Political Discussions
US policy
Posted by weblogian • 8/05/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: us policy
All US foreign Policy and activities are based on their own interest which result in creating more enemies for the US than creating peace in the world.
Do we expect some system changes in Washington?
Or do the US people need some wake up call?
Does the US people really control the state as democracy is of the people, by the people and for the people.
Do you think the world will be better without US influencing another country affairs?
User Comments
-
I think that the United States can do much more by showing strength, but also by showing willingness to talk. However, those talks come with a price, by saying that the U.S. will have talks with no preconditions elevates tin pot dictators and rogue regimes to the level of other countries that try to treat their populations with respect and humanity.
It is said that one is judged by the company they keep. The same can be said for countries. When a country continually backs rogue regimes; even though that backing may only be in words and speeches, they are keeping company with those that put little if any value on human life. What does that say about the country that backs those types of regimes?-
Wrong place.
-
-
The state is expected to influence other nations in securing our safety. The question is, what sort of influence ought they to pursue? -
Interesting point weblogian.
The US has it's own interests, like any state, as it's number one priority.
Historically the USA, from a government level, has had few foreign policy successes. Having said that the USA as a free market and culture has had a huge influence on the world.
It would be fair to say that, at a population level, every developing country in the world wants to be like the USA.
Where the USA denies access to it's market and dream disaster is sure to follow.
When the US refuses to trade China will. So the question becomes do you want US companies with their values to trade and influence or Chinese companies to trade and influence?
So in answer to your questions:
Q: "Do we expect some system changes in Washington?
Or do the US people need some wake up call?"
A: The US should concentrate on free market and cultural diplomacy rather than US Government grand standing and foreign policy for domestic consumption.
Q: "Does the US people really control the state as democracy is of the people, by the people and for the people."
A: The US democratic credentials are comparable to other democracies, so yes.
Q: "Do you think the world will be better without US influencing another country affairs?"
A: No. -
@polybore
"The US has it's own interests, like any state, as it's number one priority."
Do you think Us govt can change a country or the world based on US interest? Isn't that's what US Govt has been doing around the world?
Us govt are famous for liberating so called rogue tiny nation like Iraq and Afghanistan. But what about Tibet and rogue nation Myanmar(Burma). What now I see here is that, US power and voice are pulled back because China stand between it. And US govt will not do anything at the cost of their market and trade.
Don't you think US policy and campaign on bringing peace and stability in different regions are just another Trojan horse for personal(state) gain.
Does US Govt really want real peace and stability in the world? If yes, isn't it time for Washington for a new system change on their policy?-
It's very simple. The US wants peace and stability when it is in their best interest, they want instability when that serves the interest of the U.S. the best.
Each country has only one of two possible situations.
Either there is a potential or a threat to an interest, in which case the gov't owes it to the population to adress that. Or there is no interests at stake either way, in which case the gov't can choose to do nothing. Or in some cases intervene out of the interests of others. However, this is rarely done unless that in itself carries a potential for reward later.
-
-
I'm having a hard time following a discussion about US Policy in the abstract, divorced from specific regions and countries.
If I understand correctly, what weblogian has noticed is that US authorities sometimes use very noble rhetoric, but then they appear to be acting only in the interest of the US. That tension has been at the heart of US foreign policy since maybe the First World War and Wilson's 14 points. Idealism has been a part of US foreign policy. Remember Bush's rhetoric some six years ago on a new Middle East? At the same time, there is so much going on in the world, that we also talk about our national interest, or what we think is in our national interest, at any rate. Bush's idealist rhetoric, for example, was coupled with notions about the supposed threat of Iraq. With no clear interest in stopping the genocide in Sudan, he did precious little there except offer rhetoric.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
