The United States' Foreign Policy

[Under Sky So Blue]

Think of all the money we could be saving right now if we pulled out all of our troops from around the world, withdrew from all international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and ended all foreign aid.

[HolyShadow]

Yes, but then we'd be pricks.

[Insane]

Yeah, you do all that, the world turns against you, people raise their prices to you, if they keep trading with you at all, and you're screwed.

[JesusRocks]

Think of all the money we could be saving right now if we pulled out all of our troops from around the world, withdrew from all international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and ended all foreign aid especially the two billion sent to Israel.

Heh, then we could watch America fall faster than a rocket propelled meteorite :V

[Fat1Fared]

Heh, then we could watch America fall faster than a rocket propelled meteorite :V

JR, this is why decomcracy doesn't work and we don't allow very common dung puller the vote ^_^ (joke before anyone asks, infact I would vote for this guy for the LOLZ)

but yer, seriously mate learn about globel politic's before talk about them, not insult just advise, because if your county does this, well it would be amusing for world, total fail for USA ^_^ (of course that wouldn't end up being great for world, but meh probably worth the laugh)

[Under Sky So Blue]

Yeah, you do all that, the world turns against you, people raise their prices to you, if they keep trading with you at all, and you're screwed.

Most nations already have a generally negative opinion of the United States.

Heh, then we could watch America fall faster than a rocket propelled meteorite :V

Because it's not like this incredibly expensive foreign policy is one of the major reasons why the dollar is on the verge of collapse.

The remainder of this post was deleted for flaming of other users.

[Insane]

Most nations already have a generally negative opinion of the United States.



Because it's not like this incredibly expensive foreign policy is one of the major reasons why the dollar is on the verge of collapse.
No, we didn't need to, we obliterated your ridiculous argument

[Under Sky So Blue]

No, we didn't need to, we obliterated your ridiculous argument

What is so ridiculous about pulling out of international organizations that threaten national sovereignty, withdrawing our troops out of nations that pose no threat to us, and cutting off all foreign aid so we can use that money at home?

[Kipper]

What is so ridiculous about pulling out of international organizations that threaten national sovereignty, withdrawing our troops out of nations that pose no threat to us, and cutting off all foreign aid so we can use that money at home?

Lets Compare this to a real life Situation.

An average boy goes to school everyday. He gets into fight's and help's the less fortunate , he trades food with his friends.

But one day, the boy stopped coming to school,trading food, getting into fights, and helping others. How do you think others's view of the boy would be?

[Fat1Fared]

Most nations already have a generally negative opinion of the United States.



Because it's not like this incredibly expensive foreign policy is one of the major reasons why the dollar is on the verge of collapse.



I do not take advice from individuals whose grammar is comparable to a two year old with attention deficit hyperactive disorder who is addicted to crack cocaine.



Get the fuck off the Internet. If you are going to be a troll make sure you're actually good at it.

Not a single one of you has conjured up a cohesive argument in favor of the United States' current foreign policy.

before I felt sorry for you, now I just think, that you are a stereotyped American who makes other Americans look bad, when most are actually really good people, but at least you’re is so stupid, that opinion will never taken seriously by anyone who actually matters in this world :thatface:

PS I may have dyslexia, but that didn't stop me getting a 2-1 in Law at uni (which along with the fact that I'm member of young political society and plan to become a politican when older, so make sure know lot about it, means not bad person to listen on things like this anyway) in my first year and it didn't stop me getting in top 10 of an intelligence based test taken by 2000 children in UK when I was 14, so maybe you should also learn what intelligence means first, (because you will find that spelling and grammar takes up very small part of it) and then we can work on teaching you things like basic politics’, however because politics’ is a very complicated thing, maybe we start off little easier first, here is a simple bit of fun learning for you http://www.learningplanet.com/stu/index.asp

Dark, know going to tell me off for Antagonising him, but he shouldn't respond to poeple like that, even if I'm not completely blameless from start

Anyway, I'm now going to be serious and rather explain it all to you, I'm going to ask you few questions:-

-First, why do you think USA is in things such as United Nations?
-Why did USA start those wars?
-Why do you do Forgin aid?

If you go Learn the answers to them, you may find out why your part of them

[Fenrir502]

Think of all the money we could be saving right now if we pulled out all of our troops from around the world, withdrew from all international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and ended all foreign aid.

I may just be reading this incorrectly, due to my inherent foolishness, but isn't that the equivalent of basically saying:

"Screw everyone else, so long as we're fine they can all go jump off a bridge"?

[AsteriskRocks]

I may just be reading this incorrectly, due to my inherent foolishness, but isn't that the equivalent of basically saying:

"Screw everyone else, so long as we're fine they can all go jump off a bridge"?

Pretty much.

That's why Aninamar said this:



Your idea isn't stupid, it's fucked up! That's the problem.

[HolyShadow]

-Why do you do Foreign aid?

http://justonechild.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/haiti-sick-kids1.jpg

This is why you give aid to foreign countries. Specifically to prevent this sort of thing. I covered it in spoiler tags so people won't see it randomly and have their eyes raped.

[Under Sky So Blue]

I bet you have never donated to a charity in your entire life. If foreign aid works, why does is Africa still a third world continent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZHyspuEEKg

[HolyShadow]

Do people in New Orleans have common AIDS, TB, MDR, and not-so-common Tetanus cases? How about common deaths during pregnancies? And how about food? Do they have barely any food, barely any money? As in next to NOTHING? And has this been oging on for hundreds of years? Are they a hundred years behind the United States? No. The answer is absolutely NO.

Foreign aid helped Haiti. Before Paul Farmer went to help, the country was in shambles. It still is, but at least it has more than one clinic to cover the whole country now.

People are still dying of The Plague. Can you understand that? Dying of the plague in 2009? Hard to imagine, isn't it?

It's not all about getting as much money as possible. Sometimes, you have to think of people other than yourself.

[Under Sky So Blue]

Do people in New Orleans have common AIDS, TB, MDR, and not-so-common Tetanus cases? How about common deaths during pregnancies? And how about food? Do they have barely any food, barely any money? As in next to NOTHING? And has this been oging on for hundreds of years? Are they a hundred years behind the United States? No. The answer is absolutely NO.

We give about $26 billion in foreign aid and nothing has improved. Taxation is not charity.

Foreign aid helped Haiti.

Bullshit. Haiti is still a dump.

It's not all about getting as much money as possible. Sometimes, you have to think of people other than yourself.

Coming from the guy who has never donated to a charity in his life. Lmao.

[HolyShadow]

We give about $26 billion in foreign aid and nothing has improved.

Bullshit. See why below.

Bullshit. Haiti is still a dump.
So you're just going to ignore the fact that Haiti has about 1200% more medical aid than two decades ago?

[Under Sky So Blue]

Source or retract. What do all developed nations have in common? Free trade and property rights.

[HolyShadow]

A representative of Partners in Health gave a presentation during orientation at my college. I read Mountains Beyond Mountains, a biography by Tracy Kidder about Paul Farmer.

I don't have a direct source, but here's their website: http://www.pih.org/home.html

Paul Farmer's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Farmer

Read a bit about Haiti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti

Partners in Health wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partners_in_Health

Yeah, I messed up the numbers a little. It's 800%.

But then again, politics helped it a bit, too, so it'd be more like infinity...

[Under Sky So Blue]

LMAO WIKIPEDIA XDXDXD

Anyways, PIH is a PRIVATE charity.

[HolyShadow]

You realize that other sources are at the bottom, don't you? So if you don't like wikipedia, check the hundreds of links at the bottom of them.

[HolyShadow]

LMAO WIKIPEDIA XDXDXD

Anyways, PIH is a PRIVATE charity.
Not quite. I believe that the World Health Organization helped to eliminate MDR in Russian prisoners.

Paul Farmer was connected to that, too.

[Under Sky So Blue]

Okay? It's still a private charity.

[HolyShadow]

The World Health Organization is a public health organization connected to the UN. Paul Farmer, working on behalf of Partners in Health in order to eliminate certain viruses and such in the world, convinced them to donate half of their budget for a year (I think it was a year. Might've been more, maybe?) in order to fund the eradication of certain viruses in Russian prisons.

That means they may not have been connected to Partners in Health...

But they were connected to Russian prisoners suffering from the same problems.

The success story is the same. Due to the influence of that man, problems have lowered significantly.

[MrsSallyBakura]

lol you guys, it's just TheRealFolksBlue/Aerodynamic again.

So how about we ignore this guy and have a civilized (if any) discussion about the issue at hand, kay?

[Kipper]

Are you seriously trying to tell me we went into Iraq for altruistic purposes? If so you have proven how brainwashed the average American is. Go do some independent research and look up the 1953 Iranian Coup.


.
Considering Americans went into Iraq because they believed to have WOMD and massive oil supplies. If Iraq was taken over, they wouldn't be a threat and there oil would benefit USA.

Also I'm a Canadian, I know what it's like to live in a safe country and I'm sure that I know that I know more about politics than you considering you continue to fight for this failed idea.

[darkarcher]

I'm now watching this thread intently.

Under Sky So Blue, you are officially being warned for flaming other users.
Aninamar, do not troll serious discussion topics.
ShiningRadiance, do not flame other users either.

[HolyShadow]

I apologize for flaming him. Thank you for the warning.

[Aninamar]

Most nations already have a generally negative opinion of the United States.

Which doesn't stop America from all the healthy trade relations and alliances with countries like Britain and Poland...

But you have the idea! We have bad PR? Let's fuck it up even more! WINRAR!!!

withdrawing our troops out of nations that pose no threat to us,

Naaaaaah, of course they don't.
But then, you leave those nations in an unruly jeopardy.

That's why Aninamar said this:
Thank you, Asterisk.

Coming from the guy who has never donated to a charity in his life. Lmao.

Why the fuck should that even matter?

I bet you have never donated to a charity in your entire life. If foreign aid works, why does is Africa still a third world continent?
Because AIDS runs rampant there, there aren't enough resources to help them all, and the fact that they have a fucking desert in the middle of their continent that makes the cramped north and south have problems with limescale, rust, ground in dirt, and... uh, yeah, poverty as well.

[killshot]

lol you guys, it's just TheRealFolksBlue/Aerodynamic again.

So how about we ignore this guy and have a civilized (if any) discussion about the issue at hand, kay?

Damn, beat me to it.

By the way RealFolkBlues, use a different avatar next time you get banned and come back. It makes you way too easy to identify.

[OverMind]

Think of all the money we could be saving right now if we pulled out all of our troops from around the world, withdrew from all international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and ended all foreign aid.

Well, there's a few problems with these ideas.

1. History: The United States had a policy of isolationism in its history (i.e. Staying out of the quarrels of old Europe). The consequences of WWII lead to the realization that isolationism only delays trouble from knocking on your door - it doesn't prevent it.

2. Economics: The World Trade Organization, the Economic and Social Council, International Monetary Fund; these are beneficial to the US so leaving the UN would be detrimental since the US would lose membership in these organizations.

3. In general: The US was the major driving force behind the UN and practically founded NATO. Backing out of these organizations would, basically, defeat their purpose. NATO is also a deterrent to aggressor countries starting wars. The obvious weakness is that nothing can really be done when the aggressor state is the US itself a la the current Iraq War. However, the context of this thread is foreign policy in regards to maximum US benefit so that point is moot.

In regards to foreign aid, though, I do agree that the current system of handouts is sort of misguided. On one hand, the money is subject to greedy administrators laundering it away in Swiss bank accounts. On the other hand, the US has foreign interests and, thus, earns vassal states/allies by giving money away. The US could, then, be actually netting in more money or other benefits than that which is given away if they are taking advantage of economic interests that could not be earned in any other way. Heck, much of the "Coalition of the Willing" (those that supported the Iraq War) was composed of states that received substantial foreign aid from the US.

So, in brief, foreign aid may actually benefit the US more than it appears. It may appear to be altruism but, in reality, its money with lots of strings attached.

[Fat1Fared]

Well, there's a few problems with these ideas.

1. History: The United States had a policy of isolationism in its history (i.e. Staying out of the quarrels of old Europe). The consequences of WWII lead to the realization that isolationism only delays trouble from knocking on your door - it doesn't prevent it.

2. Economics: The World Trade Organization, the Economic and Social Council, International Monetary Fund; these are beneficial to the US so leaving the UN would be detrimental since the US would lose membership in these organizations.

3. In general: The US was the major driving force behind the UN and practically founded NATO. Backing out of these organizations would, basically, defeat their purpose. NATO is also a deterrent to aggressor countries starting wars. The obvious weakness is that nothing can really be done when the aggressor state is the US itself a la the current Iraq War. However, the context of this thread is foreign policy in regards to maximum US benefit so that point is moot.

In regards to foreign aid, though, I do agree that the current system of handouts is sort of misguided. On one hand, the money is subject to greedy administrators laundering it away in Swiss bank accounts. On the other hand, the US has foreign interests and, thus, earns vassal states/allies by giving money away. The US could, then, be actually netting in more money or other benefits than that which is given away if they are taking advantage of economic interests that could not be earned in any other way. Heck, much of the "Coalition of the Willing" (those that supported the Iraq War) was composed of states that received substantial foreign aid from the US.

So, in brief, foreign aid may actually benefit the US more than it appears. It may appear to be altruism but, in reality, its money with lots of strings attached.

Why'll I agree with all of your points, I was hoping he would try to learn this himself :thatface:
=Plus forgin aid also keeps a lot of these countries in poverty (in round about way) and this helps the western society on international markets. As well it helps US (plus others) companies get the rights to build their factories in these countries where use the cheap labour which keeps market prices down and money this makes far out ways the money given

[AsteriskRocks]

Well, there's a few problems with these ideas.

1. History: The United States had a policy of isolationism in its history (i.e. Staying out of the quarrels of old Europe). The consequences of WWII lead to the realization that isolationism only delays trouble from knocking on your door - it doesn't prevent it.

2. Economics: The World Trade Organization, the Economic and Social Council, International Monetary Fund; these are beneficial to the US so leaving the UN would be detrimental since the US would lose membership in these organizations.

3. In general: The US was the major driving force behind the UN and practically founded NATO. Backing out of these organizations would, basically, defeat their purpose. NATO is also a deterrent to aggressor countries starting wars. The obvious weakness is that nothing can really be done when the aggressor state is the US itself a la the current Iraq War. However, the context of this thread is foreign policy in regards to maximum US benefit so that point is moot.

In regards to foreign aid, though, I do agree that the current system of handouts is sort of misguided. On one hand, the money is subject to greedy administrators laundering it away in Swiss bank accounts. On the other hand, the US has foreign interests and, thus, earns vassal states/allies by giving money away. The US could, then, be actually netting in more money or other benefits than that which is given away if they are taking advantage of economic interests that could not be earned in any other way. Heck, much of the "Coalition of the Willing" (those that supported the Iraq War) was composed of states that received substantial foreign aid from the US.

So, in brief, foreign aid may actually benefit the US more than it appears. It may appear to be altruism but, in reality, its money with lots of strings attached.

I...this is a perfect explanation for him.

[JesusRocks]

OverMind to the rescue once again!

[Aninamar]

Done with this ridiculous topic? Good. It means it's time for...
http://smamms.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/robotnik_106-198-r12.jpg
PINGAS!
Also, Overmind - you rock.

[Black Mage]

If we get rid of the constant threat of imminant death and possible threats,
The rulers would lose money, I dont think they would want that.
Although to admit I could very well raise the threat to neigh obliteration of humanity.
Heh but that would be a responsibility wouldnt it.

[Under Sky So Blue]

1. History: The United States had a policy of isolationism in its history (i.e. Staying out of the quarrels of old Europe). The consequences of WWII lead to the realization that isolationism only delays trouble from knocking on your door - it doesn't prevent it.

You can not believe in free trade and isolationism.

The World Trade Organization, the Economic and Social Council, International Monetary Fund; these are beneficial to the US so leaving the UN would be detrimental since the US would lose membership in these organizations.

Except all of these organizations have globalist agendas that threaten national sovereignty.

The US was the major driving force behind the UN and practically founded NATO. Backing out of these organizations would, basically, defeat their purpose.

Doesn't hide the fact that they were and still are mistakes.

NATO is also a deterrent to aggressor countries starting wars.

No, NATO is going to cause World War III. No nation is a threat to us.

On the other hand, the US has foreign interests and, thus, earns vassal states/allies by giving money away.

"Commerce and honest friendship with nations, entangling alliances with none." -Thomas Jefferson.

[AsteriskRocks]

No, NATO is going to cause World War III. No nation is a threat to us.

That statement is just your expressed opinion. The reason it exists is to prevent a WW3.

EDIT: Don't feel like getting too involved. Reasoning seems beyond this person.

[darkarcher]

Oh, this will be fun.
You can not believe in free trade and isolationism.
You missed his point entirely. He was saying that isolationism was a long-held view in America and that we suffered for it to an extent. He wasn't saying that there must be free trade and isolationism concurrently.

Except all of these organizations have globalist agendas that threaten national sovereignty.
Please provide examples so you don't sound like a person who has listened to too much extreme political commentary.
Doesn't hide the fact that they were and still are mistakes.
Please explain why they are mistakes so that it doesn't sound like you're pushing your opinion on people.
No, NATO is going to cause World War III. No nation is a threat to us.
That's a very elitist attitude. Your statement is also filled with more opinions/commentary than actual facts or speculations.
"Commerce and honest friendship with nations, entangling alliances with none." -Thomas Jefferson.
I'll give you points for actually using some background with this argument. It's true that the founders did not intend for the USA to enter into binding treaties. It's also true that at times they may cause us more harm than good. However, the answer is not cutting off all political ties with the remainder of the world. Honestly, whether you believe it or not, America will most likely need help with something or another at some point in the future. At that time, it's good to have other governments who will actually help.

[Under Sky So Blue]

You missed his point entirely. He was saying that isolationism was a long-held view in America and that we suffered for it to an extent. He wasn't saying that there must be free trade and isolationism concurrently.

Adolf Hitler rose to power because of how the Treaty of Versailles, a result of our unnecessary intervention in World War I, devastated Germany. Assuming the fractional chances that 9/11 was not an inside job, America's foreign policy is precisely what motivated the terrorists to perpetrate 9/11.

"“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government – and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.” -Winston Churchill

Please provide examples so you don't sound like a person who has listened to too much extreme political commentary.

http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/un-treaties-fail-to-respect-american-sovereignty-and-the-constitution.php

Please explain why they are mistakes so that it doesn't sound like you're pushing your opinion on people.

The United Nations is hopelessly corrupt and has accomplished nothing in its entire existence. Remember Oil for Food? How is the United Nations doing in Darfur?

That's a very elitist attitude. Your statement is also filled with more opinions/commentary than actual facts or speculations.

Do you have any idea what NATO is? It's a military alliance. If a nation messes with a NATO member, the other NATO members get involved.

However, the answer is not cutting off all political ties with the remainder of the world.

People need to learn the difference between nonintervention and isolationism. I am for free trade, open travel, etc., I'm against meddling in foreign affairs that pose no threat to our national security and entangling alliances that will most likely cause World War III.

America will most likely need help with something or another at some point in the future...At that time, it's good to have other governments who will actually help.

Like Iraq? Why would the world's only superpower actually need "help"?

That statement is just your expressed opinion. The reason it exists is to prevent a WW3.

Like how alliances prevented World War I? Oh wait.

[Aninamar]

Like how alliances prevented World War I? Oh wait.

There's one reason why WWI is not at all like the scenario for WWIII.
C'mon, say it with me...
Nukes.
Like Iraq? Why would the world's only superpower actually need "help"?
It's not the only superpower. If Russia and China aren't superpowers yet, they're pretty damn close. And why? Because it just might be occupied with something else at times. :P

[killshot]

Assuming the fractional chances that 9/11 was not an inside job

I stopped reading here. You are either a bad troll or someone who can't accept reality.

[Fat1Fared]

Adolf Hitler rose to power because of how the Treaty of Versailles, a result of our unnecessary intervention in World War I, devastated Germany. Assuming the fractional chances that 9/11 was not an inside job, America's foreign policy is precisely what motivated the terrorists to perpetrate 9/11.


Looks like you need to learn history as well as global politics’, the treaty of Versailles may seem harsh in modern day terms, but if actually look at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Forced Russian surrender treaty to GERMANY) and The Treaty of Bucharest (Germany treaty forced on Romania, which left a crippled country for next 60 years and if germany hadn't lost, causing treaty to become void, they would still be crippled to this day)

Anyway if you compare these forced treaties that germany made on others, you will actually find the Treaty of Versailles is very tame

Also it wasn't just the Treaty of Versailles which caused germany to fall into to disrepair, germany was already crippled because of WW1, like most countries, however unlike most it didn't make very good plans to recover, things such as trying to beat debt by painting off more money caused mass infiltration and complete chaos in their political class with governments changing every day meant they had no real leadership, the treaty of Versailles didn't help, but of the debt it gave them their payed less than 10% before the treaty was finally scraped and so to blame it for WW2, is something that if look at the history more deeply will find is very big mistake and to think it was over harsh is subjective thing as got to look at it from point of view of poeple of that time.


"“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government – and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.” -Winston Churchill


-Now to move onto how USA effected WW1 itself, this is difficult thing as tech by US army came the war was won and the US's actually impact was pretty small, as there army was amazingly undertrained and actually had to fight under British command as had no real general's fit for such a war. In fact Britain actually inventing a tank which didn't break down after 2 miles could be said to have more direct effect on War than US, but it is their indirect effect which we must look at. What would have happened if US didn't agree to join, is a very difficult area as depends who agree with, however I personally think that historians like Fitizgerald who say that those USA's direct involvement was small, their threat of joining caused the German Spring offenses, which lost Germany WW1, as make no mistake about this, up till about the April of 1918, Germany was very much winning the war, though Austria-Hungry was getting killed in mountains of Italy, the Italians themselves didn't know what doing and the Turks were being crushed by Lawrence Of Ariba and his tanks, Germany had still managed to defeat Russia (partly thanks to Lenin all be it) and many of balkic states like Serbia, as well as cause the complete destruction of REAL British army, leaving it with nothing more than half trained conscripts, and it caused the end of French economy (another reason why Treat of V was so harsh, was because French needed money badly after war) I mean without US money and troops the Spring offensive would probably not have happened and Britain/French would have slowly been bled dry, leaving germany as winners. Of course we do need to remember the arguments that US wasn't only cause of spring offensives and cannot discredit the British navy blockade on germany trade or lost of Ottoman Empire causing Germany to have fear of few thousand British colonial veturans, who had been fighting in hardened dustbowls of Asia and trained in the very wild countries of Austilra and New Zealand. But still very strong argument that US was final cause of our victory as main cause of Spring offensive, even if direct involvement was small. And if there was peace in 1917, it would been our surrender under a treaty which would have probably made the Treaty of Versailles look like friendly lunch invite.
=PS also though you quote Churchill, and remember he was Politian trying to win an election when he made those comments and so was trying to discredit the other political groups/people such as Lloyd George and Chamberlain. So they are hardly reliable sources of information, aspecially as Churchill had more to do with US joining WW1 than he did WW2 o0, and if some evidence is to believed, he actually knew boats like the Lusitania were in danger and could very well be sunk, yet did nothing to stop this, knowing it would force USA to join WW1.

(I spent 5 years learning about all this, at very high educational level, so I do know what on about)


http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-gabriel/un-treaties-fail-to-respect-american-sovereignty-and-the-constitution.php


That isn't evidence, that is some reporters opinion with lots of mistakes, interpretations and subjective political assumsons. Trust me if I got pound every time I read some pro-my country report in some high wing paper, which I knew was talking rubbish, where the reporter knew about as much about global politics as I did about maths, I would be very rich man.

-Also it states that 65% of US citizens felt the UN was failing, as if that proved anything, well if most US citizens know same as you about global politics’ then we can remove their opinions as valid very easily


The United Nations is hopelessly corrupt and has accomplished nothing in its entire existence. Remember Oil for Food? How is the United Nations doing in Darfur?


This again is opinion, not fact and generally I do believe, politics’ is full of half truths and iffy deals in my opinion, but on other hand do you think that US doesn’t do it fair share of this and UN is only cause?
Also do you know how much power USA has in UN, its lot more than any other country and more than one world changing bill has failed because USA went against it, the US even got away with things like a highly debatable trade embargo on Cuba.


Do you have any idea what NATO is? It's a military alliance. If a nation messes with a NATO member, the other NATO members get involved.


well done, that is general idea and no matter how strong you think the US is, it won't keep its power without its allies


People need to learn the difference between non-intervention and isolationism. I am for free trade, open travel, etc., I'm against meddling in foreign affairs that pose no threat to our national security and entangling alliances that will most likely cause World War III.


<facepalm> do you think freedom of trade can come without any price?

The reason you don't have to pay the trading taxes, have freedom of movements....etc is because of the alliances you make, if you don't have those alliances, you don't have the Freedom of Trade...etc, so countries must make a choice, join the alliance, gaining’s it trade advantages, but accepting its terms or don't have isolation, you cannot have best of both worlds. I mean if things like UN and European nations are so bad for countries, ask yourself why non-members are so always so desperate to join? (Remembering that many of those ties you seem to think will cause WW3 actually probably stop it, in my opinion)

I mean Why is Turkey, a country which has less than 25% of its land in Europe, willing give in to lot of european demands, just so it can join EU? Simple countries know that the trade...etc you gain is worth lot more than few outdated ideals things lose. I mean your looking at from view which was made over 150 years ago, when globalization was barely into its teens as major political force and so in that simpler world, without need for global trade and resources such as Oil, this idea may have looked like good one, however it still failed then, so if failed then, has no chance now.
=PS also if poeple bothered to learn these things, you would know that they all have safe-guards against removing cultural nesairaties IE EU has something called the "Defence of innate cultural beliefs!" which is where if something is seen as ingrained part of countries culture, then the EU will not remove it, this is why Britain can still use its old Weighing systems, despite it being against EU law


Like Iraq? Why would the world's only superpower actually need "help"?


Oh dear, I feel so sorry for you, you really are misguided little soul ain't you, how long will US remain superpower, without others Countries wanting/allowing it too?
=Its a trading superpower, which means it needs to keep good trade in order to keep its power, if countries decided didn’t want to trade with it, because wasn’t helping them, all of US’s power would disappear in seconds
=We live in globalized world my friend, and so you cannot survive without friends, this is why Britain and Ireland are so willing to forget several hundred years of mutual dislike, in order to make new political alliances


Like how alliances prevented World War I? Oh wait.

Actually WW1 happened because 3 of the 4 most powerful countries in Europe all wanted to crush germany, they would have fought germany no matter what, but decided if going to fight, may as well do it together, it can easily be agrued that the alliances where more a by-product of the war in this case, rather than a cause. (which means this alliance has been made for very different reason to Nato Alliance, plus the Nato alliance is lot stronger than Triple On-Tont alliance and it generally isn't fighting other maga-alliance countries, meaning its threat is far greater, so to compare them as same thing is like comparing Apples to oranges really)

-Anyway, The main causes of WW1 where:- Britain saw Germany as a threat to its global dominance and a childish upstart, which it wanted to teach a lesson to vindictive and hard to admit, but true

-France=Wanted to take back all land and "honour" it had lost in Franco-Prussian war

-Russia wanted to complete its control over the Balkic regions and Germany's main Ally the Austian-Hungain Empire stood directly in its way

[AsteriskRocks]

There's one reason why WWI is not at all like the scenario for WWIII.
C'mon, say it with me...
Nukes.

He pretty much has it down...in case you don't know the term for this USSB, it's called Nuclear Deterrence.

[Black Mage]

There's one reason why WWI is not at all like the scenario for WWIII.
C'mon, say it with me...
Nukes.

It's not the only superpower. If Russia and China aren't superpowers yet, they're pretty damn close. And why? Because it just might be occupied with something else at times. :P

Dont you think its all so funny, how everyone calls the countries "super powers" and uses the term "fight" in so many different scenarios that arent relative and yet everyone seems to want peace... we sometimes question if the overall US wants peace...
I wrote alot thats relative to what I just said in a topic I made just a few ago in this category.

[Fat1Fared]

Dont you think its all so funny, how everyone calls the countries "super powers" and uses the term "fight" in so many different scenarios that arent relative and yet everyone seems to want peace... we sometimes question if the overall US wants peace...
I wrote alot thats relative to what I just said in a topic I made just a few ago in this category.

It doesn't, do know how much money countries like US make from war?

War is one of main driving forces behind any major countries economcy

[Black Mage]

It doesn't, do know how much money countries like US make from war?

War is one of main driving forces behind any major countries economcy

Ah yes, I posted something about that somewhere, I really wrote an interesting topic, its titled "Society, humanity, and my philisophical view of it all" .
anyways blah,blah,blah, military is the execution and gamble of lives for money. blah blah blah hypocritical societys can never advance so long as there is more than one due to the fact that the zealousey men find in certain history aka patriot.