USA foreign policy

Post Reply New Topic

It is estimated that the 'war on terror' has cost and is continuing to cost around $360 million per day since 9/11. Recently I heard Dr Karl Kruzeniski (a respected and popular scientific commentator on Australian media notably ABC radio and tv) suggest that if this money was spent unconditionally helping fiscally poor countries (his e.g. this money could build one state of the art hospital and university each day of the week) the hatred toward the USA and therefore the need for the war on terror would cease.

I tend to agree, your thoughts ?

Agree 100%. The US pretty much get what they ask for by constantly interfering in other parts of the world. Let's be honest, what has the US to do with countries such as Iran or Israel? They should just leave internal affairs of other countries alone. If you choose to interfere and force your own believes upon other countries, it is little surprising those other countries will be hostile towards you. Reaching out a helping hand rather than getting your gun would change the attitude of the people you consider enemies.

One thing though: the war industry is huge and I guess this alone can be a reason for wanting to keep the military busy. Republican rule especially seems to believe very strongly in a military way of solving things but I think we've seen enough now this is not the way to go. Hopefully Obama can clean up the pile of dirt left behind by Bush.

I don't think the "war on terror" is actually what it is. It's merely an excuse to increase the US's influence in oil rich parts of the world in my opinion. The hijackers were mostly Saudi's, yet they went after iraq wich wasn't an extremist muslim country. Sadam did bad stuff, but it's more accurate to refer to him as the muslim version of Stalin. The US has been extremely successfull in increasing it's influence in the past decade. Funding candidates in countrys such as Georgia and the Ukraine so they switch allegiance. This only happened because of Russias lack of funding to exert theyr influence in the area. I think it's rather sad that the European union act like an American colony sending troops and money wherever America pleases. This isn't a rant against America but rather it's administration.

I have to admit calling it a war on terror was a very smart name to pick.
The masses of "uninformed" (ignorant) people wanted revenge.
So all the goverment had to do was pick a muslim country to invade and put a bunch of fake evidence/blame together.
Iraq was a threat to Israel so that was the obvious choice.

Agreed. I suppose the idea put forward by Dr Karl was really a challenge to the voracity of the 'war on terror'
BTW have you seen a BBC documentary 'the power of nightmares'

The US reliance on military is stupid, 'nough said.

If the US had never stuck their nose into the business of other countries, the trade towers would still stand and no war on terror would be occurring. We only have ourselves to blame for the whole mess…but such is the arrogance of humans.

Bingo


I didn't have a problem with going into Afghanistan. That was where Al-qaeda was largely based. We would have had bin Laden by the end of 2003 if we didnt take troops from there and put them in Iraq...


Even most of America hates its current administration... that's why Bush has a 20~30% approval rating and a 60~70% disapproval rating...

The US has been doing this since the end of the Second World War. Using the military when other means would be better. Funding Europe's renovation after the Second World War worked. People like money. People don't like being killed or having their family killed, this causes hatred and this causes terrorism. Vietnam should have taught the US that such military adventurism does not work.

Spelling corrected.

Give us more credit than that- we've been screwing with Latin America since at least the mid-1800s.

True. I would see such actions as lying with the "sphere of influence" and while not being just, are certainly understandable.

If you hate the US and what it does, then take a while and think about all it has done. From feeding the worlds poor, to funding every major international organization there is. From defending the world from the Nazis, to rebuilding europe. From funding the fight against AIDS in africa, to being the first to help with disasters.

We as Americans have done so much more to help others then they have to help us, and we ask nothing in return. Yet you guys think we're so evil. All cause we removed a horrible, brutal dictator from Iraq. Your just mad that we have such influence -- but if what came with our influence was so bad, then why is it spreading so fast? Why are we the first that the Georgians came to when Russia invaded them? Because if it came down to it, we'd be the only one willing to help them.

Why is it only our men and women, transporting humanitarian supplies to those poor people in georgia? Why are were we the first to donate food and supplies to the victims of the Tsunami in Indonesia. Why are we the ones to fund every major international organization , and why are we the first people looked to for help?

How can we be wanted so bad by so many, and yet be so evil? The truth is, you dont dislike what were doing as much as you dislike that we are powerful enough that we can do it. It bothers you people that we have so much influence and your countries dont.

Its because of our willingness to use whatever means needed to accomplish what we think is right, that we have this influence. And when you think about it. . . .

Given our power and influence we could be much, much, worse. Think about it

The US as the saviour of the world is a rather difficult theory to follow. Saddam was removed because his country has massive oil reserves. The US was friendly with Saddam until he went "off the reservation", got out of their control.

The US cares about the US and only certain parts of the US (Hurricane Katrina).

Read some history and learn a bit more about your "benevolent" country before you accuse everyone of "hating" your country. True patriots hold their country to a standard, idiots assume their country can do no wrong.

The US entered the Second World War in 1942 because of Pearl Harbour. The Nazis would've been a threat to the security of the US if they had not been stopped. And the Russians did most of the defeating of the Nazis on the Eastern Front. The European war started in 1939.

Sorry but this made me laugh. One of the most common excuses for constantly interfering in other parts of the world was "We helped you as well in World War II". I heard that so damn often it gets irritating. "We helped you out once so that means from now on we can do whatever we want on your soil" - that is what it sounds like when reading between the lines.

For the record: without the US, Russia would have liberated us from the nazis so we did not need the Americans necessarily. Not saying the help was not appreciated, but it's not exactly as if the whole of Europe would be under nazi rule now if it wasn't for the US. Also, Canada largely helped liberating several countries but never used that as an excuse to act like a moral compass in the world afterwards ; if any country helped Europe without asking anything in return, then it it Canada for sure.
(in my native area the Canadian national holiday is even celebrated because we were liberated by mainly Canada)




But hey, I accept your intentions that the Americans just do in the rest of the world what the local citizens want them to do.

Now here is the truth: most countries in the world are sick of the US interfering and want America to stay out. So if your leaders are all about doing the rest of the world a favour, well the biggest favour to do is to leave our territories and mind your own business. Nobody in the Middle East was waiting for the Americans to come, and here in Europe most people don't support your war crimes neither. So if you really want to do us a favour, then leave the rest of the world alone and take care of your own business in your own country.

PS: thanks for the help during WW2, greatly appreciated. But that was 65 years ago so I think we have been saying thanks often enough. Now take an example to your Canadian neighbours who never used WW2 as an excuse to interfere in other countries. I think there is enough in the US to take care of instead of playing emperor in the rest of the world ; we said thankyou often enough for the help in the WW2 so now back to your own back yard please.

PS II: again, I got nothing against the US or its citizens but I do dislike American politics. A very strong dislike, which I share with many Europeans.

Didn't Dubya's grandpa bank for the Nazis? Wasn't Hitler a popular hero pre-WW2 in the USA for his anti-Jew propaganda and aryan race theory (majority of Americans trace their origins to Germany). Didn't TIME magazine name him "man of the year" in 1938? All of a sudden, after Pearl Harbour (again, most Americans think the Japanese attacked them without any reason... if you check the history of pre-WW2 relations between Japan & the USA, you'll see that the USA provoked Japan by halting trade with them, freezing all Japanese assets, and publically aiding Japan's enemy, Republican China under Chiang Kai Chek, which is completely against international war rules. America provoked Japan), war was declared on Germany. And the Americans took all the credit, when the USSR and Britain were more responsible for defeating Germany than the Americans. Of course, the American war industry started booming.

No country in the world has conducted more war crimes than the USA, the land of the free and the brave, blah blah. Of course, everyone points out to Nazi concentration camps and such, but did anyone know that America also had concentration camps? All Japanese residents in the USA were shifted to these camps during WW2. Even the British had concentration camps during the Boer war against the Boers.

Personally, the only WW2 era leader I admire is Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. Never heard of him, did you? Well, he was the only sane leader during the war who didn't conduct war crimes. He fought on the side of the axis, against the British, and his goal was to liberate India from British rule.

Face it, everyone hates America. Even the majority of America's population hates their govt's war policies. I don't expect a change in any of their policies, as the mass media is the greatest hypnosis tool to ever have been invented.

@ palek03
Not to mention that the US became very rich selling arms to both sides before it joined in. Britain also got the bill for the US assistance after the war (all those convoys were not gratis). Read the original post all it suggested that the US would do better using the funds it is already spending on Construction rather than Destruction. This also needs to be done without conditions

"Sphere of influence" in this case meaning "We want Mexico's land" or "We don't really like how your local election turned out, so we're going to invade your country and make you hold a new election which someone we do like will win, whether you vote for him or not."

The only reason we weren't messing with the Middle East earlier was because we weren't strong enough to challenge European control of the rest of the world. After Europe was largely demolished after WWII it was much easier for us to interfere in the Middle East and some other places as well.