American Foreign Policy

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

I'd have to agree with sax on this on. China faces some serious political and internal, economic problems which significantly reduce the certainty of its future, global domination.

As a regional player, China will become extremely influential, but on the global scene, it's highly unlikely that it would be equivalent to the US' in 30 years. What prevents this is US' technology gap, and its power projection capabilities. China needs a modern military force, but with so many internal issues, it's simply not in the cards anytime soon for China.

[saxitoxin]

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).

There is no multilateral system left toward which the U.S. can move. The globe - with one or two spots of liberated territory - is a single super-state controlled from Washington. The UN is the last tool for the US to put in its belt. I recently saw that the Arab League was requesting the UN train their "monitors" (saboteurs) in Syria ... no mention that UN "monitors" are trained by a US-government affiliated company in Tennessee.

• The U.S. has accomplished what previous empires haven't - creating a web of tentacles that penetrate every group, company and nation in the world. The U.S. model of empire is not one where a corps of troops is simply garrisoned in a colonial capital; it seems content to have an overtly modest presentation of its own authority - eschewing territorial grandeur and other ostentatious shows of force - while pulling the strings of the world through networked proxies.
  
  Occasionally this tactic fails so the proxy must be punished with public sexual humiliation followed by death (e.g. Sadaam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi) to caution and corral the gaggle of others. Stephen Harper will never do more than send a letter to Washington expressing polite concern over some nonsense issue like fishing quotas in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. If he ever presented a serious affront he would be sodomized on international television then beheaded in a spectacle of which the U.S. would express "grave concerns" and deny involvement prior to building another dozen monuments celebrating American-Canadian unity.
  
  

[barackattack]

saxi... what is your opinion of the Bilderberg Group?

[saxitoxin]

saxi... what is your opinion of the Bilderberg Group?

I'm not up on the latest UFO sightings, Bigfoot rampages, 2012 prophecies, New World Order conspiracies, Astral projection, Mind Control via Water Fluoridation, Symmetry's ambiguous sexual history, AoG's height, nietzsche's length, etc., I regret. You might check-in with Player if you want info on those fronts. Though, based on the general tone of your rants to-date it sounds like you may already have a pretty firm grasp on all that? Non?

[Baron Von PWN]

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.

While I don't disagree with Baron, I would challenge you to follow this analysis to its logical finale: does the U.S. alienate allies and spurn potential future allies because - (a) those who formulate U.S. foreign policy are idiots and bumble around in ways that counter their own self-interest, (b) there is no possible drawback to alienating allies and spurning potential future allies (IOW, the U.S. has no need for allies, only surrogates).

• I don't believe "A" - below the rotating gallery of politicians, the actual people who influence U.S. foreign policy - Coit Blacker, John Abizaid, etc. - have credentials that outmatch everyone on this message board combined. I'm not sure I entirely believe "B" either.

I think the U.S. boastfully tells the world it has a Full House when it really has a Royal Flush. I think the U.S. has achieved a terminal high ground of which the world isn't fully aware, but gets occasional glimpses every decade or so when unconcealable things like the Danny Casolaro affair break.

Woodruff, what do you think?

I don't believe A is the case either. It's obvious we cannot break it down into a simple option a or b and the real situation is far more ambiguous. I don't mean to imply US policy is the result of idiocy, very smart and talented people can make mistakes, for one access to information is not perfect and they are hampered by the political will of congress/senate/president. On the credentials of CC posters who knows maybe a CCer is one of those men .

I do think US policy is shaped with a B style situation in mind. To use your poker analogy further, it is as though the US is the big stack in a poker game with an infinite number of players, and is now a little drunk on success and making small mistakes as a result, sooner or later they'l put someone all in who they shouldn't have.

[Baron Von PWN]

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?

I do actually. I think Bush sr showed allot of wisdom by not going in there and deposing Sadam. They went in with a specific mission, prevent Kuwait from being wiped off the map. They accomplished that by showing the Iraqi's they could annihilate its army at will, objective achieved they packed their bags and went home.

As to legitimacy. The US and a broad coalition of allies with UN backing stepped in to prevent Kuwait from being added as an Iraqi province. It seems to me the classic legitimate intervention. protect a small state from being militarily annexed by a larger one, with the backing of the international community.

I will however readily admit to being by no means an expert on the situation and there could very well be factors I'm unaware of that might make the Iraqi invasion legitimate. If that's the case I will be happily corrected.

[Johnny Rockets]

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).

There is no multilateral system left toward which the U.S. can move. The globe - with one or two spots of liberated territory - is a single super-state controlled from Washington. The UN is the last tool for the US to put in its belt. I recently saw that the Arab League was requesting the UN train their "monitors" (saboteurs) in Syria ... no mention that UN "monitors" are trained by a US-government affiliated company in Tennessee.

• The U.S. has accomplished what previous empires haven't - creating a web of tentacles that penetrate every group, company and nation in the world. The U.S. model of empire is not one where a corps of troops is simply garrisoned in a colonial capital; it seems content to have an overtly modest presentation of its own authority - eschewing territorial grandeur and other ostentatious shows of force - while pulling the strings of the world through networked proxies.
  
  Occasionally this tactic fails so the proxy must be punished with public sexual humiliation followed by death (e.g. Sadaam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi) to caution and corral the gaggle of others. Stephen Harper will never do more than send a letter to Washington expressing polite concern over some nonsense issue like fishing quotas in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. If he ever presented a serious affront he would be sodomized on international television then beheaded in a spectacle of which the U.S. would express "grave concerns" and deny involvement prior to building another dozen monuments celebrating American-Canadian unity.
  
  

However Harper is doing an interesting job of tweaking Obama's nut over the pipeline issue.
No Keystone? Fine. We'll fund the Enbridge pipeline.
....and suddenly, U.S. environmental groups are funding a LOT of activists for the hearings that are currently being held.

With the way Harper is playing dictator these days, I'm wondering how blatant he will be to push Enbridge through, because the Conservatives seem to be taking the hell or high-water approach.
With Alberta oil then being shipped to China, that puts Steve up for the Sodomizing Guillotine Show, non?

I hope it gets to you-tube.


JRock

[Phatscotty]

saxi... what is your opinion of the Bilderberg Group?

Hillary & Obama In Secret Bilderberg Rendezvous


You might remember June 6th, 2008. Obama ditched his press crew and put them on an airplane back to Chicago, and nobody knew where he and Hill-dawg where for the night.

Why werent we told until the airplane door closed and the taxi left?...

According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary's mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.

Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that Obama and Clinton held a private meeting last night but he refused to disclose where it taken place, except that it was not at Clinton's home in Washington, as had been widely reported. Hillary campaign managers also refused to disclose the location of the rendezvous.

"Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane," reports the Associated Press.

Dulles just happens to be walking distance from the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderberg globalists are convening.

[Ray Rider]

However Harper is doing an interesting job of tweaking Obama's nut over the pipeline issue.
No Keystone? Fine. We'll fund the Enbridge pipeline.
....and suddenly, U.S. environmental groups are funding a LOT of activists for the hearings that are currently being held.

With the way Harper is playing dictator these days, I'm wondering how blatant he will be to push Enbridge through, because the Conservatives seem to be taking the hell or high-water approach.
With Alberta oil then being shipped to China, that puts Steve up for the Sodomizing Guillotine Show, non?

I hope it gets to you-tube.

Hey, if the Obama wants to reject thousands of new jobs and a safe, steady supply of oil from their friendly neighbor to the north in favor of bloody oil shipped from enemy dictatorships half the world away, that's his (stupid) choice. We're not going to leave billions of barrels of oil untapped; we'll sell to whoever wants it, including China if they're interested.

And lol at you calling Harper a dictator. Do you automatically consider the leader of any Canadian majority government a "dictator"? Btw, Stephen Harper just came to a city nearby here for the funeral of his first boss from when he was young man. Harper's a pretty likeable guy if you choose to ignore the obvious bias in MSM (such as the recent media-manufactured scare about gay marriage).

[2dimes]

You might check-in with Player if you want info on those fronts.

You were kidding right? I should have PMed you but whatevs... I like that you told him to do that but I don't know if you noticed or not she couldn't answer, "Do you want fries with that?" in a rational manner.

"Fries? Walmart glarg you because as a known scientist once told me the young earthers might think that."

[Phatscotty]

Be careful about Ron Paul! He'd screw up our foreign policy!

[Johnny Rockets]

However Harper is doing an interesting job of tweaking Obama's nut over the pipeline issue.
No Keystone? Fine. We'll fund the Enbridge pipeline.
....and suddenly, U.S. environmental groups are funding a LOT of activists for the hearings that are currently being held.

With the way Harper is playing dictator these days, I'm wondering how blatant he will be to push Enbridge through, because the Conservatives seem to be taking the hell or high-water approach.
With Alberta oil then being shipped to China, that puts Steve up for the Sodomizing Guillotine Show, non?

I hope it gets to you-tube.

Hey, if the Obama wants to reject thousands of new jobs and a safe, steady supply of oil from their friendly neighbor to the north in favor of bloody oil shipped from enemy dictatorships half the world away, that's his (stupid) choice. We're not going to leave billions of barrels of oil untapped; we'll sell to whoever wants it, including China if they're interested.

And lol at you calling Harper a dictator. Do you automatically consider the leader of any Canadian majority government a "dictator"? Btw, Stephen Harper just came to a city nearby here for the funeral of his first boss from when he was young man. Harper's a pretty likeable guy if you choose to ignore the obvious bias in MSM (such as the recent media-manufactured scare about gay marriage).

Yeah, that gay marriage spew was media mongering bullshit.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Harper. The opposition is in such shit shape, he can, and does, do most of whatever he likes at will, and has been doing it ever since he held minority governments. It's kinda nice to see shit getting done.

(Except for that stupid bill to build a load of new prisons. It follows an old and quite unsuccessful American experiment that solves nothing and costs much.)

The comment I made was in reply to Saxi's statement that any leader that does not pay ball, gets whacked and raped. Selling Canadian oil to China. does not seem likely to get an American nod of approval.

JRock

[saxitoxin]

However Harper is doing an interesting job of tweaking Obama's nut over the pipeline issue.
No Keystone? Fine. We'll fund the Enbridge pipeline.
....and suddenly, U.S. environmental groups are funding a LOT of activists for the hearings that are currently being held.

With the way Harper is playing dictator these days, I'm wondering how blatant he will be to push Enbridge through, because the Conservatives seem to be taking the hell or high-water approach.
With Alberta oil then being shipped to China, that puts Steve up for the Sodomizing Guillotine Show, non?

I hope it gets to you-tube.

Hey, if the Obama wants to reject thousands of new jobs and a safe, steady supply of oil from their friendly neighbor to the north in favor of bloody oil shipped from enemy dictatorships half the world away, that's his (stupid) choice. We're not going to leave billions of barrels of oil untapped; we'll sell to whoever wants it, including China if they're interested.

And lol at you calling Harper a dictator. Do you automatically consider the leader of any Canadian majority government a "dictator"? Btw, Stephen Harper just came to a city nearby here for the funeral of his first boss from when he was young man. Harper's a pretty likeable guy if you choose to ignore the obvious bias in MSM (such as the recent media-manufactured scare about gay marriage).

Yeah, that gay marriage spew was media mongering bullshit.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Harper. The opposition is in such shit shape, he can, and does, do most of whatever he likes at will, and has been doing it ever since he held minority governments. It's kinda nice to see shit getting done.

(Except for that stupid bill to build a load of new prisons. It follows an old and quite unsuccessful American experiment that solves nothing and costs much.)

The comment I made was in reply to Saxi's statement that any leader that does not pay ball, gets whacked and raped. Selling Canadian oil to China. does not seem likely to get an American nod of approval.

JRock

As of January 2012, how much oil has been sold to China? You people have been speaking in future-tense for the last 60 years. "Eventually X is gonna happen and then, whoaaaa, the US will pay!" Sure, I suppose I used to be one of you, but - after the 1989 sabotage that culminated in the destruction of the Berlin Anti-Fascism Defence Barrier by NATO-backed terrorist groups - I stopped this foolishness.

• 1948 - Eventually the Soviet Union will get the bomb and then the U.S.' days will be numbered.
  1955 - Eventually China will get the bomb and then the U.S.' days will be numbered.
  1964 - Well the loonie has now outpaced the greenback. This must be humiliating for the U.S.
  1965 - The Anti-Vietnam War protests will eventually plunge the U.S. into chaos. The sun is setting on the U.S.
  1978 - The Arab oil embargo means the end of days. It's over. The U.S. is about to slide into irrelevance.
  1980 - Well the loonie has now outpaced the greenback. This must be humiliating for the U.S.
  1984 - How much longer until Japan buys the White House? It's over for the U.S.
  1992 - The U.S. has no idea what they've gotten themselves into ... they are outmatched versus the Iraqi Army.
  2000 - The U.S. is clearly shaking in their boots. The age of the euro has arrived!
  2009 - Well the loonie has now outpaced the greenback. This must be humiliating for the U.S.

When you're 90 years old you'll still be making these predictions that you never have to answer for when they never come to pass. But, if it gives you something to live for, by fantasizing of a day in the never-to-be-reached future, when non-existent muscles will get flexed, whatever. The problem is that these fantasies impede contemporaneous action for change by making one reliant on an imagined future which one thinks non-existent hidden forces are progressing towards. You have yourselves so thoroughly convinced of this fantasy, this dream, that you believe it with absolutism such that you don't need to do anything now because destiny is in control. Meanwhile the edifices of your nations continue to crumble before the presence of the Empire.

[barackattack]

Hey, sax, how does the US's cook feel as it slides so deep inside your throat?

[thegreekdog]

Hey, sax, how does the US's cook feel as it slides so deep inside your throat?

Hey, sax, how does the US's cook feel as it slides so deep inside your throat?

Hey, sax, how does the US's cook feel as it slides so deep inside your throat?

Just sayin'

[saxitoxin]

Hey, sax, how does the US's cook feel as it slides so deep inside your throat?

Even after reading through the lines of your continually shaky command of written English, I'm not entirely sure how this thesis works coming from someone who has spent half his time on these forums cheerleading David Cameron - the man who pledged to the American ambassador to "institute a pro-U.S. regime in Britain", the leader of a government that can't deploy their U.S.-built nuclear weapons without U.S. permission due to hardwired locks in the firing mechanism and the head of a country that just dropped billions of their dwindling cash reserves buying a U.S.-built fighter to which they've not been given the software codes - meaning they comically can't go to war without prior approval of a USAF officer.

• If the U.S.' cook (or cock) is in my throat, it appears your tongue is up their ass. The second image seems much more dreadful to me.

Run along now, the grown-ups would like to have a chat. Thanks, buddy.

[Neoteny]

I was going to come in here complaining about US foreign policy not involving the killing of enough Muslims, but I find cook-sucking to be an acceptable alternative. Carry on.

[barackattack]

that can't deploy their U.S.-built nuclear weapons

God dammit! However will we stop the Japanese Empire as it ravages our Pacific colonies? We need those nukes!

[saxitoxin]

that can't deploy their U.S.-built nuclear weapons

God dammit! However will we stop the Japanese Empire as it ravages our Pacific colonies? We need those nukes!

This isn't a question of whether the UK needs, or doesn't need, nuclear weapons. This is a question as to whether the UK is, or is not, an independent state. Based on critical analysis of key indicators, the UK does not meet common definitions of an independent state. That's all. No need to get your panties up your pooper.

[barackattack]

The UK can't do something it's never going to do without permission?

Based on your line of logic it would appear that there are about 5 independent states in the world (USA, Russia, India, China and Brazil).