American Foreign Policy

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, what do you think?

I think America's political arrogance toward other nations is embarrassing, dangerous and will eventually lead directly to our demise. I also think the internal refusal to cooperate is more embarrassing than the political arrogance toward other nations.

[saxitoxin]

Woodruff, what do you think?

I think America's political arrogance toward other nations is embarrassing, dangerous and will eventually lead directly to our demise. I also think the internal refusal to cooperate is more embarrassing than the political arrogance toward other nations.

I don't care about that. Is the US claiming it has a straight when it really has a royal flush, or a straight when it only has two of a kind?

[barackattack]

Well yeaaaah... but in equivalent terms, the British Empire's GDP at its height was larger than the US's has ever been.

You can argue that the US bosses people around now, but what do you think Britain did back in the day? Let its colonies run amock while the rest of the world went about their daily business? Fact is that global empires have existed before, and they've all fallen eventually.

I think you're talking to yourself now, addressing positions I haven't offered.

The U.S. will eventually collapse but it won't be an orderly transition and fade to irrelevance like Britain. It will take the world down with it like Rome and leave no rump scrap state afterwards. The U.S. situation is more similar to the former than the latter.

Don't worry, none of this will happen in your lifetime.

China is on the brink of being the new boss already. Good luck with that 'ball of flames' collapse.

[tkr4lf]

Ah, the holy grail. A topic where Liberals and Conservatives agree.

Who would have thought it could be real?

Now that you've been properly skooled, please shut the f*ck up.

Chillax your tighties, ma boy, we're all friends here.

I don't think anybody is friends with player. Sorry, but blatant stupidity pisses me right the f*ck off.

Just make sure you don't vote for Ron Paul, because even though you might like him on tons of other things and even though he has been right about the economy all along, he will f*ck up our foreign policy....

I know, right? Other countries might actually like us for a change...

Doubt it.

Heh, you got me there... But a boy can dream, no?

[saxitoxin]

Well yeaaaah... but in equivalent terms, the British Empire's GDP at its height was larger than the US's has ever been.

You can argue that the US bosses people around now, but what do you think Britain did back in the day? Let its colonies run amock while the rest of the world went about their daily business? Fact is that global empires have existed before, and they've all fallen eventually.

I think you're talking to yourself now, addressing positions I haven't offered.

The U.S. will eventually collapse but it won't be an orderly transition and fade to irrelevance like Britain. It will take the world down with it like Rome and leave no rump scrap state afterwards. The U.S. situation is more similar to the former than the latter.

Don't worry, none of this will happen in your lifetime.

China is on the brink of being the new boss already. Good luck with that 'ball of flames' collapse.

Yes, yes, and in the '80s it was Japan, and the 70's the USSR, and the 90s the EU, and after China it will be India, etc.

You're chattering like a prole. Wake up.

[Phatscotty]

Interesting answer from Ron Paul on how he would use the military when it comes to foreign policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsUxowtiu3g&t=33m20s

[barackattack]

Yes, yes, and in the '80s it was Japan, and the 70's the USSR, and the 90s the EU, and after China it will be India, etc.

You're chattering like a prole. Wake up.

Says Mr. 'I LOVE TEH USA IT IS TEH AWESOMES'.

IMF forecasts:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/foreca ... -2030.html

[saxitoxin]

Yes, yes, and in the '80s it was Japan, and the 70's the USSR, and the 90s the EU, and after China it will be India, etc.

You're chattering like a prole. Wake up.

Says Mr. 'I LOVE TEH USA IT IS TEH AWESOMES'.

Ummm ... have you ever read my posts here in The Club?

With all due respect, you've been ranting like a nutter since you got here. Is everything okay?

[Phatscotty]

Barack I warned you in LC to go easy in here at first! Now Saxi is on yer azz!!! Not a good start bubb.

Guard yer junk

FYI... IMF = USA = World Bank = USA

[Aradhus]

I see what's goin on here, Saxi. BA is confusing your hatred of Britain as love for America. I think he thinks there's a competition involved.' shh, between you and me, I think he feels some inadequacy about the size of Britain's penis, shh)

[saxitoxin]

- smashing Israel, France and the UK to end their abortive Suez War against Egypt

The Egyptians illegally siezed control of the Suez Canal. UK, France and Israel taught them a lesson.

It appears they teach a different version of history at whatever Plate Glass University you attended and/or are attending.

Britain and France - after having their chains reeled in by the U.S. and USSR - withdrew under Egyptian fire (AKA "retreating"), Egyptian control of the canal was maintained and Nasser continued as President of Egypt. As a result of this defeat to Egypt, this was the last military operation in which the UK independently engaged and all subsequent military activities UK forces have operated as a maneuvering auxiliary group attached to US forces and commanded by US officers.

[saxitoxin]

I see what's goin on here, Saxi. BA is confusing your hatred of Britain as love for America.

Yeah I got that. There's an assumption that Britain is so sidelined and below-the-radar that anyone who disparages it must be from Nowhere, Alabama.

For the record, though, I don't hate Britain. I consider Britain as just another run-of-the-mill American lackey / puppet state, no different from Ecuador or Belgium or South Korea. As far as I'm concerned, my criticisms of Britain, therefore, are actually criticisms of the U.S. since British foreign and defence policy is formulated in Washington and then sent as sealed orders to Grosvenor Palace where they are delivered - weekly - to the Prime Minister who ceremonially grovels before the Ambassador/Imperial Legate to receive them. See:

A new series of leaked cables reveal both UK Labour and Conservative leaders exhausted the White House by competing against each other for how much loyalty they could demonstrate to the U.S. while White House staff "treated Britain’s ‘paranoid’ obsession with maintaining the special relationship with near contempt." The UK's "obsession" with the US was described as "humorous if it weren't so corrosive."

British politicians made various pre-election offers to increase arms purchases from the United States, bizarrely told American diplomats that their families preferred to holiday in the States, and even made assurances to put-in-place a "pro-American UK regime" [sic]. The White House was, apparently, turned-off by the stomach-churning demonstrations of fealty from Labour and Tory leaders.

Obama, at one point, became so irritated by Gordon Brown's repeated requests for a face-to-face meeting, all of which were declined, that White House staff decided to give Brown the opportunity to be photographed kissing Michelle Obama to quiet him down.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nship.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... agent.html

[barackattack]

Britain and France - after having their chains reeled in by the U.S. and USSR - withdrew under Egyptian fire (AKA "retreating"), Egyptian control of the canal was maintained and Nasser continued as President of Egypt.

Very interesting. Except the main point I was making was that you considered the US's input into that whole affair to be a positive one. I don't see why sticking up for Egyptian criminals is a valuable contribution to the world stage.

It'd be much easier for you to pretend you're genuinely trying to engage in a debate if you didn't insist on quoting out of context all the time.

As a result of this defeat to Egypt, this was the last military operation in which the UK independently engaged and all subsequent military activities UK forces have operated as a maneuvering auxiliary group attached to US forces and commanded by US officers.

Sorry, try again.

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

[saxitoxin]

Britain and France - after having their chains reeled in by the U.S. and USSR - withdrew under Egyptian fire (AKA "retreating"), Egyptian control of the canal was maintained and Nasser continued as President of Egypt.

Very interesting. Except the main point I was making was that you considered the US's input into that whole affair to be a positive one. I don't see why sticking up for Egyptian criminals is a valuable contribution to the world stage.

I'll take petty miscreants over colonial-capitalist-zionist felons any day of the week.

As a result of this defeat to Egypt, this was the last military operation in which the UK independently engaged and all subsequent military activities UK forces have operated as a maneuvering auxiliary group attached to US forces and commanded by US officers.

Sorry, try again.

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

Ah yes, that tooth-and-nail war against the superpower Argentina where Britain had to ask the United States for permission to use Britain's own territory - Ascension Island - as the resupply point, got turned down, then had to plead and beg until authorization was granted.

I'd have thought - as St. George's bastard child from his zoophiliac relationship with a drag queen (he "speared" the "dragon" ) - you'd want to play down that episode. The fact you're not easily embarrassed may come in handy for you later in life.

[barackattack]

Hey look, it's more of saxi's alternate world events!

If you saved all your history lessons in one Word file you could write a Hollywood blockbuster of legendary inaccuracy.

You also never explained why such an avid anti-imperialist as yourself considers US support for Napoleon to have been a positive in the history of their foreign policy.

[saxitoxin]

Hey look, it's more of saxi's alternate history!

If you saved all your history lessons in one Word file you could write a Hollywood blockbuster of legendary inaccuracy.

And so, the predictable ending to one of barackattack's God Save the Queen song and dance threads:

• "I declare that some unspecified thing you said is wrong! I win! Rule Brittania!"

[barackattack]

[in] all subsequent military activities UK forces have operated as a maneuvering auxiliary group attached to US forces and commanded by US officers.

Incorrect, no matter how many sub-clauses you try to paste onto the example of the Falklands.

Napoleon?

[Phatscotty]

Curious who voted yes? and why?

[saxitoxin]

"I declare that some unspecified thing you said is wrong! I win! Rule Brittania!"

Napoleon?

Marx - when he described the world union of the capitalist class - was describing the coalition of the Uradel. Marxism is not simply a dumb rejection of monarchism. It is, specifically, a rejection of the power structures established by the immortal nobility. This is why Austria, Britain, the German states, etc. were so offended by the French revolution and all subsequent intrigue - including the coronation of Napoleon I. Bonapartism, as a theory beyond the illumination of Napoleon, is chiefly concerned with the destruction of the old order, preserving its essential revolutionary ethos. Any further discussion of these points is more appropriate for an independent thread.

[Aradhus]

For the record, though, I don't hate Britain.

[Knowing look] saxi, come on.

no, Saxi, come on.

[/Knowing look]

[barackattack]

[BigBallinStalin]

I have always felt US foreign policy to be extremely ambiguous. On the one hand you have positives, like helping out in the second world war, supporting democratic efforts in the immediate post war period. On the other hand you have things like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, funding south american death squads, propping up dictators just because they aren't communist ones.

20th century Pre- 1991 I think you could make the argument that US foreign policy was on the balance a modest positive.

Post 1991 it has been in steady decline and been largely negative. I look to its ham fisted handling of Russia, doing nothing in Bosnia, but hammering serbia over kosovo. In general the picture of an increasingly arrogant and belligerent foreign policy that alienates allies and spurns potential future allies.

Do you think Bush Sr.'s handling of the Persian Gulf War was legitimate and sufficient?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, what do you think?

I think America's political arrogance toward other nations is embarrassing, dangerous and will eventually lead directly to our demise. I also think the internal refusal to cooperate is more embarrassing than the political arrogance toward other nations.

I don't care about that. Is the US claiming it has a straight when it really has a royal flush, or a straight when it only has two of a kind?

America's playing Texas HoldEm and everyone else is playing Razz.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yadda yadda. You think people didn't feel this self-assured at the height of the British Empire?

You're the only one who used the word self-assured. I haven't seen many in the American ruling class acting self assured. I've seen them using a fraction of their power potential in a coldly calculating manner for maximum self-benefit.

The U.S. use of technology created through military direction of civil industry, and the implementation of foreign policy through an octopus-like network of client states are at levels that haven't existed before in history.

Saxi, do you think the US will generally pursue a more multilateral or unilateral approach in the near future?

By multilateral, I mean, abiding by UN decree. "Unilateral" means not just the US, but also the US and a few good 'ol boys (e.g. Iraq War II, US and UK pursue a warlike policy, regardless of UN preferences).

[BigBallinStalin]

check out the book "Confessions of an economic hit man" by John Perkins... thats some foreign policy for ya!

I've read it. John Perkins is a bit of a nut. He offers some good points, but he fails to make a strong connection between the CIA/NSA/clandestine organizations, the economists/businessmen, the World Bank/IMF, and main policymakers in the US (e.g. the president, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc).

I don't believe that the US is that well-organized. Some of them may wish they were, but Perkin's conclusion is too teneous for my tastes.


In short, plans can be designed to be similar to his story's, but the implementation is too likely to be incoherent, too costly, and/or too risky/uncertain.