Pax Americana

[Spiffor]

I actually think the American foreign policy does have some concern for personal liberties and rule of law in places under its influence, now that the cold war is gone, and now that there is no strategic threat.

I think the American new strategy will be to support stable regimes following the rule of law and checks'n'balances, in which elections will have about no effect on Foreign policy. I envision the future Iraqi government like this (i.e the elections will be nearly useless, but at least the Iraqis won't have to fear being tortured by their govt). I'm sure the US would have helped building a similar government in Afghanistan is a central power was possible.

The aim of the US still is to keep its worldwide dominance in shape, and the concern for rule of law comes behind. However, unlike during the cold war, the US can now afford to support non-despotic regimes, and it will do so because of the American values.

However, as soon as a real strategic rival will emerge, the US will return to the old policies. While the current foreign policy can be described as "me first", a rivalry will turn the policy to the good old "me only". Simply because the US will not risk the chance to actually lose influence over a country to the profit of its rival.

[Panag]

hi ,

yes agreed spif , but its also in its own intrest to protect ( read stabelize ) overseas areas of uuhhhmmm " clear and present dangers " , ......

its way cheaper also if we take for example the war on drugs , burn the drugs next to where they where grow is cheaper then to make the bill of health care , crime , etc , .....

have a nice day

[Sava]

its way cheaper also if we take for example the war on drugs , burn the drugs next to where they where grow is cheaper then to make the bill of health care , crime , etc , .....

And it would be cheaper not to waste law enforcement resources trying to stop people for using substances that grow naturally. In fact, it would actually generate revenue if the US legalized and taxed substances like alcohol.

[Kuciwalker]

They should use bioweapons on the weed

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sava
And it would be cheaper not to waste law enforcement resources trying to stop people for using substances that grow naturally. In fact, it would actually generate revenue if the US legalized and taxed substances like alcohol.

you are not from the states are ya , .......


alcohol is taxed and legal , .....


bye

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
They should use bioweapons on the weed

yeah, because agent orange and napalm usage in Colombia isn't enough... and there are still innocents who are suffering due to such bombing campaigns... we need to kill the rest of those damn innocents so in teh future, when we bomb drug farms, we won't kill innocents.

[Sava]

Originally posted by panag



from what place in the galaxy do you come from , ......


alcohol is taxed and legal , .....


bye

ahhh, language barrier problem...

What I meant was... we should legalize drugs... and tax them the same way alcohol is...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sava
ahhh, language barrier problem...

What I meant was... we should legalize drugs... and tax them the same way alcohol is...

hi ,

sure , .......


someone has been smoking again , ....

this is just one of the reasons drugs should never be legalized , .....


have a nice early morning

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
yeah, because agent orange and napalm usage in Colombia isn't enough... and there are still innocents who are suffering due to such bombing campaigns... we need to kill the rest of those damn innocents so in teh future, when we bomb drug farms, we won't kill innocents.

notice the ""

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Is it possible for you to accept that the US people are good people and that we value liberty more than anything? How could such a people impose its will on the world? We can lead those who similarly support liberty, we can oppose those who seek to enslave others, but we ourselves can never support enslaving other nations or peoples. That is not what America is all about.

If the American people knew about other places and actually had a say in foreign policy, outside of ongoing wars, this might matter. But the populace does not: foreign policy is run by the government, which has it's interest at heart, liberty being way down on the list. Take your very own attitude: would you, if a voter in 1965, have wanted the US government to withdraw its support of Suharto in Indonesia after it killed 500,000 in an anti-communist purge? Or would you have said: "they are killing communists, who hate freedom, therefore, killing these 500,000 adds to liberty"?

In interactions between states, the general situation of people within them is secondary most of the time.

[Sava]

notice the ""

I know dude, I had to vent... it wasn't directed at you, per se.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Sava
The people who run this "simple think tank", run our country. Perhaps one day you'll stop being so naive and realize how the world works.

Originally posted by Sava
I'm only wrong if the Bushies have no contact whatsoever with that think-tank. It's like a hierarchy. Of course Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rummy aren't working for the think-tank anymore. They have graduated to other leadership positions. But that think tank still works for the Bush-admin and the same people who set it up. That was my point, sorry if you didn't understand properly.

First you say the people that run this think tank run the country. Then you say that is true if anyone in the current administration even has contact with the think tank.

The purpose of the think tank is to generate ideas, no matter how far out they are. The purpose of the administration (with respect to think tanks) is to filter those ideas and use the best of them. There are hundreds of these litte groups all over the place sponsered by some of the strangest combinations of people. Some are better at coming up with viable ideas, some are better known, but they all do the same thing. Throw out ideas. Nothing sinster, no evidence of "Bushie, vast right wing conspiracy to rule the world".

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Kramerman


during the cold war, it was either those nations were a bastradly capitalist country, or a bastardly communist. If we didint support them, the soviets would have and they would have become communist... which means another closed market. So we had a choice. Support the bastards adn be friends, or not support them and be enemies... most of those basards would have been there either way. you cant blame the US on that fact, no matter how hard you try

Ever heard of the Non-Aligned Movement? You are a Super Power, and have always been the greater Super Power, why does a bull in a China shop keep seeking to deny any responsability for all the broken crockery, even when said bull does admit to being very active in promoting it's 'way of doing things'.

Believe me it's not hard to blame the US for anything, all the facts are right there in recorded history, look and you see, problem is most voters don't bother to look, and if they do they're so conditioned into making excuses for these actions it really doesn't matter. That's why we are allowed to have 'freedom of speech' in the West, because the powers that be know that it doesn't matter what people say, the system is impervious to it all, look how the current USUK leadership can lie us into a war and then carry on pretty much as if nothing happened.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by DanS

...
In problem child's eyes, communist China is a good thing. So we can't be responsible for that.
...

Actually yes- you are, in a similar way to Cuba and Iran, never heard of the Boxer Revolution? However in this case it was primarily the British Empire, the other European powers and the Russians that more or less gang-raped that nation untill it became hardcore Red in reaction. (In a similar way to how Iran became hardcore Islamic as the only alternative to American domination under the brutal Shah or the hated Communist movement).

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hershey: The American government has been pushing for democracy in the rest of the world at least since the Monroe doctrine was proclaimed in the early 19th century. Sure, that push has been inconsistant and sometimes it took a back seat to political realities or the economic cronnism of office holders but it's always been there. A large part of the reason all of Latin America except Cuba (and possibly Venezuela) are now democracies is because of the actions of the US and the same can be said for places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

The march to stable democracies is never a straight line and, yes, mistakes are always made but on balance the US has done more good then bad and more good then anyone else in the world.

We need to examiner just what is meant by that word 'democracy', does it mean government that is for sale to the highest bidder (as is the case in the US) does it mean a pro-capitalist system where the votes of Shareholders hold value? Or does it mean a system where the government is conducted for in the interests of the majority population, even if this means a period of Keynesian economics (what American policy makers usually disregard as 'socialism' or 'communism')

Why did the USA back Aparteid South Africa? was it because some people had the vote at least, and that was 'democratic enough', or because Aparteid SA was pro-capitalist?