The United States' Position in the World

It is an interesting thought. I think being raised in America we seem to assume we are supposed to help any and everyone.  That once we became a  Super Power we either should apologise for it or we should go about like a doating and benevelant uncle handing out gifts and offering protection. Sometimes there is a great reason behind what we are trying to do think the first and second world wars. Other times I am beyond boggled at why we are dragged into conflict from a nation that in no way could harm us here at home. Assistance sure but sending our young to die for a reason that never seems to resolve it's self? Hmmm seems ignorant and arrogant to me.

All that being said I am a 100% died in the wool true blue all American girl. Very little will make me fly into a snit as fast as listening to arrogant tourists from other countries talk badly about my country. I have had to deal with it several times over the past  and it always bothers me deeply! I admit to having held a grudge against an entire nation for months becoause of remarks made by one moron when we were traveling, I ignored most of them but he just had to keep up what he seemed to think were witty observations...  You Yanks this and you Yanks that... It was difficult to bite my tongue and keep quiet but I did fairly well. Changing the subject was impossible as he was apparently driven to share his thoughts with everyone. You can imagin my secret glee when the Hubs kicked his butt in Tennis, I won the 3 contests the hotel had put on for fun and his wife came in second or worse in the dolphin beauty pagent a silly little thing but we were pulled by the entertainment host on stage . Winner was picked by applause and she only had a few felow country men politely clapping for her while I was cheered by the folks we had become friendly with.  Trivia pursuit was an easy victory for us, and devastating loss for them. I guess my comment that it was only a game did not sit well with him.  Each time we ran into them at a different resort he would challenge Bob to yet another game of tennis, the Hubs would then soundly kick his butt again. I would purchase an item at a gift shop they and thier friends would buy the same only more then bemoan the expense. At the time we had a wonderful exchange so everything was a bargain for us. Why this family, seemingly successful and educated felt it so necessary to act so stupidly was beyound me but it did take me a good bit before I would volutarily sit with people from eith counrty for drinks or a meal.

My family have all served our country in one way or another and we have all given service to underdeveloped nations. I was in Nicaruagua at 16 yrs innoculating the residents of the farm areas. We raised the money to fly down, we raised the money for meds and supplies and we made a difference...for at least the generation of people we made contact with.

I get downright snarky when some one disses us for our help or intervention in one small area then as you said disses us for not helping enough in another area? Are we supposed to simply wait by the phone until everyone makes up thier minds what they want from us with zero intention of ever repaying us?  A friend said one evening instead of sending our bright and shiney future to save yet another country who will damn us the moment they get thier feet on the ground why not send the scum in our jails that we are forced to feed and house despite horriffic acts against innocents....I could not bring myself to argue with him, we'd speant the afternoon burying his only son...he had every right to hurt and maybe not think things all the way through. His boy had indeed been one of the bright and shiney stars in our future. And holding his mother's hand I could not help but see him as I think of him, not a handsome young man in uniform trying to look serious , but the 12 year old who came to flirt with my daughters and help with yard work...

The other counrties do not exactly have a rich history of stepping up to the plate and helping others unless there is a territory to aquire..that may be harsh,,,

Bonita of Bwana

The US is not perfect and we have made some mistakes but yes, if another country was superpower, they would be doing things and not necessarily any better than us. Great Britain is and has been a superpower. "The sun never sets on the British Empire." Emperor Constantine was a superpower. So was Nazi Germany, for a while.

Things is, diplomacy and foreign relations are necessary. And we need some way of gathering intelligence. And if we got out of Iraq tomorrow, it would return to the way it was before. OTOH, if we quit buying middle east oil, we take the financing away from terrorists.

This is a difficult question to anwser. I kown how I wish it were but also understand that if we do it that way we risk constant conflict.

 I do not think we should associate with dictators of any fashion, ever. I think we should become involved in issues where people are dieing instead of sitting and watching and doing nothing. Darfur, Rwanda, and past conflicts like WWII. I understand that to be the world's policeman is costly in both funds and lives but it has always seemed to me that we have an obligation to do so in defense of human life and freedom.

 IMO if I am driving down the road and I witness someone beating a woman or a child with a hammer, the woman or child is screaming and bloody, and I continue to drive, doing nothing, no call, no trying to run him over with my car, no shouts or horn blasts or gunshots, then I am as guilty as the one who is using the hammer.For me calling would not even be enough at that point, if a life is at risk I simply MUST do something!  I feel the same way in regards to our nation. I felt great shame about Rwanda, and Dafur, the entire world should have felt great shame as the murder of many rests on our heads, we had the means to interfere, we had the means to save many, and we did nothing. IMO much of the guilt is upon us because we did nothing.

IrishSetterGrl

we were and are criticized for that, but then in countries like Darfur and Sudan, we are criticized for not doing anything?

 This will always be true, and IMO we need to do what we believe is right and damn the voices who 

IrishSetterGrl

many countries think badly of the U.S. because of our mainly offensive foreign policies...but if other countries were in our position as the current world superpower, do you think they would do the same exact things we are doing?

 I think they hate us for more than our policies, and regardless of our policies. We need to get back to the reality of global politics. Nobody is our friend but ourselves. We have allies but no friends. That is how it is with nations. We fought Britian in the past and now they are our ally, we fought Germany in the past and now they are our ally, but in my opinion no sovereign nation should make the mistake of calling another a friend. Today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy.

 My way will never work, there is far to much greed in the world for it to, and to much selfishness, what is the gain by going to a place like Rwanda? The gain of the knowledge that you did the right thing, and that is about it. How many Americans are willing to sacrifice themselves or their sons to save some poor people in Rwanda?  What is the gain to come out with force and inform the Chinese that if they continue even one minute longer in Tawain we will announce the boycott of the Olympics and will use our influence to encourage everyone to follow us?  What would we gain by telling China we will not do buisness with them while they continue their human rights violations? We can stop imports, and stop exporting work for them but the cost in money would be great so we do buisness with them and try not to see what goes on.

 The poor General that was in Rwanda during the bloodbath called it "Shaking Hands with the Devil" and we and other countries do it every day in some fashion.

 "To whom much is given, of him much will be required.”

 There is no doubt that we in the US have been given much.

IrishSetterGrl

many countries think badly of the U.S. because of our mainly offensive foreign policies...

There are some countries that will never support the US what ever the foreign policy. However I certainly don't believe that any sovereign country, friend or ally, is in anyway bound to support the US if their policy runs counter to their own beliefs or self interests. Does refusing support or speaking up against certain US policies mean that we dislike or think badly of Americans? NO! Gosh, we don't even support many of our own gov't policies. Speaking as a Canadian, I value our relationship with US and I think for the most part it is mutually beneficial. I have not agreed with or supported several US policies but I draw a distinction between the American gov't and the American people. I think too often a countries people, be it Iranians, Chinese, Cubans, American, Canadian, whoever, are unjustly judged and characterized by the words and actions of the 'government of the day'. For the most part, all people want the same thing - peace & prosperity.

Speaking from a historical perspective, and I'll add my comments at the end. 

IrishSetterGrl

how much, if at all, should the U.S. intervene in international affairs?

At this point it is completely dependent upon what we get out of the deal.

IrishSetterGrl

Do we have a moral obligation to help less fortunate countries, countries being attacked internally or externally, etc.?

Again, it really depends what we gain in the deal. 

IrishSetterGrl

Should we be in an alliance with certain countries (think NATO, UN)?

If by "alliance" you mean under the persuasive and binding control: no.

IrishSetterGrl

Or should we just worry about ourselves?

We tried to be a separatist, closed border nation and it failed.

IrishSetterGrl

This isn't meant to sound selfish, but that there are too many problems in our country without adding those abroad...

 This country is known overseas as the "great shopping mall."  The problems here are much smaller, perspectively, than in loads of other countries.

IrishSetterGrl

All I'm going to say for now is that I think for the U.S. it is pretty much always a lose-lose situation in the eyes of many...we'll (and I mostly mean the U.S. government) be damned if we do intervene and damned if we don't. Think of the war in Iraq and Vietnam.....we were and are criticized for that, but then in countries like Darfur and Sudan, we are criticized for not doing anything?

Again, it's about gain, either economic or political.

IrishSetterGrl

Another question...many countries think badly of the U.S. because of our mainly offensive foreign policies...but if other countries were in our position as the current world superpower, do you think they would do the same exact things we are doing? Is it fair that certain nations despise us for intervening but would want us as an ally immediately should they fall under attack?

Historically, no.  Intervention is expensive and, in all reality, a stop gap measure that generally doesn't work.

Is it fair?  Not particularly but that is the way the world (and the UN) work.  It's easy to cast blame and even easier to ask for money.

My own personal belief is that the US's meddling in foriegn affairs is what started this war in Iraq to begin with.  You see, the US has performed all kinds of political games in the middle east.  We discredited a democratically elected leader in Iran back in the 50's.  Supplied Iraq with weapons in the 70's and 80's.  Supported Israel above all others since the 1940s.  Sent troops into Lebanon in the '70's. 

We meddle.  We think about short term goals.  (ie: "Our presence there should stabilize the price of oil-thus allowing our largest corporations to achieve record profits, which is good for the economy"...)  or, WRT Serbia/Bosnia/Herzgovina "We won't sell arms to one side just because the others have arms, that would be wrong.  It's better if we go in and take out Milosevic ourselves." 

Our negotiators and ambassadors don't have a clue as to how to negotiate.  We give too much too rapidly.  We make too many concessions, which end up making every instance of meddling a costly one. 

The US does need to concentrate on itself for a few years, however.  We need to stabilize our own currency by getting rid of the Federal Reserve System, stop letting our country be run by the military-industrial complex, and many other things that would help to revive the disappearing middle class.
 

if a country has a foreign policy - de facto or otherwise - that it is a right (note *A* right, not right as in fair or just, which is harder to assess) to invade a country simply because of dislike over what is happening there....or worse, claiming that it is because of what is happening there but is in fact a monetary decision.....then before deciding to support that decision to invade, each and every citizen of said country must ask themselves one very simple question:

How, exactly, are you going to feel when the balance of the world shifts and someone decides that they don't like the way the US or the UK is run.  Supporting the war in Iraq is not just about having rid the world of Saddam Hussein....it also means supporting the idea that a country is justified in invading another for the purpose of overthrowing the government.....even when the tables are turned and the government being overthrown is yours.  Now, that's a valid opinion, as valid as any other certainly, but every one of us (and yes, us, as a Brit I am in the same situation) needs to remember that if some country ever decides they don't like the way we run things here and that they can make it better. 
 

Benedict

if a country has a foreign policy - de facto or otherwise - that it is a right (note *A* right, not right as in fair or just, which is harder to assess) to invade a country simply because of dislike over what is happening there....or worse, claiming that it is because of what is happening there but is in fact a monetary decision.....then before deciding to support that decision to invade, each and every citizen of said country must ask themselves one very simple question:

How, exactly, are you going to feel when the balance of the world shifts and someone decides that they don't like the way the US or the UK is run.  Supporting the war in Iraq is not just about having rid the world of Saddam Hussein....it also means supporting the idea that a country is justified in invading another for the purpose of overthrowing the government.....even when the tables are turned and the government being overthrown is yours.  Now, that's a valid opinion, as valid as any other certainly, but every one of us (and yes, us, as a Brit I am in the same situation) needs to remember that if some country ever decides they don't like the way we run things here and that they can make it better. 
 

Even moreso it is an affront to individual government by imposing democratic (in name) processes, simply because "the powers that be" have capriciously decreed them better.

Xerxes

Even moreso it is an affront to individual government by imposing democratic (in name) processes, simply because "the powers that be" have capriciously decreed them better.

Absolutely.  I would go so far as to say that it is impossible for "the powers that be" to even base that decree on an ubiquitous "moral obligation" since morals are both individual and do not lend themselves to black & white principles of right and wrong, a moral is not a fact.  Most people in our societies are likely to be morally against cannibalism, but that doesn't mean we are right and the cultures for whom it is or has been the norm are wrong.  Invading a country on the basis of "moral obligation" is, at the most basic level, only saying "our feeling on this matters more than yours does", and that is IF - and it's a big if - the "our" in that statement truly feel what they are doing is right.  Take this forum as an example - even those of us ostensibly on the same side of an issue will argue vehemently on the finer points.  The idea that every member of even one political party or governing body all have the same morals right to the nth degree is frankly laughable, which means that there are people who have gone along with these decisions to go to war for reasons more to do with their own personal or political agenda than the "saving a country from itself" that they are claiming to do.  Even if basing a war on a moral obligation was both justified and possible, which I don't believe, I'd at least like those claiming to be doing it for those reasons to be actually doing it for those reasons.  Since none of those things apply, IMHO, all credibility is gone. 

Benedict

Even if basing a war on a moral obligation was both justified and possible, which I don't believe, I'd at least like those claiming to be doing it for those reasons to be actually doing it for those reasons.  Since none of those things apply, IMHO, all credibility is gone. 

 I have to agree with you on this one. I supported the war in Iraq and I still believe we should finish it, even though there have been many mistakes in the executing of it. But if we really went over there to save all the people from the evil dictator who was killing them and placing them into mass graves then why have we not gone to the Sudan? To Dafur? To Rwanda? To Tibet?

 I hate when we (US Goverment)try and sell it as a humanitarian process. That is only icing on the cake, we did not go there to free the Iraqi people, we went their for our own reasons and freeing Iraq is a fringe benefit of going. If we really cared about saving people from evil dictators there are many places we could have went that needed saving far more than Iraq.

Well said, denise.

I only lived in America for 6 months, and only in LA, but it was long enough to get a vague idea of what I liked and didn't like about it. I mean, there are some things about America in general that I find quite offensive and apalling, but there are some things about my own country I find offensive and apalling. And the things I found hard to reconcile myself with in America were things I took for granted in my own country. I would expect Americans in Australia to feel the same way.

Australia is not and never will be a super power, and we're so isolated that we have the luxury of not really needing to care very much what other countries are doing. Our isolation alone does a fair bit to protect us. Nonetheless, we have a lot of the same dilemmas that America does when it comes to aid. I don't think many Australians wanted our troops in Iraq or particularly cared about the political benefits in helping out that the prime minister of the time saw. Our relations with some of our neighbouring countries are not too hot, and in some cases there are very little benefits in intervening when trouble brews and innocent people are getting hurt. The government often sends token aid and gets dissed by some for not sending enough. That's the nature of politics. I don't think it changes whether you're a super power or not, it's just that more people are watching when you're a super power, and more people looking to discredit you.

When I was in America I remember there were the Korean missile tests. It made me realise that America has to care very much about these things because of where they are and the number of people that have to be looked after and kept safe. In a way, America is quite vulnerable, because they have so very much to lose, and the people expect a lot. I felt very fortunate I'd grown up in a country rarely worth taking a second look at. 

IrishSetterGrl

 Another question...many countries think badly of the U.S. because of our mainly offensive foreign policies...but if other countries were in our position as the current world superpower, do you think they would do the same exact things we are doing? Is it fair that certain nations despise us for intervening but would want us as an ally immediately should they fall under attack?

I think these are fair questions.  It's easy to look at what other countries do...but the USA is unique considering it's size, diversity of people AND landscape, and the fact that we border third world/developing countries.

Honestly, I don't think I know enough about economics, international law, and foreign policy (all subjects I typically avoid) to make any sort of educated opinion.

As far as social issues and standards of living, I generally accept the Human Development Index as a pretty decent ranking:

2007/2008 Top 20

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France
11. Finland
12. United States
13. Spain
14. Denmark
15. Austria
16. United Kingdom
17. Belgium
18. Luxembourg
19. New Zealand
20. Italy

Just something to think about...
 

corvus

I felt very fortunate I'd grown up in a country rarely worth taking a second look at. 

I hear you Corvus, Canada tends to get over looked as well and although it can be a little hard on ones ego it does take the pressure off.  

The US status as a world Superpower is contingent on maintaining the present world balance. No country can stand alone in isolation and be a Superpower. It has to have more of the world standing behind it than standing against it. That is where foreign policy and foreign aid become vital. If countries are allowed to crash and burn they become desperate and vulnerable to unknown leadership that may shift their alliance. If it happens in enough areas it creates a shift in world power balance. If it shifts far enough - well hold on to your hat!

I think we can already see the emergence of China and India into the Superpower realm. It is interesting to note who is standing behind them and who potentially may be prepared change sides. China is not at present known for dishing out $$ in foreign aid but when they do they will certainly be steeping up another rung on the Superpower ladder.           

Liesje

... and the fact that we border third world/developing countries.

Are you referring to Canada? LOL!

That's cute.

Actually, Mexico used to be a 3rd world country. But they have industrialized through NAFTA. Many of the materials I use are now made in Mexico. A number of american vehicles, such as Dodge superduty pick-up trucks are made in Mexico. This is what killed the union and took the industry out of Michigan. Labor is a 1/3 of the cost in Mexico. But it also costs american jobs. When NAFTA first allowed american companies to set up in Mexico, places like Flint, MI became a place where the only people working were the sheriff and constables serving eviction notices to former UAW autoworkers who could no longer afford to pay the mortgages.