Country-bashing

[Greenday]

If the member nations who are able and willing to act are already fully committed to other projects - as Australia often is - then the UN is in the same position as a social worker with no foster homes or shelter beds to place the latest abused child. Helpless.

Fighting off those kangaroos must really sap your energy. Maybe the Canadians can help you when they are done fighting the beaver/moose army!

In all seriousness, the UN is something that looks good on paper, but really, is just a group of people thinking of what the world SHOULD be like. That's all they do. It's all well and good to say that everyone should work towards a certain cause, but every nation has their own problems to deal with as it is.

[Boozy]

Boozy, with your logic on the great powers and war and interventionism, explain to me how China's economy is doing so well with lack of military involvement on a scale like ours? Or Luxembourg? Or Britain? Or Germany?

To address just a few:

China: Their economy is based on paying their workers very little money to make a lot of plastic crap for export. I guess that's one way to go.

Britain: Holy hell, the biggest imperialistic power of all-time. No lack of military or economic intervention there.

But I should clarify that I don't disagree with you at all when you say that America's imperialism is both wrong and out of control. I just feel that Ron Paul and his ilk do not fully grasp the fundamental changes in American society that will have to occur should the US stop pursuing its current course of action.

The American way of life has been made possible by interventionist foreign policy. You can't just snap your fingers and withdraw from the world overnight. The military-industrial complex would collapse. This is something you have to slowly do over the course of a generation.

[DarthRetard]

In response to what you said Seshat, I understand that a great many nations did help us in our endeavors in Afghanistan, especially. My cousin served with Canadian special forces in several missions, and had nothing but praise for their tenacity and fervor for their job. Australia also has more respect from me than any other nation in this world because Australia sticks to their guns, doesnt back down, and frankly, is an all-around great nation from what I gather. Hopefully you'll understand what I meant through further clarification:

I was really mainly addressing the issue that it seems like everytime something big is about to go down, the UN is apt to opt for popular decisions, not necessarily the right ones, and when the United States tries to be (as it is commonly called) an example, and try to tread the right path, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont. If the US does adopt a more relaxed interventionist policy (i.e. not threatening everything in sight like a shi tzu in heat), and something happens, I know for damned well certain that the UN Security Council nations will be the first to say "I told you so" and place blame on US foreign policy. The "stfu and help us" argument/statement was mainly for Russia/France because I know Spain, Britain and most other nations did the best to give us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't help that we fucked up big time, to be honest, but damned if we're not trying. The American people are good people, for the most part, and we don't really consider ourselves better than anyone, we're just spoiled I think, and we need a wake up call.

[Seshat]

But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

Actually, the UN doesn't have any teeth. All it can do is ask the member nations to do stuff - it has no armies of its own, no citizenry to draw from, and no land to place training bases for its hypothetical citizens.

If the member nations who are able and willing to act are already fully committed to other projects - as Australia often is - then the UN is in the same position as a social worker with no foster homes or shelter beds to place the latest abused child. Helpless.

[Seshat]

The rest of the world needs to shut the fuck up and/or meet us halfway. We're not your enemy, and we mean perfectly damn well, and you know it.

Oooookay.

Please re-read (or read for the first time) post 26 of this thread.

I only talk about one country, because that's the country I'm an expert in. Our members in other first world countries can doubtless provide examples of 'meeting you halfway' - or going further than the US does.

If you're worried about numbers - for example, that the US sends a great many more troops than Australia does - read the CIA world factbook. Look at things like population figures and GNP. Continuing with the same example, Australia has a population roughly equivalent to New York City. Not state, city. We can't match the US in numbers (or dollars!).

As for 'We're not your enemy' - well, the US government sure acted like anyone who didn't get into Iraq with them after 9/11 was an enemy. Your government seriously pissed off a lot of residents of friendly nations. And not all of our citizens are intelligent and fair-minded enough to separate 'government' from 'people'.

Even nations who did go and help got aggressive and unfriendly behaviour from your government. We typically kept our mouths shut at the time because hey, you'd just received a severe shock, we understood. But some of your people still act like we never did - or do - anything to help! Newsflash: not true!

As for "If you do the research, the UN has never had a successful peacekeeping mission." The League of Nations, Australia, and the UN have overseen the continuing development of Papua New Guinea as a nation. Australia and the UN are working on East Timor.

I believe you may well be right - if you stick to the technicality of 'peacekeeping mission' and define 'success' within a scope of less than several decades. But both Papua New Guinea and East Timor are nations which have formed with UN (and League of Nations) assistance, have a mentor first world nation, and are on the way to becoming successful, independent nations.

I have spoken with members of the Australian military who have been posted to various locations in the southern Pacific and Indian oceans, and South-East Asia. Some of their missions were UN-sponsored, some were nominally 'peacekeeping'. Some were soldiers doing hard police work like dealing with drug or sex trafficking. Some were emergency assistance after natural disasters. They tell me that New Zealand forces often go to the same places as Australian forces, helping out with the same things: so that's two countries doing their share.

There seems to be a common perception among Americans that they're the only people who ever go out of their own country to help others. That perception is very, very wrong.

[DarthRetard]

I'm not saying re-adpot the Monroe Doctrine. If you read my whole post, you'd get that what I said was that Americans have equated the idea of being moral with being interventionist. Yes, sometimes interventionism is good (Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, etc.). However, that same idea that it's our job to do everything because we're "right" or it's the "right thing to do" is what's made us reviled in some parts of the globe. I bought the book on Osama Bin Laden's speeches and statements. His first grievance against us as a cause for 9/11 (and im not saying we caused it, calm the fuck down :-D) was our defiling muslim soil by putting US Bases over there. Iraq's borders were not drawn by them. 1948 created israel, but it also upended an entire people who now have no government. It's not just the US, the West (yes canada, you're included too) has had a policy of intervening much too often and to little avail in the Middle East (crusades anybody? look up Saladin and his relationship with good ole King Richard the Lionhearted). The fact is, how would we like it if China put bases in Iowa? Or if Russia put missiles in Cuba? (That sounds kind of familiar.....) During the Cuban missile crisis all you heard about was Russian missiles near Cuba, but did you know anything about the US missile installations in turkey? Russia was merely retaliating under a Mutual Assured Destruction philosophy. In short, the point is, It's not our job, nor should it be our job, we need to pick our battles a little wiser. So vote for Ron Paul, because everything I've been talking about, is what that man has been fighting for for 30 years now, and he's the only candidate who will stick to it.

Boozy, with your logic on the great powers and war and interventionism, explain to me how China's economy is doing so well with lack of military involvement on a scale like ours? Or Luxembourg? Or Britain? Or Germany?

[protege]

But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

That's why I don't like the UN. Oh, and they like to tie things up with red tape, apparently. I'm referring to the 1990-99 Yugoslavia civil war. By the time they finally got involved, it was a full-blown war...and some serious atrocities had already been done.

[Greenday]

I'm with DarthRetard on the UN and NATO. They've become basically as useless as the League of Nations. It's all well and good to tell people what they can and cannot do. But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

[Boozy]

How about we adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like Ron Paul has been fighting for since 1976 and let the UN do it's fucking job?

Because the US policy of self-isolationism in the 1930's was disastrous. It led to a stagnant economy causing the US depression to last far longer than it should have.

For the great powers, war and intervention is about trade. It is not about "doing good". Influence is spread through foreign aid and foreign involvement. This is how the US economy became so large and so rich in the post-war years. If the US draws back support, and China steps in...you have a pretty remarkable shift in international economic power.

With that said, if isolationism is what the libertarians want, I can understand that. What I am not hearing from them is any indication that they understand that this will seriously and possible irrevocably change the US way of life - and quality of life - at home. Say goodbye to your oil.

[AFPheonix]

Unfortunately, a lot of our foreign policy to this point has been extremely reactionary and short sighted. Supporting the Shah in Iran unconditionally while he ran a corrupt government is a perfect example.
Our previous engagements in Afghanistan is another.
How we engaged with Saddam well before the first Iraq war is yet another. The current war in Iraq was a completely short-sighted catastrophe. I'd definitely call that "fucking around".
Let's see...where else have we fucked around....
Oh yes, the way we've treated a lot of our neighbors to the south of us hasn't always been as altruistic as some would like us to believe.
Our single-minded support of Israel without calling them out on their shit (and yes, they do crappy things too. No hands are clean over there) has really stirred a huge poop pot.

Now and again, we do really fabulous interventions that really make a huge difference. Taking out Milosovec was a great example of us working together with NATO and the UN and really giving Serbia a big hand up.

If we truly want to convey to the rest of the world that we do mean well and aren't in things solely for our own benefit, then we really need to plan better for all outcomes of a given conflict. Furthermore, playing one side off of another does not lead to future peace and prosperity.

We also need to retool our diplomatic forces into ones who are better versed in the languages and customs of the rising powers in the world as well as the hot spots. Condi is FINALLY putting more resources into getting emissaries who speak arabic, farsi and other languages of up and coming nations. This is a move that this administration has neglected for far too long, considering how much the middle east has shaped the image of Bush et. al.

[DarthRetard]

Stop fucking around in other countries' business when we don't need to (like Iraq), but stepping in in places when it's definitely needed, like Somalia currently and Darfur?

How about we adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like Ron Paul has been fighting for since 1976 and let the UN do it's fucking job? Oh, wait, because after we had our little Somalia incident, and were a little wary of intervening again, 800,000 Rwandans were murdered while Coffee-At-One sat there behind his desk and told America that we don't donate enough money.

We need to pull our bases out of the middle east (Saudi Arabia, etc.), and stop trying to drag out this "We did the NOrmandy WWII thing you owe us, etc etc."

The rest of the world needs to shut the fuck up and/or meet us halfway. We're not your enemy, and we mean perfectly damn well, and you know it. So stop promoting anti-american sentiment (Chirac, you bastard) while my cousin and I serve in our nation's military to do our jobs.

Amethyst Hunter, if you really want to get educated(dont read that as an insult, just a little info) on both sides of that Iraq War issue, I'd suggest reading the Iraq War Reader. It's a compilation of documents surrounding anything to do with the Iraq conflict. Let's stop calling it a war, will you? It's quite annoying, as Congress never declared it a war.

Back to what AFP said, we're not "fucking around" in other countries. We're doing something NATO and the UN should be doing. If you do the research, the UN has never had a successful peacekeeping mission. With the power and hegemony that the United States possesses, we are labeled with an obligation to mitigate any conflict necessary that may deemed a threat to us and/or our allies and global stability (read: Iraq, N. Korea, Iran). Israel bombed Iran because they were building facilities which would ultimately lead to another conflict (as if Israel doesnt get enough of that)and loss of life. Preventionism is not morally wrong. It's just not always morally right. Speaking of which, our interventionism in Kosovo has finally lead to their declaration as an independent nation, free from persecution.

Back on the topic as a whole (sorry, old debate habit, I digress) there's definitely a substantial amount of anti-american sentiment that's farmed and fertilized by our own damn media. All Wolf Blitzer talks about anymore is how the rest of the world disapproves of what we do. Do I personally give a damn about what a Parisian citizen thinks of how my president handles our shit? No. However, I do think things are getting better. The new french PM (or is it president? I dont remember) Nicolas Sarkozy has been much more malleable with the United States, and Britain's withdrawal of troops have settled some restlessness. We're handling things well with Putin, of Russia, who happens to be in a damn tight spot right now. I think, if we elect a new president who has a conscious mind for foreign policy (not one who goes around saying how great we are......you know who you are McCain.) and will consider opposite end reactions to our actions (good old Newton), nations internationally will respect us more as a whole.

[AFPheonix]

It's really a pendulum that swings back and forth, although it's gradually swinging more rightward as the baby-boomers get old and forget their populist roots.

We're very much due for a leftward swing, and I think we're at the start of at least a small one.
It is heartening to see how many college aged kids are getting involved these days. They will most definitely help fuel at least some superficial change. Whether we can extract our government from the grip of big money remains to be seen.

[Greenday]

Americans, as a general rule I love you people to bits - I just can't stand your government.

What a coincidence, neither can we. The people who run our government suck. We know it. Nothing will get done about it. We'll get a good president, and he'll either get shot or only lasts 4-8 years, then we are back with some moron.

[DexX]

See, this is where the blind prejudice gets separated from the well-reasoned criticisms.

I spent five weeks in the US in September and October of 2003, and I have been desperate to save enough to get back ever since. I knew a bunch of people from an online community and crashed on many couches in my trek across many of the northern states of the US.

I had a 100% success rate maiing friends. Every one of these people I had only ever known online - mostly in text, but sometimes in dodgy webcam or voice chats - turned out to be a magnificent example of humanity, and it was the best holidays of my life.

BUT...

The US government shits me up the wall. The elected representatives of these people I adore keep doing evil shit and I really wish they would stop. They also share their country with some real pricks - imperialistic and insular entitlement whores. I never met an unpleasant American while I was over there, but I've been subjected to a few over here. That said, I've met plenty of very nice American tourists and students, too, so it isn't a blanket rule.

Americans, as a general rule I love you people to bits - I just can't stand your government. That's fair enough though, since for the past ten years I couldn't stand mine (hooray for Kevin Rudd!) and I know plenty of you can't stand yours.

The thing that surprised me most about the US was how alike we are. Some of the fine details differ, but in the end people are just people. When people in every nation on earth finally stop treating people of other nations as devils, monsters, or aliens then we will finally know peace.

Bombs never changed anyone's mind. We need peace, diplomacy, friendship, and education. When everyone on earth has access to all of these, war will end. It could actually happen in our lifetime - we have the technology to do it for the first time in human history. We have the internet, television, communication satellites... for the first time in a hundred thousand years of humanity we actually have the ability to reach everyone, talk to everyone, and make peace.

*sigh*

I seem to be in something of a hippie-ish mood today. Ah well, doesn't stop it from being true.

[Seshat]

Most of the rivers in Arizona are tributaries running down from the Colorado.

Sorry, let me clarify:
In Aussieland, we have a lot of 'rivers' which only have water in them at flood time. Any river which isn't a dry riverbed three years out of four is a 'permanent river' to us.