Kyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest... only John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world. And as for the Weapon of Mass Quoting ....:rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

John,

What I was getting at is, is why choose the Mansons at all? Presumably there's SOMEONE in America who a) loves freedom and b) isn't the craziest. Why not pick them? Because the CIA wants a scorched earth policy. Picking the most vile, hateful and deranged group is the paramilitary equivalent of nuking from high orbit. It destroys the country as an asset for everyone, it's radioactive (i.e. unstable) for generations, and has more killing power than trying to shepard a goodie-two shoes democracy.

Quote from: David RKyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest... only John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world. And as for the Weapon of Mass Quoting ....:rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

Since when, David, is it a requirement to acknowledge the damage US foreign policy has done over here when defending it over here?  This kind of  "I must first confess all my sins before I speak a word" sort of limits the conversation, no? Add that to the fact that in the very first response (and in many cases after) John is acknowledging the problems - he's just saying that the alternative action (the one usually advocated by the opposition and is usually "can't we just leave them all to themselves") often leads to horrible situations that people then point to and then blame....the US for not getting involved.

And it's ok to disagree with Kyle's point as you summarize - I certainly don't think you ignore a plea for assistance no matter who is asking.

And I'm still continually baffled by this kind of adverse statement to self interest.  When all else is equal, it can at least be used to criteria, no?

I'm fine if Kyle wants Australia out of world politics. I'm sure that means he won't be trying to mess about with US internal politics by opposing any external pressures on the US to alter greenhouse gas emissions...right?

In the mean time, we'll keep electing people, then tossing them out of office when we disagree with them, who take America's self interest as the last word on deciding if the US should get involved. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got.

See?

Thats why I posted what I posted earlier.

The last two-thirds of this thread were almost pretty predictable.

 YES, of course the article raised several interesting and there arecseveral facts or truthjs in it - doesn't change the truth that it will lead to yet another back & forth thread about the US has done wrong or right. (pkay HAS lead to that ...) Then someone will say what the other poster's non-US country has done wrong or right over the years...etc., etc.,....

 Hey lets all complain about Berzerkistan ...or Freedonia...or Latveria.
there would be just as much point to those discussions.


- Ed C.

Latveria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latveria

Quote from: David RKyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest... only John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world. And as for the Weapon of Mass Quoting ....:rolleyes:

Regards,
David R

Wrong.

I could also turn this into a defense of American foreign policy.

By and large I wish my country had better choices than to deal with dictators, but often we must deal with the world as it is, rather than as we'd like it to be.

When there aren't any good choices, you're faced with making a choice someone's not going to like (choosing to do nothing is also a choice -- and often a very bad one). And so the result of any foreign policy is, ultimately, hatred.

I don't mind being held accountable for the choices I make. I expect my country to be held accountable for the choices it makes, but the idea that there are simple, "good" choices out there and that the US is somehow not making them (and that, we should, somehow, choose an enlightened leadership that would make the "good" choices and then we'd be loved) is, I think, wrong.

We're big, we're powerful, our influence and power is an incredibly blunt instrument. Isolationism isn't an option. Neither is empire. What we're left with is pretty much where we are -- doing the best we can in a world without a lot of good options.

I think we should be aware of the impact of our foreign policy and we should strive to live up to our ideas, including those of fairness and generosity. I think there is always room for improvement and I think our critics -- even the ones who hate us -- can teach us.

So with regard to the article, I would agree we should listen.

But I don't think foreign policy is the whole story. I'm not convinced that a lot of the hatred is the result of foreign policy impacts. And while the author touches on "envy" I don't think envy tells the whole story, either. Looking at some of the hatred -- not even, necessarily, hatred directed at *us* I think there is clearly there is an ideological element to it that should not be underestimated.

America -- what it is, what it stands for (which is often not what it is), and the ideas it represents (and will never, by definition, live up to) is clearly offensive to a lot of people (and not just Islamic radicals -- I'm thinking of various kinds of socialists and, to a much lesser degree, secularists, as well).

That America is hugely -- no, singularly -- powerful, influential, and successful is in some ways a vindication of those ideas. I think that a lot of people find that offensive beyond pragmatic foreign policy issues.

And although I doubt we will ever live up to our greatest ideas, I wouldn't want to stop trying even if it meant being loved by those we currently offend.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: James J SkachSince when, David, is it a requirement to acknowledge the damage US foreign policy has done over here when defending it over here?  This kind of  "I must first confess all my sins before I speak a word" sort of limits the conversation, no? Add that to the fact that in the very first response (and in many cases after) John is acknowledging the problems - he's just saying that the alternative action (the one usually advocated by the opposition and is usually "can't we just leave them all to themselves") often leads to horrible situations that people then point to and then blame....the US for not getting involved.

And it's ok to disagree with Kyle's point as you summarize - I certainly don't think you ignore a plea for assistance no matter who is asking.

And I'm still continually baffled by this kind of adverse statement to self interest.  When all else is equal, it can at least be used to criteria, no?

I'm fine if Kyle wants Australia out of world politics. I'm sure that means he won't be trying to mess about with US internal politics by opposing any external pressures on the US to alter greenhouse gas emissions...right?

In the mean time, we'll keep electing people, then tossing them out of office when we disagree with them, who take America's self interest as the last word on deciding if the US should get involved. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got.

Where exactly is here, James? And no, acknowledging past mistakes and acts does not limit the conversation, in fact it broadens it allowing all participants the understand each other better without falling into the trap of needless defensive rhetoric. No, John has never really acknowledged the problem with American foreign policy only made justifications for it. And nobody blames the US for not getting involved....which is the convenient excuse by those who defend it's more egregious policies. People blame the US for not getting involved because its rhetoric of freedom does not match its acts.

When all else is equal, self interest is great. When there's a disparity and one makes use of it in the guise of altruistic purposes....don't be surprised if  scorn is all you get.

As for the environment, I'm sure Kyle would be the first to critise his country and support any country who sincerely takes the lead in the effort.

You keep electing whoever you want and as long as your policies don't adversely affect the rest of the world nobody would really care....kindly extend to others the same courtesy.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: -E.I could also turn this into a defense of American foreign policy.

You just did.

QuoteI don't mind being held accountable for the choices I make. I expect my country to be held accountable for the choices it makes, but the idea that there are simple, "good" choices out there and that the US is somehow not making them (and that, we should, somehow, choose an enlightened leadership that would make the "good" choices and then we'd be loved) is, I think, wrong.

You get the choices you get, when interfering in the domestic policies of foreign countries.

QuoteI think we should be aware of the impact of our foreign policy and we should strive to live up to our ideas, including those of fairness and generosity. I think there is always room for improvement and I think our critics -- even the ones who hate us -- can teach us.

Agreed.

QuoteSo with regard to the article, I would agree we should listen.

This a good start.

QuoteBut I don't think foreign policy is the whole story. ......

Of course, but it's the most important one.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RKyle's point is that no matter who ask, don't get involved in someone else's country....esp since let's face it, you're doing it for your own self interest...

So you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?

Quote from: David Ronly John Morrow could turn this thread into a defense of American foreign policy and babble on about offering alternatives without offering any of his own or acknowledging the damage US foreign policy has done to it's relationships with the rest of the world.

The reason why I'm not offering alternatives is that I'm not the one claiming that the US could have and should have done better.  It's easy to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong but not so easy to tell them what they should have done instead, and to take responsibility for the consequences of that alternative.

I have acknowledged, for example, that the United States backed dictators and could have done plenty of things better than they did, especially with the benefit of hindsight and better information now than the US had then.  Yes, US foreign policy has done damage to its relationship with the rest of the world but what would the world look like to day if after (or, heck, even for) WW2 the United States had just said, "Not my problem," and ignored the world the way Kyle suggests?  

Would South Korea be living in a socialist paradise like the happy citizens of North Korea if the US hadn't intervened on their behalf?  Would Iran and Pakistan have become client states of a possibly still healthy Soviet Union?  And would the people of those countries really love the US more than they do now or would the resent the US for not helping them?

I thought the people on a site like this would be familiar with the idea of alternate histories and could use their brains to make a specific change and then follow through what it would have meant to world history.  What would have changed for the better or worse other than, perhaps, that America would (possibly) be less resented?

So far, all I've really gotten is that Kyle doesn't seem to care whether things would be better or worse, which seems a bit strange and irresponsible to me.  

So he cares whether the people of Pakistan resent American interference in their country but he doesn't really care what happens to them in an alternate future without American involvement?  Does Kyle really care that much about how loved America is?  

As for doing it in our own self-interest, isn't that what Kyle's, "Doesn't worry me. Just don't stumble into my country." really boils down to?  Do America's critics really care about the people of Pakistan (or any other country) except as it affects them and their own country?  If the people complaining about American foreign policy really cared that much about the people of Pakistan (or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or whatever), I would expect at least some consideration of their plight without US intervention rather than a disinterested claim that it doesn't matter.

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?



The reason why I'm not offering alternatives is that I'm not the one claiming that the US could have and should have done better.  It's easy to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong but not so easy to tell them what they should have done instead, and to take responsibility for the consequences of that alternative.

I have acknowledged, for example, that the United States backed dictators and could have done plenty of things better than they did, especially with the benefit of hindsight and better information now than the US had then.  Yes, US foreign policy has done damage to its relationship with the rest of the world but what would the world look like to day if after (or, heck, even for) WW2 the United States had just said, "Not my problem," and ignored the world the way Kyle suggests?  

Would South Korea be living in a socialist paradise like the happy citizens of North Korea if the US hadn't intervened on their behalf?  Would Iran and Pakistan have become client states of a possibly still healthy Soviet Union?  And would the people of those countries really love the US more than they do now or would the resent the US for not helping them?

I thought the people on a site like this would be familiar with the idea of alternate histories and could use their brains to make a specific change and then follow through what it would have meant to world history.  What would have changed for the better or worse other than, perhaps, that America would (possibly) be less resented?

So far, all I've really gotten is that Kyle doesn't seem to care whether things would be better or worse, which seems a bit strange and irresponsible to me.  

So he cares whether the people of Pakistan resent American interference in their country but he doesn't really care what happens to them in an alternate future without American involvement?  Does Kyle really care that much about how loved America is?  

As for doing it in our own self-interest, isn't that what Kyle's, "Doesn't worry me. Just don't stumble into my country." really boils down to?  Do America's critics really care about the people of Pakistan (or any other country) except as it affects them and their own country?  If the people complaining about American foreign policy really cared that much about the people of Pakistan (or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or whatever), I would expect at least some consideration of their plight without US intervention rather than a disinterested claim that it doesn't matter.

Well yes John. Stop backing dictators, stop meddling in the policies of other countries and then when you play world cop, America would have more credibility. I would answer point by point....but really, you're not exactly saying anything new.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are fine with what happens when the United States and the rest of the world doesn't get involved in situations like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur and think that NATO should have stayed out of Kosovo and the UN should have stayed out of Bosnia?

Why are you stopping there? Anyone advocating isolationism is almost certainly against taking action to stop genocide (and, from the looks of things, that would be almost everyone).

But the US's involvement in other places goes well beyond military actions.

The US donates a lot of money to humanitarian efforts. After earth quakes and tsunamis, the US (often the US Military) arrives providing blankets, medical care, etc. Oddly, in these cases, I often see the US of accused of not doing enough...

And even beyond government-sponsored actions, the US's purely domestic behavior has massive impacts on other countries: money sent home from illegal workers in the US is the primary source of income for some entire nations.

Surely those wishing the US would simply get off the world stage object to those actions and impacts as well?

Or do you think that many of the critics have a more ... nuanced idea of how the US should interact with and affect other parts of the world -- something along the lines of "only do the kind of intervention I agree with... and only in the way I agree with it?"

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: David ROf course, but it's the most important one.

Regards,
David R

I disagree. I think ideology probably has more impact. From a practical, day-to-day perspective people's lives are more-affected by their local and regional government than by the US.

In the article, you'll note that the "bearded guys" running around enforcing Islamic law weren't, you know, American. The desire to hold someone else -- preferably someone foreign -- responsible for one's own mess is strong and, I think, in some ways innate to human nature.

No -- the decision to focus on the US in those cases is the result of belief and ideology. Policy is secondary.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWhat I was getting at is, is why choose the Mansons at all? Presumably there's SOMEONE in America who a) loves freedom and b) isn't the craziest. Why not pick them? Because the CIA wants a scorched earth policy. Picking the most vile, hateful and deranged group is the paramilitary equivalent of nuking from high orbit. It destroys the country as an asset for everyone, it's radioactive (i.e. unstable) for generations, and has more killing power than trying to shepard a goodie-two shoes democracy.

And where was this scorched Earth policy put into action?  Pakistan?  There were problems between Pakistan and India and unrest among the Muslims there going back to British colonial rule (Pakistan was carved out of India and they are still fighting over Kashmir).  Where, specifically, was this policy that would destroy a country for generations actually put into play and how successful was it?

Quote from: -E.No -- the decision to focus on the US in those cases is the result of belief and ideology. Policy is secondary.

I disagree, policy is the fuel which feeds the flames of hatred and envelops the moderates and the sympathethic. Policy is primary.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI disagree, policy is the fuel which feeds the flames of hatred and envelops the moderates and the sympathethic. Policy is primary.

Regards,
David R

I give you the Danish Cartoon riots -- the flames can be fed by almost anything. And so long as there are people out there who gain from the flames... and so long as there are people willing to listen to them, it's words, ideas, and concepts that will, in the end, do the most damage.

I'm not saying we couldn't do better with our policy, and I'm not saying we shouldn't -- but when we're talking about *hatred* we're talking about emotions and ideas, usually simple ones.

Policy and its second and third degree impacts aren't "simple" -- your life, anyone's life, is the result of a huge number of variables. Decisions in Washington are only one of them.

Who you chose to hold responsible -- who you chose to *hate* is a personal choice and often a simplistic one.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: David RWell yes John. Stop backing dictators, stop meddling in the policies of other countries and then when you play world cop, America would have more credibility.

What does it mean to stop backing dictators?  Stop sending them aid?  Withdraw diplomatic recognition?  Sanctions?  Cease trade?

And I thought the current complaint was that the United States toppled a dictator in Iraq and should have left him in place and that America and the UN shouldn't have been subjecting Iraq to sanctions.  So, if the United States just kept buying oil from Saddam and didn't push him out of Kuwait and didn't stop him from slaughtering Iraqi minorities with the no-fly zones throughout the 90s, would that have been "backing" Saddam or doing what you and Kyle want?

I know the details are difficult but if you want some credibility on the topic, details are necessary because, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Quote from: David RI would answer point by point....but really, you're not exactly saying anything new.

Humor me.  Answer point to point because I'm waiting for someone to show me that they can.