US Foreign Policy

US Foreign Policy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 10:54:31 AM)
Is Bush's government a continuation or change to previous US governments - particularly thinking foreign policy since WW2 here? When Bush steps aside will it be more of the same regardless of who replaces him? Is Bush a product of a society steeped in self-interest? - making it impossible that there will be a change of course when he is replaced. Regards

LotusSong -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 11:12:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Is Bush's government a continuation or change to previous US governments - particularly thinking foreign policy since WW2 here? When Bush steps aside will it be more of the same regardless of who replaces him? Is Bush a product of a society steeped in self-interest? - making it impossible that there will be a change of course when he is replaced. Regards What bothers me is.. it's more of the same..but Bush is just so transparent and then basically laughs at us because he knows John Q is powerless to stop him.

WyrdRich -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 11:17:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Is Bush's government a continuation or change to previous US governments - particularly thinking foreign policy since WW2 here? It is popular and easy to attack many elements of US policy since WWII, but I find many of the attackers want to pretend that it all happened in a vacuum of capitalist greed. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the events of 9/11, we seem to be without a clear vision. The Clinton paradigm gave us a nuclear North Korea and the Bush paradigm has us entrenched in the ME at least until the oil runs out. When Bush steps aside will it be more of the same regardless of who replaces him? You have to sleep in the bed that has been made. I cannot see a massive change in US policy in the current climate of political division. It might be true that the only foreign policy worse than that of a divided USA would be the policy of a united one. We have the technology and strength to conquer and rule the world, I hope no one is foolish enough to give us the will. Is Bush a product of a society steeped in self-interest? - making it impossible that there will be a change of course when he is replaced. You say self-interest like it is a bad thing. Regards

pahunkboy -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 11:38:09 AM)
bush mistakes have promptly me to examine past policy. the past isnt as rosey as i once thought.

Chaingang -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 11:45:17 AM)
Hell, I thought these were rhetorical questions on the face of them. LotusSong: Yes, Bush seems unable to keep up the charade. There's something in him that shows the puppet strings and reveals the man behind the curtains. In my lifetime: JFK hit, Viet Nam, 100% faith based money, Che hit, China deal, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Gulf War, Mexico Deal, 9/11, Afghanistan war, Iraq War, etc. Concurrent to all of that: a foreign policy that is schizo at best, an energy policy that makes no sense except to enrich the oil companies, corporate law run amok such that the vote is meaningless and corporate sponsorship is everything, grandfathered fraud in the financial arena, endless policies of corruption and profiteering, futile interferance in the workings of other sovereign nations, U.S. = world police (thank you Noriega!), a near total disregard for the UN, etc. We are a socialist nation that pretends we are something else. We pay taxes as if we were socialists, but we recieve few of the benefits of socialism (e.g. universal healthcare) in return for our investment in government. Society's children are mere cannon fodder. We have free education but it is more equal parts propaganda and prison/daycare than a meaningful attempt at good education. I could go on... So no it won't change. How could it be otherwise?

pahunkboy -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 11:49:06 AM)
Chain wrote: "no sense except to enrich the oil companies, corporate law run amok" BINGO! so very true.

Dtesmoac -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 1:04:23 PM)
Is Bush's government a continuation or change to previous US governments - particularly thinking foreign policy since WW2 here? The 20th Century was handed to USA allong with much of the worlds corporate wealth by the actions of other nations as well as the drive of the USA. WW2 marked the real emergence of the USA from an isolationist to a global intrnationalist. Bush is different because of the fear of the loss of USA absolute power that is starting to show. There is less counterbalance of an actual or protrayed generosity that existed in the past. Since the 80s there has been no counterbalance to the USA and so the US mind set of "we are invulnerable"has been reinforced. Recent changes make the US psychi recognise if not acknowledge that they are not all powerful. So I think the policy has to change. An isolationist US is no longer self sustainable as it once would have been. When Bush steps aside will it be more of the same regardless of who replaces him? The 21st Century is unlikely to be the USAs centruy in the same way as the 20th. Much of Bush's policy is unsustainable and so the next president will change aspects of the policy, but one fundamental will remain until there is a real power counterbalance to the US, and that is a belief in the US that you are with us or against us and we don't need you. It is only when things go wrong that the next common US theme arise which is "you o us" so back us. Is Bush a product of a society steeped in self-interest? - making it impossible that there will be a change of course when he is replaced. All societies are steeped in self interest especially socilaist ones.The US is materialistic and also far more lcal community orientated than anything I experienced in the UK. But the local community only stretches so far and I think in many places "others" are not viwed as being as valuable as an American. But as a society it is not as self centered as often protrayed in other countries.

mnottertail -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 1:09:59 PM)
............Richard Nixon, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again; We didn't start the fire................... Billy Joel, and that's the way it is. Ron

meatcleaver -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 1:32:23 PM)
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Is Bush's government a continuation or change to previous US governments - particularly thinking foreign policy since WW2 here? Europe handed the US the world on a plate so I guess we can't complain. Europe had to change its policies to the world because its destructive wars left it little option and so it will be with the US, they'll change when they have to change. As Dtesmoac says, the US is probably now a little threatenedbecause it seems apparent it won't be the world's sole superpower for much longer. However, until that day arrives it will try and make the world in its image because that has become its international reason d'etre. When Bush steps aside will it be more of the same regardless of who replaces him? Yes because if anyone was so different they wouldn't get elected and if they could, the American establishment wouldn't allow it to happen. America is no different from any other western democracy, they are only allowed to vote for people within certain perameters or the army will be on the street. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling them self. Is Bush a product of a society steeped in self-interest? - making it impossible that there will be a change of course when he is replaced. All materialist societies are steeped in self interest, be they capitalist, socialist or communist, that's why they hate each other. It's like Christianity, Islam and Judeism, they are too much alike to appreciate eachother, that's why many westerners can apprciate budhism, they aren't threatened by it.

pahunkboy -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 2:13:10 PM)
not everything in life can be measured by MONEY. as far as the 21st centruy not being American, time will tell. bush is a puppet for big corps no question on that. i want to be optimistic- but i know the current budget pattern can not continue. i also know the "consumer" way of life is NOT sustainable. we need to work smarter not harder. it is easy to peg all that is wrong in the western world on bush- i said to my buddy in Ireland- ok- put your money where your mouth is. live for 6 months like the Amish do. No electric no conveniences. then tell me is is all on the US. there is so much room for improvement. things were in a way easier during teh cold war. -in the usa- we must play well with others. not be the temper tantroom big kid- that bullies and changes the rules of the game on a whim. IMO corporate charters need to be evaluated and revoked on certain conditions. kill the corporation- the ones that have wantonly run-a-muck. see? * ducks as a bullet rams past my head *

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:06:05 PM)
Chaingang, It's fair to say you knew I was coming from the angle that there is a much wider problem than Bush. This comment is interesting: We are a socialist nation that pretends we are something else. We pay taxes as if we were socialists, but we recieve few of the benefits of socialism (e.g. universal healthcare) in return for our investment in government. I wouldn't dispute Americans pay high taxes - my understanding is when you consider both indirect and direct taxes it's not too dissimilar to Britain. What is interesting is "we are a socialist nation". Never heard that said about the US. I'm sure you have good reason. Regards

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:09:20 PM)
Wyrd, Self-interest is a bad thing in this context. Providing a government with the mandate to exploit in order to gain a share of the spoils of this exploitation is a bad thing. We may pretend it's nothing to do with us but when push comes to shove our lavish lifestayles are being propped up by the illegal invasion of Iraq and the economic colonisation of various parts of the world. We elect them. They represent us. Regards

caitlyn -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:12:46 PM)
I think the original post was meant to either flush out or flesh out, "The Modern Day, Doom & Gloom, Nostradamus Syndrone." As super powers go, the United States is still very new to the job. None of us knnow how long the power base will last, or can do anything more than speculate about the quality of decisions made today.

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:30:01 PM)
Dtesmoac, All societies are steeped in self interest especially socilaist ones. I know you've been on holiday but no need to take leave of your senses :-) I couldn't possibly comment on your local-community centred US. You compare with Britain - I honestly think in terms of politics our societies are not that dissimilar - we both have an active left but unfortunately the majority of our populations are attracted to materialism and as long as we're alright financially then we're not that bothered about anything else. Sad but true. Regards

NorthernGent -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:43:23 PM)
MeatCleaver, Paragraph 1 - Bush and his government is a red-herring then. Much bigger problems to tackle than the current regime. Some truth in paragraph 2, both Harold Wilson and Ramsay McDonald were ordered to either enter into a coalition or resign because of the threat of a more democratic form of government. The issue with Britain - they wouldn't need to get the army on the street because we're a society of half-wits who tend to swallow the official line. We still have a monarchy for fucks sake. Paragraph 3 - it's vague to say Capitalist and Socialist societies are too much alike to appreciate each other. The two don't appreciate each other because of fundmental differences such as the self-interest v collective argument. Regards

CreoleCook -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:51:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy -in the usa- we must play well with others. not be the temper tantroom big kid- that bullies and changes the rules of the game on a whim. correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'll be damned if that doesn't sum up the US Foriegn policy in a swift statement... and I'll pre-date this post by saying.... since the Spanish-American War. Teddy Roosevelt (I think) said, "Walk tall, and carry a big stick." Over the past, oh, 100 years within the US, we've pretty much taken that attitude to heart. Now granted, several time throughout history, it was good we stepped in. As for GW... he's an oil man. always has been, just like daddy bush. but amongst the many rants I have about the man, I just have one comment to make, concerning foreign policy, on my mind right now... During both of his campaigns, he spoke about religion and faith in God... I wonder if he sees this whole mid-east dilemma as a holy war? CC

WyrdRich -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 4:55:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Wyrd, Self-interest is a bad thing in this context. Providing a government with the mandate to exploit in order to gain a share of the spoils of this exploitation is a bad thing. We may pretend it's nothing to do with us but when push comes to shove our lavish lifestayles are being propped up by the illegal invasion of Iraq and the economic colonisation of various parts of the world. We elect them. They represent us. Regards We exploit, and in turn are exploited ourselves (how much did you say American tourists pay to see that queen of yours?). American markets and consumerism are fueling the rest of the world. India now has a growing middle-class courtesy of our "exploitation" of the cheap, educated labor force. It may be easy to hate us, but the economy of the world rides on our shoulders. Here is something for those who want us out of the ME to chew on; This country could be energy self-sufficient in a matter of 18-24 months if we needed to. A crash national program to convert to ethanol and bio-diesel is very achievable. Once the cars and trucks are off petroleum, we have all the domestic oil we need for a long time to come. Of course, the amount of cropland we would need to convert to that end would mean starvation for billions in the rest of the world.

popeye1250 -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 7:12:37 PM)
Gent, I certainly HOPE things change when Bush goes! I doubt that the Democrats will get in the White House but even if they did things would be the same I think. Very little difference between Dems and Repubs these days! I'd LOVE to see a Third Party get in!!! I know I'll be voting Third Party that's for sure!

magpies -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 7:29:19 PM)
That would be,' Talk softly and carry a big stick. '

mnottertail -> RE: US Foreign Policy (8/30/2006 7:50:01 PM)
This is the problem with the 4 year plan and times two at most. leads to a very short sighted america, not that we have been terribly longsighted in the past. We are capitalists, pure and simple, feel good do good..........

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02