In a crazy world I just wanted to add my two cents worth in
The United States and England are the two most powerful nations in the world. As I type this there has just been a bombing in downtown Tel Aviv and the Queen Mother has just died. The world stands on the brink of war and people still say that the US should not have gotten involved or that we should just back off. We will not sit back and watch the world be set aflame like it was by Nazi Germany. We have a responsibility to fight for what is we think is right. Everybody and every nation has the right to say what they want and to attempt to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit. Even Pakistan and Iraq have these rights as nations. The US has the same right to protect ourselves, our ideas and our allies. We cannot let this world get out of hand again or let people who would use weapons on our allies to develop those very weapons that would end peace in all its forms all around the world in a matter of minutes. To this end we must continue our fight for peace, continue our fight against terror and protect and support our allies wherever they are and aid them in whatever way we need to, to protect ourselves and our society. These are trouble times we live in but if we all gather together we will see an end and we will find the peace we all pray and hope for.
For what is the alternative? These people think we are Evil, that our way of life is Evil, and would have us destroyed along with our allies. The US is the only nation to ever use the atomic bomb on another nation and I have no doubt that we would use them again in the event that we or our allies were threatened or attacked. So you see the world must support our peace efforts for if the attacks work and war breaks out and the US loses and is no longer in power there will be nothing. We will do what it is that we don’t want to for if we don’t win, nobody will.
Are they?
I mean, nobody doubts the US is damn powerful in this world; I’ve heard historians say no single country has had that much accumulated power since the Roman Empire, although this might just be another example for the Thinking Big in history trend (and it’s euro-centric as well).
But Britain? It’s a wealthy industry nation, sure, and it has nukes and a permanent seat in the Security Council. But this doesn’t make it the second most powerful country in the world.
And, frankly, I don’t see what Queen Mum’s death has to do with the political situation in the world.
I think he’s saying that countries have a right to look out for their own best interests, even if they are selfish. And seeing as the US has the biggest guns, it is probably wise to saddle up with them.
Well while if the shit hits the fan the world will be brought into this one way of another I don’t have to like it and I certainly don’t have to just blindly follow the big guys on the block.
England is not the second most powerful nation in the world. That is laughable.
No culture has any right whatsoever to enforce a system of government/beliefs/culture onto any other culture. Just because we feel our way is perhaps undeniably right, and you can think of no better way to be, we still do not have the right to become the self-appointed police of the world.
The world would be much happier if the United States would mind it’s own fscking business. I say this as an American.
Whatever “fscking” business is, that is exactly what we are doing: TCB.
But if we did mind our own business in the sense you are speaking about then the world would say we were not accepting our responsibility as the world leader. Remember, when we went into Afghanistan the story was that they (and others) were upset because we helped them fight Russia and then picked up and left. Now you hear stories about how we are overstaying and when do we plan to leave or move on. Well, not really afterall Lincoln said “You can’t make all of the people happy all of the time.”
If you’re talking US engagement and dialogue I’m all for it. If it’s ultimatums from Fortress America, then I think you still haven’t worked out that simple solutions aren’t out there.
You also need to factor in that many of the US allies have more cordial relationships where US has tension. Australia has long standing solid trade and generally good diplomatic relationships with China, North Korea and the Middle East. Hence acting unilaterally on behalf of your allies (possibly without consulation) may not actually be in your allies best interests.
Further it’s been a long time since any antipodean defence strategist was under the illusion that if a nuclear/terrorist attack was launched on Australia/NZ, that the US would retaliate directly in retribution.
So whilst we have much in common and have always sided with the US, the current beligerence tends to piss off our magor trading partners, tends to make us more vulnerable and sometimes we could be forgiven for thinking we don’t get that much benefit in return (remember the US doesn’t have much compunction about slamming the trade door in our face e.g. steel, lamb, beef etc).
So by all means act to protect your interests. And remember that your long term interests may difffer greatly from your short term impulses.
Long answer: The US should involve itself when attacked and has popular support in the world as it got after 9/11. Going after the “Axis of Evil” without support from the world would be foolish and dangerous, and wrong.
America is not the world arbitter of what is right and what is wrong in the world. If Bush wants to force his will upon the world, he (and many Americans) are going to be surprised when the world decides that they will not support us.
The problem is-defining a threat to American interests-often in the past, we’ve defined this far too broadly.
For example, certain governments in the Middle East or Latin America, which were democratically elected, but not friendly with American “interests”, were overthrown. Those who were then installed may have been good for AMERICAN interests, but not necessarily the interests of their own citizens.
Well, how’s that defining that too broadly? If the governments aren’t friendly with American interests, shouldn’t we care more about that than how they treat their own citizens?
Precisely, much the same way that the police can’t arrest someone until AFTER they have committed a crime.
If our preventative measures are going to interfere with the soverenty of another country, then we damn well better have something more to go on than a perception that they are threating us.
It’s not self defence if you strike first, particularly, if you are the biggest guy with the most guns.
I think there’s a definite confusion about America’s foreign policy.
On the one hand America looks out for its own interests, which of course is fair enough. No one else is going to and every nation has a right to try and secure itself against aggression, etc. etc.
On the other hand, I think America sees itself as The World’s Policeman, and a provider of leadership to other nations, and acts accordingly.
I think that the US sees these two things as being the same. I am sure everybody else sees a difference.
America does a number of things that the rest of us see as being, in general, Bad Things, for example imposing tariffs on steel imports, or refusing to ratify the Kyoto treaty.
I think a lot of the hostility - and please do not think that i am trying to justify it - towards America comes from the fact that the US does things that seem to actively harm other’s interests whilst still presenting itself as the always doing the right thing. Obviously I am not talking here about the interests of people like Al Quaeda, but the interests of other law abiding groups and nations.
Well, not really afterall Lincoln said “You can’t make all of the people happy all of the time.”