To those harboring Anti-American sentiments

[Justarius]

Noone is perfect, not even the United States. There seems to be some wild fantasy within your minds that the US should have a flawless foreign policy, one that appeases all countries. That is simply impossible. We try to do as much as we can, but there is only so much that can be done.

Zwingle: Over and over you state that US involvement in foreign countries should be halted, that we must stop playing as you call it, "the BULLY." The US did once adhere to isolationism. However, this only lead to the eventual rising of Hitler and the Germany of the early 1900s. Had the US never stepped in, the world would have been a very different place than it is now.

There is some strange belief that foreign policy should be non-selfish and follow some universally aknowledged moral code. Truth of the matter is that almost all foreign policy acts, especially those related to war, have been to the greater benefit of the nation that proposed it. What nation in the history of the world simply does what you seem to deem as some "universally aknowledged RIGHT THING TO DO." How many wars have been fought over reasons that don't benefit the nations involved. However, at the same time, the US has been the most generous nation in the world. Not many other nations contribute vast funds to other nations in an effort to assist them in their moments of crisis. Perhaps this is due to the great diversity of America that allows it to have a special connection with each nation in the world. I stand by my country for doing its best in relieving world problems, for better or for worse.

The view of the world that you people seem to hold is a naive one, one that is clear-cut - black and white. There isn't always the RIGHT thing to do, or even the WRONG one. The US either exercises an isolationist policy or one that places itself within the realm of world politics. There will be allies and enemies met along the way and one can not fully blame anyone. However, the acts that were committed on Tuesday September 11, have no justification. Assuming America finds a country harboring terrorists and simply went and bombed all the civilians. Is that the right thing to do? Are we justified in killing thousands of innocent people because the terrorists did? No, we're not, and that is the reason why they were not justified in the horrendous acts of the past few days.

 

[Balt]

Nicely put. Unfortunately, irrational people don't like rational arguments, so I doubt you'll change their opinions.

 

[bunker]

Very well said.

 

[veryape]

AGREED!!!!!!!

 

[novon]

What is a naive view is the thought that just because a moral right it is not internationaly understood yet, that we should somehow accept our current situation and go along with it right or wrong. The world is always changing, and it's a fact that humans have evolved their morals just as they have fought wars to perpetuate hate. And, by the very fact that someone is expressing the moral right, they have helped people take steps to an evolution of morality, and that is all that really matters when they express themselves.

 

[Miramonti]

We try to do as much as we can, but there is only so much that can be done.

I disagree. We have the most influence to promote mediation in so many circles but we too often do what we can to take the side that promotes our own self-interest. I love the country too much to watch all the bs and not say anything and I'm glad others can hold up the flag and do the same. There is alot of great and there is also alot of cr@p as well that can be improved quite a bit, and needs to be.

Right now tho I'm not a picketer of govt. policy because its a very difficult time for everyone. Its important to support and pray for our leaders as they have some very difficult decisions to make.

 

[Justarius]

Novon: That is all nice and good, but as you yourself state, morality is constantly changing. By this fact, there can NEVER be a absolute RIGHT by your definition.

It is totally naive to believe that the world will always do the right thing, and that it will be wholly aknowledged by everyone that it was correct. There will always be one side that sees it differently. You seem to believe that you are so utterly above everyone else and able to judge the actions of everyone.

 

[ElFenix]

for a good read about this read kissinger's diplomacy about the wilson vs roosevelt debate (the first roosevelt.) its basically about realism vs liberalism in foreign policy. the US sees itself as a moralistic country, a "city on the hill" if you will, an example to other countries of how a government should be. while we've had a "moralistic" interior policy, it can be argued that we pursued a realist policy in the 1800s as well as anyone, protecting the US by ensuring there was no power in this hemisphere that could challenge us. we couched this in the term "manifest destiny" to hide its true nature.

so then we get to our first real forays against european powers. there was teddy roosevelt, who advocated intervening in as many situations as possible to prevent powers that could be threats in the future, much as england saw its foreign policy for centuries. he would have gotten us involved in WWI right at the begining had he been president at the time, because he saw the threat that germany could become if not well-opposed.

but the problem is most americans wanted no part of wars across the ocean. our own backyard, perhaps, but a potential threat was something to be ignored. wilson knew this. he knew that to get the american public to arms, they would need provoking into action, and he would need to appeal to the moralistic sense of americans. portraying germany as "evil" and the points were his way to do this. and ever since presidents have had to appeal to some righteous sense of the american public to get them involved in matters overseas.

and now with the defeat of "evil communism" pretty much world wide (well, theres the chicomms, but we're nice nice with them because nixon understood realist foreign policy better than anyone since roosevelt, probably because of kissinger) there are few "evils" to face. theres saddam and terrorism and a few other things. but eventually we'll probably be in some sort of strategic rivalry with europe. i'm not sure if americans will be able to take it.


EDIT: added quotation marks where necessary so that Elledan can clearly see the intent of the post rather than reading simply the literal meaning of a few key terms and throwing out the whole post because he sees one bad apple in the whole grove and prefers to say that i exhitbit "ignorance" and "bias" in my summation of the Roosevelt vs Wilson chapter of Kissinger's Diplomacy

 

[Justarius]

<< We try to do as much as we can, but there is only so much that can be done.

I disagree. We have the most influence to promote mediation in so many circles but we too often do what we can to take the side that promotes our own self-interest. I love the country too much to watch all the bs and not say anything and I'm glad others can hold up the flag and do the same. There is alot of great and there is also alot of cr@p as well that can be improved quite a bit, and needs to be.

Right now tho I'm not a picketer of govt. policy because its a very difficult time for everyone. Its important to support and pray for our leaders as they have some very difficult decisions to make. >>



This is the key to the dilemma. That we must often promote our own self-interest. I hate to break it to you, but the world is simply more selfish than it is not. It's very easy to sit on the side and criticize. I ask you to look around you and see the cars and amazing stuff that you can live without. In fact, the means at which you access this website and type on this message board is proof of your semi-luxurious life. There are people starving around the world right now, have you done all that you can? Have you done the non-selfish thing? When's it going to end? Face it: Almost all foreign policy decisions are in the name of self-interest. That can not be helped.

 

[Looney]

Very nicely said ElFenix! Learned something new there... and very interesting, i'm going to put that on my 'To Read' list.

 

[rahvin]

<<This is the key to the dilemma. That we must often promote our own self-interest. I hate to break it to you, but the world is simply more selfish than it is not. It's very easy to sit on the side and criticize. I ask you to look around you and see the cars and amazing stuff that you can live without. In fact, the means at which you access this website and type on this message board is proof of your semi-luxurious life. There are people starving around the world right now, have you done all that you can? Have you done the non-selfish thing? When's it going to end? Face it: Almost all foreign policy decisions are in the name of self-interest. That can not be helped. >>

As you stated, nation-states will always act in their own self interest in international matters. That should be an accepted fact. An America that failed to defend it's interest's would soon find itself under attack from outside. I think though that you need to examine history. In the face of history it can be argued that America is the least impacting of all the dominat superpowers of the era's. America's sole desire has been access to markets and resources and defense of our position. No other nation-state "superpower" in history has been as light handed with the world as America has been. Our demands are light, be nice to people in your nation, respect international law and have open trade. I don't think our demands are unreasonable or heavy handed. Those governments that oppose our views are the ones with a ruling elite, an outmoded class structure or communistic societies.

People hate us because we defend our interests and we don't bend over and take it when they disagree with us. America's position in the world was earned through hard work, our economy is the strongest in the world because we work hard. We build on what our fathers built in an ever expanding economy and we deserve what we have earned through that hard work.

 

[Miramonti]

This is the key to the dilemma. That we must often promote our own self-interest. I hate to break it to you, but the world is simply more selfish than it is not. It's very easy to sit on the side and criticize. I ask you to look around you and see the cars and amazing stuff that you can live without. In fact, the means at which you access this website and type on this message board is proof of your semi-luxurious life. There are people starving around the world right now, have you done all that you can? Have you done the non-selfish thing? When's it going to end? Face it: Almost all foreign policy decisions are in the name of self-interest. That can not be helped.

wtf does that have to do with PAC money? how about election donations, soft and hard money regulations? what does that have to do with the way we choose to support/not support the israel/palestine conflict? what does that have to do with how we decide to handle genocide going on in other nations. And the CIA's involvement in other countries politics? wft?

Yes I have a relatively semi-luxurious life, but well below what I could for good reasons. And yes this issue is another thing that is screwed up in America, the difference between the haves and have nots, and its not just about working hard and pursuing an education.

Why do you justify selfishness?? There is no justification for insensitivity to others who are more needy, particularly for the basics of life.

[edit]
I made my point as much as I want to for now but these are not the issues that I want on my mind right now. you can respond and I'll read but I'm done until later...god bless america.

 

[Elledan]

<< and now with the defeat of evil communism pretty much world wide(..) >>

Sorry, but this single quote just screams 'ignorance'. No economical/political system is 'evil'. Saying so only shows that you're biased.

 

[Balt]

<<Sorry, but this single quote just screams 'ignorance'. No economical/political system is 'evil'. Saying so only shows that you're biased>>

*rolls eyes* Please spare us the communist sympathizing. The very nature of Communism requires that it infringe upon basic liberties and repress its people.

 

[Scootin159]

<< Nicely put. Unfortunately, irrational people don't like rational arguments, so I doubt you'll change their opinions. >>



OOOHHHHH THAT ANNOYS ME TO NO END WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T ACCEPT REASON!!!

 

[gopunk]

*rolls eyes* Please spare us the communist sympathizing. The very nature of Communism requires that it infringe upon basic liberties and repress its people.

oh please, spare us the red scare propaganda. there's no perfect government.

 

[Elledan]

<< <<Sorry, but this single quote just screams 'ignorance'. No economical/political system is 'evil'. Saying so only shows that you're biased>>

*rolls eyes* Please spare us the communist sympathizing. The very nature of Communism requires that it infringe upon basic liberties and repress its people. >>

More BS. The basis of Communism is equality and thus an [/i]equal treatment[/i] for everybody.

What you probably have in mind is the Soviet Union and China, but those are/were NOT Communistic countries. The Soviet Union quickly became a dictatorship. China is hovering between a dictatorship, Communism and a democracy. True Communism is impossible for Humans because Humans are too selfish. Communism is about sharing, giving everyone equal opportunities and taking care of the weak people in society.

FYI, a pure capitalistic country would do far more damage to its citizens than a Communistic country. Why? Well, Capitalism is about fighting to survive, to become successful, the right of the strongest. The weaker ones are getting trampled beneath the greedy feet of all other people.

And although you'll probably deny it, even the US has assimilated certain parts of Socialism into its political and economical system. Think about social care (people without work and retired people get money from the Government) and the Government's involvement in the economy (like the breakup of monopolies).

 

[OS]

<< More BS. The basis of Communism is equality and thus an equal treatment for everybody.

What you probably have in mind is the Soviet Union and China, but those are/were NOT Communistic countries. The Soviet Union quickly became a dictatorship. China is hovering between a dictatorship, Communism and a democracy. True Communism is impossible for Humans because Humans are too selfish. Communism is about sharing, giving everyone equal opportunities and taking care of the weak people in society. >>



heh, I think you know what he is talking about.

At any rate, the idealistic communism in which you refer to doesn't even exist in real life.

Nitpicking semantics on a nonexistent concept is hardly good debating and critical thinking.

 

[Balt]

<<oh please, spare us the red scare propaganda. there's no perfect government>>

I keep looking over my post but I fail to see where I said that there was a perfect government.

Some forms of government, however, are better than others.


<<More BS. The basis of Communism is equality and thus an equal treatment for everybody.>>

And the enforcement mechanism of that so-called equality leads to a government which will only serve itself. You said yourself it is in our nature, therefore it is not PRACTICAL and any attempt at it will lead to disaster.

Also I remember reading a story back in my middle school days (I forget the title now?) in which such equality was accomplished. It resulted in making sure equality didn't just involve economics, but also intelligence. So those who had above average intelligence were handicapped to make everything 'equal'. That doesn't really fit into the Communist theory, I realize, but it's still a frightening thought. Equality in all things means we lose our individuality and what makes us the person we are. Uniformity is not always a good thing.

 

[ElFenix]

<< Sorry, but this single quote just screams 'ignorance'. No economical/political system is 'evil'. Saying so only shows that you're biased. >>

jeez elledan just jump on me why don't you. obviously i was referring to how the US government portrayed communism as an evil so that the moralistic society could accept the US opposition to it, regardless of the actual pros/cons of such a system vis-a-vis our own. and obviously the evil being pointed out was what happened in the soviet union, as you pointed out later. so obviously you know what i meant but refused in your mind to link evil communism with what was practiced in the soviet union and eastern bloc. hence you called me ignorant, for which i feel insulted. perhaps i should put quotes around "evil communism" and "moralistic" so that its clear i'm talking about what the american populace thinks about itself and its surroundings, since its pretty easily argued we didn't have a "moralistic" internal policy as well, what with slavery and buying votes and the rampant corruption and racism and what else has plagued the united states over its course of existence.



EDIT: and oh yes, part of the point of returning to this thread was to post a bit about what the US sees as its foreign policy tasks. its not domination of the system, or hegemony over the world. the US sees as its tasks (particularly after WWI and WWII) the ability to remake the international system in its own image. that is, to make an international system based on legalism and democratic ideals, the best of enlightenment thinking, rather than the raison d'etat that had existed previously. if it accomplished this, then democracy in the US would be protected, without threat, and its mission as the "city on the hill" would be accomplished. now another argument is that the US has not tried to accomplish this sort of task in many of its foreign policy endeavors, and in others where that was the point its methods have been unsavory. which, i think, is where part of the animosity of liberal peoples toward the US stems. we have been successful in making an international system after our own image in parts of the world, and those parts are now recognizing that the US doesn't live up to its self-image (many people in the US feel this too).