TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US Foreign Policy
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

US Foreign Policy

US Foreign Policy has been beneficial overall
Another view on US foreign policy

By Brad Wardell
Posted Tuesday, April 06, 2004 on Right Wing Techie
Discussion: Politics

Someone on one of the forums said:

"I find it embarrassing that anyone would brag about US foreign policy. We should be apologizing for it."

Such self-loathing has always been typical of the left. The sort of pessimistic, glass is half empty views on any number of issue has always struck me as strange. In this case, it also strikes me as incredibly lacking of serious perspective on world history.

I consider the US foreign policy, as a whole, to have been of great benefit to the world.

The US has pledged over $10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. How much as the EU spent total? China? Russia? Why not? This is serious money. The US spends more than anyone else on helping not just AIDS in Africa but on providing food and fighting malaria. And when one of their governments, such as in Liberia or Ivory Coast crumble, it's not the French they want in there. It's the United States. The US is like the unappreciated cop. People spit on the cop but when things hit the fan you know who they really want and trust to help them -- the United States.

Let's be real here -- if not the United States, the whom? France? Russia? China? Who? Much of Europe got a taste of Germany wanting to be the hegemon. Japan too. It's easy to compare the United States to some sort of idealized perfect world power. But how about living in the real world. Not the Star Trek world where it's the idealized Federation being the standard bearer.

The US helps ensure the freedom of countries like Taiwan. Meanwhile, France participates in joint naval excercises with Communist China off the coast of Taiwan during the Taiwanese elections. Nice. While the US was trying to get consensus in the UN, France unilaterally invaded the Ivory Coast. But hey, that's okay, it's France right?

The US not only liberated Europe but it paid for its reconstruction. Same for Japan. By contrast, the Soviet Union pillaged Germany and Eastern Europe. Some 100,000 German women were raped in 1945 alone by Russian soldiers. And for all the complaining about the Kyoto accords and other CO2 debates, visit eastern Europe or say Moscow. You don't need any special devices to tell that the air in Moscow is hard to breath. Try visiting Beijing who is in the process of trying to clean up its massive air pollution to be less embarrassing by the time they host the olympics. The typical American or European (and ask anyone whose visited a major city in China) will currently have a seriously hard time breathing. But we'll pick on the United States because it doesn't support the Kyoto treaty (btw, John Kerry voted AGAINST the Kyoto treaty).

Meanwhile, South Korea, which provides a lot of the computer goods you guys use to bitch about the United States, exists today because of US foreign policy. The US lost over 50,000 people defending South Korea. Which, btw, at the time was essentially a pre-industrial rural society. With US help, it has become home of such companies as Samsung and manufactures everything from cars to computer chips. Even today, 25,000 Americans are there. And while it's convenient to fixate on every American combat casualty in Iraq, there are occasionally deaths in Korea near the DMZ zone. It's not a fun place. How many French and German troops are helping out in that "UN" operation?

Western Europe, which regularly gets uppity about US foreign policy, is free today because the US was willing to put its own cities on the line in the face of Soviet nuclear intimdation. Which is totally taken for granted. The US was willing to sacrifice itself to save Europe from Soviet domination. Meanwhile, the Germans can't manage to put together a single division to help the United States in Afghanistan. Heck, the French and Germans combined can't.

Most of you, I assume, drive cars but some act like oil comes from some magic fairie land. The US commited blood and treasure to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's brutal regime. And we all benefited from this. And while France and other "multilateral-loving" nations technically particpated in that wonderful example of multilaterialism, it realistically came down to the United States, UK, and Australia doing the real work there. France and the other countries were there essentially as symbolic gestures of unity.

And for all the talk about "squandering" world "good will" after 9/11 with the Iraq invasion, let us not forget Afghanistan where non-US help was minimal (a couple hundred Canadians, a handful of Germans, a couple French planes). That was the material result of "good will". No wonder Bush decided he could do without more "good will" in Iraq.

Which reminds me, Iraq, a country whose fascist dictator threw opponents and children of opponents into plastic shredders, cut out tongues, and created mass graveyards that made anything in Kosovo look like a joke, is now free of him thanks to US foreign policy. It should be pointed out that the whole middle-east mess can be laid at the hands of European colonialism. Now it's the United States, UK, Poland, and Australia doing the heavy lifting to help Iraq. Now, why does that combination of countries seem familiar? Ah yes, they were the main ones who helped on the allied side in World War 2 (not counting the Soviet Untion of course).

The United States is currently helping out in Haiti. A country whose been poverty stricken since the French in the 19th century basically sucked the wealth out of it through a series of tribute payments backed by military threat. Most people don't bother to look into what messed up Haiti but I suspect many US haters suspect that somehow the US is at fault here too regardless of the facts.

There is also the billions of dollars in foreign aid the US provides to countries around the world. $5 billion annually to Egypt. Billions to various central American countries. Even before 9/11, the US was the largest food donor to Afghanistan. More so than any other country.

Speaking of the EU and its abilities... after standing by and watching ethnic cleansing go on in its own back yard, the US stopped Serbia from doing the same in Kosovo.

So tell me again why the US should be embarrased about our foreign policy or apologizing? Because the US didn't get the express permission of Communist China, Russia, and France to topple Saddam Hussein? That is, btw, in case people weren't aware, the obstacle to getting a 19th or whatever UN resolution explicitly authorizing force. China who slaughtered its own citizens in Tienenman square. Russia, who's busy becoming more authoritarian and France..well being France. That is what makes some people embarrassed? That we don't kiss up to these countries?

Since 9/11, I don't see anything the US has to be embarrassed about or needing to apologize for. We were attacked. We have responded by toppling the regime that was hosting Al Qaeda. We then toppled the regime that was most dangerous to the United States and geographically located very near Afghanistan and smacked dab in the middle of the Middle East where these whackos who keep wanting to murder us for Allah come from.

At the same time we've been doing this we've increased our foreign aid to Africa. We've helped South Korea, China, and Japan deal with their problem with North Korea (contrary to some anti-Americans, North Korea isn't just the US's problem or even primarily the US's problem). We've helped the people in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we've made great progress in moving towards a free trade zone in the Western Hemisphere that is likely to help bring up living stardards in the developing world here.

It seems to me, if anything, the US, as a whole, has a lot to be proud of in its foreign policy.

I have to agree whole heartedly with this guys point of view. Whats everyone elses take on this issue?

I agree with in a a genral sence. It's good to see someone backing up america while there is so much anti american sentiment going around. To be honest I think alot of the anti american sentiment stems from ignorance inronicly enough. I say ironicly because thats usually the sterotype people use to discribe americans and base their "dislike" on. Basicly the rest of the world gets so much entertainment from the US they think they have a pretty good beed on "the average" american. Of cource "the average" american on Tv is entirely differnt from "the average" american. For example we scots suffer from the same thing (not that you get loads of you entertainment from us). E.g. I don't wear a kilt, don't eat porrage or haggis everyday or go "Och Jimmy or Hoots Man" or whatever the fuck I'm ment to. Basicly people see the "charactures" on TV all brash and ignorant then whenever they hear that same accent bam, that person is the exact same as the one on TV. Illogical as hell but it's what happens.

Athough due to its size and so on unless connected to the net I've heard from a few americans and few people who've stayed there it can be difficult to get even inter-state neverming international news. So maybe this can lead to slight holes in some peoples knowlage. Which combined with the genral sterotype doesn't protray the best image. And lets face it G W Bush doesn't do a hell of alot for the image either. All it is though is a image thing. Which I think alot of people don't understand. Even G W is smarter than he's genrally portrayed, he's not a complete idiot.

quote:

Since 9/11, I don't see anything the US has to be embarrassed about or needing to apologize for. We were attacked. We have responded by toppling the regime that was hosting Al Qaeda. We then toppled the regime that was most dangerous to the United States and geographically located very near Afghanistan and smacked dab in the middle of the Middle East where these whackos who keep wanting to murder us for Allah come from.

Thats not technically true, in fact in all probabilty completely untrue. What Iraq did do tho was get Gadafi to hand over stuff we didn't know he had. And send out a message to the whole of the Middle East. Unfortunatly it actually sent out two messages to differnt groups of people.

To the leaders of nations - Don't harbour/help terroists or your next.

To the average musilm - Were killing your brothers us the hated americans and their poodle Blair, every day we kill more and more, we are occupying your brothers land to steal his oil.

Again it's an image problem, a problem not particularly helped, again, by the current US admitation and it's oil bussiness ties and pictures of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam and selling him wepons when it suited.

quote:

The US has pledged over $10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. How much as the EU spent total? China? Russia? Why not? This is serious money. The US spends more than anyone else on helping not just AIDS in Africa but on providing food and fighting malaria. And when one of their governments, such as in Liberia or Ivory Coast crumble, it's not the French they want in there. It's the United States. The US is like the unappreciated cop. People spit on the cop but when things hit the fan you know who they really want and trust to help them -- the United States.

bah, EU have spent 6 billion dollars on fighting AIDS in africa, which indeed is not the best, one different though is that when america spend 10 billions on aids in africa, they get back 8 of them to their own pharmaceutical companies.

And that US spend more than anyone else on providing food and fighting maleria is a lie. EU stands for 65% of the worlds assistance when it comes to health aids and other aiding things in developing countries. EU spends about 0.4% of it's GNP on helping devloping countries, meanwhile US only spends about 0.12%. Also EU has set up a new target, that 0.7% of their total GNP should go to helping devloping countries.

quote:

And for all the complaining about the Kyoto accords and other CO2 debates, visit eastern Europe or say Moscow. You don't need any special devices to tell that the air in Moscow is hard to breath. Try visiting Beijing who is in the process of trying to clean up its massive air pollution to be less embarrassing by the time they host the olympics. The typical American or European (and ask anyone whose visited a major city in China) will currently have a seriously hard time breathing. But we'll pick on the United States because it doesn't support the Kyoto treaty

sure their is worse places, but does that give you any right, whatsoever to be as bad as them? in china you can't say whatever you want, does that give US the right to take away it's freedom of speech rights? of course not! just because there is worse doesn't mean you can be like them. EUs is actually decreasing it's CO2 emissions, meanwhile US is increasing theirs and don't give a shit about the rest of the worlds future, even if they could do it.

quote:

Most of you, I assume, drive cars but some act like oil comes from some magic fairie land.The US commited blood and treasure to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's brutal regime. And we all benefited from this. And while France and other "multilateral-loving" nations technically particpated in that wonderful example of multilaterialism, it realistically came down to the United States, UK, and Australia doing the real work there. France and the other countries were there essentially as symbolic gestures of unity.

it's not like we are the most dependent ones on oil, US are the ones that can't stand high oil prices (for example we have like 3 times higher gasoline prices than you have).

and yeah, you are the superpower, you are the ones that _can_ do something.

quote:

And for all the talk about "squandering" world "good will" after 9/11 with the Iraq invasion, let us not forget Afghanistan where non-US help was minimal (a couple hundred Canadians, a handful of Germans, a couple French planes). That was the material result of "good will". No wonder Bush decided he could do without more "good will" in Iraq.

as to my understaning, the rest of the world has helped *a lot* with the rebuilding of afganistan. US are the strong military power, and the rest of the world can't really give you any meaningful military help. Why isn't it better to let us do the other things that we can help with instead and that you are so fucking bad at (just look at iraq...).

quote:

So tell me again why the US should be embarrased about our foreign policy or apologizing?

ehh, you think that you always know the best, you think that you always have the right to "free" people even though they haven't beg for it. you usally use war as the only solution. etc.

quote:

Since 9/11, I don't see anything the US has to be embarrassed about or needing to apologize for. We were attacked. We have responded by toppling the regime that was hosting Al Qaeda. We then toppled the regime that was most dangerous to the United States and geographically located very near Afghanistan and smacked dab in the middle of the Middle East where these whackos who keep wanting to murder us for Allah come from.

yeah but then you started to attack countries that had no connection to the countries that attaced you. that doesn't make any sense at all.

Here we go...

Some conservatives seem to miss the point of political criticism. When I (or anyone else) criticise the actions committed by a government there is no "agenda" to what I say. I do not criticise the Iraqi war because I believe the US is evil, I criticise the Iraq war because I believe the war itself it to be immoral. I do not criticise the foreign policy of the Bush administration because I believe that the US has never done anything good for the people of the world, I criticise it because I believe the polciy itself it to be dangerously misguided. Am I "pessimistic" for seeing certain actions as being wrong? Would I be "pessimistic", for instance, if I criticised Saddam Hussein's role in the Kurdish gassings without mentioning the social progress made in Iraq under his regime? Does the fact that he opened up hospitals and schools make his brutality any less worthy of condemnation?

And this is my next point: how do benevolent actions committed by previous regimes excuse the malevelent actions committed by the current one? No-one in their right mind would look upon the actions undertaken by the US in the few years immediately after WW2 as being anything but wonderful, and worthy of praise, but does that mean we have to support the Iraq war? If I have given $1000 to charity over the course of my lifetime, would that make it okay for me to steal $1000 from someone else later on? No it wouldn't - regardless of the context, we recognise some actions to be inherently wrong. It isn't okay to steal money from someone, regardless of how much we have donated to other people in the past. Morality is not some balancing ledger - where immoral actions can be absolved by commensurable moral ones - and we need to recognise that, although every action committed does take place in a certain historical context, each action should be judged on its own merits. The morality of an action committed today is in no way connected to the morality of an unrelated action committed nearly 60 years in the past.

With that having been said:

quote:

The US has pledged over $10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. How much as the EU spent total? China? Russia? Why not? This is serious money. The US spends more than anyone else on helping not just AIDS in Africa but on providing food and fighting malaria.

I couldn't find any figures on aid devoted solely to these causes, but as far as total foreign aid is concerned the US actually comes across rather badly. Look at this chart:

http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2002.jpg

The US commit about 0.12% of their GDP to foregin aid. Germany commits 2.5 times more aid than that, France almost 3 times more. The US, as a percentage of GDP, donates less foreign aid than any other developed nation (the gap was even worse - see here - prior to September 11).

But not only do the US provide the smallest amount of aid of developed nations, they also have the second biggest commercial interest in foreign aid of all these nations (only Spain ranks higher). According to this report, the US were deemed to have an interest in 71.6% of the aid they provided, that is "the percentage of bilateral aid commitments tied to the purchase of goods and services from the donor country". What does this mean? The US are likely to give aid, only if certain economic sectors in the US will benefit as a result. The commercial interest the US has in the aid it provides, does cause some problems as I'll explain next.

(Read more on US foreign aid here.)

quote:

And when one of their governments, such as in Liberia or Ivory Coast crumble, it's not the French they want in there.

The situation in Africa is a case in point of the dangers posed when a nation has a commercial interest in the propogation of aid. The US provides its agricultural sector with massive subsidies to ensure that the US farmers stay in business and the farmers from elsewhere (including Africa) cannot compete in the US market. This subsidised food ends up being sold cheaply in the African markets against which the African farmers cannot compete. As a result, African nations become even more reliant on foreign aid which - you guessed it - the US just buys straight off its own farmers. The French confronted the US on this policy, offering a different aid structure and a series of policies designed to help the Africans help themselves, but of course Mr Bush would never let something like self-sustainability get in the way of the cash-cow bonanza that is "humanitarian aid"!:

quote:

President Bush is preparing to bury a radical French plan which would help some of the world's poorest farmers by ending the dumping of subsidised western food in Africa. [...] Washington's counter-proposal is believed to be a vast expansion of its subsidised food aid programme, allowing it to pump even more money into American farms under the guise of aid. Aid agencies say that while European subsidies are more transparent, America's support for its farmers is equally damaging to poor countries which cannot compete with highly subsidised imports.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/...,961833,00.html

Besides all this, what does the author actualy mean by "it's not the French they want in there"? There were 4000 French troops in the Ivory Coast (see here) compared to 200 US troops (who were there to protect American interests - see here). The French were also instrumental in the Liberian effort (see here) and several other peace keeping efforts across Africa including in Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic. Conisdering the comparitive sizes of the military, I don't think many people could say that the French aren't doing enough to keep the peace in Africa.

Quite apart from military operations, they have also donated massive amounts of aid to their former African colonies (about 50% of their total aid went to former colonies - see here. If only the UK, Spain and Portugal lent that much support to their former colonies) while the US continues to pull aid out of Africa:

quote:

UNITED STATES (aid in millions $US) Africa Continent-Wide 1990: $3,529 1996: $1,647 Percent change: -53% Africa South of the Sahara 1990: $1,002 1996: $635 Percent change: -37%

http://www.africaaction.org/docs98/aid9807.htm

Invoking Africa as a means to praise the US and criticise France (even if we take into account this AIDS funding) was rather silly.

quote:

People spit on the cop but when things hit the fan you know who they really want and trust to help them -- the United States.

With great power comes great responsibility. While a nation deserves to be praised for the goodwill it has provided to the rest of the globe, it also deserves to be condemned for the mistakes it has made. The mistakes do not erase the good work, but the good work does not absolve the mistakes.

quote:

While the US was trying to get consensus in the UN, France unilaterally invaded the Ivory Coast.

Oh. My. God.

If he believes that sending peace-keeping troops into a nation descending into chaos, before handing the nation back over the national government and allowing the UN full jurisdiction in all peace-keeping activities is in any way "unilateral" or an "invasion" then I think he needs to get a new dictionary. I also wonder when exactly the US tried to "get consensus in the UN"? Did anyone seriously think the Bush admin gave a shiny shite about what the rest of the UNSC thought?

quote:

The US not only liberated Europe but it paid for its reconstruction. Same for Japan. By contrast, the Soviet Union pillaged Germany and Eastern Europe. Some 100,000 German women were raped in 1945 alone by Russian soldiers. And for all the complaining about the Kyoto accords and other CO2 debates, visit eastern Europe or say Moscow. You don't need any special devices to tell that the air in Moscow is hard to breath. Try visiting Beijing who is in the process of trying to clean up its massive air pollution to be less embarrassing by the time they host the olympics. The typical American or European (and ask anyone whose visited a major city in China) will currently have a seriously hard time breathing. But we'll pick on the United States because it doesn't support the Kyoto treaty (btw, John Kerry voted AGAINST the Kyoto treaty).

The US were very altruistic in their donations to the reconstruction of nations after WW2. Yes the communist Soviets were bastards. Yes Moscow and Beijing are heavily polluted. Yes we will pick on the United States, as it pollutes the world more than any other nation and has done less (under the Bush admin) than any other of the other highly polluting nations (including Russia and China) to curb the problem:

US Emissions:



Chinese Emissions:



(The Russian graph doesn't work for some reason, but the total CO2 emmissions were 1,579,514 metric tonnes, significantly less than the US and China.)

How are all these things related, btw?

quote:

Meanwhile, South Korea, which provides a lot of the computer goods you guys use to bitch about the United States, exists today because of US foreign policy. The US lost over 50,000 people defending South Korea. Which, btw, at the time was essentially a pre-industrial rural society. With US help, it has become home of such companies as Samsung and manufactures everything from cars to computer chips.

And that was undeniably altrusitic of the US. In all sincerity, well done.

quote:

Even today, 25,000 Americans are there.

Not exactly in line with the wishes of the South Korean people:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1214-04.htm

Or for much longer:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiap...korea.rumsfeld/

quote:

The US commited blood and treasure to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's brutal regime. And we all benefited from this. And while France and other "multilateral-loving" nations technically particpated in that wonderful example of multilaterialism, it realistically came down to the United States, UK, and Australia doing the real work there. France and the other countries were there essentially as symbolic gestures of unity.

Yes the first Gulf War was necessary, and yes the US bore the brunt of the responsibility for the provision of troops. However, to play down the truly multi-lateral approach undertaken in this war (globally and formally sanctioned in UN resolutions 660 and 678) or the role played by other countries constitutes and expression of nationalistic "sour grapes" and is a claim made totally contrary to the realities of the conflict. It was a global coaltion, not just the US and UK with a couple of irrelevent nations (and yes that includes Australia) tagging along in the hope of an FTA or two, a la Gulf War II.

quote:

Which reminds me, Iraq, a country whose fascist dictator threw opponents and children of opponents into plastic shredders, cut out tongues, and created mass graveyards that made anything in Kosovo look like a joke, is now free of him thanks to US foreign policy.

In the impending shadow of civil war, the irony is that this is almost starting to look like the more preferable alternative. To be so bad at "nation-building" that even Saddam Hussein begins to seem an almost desirable option in comparison is not something the Bush administration should be proud of.

quote:

The United States is currently helping out in Haiti. A country whose been poverty stricken since the French in the 19th century basically sucked the wealth out of it through a series of tribute payments backed by military threat.

Ah, yes. If in doubt just start blaming the French. If its for things they did over 100 years ago, so much the better.

quote:

Most people don't bother to look into what messed up Haiti but I suspect many US haters suspect that somehow the US is at fault here too regardless of the facts.

Well.... the US and France:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=11&ItemID=5115

quote:

There is also the billions of dollars in foreign aid the US provides to countries around the world. $5 billion annually to Egypt.

Arming the Egyptian militia does not constitute "aid".

quote:

Speaking of the EU and its abilities... after standing by and watching ethnic cleansing go on in its own back yard, the US stopped Serbia from doing the same in Kosovo.

Yes, there we go! Genuinely good foreign policy, where the US picked up the ball that the fumbling UN had dropped. I didn't agree with all that Clinton did, but it would be hard to decry the altruism involved in this action. It was good foregin policy, though, for all the reasons the Iraq war wasn't.

(I wrote a long post about this issue a while back that I can dig up if anyone wants me to elaborate.)

quote:

So tell me again why the US should be embarrased about our foreign policy or apologizing? Because the US didn't get the express permission of Communist China, Russia, and France to topple Saddam Hussein? That is, btw, in case people weren't aware, the obstacle to getting a 19th or whatever UN resolution explicitly authorizing force. China who slaughtered its own citizens in Tienenman square. Russia, who's busy becoming more authoritarian and France..well being France. That is what makes some people embarrassed? That we don't kiss up to these countries?

It's got nothing to do with "kissing up" to these countries, it's got to do with respecting international law, including those the Bush administration said it went to war to defend/enforce.

From a previous post:

quote:

I agree that the resolutions should have been adhered to and I agree that the enforcement of these resolutions should have been backed up with the credible threat of force. I do not believe, however, that this in any way gives the US the right to decide - unilaterally - that military force is the most preferable option (it should only be used as an absolute last resort in the event that every peaceful method has been summarily tried and failed) or that it gives the US the right to derail any attempts at a global solution that may preclude the use of force. France opposed the war on the basis that the peaceful method had not been fully explored and it offered a compromise solution on the basis that, if in 30 days Iraq had not adhered precisely to a series of more specific demands than those made in the extremely vague Resolution 1441, then it - along with the rest of the Security Council - would support military intervention as a part of a true global coalition. The US did not oppose this new resolution because they thought it may fail (as, if it failed, they'd get their war anyway, only with a much greater degree of support) they opposed it, I suspect, because it may have actually succeeded and given rise to a peaceful solution, quite contrary to the more militant solution the US had been seeking for the past 6 months. [...] The war waged, by the US, however, was not waged on behalf of the UN, it was waged on the basis of its own culturally specific, hegemonic ideals. Have a read of Resolution 1441 and tell me which part authorizes the use of unilateral, military force in the "enforcement" of this resolution: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huri...34?Opendocument Even if it was established, beyond doubt, that Iraq was in violation of this resolution, the resolution still states, explicitly, that the UNSC are to: "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." Firstly this convention would require the said "receipt of a report" provided by UNMOVIC or the IAEA indicating that provisions 4 or 11 had not been met by Iraq. Admittedly Blix's reports were somewhat ambivelent towards the degree of Iraqi co-operation during the process (substantial improvement in access to major sites - including the once unbreachable Presidential palaces - while lacking desired unrestricted access to Iraqi scientists, among other things) but there was never an intimation towards the possibility that the inspections were becoming unworkable, or that the conditions for inspectors were not continually improving. Similarly, there was no evidence found in the three-four months of renewed inspections that Iraq was in material (as opposed, possibly, to procedural) breach of Resolution 1441 (apart from permitted weapons that travelled too far and some empty warheads - in either case, their destruction was pro-actively instigated by the Iraqi government). The damning report necessary for this stipulated reconvention, however, never came. Secondly, even if the US want to argue that Iraq was declared to be in incontrovertible violation by UNMOVIC and the IAEA (a possible - on the grounds of Blix's ambiguity - yet ultimately fallicious argument that I'll consider anyway) there would still need to be a reconvention of the UNSC at this point to decide on a unanimous agreement on the definition of the "serious consequences" (which in no way necessitates military force) to be meted out to Iraq. The US, at this point, wanted the immediate implementation of miltary force, the French wanted to introduce a resolution that would necessitate military force (as opposed the ambigious pseudo-implictation of military force contained within 1441) if the demands of 1441 were not said to have been explicitly met by Iraq within 30 days by UNMOVIC or the IAEA. The US immediately precluded any possibility of the passing of the compromised resolution proposed by the French and instead declared their intentions to push through a motion for war. In order to get this motion passed by the UN, the US would have required 9 votes in favour and no vetoes - by the time the US had finished pretending it cared about the diplomatic route, and withdrew any possibility of submitting this motion at the UNSC it had only four confirmed votes for (itself, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria) and two "likely" votes (Mexico and Chile - no economic reasons for supporting the motion there!) with four confirmed against the resolution (France, Russia, Germany and Syria) and one "likely" to vote against the resolution (China).

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=149599

Once again, plenty more I can dig up on this issue if people want to hear it.

quote:

Since 9/11, I don't see anything the US has to be embarrassed about or needing to apologize for. We were attacked. We have responded by toppling the regime that was hosting Al Qaeda.

Sensible policy. Once again, well done.

quote:

We then toppled the regime that was most dangerous to the United States and geographically located very near Afghanistan and smacked dab in the middle of the Middle East where these whackos who keep wanting to murder us for Allah come from.

More terrorist attacks have been undertaken against US citizens as a result of the Iraq war than would have been undertaken had the war not occurred. Yet again, I can dig up posts I've written explaining exactly why this war had nothing to do with the war on terrorism and why it hasn't made the US safer if anyone wants to hear it.

This is dumb foregin policy.

quote:

It seems to me, if anything, the US, as a whole, has a lot to be proud of in its foreign policy.

This would be precisely right, but there also needs to be an admission that the US has a lot to be ashamed about with regards to foreign policy as well. Like I said at the start of my post, this is not a ledger where the bad foreign policy can be absolved by good foreign policy - each action needs to be judged on its own merits. The US should be lauded for actions undertaken in the Kosovan and Afghan conflicts but should be condemned for actions undertaken in the Iraqi conflict.

I do not consider myself to have been in any way "anti-American" in this post (though I'm waiting for that allegation to come), I have simply tried to explain why this commonly used rhetorical approach (we did something good xx years ago, so you shouldn't be dissenting against what we're doing now) is invalid, and then attempted to "rebut" some of the major claims made in the post. If Mr Wardell is available, Mr Mex, you might want to show him what I've said and ask him what he thinks.

Conservatives (of all nationalities) need to take off the jingoistic visors that are preventing them from seeing the travesties committed in their name (once again, this goes equally for all nations) for what they are, and admit that merely because a government says they have committed an action in the name of good, that this is not necessarily the case. If ennunciating this automatically makes me a "pessimistic, glass is half empty" guy then so be it.

wow, good post Renegade

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew wow, good post Renegade

Indeed. Your's too.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade This would be precisely right, but there also needs to be an admission that the US has a lot to be ashamed about with regards to foreign policy as well. Like I said at the start of my post, this is not a ledger where the bad foreign policy can be absolved by good foreign policy - each action needs to be judged on its own merits.

I agree with this in its entirety. I doubt that it will be taken to heart in these times of "with us or against us", though.

wow this can't be!!

A serious thread from the start?

No.. I must be dreaming or something.

I didn't even known the US had a foreign policy

Thank god for me for taking this thread back to a silly begining like it should be

Renegade hats off for intelligent reply. Most ppl here don't have their own opinions to debate with, they rely on articles written by others to express 'their' opinions. Come on ppl think for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Renegade hats off for intelligent reply. Most ppl here don't have their own opinions to debate with, they rely on articles written by others to express 'their' opinions. Come on ppl think for yourself.

yet another fascinatingly offensive generalization by our resident New Englander.
Whether you mean to be that way or not, it's pathological.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yet another fascinatingly offensive generalization by our resident New Englander. Whether you mean to be that way or not, it's pathological.

I don't understand your use of the word pathological? What behavior of mine is pathological? Are you accusing me of being pathological liberal?

I take issue with people who post long op-ed pieces in this forum. I don't view them as a meaningful form of political debate. What is the point of posting someone else's opinion verbatium if you have nothing to add?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I don't understand your use of the word pathological? What behavior of mine is pathological? Are you accusing me of being pathological liberal? I take issue with people who post long op-ed pieces in this forum. I don't view them as a meaningful form of political debate. What is the point of posting someone else's opinion verbatium if you have nothing to add?

PATHOLOGICAL: Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive:

Your post.
It was another naive generalization.
something that you have been called out before by others.
You are smarter than that.

Later.

You missed my point. I wasn't asking you to tell me what 'pathological' means; I was questioning your usage.
The word is an adjective, which describes a noun. For example one might say, "John is a pathological liar." Here pathological describes the noun liar. Now let's look at what you said:

"Whether you mean to be that way or not, it's pathological."

Here you are using pathological to describe the pronoun 'it' which is used to refer to a nonhuman entity. So what is the 'it' you are referring to? If you can't use 'pathological' properly then don't use it at all. I'm sorry if English isn't your native language.

Now that our grammar lesson is over, I'll explain why i generalize. Since numerous people post full-length articles, I have neither the time nor the inclination to list each person. It's also not courteous to specifically name people. Those who engage in the behavior I described will know whom I'm talking about with out naming them. I hope that explains why I sometimes generalize.

excellent post Renegade.

US foreign policy is a tricky one for me. Its all good and merry to blame all the problems of the world on US foreign policy, but at the same time we must look at who holds the means of production. Countries are undoubtedly forced to side with such policies due to economic interests (there a millions of examples, however I have a paper due next week, which I should be working on and couldn't be bothered digging one up). YES exploitation occurs, but would these people in most parts of the Third world be any better off if it wasn't for American intrusion? Would their local or state governments provide them with any sought of means where they could possibly get a head? Its a difficult balance, but we must consider what other option most nations would have if they didn't side with US foreign policy.

(based on my definition that US foreign policy = US economic policy)

Good post renegade ... one minor comment:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The situation in Africa is a case in point of the dangers posed when a nation has a commercial interest in the propogation of aid. The US provides its agricultural sector with massive subsidies to ensure that the US farmers stay in business and the farmers from elsewhere (including Africa) cannot compete in the US market. This subsidised food ends up being sold cheaply in the African markets against which the African farmers cannot compete. As a result, African nations become even more reliant on foreign aid which - you guessed it - the US just buys straight off its own farmers. The French confronted the US on this policy, offering a different aid structure and a series of policies designed to help the Africans help themselves, but of course Mr Bush would never let something like self-sustainability get in the way of the cash-cow bonanza that is "humanitarian aid"!:

I'm not entirely sure how the French confronted the US on this policy, but I thougght that we addressed the issue of agricultural farm subsidies and who the biggest offenders are as evidenced by their stances in the DOHA conferences .


http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ies#post1544961

Thats a monster sized post Renagede. Nice one though.

quote:

YES exploitation occurs, but would these people in most parts of the Third world be any better off if it wasn't for American intrusion?

Actually in for example India there is a good case for them being better off. I've written some stuff on it if you want me to post it.

PS: I'm sure I put more stuff in my origonal post about the US and Keoto and AIDS. Do posts ever get edited or cut back?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Good post renegade ... one minor comment: I'm not entirely sure how the French confronted the US on this policy, but I thougght that we addressed the issue of agricultural farm subsidies and who the biggest offenders are as evidenced by their stances in the DOHA conferences . http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ies#post1544961

Yep, good call. The Euro trade policies (not just limited to agriculture) have been as bad as or worse than US trade policies over the past few years, so they deserve as much scorn from a free-trade perspective and I wholly acknowledge this. The trade issue I raised, however, solely concerned Africa-specific policy. If you're going to offer humanitarian aid to a continent in need, then there should be undertaken for the sake of humanitarian aid, not for the sake of one's own domestic agricultural industry. Similarly, the emphasis should not be placed on such unilateral "aid" but rather on increasing the chances for self-sustainability within the African continent. The "aid" offered by the Bush admin (and opposed by the EU nations) contradicts both these aims.

What I'm trying to say is that aid is good, but that better aid is better. I've had about 97 beers tonight but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yep, good call. The Euro trade policies (not just limited to agriculture) have been as bad as or worse than US trade policies over the past few years, so they deserve as much scorn from a free-trade perspective and I wholly acknowledge this. The trade issue I raised, however, solely concerned Africa-specific policy. If you're going to offer humanitarian aid to a continent in need, then there should be undertaken for the sake of humanitarian aid, not for the sake of one's own domestic agricultural industry. Similarly, the emphasis should not be placed on such unilateral "aid" but rather on increasing the chances for self-sustainability within the African continent. The "aid" offered by the Bush admin (and opposed by the EU nations) contradicts both these aims.

Ahh so your one of those against the "two birds, one stone" policy huh (i really wanna see someone take out two brids with a stone one day.. that would be COOL).

However the USA has a "better" aid policy than Europe as well. Its not typically the USA farmers that are getting the money back but the agricultural industry. And its easy to understand why, when you are teaching Africans how to farm you need farm equipment, fertilizers, water pumps, tools, and most importantly SEEDS. The USA is the one trying to give the Africans GM seeds, which will produce more abundant and successful crops with out the pesticides or chemicals (which is important as in Africa many drink from the same untreated well or river where these chemicals go into).

European policy has yet to alllow for such benevolence.


Despite all the help the USA provides Africa, I think just giving them food is actually the best solution. Africans (in generalization) have a quirck where they have the inability to store their surpluses. If its a good year of harvest, they don't dry and save some, no, they sell it all out. The best way to prevent such action is to flood the market with food to deter the farmer from selling all of his food and perhaps saving it. (Think of it like monetary policy for the poor nations. )

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus If its a good year of harvest, they don't dry and save some, no, they sell it all out. The best way to prevent such action is to flood the market with food to deter the farmer from selling all of his food and perhaps saving it. (Think of it like monetary policy for the poor nations. )

Are you serious??
Malawi is a perfect example in their most recent famine. What stocks of Maize(primary source of food) they had left instead of feeding the population they were forced to sell in order to pay debt. Malawi's were in outrage that this had occurred while their peoples were starving.
What good is flooding the market gonna do except make developing countries earn less from what maybe a major contributer to its economy with its food exports. It will plunge em into deeper poverty, if thats even possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster Are you serious?? Malawi is a perfect example in their most recent famine. What stocks of Maize(primary source of food) they had left instead of feeding the population they were forced to sell in order to pay debt.

First, I plead ignorane on the example of Malawi. What famine excatly are we talking about, how recent?

Now after disclaiming that, correct me if I'm wrong but Maize, or sugar, is a cash crop. Its not a primary source of food. How exactly would a government go about "feeding the population" with it, if they weren't forced to sell it to buy food?

quote:

Malawi's were in outrage that this had occurred while their peoples were starving. What good is flooding the market gonna do except make developing countries earn less from what maybe a major contributer to its economy with its food exports. It will plunge em into deeper poverty, if thats even possible.

Thats exactly my point. By flooding the market before a drought or famine year it forces the government/farmers not to sell its products until there is a high demand for it. Since a famine increases the demand a whole lot, the government would than open its stores at such a time.

The point I was making was that African government don't know how to "save" and this is their primary problem. You can blame the WTO and IMB/IMF etc for this, but they weren't the ones that got these nations into debt, the nations themselves were.

--If you don't like the IMF, don't join it. Its that simple. What is the first world going to do? Invade a measly thrid-world country to collect their debt? Come on. If there is any a losing side in the First vs. Third world debate it is the First world creditors. They have no garuntees, why the hell should they invest?--


So I'm curious what would be your solution to the African problem?
Teach them how to farm? We've tried it for 50 years. Give them Food, we've tried that for 50 years.

What we haven't tried is institution a "monetary" policy on our donations.

Link to Famine in Malawi

Above is some info about the famine that occurred in malawi, not to mention its neighbouring countries.

Maize isnt a sugar!! Its like corn and they use it to make bread/porridge and however else they cook it. But on further reading maize was just one source of food they sold off but also grain/wheat.

I'm not gonna pretend i have the answer for developing african countries cos i dont.........i think you should stop pretending as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster Link to Famine in Malawi Above is some info about the famine that occurred in malawi, not to mention its neighbouring countries.

Thanks good link. I belive it is actually a fairly even-handed report. After reading it though, I can say I am leaning against the Malawi government and for the IMF in this case.

And it sort of agian, proves my point that African's can't seem to save.

quote:

I'm not gonna pretend i have the answer for developing african countries cos i dont.........i think you should stop pretending as well.

True, I don't know if I have the answer, however I do know what hasn't worked, and I am offering new ideas and new ways of thinking about it.

If it was up to me, I'd take the "prime directive" approach with Africa.

Afterall, most African nations aren't capable of creating a grannery, a place where you store surplus food for the future. Recall that Egyptian civilization had this 'technology' way back 7000 years ago around 5000BC.

Africa is defintely way way behind the third world, they are almost prehistoric.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Thanks good link. I belive it is actually a fairly even-handed report. After reading it though, I can say I am leaning against the Malawi government and for the IMF in this case. And it sort of agian, proves my point that African's can't seem to save. True, I don't know if I have the answer, however I do know what hasn't worked, and I am offering new ideas and new ways of thinking about it. If it was up to me, I'd take the "prime directive" approach with Africa.

I would like to see malawi void a payment to the IMF!!
There is no question corrupt governments have a large effect on the crisis but the IMF certainly doesnt help matters either.
Your idea as mentioned in the article showed that selfish parties would hoard supplies and then crank up prices.
That happens anywhere.Take fuel for example..........when there is a shortage of fuel like what happened in the US after Venezuela had major strikes in its oil industry, the price went up as supply went down.Could you foresee oil companies giving away free petrol especially when you consider how fuel(and its cost and availability) can greatly affect the performance of an economy? The IMF as part of Loan requirements demanded that the malawi's National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) be privatised. This is what the IMF calls economic rationalizing. With the NFRA privatised they are not working in the interest of the people anymore.

I wasn't going to post this before because it's pretty big and it wasn't completely relevenant to the post at the time. But now I think it is. Its about a lecture but the issues cover the kinda stuff we've been talking about. It's a essay I did for a environmental engineering management class.

quote:

This critical analysis covers topics raised in Vandana Shiva�s BBC Reith 2000 lecture on Poverty & Globalisation. This lecture explored issues such as biodiversity, effects of globalisation and the sustainability of globalisation. When examined from a layman westerners perspective the lecture appears to be fairly subjective and it�s easy to pick out statements which would appear to be either un-politically correct or very general such as �women's indigenous knowledge of biodiversity�. To a westerner this seems very politically incorrect to single out women in this way, to state their role, and the lecture seems to lose some credence as a result. But when considered in more depth, this statement that women are the specialists or managers and have the knowledge of biodiversity and management, is actually true it is their role, politically incorrect or not. To the vast majority of the world this is true but to the westerner is seems un-politically correct. So this gives rise to the thought that perhaps it is not Vandana Shiva who has the flawed view of the world but the general western view. That is not to say that western views on political correctness are wrong simply that a world view must take into account all parts of the world and not apply experience from one area in a uniform manner. It is with this thought in mind that the rest of the lecture should be examined. The Cambridge Dictionary definition of globalisation: �globalization noun [U] 1 (UK USUALLY -isation) the increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries: �We must take advantage of the increased globalization of the commodity trading business.� 2 when available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world: �the globalization of fashion/American youth culture� In the context of the lecture globalisation mainly takes the form of biological technology companies supplying seeds to Indian farmers. The lecture focuses on the effects of this globalisation and the motivation behind the globalisation and the paradigms of the parties involved. Dr Shiva raises many issues related to the development seen in India. These are almost exclusively related to agriculture as this is the level most development is taking place, also agriculture is the foundation of civilisation and as such is very important. The effects of development and the sources of these effects are explored. Effects range from debt traps to starvation to suicides. The causes range from dependence creation to restricted biodiversity and dietary interference. Dependence creation is formed by bio-tech companies in a diverse number of ways, the most obvious being through the replacement of standard seeds with hybrid or genetically modified seeds. These seeds have been used to replace traditional seeds firstly due to promises of increased yields, but also through promises of increased nutrients and lower maintenance. An adverse effect of using these seeds is that they need to be purchased at a price every year. Traditionally this was not necessary as seeds could be harvested and kept, even exchanged with neighbours. This is not possible with GM crops. This of course creates a dependence on the bio-tech company supplying the seeds. Other perhaps unforeseen effects are that these crops require more water to survive and upset the naturally bio-diverse balance created over centuries of farming. These bio-diverse methods involve the planting of one crop to support the other. An example from another area which illustrates this perhaps most simply is the Chinese rice paddy. In reality a highly intensive form of farming with many harvests from the same patch of land, with no need for leaving fields fallow or fertilisers. How is this sustained? The rice paddies are flooded with water and in the water are fish. These fish are fed and the waste products provide a completely predictable and high purity source of nutrients. Additionally the fish are eaten providing more nutrients. Although this example is not in the area of interest, and could never be applied in the area of interest, it shows the kind of balance created. In India exactly the same type of balance has been found for generations. But as much as the Chinese method should not be applied to India the western method should not. The western method being one field one crop, in some cases basically one state one crop, such as corn in Iowa! The western method is always used for creating a product to be sold on, not used. Being a farmer is a job not a way of supplying food. And as such it is mechanised and highly intensive to maximise profits and minimise costs. But this can�t be applied to small farms. When is an Indian farmer with 0.8 hectares going to be able to afford a several hundred thousand dollar harvester? Especially when he gets no subsidy and practically nothing for anything he sells. Of course the most fundamental problem is that there would be no need for a harvester as it would take one less than a day to hoover up 0.8 hectares of corn, even if the equipment sharing methods used in the west were used! You cannot apply that method. Also any fertiliser used kills off other plants used to keep a natural balance and provide valuable nutrients. The underlying point of all this is a western farm is a business perhaps in the business of corn production or tomatoes, an Indian or any subsistence or near subsistence farm is a source of food. And if you only have one crop how can you get a balanced diet from that? It isn�t a world of capital, investment or profit but survival. And as such the methods from one area cannot be applied to the other. This is what is done with the use of GM crops which are tailored to western methods. In terms of food the application of monocultures (one field one crop) provides a problem in terms of a balanced diet. How do you get a wide range of nutrients from one crop? The short answer is you don�t. Attempts have been made by the bio-tech companies to cater for certain vitamin deficiencies by supplying products such as GM �protein potatoes�. Unfortunately these �protein potatoes� have less protein than the crops they are meant to be replacing, such as amaranth. More worryingly they contain orders of magnitude less iron and calcium. So in the end instead of relieving one deficiency create two more. There is possibly a question as to why an Indian farmer would buy these seeds, why bother? To answer this an insight into their way of thinking is required. Above the value 0.8 hectares is stated in reference to an Indian farm the reason for this is that 70% of Indian farmers have that amount of land or less. These farms are called �marginal holdings� and the vast majority have only rain water irrigation. These farms can only just manage a bare subsistence and cannot afford to buy food or irrigation systems. Remember that these farms have to support the whole family and any landless labours, and a bad season means no food, and having no food has its own result. It is in this environment that seed companies offer wonder crops that will yield many times as much crops and be hardier, and more reliable. Incidentally these are often marketed heavily after bad seasons. There will be enough to perhaps sell and get money to put away for the bad seasons to buy food. In other words enough to provide security for the farmer�s families. That is why they take the risk with the little money they have. This probably seems a little emotive, but is none the less true. Primarily it is the application of the west�s development to the third world without thought which causes the problems. It could be said that the bio-tech companies should know better than to look to exploit people and are heartless. But as business their responsibility is to their shareholders who want return on their investments. India as an example has a population of over 1 billion and so is a hard market to overlook, in those terms. Ultimately though governments, and other world political organisations should create a framework of legislation which restricts the ability of these companies to exploit people unfairly. Some nations actively try to evade or negate these frameworks such as the United States, which ratified neither the Cartagena Protocol, unlike 100 other nations, nor the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and as such has no obligation to follow either. It is worth noting perhaps that if everyone on the earth was an American, eight more earths would be required to support us. Which with reference to sustainability this conceivably backs up Dr Shiva�s conclusion which was a quote by Gandhi �The earth has enough for everyone's needs, but not for some people's greed�.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I wasn't going to post this before because it's pretty big and it wasn't completely relevenant to the post at the time. But now I think it is. Its about a lecture but the issues cover the kinda stuff we've been talking about. It's a essay I did for a environmental engineering management class.

Can you post a link to the article you mention in the first paragraph?

I would like to actually know what your talking about you see

>>>Linky<<<

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.