invading Vietnam in the name of exporting democracy and curtailing the spread of communism.
2006-12-13 18:00:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
18⤊
0⤋
Weelll, Jimmy Carter seemed to get the ball rolling, Reagan stepped up to the plate and kicked some butt, so did the first Bush. Then Clinton felt so much pain that he diddled his presidency away and left a new president with a nightmare scenario of the worst attack on American soil in our history. I'd have to say the policy of bombing aspirin factories and having sex with young interns would be the worst foreign policy decision by a US President.
Bill Clinton wins.
2006-12-13 17:57:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Bill Clinton signing the China Trade Bill in 2000.
It was a bill extending permanent, normal trade status to China and paved the way for China to become a member of the World Trade Organization.
U.S. business interests wanted the agreement in order to gain access to China's market of 1-billion-plus people. But critics argued that such an agreement would reward a repressive communist state, undermine the country's labor and environmental protections and cost jobs for U.S. workers. Which is exactly what happened..
Some opponents worried that the U.S. would be unable to influence Beijing over human rights concerns without a yearly vote on trade. To counter those concerns, the legislation calls for setting up a congressional-executive commission to monitor human rights in China and create a so-called surge mechanism to help American industries and workers hurt by an increase in Chinese imports.
2006-12-13 18:05:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aside from Bush's decision to invade and occupy a country that was not a threat to the United States, while ignoring Afghanistan?
There's the dual decision of LBJ and Nixon to "stay the course" in Vietnam.
In retrospect, Carter's decision to establish links with and provide aid to the Afghan mujahadeen.
Eisenhower/CIA overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and installing the Shah in Iran (and thus providing the rise of power of Islamic militants).
2006-12-13 17:58:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
She a zealot Nut pandering to christian right, because McCain upset them with the truth years ago, and now wants to make amends to get the far right votes. compare the Bush Doctrine to, On Sunday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here): First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law. Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict. Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible. Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us. Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors. Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.” The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary. The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”
2016-05-24 00:19:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ignoring the needs and developments in Latin America, while investing and supporting Israel in its will to destroy Palestine, Imagine how many things can be accomplished if we use the money wasted in the destruction and devastation of Irak. This and other administrations have done nothing to help the poor countries south of USA. The future of USA is the rest of America but they are blinded by need of oil.
2006-12-13 18:21:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rudy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The worst foreign policy decisions ever made by Bush as US President are:
1)attacking and invading and killing innocent people of Afghanistan
2)attacking and invading and killing innocent people of Iraq
3)supporting Israel for attacking and killing innocent people in Palestine and Libanon
4)disagreeing a nuclear energy development for peace of Iran while agreeing nuclear weapon for other countries such as Pakistan,Indiaand Israel,South Korea
2006-12-13 18:09:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Helping Stalin, Yalta: giving all that territory to Russian after World War II.
2006-12-13 17:53:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Susan M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The decision to quit diplomacy and choose force as the first option in all international negotiations by Bush and company.
2006-12-13 17:53:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Barabas 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Lyndon Johnson. The war in Vietnam.
2006-12-13 17:53:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by out of the grey 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
All the times Clinton let terrorists get away with attacking our citizens.
2006-12-13 17:46:55
·
answer #11
·
answered by WitchTwo 6
·
2⤊
0⤋