OK, so I posted this in an ongoing thread in the Pit and it didn’t really work. Here’s hoping it can find a meaningful home here.
Why should any leader make any foreign policy approaches that do anything but directly effect (positively) their nation.
Why does the US always have to be the guys in the white hats? Why can’t we just say, “That country is a pain in the ass, let’s take it over” if it’s in our interests? Even in episodes where the US is the agressors the US still feels the need to justify it’s actions.
Why should the most powerful nation in the world subordinate it’s interests to those of an international body like the United Nations? If China or France were in our position they wouldn’t. God knows if the Soviets had outlasted the US they wouldn’t have…so why should the US not use our power and influence to unilaterally advance our own interests?
Now, let’s make something clear. I’m not supporting an American Hegemony or a Pax Americana. I just feel that there’s an underlying assumption regarding the US role (and world opinion of it) that should be examined here.
there was economic support of the french in vietnam, who blew it, so the US went in and blew it.
there was the CIA coup in Iran that put the Shah in power, who blew it.
there was Bay of Pigs
there was Iran contra
there are more but, ever notice that things more often than not don’t ultimately work out as intended. guess the morons in authority aren’t as smart as they think they are.
a lot of people have gotten more cynical than in the GOOD OLDE DAYS. not as much support for jingoism.
A leader should not make a decision that would not positively affect his/her nation.
Two part question, two part answer: a) it is in our country’s interest to be the “white hats” b) balance of power … other countries will become more cautious of us (see 3)
The combined might of the rest of the world is greater than the might of the U.S. In 1940, Hitler had made Germany into the most powerful nation … look what happened to them when they made a power play. If France or China or the U.S.S.R. came to be in the same position, they’d be doing the same thing that the U.S. is doing, or else the rest of the world would quickly knock them down a few notches.
It’s all politics. If you don’t watch your step, you’re going to get burned. I just watched the movie The Godfather (again) recently, and it is very similar. The Corleone family had the power to kill anyone, but if they used it at the wrong time, they would lose power and influence. Only with careful planning could they eliminate an important figure without incurring the wrath of the other families. It’s the same with nations … if you don’t have a general approval of your actions, everyone else will turn against you, and basically, you’re fucked. It seems to me that the U.S. is being very smart in retaining its power while retaining its allies.
Leaders have it in their best interest to
make decisions that are good for their country,they usually end up being forced from govt when they dont. When a foreign body begins encouraging sovereign countries to make harmful decisions, then there’s a problem.
The US has to wear the white hat, they’re the strongest military on Earth. It’s the way the US makes sure no one upsets the apple cart…thats presuming we all agree the always wears the white hat. IMHO the US only becomes involved when the chaos affects their interests in the region, or when other powerful nations shame them into action. I don’t remember the US rushing in to save anyone in the Rawandan civil war. They were willing to sacrifice thousands of lives in Viet Nam and Korea to protect democracy, but couldn’t be bothered to do so in Rawanda.
Can’t say it any better than the post above. If the US decided to ignore the sovereignty of other nations, they would soon find themselves opposed by the combined forces of the world, after all what’s to say they won’t be next in line?
Well, I have to disagree here. Perhaps we shouldn’t be getting involved in every little half-ass dirt war in the first place?
I agree fully here. I believe that the US should unequivocally pull out of the United Nations since the UN is antithetical to the principles which this country was founded on
I would be glad to. America was founded on the principles of freedom (certainly not much of that floating around the United Nations) not to mention good old individualism (even less of that).
The United States is certainly a soverign nation and the concept of sovreignity at seems rather alien to the One World Order concept that the United Nations seems very interested in building. As for the decided leftist bend of the UN, well…I won’t even bother going into that!
Well, I NEVER mentioned the current United States as certainly the nation stands (of course, the Clintons absolutely adore the UN) but I was referring to the principles that were outlayed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that don’t seem to be much in vogue right now. Of course, there is a small “conservative” anti-UN clique, but they aren’t exactly the most vocal critics.
As for an example of how the UN subverts constitutional ideals, there was a thread on the International Criminal Court and how it was contrary to our common law system of jurisprudence, but I can’t seem to find it offhand
They shouldn’t. I expect my elected officials to do what’s in my best interest. However, you should consider what the “best interest” actually is. Sometimes it’s in the best interest to be the White Hats. It gains us favor with the nations we’re helping (remember Saddam?) and it demonstrates our capabilities. As Monocracy pointed out, the combined forces of The World will kick the pants off even the USA. We need as many friends as possible.
Generally, taking over a country that’s a pain in the ass would have severe political ramifications. Allied forces could have invaded and taken over Iraq in a week. But we didn’t, because the other Arab states would not have approved (they explicately said they didn’t want to) and the annexation of Iraq would therefore sour our relationship with them. It is in the US’s best interest to maintain a balance of power over there.
The US is not in any way subordinate to the UN. The UN has no money or army of their own, nor are they a sovereign state. They are merely a glorified treaty confederation.
The UN has no power to tell a country to do something. The best they could come up with regarding the Israely/Palestinian crsis of late was an official “you’re not being very nice” to the Israelies. (A position I disagree with, but that’s another thread.)
[/QUOTE]
BTW: RugbyMan, you’re a lunatic:
Have you read the UN Charter? If not, please do. The UN is one of the most democratic organizations there is. Granted, the powerful nations have a lot more power than the powerless, especially the US. But like I said, the UN has no money or army of its own. Therefore, no power. It’s like a big club for diplomats, if you will.
The UN is not interested in building a so-called One World Order, nor would they ever have the power to do so. How do you know this is what they are attempting to achieve?
And what do you mean by “leftist?” Are you talking about communism? Because the majority of the people who make up the UN are not big commie fans. I certainly wouldn’t call the Arab and African delegations “leftist” either.
You should be happy that you live in a country where we can remove a leader every 4 years if he doesn’t act in the best interest of the country. Many foreign dictators only act in their own best interest, not their countries. Keep in mind that in a nation of 300 million people, what is in your best interest is not always in mine.
We are the “guys in the white hats” because we are acting in what we believe to be is the best interest of the country. If we didn’t believe that to be true, we wouldn’t take that course of action. The goal of US foreign policy is to make the world a stable place, not to colonize every nation that opposes us. What do you propose? Occupying Iraq and making it our 51st State.
The US pays about $298 million of the UN’s $1.25 billion budget. That’s about 25% (http://www.un.org/News/facts/setting.htm) I would hardly say our interests are subordinate to the UN.
