Joe Cool said, WRT nuclear missile defense:
Surely there are many people on this board who acknowledge that the US is really the bully, and the marginalized countries are the freaky teenagers with guns.
How common is this American nationalist do-no-wrong sentiment? Not that Canada’s much better than the US, but American foreign policy is a disgrace.
A disgrace? We’ve managed to make economic ties with all of North America, Western Europe, and in the east we’ve got Japan, Taiwan, and others. Furthermore we get along so well with Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and Taiwan that we have mutual defense treaties with them. Over all I’d say our foreign policy isn’t that bad.
Marc
Anecdotally, I’ve had business relationships with a good number of Europeans, and most seem to harbor a love-hate sentiment about the U.S.
One one hand, they envy us, yet many seem to consider us an international bully, motivated mostly by avarice and appetite.
Don’t call me Shirley.
A bully is someone who likes to flaunt his power for his own personal amusement, and because he can. While the U.S. certainly falls in the latter category, I’d only believe the former if Canada and Mexico were the 51st and 52nd states (respectively), and if Afghanistan were made into yet another American colony (along with England, Cuba, and Japan).
Basically, the analogy is pretty piss-poor. Despite what the hysterical anti-American slogan-of-the-day may claim, the U.S. has been decidedly restrained in flexing its global muscle.
A more apt analogy would deal with the differences between the “popular” school crowd and the “unpopular” kids, with the U.S. being in the former category…
This is really a pretty reasonable answer to my question. Many countries are left with little choice in terms of their relations with the US. America bullies its allies economically (for example, the Canada-US softwood lumber dispute here and here). If you recall (or even heard) there was a lot of reluctance on Canada’s part to partake in America’s righteous war on terrorism, but the short version of the story is that Canada is pussywhipped.
My point is, really, that a mutual defense agreement doesn’t necessarily indicate good foreign policy. Furthermore, economic ties between Western first world countries aren’t that amazing.
**
And the recent tariffs on foreign steel. But then Japan beats us with an economic club by putting high tariffs of foreign rice. If you don’t think rice is a big deal in the US come and visit Arkansas. We’re lousy with rice.
**
Canada wasn’t pussy whipped by the United States any more then they were pussy whipped by the UK during WWI and WWII. I don’t think I’ve ever used the phrase pussy whipped that much in the past year.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by good. For the most part I think our foreign policy is pretty decent. Of course US foreign policy isn’t going to please everyone all of the time. I suppose we are the biggest kid on the block right now. And that means no matter what we do someone is going to perceive us as bullies.
Marc
Bully is the wrong word. Policeman is much better. Stay on the side of goodness and right, and the U.S. will be your strong ally, and even come to your defense if you need it. But step over the line, and the guns might come out.
Nothing wrong with that. I hope the rest of the free world remembers that the U.S. maintains a 350 billion dollar annual military budget, which acts as an indirect social benefit to the entire world by maintaining peace and order.
For example, if the U.S. hadn’t been around in 1990, Saddam would have occupied Kuwait, and probably Saudi Arabia. Today, about 75% of all the oil in the middle east would be under the control of a madman, millions of people would be dead or refugees, and Saddam would have a huge oil income for building weapons of mass destruction. The world would be an incredibly dangerous, unstable place.
But you don’t hear a lot of gratitude being aimed at the U.S. over this. And yes, I know it was a coalition effort, but it wouldn’t have been successful (or even happened) if the U.S. had not been the backbone of it.
The definition of pussy-whipped is: [ul]controlled by his wife, afraid his wife will cut him off[/ul]
According to this definition I don’t believe that Canada or anyother country believes they are pussy-whipped by the U.S. On the contrary they seem to be saying is that we will screw them whenever we want, whether they are willing or not.
I have also heard the term used to mean a male that has had so much sex in a short time that he cannot perform for an extended time. This of course would not apply to the above, but there have been times in the past when we (the U.S.) have felt that another country (not Canada) has screwed us over so much that they should feel pussy-whipped in this second context.
One of the criticisms of the U.S. that I have heard over many years is that we take things said about us too seriously. That we should do what needs to be done and accept the fact that we are not going to win any popularity contest. We also seem to take it personally and I don’t think that is true at all. As is reported rather frequently, we’re liked as a people but what our government does is what causes problems and that also works in the reverse.
The US can be a bully many times. Our policy in Southeast Asia, and the Middle East is pretty lackluster, however there are many times where the US has been called in to be the policeman of the world, and that wasn’t our intention. How often did we get shit for our Isolationist tendencies? The basic truth is people want it all ways. The US is a group of people and therefore fallible yet we are expected to be infallible. Look at Germany and Japan as success stories of US foreign policy. Then there are stories like Somalia where we aren’t sure who we can shoot because then it turns the entire populace against us when we shoot the wrong guy, even if it’s the guy that’s taking all the UN Aid for his own personal armies. The US is NOT the great satan that everyone portrays it to be, however due to the power that we have, it is very easy for a megalomaniac in power, like our current president to make bad foreign policy decisions that have more impact than they would in a country with less weight to throw around.
Erek
The bullies vary from time to time, but it is generally not the US!
The us is not a bully?
Well, here’s a list of countries that the us has gone to war with / bombed (for a variety of reasons) since wwii:
china ('45-'46, '50-'53)
korea ('50-'53)
guatemala ('54, '67-'69)
indonesia ('58)
cuba ('59-'60)
belgian congo ('64)
peru ('65)
vietnam ('61-'73)
laos ('64-'73)
cambodia ('69-'70)
grenada ('83)
libya ('86)
el salvador (throughout '80s)
nicaragua ('80s)
panama ('89)
iraq ('91-present)
bosnia ('95)
sudan ('98)
afghanistan ('98, currently)
yugoslavia ('99)
Not to mention the overthrowing of democratically elected governments, (esp. in latin america), the backing of brutal dictators (i.e. saddam hussein) and other autocratic governments (see most of the arab world)
nope, no abuse of power here folks…
My analogy is that the US acts like a ‘primma donna’ as opposed to a ‘team player’.
im_a_loser:
Cite?
You forgot Somalia 93, and you forgot to apply your statistics to a valid point. Are you saying this is evidence of the United States being a bully?
Erek