A lot of the troubles in the Middle-East have their roots as far back as the Eisenhower administration and beyond. The USA emerged as a world leader after WWII. That gives the US about 60 years of experience in shaping world affairs.
Isn't that enough experience to be able to design foreign policy that doesn't blow up in the next generation's face?
2007-12-07 05:00:54 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Come on guys. I was thinking of easy stuff like not supplying arms to the Taliban or despots like Saddam then going to war with them a decade or two later.
2007-12-07 05:20:46 · update #1
Why would you have us do?
2007-12-07 05:02:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Unless you are willing to agree with everyone about everything, there is always going to be someone who cries foul.
If we as a country intend to stand for anything, if we are going to be a credible force in the world, if we are going to be a world leader, then we have to accept that the rest of the world is going to have an opinion, and unless we give them everything they want, sometimes creating conflict by doing so, we are going to have those who hate us. Some people and nations will hate us for no reason at all, other than we exist.
If however, we are willing to surrender our sovereignty, if we are willing to let other countries dictate to us, about our policies, and how we spend our money, then they will like us for awhile, until the money runs out.
We see this happening in the UN, which is why that particular agency doesn't serve the interests of this country. It only gives the less powerful nations a forum in which to spew their hatred of us and, as long as we allow it, a way to tie our hands.
Then they will go back to hating us, because that is how it works. The only time they will truly stop hating us is when we become irrelevant, and they can hate someone else.
The measure of how powerful this country is, is in how much we are hated around the world.
If we stop being hated, it's time to start getting worried.
2007-12-07 05:21:40 · answer #2 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The thing that mazes me is the USA does have Middle East experts. Many were born in the Middle East, and they are respected by the people there. Others have studied it exclusively . But these experts are not well utilized. Instead, the USA sends Condi Rice over there for talks. Why? The woman is an expert on Russia. What the heck is she doing in the ME? And we all know what a high regard the ME has for women .
2007-12-07 05:07:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most of these involvements are in our interest. We cannot pretend that the oceans protect us as they did 200 years ago. We must stay in the UN if only to stop our adversaries from wreaking havoc, even though the UN is almost entirely laughable as a political body. Africa does not benefit from direct aid because of corrupt goverments. We need to invest there, not give aid. The war on drugs should end, by legalizing the drugs. This would reduce the cost in resources of fighting the drug war and take away a major support of organized and violent crime. We should help in Darfur because we are America, and because we can.
2016-04-07 23:54:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually I thought we'd tried almost every policy in the last 60 years there was. Where the US is concerned we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we do something someone gets mad at us. If we don't do something someone gets mad at us
To those who say everything is the fault of the Republicans. The nation of Israel was formed on the Democrats watch in 1948. But then it WAS the UN that formed Israel under UN charter. I wonder why no one has ever bombed them?
Now just what policies were adpoted that caused Osama Bin Laden to want to blow up our embassies, ships, and crash planes into our buildings?
2007-12-07 05:24:58 · answer #5 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problems in the middle east date back at least to the war between the Ottomans and the Russians (Crimea) in the late 1700's. A lot of it was from the remapping of the middle east that the Europeans did after ww1. That was all before the US was a superpower. In fact, Wilson opposed the remapping, but nobody would listen to him.
The modern problems all stem from Jimmy Carter supporting Khomeini deposing the Shah of Iran. Of course - the Shah was a supporter of the US who violated human rights, so in Carter's mind anyone was better. Should we have left the strong man in place?
2007-12-07 05:08:17 · answer #6 · answered by Richard T 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have read the other responses, and see many good points in them, however....
The only way to keep from creating enemies to to adopt an isolationist policy. You see, no matter who you help, it will piss off someone else. In fact, many would be upset with you for having an isolationist policy.
IMO, we should not be so arrogant as to think we are the world's police force; to assume our opinion on how things should run is what is best for the world. We should keep out of others' business, but make it perfectly clear, if they bring any of their cr*p to our soil, we will hit them so hard, they will regret it for generations to come.
2007-12-07 05:19:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're full of crap: this is classic Non Sequitur. One could argue, with lamentable sophistry, that everything has its roots in some predating moment;however, this does not alleviate the fact that people are responsible for their choices, and those choices and actions have consequences which affect people's lives, the balance of power, the economy, and long range strategic interests.
The policy that is now blowing up in our faces in an extrordinary way can be summed up in one word: Iraq. And one person is ultimately responsible for that huge mistake.
2007-12-07 05:09:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not possible. Not all the countries of the world get along, if we help any of them their enemies will cry unfair. We have two choices: do what we've been doing, and risk pissing other countries off, or become 100% isolationist. When you're the big man on campus, you can't be ignored and you won't be liked by everyone. Likewise us creating foreign policy moving forward to please the nations of the world won't prevent them from holding grudges against us for past actions. It's not possible to convince entire countries to clean the slate and start over, so to speak.
2007-12-07 05:05:13 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
do you want to "adopt" an international policy? or "design" one?
we will always have enemies...that's just the way it is...world peace is impossible for more than a second, and like someone else said; it shouldn't be our job to mediate the world, and essentially babysit, breakup fights, and scold other countries.
My generation is doing just fine, and I'm sure the one below me will as well
2007-12-07 05:07:58 · answer #10 · answered by stressed to the MAX 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The intervent of USA in the war of another country is certaly wrong, and make worse the situation of the another country. Sorry for my english, i'm italian.
2007-12-07 05:52:50 · answer #11 · answered by Odioso Superficiale e pedantesco 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋