Is the USA a big bully these days?

debrewguy wrote: As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???

That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States.

As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.

This is a sad thing going on - nobody seems to like USA in Ukraine, everybody HATES the whole nation , forgetting that there are no nations, there are SEPARATE men. It's the same thing as never eat any food because of untasty thing you once had eaten. This is stupid.

But I have to agree - while Bush represents USA as a state, they will be hated. I despise this jerk, he's simply ridiculous. Besides his government supports our president, who's even more a$sy than Bush.

BTW, what "Dubya" means? Where has it come from?

As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???

Sean Trane wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.   I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentions, but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions.   Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit.  But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Logan wrote: Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy).  Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high.  But I don't want to digress too much. I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies).  Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols. It's economic as well as military policy.   While I don't think the U.S. should be bound by any international laws or protocol, I don't agree with preemptive war. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and unamerican.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.

Yes.

StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: JJLehto wrote: Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world   as much as we rule it economically.   We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening.   The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer.   Let's be realistic.  Can the US cut itself out of the global economy?  And if so, what is that great cost?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: JJLehto wrote: Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world   as much as we rule it economically.   We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening.   The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer.