Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

What is US Foreign Policy?

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 11:23:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is in response of the views I have noticed in other threads. Some people are calling the US invasions and efforts as for the propagation of stated goals like humanitarianism and democratic propagation etc that doesn't count to the purpose of gaining "full" control over the territories. In all the discussion, chaos is finding a non-understandable link of human rights leadership and US foreign policy. Including Iraq, Somalia, Russia, China, Bosnia and add many more in the list, what motives can you point out in regard of US actions and goals, specifically what humanitarianism is propagated by US, any example?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 1:25:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 11:23:02 AM, Dazz wrote:
This is in response of the views I have noticed in other threads. Some people are calling the US invasions and efforts as for the propagation of stated goals like humanitarianism and democratic propagation etc that doesn't count to the purpose of gaining "full" control over the territories. In all the discussion, chaos is finding a non-understandable link of human rights leadership and US foreign policy. Including Iraq, Somalia, Russia, China, Bosnia and add many more in the list, what motives can you point out in regard of US actions and goals, specifically what humanitarianism is propagated by US, any example?

US foreign policy is essentially a Machiavellian quest for power and profit, right? A classic example is the overthrow of the democratic Iranian government in 1953 because they decided to nationalise the oil industry in their country, and the continuing hatred of the Iran to the current day after they overthrew the puppet government installed there.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 1:26:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 1:25:47 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/7/2014 11:23:02 AM, Dazz wrote:
This is in response of the views I have noticed in other threads. Some people are calling the US invasions and efforts as for the propagation of stated goals like humanitarianism and democratic propagation etc that doesn't count to the purpose of gaining "full" control over the territories. In all the discussion, chaos is finding a non-understandable link of human rights leadership and US foreign policy. Including Iraq, Somalia, Russia, China, Bosnia and add many more in the list, what motives can you point out in regard of US actions and goals, specifically what humanitarianism is propagated by US, any example?

US foreign policy is essentially a Machiavellian quest for power and profit, right? A classic example is the overthrow of the democratic Iranian government in 1953 because they decided to nationalise the oil industry in their country, and the continuing hatred of the Iran to the current day after they overthrew the puppet government installed there.

Lol, 'the Iran'. My mistake.
cyrillic
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 3:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 1:25:47 PM, Wocambs wrote:
US foreign policy is essentially a Machiavellian quest for power and profit, right? A classic example is the overthrow of the democratic Iranian government in 1953 because they decided to nationalise the oil industry in their country, and the continuing hatred of the Iran to the current day after they overthrew the puppet government installed there.

The problem with our foreign policy is we often have no way of reliably evaluating decisions due to withheld or incomplete information, or we're kept in the dark. Given our history, I tend to agree with the sentiment that our foreign policy is a quest for power and profit, with it tending to not be related to the best interest of the nation. As for what's happening now, again, there's no reliable way to evaluate what the motivations are. In the past we were told that we must suppress terrorism, but then we replace a democratically elected leader with an oppressive dictator by using the CIA to incite riots. Now we're being told a whole host of things, but there's no reason to believe those reasons are legitimate.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 4:09:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 3:54:22 PM, cyrillic wrote:
At 7/7/2014 1:25:47 PM, Wocambs wrote:
US foreign policy is essentially a Machiavellian quest for power and profit, right? A classic example is the overthrow of the democratic Iranian government in 1953 because they decided to nationalise the oil industry in their country, and the continuing hatred of the Iran to the current day after they overthrew the puppet government installed there.

The problem with our foreign policy is we often have no way of reliably evaluating decisions due to withheld or incomplete information, or we're kept in the dark. Given our history, I tend to agree with the sentiment that our foreign policy is a quest for power and profit, with it tending to not be related to the best interest of the nation. As for what's happening now, again, there's no reliable way to evaluate what the motivations are. In the past we were told that we must suppress terrorism, but then we replace a democratically elected leader with an oppressive dictator by using the CIA to incite riots. Now we're being told a whole host of things, but there's no reason to believe those reasons are legitimate.

Chomsky has a few brilliant things to say on this topic.

http://www.chomsky.info...
http://www.salon.com...
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 8:03:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 3:54:22 PM, cyrillic wrote:
At 7/7/2014 1:25:47 PM, Wocambs wrote:
US foreign policy is essentially a Machiavellian quest for power and profit, right? A classic example is the overthrow of the democratic Iranian government in 1953 because they decided to nationalise the oil industry in their country, and the continuing hatred of the Iran to the current day after they overthrew the puppet government installed there.

The problem with our foreign policy is we often have no way of reliably evaluating decisions due to withheld or incomplete information, or we're kept in the dark. Given our history, I tend to agree with the sentiment that our foreign policy is a quest for power and profit, with it tending to not be related to the best interest of the nation. As for what's happening now, again, there's no reliable way to evaluate what the motivations are. In the past we were told that we must suppress terrorism, but then we replace a democratically elected leader with an oppressive dictator by using the CIA to incite riots. Now we're being told a whole host of things, but there's no reason to believe those reasons are legitimate.

US has shown concerns in the establishment of democracy in the Middle East regions, do you think US itself is not legitimate to enforce such system if itself has been facing threats to democratic government, where specifically the nation's interest is not given weight and priority.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:56:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd have to preface my comment with the same statement that cyrillic made, that often information is withheld and we [ordinary citizens] are incapable of taking into account the full picture of what US Foreign Policy really entails.

To those who described US Foreign Policy as Machiavellian, I'd be interested to know what other examples you could provide to defend that term. Surely, the United States is the most powerful nation on the planet; however, did it really achieve that status through Machiavellian policies? I would be interested in any argument you could make to suggest that the United States would go to ANY means to better itself. While the incident in Iran in 1953 was a poor moment negatively reflecting our foreign policy, it was also an anomaly. Given the restraint this country has shown on going to war [Syria and Pakistan] and the restraint we have shown throughout wars [Iraq and Afghanistan], judging this nation off of one incident over sixty years ago is clearly not an accurate approach.

The most significant impediment in defining US Foreign Policy is that so much of it is dependent on the executive branch of government. Given that the two major political parties of this country [Democratic and Republican] have such different goals/ideals on foreign policy, and that - at least for the past thirty years - the office of the presidency has flipped between the two parties every eight years; it is difficult to acknowledge any sense of consistency on foreign policy from radical changes in the executive office. Ultimately, is US Foreign Policy really 'US,' or is our foreign policy defined by the morals of the President.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:09:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 10:56:10 AM, Praesentya wrote:
I'd have to preface my comment with the same statement that cyrillic made, that often information is withheld and we [ordinary citizens] are incapable of taking into account the full picture of what US Foreign Policy really entails.

To those who described US Foreign Policy as Machiavellian, I'd be interested to know what other examples you could provide to defend that term. Surely, the United States is the most powerful nation on the planet; however, did it really achieve that status through Machiavellian policies? I would be interested in any argument you could make to suggest that the United States would go to ANY means to better itself. While the incident in Iran in 1953 was a poor moment negatively reflecting our foreign policy, it was also an anomaly. Given the restraint this country has shown on going to war [Syria and Pakistan] and the restraint we have shown throughout wars [Iraq and Afghanistan], judging this nation off of one incident over sixty years ago is clearly not an accurate approach.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars were really a "restraint"? What else is left is out of my senses!

The most significant impediment in defining US Foreign Policy is that so much of it is dependent on the executive branch of government. Given that the two major political parties of this country [Democratic and Republican] have such different goals/ideals on foreign policy, and that - at least for the past thirty years - the office of the presidency has flipped between the two parties every eight years; it is difficult to acknowledge any sense of consistency on foreign policy from radical changes in the executive office. Ultimately, is US Foreign Policy really 'US,' or is our foreign policy defined by the morals of the President.

That's good to see how you've clarified the issue, but I'm not getting the reason of this confidence lack on democratically elected President/executives, does it mean that US and other Democratic forces are still in the process to strengthen the democracy or it's an issue that must be given the priority at first.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:23:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:09:51 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 7/8/2014 10:56:10 AM, Praesentya wrote:
I'd have to preface my comment with the same statement that cyrillic made, that often information is withheld and we [ordinary citizens] are incapable of taking into account the full picture of what US Foreign Policy really entails.

To those who described US Foreign Policy as Machiavellian, I'd be interested to know what other examples you could provide to defend that term. Surely, the United States is the most powerful nation on the planet; however, did it really achieve that status through Machiavellian policies? I would be interested in any argument you could make to suggest that the United States would go to ANY means to better itself. While the incident in Iran in 1953 was a poor moment negatively reflecting our foreign policy, it was also an anomaly. Given the restraint this country has shown on going to war [Syria and Pakistan] and the restraint we have shown throughout wars [Iraq and Afghanistan], judging this nation off of one incident over sixty years ago is clearly not an accurate approach.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars were really a "restraint"? What else is left is out of my senses!

The most significant impediment in defining US Foreign Policy is that so much of it is dependent on the executive branch of government. Given that the two major political parties of this country [Democratic and Republican] have such different goals/ideals on foreign policy, and that - at least for the past thirty years - the office of the presidency has flipped between the two parties every eight years; it is difficult to acknowledge any sense of consistency on foreign policy from radical changes in the executive office. Ultimately, is US Foreign Policy really 'US,' or is our foreign policy defined by the morals of the President.

That's good to see how you've clarified the issue, but I'm not getting the reason of this confidence lack on democratically elected President/executives, does it mean that US and other Democratic forces are still in the process to strengthen the democracy or it's an issue that must be given the priority at first.

To clarify, the United States did not exercise restraint in the initial invasion of Iraq [or, arguably, Afghanistan] but as our involvement was drawn out, continual investigations/criticisms from the liberal media forced the US Military to exercise restraint with our involvement.

If I'm reading this correctly, I think the 'confidence lack' you are referring to stems from the fact that the United States has a policy of involving itself selectively throughout the world, but couples that with a strict policy against nation-building. The US seems to think that doing half the job then pulling out is a viable solution, when it's really just leaving a job unfinished.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 11:18:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 11:23:02 AM, Dazz wrote:
This is in response of the views I have noticed in other threads. Some people are calling the US invasions and efforts as for the propagation of stated goals like humanitarianism and democratic propagation etc that doesn't count to the purpose of gaining "full" control over the territories. In all the discussion, chaos is finding a non-understandable link of human rights leadership and US foreign policy. Including Iraq, Somalia, Russia, China, Bosnia and add many more in the list, what motives can you point out in regard of US actions and goals, specifically what humanitarianism is propagated by US, any example?

Based on what I know, US foreign policy seems to develop under the goal of promoting pro-American interests and governments abroad.

We impose heavy sanctions on Iran and North Korea, which both have animosity towards us. We support Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, all of which are pro-American governments. We send foreign military assistance abroad, which amounts to about $16 billion per year, to support pro-American governments. We support nations such as Germany and South Korea with significant military forces, to protect these nations from external threats (Germany, less so than in the Cold War). We send tens of billions overseas in the name of foreign aid to Pakistan and Israel, to improve our standing in Pakistan and to support Israel's existence.

So that goal seems to be the underlying trend at work here.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan