Thread: America The worlds police

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

European scared dogs tuck their tails between their legs and run away while leaving a puddle of pee behind.

And also... Nobody cares if Euope is scared. There always scared and thats why they give up freedom for personal security. Europeans being scared is like water being wet, it is, was, and will be.

I would go on but I'm trying to be polite.

Good day to you.

PS. I would advise you to buy "Pampers" diapers, I hear that they have a wonderful seal to keep the umhm... contents from staining the pants.

If i posted something like that, on this board, about Americans i think i would get banned or at least a warning.

Originally Posted by MKristensen908

I don't think it's the matter of Europeans compromising freedom for personal security as much as the matter of them being pressured against their will to conform to American foreign policy.

My reading at the moment is that Bush has a skill for communicating with Americans but that doesn't translate (in some cases literally) to communicating with Europeans.

Equally the US is determiend (and so it should be) to pursue its foreign policy agenda. However it is also using the indiscriminate nature of terrorism as a cloud for the fact that, at the end of the day, this is the US foreign policy and other nations are being pressured to support it. Yes, i agree there are some moral ideals in some of the arguments. But the reality is that the target has been the US and other nations as collateral damage, or as targets because of siding with the US. Analysing that, and your own nations cost/benefit analysis in this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I am not saying that deposing tyrants is wrong, or that terrosim is to be condoned. But just as American foreign policy is picking its targets (we can all name despotic regimes that are not under threat of attack fromt he US) so America's allies should be ensuring their involvement matches their own foreign policy. It all made sense for Afghanistan. I have gone on at length about Iraq previously. Syria and Iran etc start to get greyer, especially in the context of other problem areas that other nations may feel are more important.

Originally Posted by Trooth

If i posted something like that, on this board, about Americans i think i would get banned or at least a warning.

Yeah, try to tone it down a bit VVV. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Trooth

we can all name despotic regimes that are not under threat of attack fromt he US

Currently there are no regimes under direct threat of attack. Even if there are, it will come 1 at a time, unless more people start to care about the freedoms of others.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Currently there are no regimes under direct threat of attack. Even if there are, it will come 1 at a time, unless more people start to care about the freedoms of others.

OK, i concede the threat of attack, but you know what i am getting at. I also agree that if more nations sign up to the policy the policy can be enacted farther afield. However the policy isn't exclusively based around freedom of others (there are many reasons freedom of other being one of them). The priority list is determined by the US and, at least to my understanding, is omitting some regimes that are, as we speak, conducting wars and mass murder.

If more nations join the US foreign policy mission, how much say do you think they would have in the prioritisation?

Originally Posted by Trooth

However the policy isn't exclusively based around freedom of others (there are many reasons freedom of other being one of them).

In governments as big as ours are, every reason to do anything is likely represented. From the most hateful and evil, all the way up the scale to the most loving and good.

Originally Posted by Trooth

The priority list is determined by the US and, at least to my understanding, is omitting some regimes that are, as we speak, conducting wars and mass murder.

The US can only do so much. In alot of the world's random carnage, I cannot tell the good guy from the bad, so what side to support?

You also allready know my opinion, I'd choose total isolationism over dealing with even one tyrant, or anyone who dealt with one. Glad you're back Buddy.

Originally Posted by Confed999

In governments as big as ours are, every reason to do anything is likely represented. From the most hateful and evil, all the way up the scale to the most loving and good.

The US can only do so much. In alot of the world's random carnage, I cannot tell the good guy from the bad, so what side to support?

You also allready know my opinion, I'd choose total isolationism over dealing with even one tyrant, or anyone who dealt with one. Glad you're back Buddy.

Always good to be here.

I agree the US can only do so much and also that it isn't straight forward as the guys in the black hats. Hence why i don't see the benefit in coming down on other nations without trying to appreciate their viewpoint. Allies can have differences of approach and opinion without being enemies.
It is an intolerance and lack of understanding that makes many countries view
the US as an enemy. Therefore the US shouldn't use that tactic too.

Originally Posted by Trooth

Allies can have differences of approach and opinion without being enemies.

Sure, to a degree.

Originally Posted by Confed999

Yeah, try to tone it down a bit VVV. Thanks.

Sorry, I got a bit carried away. I'll try to play a bit nicer.

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

Sorry, I got a bit carried away. I'll try to play a bit nicer.

Thank you

Originally Posted by Trooth

I am not saying that deposing tyrants is wrong, or that terrosim is to be condoned. But just as American foreign policy is picking its targets (we can all name despotic regimes that are not under threat of attack fromt he US)

So name 'em and have Europe go put pressure on them.

-dale

Your missing my point. If the policy is going to be US foreign policy, call it that and leave people to join in or not. Don't dress it up as something it isn't and then berate those that see through the dressing.

Originally Posted by Trooth

Your missing my point. If the policy is going to be US foreign policy, call it that and leave people to join in or not. Don't dress it up as something it isn't and then berate those that see through the dressing.

Maybe you could define what you think US foreign policy is?

I have been trying to write a repsonse for about 10 minutes. And i am not sure i can. I am not sure can tell you what the US's foreign policy is - it seems to me to be now expressed in generalisations.

The reason i think this, is that publicly the US has stated more than its military can fullfil for it, which is something i haven't seen before from the US. I think that the warnings to the rogue nations start to look thin if it makes threats to everyone all the time. Becase they all know that the US can't take on all of them. Look at NK for example. The US knows it can't do anything about them for a while. And so do the NKoreans.