You are right, but then are we supposed to be constantly rebuilding war torn nations at our own expense? We did fight the Korean war, and we fought the Cold War too. I think there is a strong case to be made that a free Europe today is a result of America’s 50 year commitment to protecting the west, and the enormous amounts of money we spent doing so. Have the Europeans done much to help their former colonies in Africa?
I know America bashing is really popular around here, but honestly, what do you want the US to do? Given our unprecedented, in world history, level of global power and dominance, I would say we are remarkably self restrained. Sure, we have meddled in some places where we probably shouldn’t have, and there have been mistakes. But, for our sheer dominance and involvement in the international community, I think we do a damn good job of not stepping on other peoples’ toes. People bash us for being involved (Imperialist Thugs) and then they bash us when we do nothing (Bystanders to Genocide).
I hate to break it to you, but it is hard to know what the right thing to do is. Some people want to be isolationists and pull back. Others call that shirking our responsibilities as a world leader. The European ‘community’ couldn’t even fix the war in the Balkans (in their own backyard) without our involvement, most likely because they were all on vacation. What would they do if they had the whole world to worry about? Who is going to protect Taiwan and S. Korea and Israel and maintain order in Haiti and all these other places if it isn’t us? Who would feed the starving? The point of this some what incoherent response is, when you are at the top, you have to make decisions, and sometimes those decisions will be wrong, but they must be made nonetheless. Given our position in the world, I think we do a pretty damn good job.
Well, I support a higher level of isolationism, and I think we are too hawkish. or if not isolationism a more dovish hegemony. I’d say a more dovish hegemony is what I am for. I think that regime change is not a good thing if we aren’t willing to enter into a Marshall Plan level of commitment.
And as I said, I wish you people would quit calling me an America basher, just because I think our foreign policy is too hawkish doesn’t mean I dislike America, I wish that I could somehow make that clearer to people, but it seems impossible.
As for Taiwan, I think that reunification with China should be the ultimate goal. As for Israel, Israel needs to get the fuck out of the Palestinian territories, the settlements need to be dismantled NOW, and that should be a condition of our continued protection. South Korea, I haven’t given much thought to until recent weeks so I will refrain from comment.
I don’t think we do a good job in the middle east, as our policy has been one of destabilization for the past half a century, and I think that’s a decidedly BAD job, especially in light of the fact that the USSR has fallen.
As for feeding the populations of the world, it doesn’t require imperialism, and I think the level of American humanitarian aid is often overstated. Many other countries give a much higher level per capita of aid than we do. However, conversely I do not believe we should go into a place like Somalia and offer humanitarian aid. I think that if there doesn’t appear to be a viable government available for the country that we shouldn’t interfere.
Rhum Runner, certainnly your point can’t be argued. U.S.A makes a better hegemon than any of it’s antecessors. No possible discussion here (although the church during centuries was pretty mild).
I think that many of us would like to see you doing even a better job. Don’t compare yourself with Britain, Spain, the Turkish empire, or the ancient greeks. Neither the world nor you are similar.
I resent the fact that in 21 century there are still superpowers, wars, misery, hunger, etc. I am an idealist…
Estilicon touches on exactly how I feel. I think that the United States is the preferrable hegemon over any that have come before it, but I think the fact that we take such a reactive approach to foreign policy as opposed to a proactive one doesn’t speak well on us, nor does it lend itself to actually accomplishing positive goals.
Germany was attacked because, in case you didn’t notice (and apparently you didn’t) it was one of Japan’s allies during that particular war and Japan did, in fact, attack the United States. Little thing known as treaty was involved.
Taiwan (ostensibly) wants reunification with mainland China; however, what they sure as you-know-what don’t want is to be ruled by a communist government. Figure out a way for Taiwan to reunify with the mainland and still not be ruled by the PRC and you’ll be in the running for hero of our time.
Israel has not intention, and it doesn’t make any sense anyway, to withdraw to indefensible borders.
As to destabilization, I can’t agree with you on that. Pretty much, in theory at least, what was done was supposed to keep whatever situation was at hand from getting worse. I’d’ve done it differently had I been Ruler of the Planet at the time, but since I’m not it doesn’t matter what I would’ve done.
U.S. Atrocities …
1/. 1965 - orchestrating the regime change in Indonesia resulting in between 2- 3 million genocide victims …
2/. Any other point in time that the U.S. meddle in affairs with which they have no moral requirement to meddle.
3/. Possibly influencing the Australian government (circa 1945/46/47) to stifle information on the fate of allied POW’s at Sandakan - most of whom were buthchered by their Japanese captives after the war was over … I think it’s now called collateral damage.
U.S. Benefits … can’t really think of any which don’t have the “prime directive” of massively benefiting the U.S.
You should read some real history, and less Star Trek.
Estilicon I appreciate your point, and your tone. Of course we must never stop trying to improve, and I don’t think we have.
First you want isolationism, and now you want us to be more proactive? This is the kind of critisim that drives me crazy. We aren’t doing enough, but we shouldn’t mess with other countries, but if we do mess with other countries, we should do so nicely. You are asking for more than just foreign policy, you are asking for perfection. 'T ain’t going to happen…
Point taken as it was when someone else said it previously in the thread.
Actually I talked to a guy from Taipei about this for a while last night, and he doesn’t share your opinion. He believes China can possibly liberalize enough for Taiwan to consider unification, and that he’d be for it, if so. I think America could do well to put a reunification in it’s agenda, but use Chinese reform as leverege for supporting Taiwan’s reuinification. In otherwords, have ambassadors workign with China on what could be feasible. This could have the added benefit of America giving China face by discussing the issue as an equal, superpower.
Well, then that could be the show that Israel is not interested in peace, because that is what peace requires, if they desire peace they must give the Palestinians a whole country, not one ruled by a hostile hegemon, that can enforce it’s law through borders that spiderweb through the provinces. Perhaps this would be a good place to institute American troops, tell the Israelis that they will defend their borders. The Israelis don’t want to be attacked, the Palestinians want their land. Maybe an international force is what’s necessary.
Personally I think Jerusalem should be declared an international city and controlled by the UN.
What I am asking for is for the US, which is already a hegemon, do it’s best to make the countries that exist, viable, without US interference. We can’t just realistically pull out because many countries are dependent upon our hegemony, therefore I suggest that we remain a hegemon, but not that we just pull out completely, because it just wouldn’t be good for the world as a whole.