US Foreign Policy has been beneficial overall

Another view on US foreign policy

from JoeUser Forums

Someone on one of the forums said:

"I find it embarrassing that anyone would brag about US foreign policy. We should be apologizing for it."

Such self-loathing has always been typical of the left. The sort of pessimistic, glass is half empty views on any number of issue has always struck me as strange. In this case, it also strikes me as incredibly lacking of serious perspective on world history.

I consider the US foreign policy, as a whole, to have been of great benefit to the world.

The US has pledged over $10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa.  How much as the EU spent total? China? Russia? Why not? This is serious money.  The US spends more than anyone else on helping not just AIDS in Africa but on providing food and fighting malaria. And when one of their governments, such as in Liberia or Ivory Coast crumble, it's not the French they want in there. It's the United States. The US is like the unappreciated cop. People spit on the cop but when things hit the fan you know who they really want and trust to help them -- the United States.

Let's be real here -- if not the United States, the whom? France? Russia? China? Who? Much of Europe got a taste of Germany wanting to be the hegemon. Japan too. It's easy to compare the United States to some sort of idealized perfect world power. But how about living in the real world. Not the Star Trek world where it's the idealized Federation being the standard bearer.

The US helps ensure the freedom of countries like Taiwan. Meanwhile, France participates in joint naval excercises with Communist China off the coast of Taiwan during the Taiwanese elections. Nice. While the US was trying to get consensus in the UN, France unilaterally invaded the Ivory Coast. But hey, that's okay, it's France right?

The US not only liberated Europe but it paid for its reconstruction. Same for Japan. By contrast, the Soviet Union pillaged Germany and Eastern Europe. Some 100,000 German women were raped in 1945 alone by Russian soldiers. And for all the complaining about the Kyoto accords and other CO2 debates, visit eastern Europe or say Moscow. You don't need any special devices to tell that the air in Moscow is hard to breath. Try visiting Beijing who is in the process of trying to clean up its massive air pollution to be less embarrassing by the time they host the olympics. The typical American or European (and ask anyone whose visited a major city in China) will currently have a seriously hard time breathing. But we'll pick on the United States because it doesn't support the Kyoto treaty (btw, John Kerry voted AGAINST the Kyoto treaty).

Meanwhile, South Korea, which provides a lot of the computer goods you guys use to bitch about the United States, exists today because of US foreign policy. The US lost over 50,000 people defending South Korea. Which, btw, at the time was essentially a pre-industrial rural society. With US help, it has become home of such companies as Samsung and manufactures everything from cars to computer chips. Even today, 25,000 Americans are there. And while it's convenient to fixate on every American combat casualty in Iraq, there are occasionally deaths in Korea near the DMZ zone. It's not a fun place. How many French and German troops are helping out in that "UN" operation?

Western Europe, which regularly gets uppity about US foreign policy, is free today because the US was willing to put its own cities on the line in the face of Soviet nuclear intimdation. Which is totally taken for granted. The US was willing to sacrifice itself to save Europe from Soviet domination. Meanwhile, the Germans can't manage to put together a single division to help the United States in Afghanistan.  Heck, the French and Germans combined can't.

Most of you, I assume, drive cars but some act like oil comes from some magic fairie land. The US commited blood and treasure to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's brutal regime. And we all benefited from this. And while France and other "multilateral-loving" nations technically particpated in that wonderful example of multilaterialism, it realistically came down to the United States, UK, and Australia doing the real work there. France and the other countries were there essentially as symbolic gestures of unity.

And for all the talk about "squandering" world "good will" after 9/11 with the Iraq invasion, let us not forget Afghanistan where non-US help was minimal (a couple hundred Canadians, a handful of Germans, a couple French planes). That was the material result of "good will". No wonder Bush decided he could do without more "good will" in Iraq.

Which reminds me, Iraq, a country whose fascist dictator threw opponents and children of opponents into plastic shredders, cut out tongues, and created mass graveyards that made anything in Kosovo look like a joke, is now free of him thanks to US foreign policy. It should be pointed out that the whole middle-east mess can be laid at the hands of European colonialism. Now it's the United States, UK, Poland, and Australia doing the heavy lifting to help Iraq.  Now, why does that combination of countries seem familiar? Ah yes, they were the main ones who helped on the allied side in World War 2 (not counting the Soviet Untion of course).

The United States is currently helping out in Haiti. A country whose been poverty stricken since the French in the 19th century basically sucked the wealth out of it through a series of tribute payments backed by military threat. Most people don't bother to look into what messed up Haiti but I suspect many US haters suspect that somehow the US is at fault here too regardless of the facts.

There is also the billions of dollars in foreign aid the US provides to countries around the world. $5 billion annually  to Egypt. Billions to various central American countries. Even before 9/11, the US was the largest food donor to Afghanistan. More so than any other country.

Speaking of the EU and its abilities... after standing by and watching ethnic cleansing go on in its own back yard, the US stopped Serbia from doing the same in Kosovo.

So tell me again why the US should be embarrased about our foreign policy or apologizing? Because the US didn't get the express permission of Communist China, Russia, and France to topple Saddam Hussein? That is, btw, in case people weren't aware, the obstacle to getting a 19th or whatever UN resolution explicitly authorizing force. China who slaughtered its own citizens in Tienenman square. Russia, who's busy becoming more authoritarian and France..well being France. That is what makes some people embarrassed? That we don't kiss up to these countries?

Since 9/11, I don't see anything the US has to be embarrassed about or needing to apologize for. We were attacked. We have responded by toppling the regime that was hosting Al Qaeda. We then toppled the regime that was most dangerous to the United States and geographically located very near Afghanistan and smacked dab in the middle of the Middle East where these whackos who keep wanting to murder us for Allah come from.  

At the same time we've been doing this we've increased our foreign aid to Africa. We've helped South Korea, China, and Japan deal with their problem with North Korea (contrary to some anti-Americans, North Korea isn't just the US's problem or even primarily the US's problem). We've helped the people in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we've made great progress in moving towards a free trade zone in the Western Hemisphere that is likely to help bring up living stardards in the developing world here.

It seems to me, if anything, the US, as a whole, has a lot to be proud of in its foreign policy.

politics
14,864 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
U.S. foreign policy is both beneficial and destructive. I took Latin American history in high school. My teacher was not a leftist, but he had a very low regard for American foreign policy towards Latin America. In his opinion, the United States supported dictators over democracies, because democracies wanted the kind of reform that the lower class wanted. He was Cuban and foreign policy in regards to Cuba before Castro was very destructive. Castro was supported by middle class Cubans who wanted to get rid of Mafia corruption. Once he turned communist they left.

It is real easy to make a point if you only tell half of the story.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree - the US foreign policy is mixed from a purely historical perspective. But one needs to look at the bigger picture. The US did some yucky things in Central America historically. But those things are minor compared to the good the US has done.

It is, btw, incorrect that the US preferred dictators. Like most countries, it preferred countries that served its interest. But all things being equal, the US has traditionally preferred democracies.

Your problem, Sherye is that you think your 2% of the story is actually half the story. It would be like saying "Sure, Mother Theresa did all these nice things, but she was once rude to her mother when she was a teenager." You have to keep events in perspective. You can't put "Saves world from Nazism and Communism" on the same level as "Props up strong man in Central America". 

Any thorough review of US actions in Central America, btw, are not nearly as clear cut as some leftists make it sound. Wheras you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany weren't clear cut dangers.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad, while I, in general, agree with what you said, here's somethings that amuse, and ashame me about American Foreign Policy. The US sent millions of tons of grain to starving african nations, and then failed to provide any security for that grain, so it was immediately seized by African warlords. The US gives billions of dollars to "AIDS research", which principally goes to pharmaceutical companies. Not to sound "conspiratorial", but Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in not finding a cure for a disease, but rather in finding treatments. Cures for diseases rarely come from drug companies. If anyone doubts they need only look at who sponsored the research for the polio vaccine, or penicilin. I'm not saying they would hide a cure, I'm just saying their primary motivation is not to find the cure. Very few deaths in Korea are due to military action. In fact, if you can name one this year, I'll be surprised. Not flabergasted, just surprised. There are very few non-US troops in Korea, that's true, but if you look as a proportion of their militaries, the percentage isn't too bad. Germany, for instance, is still limited in the size of their military because of the treaty with the allies. Poland, except for a spectacular showing of their horseman against the Panzers in the opening of the war, and a few pilots in the UK, did very little to fight the germans. In fact, records from the Ghettos indicate that a good many poles helped with varying degrees of willingness in the persectution, and execution of the Jewish populations of town like Krakow.

Finally, Marshall plan aid, which is what I refer to most aid given at this point because it closely resembles the old Marshall plan, is indeed aid given to various foreign countries. Aid which is primarily in the form of contracts to US companies to go out and build roads, dams, etc. Sure it's great for them, but it really doesn't hurt us either.

My favorite example is my brother, who lives in an "undisclosed third world Asian nation", undisclosed because he doesn't want me to talk about his project. Which, in part, installs HP computers in the courthouses of the above Asian country, so that their records can now be automated and there can exist a level of communication, via the internet, between them. All the supplies come from US companies, and except for the money that he and the other members of the project pay for hotels, apartments, and food, no actual currency enters the system from the US government.

Cheers
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad you can toot your own horn if you like but I think it's entirely possible for the US's foreign policy to be screwing one person while helping another. It's a no-brainer really. Of course the US has done good in the world. Of course they've advanced society and they have helped mankind in many ways. However, they also do some pretty nasty stuff in order to maintain it's control over the regions of the world. Their policy of sanctions against Iraq sentenced many innocent Iraqis to death, including (they estimate) 500,000 children. That's not nice. You know what I mean? Even though they've done good that doesn't excempt the fact of their other actions.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't know what I think, Brad, I sad that American Foreign Policy is both destructive and constructive. I didn't measure the amounts. Chile isn't in Latin America.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Their policy of sanctions against Iraq sentenced many innocent Iraqis to death, including (they estimate) 500,000 children.

You know, this myth has been popped so many times it always amazes me when someone still blabs it out. There is no evidence whatsoever of 500,000 deaths. Those were all propaganda numbers from Saddam's regime. You may not be aware of this but Saddam's gone now and the NGOs have been in there for awhile. If you have 500,000 deaths you'd have mass graves of starving children. They didn't find that. But they did find a children's prison. Also, billions of dollars from the oil for food program were stolen by Saddam. A billion or so was found in cash by US troops.  So now, sanctions did not sentence thousadns of Iraqi children to death. 

And Sherye - you name Chile. That's one country. That's your example to try to prove a generalization?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad,
do you really look on the US with such rose tinted glasses or have you purposely exaggerated their benevolence to make a point? I think you are spending too much of your article focussing on the past and not enough on the present.

Is the US foreign policy of today beneficial overall?

Most of the US aids money is actually being given to US companies. While better and cheaper drugs are indeed desired some African companies actually had to break patent laws and start producing cheaper imitation drugs before the US relented on this. It's protecting it's own.

As pointed out most US foreign aid goes to US contractors. Many African countries have refused US grain because it's genetically modified (and the US refuses to send non GM grain). The previous Haiti president was placed in power by the US. And as for Serbia, it was the Europeans which pulled the US into the fight through Nato. Nice of you to rewrite history here. In Siera Leone it's a UN force there at the moment not a French one. Can't say the same about Iraq can we? As for trade, the US is far more protectionist than 4 years ago. Free trade to the US means buy our products and we won't buy yours. Just look at all the WTO complaints.

I'm not saying that all current US policy is bad, only that many other countries view US foreign policy over the past 4 years as being very poor.

Paul.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and while we're at it, let's step over the CIA backing of Bin Laden's holy warriors, shall we?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The US does what's in the interest of its ruling elites. Sometimes this is beneficial to other countries. But it doesn't act out of altruism, no country does. The US is no better or worse than France or Britain, it just happens to be the mega-power at the moment. The problem with American power is the noun, not the adjective.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now for the nitpicking

"The US helps ensure the freedom of countries like Taiwan."

Not that simple. The US plays China and Taiwan off each other. At best the US is a part-time ally of Taiwan. The US supported the government in Taiwan when it was a dictatorship. In the election last month the US virtually demanded that Taiwan not hold a referendum on defence against Chinese missiles. That's hardly ensuring freedom.

"Even today, 25,000 Americans are there. And while it's convenient to fixate on every American combat casualty in Iraq, there are occasionally deaths in Korea near the DMZ zone. It's not a fun place. "

It's actually 37 000. There hasn't been a US combat casualty in the DMZ since the 1980s. Have you been to the DMZ? It's not so bad.

"France..well being France"

That's not an argument. What's your problem with France? Is it coz they wouldn't back America's invasion of Iraq? They weren't the only ones, why does France get special vitriol?

Why no mention of Cambodia in your blog?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Oh, and while we're at it, let's step over the CIA backing of Bin Laden's holy warriors, shall we?"

Why don't you go into the reason for backing the rebels in Afghanistan at the time. Wasn't it to help defeat the Soviet Union? Don't you think that was important at the time?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island dog: Colin Powell delivered the check to the Taliban in [May]2001 for continued U.S. support.

Brad: You really should stick to programming. The very statement is fraught with the thought of failure for Americans of too many variety to toot Bush's horn on that. You apparently did not wiTness -as I did by cam in Trafalgar Square - the RECORD crowds with Bush in effigy. While your American 'controlled-media' told you, "There was a minor demonstration in Britain today", Blair was reading Bush the riot act as to attempting to have 'free-speech' zones erected on British soil to censor dissent. The President of the United States was flown to dinner in a helicopter to avoid the massive crowds, whisked out of Downing to narrowly escape them. Not a popular guy.

Comparing American foreign policy to China's is also a tactic you take to its' extreme. Since when does a President of the United States of America have to be compared with a Chinese Dictator to be described as having 'good' foreign policy? AIDS money for Africa? Why aren't we in the Sudan saving kids by 'building democracy', as we are in Iraq? Hypocricy in the name of oil, that's why, and everyone knows it, from China to Sudan - I mean everyone but you and a few book-holders here.

My fellow American, open your eyes and turn off the 'Fox' tv that feeds you this propoganda. This country is now one bullet through a window of a mosque from starting armageddon under this Skull& Bones frat brother A. {Have no doubt that the Mossad is in route with a bullet or two now] I can think of only George Washington, in his betrayal of our French allies, as having made a worse foreign policy decision in all American history. Haitti, hell we caused Haitti to happen, go read and learn.

We've got a 'terror status' alert code under our television screens now due to this President's foreign policy and his 'endless war'. Mexico may well agree with you as Bush doesn't miss a chance to let El Presidente Foxe kick back in his chair, put his feet up and tell Bush WHAT he'll do FOR Mexico ILLEGAL immigrants next.

I could go on and on. It's too easy, like fish in a barrel to show how wrong you are on this one.

FOUR MORE YEARS? yeah RIGHT !! Only with a 'Diebold' voting machine.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

As pointed out most US foreign aid goes to US contractors. Many African countries have refused US grain because it's genetically modified (and the US refuses to send non GM grain). The previous Haiti president was placed in power by the US. And as for Serbia, it was the Europeans which pulled the US into the fight through Nato. Nice of you to rewrite history here. In Siera Leone it's a UN force there at the moment not a French one. Can't say the same about Iraq can we? As for trade, the US is far more protectionist than 4 years ago. Free trade to the US means buy our products and we won't buy yours. Just look at all the WTO complaints.

US foreign aid doesn't all go to contractors. When a given project needs to b edone by a company then it goes to a company and it's typically a US company. Should we be apologizing for that? Come on.  The previous Haitian President was put in power by the US.  He was elected by his people. It was only after he was in that it became apparent that he wasn't much better than a dictator. Again, at least the United STates is TRYING to help. I don't see France or Germany helping. 

I like how you give credit to the Europeans because they got the US involved in Serbia. This is akin to the Simpsons episode where they give Ralph Wiggim the credit for saving the day because it was his idea to ask Lisa to come up with a plan. And in Ivory Coast it was the French who invaded it during the run up to the gulf war. That's a fact. 

I would bet that the force in Iraq is more internationalized than the force in Ivory Coast. How many countries are participating in Iraq? Even Ukraine has troops in Iraq. But oh no, France isn't there so it's not proper.

US trade is *slightly* more protectionist than it was 4 years ago. There was a steel tarrif that is in the process of being repealed. Can you name anything else? It's still less protectionist than the European ecnoomies.

One thing about thse responses is how lacking in substance they are. The US haters just are that -- US haters. All emotion and no substance.

Look at Danny - posting how somehow Bin Laden was our fault because we aided Afghanistan in its fight with the Soviet Union. Sheesh.

Or even your argument, Solitaire -- the best you can say is that countries don't like US foreign policy. So? Name some concrete stuff here. And name stuff that actually involves a consensus.  Based on the US haters, you'd think the invasion of Iraq was internationally hated by everyone. And yet dozens of countries have troops there.  The UK is there, Poland is there, Spain was there, various latin american countries have troops there, Ukraine is there, Japan is there.  But somehow none of that matters if we don't have the approval of the French? Please. And that's one reason why I don't like the French. It's government is a cynical cowardly lot. From their collusion with Nazi Germany in World War II to their cynical attempt to take over the Suez Canal to their creation of the Vietnam mess in the first place to their bullshit about "war is never the answer" as they send troops into Ivory Coast. And yet the America haters somehow follow whatever line France sends out for some unknown reason. And spare me the "US puts Taiwan and China against each other." That's utter nonsense. It would be a lot easier for the US to just let China go ahead and conquer Taiwan. After all, that's France's position.

So where's the substance from the US haters? What specific US actions can be considered something that even remotely counters all the good the United States does in the world? Has done, continues to do. Someone explain objectivley how the invasion of Iraq was "bad". Regardless of whether you agree with th ereasons, can anyone honestly say that Iraqi people aren't better off now? The billions in aid we sent throughout the world, etc.  Oh no, the food we send is genetically modified. We eat GM food here in the US every day. So what we eat isn't good enough for Africa? No. The Africans who don't accept GM food don't do so because they fear it may end up getting grown there and then they won't be able to sell it to Europe. So good for Europe, they're helping contribute to starvation in Africa by their supersticious views on GM.

If as a whole someone feels the US should be embarassed of US foreign policy. To even apologize for it, then let's hear what we need to apologize for. Specifically. I certainly feel no need to apologize for saving people from ethnic cleansing, plastic shredders, starvation, AIDS, invasions by tyrants. Even if doing so doesn't get the approval of a couple of minor European nations.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad: supplying religious idiots with weapons is not the same as aiding a people in its fight against the Soviet Union. You can easily blame the problems in the middle east on former colonization France & the UK, just don't step over the results of US 'colonialism', for lack of a better word. Policing the globe when it's a fight against communism and stepping away as soon as the former allies have seized power and start suppressing their own people is part of the reason I'd call some of the US foreign policies a failure.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad,
there is nothing wrong with the US paying it's companies to do work. Just don't go flagging a $10 Billion aids figure around as if you've done Africa a favour. You haven't ... Yet. Maybe that $10 Billion will come up with cheaper drugs or even a cure but it's not aid it's investment in US companies. No apology needed, just don't claim it's something else.

Brad, France SENT troops to Haiti!!!! At least check the facts before you take an oppertunity to snipe at them. To quote "...concerning the sending of this peace force, we support a political solution, within the context of the United Nations," a French foreign ministry spokeswoman said. "I believe we are in full convergence of opinion with the United States on this." Surely even the US media reported that France had sent troops? Why do you seem to hate France so much?

The European governments requested a NATO force for the Balkans. They had to call an emmergency meeting of NATO to do so. Considering the US is oppossed to the EU having it's own military force, it's very rich of you to suggest that it was wrong of them to call on their NATO allies for assistance. That's what NATO is about shared responsibilities. Stop trying to belittle NATO's actions by suggesting it was the US that had to act. The US didn't act till asked to act as part of NATO where the UK already had a proposed plan of action.

What do you mean by 'internationalised'? Is this meaning more foreign countries or a degree of international legality? The Ivory coast peace keeping mission has been voted upon and supported by the entire UN. Interestingly the US initially oppossed the 6000 man peace keeping force, despite not being part of it. Of those 4000 were French (already there), 1000 were from other African nations, and 1000 from other nations. On top of this 150 police officers are also present. Number of countries involved is currently 18. So 18 countries, under a UN controlled peace keeping mission (approved by the entire UN). Sounds pretty internationalised.

On the trade front there are the new tariffs on Chinese products and there is the ongoing refusal to remove foreign trade subsidies. The last round of world trade talks clearly showed a huge protectionist desire on agriculture, but the EU is as guiltly of that.

This is not a US hating post Brad. It's factual and full of data. Please stop assuming that people who disagree with something automatically hate that country. I personally supported the war in Iraq. I certainly did not supprot the US's attempts to villanise France and Russia for not agreeing on WMD though. I still don't understand what you have against France? Why yet again do you attack their history? I know the Iraqi people are currently better off. Doesn't change the fact that they want the US gone and over 77% have no trust in the occupying forces. But to specifics. What may the US have to apologise for from the past four years?

Lies.

The US lied to the world time and time again over WMD. They knowlingly lied about Iraq attempting to gain nuclear technology. They attempted to manipulate the world into the war under false pretenses and to date have not apologised for their behaviour.
The US tried to use 1441 as an excuse to invade Iraq and actively encouraged the lie that it allowed them to invade.

breach of international treaties

The US has broken human right treaties, both in Afganistan and Guantanamo bay. It has put it's desire for revenge against terrorists above the basic human rights of people and as such has lost respect and especially trust.
The international court is legally binding under UN rules once signed by enough signatories. The US has attempted at every hurdle to thrash this treaty and has put emmense pressure on individual countries to block it. It still refuses to accept that it has become law and refuses to recognise it.
The US has breached it's UN treaties to go to war only in self defense or with UN approval. It consistantly refuses to hand over control of peace keeping duties to the intrnational community, fooling itself that some degree of authority is derived from international presence. It is still in breach of Un treaties and is defined as an occupying power.
US attempts to interfere with the soveign rights of other countries (Columbia for example).

Undesireable decisions (but perfectly within the US's right to make)
The US has cancelled its weapon proliferation treaties
The US disagrees with most of the planet on environmental issues

It's a long list Brad. You seem to be letting your anger at Europeans commenting on the US cloud your objectiveness. And before you say it, many European countries also have much to answer for in the last few years, but this article is about US foreign policy.

paul.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And spare me the "US puts Taiwan and China against each other." That's utter nonsense. It would be a lot easier for the US to just let China go ahead and conquer Taiwan. After all, that's France's position."

You ask for specifics, but then you dismiss specific points as "utter nonsense". Using Taiwan to limit Chinese influence is long-standing US policy. Maybe one day the US will green light a Chinese invasion, at the minute that would be bad for business. France's position is the same as America's - no unilateral change in the status quo, hence both countries' opposition to the referendum.

Still nothing to say about Cambodia?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
How is supplying someone with weapons not helping them fight a war? It's easy to take the collapse of the USSR for granted now, but that country was a far bigger threat than Al Qaeda will ever be.

What did colonial France or Britain ever do that is on the same scale as the Marshall plan?

After WWI, one of the US's main goals for the treaty of Versailles was the expansion of democracy. France's main goal was large cash payments from Germany.

What has France done to promote democracy in Iraq?

I have to agree that, "It's easy to compare the United States to some sort of idealized perfect world power. But how about living in the real world. Not the Star Trek world where it's the idealized Federation being the standard bearer."
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Colin Powell delivered the check to the Taliban in [May]2001 for continued U.S. support."

The "check" you say was distributed through the U.N., you know the guys the left love so much, and bypassed the Taliban to provide humanitarian relief for the Afghan. I know you heard differently on the conspircay theory site though.

"My fellow American, open your eyes and turn off the 'Fox' tv that feeds you this propoganda. This country is now one bullet through a window of a mosque from starting armageddon under this Skull& Bones frat brother A. "

Of course, blame Fox. I guess you get your news from DNCNN. Does that mean John Kerry is going to start Armegeddon because he's a member of Skull & Bones also.

"We've got a 'terror status' alert code under our television screens now due to this President's foreign policy and his 'endless war'. "

So Bush started the "endless" war on terror. That is just plain stupid. The terror status alert you have on your tv should have started back when the WTC was attacked the first time. I guess the foreign policy you rather have is appeasement and just letting terrorists and dictators freely do what they want. The war on terror started many years ago, the only problem is we didn't have a President who would fight back.

Remember, whoever Osama would vote for, vote for the other person.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The US supplying Afghanistan is a lot like the British supplying Afghanistan, it happened under different circumstances. The leaders at the time mistakenly believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that turned out bad for the two countries.

Cheers
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again, I'm astounded by Brad Wardell's insight into a matter that few have the guts to discuss with passion. Perhaps a few of those spewing the notion that the US is truly the world's bully are merely uninformed?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're right Miss, Paul and I have certainly done nothing to try and disseminate facts in this blog. By the way, we're not calling Brad wrong, just not entirely correct.

Cheers
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know it's an older comment, but even if the 500,000 deaths from sanctions is accurate, doesn't that further justify an invasion on the grounds that containment was a failure? Saddam was unwilling to allow oil revenues from the oil-for-food program to actually go to food and medicine, so his people starved. With contaniment out the window, the only options left were appeasement (lift the sanctions, let Saddam go on his merry way) and regime change.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Madine,
I can totally accept the US's historical decision to support the lesser evil (Taliban) against the greater evil (USSR), but that's history and nothing to do with current US forign policy. Same with the treaty of Versailles. As for the Marshall plan, it spent 13 billion dollars. Of that 1.5 billion was repaid as loans and an estimated 6 billion was given directly to US companies within Europe. So that leaves 5.5 billion spent on aid. Nearly 0.5 billion was spent on providing free postage for Americans sending personal aid to Europeans back home (often to family). 3 Billion was spent on infrastructure and the remaining 2 Billion was spent on personal (relocations, training etc) and medical expenses. So in reality it was a 5.5 billion pound aid package over 4 years. Ciompared against the US GDP at the time that amounts to 223 billion it means 2.2%. Currrently France and Germany BOTH provide almost 1% (UN guideline is 0.7%) of GDP EVERY year to aid, that 4% over a 4 year period. US provides 0.1%. The Marshal plan was unique for it's time and badly needed in Europe. It was revolutionary and must be praised. Many people today fail to realise though that compared to current European foreign aid budgets, it's was fairly small. Compared to current US foreign aid budgets it was very large. So you are wrong. France and Germany every year give twice as much foreign aid that the marshall plan did. The US gives 1/6.
As for France promoting democracy in Iraq, it has promised thousands of troops so long as they are part of a UN peace keeping mission. It has also cancelled nearly 2 billion dollars in debt that Iraq owed it.


marfoeblog,
I have no problems with the invasion of Iraq. It should have happened much earlier. I did have problems with the attempt to hoodwink the international community into believing it was about WMD. I also have problems with the US's plan for Iraq, it's attempt to impose a puppet government as oppossed to allowing the Iraqi's free elections. One man one vote sounds like a fairly reasonable request from the Iraqis. I especially have a problem with people villanising other countries like France and Spain, when both have promised troops IF the US hands control to a UN peace keeping force. Russia, China and many other countries (especialyl muslim countries) have also indicated they would send troops if it was under a UN operation. The US is being pig headed here and pride (and possibly a desire to control Iraqi resources) is what's stopping it doing what's best for the people of Iraq.


Paul.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Marshall plan looks alot smaller when you cut it in half. When you say "money is given to companies" that makes it sound like they received a gift. Why is it not considered legitimate foreign aid if money is paid to a company to provide goods or services to a country? Certainly the company benefits, but that money could have just as easily been spent on providing something domestically. Also, in comparing contemporary French and German aid to the Marshall plan, did you also exclude French and German aid that was to be repaid as loans or was given directly to corporations?