The US.. Great evil and the worst country to have ever existed, or?

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
**Neurotik, are you really serious here?

I mean, the “show” the US wants to run consists in continuing to be the most powerful economic and military power on the globe. Bush’s preemptive doctrine actually spells that out: indeed, if Norway could ever be imagined to pose a military threat to the US, it too could (in theory of course) become subject to preemption.**

I am dead serious. And yes, it could become subject to preemption, although that would be highly unlikely. Just trying to become a top dog militarily and economically doesn’t really make you a target in and of itself - look at the EU and China.

**If powerful countries aren’t willing to collaborate with their less powerful allies with a degree of good faith then they are simply imperialists, and they are likely to reap the world’s distrust and scorn. Why should anyone want to help them, in that case, if they become subject to terrorism or even just irrational hatred abroad? **

Well, yes, they are imperialists. And that’s fine, as long as they are smart about it.

I don’t advocate running amok militarily across the globe, as one has to consider the costs and benefits of such actions - sometimes it’s just not worth it. The fact remains that the US developed it’s military strength for one reason and one reason only: to protect it’s citizens and interests abroad, with the corollary that it developed itself so that it would not have to rely heavily, if at all, on allies to do this.

Again, while it is a good idea to seek support and listen to its allies in general, if the US decides that a certain action is vital to interests it has no obligation or need to allow the international community to veto taking action. If a country wishes to dictate to the US what it can and cannot do, it must develop the economic and military strength to do so. For example, if China, Russia or France really wanted to stop the Iraqi invasion in its tracks all it needs to do is pledge total military support to Iraq, either individually or as an alliance.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

Now that’s a good point Neurotik - I have to concede that much for sure. Your earlier post bordered just a bit on the “insensitive” - but ultimately, such a judgement on my part is a fairly subjective one.

Nonetheless, your last point is a damn good one.

[avalongod]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**antechinus said:
Coax, are you a native Norwegian? Frankly, I was a lot more content with my country before I travelled to Scandanavia thirty years ago. There I saw no poverty, no homelessness, no litter. Everything seemed so well-organized and safe. It just blew me away. **

From what I hear, Norway is a pretty well put-together country, although at the same time it would be WAY too cold for me. Of course I also understand that Norway is a fairly underpopulated ethnically homogeneous country as well, which may give it some advantages.

No I don’t think the US is the “worst” country ever, or even currently…I think that honor goes to France. Just kidding (although as brutal as their foreign policy has been over the years, I think they are being hypocrits now)…that honor probably goes to North Korea.

I don’t agree with most of the current administrations policies, quite frankly. And though I am sometimes frustrated that so many Americans seem to follow along with Bush unquestioningly, I think that they do so because they believe that we, the US, is trying to do the right thing.

I don’t think that there is another country in the world (including Norway) that has worked so hard so consistently to give money to poor nations, fight worldwide poverty and disease, intervene in genocide (even in Europe when the Europeans seemed to be disinterested, and even when the victims of genocide are neither our allies, nor have oil). Most of the countries that criticize us and appear “holier than thou” turn right around and brutalize people when it suits their interest (certainly including France, Russia and China, our chief obstacles in the Security Council). And many of the nations that criticize us also happily take our economic assistance.

So while I myself criticize many of the actions of the US, I find the criticisms of many other nations to be hollow and hypocritial.

[ElvisL1ves]

“The Americans can always be counted upon to do the right thing, after they have exhausted the alternatives.”

• Winston Churchill

[Mandelstam]

Neurotik: “If a country wishes to dictate to the US what it can and cannot do, it must develop the economic and military strength to do so. For example, if China, Russia or France really wanted to stop the Iraqi invasion in its tracks all it needs to do is pledge total military support to Iraq, either individually or as an alliance.”

Wonderful suggestion. Then instead of a short war that most of the world doesn’t want, we can have a really long war that most of the world doesn’t want!

Actually, I think China, Russia and France are doing a pretty good job of attempting to halt–or at least slow down–the Iraqi invasion. And I’m glad that most Americans have the sense to want their government to seek a UN resolution.

Seriously, how can the US possibly expect defend itself against terrorism if a country such as France–which has been an ally of the United States for more than 200 years–is asked to express its differences by declaring war. Your view of foreign policy is roughly that of the Middle Ages.

[clayton_e]

Well we only invented most forms of WMDs (nuclear and many chemical types.)

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
[BWonderful suggestion. Then instead of a short war that most of the world doesn’t want, we can have a really long war that most of the world doesn’t want!

Actually, I think China, Russia and France are doing a pretty good job of attempting to halt–or at least slow down–the Iraqi invasion. And I’m glad that most Americans have the sense to want their government to seek a UN resolution.

Seriously, how can the US possibly expect defend itself against terrorism if a country such as France–which has been an ally of the United States for more than 200 years–is asked to express its differences by declaring war. Your view of foreign policy is roughly that of the Middle Ages. **

And your view of foreign policy is rooted in magical, happy pixie land. The US would not go to war with France, Russia or China if they offered full military support to Iraq. If they wish to stop the proposed war in Iraq in its tracks, all they have to do is offer that support. Guaranteed. I never said they should declare war, merely that they state if the US declares war against Iraq and invades that they help Iraq to defend their country.

And what does terrorism have to do with France? Or are you just bringing it up because it’s the great bogeyman of the '00s?

[Estilicon]

Neurotik don’t date Realpolitik, she is a bitch.
With your kind of reasoning everything Saddam did was ok, Osama is only pursuing his interests, and north korea, India and Pakistan are climbing in the power ladder.
The fact is Saddam is a dictator, Osama a crazy idiot and Pakistan, North Korea and India are shaking a rather fragile planet. Now if you add to this horror cocktail that idiot you have as president things will go straight to hell very soon.
We have to move to “multilateral” order, one in which the strong no longer dictates the terms because if we don’t history will repeat itself again, yesterday britain, today U.S.A and tomorrow China. We have an idiom in spanish, I’ve never heard it english and a rough translation would be: “Seed winds and you’ll harvest storms”. If your country uses your kind of argument Neurotik you will only have yourselves to criticize for the next 9/11.
p.s. U.S.A has done more bad than good in Latin America. Arguments like the defeat of facism, the reconstruction of europe or the backstreet boys simply don’t convince me. And the worst thing is that with the behaviour or your current administration the “bad all days” will surely come back.

[bluemoonz]

Other countries hate us - because we are free.
They see us as bad but we see us as good. If we had a communisitic government, dictatorship others would see us as good too. This applies the other way too (if other countries were democratic, they would see us as good).

[coax]

Umm bluemoonz, that’s about the biggest load of crap I’ve read all year.
Lots of democratic countries see America in a negative way(not to over generalize, but i’ll do it now for the purpose of this point).
Countries, or rather the people in that country hate the US because of a large list of things the US has done to them.
Since you don’t specify any countries I’ll just leave it at that.

[Mandelstam]

Neurotik: “your view of foreign policy is rooted in magical, happy pixie land”

Hardly. My view of foreign policy is rooted on planet earth. What you’re proposing isn’t realistic enough to qualify for a bad Star Trek episode, much less some hardnosed take on realpolitik. (Aside to Estilicon: I don’t think Neurotik has much to worry about on that score).

“The US would not go to war with France, Russia or China if they offered full military support to Iraq. If they wish to stop the proposed war in Iraq in its tracks, all they have to do is offer that support. Guaranteed. I never said they should declare war, merely that they state if the US declares war against Iraq and invades that they help Iraq to defend their country.”

You are talking about nations who are allied with the US via NATO and other treaties, and who sit on the Security Counsel along with the US making a credible threat–presumably without consulting of other NATO members/UN members–to act in concert with the Iraqis and against the United States.

Can I please have some of whatever you’re smoking?

Even if one could imagine the governments of these countries adopting to such a plan, and convincing their publics and their allies that such a plan was wise–and, almost as incredible, even if one can imagine the United States believing this scenario rather than recognizing a transparent bluff–what would be the motive?

Well by your account, to avert the war. Thing is, it looks to me as though these countries have a plan for delaying the war and, for the moment at least, it appears to be working.

Back here on earth there is indeed both a “realpolitik” and a more idealistic view of what, say, the French are up to. To the realist they’re just playing the smartest power game they can, trying to shore up their role as one of the EU’s preeminent powers. From a more idealist view they are committed to internationalism and they are pressuring the United States to live up to its own internationalist commitments.

As to why the United States can (and arguably should) be pressured in this way, yes, the threat of terrorism is one good reason. (Sorry if the subject strikes you as oh so 2001.) Even people who support the war in Iraq recognize that there is a substantial terrorist threat, esp. from the world’s rising militant Islamic fundamentalist movements. Most people, including even the Bush adminsitration, recognize that strong allies are necessary to deal effectively with this truly global phenomenon.

Underlying this danger is the instability of parts of the developing world, a problem which requires nation-building efforts that the US has neither the will nor the means to undertake on its own.

So, return to your original point, your implication that the Norweigians have no business telling the US what kind of superpower tactics displeases them until such time as they arm themselves and pose a military challenge to the US is…

just plain silly.
And somthing tells me you’d be singing a very different tune if you were living in Oslo right now.

[An_Arky]

The U.S.? More good than bad, definitely. But Bush is trying as hard as he can to change that. Now if the OP had asked "The CIA…Great evil and the worst spy organization to have ever existed or? Well…no, that doesn’t work, either, but it’d be getting warmer.

Really, though, you’re only baiting the bellicose with an OP like that. You won’t get a very even debate that way…