Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (4944)	3/4/2003 6:04:59 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Still the US is likely to be better than anyone else would be in the role Before witnessing the change in US foreign policy over the course of the past year, I would be the first to argue in the favor of this statement. As I said before, it is not so clear to non-Americans anymore. I am sure you see the signs of this change in perception. ... except maybe the Brits. Their empire seems like it was normally a little more civilized than most. Is that why settlers in America decided not to stay as subjects of the British Empire? :-) How do you check a superpower unless it is willing? Balancing its power by a union of other countries. There was one thing that previous US administrations understood well - US status as leader of the free world will be unchallenged so long as its power and position is perceived to be legitimate. That is, the US needs other countries to AGREE TO its supremacy to last in this position. As I said before, this was no problem prior to the Bush administration - US led by example, and was the benevolent giant who was consistent in its principles. Now there is a lot of bullying, little respect for international treaties, and progressively increasing aggressiveness. I am pretty sure you do not agree with some, if not all, of these statements, but this is how most of the world perceives the US at this point in time. not have the other members [of the UN] actively working against it for the sheer sake of spite. I urge you to consider that it is near-impossible for so many countries to simultaneously have leaders so incompetent as to let "sheer spite" guide their foreign policy. My understanding is that there is a reason why they are opposing the US initiative for war, and it is not "spite". The problem with laws which depend on everyone agreeing to abide by them is that everyone won't abide by them. Therefore, laws have to be enforced by someone in order to be effective. Not necessarily "someone". In a group where there is no specialization (i.e. group of sovereign countries with equal rights), a law is enforced just as well if every country knows that if it does not obey it, all other countries will turn against it and it will be toast.