Bush and U.S. Foreign Policy

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by usak, Apr 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KJP

    KJP Well-Known Member

    ye, like we have the technology to pump oil from Iraq back to the USA !

    Its like the person who claimed we didnt get involved in WWII early enough! Do you have any idea of the logistics involved in getting a battalion overseas in the early 40's? It was a first...
  2. ursula

    ursula Well-Known Member

    no i am german, dare i admit it. but yes i live in virginia, usa
  3. czechpoint

    czechpoint Active Member

    A nation does not have to "rule" another nation that it has defeated in war to be an Imperialist - that is a very narrow definition. Check out the following definition from Wikipedia:

    Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

    Here is another from dictionary.com:

    im·pe·ri·al·ism Audio pronunciation of "imperialist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
    1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
    2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government

    The U.S.’s embargo of Cuba is a good example of this. Read the following http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3451859.stm if you are interested.

    Here is an interesting link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm.

    You and I fundamentally disagree on what is appropriate behaviour for any nation state. Many people, including yourself, are able to justify direct intervention into the affairs of another sovereign state. Using your logic then, would it not be justifiable that when African-Americans and women could not vote in the United States that another country would adopt the same perspective as the current-day U.S. and say that “We have to fix that ‘unjust’, ‘undemocratic’ country and make it ‘democratic’ through the use of force”? Or should the country be allowed to evolve naturally and allowed to deal with its own problems on its own terms?

    While it is easy to justify undemocratic intervention against a sovereign state, it's another to have the same logic used against your own country, for example the Communists kicking out the U.S. government and installing a puppet government to allow the African-Americans and women to vote.

    Obviously there are situations where intervention would be required. This, however, would be done most effectively and democratically in an international forum where countries come to an agreement on what is appropriate. For example, there was international consensus to use force against Iraq to protect Kuwait's international border -even peace loving countries like Canada were bombing Iraqi troops alongside the Americans.

    If that is what separates a liberal from a conservative, then let it be.
  4. ursula

    ursula Well-Known Member

    question: have you seen where an embargo has ever done any good. embargos are usually put in place to face a change of government.
    which also bothers me. i remember allende in chile who was killed in a us sponsored coup. but we never heard about allende commiting crimes other than being a communist. i dont agree with communists, but is it ok to overthrow a government just because you can. where were the americans and the brits during the prague spring. or was russia too big and bad. there for a while americans saw communists under every bed. i remember.
  5. czechpoint

    czechpoint Active Member

    Uh, they're called oil tankers.
    Bret said: "Should we have minded our own business when Hitler was marching through France? Surely not." and "The US stands for liberty and justice." So I was simply saying that if that is the case, why didn't the U.S. government get involved when the Nazis marched into Czechoslovakia and Poland to protect the liberty of these nations? The U.S. only became involved when it was directly affected by the war, i.e. Pearl Harbour.
  6. Sova

    Sova Well-Known Member

    Not that it will change anyone's mind, but just to point out some inconsistencies/inaccuracies in previous comments:


    Just to differentiate between terrorism and war: When a country attacks another government or their military resources, it's a war. When a country/organization attacks civilians, it's terrorism. There is a very large difference in the objectives and methods of accomplishing those objectives. Terrorists try to create terror in civilians by targeting and killing civilians. Do you really think the U.S. is targeting Iraqi civilians?! If not, then use more appropriate terminology. If so, than start thinking for yourself, rather than believing nonsensical propaganda.


    Your statement that "U.S. foreign policy seems to be selective" is comparing items from totally different periods of U.S. history. In the beginning of the 1900's, U.S. foreign policy was to isolate itself politically from other countries. When World War I started, the U.S. tried to maintain this isolationism, only to decide in 1917, that isolationism in that context was not the best course of action, and the U.S. entered the war. Following WWI, the U.S. again went back to isolationism, and continued so until WWII (note, that the U.S. was never directly threatened or attacked in WWI, yet we still went to Europe to fight). Again in WWII, the U.S. realized, after a few years of fighting (and of course, as mentioned Pearl Harbor), that it couldn't remain neutral in that conflict. WWII was what pulled the U.S. out of this isolationism for good. The wars in Korea and Vietnam, clearly mark this post-WWII change in U.S. foreign politics. In light of this, what you indicate as selectiveness, was actually due to a major shift in U.S. foreign policy, not capriciousness, as you imply.

    Also, Saddam rose to power on his own, and not by any help from the U.S. The fact the U.S. supported Iraq militarily in its war with Iran is indisputable. Yet Saddam came to power in 1979 (during Carter's term) and the war with Iran was from 1980-1988 (largely during Reagan's terms). Hence, such support can't be construed as influencing Saddam's rise to power. And no, I don't agree with the U.S. military support of Iraq then, albeit hindsight is 20/20. Of course, the fact that Iran was then openly supporting terrorism clouded the issues at that time.

    In addition, your analogy of communists playing with U.S. politics is flawed in the fact that Saddam was not democratically elected by his people, and in fact the vast majority of his people wanted him gone. Second, the problem wasn't the Saddam stopped "toeing the line," but rather that he invaded another of our allies, namely Kuwait. Then, he spit in the face of the UN by blatantly defying the UN-imposed terms of surrender, which almost all the other UN nations have ignored, and by doing so, essentially condoned. In any other era, this in and of itself should have warranted a return to the previous state of war.
    So what you're saying is that you DO support imperialism by the United Nations or some other international body?


    Actually, yes, Russia was too big and bad. If I'm not mistaken, you've been around long enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and how close the world was to nuclear war. Do you really think the Russians would have sat back and allowed an American/British invasion of Czechoslovakia? How easily we forget recent history!

    In general:

    There are many foreign policy fiascos one could cite in the recent history of the U.S., and I for one, don't agree with some, yet agree with others. It's easy to consider such issues from the perspective of smaller countries with less political and/or military clout, when your country is neither expected to act or not to act, or when no grand consequences come from either your country's action or inaction. As (arguably) the only remaining superpower, however, the U.S. doesn't have such a luxury. In general, the U.S. is criticized for acting when it shouldn't, when it doesn't act but should, and even when it acts, but does too little or too much (and sometimes more than one of these at a time by different groups in the international community). It's a lose-lose situation for the U.S. politically.
  7. usak

    usak Well-Known Member

    I like Bush because he does what he thinks is right and he doesnt care if others disagree. (good thing i agree w/ what he thinks is right! :lol: ). Look at how England didnt support Czechoslovakia when it was invaded by the Nazis, do you want the US to be like that?

    The internation mutual desicion to go to war sounds good, but who is to say when these countries are right? What if the UN was around when Hitler was in power and they agreed with him?
  8. IloveAmerica

    IloveAmerica Active Member

    Err unless your formula for altering the space time continuum isn't
    perfected yet I suggest you either use pipelines, trucks and oil tankers.

    Getting a battalion over seas hmmm larger and more ships hmmm or maybe again your space time continuum formula could have worked.
  9. IloveAmerica

    IloveAmerica Active Member

    I couldnt aggree with you more. I love the fact he does what he thinks is right and who cares what others think. Particularly when Bush found out that all those darkies couldnt vote properly during the election choas in Florida (his brother screwed up giving him the state properly -aka keeping it in the down lo) He didnt care what people thought of him not caring that they count each vote. A Liberal would have said make sure they can properly vote then we count the ballots.
    I hate these liberals who think that just because you have the right to vote you actually have the right to change the system to benifit you.
    Damn liberals suck it up.
  10. IloveAmerica

    IloveAmerica Active Member

    Your a peace nick ? Would you walk by soilders and put flowers in their guns ?
    There allways have been and there allways will be nations that kick everyone elses ass !
    Military strength is not enough because the domestic population feels that they have a say. That really busts my chops, boo hoo you dont want little Johny going to fight. Its about being American and helping keep America stay strong. Its a fossil fuel world. We need to keep those Europeans in check as well so its good to drop American bases in the middle east run by a puppet goverment or at least one where the transittional goverment passes laws allowing for america to keep its economic teeth in iraqs oil feilds forever.
    But when you go to iraq for the oil you need to lie to the people because the people are not gonna let their sons and daughters die for oil. Due to this attitdue it helps to brainwash people into thinking that they are doing it for good reasons like letting woman get out of the dark ages and letting them vote.
  11. ursula

    ursula Well-Known Member

    i remember being taught in history that the us gave aid to saddam here it is:
    I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified. <br><br>CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secured NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.

    and again

    interest in the question. 1990.<br><br>Eximbank guarantees were provided through the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro:<br><br>Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funnelled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq

  12. czechpoint

    czechpoint Active Member

    Sova, just to point out some inconsistencies/inaccuracies in previous comments:
    Check out the map at this link: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/hist ... dpower.htm
    Hardly seems like isolationism.

    Let us assume that the US did not covertly support Saddam’s rise to power (which they did). Once Saddam rose to power, the U.S. was indifferent to Saddam’s acts of violence against his own people. The U.S. position was, “ya he is a thug, but he is our thug”. Only when he opposed American interests in the region was he publicly branded as a nut job. Before that he could gas all Kurds he wanted. So with this in mind it’s either a coincidence that once he stepped on America’s toes that the U.S. publicly withdrew its support of Saddam or U.S. foreign policy in the region was taken into consideration as it related to his encroachment on American interests and whether or not he received support from the US. If it’s a coincidence then so are the cases concerning the Shah of Iran, Salavdor Allende, Noriega … The list goes on.

    You might want to read: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

    Uh, no it's not. It's called a hypothetical situation and it is meant to illustrate a point.
    I never once said I supported Imperialism. However, I would be more likely to support INTERVENTION if it was almost, if not completely, unanimously agreed upon by a number of countries in an international forum. That is hardly the same as supporting Imperialism.
    Actually, it was that Britain and the U.S. accepted that Eastern Europe was Russia's sphere of influence at the time.
  13. IloveAmerica

    IloveAmerica Active Member

    South Africa trade embargo worked.
    From what i remember America had the courage to
    be the only real country to keep trading with those
    white supremacists.
    Who cares about rights ? its about keeping the economy going.
    Supply and demand who cares about burning darkies at the cross.
  14. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    Are you FREAKING kidding me? If you cannot be respectful, then you should get out of here. There are different ways to express your opinion without insulting people. You're a rude person and nobody cares who you hate or don't. You obviously have issues that need to be dealt with :evil:
  15. IloveAmerica

    IloveAmerica Active Member

  16. hint

    hint Member

  17. KJP

    KJP Well-Known Member

    use pipelines, trucks and oil tankers.

    a pipeline from Iraq to the USA?!!! Brillant! That would be the worlds longest pipeline and through an ocean!

    Use trucks? Are you kidding me? Tell me the route!

    Yes, we could send oil tankers to deplete their resources, but really now, I think what we have in mind is a base there, just like what is being proposed now in Afkanistan...
  18. idemtidem

    idemtidem Well-Known Member

    That wasn't exactly what I was referring to. My bad. Let me clarify: If you cannot refer to other ethnical groups in a non-pejorative way, then you're a rude person. And a racist.

    Besides, now you're confusing liberals with liberals. If people are from Canada or the Czech Republic they are hardly liberals in the sense that they are supporting the US Democratic party (this is my perception of who is considered liberal in the US, correct me if I'm wrong). Support or objection to a war does not make a person liberal.
  19. czechpoint

    czechpoint Active Member

    Not that I agree with ILoveAmerica's use of language, but it would appear that ILoveAmerica was being sarcastic and extremist in their use of language in order to make people think.
  20. IloveAmerica

    IloveAmerica Active Member

    Sign first off i never said that the oil would be going to the usa, someone assumed that. I simply pointed out what technology is available for the transport of stolen oil.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page