Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

How can one criticize US foreign policies???? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andi_bhatti)
    Well my lttle buddy you only saying the things which your media say man come to the reality and come to these countries and see the truth.. As far as what you pointed out the things in your reply about Muslims or other things like that... I must say why u guys dont come to save the pelistian people or kashmir people if u have so much kind heart to muslims.... let me tell you why u guys dont come here beacuse in palestine there is ISrael is occupying the things and in kashmir India is Occupying the things so both are very good friends of US.. and you guys cannot take oil from these countries or the things which they are providing ... just answer to my simple question why USA always reject or deny the resolution which used to passed in the favour of Muslims and why he used to Approve the resolution which go in the favour of Israel... and one last thing u said that why these people does the things .. tell me one thing if some one is going to burn your house you will try to destroy him..
    i hope i have given the Answer.
    im afraid you havent really come near, but there are a number of better threads on the forum that may be of interest, if youre willing to do a search(my sticky is down for the moment)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    borrrrrrrrriiiiiiiinggggggggg

    Good answer biggles
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have to say, after reading more of this im surprised there is still an anti british empire presence on this topic

    now, im not saying colonialism is perfect, but it some ways it is the only way.
    Anyone who argues that the americans wanted to end european colonialism needs to learn basic history. Now, anyone who dosnt know why americans wanted to end colonalism, needs to pick up a book on economics.

    America couldnt have controll of 3rd world countries exports/imports as effectivily as the europeans. So, they began a campaign saying all peoples have the right to govern themselves. They pressured the war torn rebuilding european nations to end colonialism. As the europeans began to decolonize africa and the far east, the americans moved right in,supporting leaders who would follow thier instructions.

    now, after researching decolonization, freedom and democracy wasnt america's motives, it was economic dominace of the world. The americas were afraid of the europeans becoming equal to america in economic and militarial strength.

    Now, you might say that america has supported the rebuilding of europe, and helped defend it from the russians. This was also in america's interests, without the rebuilding, the U.S. wouldnt have an effective allie agianst the russians.

    A hate it when people think america invades countries to liberate people, its total ********. It all has to do with economics, thats what makes the world turn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canuck)
    I have to say, after reading more of this im surprised there is still an anti british empire presence on this topic

    now, im not saying colonialism is perfect, but it some ways it is the only way.
    Anyone who argues that the americans wanted to end european colonialism needs to learn basic history. Now, anyone who dosnt know why americans wanted to end colonalism, needs to pick up a book on economics.

    America couldnt have controll of 3rd world countries exports/imports as effectivily as the europeans. So, they began a campaign saying all peoples have the right to govern themselves. They pressured the war torn rebuilding european nations to end colonialism. As the europeans began to decolonize africa and the far east, the americans moved right in,supporting leaders who would follow thier instructions.

    now, after researching decolonization, freedom and democracy wasnt america's motives, it was economic dominace of the world. The americas were afraid of the europeans becoming equal to america in economic and militarial strength.

    Now, you might say that america has supported the rebuilding of europe, and helped defend it from the russians. This was also in america's interests, without the rebuilding, the U.S. wouldnt have an effective allie agianst the russians.

    A hate it when people think america invades countries to liberate people, its total ********. It all has to do with economics, thats what makes the world turn.
    Typical BC pot smoking thinking.... America isn't the problem it's religion and fundamentalism which is found not only in America but in the middle east and other problem ridden areas.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    American global actions are motivated by three main things.

    1. National Security
    2. Economic interest
    3. Values

    The thing is that 2 + 3 and often 1 as well come togeather naturally. For example by the US acting against totalitarian regimes such as Afghanistan and implementing democracy, liberal trade follows as the people see it as in their interests and as such at the same time, government develops that is forced by the will of people in the country to implement human and social services that protect values America can identify with. I.E justice, freedom, economic opportunity>
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by USUK1)
    American global actions are motivated by three main things.

    1. National Security
    2. Economic interest
    3. Values

    The thing is that 2 + 3 and often 1 as well come togeather naturally. For example by the US acting against totalitarian regimes such as Afghanistan and implementing democracy, liberal trade follows as the people see it as in their interests and as such at the same time, government develops that is forced by the will of people in the country to implement human and social services that protect values America can identify with. I.E justice, freedom, economic opportunity>
    that is not necessarily true. in both Chile, Nicugarua and Vietnam the USA supported and funded parties/dictators who were in the minority. Ie the dicator Diem/all the miliary junta's that followed. They also killed large numbers of Vietnamese trying to save them from communism. It also cost large amounts of money to do this. So i think their is quite alot of wishful thinking going on, on your part.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuniE)
    Typical BC pot smoking thinking.... America isn't the problem it's religion and fundamentalism which is found not only in America but in the middle east and other problem ridden areas.
    well, you shouldnt stereotype, I just happen to know you live in toronto, tons of crack cocaine there, and a corrupt police force, dosnt mean you do crack does it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with whoever started this thread (and the person who posted second was also very spot on). We should always look at things and judge them (nothing is above criticism) but after talking to lots of informed people I've up my own mind to support Bush and Blair.

    I'll be voting Blair next year and I'd vote Bush if I where American - hoping that they will continue to make the world a safer place.

    Also some of the anti-Americans should stop talking out of their backsides and especially stop the cheap character jokes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by USUK1)
    American global actions are motivated by three main things.

    1. National Security
    2. Economic interest
    3. Values

    The thing is that 2 + 3 and often 1 as well come togeather naturally. For example by the US acting against totalitarian regimes such as Afghanistan and implementing democracy, liberal trade follows as the people see it as in their interests and as such at the same time, government develops that is forced by the will of people in the country to implement human and social services that protect values America can identify with. I.E justice, freedom, economic opportunity>
    Firstly, foreign policy should never ever be motivated by economic interest, otherwise your liberations are merely contract killings, wars that are beyon repute are based on security and the defence of democracy - stating that economic interests play a part in foreign policy may be obvious but I doubt very much that you would find Bush admitting that he invaded Iraq as a way to spur the US's sluggish economy.

    Values should also not come into play, freeing people from oppresive regimes is an excellent idea, and of course it would be wonderful if the whole world could be free from despots, unfortunatley this is never going to happen. Exporting values is in itself extremely troublesome, firstly who decided that American values are superior? To much of the world the US is full of gun totting, Alcohol drinking, drug abusing, abortion performing, gambling consumerist pigs - and whilst to us in the west these are the (perhaps fortunate) side effects of free speech, freedom of movement, equality etc they are not, at least not yet, values held around the world. To try and force these value systems on other societies is extremely dangerous and too quote an English language *******isation 'dumb'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by [email protected])
    Values should also not come into play, freeing people from oppresive regimes is an excellent idea, and of course it would be wonderful if the whole world could be free from despots, unfortunatley this is never going to happen. Exporting values is in itself extremely troublesome, firstly who decided that American values are superior? To much of the world the US is full of gun totting, Alcohol drinking, drug abusing, abortion performing, gambling consumerist pigs - and whilst to us in the west these are the (perhaps fortunate) side effects of free speech, freedom of movement, equality etc they are not, at least not yet, values held around the world. To try and force these value systems on other societies is extremely dangerous and too quote an English language *******isation 'dumb'.
    America doesn't have a monopoly on the values you think are being exported into Iraq. Since when are individual freedoms, political democracy and equal rights for all exclusively American values?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're right that the EU are somewhat hypocritical on farm subsidies - a measure, incidentally, that the UK would dearly like to be see abolished.

    But your argument for the US intervention in Iraq is very poor. The truth is that the country is rapidly descending into anarchy, and for the majority of people, effective freedom - that is, freedom from terror (as opposed to the right to vote) - is probably no better now than it was then. Even if it improves in the long term, the amount of money the US and the world has spent on this war could have achieved far more good if it had been spent on other non-militaristic humanitarian projects, and could have done so in a way that wouldn't alienate the whole Arab world. Vis a vis terrorism our interventions in Iraq are likely only to make this situation far worse in the long run, as it breeds a generation of Arabs with a genuine grievance against the West.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    America doesn't have a monopoly on the values you think are being exported into Iraq. Since when are individual freedoms, political democracy and equal rights for all exclusively American values?
    Individual freedoms and equal rights? You mean like the right to gay marriage? You mean like those demonstrated to prisoners in GITMO? Political democracy? You mean like the person who actually wins the election getting into office?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    Individual freedoms and equal rights? You mean like the right to gay marriage? You mean like those demonstrated to prisoners in GITMO? Political democracy? You mean like the person who actually wins the election getting into office?
    very good point
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    Individual freedoms and equal rights? You mean like the right to gay marriage? You mean like those demonstrated to prisoners in GITMO? Political democracy? You mean like the person who actually wins the election getting into office?
    I am not going to get into a gay marriage debate but as of right now...things are equal. The law states that marriage is legal between one man and one woman. That applies to everyone...that is equal. "Well they cant marry who they love." Well "love" is not a requisite to marriage in the eyes of the state. Should the gov't make sure every person loves eachother before marrying them? Homosexuals are a secular group who want special privileges. In order to get it, the laws have to be changed to allow for their lifestyles.

    The prisoners at GITMO are terrorists, murderers, prisoners of war. They are there so that you can sit at your fancy computer and shoot your mouth off without fearing of a terrorist attack. I find it amusing how people are more outraged when the terrorists are forced where a bag on their head, standing on a box, then when the murderers decapitate an innocent civilian.

    And finally...its obvious that you have no idea how the American Electoral System works...and i am not going to sit here and explain it to you because i aint gonna waste my time. Pick up a textbook and read. Stop making such ignorant comments because your "very good points" are nothing but a load of crap.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    Individual freedoms and equal rights? You mean like the right to gay marriage? You mean like those demonstrated to prisoners in GITMO? Political democracy? You mean like the person who actually wins the election getting into office?
    The constitution never says that homosexuals can marry. Bush did win the election. It's not by popularity, it's by votes in the electoral college.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NY_Patriot)
    The prisoners at GITMO are terrorists, murderers, prisoners of war. They are there so that you can sit at your fancy computer and shoot your mouth off without fearing of a terrorist attack. I find it amusing how people are more outraged when the terrorists are forced where a bag on their head, standing on a box, then when the murderers decapitate an innocent civilian.

    And finally...its obvious that you have no idea how the American Electoral System works...and i am not going to sit here and explain it to you because i aint gonna waste my time. Pick up a textbook and read. Stop making such ignorant comments because your "very good points" are nothing but a load of crap.
    They are not prisoners of war according to the US, but 'unauthorised combatants'. How do you know they are terrorists and murderers without allowing them the right to be tried in a legal way? And I dispute the suggestion that their imprisonment in such a manner, and possible subjection to torture, will win the war on terror. The US, in giving people just reason to hate them, is likely to incite further terrorism as much as it will prevent it. And how come those GITMO inhabitants that have turned out to be US citizens have been let out or moved elsewhere, if they are presumably just as much of a threat?

    I have a very good idea of how the US Electoral System works. And whilst it is right that it is not the majority that necessarily decides the outcome of the presidential election, some controversy certainly surrounds the US Supreme Court vote by a 5-4 majority (split along party lines) that effectively ended any recounts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    The truth is that the country is rapidly descending into anarchy,
    would you care to explain that? because the FACTS suggest it is ascending away from the grip of a dictator and the murderous fanatics who ruled it for so long. the security situation is better, the economy is better, the country has more political stability, the country is more democratic, employment is better, medical care is better, social and political rights better.

    and for the majority of people, effective freedom - that is, freedom from terror (as opposed to the right to vote) - is probably no better now than it was then.
    "descending into anarchy", but freedom and terror probably "no different"?

    the Iraqi population fear being caught up when a small insurgent minority target US forces and external civilians, not being hunted by a dictator, the ruling elite and a brutal police force. the difference is clear.

    Even if it improves in the long term, the amount of money the US and the world has spent on this war could have achieved far more good if it had been spent on other non-militaristic humanitarian projects,
    only the politically naive believe such matters can be subject to a 'pick and choose'. id like to see what or who else could have acheived more. and dont think about banging on about the environment.

    and could have done so in a way that wouldn't alienate the whole Arab world.
    alienate from whom? the Iraqi majority supports the US backed government, supports the goals of the US and supports the actions of US troops in providing security and a democratic future. America will never please the Arab world so why treat it as especially relevant?

    Vis a vis terrorism our interventions in Iraq are likely only to make this situation
    how?

    far worse in the long run, as it breeds a generation of Arabs with a genuine grievance against the West.
    as long as fanatical islam, barbarous dictators and the propaganda of oppression reign in the middle east, the actions of the US and the West remain irrelevant. you dont honestly believe that if the US made policy sacrifices towards the middle east, the result would be a terrorist-free and pro-US arab nation? that history suggests such an outcome? or that the US even should?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    I have a very good idea of how the US Electoral System works. And whilst it is right that it is not the majority that necessarily decides the outcome of the presidential election, some controversy certainly surrounds the US Supreme Court vote by a 5-4 majority (split along party lines) that effectively ended any recounts.
    The supreme court had to step in because enough was enough. If you keep recounting the votes over and over and over again, and the same person keeps winning, what's the point of letting it continue?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    would you care to explain that? because the FACTS suggest it is ascending away from the grip of a dictator and the murderous fanatics who ruled it for so long. the security situation is better, the economy is better, the country has more political stability, the country is more democratic, employment is better, medical care is better, social and political rights better.
    Which FACTS are these? Been to iraq lately? No? Well, neither have I. You must be watching different news channels to me (or maybe even fox, which isn't a news channel imho). All the facts seem to indicate that Muqtada Al-Sadr's militia is growing in strength as they have become a rallying point for the small insurgencies across the country. Let me remind you that the murderous fanatics that ruled Iraq (the Ba'ath party) were put in power by the US in order to stop the rise to power of islamic fundamentalism, directly against the wishes of the majority shia population. The shia are a very orthodox denomination of islam and they make up the majority of the population - democracting representation by hardline clerics is inevitable if free elections are allowed, which the US will not tolerate. The Iraqi economy is shafted (the oil industry has been severly damaged). The country has much less political stability (lots of insurgencies under Sadam weren't there?). The country is supposedly rule by a government of officials appointed by the US, that is not democratic at all. Employment is not better, check the stats. Social and Political rights are in limbo at the moment as no offical permanent form of government has been decided upon, and it will be decided by a set of US appointed officials.


    the Iraqi population fear being caught up when a small insurgent minority target US forces and external civilians, not being hunted by a dictator, the ruling elite and a brutal police force. the difference is clear.
    No, the dictator is called George Bush and the brutal police force is the Coalition force.

    only the politically naive believe such matters can be subject to a 'pick and choose'. id like to see what or who else could have acheived more. and dont think about banging on about the environment.
    Giving weapons inspectors time to finish there job???

    alienate from whom? the Iraqi majority supports the US backed government, supports the goals of the US and supports the actions of US troops in providing security and a democratic future.
    So say the US anyway.

    America will never please the Arab world so why treat it as especially relevant?
    I am so glad you are not making US foreign policy decisions.


    as long as fanatical islam, barbarous dictators and the propaganda of oppression reign in the middle east, the actions of the US and the West remain irrelevant.
    Irrelevant? Are you sure? The US has a goverment which supports fanatical christianity and pumps out far, far more propaganda than the station managers at Al-Jazeera could even dream of. Are you saying fanatical christianity is less damaging than fanatical islam?

    you dont honestly believe that if the US made policy sacrifices towards the middle east, the result would be a terrorist-free and pro-US arab nation? that history suggests such an outcome? or that the US even should?
    Policy sacrifices? No, Policy changes. What exactly would the US be sacrificing? The right to act like a unilateral bully who has the god given right to impose it's values on the rest of the world? The big problem here I feel is that US history shows that freedom is bought with blood, where as European history tells us that freedom comes through enlightement.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.