Americanism is a consistent and almost ideological opposition to the USA, and people who are anti-American jump on anything to criticize the USA while ignoring the vast amount of good we have done.
I'll be the first to admit that our foreign policy isn't perfect, that it certainly has very grey areas. That we have inadvertantly killed millions of people. But we have saved millions more. The USA is a <b>net good</b> in the world. That doesn't mean everything we do is rainbows and caisies. It just means that the good outweighs the bad we do.
Why does the average person massively distrust the government? Or multinational corporations? Both institutions have advanced human prosperity by leaps and bounds, but people are unable to understand them.
This is precisely the case with the United States. There are so many bad generalizations about Americans. We've become the world media's whipping boy. Americans are fat, lazy, greedy, materialistic, puritanical religious zealots, hedonistic, and have been characterized with much more negative attributes. Our nation itself is decadent, impulsive, arrogant, overbearing, self-serving and forever advancing American interests at the expense of others.
It actually sounds a lot like those people who believe Jewish bankers secretly control the world. Except in our case, the US is so powerful and its power is actually real.
The truth is, the American people aren't remarkably different than anybody else. We want to be left alone, but that can't be the case for such a conspicuous superpower. But the characterizations, deserved or not, constantly plague the media. People simply don't like America, it may be our economic clout, military power, cultural ubiquity, or a combination of all three. Nobody likes people who meddle. And America by necessity, for better for worse (but usually for better), meddles a lot.
Plenty of relatively unbiased information exists about the United States. But foreign people are so fixated about their own image of Americans that they don't care to access such information. I can't believe the number of times that the words "cowboy" and "sheriff" appear in the European media, but it's there. So apparently our politicians are all rowdy cowboys and sheriffs. This is the impression I get when occasionally perusing European sources.
Ultimately, people don't appreciate the USA until they have a conspicuous and immediate need of our assistance. It was our CVBGs that first arrived on the scene to distribute clean water and supplies after the 2004 tsunami. People wanted us to intervene in Darfur and Rwanda but criticize us when we step in to repair the ######ups that the UN and Europe did in Kosovo. When things are going good, people expect things to stay that way. And when something bad happens, people need to fix blame on something. The large profile of the USA is the perfect for inept democracies (Latin America), apathetic developed nations (Western Europe), corrupt dictatorships (Zimbabwe, North Korea), and envious would-be great powers (China, India, Russia).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are you complaining about being characterized, when all you do is just go on and characterize all foreigners, Latin American, Western Europe, etc?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
lolfighter, if you do live in Germany, or lived in Germany, I can't believe that you would have the nerve to deride American foreign policy. It was our M48s that stared down Soviet T-55s in the 60s and 70s. We guaranteed West Germany's sovereignty, rebuilt your wartorn nation, prevented the Soviets from pushing further than Berlin, and airlifted the Western part of Berlin during the Soviet blockades. The USA has done so much for your nation, and yet I've seen stories in which rowdy Germans rioted and, at their apex, threw rocks and even molotov cocktails at the very bases that protected them from the Soviet Union.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They threw rocks and EVEN molotov cocktails?? The nerve of them!
Clearly, the current administration is the same one that served during the Cold War and should be viewed as such even though the two act nothing alike and have almost none of the same members. By your logic, the US should be in no position to criticize France on things like not invading third-world countries for oil because France helped liberate the US <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War" target="_blank">not too long ago</a>.
What the epic stick up your ass.
I'm Chinese by birth, but American in heart. And here's the thing: when you bring up ultimately irrelevant information (our refusal to sign bans on landmines, for example) to criticize the USA, that's anti-American.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rapier7, you have to stop pigeon holing people as anti-American if they criticise US foreign policy. It isn't anti-American, or Un-american or whatever you choose to call it. They are voicing their opinions, it is not intended as a personal insult to anyone here. You are the one who create an atmosphere of antagonism. If you disagree with someones reasoning, then present your case, don't simply try to label them. Consider this your final warning.
In response to France lending material support to Americans in the Revolutionary War....guess what? Americans don't criticize or even <b>care</b> about French foreign policy, who are probably the most active after this country. Bush posthumously awarded the Marquis de Lafayette honorary American citizenship in recognition of his services to the US. To be honest, the whole freedom fries thing and people refusing to buy French wine (The Napa valley has better wine, anyways) is just an over-the-top display of jingoistic American patriotism. It dies down very quickly. We don't care about France, and we certainly don't criticize it on foreign policy.
There is nothing wrong with the criticism of American foreign policy. Americans are already at the forefront. But it's best to criticize what we're currently doing and how it affects all <b>relevant</b> parties involved. Bringing up the past is useless. So is disparaging our modern day culture and characterizing 300 million Americans as jingoistic, fat, lazy, greedy, violent people.