Will the U.S. tell the world to take this job and shove it?

Remove all ads!

That's easier said than done as all our economies are linked. When the American economy takes a hit so do others in different parts of the world. Should war break out between Israel and some Arab country, it will affect everyone.

And if you believe some writers, American Jews have a very influential lobby. It will take some incredible circumstance before the U.S. abandons Israel.

[ March 12, 2003, 05:38: Message edited by: Charlie ]

 

Darkwolf, how little you know. No matter how big we were that would never happen here. Sweden has always been independent in millitary actions and would never assault any other country millitary. Whoever gave orders for a millitary attack which wasn't a retaliation would find himself killed soon. That sort sort of agression would never be accepted here, only 1/4 of the population supports the war on Iraq for instance. Any silly patriotism that exists here is so much smaller than in America where half the citizens honestly believe that the rest of the world is jelous of their "freedom". Guns are not allowed here and the crime rate isn't half of what the US has, simply because the attitude is different. Have you ever been here? Then you would have noticed that the security everywhere is so much weaker here, simply because metal detectors everywhere isn't NEEDED, just because the attitude is different. Don't talk about what you don't know about.

 

We have been neutral for the last 200 years or so that is true Pyro. But back in the day when we were reasonable powerful we werent overly nice. Swedish armies has trampled through most of Europe throughout history, burning, pillaging and raping. We have just left that behind for the time being as we have realised the folly of it. Let us hope that the powerful nations of the world today can do that as well, even if they havent had as long as we had to show off our testosteron.

 

Yes, but you have to realize that every country in the world has a history of that. You can't really look more than a hundred years backwards when you judge a country because things change far to quickly.

 

Perhaps, but one very powerful nation of today hasnt had that time to flex its muscles and show off how big and tough they are. Should we begrudge them what every other nation has done in history just because we dont want to play anymore?

 

Goes back to the original topic here. Now I wonder what the other nations would say if we were to suddenly do exactly that? I think they would very quickly change their tune on US involvement. As has been stated before, nearly all countries DO want the US to help them (i.e. foreign involvement), but they want it on their terms, not on ours. Can you imagine going to a bank and saying, "Look, I want you to give me $200,000 so I can buy a house, $30,000 so I can buy a car, and $20,000 so I can feed my family. And heck no I'm not giving you anything! No interest, no repayment, no nothing! I can't believe the nerve of you trying to run MY life!" That, I think, about sums up the world's attitude towards US foreign diplomacy.

 

It's not an ideal analogy unless you think the US is, or should be, a corporation in the business of making a profit from international loans and aid. I know a lot of people are starting to view the US that way but is it really something you want to encourage? The US is a *neighbour* to the countries it bombs or helps, not their mother, their psychiatrist or their banker.

A better analogy would be a man complaining about weeds in his neighbour's yard. "C'mon, you're letting that Bermuda grass get out of hand! It's unsightly and it's starting to spread into my yard! Start weeding, or I'm going to come over there and do it for you!" At which point his neighbour could argue that the indirect harm caused by his neglect does not justify trespassing, and the man with the well-kept yard (the US) has the choice of (a) calling the homeowner's association (the UN) to deal with the problem for him, or (b) working out a compromise to limit the scope of his work in his neighbour's yard, e.g. "You can rip out the bermuda grass if it's really that important to you, but you can't send your own gardener in to landscape my yard to your own liking."(Fine. You can police our civil war. But we don't want your damn puppets in our government even if they *are* more competent than the psychotic religious fanatics currently leading the country.)

 

Sprite, I've already done my rants. So I'm going to keep this short.

Your grass analogy is right on. But, there is one single, fundamental difference here.

You are being "objective". It will be different for you when it becomes "personal". In the way it has become personal for the Palestinians and Israelis. And there's two different ways to look at this.

The reason Canada hasn't been attacked is because America is out there. I'm not saying you "owe" us anything; that would be stupid. I'm just saying that is and has been the situation, and things would be a lot different if we were still following isolationism.

The Monroe Doctrine is the way America still looks at the whole situation. Yeah, it's 170 years old. But there is still an enormous validity to it, as far as our country is concerned.

 

I've always been a little uncomfortable with the fact that America will support corrupt regimes and then try to take the moral high ground with other regimes that simply aren't US friendly. But I'd rather remove only 5% of the evil regimes in the world than none at all.

It is an interesting theoretical exercise -- could, or should, the US back off and become an insular country that does not involve itself at all with foreign countries? The economy and resoucres in the States makes it possible, but the fact that the US economy thrives on trade makes such a move unlikely. So US involvement abroad, economically, is kind of a given. Aside from that, the US took a great deal of flack from all sorts of places for NOT being internationally involved in WW2. If they are involved abroad, eventually they will also be asked to try and improve conditions in some countries ("How can you sit their in your wealth and prosperity while people are STARVING and having their rights ABUSED?") This is where things get complicated. Who do you help? How? I guarantee no matter what the US does, somebody is going to be unhappy with them.

Going to the sub-topic about Canada, I've heard arguments that we should scrap our military because the US will protect us. If we did that, we might as well kiss our soveriegnty goodbye; we would become puppets to American policy (to a greater degree than we are now). I wouldn't blame the US for it, either, the fault would rest with us for selling our right to self determination down the pike.

Lastly, a comment on vitriol. I completely understand and agree with Tal and BTA on what should and shouldn't go on these boards. I feel the need to mention, though, that everyone seems to enjoy shining a big spotlight on the US and its failings. I can understand how a US citizen would start to get tired of it, and lash back, shining a spotlight on the failings of other countries (I hate to break the news to everyone, but there are no perfect countries out there). Just a thought.

 

As is indicated by Depaara's post (albeit indirectly), there is a major flaw in your grass analogy, Sprite. Nine times out of ten, our neighbor's calling on us to come help us with their Bermuda grass infestation. So, as I mentioned before, if the international community wants our help, it stands to reason they are going to have to make some concessions.

Also, I should point out that you might change your stance if the analogy was changed slightly. Say it's not a grass infestation, but a termite infestation. Your neighbor is doing nothing to stop the termites, perhaps even aiding them, and the termites have built a huge mound in his yard. Tired of munching on his house, they've made their way over to yours, and you're suddenly spending all kinds of money on sprays and poison and other preventative measures -- and still they manage to keep on coming. Now can you reconcile yourself to your neighbor's hands-off attitude?

Naturally I could choose even more destructive analogies, but this was the first one that popped up, so there you are. But don't let consideration of this twist take attention away from my first point, please.

 

To continue the neighbour analogy, the issue in my mind is what happens when a neighbour asks for help, then spits in your face when you do help? Or, another neighbour feels threatened and asks your assistance in dealing with a pugnacious neighbour. Do you help? Or do you let the fellow 3 doors down get the living crap kicked out of him and say "sure, Bob's my friend, but it's really none of my business if Tim pounds him." What if you find out that the neighbour next door likes to bugger his 6 year old son? Maybe you'll do something, huh? Especially if the police do nothing.

I'll say it again -- the Americans are not perfect, they are deeply flawed in many ways. But they are doing what they believe to be right, and their version of right is a lot sounder than that of buddy Saddam, or Moammar, or Il-Jong. I'd like to see what the approval rating for Saddam is once dissent doesn't get you and your family bullets in the head.

 

Heh - I can tell you aren't a gardener, Capstone. Bermuda grass was the most terrible thing I could imagine seeing in a neighbour's yard- it's the Al Quaeda of weeds. Sorry, I suppose I should have picked a neighbourly problem that would more readily strike fear into the hearts of non-gardeners.

I agree with you, 100%, that people who want a favour should be prepared to make concessions. But I don't agree with you that it's ridiculous to want to negotiate the price of that favour.

But, in response to your implication that the US only gets involved in foreign wars etc to be nice, let's be honest here: where US military intervention (as distinct from UN military intervention) actually *does* take place, it's always somewhere that there is a benefit to the United States. If the US was motivated purely by charity as you seem to suggest, we'd be preparing to invade Zimbabwe - the country that is, metaphorically, buggering its own children - instead of Iraq, whose termites and Bermuda grass pose a real and growing threat to the United States.

 

Actually, I know what Bermuda grass is and have had a garden for a few years, although I don't now. But in truth Bermuda grass, for all its tenacity and rapaciousness, is still only an unsightly weed, while termites pose a real threat to your home. But anyway....

I agree with you about the pragmatic issues. If I were running the US, it would be idealism all the way! Ok, maybe not really. Anyway, it's natural for the US to place priority on situations that affect us, but that doesn't mean we've never been altruistic about our aid. There was a discussion about this a year or so ago, with examples of altruistic interventions by the US, either alone or through the UN. I believe the Somali conflict was a good example. I'll try to see what else I can dig up (or perhaps someone more knowledgeable will aid me?).

 

The neighbour attitude is also seriously flawed as the world isnt a block with houses with a law really. If you would make a neighbour analogy you would have to imagine a neighbourhood on its own, with no laws except the law of the jungle when all things are considered. Especially inside peoples houses, people are deterred from going to your neighbours house to kill him and his family and swipe his fridge but if the family instead prefers to kill and maim eachother it is literally their own buisness. If we feel nice we might give them some food and such but we have no right to go in and break up the fights.
That is what sovreignety means, the same sovreignety I have seen many americans complain are being cut into for the US by the US.
So just because Sweden might have a problem with finnish people spanking their children we have no right to go in there with guns blazing to make them stop. But as it is the law of the jungle we might be able to do it if there is no one around that is bigger to stop us but that doesnt make it right.

 

Off the top of my head, I'd say that to claim the US acted in the ouster of Milosevic out of a desire to serve its own ends is tenuous. This discussion came up a while back and Sprite and Joacqin among others denied that the US became involved only after Europe called for the US to do so and that the US was actually lambasted for not becoming involved earlier. Perhaps this might be where to look Cap. (Please correct me if I've misrepresented your position. Essentially I claimed that the US didn't want to involve itself but Europe demanded action in large part for humanitarian reasons which I noted as ironic given that I felt there were equally compelling humanitarian reasons to become involved in Iraq [though I opposed action in Iraq] and much of Europe is opposed to action now. I understood your position to be denying any inconsistency by denying that Europe had been asking the US to involve itself in Kosovo. I supplied what I thought might show the US' reluctance to be involved, and it was admitted that perhaps some nations such as Italy particularly might have been begging assistance but that was as far as it went.)

That said, I'd agree that typically the US (and, while we're being honest, pretty much every other nation as well) involves itself only when it sees its interests as being impacted. I suspect that any nation that one wishes to hold up as being particularly altruistic is in a peculiar circumstance which allows it to act in a nearly altruistic manner without acting in other ways to protect its interests (immediately Canada and Japan come to mind -- both nations can act in an essentially altruistic manner because they operate largely under the protection of the US and are so closely aligned to the US that what is good for the US, in a world military point of view, is almost always going to be a benefit to them. So, they can claim to act altruistically and to attack what they perceive as unfair US action throughout the world to protect its own interests but at the same time they get the benefits of those actions. I suspect this could cause some people to rise up in arms, but that's my story that I came up with on the fly.)

 

Kitrax, explain a goverment that works. As you know not all goverments "work" properly, and I can assure you that the US is not the most efficiant in the world. The US has probably the most political corruptiuon in the world, and a murderer can walk away free, just because the court is either biased or stupid. A good movie that portrays this is "15 minutes" I suggest for all of you to watch it.

 

While I agree that the US government can be corrupted, I would hardly put it anywhere near the most corrupt regime in the world -- just look at a map, and compare the average standard of living around the world to the American. Look at the American justice system (flawed as it may be) to the Russian or Chinese systems, or to places in Africa, where the Warlords hold power. The US isn't even close.

 

Right but the justice system, is more than just flawed. Escpecially in the military. Like the Americans who killed a Korean man (does not have anything to do with the two girls,) they were tried in an American court, and it will tend to be one-sided.

 

No justice system is perfect, yet I still have trouble believing that the American system is the world's most corrupt. I'd have to see some statistical evidence before I'd buy that.

 

Good grief, Tarsakh. If you really believe that the US has the most corrupt political and judicial system in the world, you need to spend a month in a non-first-world country. Heck, even Canada has more political corruption scandals than the US (true quote from the Canadian prime minister: "So what if a few million dollars got stolen? Look at all the good the government has done!"). And in places like Morocco - generally considered one of the most democratic countries in Africa - you can be imprisoned for life with no trial on the kind of "lettre de cachet" that prompted the storming of the Bastille.