And you know, f**k the EU!

[Skroe]

"The world" is not behaving like the US. The world largely consists of third world countries that are quite busy trying to sort themselves out. The other, lucky, part of the world is either the EU, trying to be nice and not doing what took them 2000 years... you know, fucking up everyone else's day, Russia is being the US in red (or vice versa if you like to argue) and Asia is trying to figure out if they really want to play with the US/EU/Russia game or not. Do you see China or Russia do the shit the US does? Nope. Almost every veto in the security council was reasoned with "non interference in sovereign countries" by China and Russia. It is not the world doing this. It is almost exclusively the US thinking they can install their policy wherever they want.

This is ass-backwards. China and Russian non interference votes are about limiting the reach of US power rather than principle. Meanwhile, China is doing what in Africa? Attempting to do what in South east Asia? And Russia along it's perhiphery? Again, you're being hopelessly naive (and naked Anti-American) in your accusations.

Most countries by the way, don't matter. Even within NATO. Did you know that the US, France, Germany and UK have met semi-secretly, every few years, for sixty years to chart grand strategy for Europe? Because while NATO is important, some issues need to be dealt by the powerful and those who will do the heavy lifting, rather than purely democratically. The allies of course know this. They just choose to look the other way.

Here's an inside scoop into modern world politics: The Truman doctrine is outdated.

No. It's not. That is not the foreign policy consensus. Sorry. Your opinion is irrelevant.

And you will suffer for your behaviour like the Roman Empire did.

Baseless assertion. Meaningless emotive gesture.

You may not break apart (although hey, you're still a baby in country years), but you are collecting a quite impressive display of frowns the past decade or so.

Frustration coming through I see. I don't think you understand us at all, lol.

I remember the security conference in munich when the German foreign minister called Rumsfeld out on the US lying.

Clearly with lasting consequences.

What if that happens in the security council? You are losing credibility. And believe it or not, credibility is vital for a democracy trying to make the world a better place.

It's happened before. Nothing happened.

IAnd by opposing you by default I mean exactly the security council decisions

.

Security council is a tool, not an end.

Why did you have to go into Iraq with a "coalition of whatever"? Because they burned your ass with their vetoes and Germany didn't want to take part in the hostile invasion of a sovereign country.

.
Because we couldn't win the vote. So we did it any way.

That will happen a lot more often in the future.

And we will ignore you then too. And do it any way. You can watch us make you irrelevant.

If someone bombed the white house today with a plane, my instant reaction wouldn't be "let's go fuck up those Talibans" like I did in 2001, it would be "well, who didn't see THAT coming the way they behave..."

Wow that's a scumbag thing to say. With people like you, you are surprised we do what we do? Really? You just made my point with this you brilliant, brilliant man. We do what we do to defend ourselves from barbarians like you, to extend the Roman analogy.

There is a shift of perception, especially in the EU, and at some point you will feel the stick because of it.

The European elite following popular sentiment on more than just the controversial issue of the day hasn't happened... ever? Let's not forget, it is the European Union that held referendums on the Lisbon treaty, a 450 page document.

You brilliant people expect all what... 250 million eligible EU voters to actually read this 450 page "constitution" before voting on it? Democracy at work.

[axhed]

There is nothing forcing the U.S. to support someone who they don't believe capable. They do not believe Klitschko capable.

in other words, he flat out told them he wouldn't be their puppet.

[Skroe]

How is it relevant what the US troops refer to other troops as?

Many nations in that force have seen combat, and some US troops making the claim that only they do the fighting doesn't make their claim true.

It means, don't compare Libya and Afghanistan as if they have some kind of parity. Afghanistan is a hard case. Libya was not. Of course we've been in Afghanistan since 2001. It's been a hard problem to solve, and will be decades more before it is solved.

[Kalis]

Wow that's a scumbag thing to say. With people like you, you are surprised we do what we do? Really? You just made my point with this you brilliant, brilliant man. We do what we do to defend ourselves from barbarians like you, to extend the Roman analogy.

Why is someone stating that US foreign policy coming back to bite them in the arse is "a scumbag thing to say", yet saying that the US should be able to do what it wants in the world due to being powerful is acceptable?

Sounds like you think that bullying is acceptable, but the bullied one should feel bad about turning around and giving them a bloody nose.

[Skroe]

Do you even think before you post? You have just displayed the most undemocratic behaviour trying to justify US policy since... ever! You sound just like the worst kinds of non democrats the world has seen. Do you not learn from history? Just because you're dicks on the global stage doesn't mean nobody else has moral values and ethics. Yes, you are no better than Russia and China. Dubious achievement, if you ask me.

You do realize I am preaching, almost verbatin from the Realist Foreign Policy School of thought, which is the dominant international relations theory in the US today? Competitive self interests drive everything.

You're sitting here screaming "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" and the Realist school replies "I don't caaaaaaaaaaaaaaare".

[Kalis]

It means, don't compare Libya and Afghanistan as if they have some kind of parity. Afghanistan is a hard case. Libya was not. Of course we've been in Afghanistan since 2001. It's been a hard problem to solve, and will be decades more before it is solved.

The person who thought that going into Afghanistan was a good idea should be made to read up on their history. Even those who don't have to give a shit about public opinion at home have failed there.

[Deleted]

Wow that's a scumbag thing to say. With people like you, you are surprised we do what we do? Really? You just made my point with this you brilliant, brilliant man. We do what we do to defend ourselves from barbarians like you, to extend the Roman analogy.

I don't agree with the statement about not caring if the White house is bombed (but I would equally as much care if someone bombed the Kremlin), but I can tell you more and more people I know IRL are starting to think like that. Sure, you are the strongest military and (arguably) economic power in the World, but if we get to the point when the majority of the World, including your allies, start to think like that it won't be a very nice world for Americans to live in.

Also to continue with the same analogy, the way the Roman empire handled the barbarians has proved to be very successful.

[Bolson13]

You do realize I am preaching, almost verbatin from the Realist Foreign Policy School of thought, which is the dominant international relations theory in the US today? Competitive self interests drive everything.

You're sitting here screaming "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" and the Realist school replies "I don't caaaaaaaaaaaaaaare".

What the hell are you talking about lol. You call people attacking the US barbarians (get all emotional about it) but if you do it yourself then it is protecting your intrests. So a realist would realise that those you call barbarians are merely protecting their intrests. So in the end your all a bunch of barbarian terrorists serving only themselves in the world.

And lets face it, normal people (you know, the ones who scrape by while others in their countries profit from all those wars) aren't going to stand for that shit forever. I am pretty sure that the average Joe in the US is getting pretty tired of all these wars and they haven't even been that devastating to begin with.

[Skroe]

Why is someone stating that US foreign policy coming back to bite them in the arse is "a scumbag thing to say", yet saying that the US should be able to do what it wants in the world due to being powerful is acceptable?

Sounds like you think that bullying is acceptable, but the bullied one should feel bad about turning around and giving them a bloody nose.

No! I think there is limits of course. See what I just wrote above. The US is motivated by realist foreign policy for the most part, but simultaneously does take moral stands on things that matter on a certain scale (genocide for example, recently gay rights). There is nuance to any theory, and this is one of them. It is perfectly reasonable to what the US to have an assertive, sometimes shady, and self interested foreign policy, but simultaneously not want the Bundestag to be blown up or something.

If terrorists blew up the Bundestag, you know what I would say? "Our ally Germany, do you need our help? We know is who did it, do you want us to bomb them for you?"

All policy has limits. I wan't the US and EU to bring Ukraine into NATO to pretty much pen in Russia for good, but I would be appalled if Chechen rebels detonated a dirty bomb in Sochii, and if something like that did happen, we should offer our assistance. The key is that the strategy movements don't escalate above a certain scale.

The sentiment Slant expressed there with regards to a terrorist attack on the White House is outrageous. It's way beyond the appropriate scale. I don't fault him (although I think it's adorable) for wishing for US Foreign Policy setbacks. He is free to want that, unlikely as it is. But wanting something physically awful to happen like that is atrocious.

[Combatbutler]

Wow that's a scumbag thing to say. With people like you, you are surprised we do what we do? Really? You just made my point with this you brilliant, brilliant man. We do what we do to defend ourselves from barbarians like you, to extend the Roman analogy.

You are a realist and are surprised by this kind of answer? It is only natural to be honest, following a certain kind of policy can create sympathy,hate, apathy etc.

The decisions the US made in the last decades did not make them very popular, as such this mindset is nothing exceptional, you fostered it. If you meddle you must be prepared to be hated, my country for example does and I fully expect people to hate us for it.

Who plays with fire must be prepared to get burned.

[Skroe]

What the hell are you talking about lol. You call people attacking the US barbarians (get all emotional about it) but if you do it yourself then it is protecting your intrests.

Firstly, I was following a Roman analogy he started. Secondly, see above. It's an issue of scale.

So a realist would realise that those you call barbarians are merely protecting their intrests. So in the end your all a bunch of barbarian terrorists serving only themselves in the world.

A realist would say that. But they would not flinch from doing what it takes to contain the barbarians.

And lets face it, normal people (you know, the ones who scrape by while others in their countries profit from all those wars) aren't going to stand for that shit forever.

Pointless commentary without a shred of legitimacy. Why don't you threaten to hold your breath until we stop bombing our "puppet states" or something equally as ridiculous.

[Slant]

This is the most factually upside down thing I've read all week. So Greece, Portugal and Iceland cooking their books and having immense property bubbles, going back to the early 2000s is OUR fault. That's makes perfect sense.

By the way you aren't dealing with it properly. Austerity is supported by essentially no economists of repute.





You're really going to compare a country of 9 million along the Medditerranian Coast to Afghanistan, a country of 28 million in central asia that has been in Civil War since 1979? That's ridiculous. Do you know what Americans in Afghanistan call ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force)? They call it "I Saw Americans Fight". That's not me. That's them.





Developments you allowed to happen, because you didn't help the Orange Revolution consolidate itself like we trusted you to do. This could have been avoided, but you HOPED Russia wouldn't push back.

And look what it got you. You failed.




And you're wrong for saying that, because more malign forces than you or us are NEVER going to let them answer that question fairly. The Ukrainians can want whatever they like - Russia will never let the follow through with it without the US and EU blocking Russia from doing so, which our actions, and the ones you should have taken, do. Does it ensure Ukraine enters our bloc? Almost certainly. But better that than Russia's for them and for us. At least with us, there is some amount of choice, and they aren't bound to a totalitarian neighboring power.

Just for kicks and giggles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Greek_riots look at the right hand box, bullet point causes. Your housing crisis was really not helping anything at that time, so how about you learn to view things globally, instead of just from a US perspective? Then we can talk. And by the way, we are dealing with every crisis just fine. Longevity is the key phrase in Europe, we don't much fancy creating another bubble to fix the first bubble. But have fun printing your money and busting your budget on a yearly basis, that'll get you top ratings. Oh wait, Germany is ahead of you, aren't we... *waves shiny AAA rating*

As for the Ukraine, we didn't "allow" or "disallow" anything to happen. They are a democratic, sovereign country. International treaties and law dictates that we don't even have the fucking right to interfere in any way. When will that get into your head. Just because the US think they are above the law, doesn't make them right. It also doesn't always get them the desired results. Everything you touched in the past decade is a disaster followed up by years and years of international cooperation to fix the mess you created. Democracy isn't just a fancy propaganda word that you can toss in the general direction of Iran and hope they kowtow to you. It's an actual, political concept that needs certain rules, like heeding the people's opinion on how thingis should run. And guess what, after two world wars, Europe decided to try the legal way of doing things. So far, our track record is pretty fucking good. We have had the longest time of complete peacetime in Europe since the beginning of historic records. Who are you to tell us how to run our backyard?

About your last paragraph... I do realise that Americans tend to have a short attention span, but here's something I learned from history, especially contemporary history. People won't let themselves get pushed around forever. It just won't happen. Eventually someone will rise up and yell "No more!" just as they did in Ukraine before and as they are doing now. They are actually right now in the proper democratic process of self cleansing. And the EU view seems to be that we support them if they ask for it, but we don't motivate them. Even if Russia waltzes in and takes over the Ukraine, we can live with that. 50% of Russia's trade is with the EU, do you really think we actually care if we sell our cars to the Ukraine or to Russia? Fuck no... but we know for a fact, that you can't install an oppressive regime forever. The soviet union is just the most spectacular example of that. Eventually, humanity will win. The difference is that we have learned that lesson and your baby nation hasn't. So currently, your thinking politically is limited to 4 year terms. And your goal is to achieve whatever the current president thinks is hip and trendy within 4 years, because he sure as hell doesn't want anyone else to get the credit for his actions. Pop star culture in politics.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize I am preaching, almost verbatin from the Realist Foreign Policy School of thought, which is the dominant international relations theory in the US today? Competitive self interests drive everything.

You're sitting here screaming "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" and the Realist school replies "I don't caaaaaaaaaaaaaaare".

No, I'm actually sitting here screamingi "You may not care noooooow, but you will care lateeeeeeeeeeer" but again... short attention span in the US is a handicap that you have to deal with, not me. :P

[Bolson13]

A realist would say that. But they would not flinch from doing what it takes to contain the barbarians.

So basically you are saying that the US are just as much terrorists and you see that as a necessary evil?

Pointless commentary without a shred of legitimacy. Why don't you threaten to hold your breath until we stop bombing our "puppet states" or something equally as ridiculous.

Yeah, we saw that when the US was having its war in Vietnam. That went really well in the eyes of the average American.

[Slant]

The sentiment Slant expressed there with regards to a terrorist attack on the White House is outrageous. It's way beyond the appropriate scale. I don't fault him (although I think it's adorable) for wishing for US Foreign Policy setbacks. He is free to want that, unlikely as it is. But wanting something physically awful to happen like that is atrocious.

Actually, to clear it up here, I don't actually want the White House bombed. As far as gouvernmental buildings goes, it is up there in my personal top 3. What I'm trying to express is that just after Clinton in 2001, you had a horrible attack on your soil and I have never EVER seen the world react in such a unified way. Fuck yeah, let's go blow up some Talibans. Erm, not anymore, buddy. It would depend on the act of violence, but... right now I would stand with Russia and China and say "Um, no... let's see how it plays out without us."

You guys are irresponsible. If Cuba happened now, you'd be the trigger happy guys. I don't like that.

[Skroe]

You are a realist and are surprised by this kind of answer? It is only natural to be honest, following a certain kind of policy can create sympathy,hate, apathy etc.

The decisions the US made in the last decades did not make them very popular, as such this mindset is nothing exceptional, you fostered it. If you meddle you must be prepared to be hated, my country for example does and I fully expect people to hate us for it.

Who plays with fire must be prepared to get burned.

I'm shocked because although it is perfectly consistent with classical realism, modern American realism (really neorealism) as a matter of practice makes many exceptions. It's also extremely offensive to say someone wouldn't be outraged by such a blantantly terrible act.

And honestly, our popularity has never mattered. We should only ever do the right thing for ourselves, not the popular thing. We are prepared to be hated. It's been a good decade since Americans stopped asking "Why do they hate us". You know what is the intellectual strain increasingly among the American public the last couple of years in particular? In a word "fuck 'em".

I brought this up in the NSA thread, but maybe this is a better forum for it. That position, NSA spying on European citizens... this kind of thing is the fruit of what what should have been garden variety disappointment with us morphing into hatred, has led to. I would understand perfectly if Slant expressed is disappointment that our ideals and our actions are often so out of sync. It is disappointing (and necessary). But his words in post after post portray someone who really just wants to see American taken down a notch and get it's jaw and arm broken. That's unacceptable, given that, as a matter of realism, our alliance is incredibly mutually beneficial.

[Kalis]

The sentiment Slant expressed there with regards to a terrorist attack on the White House is outrageous. It's way beyond the appropriate scale.

Lots of people view US foreign policy as no better than terrorism.

I'm not of that opinion, I think they are just short sighted buffoons, but there are many around the world who don't see much difference between civilians dying in a terrorist strike and those dying whilst receiving "freedom".

[Skroe]

So basically you are saying that the US are just as much terrorists and you see that as a necessary evil?

The ends do justify the means.

Yeah, we saw that when the US was having its war in Vietnam. That went really well in the eyes of the average American.

Are you done yet? By the way whats this "we saw" stuff. Unless you're in your mid to late 50s, you never saw Vietnam.

[Bolson13]

The ends do justify the means.

Okay, glad we have cleared up that you support the US being a terrorist state and thus no better then the taliban. Further statements from you are therefore taken in this light.

Are you done yet? By the way whats this "we saw" stuff. Unless you're in your mid to late 50s, you never saw Vietnam.

Maybe take a literary class you muppet. We as in the world, society, the people, whatever you want to call it. Also, am I done yet? Why exactly? Because you cannot refute my point? Because I gave you an example which you asked for? Come on now.

[Slant]

I'm shocked because although it is perfectly consistent with classical realism, modern American realism (really neorealism) as a matter of practice makes many exceptions. It's also extremely offensive to say someone wouldn't be outraged by such a blantantly terrible act.

Hmm, I think you need some perspective here... check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...%80%93present)

Just saying, between 2001-2003 there are estimates ranging from 1k-3k (I will ignore the 20k claim, that would totally blow this out of proportion) civilian casualties resulting from collateral damage. Nobody talks about that. I don't even blame you, I agreed with the Afghanistan Taliban cleanup in light of possible future acts of terrorism, but don't go around being offended at people having a different perspective. Your country caused the loss a lot of people's lives for revenge and ideology and in the case of Iraq just for resources. Don't you fucking dare get offended that someone tells you to reap what you sow. It's your own damned faullt and it started with you and your CIA building the Taliban up in the first place. I'm all good with you playing the victim role, but we know you're not the innocent baby, so don't pretend you are.

Horrible acts are horrible, but please, respect the damage you're causing on a global scale.

[Skroe]

Lots of people view US foreign policy as no better than terrorism.

I'm not of that opinion, I think they are just short sighted buffoons, but there are many around the world who don't see much difference between civilians dying in a terrorist strike and those dying whilst receiving "freedom".

And their incredibly stupid for thinking that and we need to protect ourselves from those kinds of people.

And those people around the world? They're wrong too. Fun fact about Iraq. It's population in 2003 was 26 million. Today that 32 million. Factor in deaths from the war and natural causes and that's millions of Iraqis in the past 11 years who have never known the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

International opinion would have condemned them to be born into that, for the sake of, well what you say... dying whilst recieving "freedom". We can look no further than Syria or North Korea about enrenched despotic governments are. Something like the bleeding of Iraq was always going to happen, be it instigated by us, or by themselves. And I mentioned North Korea, because that alternative - that the despotic state is so strong it cannot be removed by it's people - is in my view even more likely. Either way you cut it, on the road to "freedom" people were going to die. They either would have died in 2003, or for all we know, a larger version of what is happening to Syria today.

I've always thought that international opinion on specific that issue with regards to American foreign policy was tremendously ignorant. Should Iraq have just rot as a totalitarian state? Should the world just have waited for it to disintegrate like Syria? There is no option where they doesn't end painfully for the Iraqi people.

At least with the United States doing it, billions of dollars and immense resources were spent trying to do it somewhat right (in intent, if not execution), which contrasts with Syria, which is looking at a post-war rebuilding and reconcillation that will utterly dwarf what Iraq faced, interestingly enough.

If Syria wasn't the way it is today, international opinion regarding the "cosnequences" of us bombing "freedom", as you put it would have more legitimacy. But we only have to look at Syria and see what has happened. Left to their own devices (with Russian help and direct Iranian intervention), more Syrians have died in the past two years as a direct consequence of war than died in Iraq in ten (if you go by Iraq body count). Clearly, the "American method" of clearing out the dictator, with a more definite solution, was less bloody.