Hate US Foreign Policy?

I have finally reached my limit of reading post after post of people complaining about US Foreign Policy towards Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It's almost comical to see how short-sighted people are and how quick they are to conveniently forget historical cases of death dealt by the hands of rogue states.

For those of you that think the US has some sinister intention of ruling the world by attacking or invading rogue states, let me ask you a few questions:

1. Ever heard of Adolf Hitler? You know, that wacky guy that Europe didn't have the guts to stand up to preemptively allowing him to build the most powerful arsenal in the world at that time. I guess kissing his ass for 5 years only to have him roll over Europe anyway was better huh? How many millions of people died? Who's entry in the war turned the tide and libereated Europe's arse? You guessed it.

2. Ever heard of Slobadan Malosovich? You know, yet another European wack-job that Europe allowed to commit genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo unrivaled in Europe since WWII? Who's airstrikes and involvement forced Malosovich out? You guessed it.

3. Oh yeah, once Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were conquered following WWII, who was the overwhelming source of money, resources, and technology to rebuild Europe - including the aggressor countries? You guessed it.

4. Was the $5 trillion the US spent basing forces in Europe since 1945 part of some grand scheme to dominate Europe? I guess it would have been better to simply allow the Soviet Union to assign 'gimp' status to all of Europe instead huh?

I'm sure I've left out many other significant US contributions to global security. It makes me want to puke to hear people whining about proactive US Foreign Policy when MOST of it is to protect the ones bitching and whining in the first place.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars does the US contribute to countries each year? If the US was such a sinister aggressor as some would have it, why would we bother giving these people our various forms of aid when we have the power to wipe their existance off the face of the earth and take their resources?

As long as rogue states exist on our planet with the means to kill beyond their borders, there has to be a balancing force to prevent the threat of a global holocaust. Who else is going to do it? France ? United Nations ? The United States does not want a repeat of circumstances that led up to WWII, especially since the stakes are much higher now with WMD proliferation. You would think that Europe would have at least some recollection of WWII being in their backyard but their actions (or lack thereof) seem to indicate otherwise.

I think most of the animosity towards the US is based upon envy of our courage and means to stand-up to adversity - not cower from it. The general attitude of US Foreign Policy critics reminds me of a grumpy fat chick at work that constantly tries to find fault in a hard working hot chick, even though the hot chick does most of the fat chick's work for her.

Feeling much better now....please feel free to dispute me on any of these points....you may want to do your homework ahead of time though.

W.E.S.B

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy especially since the stakes are much higher now with WMD proliferation.

You have got to be kidding. After what we just went through with Iraq and you still buy into it?

Frith....

I never once bought into the Iraq issue in terms of WMD. There is no doubt however that Sadaam Hussein pursued them and would probably have held the region 'hostage' had he perfected delievery methods. Personally I think the way that we went about invading Iraq was wrong - but not unjustified.

Iran and North Korea are certainly the most dangerous of the three and both have provided state-sanctioned terrorism throughout the world unlike Sadaam Hussein.

Jeez here go another US saves the world again story...blah blah blah...

Firstly many europeans where willing to stand up to him...they didnt have the power to do so....

Lets round up the facts....

britain...many wanted to stop hitler but our government didnt because it believed in appeasement..also was in no shape since our army was only small and the RN was also outdated....the RAF was smaller than the luftewaffe and wasnt really prepared to go to war..

France...decimated after WW1 took YEARS to get thier forces up to an "ok" level....was not ready for another war....

Italy....was prepared to stop hitler in czech incident but didnt after not getting any support from UK or france OR THE US!

The fault of WW2 lies squarely on the treaty of versailes....

Oh yeah, once Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were conquered following WWII, who was the overwhelming source of

okey allow me to get them off one by one...

money, resources,

Shared between NATO countries...remember the UK actually bought everything it got from the US...

technology

Germany and the allied powers...or did you forget mister einstien....or the german jet tech....or the german weapon tech...or the german radar tech or the harrier....or the research into supersonic jets....shall I continue?

Ever heard of Slobadan Malosovich? You know, yet another European wack-job that Europe allowed to commit genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo unrivaled in Europe since WWII? Who's airstrikes and involvement forced Malosovich out? You guessed it.

Hmm I guess the UK force wasnt there or the 1000 troops that arrived before america even got there?

Was the $5 trillion the US spent basing forces in Europe since 1945 part of some grand scheme to dominate Europe? I guess it would have been better to simply allow the Soviet Union to assign 'gimp' status to all of Europe instead huh?

Hmm I wonder did the UK task force in NATO actually help towards defending europe?
No it seems by your view..
Also...if the USSR did rumble on through...who would now be the USSR's biggest threat?
Hmm yup you guessed the USA. After europe if they did invade they would want the USA and the USA would be quite screwed since the USSR would have MUCH more resources and weapons than the USA....thank your and good night..
One last final note...tell me how do you define a "rogue" state?

"a deceitful and unreliable scoundrel" Hmm doesnt this fit EVERY major power?

Also if europe isnt helping in any of this...what are the 5000 service men and women doing there then?
Haveing a holiday?
A nice visit to a former colony?

these are historic times and i cant stand how blind some of you are...the middle east is seeing democracy...isreal is pulling out of palestine...lebanon soon wont be under occuptation...people of iran are seeing how great democracy is compared to what they live in...and they want it...open your eyes...its right there...

We didn't enter WWII in its early stages for the reason of our people.
The majority (according to the polls) said no to the war in Europe. In fact it was about 80%+. After all we are a nation of the people, well FDR did however send britain 1,000 to 2,000 old WWII battleships.
We helped china with the Flying Tigers, or something like that. Theres a thread about these somewhere in this forum.
New documents from the 40's show that FDR secretly met with Churchil, even though we were said to have been neutral.

devilwasp??? what do you mean Italy was prepared to stop Hitler over the CHech incident?? They were apart of the Axis, Musso had met with Adolf on several occasions and even invaded Ethiopia to "kick things off". After Italian pres. was captured, Hitler ordered an rescue for him; which was successful.
Another reason why the US didn't enter the war was because we reduced our military manpower to 136,000 men. The reason, United States government was hoping that a post WWI world would more and likely come together and prevent any further conflicts.

Well after WWII the US came out as the richest country in the world, next to the USSR. After the invention of the atomic bomb (which saved about 1 million lives) the Soviet Union was already on its way to create one. Thus created the nuclear arms race or the cold war.
Military build up.
Economic build up.
etc. etc. etc.

After the fall of communism we remain a superpower, but slowly losing it.
Studies show that the US will no longer be one in less than 100 years. China is expected to surpass us in less than fifty.

To down the US is to completely ignore history itself.

Unfortunately, the USA currently meets many criteria for a 'rogue state' by definition, and Bush's agenda can sit very neatly with some of the other leaders seeking strategic expansion for their view of the world mentioned in the first post.

But Bush is mightier, he has God on his side and God tells him what to do regularly. He is presented as having the ghosts of Washington and Lincoln at either shoulder to help him with the tough and very unpopular task of cleaning up bits of the world where the US has no place. And he knows that spreading the PNAC version of "democracy" including all the fake elections that go with that, is the most "righteous" thing he can do.

[/tongue in cheek]

The events in the Middle East are not at all as described previously in this thread. A lot of people are being played for fools, so be it.

What Bush will find is that he and his cronies are not above the law at all, even when they try to rewrite it.

God to Bush: "Son of the republic, look and learn"...

Right.

Originally posted by evanfitz
devilwasp??? what do you mean Italy was prepared to stop Hitler over the CHech incident?? They were apart of the Axis, Musso had met with Adolf on several occasions and even invaded Ethiopia to "kick things off". After Italian pres. was captured, Hitler ordered an rescue for him; which was successful.

Ah I belived this as well until a short while ago while reading a couple of history books (yes I do read books). Orginally he was against hitler and with us....if you remember the itallians changed sides before..When hitler invaded the sudatenland musso actually mobilised his troops...
He backed down after not getting any reaction from the other powers.

I will have to add to what MaskedAvatar said, US and his "policies" has actually making other countries to hurry up and pile on Nuclear power in case US decide to include them in their Axis of evil list.

Bush is getting his counseling on foreign policy from to many Gods or to many "voices", and he is getting confused.

Now one thing is for sure, we are hurting in our nation with the trade deficit and our national debt.

That is the real terror right now and this one is going to attack us household by household.

thats intreseting devilwasp, thanx for the correction.

He already had the delivery perfected in 1991 when he had Scud missiles and VX nerve gas,+ bio weapons..he could have reigned them down on Israel and effectivly destroyed Tel Aviv and other cities, he didn't do that because then they would have retaliated with nukes..Iran already has the bomb and missiles that can reach, it doesn't mean they are going to use them in anything but a deturrent way

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy
Frith....

I never once bought into the Iraq issue in terms of WMD. There is no doubt however that Sadaam Hussein pursued them and would probably have held the region 'hostage' had he perfected delievery methods. Personally I think the way that we went about invading Iraq was wrong - but not unjustified.

Iran and North Korea are certainly the most dangerous of the three and both have provided state-sanctioned terrorism throughout the world unlike Sadaam Hussein.

Originally posted by evanfitz
After all we are a nation of the people, well FDR did however send britain 1,000 to 2,000 old WWII battleships.

wtf!!!

Thats one of the funniest thing i have read in ages.

1. NO country in the world had 100 battleships let alone 1000-2000 to give away, and most definatly not old WWII battleships (FDR had a time machine too did he????)

2. We did get 50 obsolete WWI destroyers.

3. We had to pay for them as part of the lend/lease programme, and we payed over the odds for them too.

Check your facts before making rediculus claims like this

[edit on 23-3-2005 by paperplane_uk]

"3. Oh yeah, once Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were conquered following WWII, who was the overwhelming source of money, resources, and technology to rebuild Europe - including the aggressor countries? You guessed it. "

------------------------------------------------

one could argue that since we entered the war so late, we had more money, resources, and technology to offer, couldn't one? Most of Europe was decimated by the end of the war.....they needed the help, we gave it.....big deal.

But, well, I don't know, it seems like it's possible this war could growing into something much bigger, and we're the major player. We've already put our economy in jeopardy, and everyone else's is closely tied to it. If this war esculates, who will it be to pick up the pieces after it's over? Won't be the US I don't think.....Europe? China? Russia(lol!!!).....

There has to be a better way to handle a war!! Not to mention cheaper.
Either they bit off more than they can chew, or they handled it rather badly....


[edit on 23-3-2005 by dawnstar]

The Germans borrowed a ton of Money from American banks before the war started, and the Jews who ran/run America's banking system were all too happy to lend him the money..

"1. Ever heard of Adolf Hitler? You know, that wacky guy that Europe didn't have the guts to stand up to preemptively allowing him to build the most powerful arsenal in the world at that time. I guess kissing his ass for 5 years only to have him roll over Europe anyway was better huh? How many millions of people died? Who's entry in the war turned the tide and libereated Europe's arse? You guessed it."

Hmm I didnt see the US not doing much either... actually the US was reasonably isolationist, hell it wasn't even part of the League of Nations at the time. The only thing the US did militarily was use the likes of Smedley Butler as "gangsters for capitalism" for wall streets interests. War is a racket.

"2. Ever heard of Slobadan Malosovich? You know, yet another European wack-job that Europe allowed to commit genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo unrivaled in Europe since WWII? Who's airstrikes and involvement forced Malosovich out? You guessed it."

Actually European nations were there first I believe, also the fact that Serbia was a touchy issue as at the time I think they were seen as Russian allies (though Tito and Stalin never got along) so they had to be careful. The European nations also contributed to resolving the conflict. I think Milosevich is receiving justice in a court in The Hague that the US isnt signatory to.

"3. Oh yeah, once Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were conquered following WWII, who was the overwhelming source of money, resources, and technology to rebuild Europe - including the aggressor countries? You guessed it. "

The US didnt help for charity(though of course it was a factor), it was about building itself a strong base of allies to fight against communism. You see, the communists wanted a global workers revolution and believed that one by one countries would fall to communism and the new socialist order. If Europe fell to communism and also China, the world would be a much different place than it is today. It was a fight over who had the superior ideology, the US couldnt defeat it by themselves, as that would only lead to the death of the american way of life. It needed allies, strong allies that's why it injected so much money into the area to contain the spread of communism. That's why the truman doctrine and the marshal plan were enacted, at great cost to the american taxpayer.

I don't think there's a european out there who isnt ungrateful for the assistance, but your tone and arrogance can come across as insulting to them.

"4. Was the $5 trillion the US spent basing forces in Europe since 1945 part of some grand scheme to dominate Europe? I guess it would have been better to simply allow the Soviet Union to assign 'gimp' status to all of Europe instead huh? "

please refer to previous answer.

"How many hundreds of billions of dollars does the US contribute to countries each year? If the US was such a sinister aggressor as some would have it, why would we bother giving these people our various forms of aid when we have the power to wipe their existance off the face of the earth and take their resources?".

Because believe it or not, America doesnt have the power or manpower to conquer every country on earth. It's not an option. It's having enough trouble in Iraq atm if you need evidence, that's just one country.
Nor would it be a smart way of securing peace. It's better to form a peaceful security and trading relationship with these countries based on friendship to keep them in line compared to forceful occupation.

"As long as rogue states exist on our planet with the means to kill beyond their borders, there has to be a balancing force to prevent the threat of a global holocaust. Who else is going to do it? France ? United Nations ? The United States does not want a repeat of circumstances that led up to WWII, especially since the stakes are much higher now with WMD proliferation. You would think that Europe would have at least some recollection of WWII being in their backyard but their actions (or lack thereof) seem to indicate otherwise. "

The United States of America kills more people beyond their borders than anyone. I agree there needs to be a 'balancing force', but one has to question if what is being done is right?? stirring up hornets nests across the globe in the third world and raising anti-american sentiment in virtually every other western nation in the world isn't the way to do it. Is the US in a morally superior position to demand another country to abandon nuclear ambitions when it has more ICBM's than anyone in the world?? If the US is allowed a deterrent, isn't North Korea and Iran allowed the same thing to protect themselves from invasion, no matter how much we may disagree with things are run? just food for thought.

"I think most of the animosity towards the US is based upon envy of our courage and means to stand-up to adversity - not cower from it. The general attitude of US Foreign Policy critics reminds me of a grumpy fat chick at work that constantly tries to find fault in a hard working hot chick, even though the hot chick does most of the fat chick's work for her. "

Perhaps its because people might disagree with the way such power is used? or in their point of view, abused? Also saying others are 'jealous' or 'envious' of American power just makes things worse because it could not be that at all and you are appearing arrogant and people might take it as an insult. I say disagreement with US foreign policy is a good thing, because we need other views to try and make up the right decision. One nation and one people don't hold all the answers, nor do they hold claim to exercise their power across the lands of other peoples for their benefit, but only for their sole defence.

Reaching for the gun may not always be the best decision in every conflict in my opinion.

You cannot attain world peace by using the gun sadly, you have to use the heart, the mind and the pen over the sword. You can force ideals upon men, but it is only successful when the ideas enter the hearts of men and they carry them dearly.

thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 23-3-2005 by drfunk]

Originally posted by xphantomx
The Germans borrowed a ton of Money from American banks before the war started, and the Jews who ran/run America's banking system were all too happy to lend him the money..

Yes...if you remembered they paid it back...

Wild Eyed:

1. Ever heard of Adolf Hitler? You know, that wacky guy that Europe didn't have the guts to stand up to preemptively allowing him to build the most powerful arsenal in the world at that time. I guess kissing his ass for 5 years only to have him roll over Europe anyway was better huh? How many millions of people died? Who's entry in the war turned the tide and libereated Europe's arse? You guessed it.

Yeah, the SOVIETS. Without the Soviets to totally overwhelm the Eastern front (and march in on Berlin before the Yanks got there), the war would have been a totally different story.

And without an attack on Pearl Harbor, the USA would have stayed out of the war and happily dealt with the Nazis after they won the war.

So, um, hush. Or read some history.

3. Oh yeah, once Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were conquered following WWII, who was the overwhelming source of money, resources, and technology to rebuild Europe - including the aggressor countries? You guessed it.

They were loans. Not gifts. How incredibly Christian of y'all. Next.

It makes me want to puke to hear people whining about proactive US Foreign Policy when MOST of it is to protect the ones bitching and whining in the first place.

So puke. Cuz it's true.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars does the US contribute to countries each year? If the US was such a sinister aggressor as some would have it, why would we bother giving these people our various forms of aid when we have the power to wipe their existance off the face of the earth and take their resources?

Yeah, you're right, the USA goes around the world giving money and aid to incredibly nice people (Chile's dictator Pinochet, Suharto, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Israel's IDF Death Squads, South American and Central American dictators, etc).

You mostly only wipe out people who are brown.

My mistake.


Your ignorance is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.


jako

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy
I have finally reached my limit of reading post after post of people complaining about US Foreign Policy towards Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It's almost comical to see how short-sighted people are and how quick they are to conveniently forget historical cases of death dealt by the hands of rogue states.

For those of you that think the US has some sinister intention of ruling the world by attacking or invading rogue states, let me ask you a few questions:

1. Ever heard of Adolf Hitler? You know, that wacky guy that Europe didn't have the guts to stand up to preemptively allowing him to build the most powerful arsenal in the world at that time. I guess kissing his ass for 5 years only to have him roll over Europe anyway was better huh? How many millions of people died? Who's entry in the war turned the tide and libereated Europe's arse? You guessed it.

2. Ever heard of Slobadan Malosovich? You know, yet another European wack-job that Europe allowed to commit genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo unrivaled in Europe since WWII? Who's airstrikes and involvement forced Malosovich out? You guessed it.

3. Oh yeah, once Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were conquered following WWII, who was the overwhelming source of money, resources, and technology to rebuild Europe - including the aggressor countries? You guessed it.

4. Was the $5 trillion the US spent basing forces in Europe since 1945 part of some grand scheme to dominate Europe? I guess it would have been better to simply allow the Soviet Union to assign 'gimp' status to all of Europe instead huh?

I'm sure I've left out many other significant US contributions to global security. It makes me want to puke to hear people whining about proactive US Foreign Policy when MOST of it is to protect the ones bitching and whining in the first place.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars does the US contribute to countries each year? If the US was such a sinister aggressor as some would have it, why would we bother giving these people our various forms of aid when we have the power to wipe their existance off the face of the earth and take their resources?

As long as rogue states exist on our planet with the means to kill beyond their borders, there has to be a balancing force to prevent the threat of a global holocaust. Who else is going to do it? France

? United Nations

? The United States does not want a repeat of circumstances that led up to WWII, especially since the stakes are much higher now with WMD proliferation. You would think that Europe would have at least some recollection of WWII being in their backyard but their actions (or lack thereof) seem to indicate otherwise.

I think most of the animosity towards the US is based upon envy of our courage and means to stand-up to adversity - not cower from it. The general attitude of US Foreign Policy critics reminds me of a grumpy fat chick at work that constantly tries to find fault in a hard working hot chick, even though the hot chick does most of the fat chick's work for her.

Feeling much better now....please feel free to dispute me on any of these points....you may want to do your homework ahead of time though.

W.E.S.B

Dont talk about history when u have fuk all insight in the matter u arrogant prik