quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, since WWII, when was US foreign policy ever not "a disgrace", didn't "lack morals and ethics" and wasn't based on "the interests of the monied class"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

The Jerusalem Post's headline is a little misleading, I think.

I realize space is tight in headlines, but the stark verb "supports" makes it sound like they're actively eager for military action. The opening sentence says they "would support" a military strike, which sounds more acquiescent than advocative.

The next paragraph qualifies things further, saying they "backed military action as an option in dealing with the threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation" (emphasis mine).

On the question of military expenditures, the wording of the poll seems important. People were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: "Our country should spend more on defense and less on other things." That's different from saying that they don't want to reallocate their military spending or finance it through taxes or bonds.

Also, I'm not sure about mixing two different polls to draw conclusions.

All that said, I'm sure everyone likes the idea of someone else's shouldering the risks and costs of dealing with the problem children in the family of nations.

Didn't we have this conversation before, recently, about what is the best way to word poll questions? 

FirmKY

quote:

Here is an analogy ... a child would like to eat at McDonalds, Chuckie Cheese, etc. everyday, all the time, instead of whatever mom is cooking.  That's fine for them as long as they're not paying for it.  As soon as the child had to start paying for their meal, which would mean less money for other things, they wouldn't be all that enthused about eating out all the time.

I'm not suggesting that Europe is a child, but if America is willing to foot the bill, then maybe they'll "deal" with Yanks "over there".  America IS protecting it's interests by being in Europe; and after WWII, Europe needed the help.  We wanted Europe to be democracies so we would have allies and trading partners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

Here is an analogy ... a child would like to eat at McDonalds, Chuckie Cheese, etc. everyday, all the time, instead of whatever mom is cooking.  That's fine for them as long as they're not paying for it.  As soon as the child had to start paying for their meal, which would mean less money for other things, they wouldn't be all that enthused about eating out all the time.

I'm not suggesting that Europe is a child, but if America is willing to foot the bill, then maybe they'll "deal" with Yanks "over there".  America IS protecting it's interests by being in Europe; and after WWII, Europe needed the help.  We wanted Europe to be democracies so we would have allies and trading partners.

I'd love to put your theory /hypothetical to work right here in America and then lay huge money down in Vegas and bet against it.

The way it would work would be like this :

Completely end all taxes. Payroll, property, excise, sales taxes, etc. Let the American people have every single penny they make.

When the defense department, ala the military industrial complex tries to float the ''boogey man'' -- so they can ass-rape the masses who believe in such propaganda -- they can open accounts at every single bank in the country and make it completely voluntary to donate and fight the boogey man. Those who believe in the boogey man can donate and even volunteer to fight him. And those of us who don't believe in the boogey man can keep our money and mind our own business. In other words, all defense appropriations would be voluntarily funded by those who believe and deem them worthy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

We did, and I almost mentioned it in my post. I think we agreed that it was hard to know how much weight to give a poll unless you know exactly what was asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

We did, and I almost mentioned it in my post. I think we agreed that it was hard to know how much weight to give a poll unless you know exactly what was asked.

No, actually, I think we agreed that the best polls are the ones that ask the questions the way we want them to be asked, to give the reponses we want to see.

It's done that way ... a lot ... in polling.  On all sides. 

FirmKY

quote:


I'd also bring back dueling.  Bad public manners would be an acceptable reason to call someone out.  So would stealing a parking place, or cutting someone off in traffic.

Everyone would be required to go armed (with minor exceptions).  Shooting loudmouths would win you accolades instead of a prison sentence.

In any duel, a politican would only get a single low caliber bullet.  A normal citizen, against a pol would get six bullets of their choice of powder and caliber.

Would make for some really nice politicians.

ahhh ... to dream ....

FirmKY

quote:

Sophie of Wessex or something, bought a necklace for £175k and didn't have to pay tax like the rest of us because it's a nations treasure - nation's fuckin' treasure? do you reckon my granny will be able to borrow it to wear down the bingo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Just so you know, we could probably conquer Canada, Mexico or anyone else in the western hemisphere, if that was our aim. Fortunately for Canada, Mexico and everyone else in the western hemisphere, that isn't our aim. We like our neighbors, even when they are less than pleased with us.
 
You tried to conquer Canada once and failed and then came to an accommodation. In fact you accused Canada of harbouring a terrorist (Sitting Bull) and threatened to invade it because of that. You also did conquer and seize half of Mexico.

By the way, you didn't answer the question. Did any Europeans lose MFN trade status with the United States, over lack of support for Iraq? Did any European countries have trade sanctions placed on them? How about tarriffs? We could have done any of this, and done it easily ... EU be damned. The EU has no say in who we give MFN trade status to ... none at all. No say in American tarriffs ... none at all. Point of fact, we could probably make deals with each nation individually if we wanted to ... EU be damned.
 
The US can't impose tarriffs anymore because of GATT agreements and the EU has the power to retaliate and hurt the US as much as the US would like to hurt Europe so your question is a moot point.

Actually, I'm sure you can't. Nobody on this side of the Atlantic, has ever strong-armed you over anything.
 
One of the reason d'etre's of the EU is for European countries to stand up to trading blocks like the US and not be strong armed. Unfortunately it is often undermined by Britain. As for never being strong armed, I thought you was an historian?

quote:

the United States has never been big on any sort of tariffs at all

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's a simple question NG.  Why are you avoiding answering it?

If you wish to restrict it to post-WWII American foreign policy, I'm game.  In just this thread, here were your comments about American foreign policy:

This is the weakest attempt to defend US foreign policy since bush said "they never tire of ways to harm our people, and neither do we". If you're going to offer a defence, then best to explain Guatemala, Nicaragua, The Philippines, Iraq, Venezuala, Brazil and Iran.

Since this pretty much covers a most of the time period since WWII, and you are making judgements, and challenging me to "explain" Guatemala, et al, then you must have an opinion and understanding of American foreign policy during this time frame, yes?

So, I'll restate the question:

Ok, since WWII, when was US foreign policy ever not "a disgrace", didn't "lack morals and ethics" and wasn't based on "the interests of the monied class"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Here is my definition of "foreign policy":

International objectives pursued by a country in dealings with other countries, as well as the methods to achieve said objectives, in order to advance national interests.

Where is the part about "the wishes and interests of others"?  Or "respecting the interest and sovereignty of foreign nations"?  Of the "world's interest"? Am I missing something?

Any nation's foreign policy is designed for watching out for the "interests" of that nation, not all the other nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Sophie of Wessex or something, bought a necklace for £175k and didn't have to pay tax like the rest of us because it's a nations treasure - nation's fuckin' treasure? do you reckon my granny will be able to borrow it to wear down the bingo?

NG ---

I e-mailed Sophie, and she said granny's welcome to borrow the necklace any night except Tuesday, cause that's when the queen wears it to bingo herself.

Cheers,

DC

quote:

Over half of Europeans would support a preemptive military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a poll released last week by a London think-tank reports.

...

However, the April 4 survey of more than 17,000 Europeans in March conducted by the French polling firm TNS-Sofres found little support for increasing military expenditures to counter or contain the threat.

You got it.

They don't want to pay for a military that can do it.  So who do they call?  Ghostbusters?  naaahhh .. us .... and they get to condemn us as "American cowboys" if/when we do it!

FirmKY

quote:

Anyway, I'm now sat proudly wearing the necklace like a true nation's treasure. £160k to the highest bidder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spar

quote:

Over half of Europeans would support a preemptive military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a poll released last week by a London think-tank reports.

...

However, the April 4 survey of more than 17,000 Europeans in March conducted by the French polling firm TNS-Sofres found little support for increasing military expenditures to counter or contain the threat.

You got it.

They don't want to pay for a military that can do it.  So who do they call?  Ghostbusters?  naaahhh .. us .... and they get to condemn us as "American cowboys" if/when we do it!

FirmKY

Hence the convenience of the alliance to Israel.  9 out of 10 dictators and 10 out of 10 socialists already hate Israel, so why should it bother with world opinion?  Because of that they were able to launch a strike on Iraq's reactor in the 1980's and, although publicly denounced, behind closed doors were praised by the Western powers.  Europe is hoping for the same sort of strike to occur now, blame Israel for it and thereby appease the defeatist European population, and rid an enemy of nuclear weapons.