How does the world see Americans (and McCain/Obama)

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:54 pm

syd wrote:the logic is funny.

Idea: Mc Cain has a better foreign policy
Argument: He served the army and was prisoner of war five years

Are you serious? What is funny about that logic? He served oversees, and has first hand experience on the battlefield. If anything we should be laughing at you for not picking up the similarities between foreign policy and interacting with foreign countries at various levels. And to clarify, I was saying he is more credible in terms of foreign policy.

syd · Post by **syd** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:04 pm

What is the link between serving the army/being prisoner and Foreign Policies ?

It seems that foreign policies, for you is synonym to hostile relations.
How about having a Foreign policy that tries to be friends rather than enemies?

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:13 pm

syd wrote:What is the link between serving the army/being prisoner and Foreign Policies ?

It seems that foreign policies, for you is synonym to tedious relations.
How about having a Foreign policy that tries to be friends rather than hostile?

A guy who has experienced a war in such terrible way ( being tortured for 5 years) is likely to be more considerate and understanding of what it really means to start a war.

American foreign policy should be dictated by the national interest. If this can be accomplished by "making friends" that's even better, but this should not be the primary consideration.

Post by **xavier** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:38 pm

(mod note -- wow I actually did a real moderator thing and split the topic!!!

)

syd · Post by **syd** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:49 pm

A guy who has experienced a war in such terrible way ( being tortured for 5 years) is likely to be more considerate and understanding of what it really means to start a war.

Yes, he knows what starting a war means, that's why he wants to continue the current one, "for a hundred years if necessary".

American foreign policy should be dictated by the national interest. If this can be accomplished by "making friends" that's even better, but this should not be the primary consideration.

Any country tries to protect its interests.
Then there are many different ways to behave, and it's also a question of attitude.
The foreign policy of those last years haven't served the national interests for sure.

nice job Xavier =)

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:21 am

that's why he wants to continue the current one, "for a hundred years if necessary".

That's just a lie and you know it .... so why bring it up ?

The foreign policy of those last years haven't served the national interests for sure.

You have no idea ... and I don't know either.
Nobody knows for sure - it will take years to see the long-term effects.

_tommo_ · Post by **_tommo_** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:54 am

warmi wrote:
that's why he wants to continue the current one, "for a hundred years if necessary".
That's just a lie and you know it .... so why bring it up ?

The foreign policy of those last years haven't served the national interests for sure.
You have no idea ... and I don't know either.
Nobody knows for sure - it will take years to see the long-term effects.

2000 american deaths and more than 100.000 iraqi victims (more or less all civilians) don't seem to me to have served national interest... neither in a cynical way: oil price is three times the one of 2003, and while Saddam controlled and kept quiet disorders and terrorists, now that the region is in the caos they can do what they want.
and the only long term effect i could see is that now USA has definitely passed from post WW2 "Savior" role to "Imperialistic aggressive nation"...

Boriszko · Post by **Boriszko** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:48 pm

_tommo_ wrote:
warmi wrote:
that's why he wants to continue the current one, "for a hundred years if necessary".
That's just a lie and you know it .... so why bring it up ?

The foreign policy of those last years haven't served the national interests for sure.
You have no idea ... and I don't know either.
Nobody knows for sure - it will take years to see the long-term effects.
2000 american deaths and more than 100.000 iraqi victims (more or less all civilians) don't seem to me to have served national interest... neither in a cynical way: oil price is three times the one of 2003, and while Saddam controlled and kept quiet disorders and terrorists, now that the region is in the caos they can do what they want.
and the only long term effect i could see is that now USA has definitely passed from post WW2 "Savior" role to "Imperialistic aggressive nation"...

I guess you are somewhat unaware of the strategic (long-term) importance of Operation Iraqi Liberation and the ''war on terror'' in Afghanistan. Occupation/influence in Afghanistan allows the construction of pipelines from the oil/gas fields in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to tankers waiting to take it to the USA (and hopefully to some of his friendly trading partners/partners in crime also (like me, being Dutch

)). I guess the guys in Langley found out that the tank in Saudi Arabia is running dry and now the Bush administration has found a way to somewhat secure the future import of oil/gas.

This doesn't mean that oil prices will go down instantaneously and if peak-oil is not a hoax, they probably never will. But this isn't of course that bad (especially considering global warming, which might or might not be a hoax). It makes it less risky and more profitable to invest into energy R&D. This will allow the development of more environment-friendly energy sources and energy sources that don't require countries to import vast resources from a limited supply in another country, which has the potential for conflict and in extremi state-sanctioned mass murder (a.k.a. war).

You might even argue that this ''Savoir'' role (I guess it means something like "The all wise, all enlightened USA") has caused the conflict in Iraq. This role is however not exclusively American (they excel at promoting it, however, from a European POV), but is fairly common in a democracy. Political statements like ''Saddam used to be a total asshole, but after a nice chat and some extra dough so his evil secret police is more efficient at stabilizing the country, we have a long-term agreement to export oil from Iraq'' aren't fancied by a lot of voters instead of ''Saddam is evil and playing with his terror axe, and now we are going to chop of his head and make Iraq are democracy.''.

Okay, back to washing my Hummer

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:33 pm

Occupation/influence in Afghanistan allows the construction of pipelines from the oil/gas fields in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to tankers waiting to take it to the USA

Gee.. there are still people out there who believe this drivel.

Simply amazing.

_tommo_ · Post by **_tommo_** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:02 pm

Gee.. there are still people out there who don't believe this drivel.

Simply amazing.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:19 pm

There are a lot of people who don't believe that the earth is flat ...

I am sure you will find this amazing.

Evak · Post by **Evak** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:21 pm

Obama is a good front man with no real policy. All he offers is change, but what election doesn't offer change? its a pretty shallow.

For people in the UK. I left in 1998 and lived here in California ever since. I remember Tony Blair in his early days, and with New Labour winning the election in 97. Ever since I rarely regret moving here because all I have seen is the UK turn into a socialist police state. PC has run out of control making the US seem pretty level headed in comparrison.

5 million CCTV cameras (26% of the worlds CCTV cameras make their wat to the UK). Several thousand Speed cameras. Speed cameras don't even exist in most cities or even states here.

The nanny state and PC situation has gotten so bad that most people feel entitled to social security, and a huge chunk of the population can't be bothered to work. Huge chunks of the middle class are jumping ship and migrating to other countries. Australia, Canada, US, France, Spain, Turkey etc. Over 400,000 in 2006 and the figures are going up.

I've gone off track a bit, but I see Obama as another Tony Blair, so really hope he doesn't get elected. He has no policies. So far all he has done is pander to the extreme left in the primaries till he got nominated. Now that he knows that those people will vote for him no matter what he has done an about turn, forgotten what he promised them and is trying to win the center and those that so far are undecided.

I don't think either candidate is ideal, but McCain seems the better candidate. He may be a republican, but so far he has stuck to his guns and supported many traditionaly democratic stances throughout Bushes presidency. I'm amazed he got nominated to be honest, because he isn't all that popular with republicans because he seems socialy liberal, politicaly conservative.

Probably has more in common with Arnold Schwarznegger, who has proven to be a very popular republican governor in a overwhelmingly liberal state.

syedhs · Post by **syedhs** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:45 am

warmi wrote:
Occupation/influence in Afghanistan allows the construction of pipelines from the oil/gas fields in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to tankers waiting to take it to the USA
Gee.. there are still people out there who believe this drivel.

Simply amazing.

In general, you have to understand this: people will not do anything unless it is for money (or any other equal compensation). In other words, US army doesn't simply come to Iraq to liberate Iraqis. It is pure BS. The same thing goes with Afghans. With trillions of dollars had already been poured, you taxpayers sure dont wanna waste it, do you?

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:05 am

In general, you have to understand this: people will not do anything unless it is for money (or any other equal compensation).

I'm sure you must speak for yourself, I know many people who donate money to various causes and don't expect anything in return. Unless you're talking about governments and politicians, I bet they're all evil. Every single one of them.

I know who I'm voting for now. Link1 Link2

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:24 am

syedhs wrote:
warmi wrote:
Occupation/influence in Afghanistan allows the construction of pipelines from the oil/gas fields in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to tankers waiting to take it to the USA
Gee.. there are still people out there who believe this drivel.

Simply amazing.
In general, you have to understand this: people will not do anything unless it is for money (or any other equal compensation). In other words, US army doesn't simply come to Iraq to liberate Iraqis. It is pure BS. The same thing goes with Afghans. With trillions of dollars had already been poured, you taxpayers sure dont wanna waste it, do you?

I wish that were the case.

Unfortunately , the US has a long history of wars motivated by ideologues â€“ people who think that helping others become like us , would benefit the nation ( and the planet) in the long run.
The only difference is a level of competence of people involved and the overall quality of execution.

Germany 1918. 1945, Korea 1953, Vietnam 1975, Haiti 1934,1994,2004, Panama 1989, Somalia 1994,Yugoslav Wars 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003

Exceptions:
Japan 1945, Iraq 1991

Evak · Post by **Evak** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:14 pm

Where war is concerned. It was largely started on false pretenses and judging by shock and awe and lack of research into even basic cultural differences there, they planned to be in and out in a couple of weeks and loved by Iraq.

Problem is they completely misunderstood the nature of the region. After getting rid of the Taleban I guess they felt it would be a walk in the park. Now they have increased the danger of terrorism by a significant margin. Caused a ton of resentment through Iraq that will probably make recruiting easier. Plus being a superpower means backing off and pulling out on their own would lose them face and empower Al queda (however you spell it) who will use it as proof that Allah is great, and they defeated the infidel despite their vast resources and technology.

It's not a good situation at all, and no good situation I can think of exists to disolve the problem. Meanwhile were wasting lives and resources on something no one wants. A change of government here in the US would help a little but not a lot since Bush could take the brunt of the critisism and ultimately be the scapegoat for an embarrassing part of American history.

syedhs · Post by **syedhs** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:31 pm

i can dig up stories for justifying what I said earlier - but the thing is there is always two sides of coin. I can say whatever, and some people will say totally opposite and sound quite reasonable (you can say the same thing to me too

).

What is very clear is this: Bush doesn't get to Iraq just to liberate Iraqi people. After all, what stops him from doing the same thing to North Korean? And speaking about Taliban, Taliban was CIA friend because Taliban was the one who could stop Soviet Union from getting hold of Afghanistan. And what is in Afghanistan that make it so precious, that is for you to find out

And Saddam was good friend of Donald Rumsfeld, because he sold and proft handsomely from the weapon sale during the Iraq-Iran war.

Post by **xavier** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:32 pm

syedhs wrote:After all, what stops him from doing the same thing to North Korean?

Or, for that matter, Zimbabwe?

The answer, of course, in both cases, is that neither of those countries are sitting on or otherwise controlling natural resources in which the U.S. has an interest. And this isn't some sort of huge secret -- we've made it perfectly clear to the rest of the world, in words as well as deeds, that we will go where our interests are at stake. So regardless of the fact that Robert Mugabe is probably an order of magnitude worse a dictator than was Saddam Hussein, and despite the recent/current debacle there over the "elections", we'll never even glance at Zimbabwe because we have no interests there.

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:44 pm

syedhs wrote: And what is in Afghanistan that make it so precious, that is for you to find out

Opium?

Just kidding.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:39 pm

The answer, of course, in both cases, is that neither of those countries are sitting on or otherwise controlling natural resources in which the U.S. has an interest.

It is not that simple.
There are no resources in Afganistan either ... nor there weren't any resources in South Korea/Vietnam yet the US waged much expensive wars in both of these places.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:43 pm

And Saddam was good friend of Donald Rumsfeld, because he sold and proft handsomely from the weapon sale during the Iraq-Iran war.

Sorry but that's just nonsese.

Rumsfeld had no relationship with Saddam.
He was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy - it was just part of his job and had nothing to do with him selling weapons or anything like that.

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:20 am

Evak wrote:So far all he has done is pander to the extreme left in the primaries till he got nominated. Now that he knows that those people will vote for him no matter what he has done an about turn, forgotten what he promised them and is trying to win the center and those that so far are undecided.

Isn't that true for any candidate and in a way caused by the US electoral system? Once they've got the primaries they feel they have to go for the center. Even McGovern thought (wrongly?) that he'd have to compromise after winning the primaries.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:34 am

Isn't that true for any candidate and in a way caused by the US electoral system?

Why would that be ?

I don't see any relationship here.

jjp · Post by **jjp** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:44 am

I shouldn't have said it is caused by the US electoral system but that it is caused by the fact that the US electoral system winds down to a two party system (on the national level at least). Which in a way applies to most democracies. But the USA is one of the more extreme examples.

warmi · Post by **warmi** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:56 am

Actually, you are right ... there is a relationship.

I think it is for good though .... it seem to work pretty well - it tends to to have some moderating effect on both parties.