U.S. Foreign Policy

[CheViveToday]

I'm glad our [U.S.] president has to read off cue cards, and can't even do that well, and by glad I mean horrified. I'm ecstatic that he uses the same exact words and phrases when talking about the Colombia catastrophe, September 11th, Terrorism, Iraq, and probably football. By ecstatic I mean angered. I'm not a foreign policy expert, hell, I don't know anything about it. But I believe that if the U.S. withdrew troops from the Middle East, and left them the hell alone, people wouldn't have the desire to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. That's just my suggestion to George W. Bush if he's reading this....I mean, if he can in fact read.

[Weatherman]

Bush knows that will work, but he wants the oil for himself (and some for the country too). His family owns Texaco and they started building pipelines as soon as they took over in Afghanistan. Mass oil was discovered in the Caspian sea recently, having Afghanistan gave them the opportunity to get it.

[ComradeJunichi]

Maybe, instead of attacking Bush with the same anti-american rhetoric, we should actually study and research on the history and present issues of US Foreign Policy. CheViveToday, like you said you know nothing about US Foreign Policy...ugh I have to go to the next class.

[sin miedo]

Many of the gov'ts in these middle eastern countries don't want the U.S. to leave, i.e., Saudi Arabia. No matter how much rhetoric they spew forth about how Bush is just trying to build a U.S. empire, the princes in charge will never actually ask for the U.S. military presence to leave. The presence of U.S forces is the only thing 'legitimizing' many of these corrupt, authoritarian governments.

[Revolution Hero]

I see that you all concentrated on the future war, talking about US foreign policy. But if you look at this policy as a whole, then you wouldn’t be surprised when you hear that US will attack (for example) Venezuela next.
US started its successful expansive march with so called “Louisiana purchase”, and then it legalized the expansion with Monroe Doctrine after that broke with the principles of the latter and expanded its influence outside American continent.
Imperialistic capital is not able to survive in the narrow boundaries of a single country. When we talk about US expansion, we mean the expansion of US capital abroad. It had already spread itself to the majority of modern countries and it wants to spread itself to the zones, which still do not depend on it.
Foreign policy of any imperialistic state is nothing but aggression, violence and oppression. The worst side of imperialism is that all these is made for the aim of gaining new resources, new markets, new labor force; therefore NEW PROFITS.

Talking about present moment, I would like to point out that US economy is still in recession period and this recession can evolve into a real crisis if usa don’t defeat Iraq. Iraq’s oil is the last hope of White House to restore American economy. So let’s hope Saddam will perform a good resistance. US economy will be destroyed anyway; let’s just hope it will be destroyed earlier…

[CheViveToday]

Sin Miedo, the Saudi Princes may not want the American Presence to leave, but I suspect their people do. Also, ComradeJunichi, your point is well taken, but attacking Bush is fun. Also, the foreign policy idea I was presenting, was to keep our presence out of the middle east. At least military presence. The U.N. did a study in 1999 and if the U.S. government cut it's yearly military spending by 20%, it could provide the basic needs [food, shelter, water, education] for EVERYONE, yes EVERYONE, in the world [I learned this from a cool guy named Ralph Nader]. I guess we should have a presence elsewhere, including the middle east, but providing help, not hasseling them. And when the people finally get fed up with their brutal dicators, they WILL overthrow them. It is bound to happen. I'm sure a leftist revolution would have happened long ago in the middle east, if it weren't for the region's strong religious presence. And if the middle easterners like their rulers, by all means, let them keep them. I'd also like to thank everyone for their feedback!

[sin miedo]

Yes, I did not mean the people. The people are gonna turn more toward extremism (Islamic) as the rulers begin to lose grip on their power. I do believe the U.S. needs to pull out of the Middle East and stop supporting (and creating) these Authoritarian dictatorships, but not because these leaders are crying about the U.S. infringing on their sovereignty publicly (while in private they plead for more $$ and support). The U.S. needs to demand these States reorganize into democracies and spend more money on helping to build infrastructure, sending medical doctors and help, and opening more cross sea universities while cracking down on fraudulent universities that claim a U.S. education while they rape the enrolee for all they're worth.

Also, Iran, to me anyway, seems like the place with the best chance to see a democratic revolution in the near future. Will the U.S. let this happen? No.

[CheViveToday]

If everyone can forget their anti-american woes for one day next year, vote NADER. Not a communist, more of a socialist, but frankly the best America can get when it comes to getting a extreme leftist in power. No he wont win, but if we get him 5% of the popular vote, his party will get national funding. He got 3% in 2000 which I believe was over 5 million votes.

[sin miedo]

I agree wholeheartedly.