[YAOT] US foreign policy (poll and discussion)

[Zarix]

Tolstoy, I am from Finland and I don't have Fox (I guess you are refering to the tv channel). I think you have missunderstood what I have said. Securing a steady oil source is important because oil is what keeps the economy going. Ecomomical growth is the thing that keeps peace in capitalistic countries. This is pretty bad situation but at least I haven't heard any ideas how this could be changed. However, things might get better when fusion replaces oil as the main power source.

[dogscoff]

From where I'm sitting, the current US foreign policy in all matters (Iraq, environmental policy everything) seems to be "We're the US, we're bigger and therefore better than you, we'll serve our own interests and screw the rest of the world."

Now maybe it is more complex than that in reality, but that's how it looks and the rest of the world doesn't like it. I think we can expect a global swing in public opinion away from the kind of US-worship that has dominated for the Last 60 years, especially as the potential of the EU starts to be realised.

I'm not sure what Blair is doing lately- whether he's trying to keep America out of isolation or whether he's just sniffing for truffles up Bush's backside but either way I think he needs to embrace Europe and let the US do it's own thing.

Only when the world's consumers start rejecting McDonald's, Disney, Coca-Cola, MTV and the thousands of other flagship brands (and the associated lifestlye) of US economic superiority will America actually realise that maybe it's time to change its attitude. It's a hard lesson but they will have to learn it for themselves.

[Krsqk]

Only when the world's consumers start rejecting McDonald's, Disney, Coca-Cola, MTV and the thousands of other flagship brands (and the associated lifestlye) of US economic superiority will America actually realise that maybe it's time to change its attitude. It's a hard lesson but they will have to learn it for themselves.

That would more than likely precede a change in US policy. I don't think it's likely to happen, though; the rest of the world seems as enamored with the US lifestyle as the US is.

[dogscoff]

the rest of the world seems as enamored with the US lifestyle as the US is.

This has certainly been true for a while- since 1945, more or less. However, I think it's going to change. As the US becomes less popular for its policies and the rest of the world starts to catch up (and overtake) economically, people will look elsewhere for their cultural influences- either inwardly, reviving some of the culture that has been assimilated and homogenised into the Great Consumerism Collective, or they will find a replacement: The EU is one possibility, as european nationals start to rediscover one another in the light their new shared currency and start a wave of euro-trendiness. Various eastern cultures provide another (more probable) alternative, since their traditional cultures are even more fundamentally different.

Personally I really hope we start to see less emphasis on mindless consumption and blind obsession for "economic growth", which is by definition unsustainable on our finite planet. Now that we are starting to see technologies that can increase co-operation and efficiency and put more power into the hands of individuals, I think an alternative model of some kind should be viable.

BTW I don't blame the US for creating today's rampant consumerism, but it has championed it for the best part of a century and now it's time for a change.

[kalthalior]

So when will the rest of the world catch up with the US economically, Dogscoff? US GDP has gone from $6 trillion in 1995 to over $10 trillion in 2001, 30% of world GDP. The second largest economy is Japan's, at $3 trillion. Europe, as a whole, is around $8 trillion, and growth in the US is perennially at a higher rate. Also, what finite resources are you refering to? Both production and known reserves of almost every conceivable resource have expanded over the Last 50 years.
Example: oil production, in millions of metric tons -- 1950=523, 1973=2,858, 1998=3,450. Known reserves in 1950 were about 1 trillion barrels. That has quadrupled to 4 trillion barrels in 2000.

For nearly every other known mineral resource, there is a similiar story to be told.

[tesco samoa]

the rest of the world seems as enamored with the US lifestyle as the US is.

I think that 2 /3 's of the world feels that because of their broken backs that the us life style can occur.

But when you say US life style do you mean North American ??? For Canada and US is very similar. And i would almost say that Canada has a higher standard of living than the US. Not as high as finland but close....

[TerranC]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Only when the world's consumers start rejecting McDonald's, Disney, Coca-Cola, MTV and the thousands of other flagship brands (and the associated lifestlye) of US economic superiority will America actually realise that maybe it's time to change its attitude. It's a hard lesson but they will have to learn it for themselves.

And therefore causing massive drops in american stocks, causing the new depression, where it will surely bring about chaos and unemployment, of all places, not just america, but Europe?

I don't what kind of world you live in, Dogscoff, but in this one, what happens in one market, impacts the other. And when a huge market such as the American market falls, the European and the Asian ones soon follow.

[ April 05, 2003, 05:05: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[TerranC]

- Military: The US has the largest, most powerful, and most widespread military in the world, possessing bases in many countries. They have been involved in many conflicts worldwide in this century, which has undeniably provoked anger in some circles. They have also played a major part in stopping the aggression of some pretty major threats in the two World Wars.

China currently has the largest military, or rather, the largest army. It's navy and it's Air Force is rather small and obsolete compared to the American navy and Air Force.

[Desdinova]

military: i agree that the US has the most advanced military at this point, but technology will only go so far in a war. if the other side is willing to die in order to kill our soldiers then our tech will not necessarily help us, just look at the suicide killings. as far as the part about it being a good thing that the US weapons are pointed toward Iraq as opposed to other countries, i fear that regardless of what happens with Iraq the politicians will always find someone else to point the guns at in order to right some injustice or something along those lines. i dont like the idea of our soldiers being used as police forces in other countries, i feel they should be allowed to kill themselves off if thats what they feel like doing. i know this is callous, after all what about the civilians, but why should we put our people in harms way for others that will generally continue to dislike us for interfering in the first place, or for religious differences. (side rant, i feel that organized religion is one of the best con jobs put over on the people, politics and religion have caused more pain and suffering than anything else in history). i also know that a plan of isolationism wont work or that if the world situation is not monitored then things can go bad very quickly but why should we put our friends and family at risk if what is happening in other countries does not harm us.

politics: (politics is the 2nd biggest con job put over on the people). the US is supposedly a democracy, yeah right, a Republic is more accurate. in reality i would say big business and the rich are in control of this, behind the scenes of course. what is this war really over? is it to liberate the Iraqis from Hussain, or is it over Oil and the people come 2nd. there is no such thing as a perfect government but despite the flaws in ours it works very well. despite my lack of enthusiasm for politics.

opinions of other countries: so the other countries are not very fond of us at this time, it will not stop us from assisting them if it is needed and i hope it would not stop them from assisting us if needed. cant we all just get along, live and let live, peace prosperity and long life, nanoo nanoo? regardless of what the US does it will always piss somebody off about something, that that goes about other countries also. (ok so maybe this didnt go anywhere)

in regards to the influence the US has over other countries culture: that is good for a laugh, ok so there is now a Mcdonalds in almost every country. over all the US takes its styles, culture and whatnot from other countries and combines them into itself, after all we are the melting pot (supposedly). just look at the language of the US. officially its English, but should be named American since the British say we dont speak properly, but there is quite an lot of influence in the form of slang and whats in if you look at todays kids. with the internet i think that despite the political and geographic boundries that all the cultures will influence each other and maybe, just maybe, the world stands a chance of coming out better in the future. technology and communications are making the world a much smaller place and hopefully a better place. (BESIDES THE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM SEEM TO GENERALLY PUT ASIDE MOST PETTY DIFFERENCES AND ENJOY A VERY GOOD GAME SO WHY CANT EVERYONE ELSE). maybe we should invent a game and instead of doing war in real life, have the disputing countries duke it out in virtual reality.

[Thermodyne]

I didn�t vote in the poll, it was much too leading as far as the available answers were concerned. My feelings are that the US military will always be very large, there are too many times when America has been called upon to prevent aggression in the far parts of the world. As for our foreign policy, it is poor, has always been poor, and will always be poor. We are just not very good at long term planning, and much too impatient when trying to work out difficulties. Our Constitution often ties our hands in situations dealing with human rights.

The lifestyle in the US is good, but it could be much better. We have a bad situation developing
in that we are about to have a large part of a generation entering adult life without the skills
needed to compete in the economy of the 21st century. The jobs that these people used to fill,
no longer exist here. Right now our economy is very stagnate, this is a result of many things,
such as the uncertain nature of the cost of energy, the low demand for borrowed money, and
the failure of several large corporations. Many of these companies were raided from within by
the management during the relaxed reporting rules of the Last administration. Also the attack on
the WTC has had a very negative effect on the recovery. It should be noted that this attack was
planed during the Last administration, and should be laid right at the feet of their budget and the
cuts in human intel that it caused. Now we are involved in a long campaign against terrorism
and the States that support it. Iraq will not be the Last battle in this war, America will aggressive seek out and kill it where ever we are able to track it down. When the war in Iraq is over, the price of oil will again decline, and should stabilize around 24 to 26 dollars a barrel. This reflects the production costs of the major exporters. In the short term it will hurt North American production, and actually shut down some production in the gulf area of America as well as the shale production in Canada. But in the past, the world economies have thrived at 26 dollars a barrel. And, if we really make the effort to build a stable federalist government in Iraq, one that invests the wealth of their oil revenues for the good of the people, then the Arab world will have an example of how to build a better life for their people.

As to our allies, America needs them and wants them. And they need us. What has happened
leading up to Iraq is diplomacy at it�s worst. Anyone with any military knowledge knew that we
were going to war. An Army of that size can not live in tent cities for any length of time. Once
they were deployed, we were at war. The Germans issues were political, and the Social Democrats are now beginning to soften their stance in the face of falling popularity. France on the other hand, was desperately trying to protect their economy. Their trade with Iraq when taken with what they were getting for banking the food for oil program was the strongest sector of their economy. If they loose it all, they will be in recession, and they have a history of political remakes during difficult economic times. Russia, well Russia is Russia. They have a lot
invested with Saddam, and Iraq will probably suggest that they collect it from him personally.
Plus, Russia is still the same country that stood opposite the US during the cold war, and they
see this as another public display of failed Soviet foreign policy, which was to control the majority of the world reserves this time. It is also a public display of failed American policy, we should have finished this the Last time we were there.

What does this do to future foreign policy in the world, I have no idea. It will make people take
a fresh look at American military strength. It will make the Islamic world hate us in the short
run, but that could change. And based on the Palestinian reaction, it could reduce their position in the negotiations that are soon to restart with Israel. At the UN, it will lessen the influence of the body as a whole. And it will decrease the influence of several security council members. I expect that two countries will soon embark on military build ups, and several others will look for ways to build down. One oil exporter will have to rethink their strategic plans, they will no longer control enough production to make inroads into controlling to world markets, and OPEC will have to decide how to proceed with a new government in Iraq. An Iraq that will care more about revenue in the short term than OPEC does.

With the war in Iraq all but over in less than a month, That short chubby guy in N. Korea will be
able to get some front page time now. But he may not really want it so bad after the showing
that his buddy Saddam just gave. His economy will demand that changes be made, and I doubt he will have much of a market for weapons in Iraq now, as well as reduced demand from the Arab states that privately feared Saddam. Also, the economic situation in Cuba is very bad, and is caused by a similar situation. Both Cuba and N. Korea would be good places for the UN to regain some of it�s lost prestige. But before that happens, I think some people will have to accept the fact that it is time for a shake up within the UN, and a return to it�s original mandate. Or, like its predecessor, it will die off as the world power brokers find other ways to debate their problems. It should be noted that the UN has almost always been unable to sway the super powers from their courses of action. And in the cases where it supported military action, the wars were already well under way. When the cold war ended, we went from having basically three teams. East vs. West, with the third world having to decide what was best for them. Now we have America, the second world and the third world. Also we have the remains of the Soviet client empire. They are not third world, and they are not second world. Their problems are some of the most severe in the world, and they are having the hardest time adapting to the new situation.

[ April 05, 2003, 06:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]