You are not expecting me to take you seriously, are you?
I don't see why not.. you expect everyone else to take you seriously, despite the difficulty we have in doing so..
And the reason many people ridicule you when you enter a discussion thread is because you constantly voice your discontent over US foreign or economic policy, YET PROVIDE NO CLEAR EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU WOULD DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
Everyone else "sticks their neck out" in articulating their belief as to how things should be, and you immediately chop their heads off by criticizing their view. But you somehow never risk your neck too any degree... finding it easier to criticize other's ideas, rather than presenting your own for challenge.
It is my impression that you believe the US should choose to withdraw and not participate in global economics or enterprise. That US money should not be used to defend or develop other nations, since we're only out to exploit them anyway. That US foreign policy should be one of non-engagement, granting tacit permission for other powers to assert their will in order to dominate others in their region.
Everything the US does with regard to foreign policy, you criticize. You certainly omit any exculpatory evidence that shows the positive influence US policy has had on other nations. When I tried to point out that US FP over the past 100 years has been towards forcing decolonization and free trade, you bring up examples from the 1800s to defend your view the US is imperialist.
Heck.. if I wanted to take that view with the rest of the world, I could claim Japan and England are still imperialist, Germany still Nazi, and Russia still communist....
One cannot change the past Raymond, thus one should not continue to pay the price for the sins of our forefathers. We can change the future, using the past as a guide in order to achieve better policy.
But you'll never achieve some utopian vision of what the world should be. The world is a nasty place ruled by mankind's emotions, greed, fear, and hope. If the US backs off and chooses not to participate in world affairs, or provide a stabilizing effect, it will just devolve back into greater chaos, resulting in the deaths of millions by the hand of extremists and genocidal dictators such as Pol Pot (China's underling).
I can handle criticisms of US policy mistakes so long as they framed in the context of what was the alternative. It's not like US FP is conducted in a void or without influence from other entities. For 40 years, USFP was guided by our fear of the Soviets and Chinese. Prior to that, Germany and Japan... Thus, if you're going to criticize US actions, it would behoove you to at least state that you have some understanding as to what the US was reacting against. Because anyone who has worked at the State Department can tell, much of USFP is reactive, not proactive.
Hawk |
