American Foreign Policy

[patches70]

But, well... that is my whole problem with Liberaterianism in general. It is really about consolidating power in the elite, but with the "justification" that they somehow just deserve to have more money and power becuase they worked harder or made the correct decisions.

WTF? Do you read your posts before hitting "submit"?

If you work harder and make better decisions than the guy next to you, that guy deserves the same as you? WTF are you talking about?

The fact that some people work harder and make better decisions than other people is why people are in different economic situations and have better jobs, more power and all that other jazz. Sure there are people who were born into that but a vast majority of people who get rich and powerful worked their asses off to get there. A thing people don't seem to want to accept in life.

If you work harder and make better decisions in life then the consequence of that is greater economic wealth and freedom with greater control over your own life (power). If you can't grasp that simple concept then there is no freaking hope for you.

[tkr4lf]

Haha, player doesn't know what Manifest Destiny is. Perhaps a 5th grade history class in order for her.

You know, it's times like these that make me want to repeat a rather nasty insult to player, but I don't really want another ban. So I'll just say, Player, you are really not a smart person. Surely that is tame enough.


Edit: Also, WHAT IN THE HELL DOES MANIFEST DESTINY HAVE TO DO WITH LIBERTARIANISM?! Libertarianism is a political philosophy of today. Manifest Destiny was the concept prevalent in the 1800's of expanding America from the Atlantic to the Pacific...I'm failing to see a connection. Please enlighten me, oh brilliant one.

[saxitoxin]

I'm failing to see a connection.

In another thread a bit ago she just connected a comment about illiteracy in ancient Greece to one of her go-to conspiracy theories about something or another with the Republicans.

It's actually a fun game - "the Two Degrees of Player."

I'll take the next turn - Player connect the reason behind long lines at Disneyland's Magic Mountain to corporations being people ... GO!

ANSWER: Magic Mountain was built on the site of the iconic People Mover ride which Disney tore down after being pressured to de-motivate people from having aspirations of personal mobility as a result of the Republicans declaring that soylent green is corporations are people. Also, NPR.

[Phatscotty]

And people don't like Ron Paul because of his ideas on foreign policy.....

[thegreekdog]

And people don't like Ron Paul because of his ideas on foreign policy.....

People like Paul's stance. I think you're thinking of Democrat and Republican politicians, the military-industrial complex, and war-mongering Republicans (i.e. establishment Republicans).

[Woodruff]

And people don't like Ron Paul because of his ideas on foreign policy.....

People like Paul's stance. I think you're thinking of Democrat and Republican politicians, the military-industrial complex, and war-mongering Republicans (i.e. establishment Republicans).

No kidding...the military troops LOVE him.

[tkr4lf]

And people don't like Ron Paul because of his ideas on foreign policy.....

People like Paul's stance. I think you're thinking of Democrat and Republican politicians, the military-industrial complex, and war-mongering Republicans (i.e. establishment Republicans).

No kidding...the military troops LOVE him.

I'm sure they do. They'd actually get to come home. But who cares...let's elect another straight Republican or Obama again. Why would we want actual change?

[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.

[tkr4lf]

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.

Pretty much this. Our leaders seem to think we will always be on top and nothing could ever bring us down, so why not act like a bunch of jackasses. It's ok. They'll learn soon enough, when we fall as the world's only superpower and China rises to take our place.

Then we get to be like the brits. Yay.

[PLAYER57832]

It's horrible.
From manifest destiny to the present day and age it's been America first, and f*ck y'all.

Most of the mess in the world today can be traced back to USFP.

Johnny Rockets

I don't think the theory of Manifest Destiny had a great negative effect on the world.

If you ignore Africa, Asia and South America.. sure, you are correct.

IIRC, Manifest Destiny referred to North America ...

Yes, exactly. It claimed that we were inherently superior, determined to be superior because we were somehow better, as opposed to having an abundance of resources, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

But, well... that is my whole problem with Liberaterianism in general. It is really about consolidating power in the elite, but with the "justification" that they somehow just deserve to have more money and power becuase they worked harder or made the correct decisions.

WTF? Do you read your posts before hitting "submit"?

If you work harder and make better decisions than the guy next to you, that guy deserves the same as you? WTF are you talking about?

The fact that some people work harder and make better decisions than other people is why people are in different economic situations and have better jobs, more power and all that other jazz. Sure there are people who were born into that but a vast majority of people who get rich and powerful worked their asses off to get there. A thing people don't seem to want to accept in life.

If you work harder and make better decisions in life then the consequence of that is greater economic wealth and freedom with greater control over your own life (power). If you can't grasp that simple concept then there is no freaking hope for you.

That is the illusion that the right wing and liberaterians pretend is true gospel. It just isn't.

Hard work matters, but that's like saying that the monarch system was "open" because you could become a knight, do a great deed, etc. Our system IS better than that, but it is quickly becoming more and more closed until now, the US is no longer even close to the country with the greatest upwardly mobile potential. It USED to be more true in the US. Much of what allowed economic mobility in our country is disappearing. It begins with loss of education. In fact, the US is now less upwardly mobile than many other countries.

If YOU don't believe that people near the bottom are working just as hard or harder than those near the top, then you are reading rhetoric, not seeing what is actually happening out there.

If you want to see the real story, begin with the lotteries to get into the few magnet schools that really DO provide a really good education in any big city.. then go to look at how few scholarships there are to the good private schools. do you seriously think that winning a school lottery really means you "worked harder" or "made better choices".

[smegal69]

90 % of US foreign policy

[tkr4lf]

It's horrible.
From manifest destiny to the present day and age it's been America first, and f*ck y'all.

Most of the mess in the world today can be traced back to USFP.

Johnny Rockets

I don't think the theory of Manifest Destiny had a great negative effect on the world.

If you ignore Africa, Asia and South America.. sure, you are correct.

IIRC, Manifest Destiny referred to North America ...

Yes, exactly. It claimed that we were inherently superior, determined to be superior because we were somehow better, as opposed to having an abundance of resources, etc.

WHAT?


Are you fucking retarded? Manifest Destiny had nothing to do with ANYFUCKINGTHING other than the belief that the United States should stretch from sea to shining sea. THAT'S IT.

You must be trolling...nobody is that fucking stupid. Especially considering that Manifest Destiny has already been explained to you, and you still claim it is about something else...


Here is an article about it, in case you still don't believe me.

From the article:

Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the continent. It was used by Democrat-Republicans in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid-19th century.

Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only wise but that it was readily apparent (manifest) and inexorable (destiny).

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

[Phatscotty]

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....

[tkr4lf]

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...

[Aradhus]

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

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

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

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.

[barackattack]

There's one important change coming to America's foreign policy in their near future: vastly increased sucking of China's cock.

Obama might like to pretend otherwise, with his utterly pathetic slight increasing of US troop presence in Australia, but behind closed doors he's donning lipstick in preparation for some almight puckering as we speak.

[saxitoxin]

It's horrible.
From manifest destiny to the present day and age it's been America first, and f*ck y'all.

Most of the mess in the world today can be traced back to USFP.

Johnny Rockets

I don't think the theory of Manifest Destiny had a great negative effect on the world.

If you ignore Africa, Asia and South America.. sure, you are correct.

IIRC, Manifest Destiny referred to North America ...

Yes, exactly. It claimed that we were inherently superior, determined to be superior because we were somehow better, as opposed to having an abundance of resources, etc.

Totally unrelated to this thread - do you have access to a public library in the community in which you live?

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?

[barackattack]

The great lesson of history is that no empire ever lasts.

Rome, Greece, Byzantium, Persia, Arabia, Carthage, Mongols, Japanese, British, French, Spanish, Prussian, Holy Roman... no matter how much they achieve, they always slide back own again.

It's inevitable that the same will happen to America. Might be wise for them to prepare for this.

[saxitoxin]

The great lesson of history is that no empire ever lasts.

Rome, Greece, Byzantium, Persia, Arabia, Carthage, Mongols, Japanese, British, French, Spanish, Prussian, Holy Roman... no matter how much they achieve, they always slide back own again.

It's inevitable that the same will happen to America. Might be wise for them to prepare for this.

It's interesting how so many people - this is a theme we hear often - assume the world's most prolific employer of Ph.D.'s hasn't had this thought at any point in the last 70 years and hasn't had a moment to spare, or a mark to spend, developing branching-tree option planning.

The cause of world workers revolution was destroyed as we stubbornly wasted years insisting the U.S. - as the centre of parasitic capitalism - will whither away of its own accord, all the while it grew stronger and still shows no sign of slowing its consolidation of power, despite a relatively inconsequential population and land mass. Hope is not a strategy.

[barackattack]

Yadda yadda. You think people didn't feel this self-assured at the height of the British Empire? You think British thinkers weren't sat around going 'relax, bro, it's all thought out'?

Judging by American foreign policy (e.g. Israel) the assumption is that America will always be the big badass and they need not worry. It's credit downgrading, monstrous fiscal problems and ridiculous politicians (ever heard of cooperation?) suggest otherwise.

What do you mean 'world workers revolution'?

[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.

You're making the mistake of visualiziing the U.S. by borders on a map. The Insect is the paper on which the map is printed.

[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.

[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.

[JessBottll]

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