How much should the US play in World Affairs?

[jamesbrown88]

Do you think that the US should be proactive, passive, or somewhat in between? Why?

I think we should be proactive and take a lot in world affairs, we live in a global economy, everyone is affected by what others do.

What do you guys think?

[1by1]

The US needs to be somewhat active, since it needs to defend energy sources and trade routes. However, I would question if it needs to be involved to the extent that it is at the moment.

It seems like a lot of US foreign policy hasn't been updated since the cold war, and the world is very different under today's circumstances. So it needs to look again, update its policy and react to the world as it is today. That would probably mean being less active overall, but perhaps more active in certain areas (e.g. south east Asia, perhaps Africa)

[Brutha]

I don't have much problem with the fact that the US is active. I however do have a problem with the content of US foreign policy.

Before going after war crimes in other countries the US should get their own house in order and persecute war crimes by former US officials such as torture.

[scorpio1980]

I believe we should close down most of our basis we have in 130 countries that would be a good start. We are much too involved in other countries, and the US citizens are paying for it.

[Jaiysun4]

The main reason for anti-Americanism is that the US has an absolutely massive military budget which it uses to launch wars, support uprisings and terrorist groups, and countless other things, all in the name of furthering its own interests, stifling those of other countries, and securing resources for American corporations.

Nobody believes the "ethical intervention" hypocrisy - the world gave up on trusting America a long time ago. The less death, destruction and suffering this war-mongering entity causes the better. I believe America, on a foreign policy basis, should accept that wealth through war and the ownership of the resources of other countries is wrong. But at the same time, this is the only way any empire is built. I think America needs to accept that is cannot and should not be an empire or a world dominator. Morality should come above wealth. This would be a good lesson to learn.

[Bliss Sage]

The U.S. should cease and desist. Live like normal countries, mainly mind their own business and put to right their 50,000,000 domestic problems, focus on their own problems, which just grow and grow and grow from decades of neglect, and leave the rest of the world in peace, like normal countries do.

[Servina]

Dear Stan Laurel in the U.S. Look at the mess you've gotten us into. Our blindly following your policies has made our kids fat, our people indebted and created riots in our streets. It was never an equal partnership anyway. So please exit ashamed, like a dying comedian. Oliver Hardy in the U.K.

[Still Growing]

Does anyone find it ironic that the US foreign policy is so far reaching yet Americans are viewed as not knowing much about the world?

Does anyone find it ironic that the US is a cultural melting pot of races and religions yet we are stereotyped as a culture of not taking the time to understand other cultures as a people?

I travel for business in Europe and polite bar conversation ALWAYS turn to "how stupid Americans are"..... Then they proceed to quiz me on US foreign policy. After talking in depth they quickly realize that I keep up with the world and then say "Oh well you must be different"

Since much of Europe is Socialistic, most ships tend to rise with the tide. In the US there is a larger gap of prosperity and education. If a European person were judging Brazil they wouldn't expect someone who was financially less fortunate in life to know where on the map Kuwait was however if they heard someone questioned on the streets of New York to point out where on the map Kuwait was (or who the current Secretary of State is for that matter) they would be surprised by an incorrect answer. The point is that the US is held to a higher standard as a developed nation and we fail to live up to that standard on many issues such as foreign affairs.

Another point is that all nations have a form of propaganda. NBC doesn't harp on the fact that the owners of their network also have a financial stake in certain foreign policies just as the German media doesn't harp on the fact that they had a financial stake in Iraq (for example).

There is a certain ra, ra affect that a nation takes on and then they digest and feed information to the public. If you are a German, for example, you will have a certain international view of the world based upon the collective mass thought of your nation. This gives you confidence to form an opinion however what things are you unaware of?

My opinion of foreign affairs is that its about money and power not about truth and justice. Whether you are German, American or from where ever... we don't know half of what is REALLY going on in the global war for scarce resources and political partisianship.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

The U.S. should cease and desist. Live like normal countries, mainly mind their own business and put to right their 50,000,000 domestic problems, focus on their own problems, which just grow and grow and grow from decades of neglect, and leave the rest of the world in peace, like normal countries do.

I agree with you; except that you interject "like normal countries do".

Do you include the UK, Russia, China and Germany as normal countries? I would argue that all of these countries are quite active in their meddling in foreign policies.

In so many ways, America is more than a nation but rather a movement of capitalism. The entire structure of the American system is not to live and let live. Make no mistake that America as a system has an agenda. But the agenda of America is not reflective of the American person's agenda but rather its a run away train and the coal would be representative by stock holder value. The truth is that America represents prosperity for its special interest however America's special interest aren't always American. Its UK, Italy, Israel, Saudi Arabia and I don't know what country you are from but you can bet that some very wealthy people in your country have a stake in America's prosperity directly through shares in an American defense contractor, oil company, etc.

So my point is that America isn't a country like Norway made up of fine people who have a gov't that represents them but rather America is like a corporation that represents its shareholders and those share holders aren't necessarily American.

Please don't be quick to think what I'm saying is some sort of a conspiracy. If you simply look at every action that the US takes it ALWAYS represents some interest and those interest have representation in Washington.

So the entire world is responsible for the monster that is America, including you.

[Brutha]

If you are a German, for example, you will have a certain international view of the world based upon the collective mass thought of your nation.

There's plenty of influence of Anglo American thought in Germany.

I myself also a globalist in the sense that I my news sources are global and don't reflect general German thought.
Even a few of new politically interested friends who don't take their information from mainly via the internet read the Economist.

NBC doesn't harp on the fact that the owners of their network also have a financial stake in certain foreign policies just as the German media doesn't harp on the fact that they had a financial stake in Iraq (for example).

Which German news companies do you consider to have a stake in Iraq?

I travel for business in Europe and polite bar conversation ALWAYS turn to "how stupid Americans are".....

I frequently have bar conversation with US toastmasters and the conversations usually don't go to that topic. That not only conversation that I lead but also those that other people on the table have.
Maybe something you do produces those conversation? Alternatively maybe you are hanging out with the wrong people?

But the agenda of America is not reflective of the American person's agenda but rather its a run away train and the coal would be representative by stock holder value. The truth is that America represents prosperity for its special interest however America's special interest aren't always American. Its UK, Italy, Israel, Saudi Arabia and I don't know what country you are from but you can bet that some very wealthy people in your country have a stake in America's prosperity directly through shares in an American defense contractor, oil company, etc.

Yes, the US would probably be run more decently if you had public campaign financing that would make it harder to buy US political access.

Do you include the UK, Russia, China and Germany as normal countries? I would argue that all of these countries are quite active in their meddling in foreign policies.

Expect in so far as we follow US global policy what evil does the German government do in your opinion?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Which German news companies do you consider to have a stake in Iraq?

I didn't not mean that German news companies have a stake in Iraq. Although I said that some US ones do. The press in Germany is much more open (in my experience) in Germany than the US and most Germans I speak to follow much more international issues than a typical American. In my experience many of these Germans can give a lot of statistics and facts in their critique of American policy and also about Americans as a whole however I have found a general theme of common thought in regards to various subjects. Certainly you would agree that mass thought has pervasive powers no matter what society you live in.

Also every country's media panders a bit to their viewer. If the sentiment is geared towards a certain position then the media will perpetuate this even if they are leaving out information that would be to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I frequently have bar conversation with US toastmasters and the conversations usually don't go to that topic. That not only conversation that I lead but also those that other people on the table have.
Maybe something you do produces those conversation?

I'm kind of smiling here.... Certainly every American can contest that if they travel the world that they can sit quietly and when someone asks where you are from and you answer the question it quite often leads to a breakdown of critical review of America and of American people. If I answered "Venezuela" there would be respect for the fact that I cannot control the gov't yet when you answer "The US" there seems to be an unspoken open door for critique.

Its simply PC to condemn the US.

Germans in particular are the most direct people as a culture and are generally highly convinced of their own views of the world and are quick to tell you. I don't take offense to it because I have grown to find it refreshing how Germans are unbridled in their opinions and views. As I listen to their position I often learn a great deal but most humans are closed minded to accepting new information that does not fit their theory.

Opinions are like stones in that the more you polish them and hold on to them the more unlikely you are willing to break them to see whats really inside.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Expect in so far as we follow US global policy what evil does the German government do in your opinion?

From my limited view, I have a very high opinion of the German gov't. Also I like that in Germany there are more parties that have strength rather than the 2 party system in the US.

I agree with you that the biggest flaw in the US is that we need campaign finance reform and that this is the source of much of our problems.

Although I like many things about the US and although I am a capitalist at heart, I feel that the US Gov't and our 2 party system is in fact a charade. At the higher levels the US is not capitalistic but rather an oligopoly in every large industry. That doesn't mean that I favor socialism either.

At any rate, my post was more about how Americans or America is viewed.....not really critiquing Germany nor you. I simply used German as an example.

[Brutha]

Certainly you would agree that mass thought has pervasive powers no matter what society you live in.

Mass thought certainly has effects. German national self identity however isn't that strong and media that isn't authored in Germany has a quite large effect on .

At the higher levels the US is not capitalistic but rather an oligopoly in every large industry.

You could say that it's the essence of capitalism that you can buy the political process.
What makes you think that you can in principle have very power companies who choose not to overtake the political system?

Democracy only developed when the middle class who lived in cities got economic power. If all the economic power goes to big corporations why should the middle class have political power?

Also I like that in Germany there are more parties that have strength rather than the 2 party system in the US.

I don't think that you have a single party that has strength in the US.
Tim Kaine probably has more political power than the average person on the street would assume but there are a lot of US politicians who have much more power than him.

As I listen to their position I often learn a great deal but most humans are closed minded to accepting new information that does not fit their theory.

Most new information that I was exposed to in the last years rather reduced my view of the US than the other way around.
I don't know much much blackmail the NSA does with their Echelon data. It's a known unknown and even when I'm charitable for all my known unknowns my view of the US is still bad.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You could say that it's the essence of capitalism that you can buy the political process.
What makes you think that you can in principle have very power companies who choose not to overtake the political system?

I disagree that the essence of capitalism is that you have the ability to buy the political process. Campaign finance reform in itself would drastically reduce this. In fact the idea of capitalism is that the markets are open and that the strongest will survive. In a situation where the gov't protects some corporations over others actually stifles true competition and creates an artificial environment. So what you are saying and completely false.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that you have a single party that has strength in the US.

No 2 parties. It just so happens that companies such as Goldman Sachs has influence and lobbies both parties. So don't you see that no matter who gets in office that its more possible for a company like Goldman Sachs to manipulate legislation.

[Brutha]

Campaign finance reform in itself would drastically reduce this. In fact the idea of capitalism is that the markets are open and that the strongest will survive. In a situation where the gov't protects some corporations over others actually stifles true competition and creates an artificial environment. So what you are saying and completely false.

I think that a naive view. To use your own example from above campaign finance reform won't stop NBC from being owned by people with a stake in Iraq.

Even without campaign contributions a business man who can tell his senator that a law will kill 10,000 local jobs has political leverage.

Politicians also need jobs after they leave office.

Regulators need to develop expertise and open markets mean that expertise often goes hand in hand with having special interests.

The idea that the strive for more democracy is some kind of natural law is naive. Without strong governmental organisations the private sector just dominates.

The idea that social power interactions somehow create an "artificial environment" reveal a strange notion about what's artificial. They are ugly facts of nature.
In an idealistic model you can think them away but that makes the model an artificial environment.

If someone like Ron Paul stood a chance of getting elected then it would create a competitive environment.

If the Republican party would have power then Ron Paul likely wouldn't have been elected on a Republican party ticket.
He however has a seat.Lieberman had no problem with keeping his seat when he lost support of the democratic party.

Do you think that the party chairman of the Democrats or Republicans is among the top 10 most powerful politicians in the US?

Goldman Sachs has no need to primarily lobby parties but can go directly to senators or congressman.

[shannon smith]

You have to define what you mean by playing a role in international affairs.

The best way to play a role is to be an example. I don't think we are doing very well in this regard lately.

I think, for example, you show that you believe in peace by doing peaceful actions. The US should shut down all the bases overseas for starters. If you don't believe that is right, ask yourself if you would like a string of German or Japanese bases all over the US.

The US is leading the way in body scanners or groping your privates in airports. The Indian ambassador to the US was no exception- she was recently humiliated and vowed never to return to the US if she is to be subject to TSA.

The US is allowing itself to go into debt to foreign banks.
Homeland security is trying to keep everyone paranoid.
The political parties are a joke. The two sides are one side and most of it is smoke and mirrors.
The US allows secret societies and power groups, like the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergs to infiltrate politics and decision making.
on and on and on we set a bad example as far as the government goes.

[givejonadollar]

Free Trade with all and Entangling Alliances with none.

That is how is supposed to be.

And, that is how it should be.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think that a naive view. To use your own example from above campaign finance reform won't stop NBC from being owned by people with a stake in Iraq.

Even without campaign contributions a business man who can tell his senator that a law will kill 10,000 local jobs has political leverage.

Politicians also need jobs after they leave office.

Yes it would be naive to believe that campaign finance reform would end corruption completely. However..... I said that campaign finance reform would drastically reduce special interests.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Regulators need to develop expertise and open markets mean that expertise often goes hand in hand with having special interests.

The idea that the strive for more democracy is some kind of natural law is naive. Without strong governmental organisations the private sector just dominates.

Brutha, I agree with you here. One problem we have in the US is that those who are supposed to be regulating don't do their job. Whether its the FCC or the FDA, there have been allegations of corruption forever. I think that a good portion of Americans fear over regulation.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The idea that social power interactions somehow create an "artificial environment" reveal a strange notion about what's artificial. They are ugly facts of nature.
In an idealistic model you can think them away but that makes the model an artificial environment.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Goldman Sachs has no need to primarily lobby parties but can go directly to senators or congressman.

My point is that companies like Goldman lobbies entire parties. What I mean is that if they infiltrate enough senators, congressmen or presidents that they have a general persuasive power. In addition, Goldman's has been rumored to task employees with seeking positions in the gov't as part of their career path. They have been accused of essentially sending pawns into the gov't that they could control. If you researched the number of ex Goldman employees that held high level positions in the Bush and especially Obama Administration it is mind boggling.