Monkeybot

Good Jebus! I hope people here don't think all Americans agree with this!

ieyeasu

[Jeopardy sound of wrong answer]

Popular view. But the Germans were fought to a stalemate in WWI before we showed up, and the Nazis were effectively stopped by the Brits. We just showed up to break the teetering house. And as for the Soviets--ever hear of NATO? You know, are important allies that actually lived near the Bear??

Right. Have you considered that most nations take actions in their own interests? For example, the US? By, for example, installing or helping to install blood-thirsty maniacal types like, I don't know, SADDAM FRICKEN HUSSEIN into power?

Isreal is a functioning democracy...that denies citizenship to a larger portion of its indiginous peoples, fights military wars of expansion, and is based on theocratic lines.

Hayden

Don't worry

HR

Feather

Because the US is the most aggressive and the most powerful? Our foreign policy has been crappy. But, to be honest, I wonder if that really matters. The guy with the most is always going to be a target to certain groups of people with the least. America happens to be the only world power right now, and that marks us out as "The One" to take down.

I genuinely don't believe that our foreign policy would be correct regardless of what it is. Being the Big Dog, there would almost certainly always be the element looking to cut us down.



At this point I honestly wonder if Europe would come to the aid of the US if we needed it. I am certain Britain would. Possibly Spain and the Eastern Bloc might, if they could offer anything useful. But, borrowing the new rhetoric, I have doubts that "Old Europe" would help out.

There is all manner of America bashing going on in the modern climate, and I recognize how unpopular my particular view is. But, alas, it's the one I'm led to have thanks to the apparent attitudes of the various nations involved.

seanie

But Germany and France were supportive of the action in Afghanistan. You didn't really need their help but they offered it. And if the US was under direct attack they would come to your aid.

Danya

I believe they would come to our aid if there was a valid threat. I don't expect anyone to come to our aid if we have to manufacture scenerio's of unrealistic doom just because they're our 'friends'. It's a failure of Bush to convince anyone of the need for such aggression and nothing else that keeps them from supporting this war.

And the way he hrows the word 'friend' around I'm not so sure it has much meaning. He sounds as if he's involved in a playground popularity contest. If you don't want to play his games by his rules you don't get to be his friend anymore. And then you'll have to worry about him jacking you for your lunch money. That's not the kind of 'friend' anyone is going to feel obligated to support or defend.

leonarde

Okay about Afghanistan: NO American I ever met EVER expressed fear that the Taliban itself was going to invade the US (or for that matter any US ally). It was strictly a matter of their support of al Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular: the terrorist threat.

From the nation to nation standpoint, Iraq is historically FAR more of a threat than Afghanistan. Plus it harbors AT LEAST 3 or 4 terrorist groups (depending on whether you consider the al Qaeda connection established).

For Germany and France the difference is: money and oil. The French have ALREADY SIGNED post-sanctions contracts in the oil industry. Big money to be earned there. France, since the 1970s at least has been, along with the Soviets, the main (conventional) arms supplier of Iraq. Again a LOT of money to be earned. But also a lot of money to lose....if the regime in Iraq changes.

redstar2000

Perhaps we have no one on this board who knows enough 19th and early 20th century history to answer Hayden's original question: in what areas of human rights did the United States "lead the way"?

As it happens, a counter-example came to my mind as well: the abolition of slavery. I know that England, Haiti, and Mexico all abolished slavery before the United States did; Brazil didn't do it, I think, until the 1880s.

Which was the first country to establish universal manhood sufferage (no property qualifications)? I think it was France in 1848...but I'm not sure.

See what I'm getting at? This was not supposed to be a thread about America's rather odious record (in my view) in the field of foreign affairs but rather who did the right thing, for their own citizenry, first?

Happy Wonderer

I believe the US was the first major nation to have a written constitution with a guarentee of rights. This is a bigger deal than you might imagine, since it gives legal power to rights. Many of our freedoms were similar to those in England but they had an unwritten constitution based upon case law and history. Having it written down gives you a place to start and makes rights a little less 'in the eye of the beholder' or in fact, the government.

The fact that we sometimes ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient (like now...) notwithstanding.


HW

Hayden

That's a good one. I think the UK is in the same position now as it was then. NZ also has an unwritten constitution, with a similar basis.

Thanks for the first valid answer to the question!

HR