What if?.. (American isolation thread)

[vikiradTG2007]

That monkey of a man

Best ever description of G.W.B.

 

[h-p]

http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/home/2008/08/when-it-comes-t.html

"Imagine you were captured by terrorists and rescued by trooops from a foreign country. If you had the choice which of these countries troops would you most want to be rescued by?"



What a great poll.

 

[Peter3hg]

"Imagine you were captured by terrorists and rescued by trooops from a foreign country. If you had the choice which of these countries troops would you most want to be rescued by?"



What a great poll.

It's stupid how they are trying to use that to show how much America is liked when they have used such a biased bunch of countries for the survey.

 

[anti-net]

It's stupid how they are trying to use that to show how much America is liked when they have used such a biased bunch of countries for the survey.

Its not just that, its a silly question about terrorism, how many people would be in that position in there life?

Also I'd go the French, the GIGN train other special forces how to free hostages from aircraft. But they'd properly be late, so maybe the Germans would be a better bet

But not the British, they'd be to busy filling out Health And Safety forms to free you

 

[Jay]

I

British people don't _hate_ Americans but they aren't happy with some serious foreign policy mainly in dealing with Iraq

You in the UK cannot hear this enough from me, or from MANY people in the U.S.: We thank you very much for being there with us in the Iraq war, and your countrymen who have died there. We really are grateful, even if some may not express it.

 

[Quiky]

Like it was OUR choice to begin with to invade another country-- NO, it was our Politicians who decided it. So hating the people of our country because of the actions of these OLD GEEZERS IN OFFICE is just ridiculous.

 

[tigger]

Yep, but the rest of the world lived fine without US imperialism.

You're missing the point. Spreading 'imperialism' is not the worst possible outcome of a Cold War. Hell, that actually stabilizes international politics by creating two separate axis of power. No, the thing to worry about is nuclear war. Launch enough nukes, and you don't even have to be anywhere near ground zero to contract radiation poisoning. Short of nuclear war, there's always all those wonderful little proxy wars that spring up and are intensified by support from the Cold War players. Wanting another Cold War is just pure ignorance.

 

[SuperStalin]

I sincerely doubt that people from USA and Russia are dumb enough to launch a nuclear war against eachother.

As for the proxy wars, of course they aren't desirable, but was there less fightning and suffering in the world
since USSR collapsed? Well, no. Not really.

 

[Firecat]

I think this falls within the topic....

Should the U.S. continue providing foreign/military aid? Each year it amounts to 10's of billions. What is the payoff? A lot of times this aid doesn't even reach those that need it while others get rich off it, what are the alternatives to help developing nations?

Are those that are against domestic social programs against foreign aid? I'd assume one would support foreign aid because unlike in the United States, opportunity doesn't exist.

It was several decades ago that developed nations pledged giving a certain percentage of GNI to developing nations, yet no country has met this promise....

Just thinking out loud......

 

[tigger]

Should the U.S. continue providing foreign/military aid? Each year it amounts to 10's of billions. What is the payoff? A lot of times this aid doesn't even reach those that need it while others get rich off it, what are the alternatives to help developing nations?

I think there's a distinction to be made between providing military and humanitarian aid. I've got no problem with humanitarian aid, so long as it's going to those who really need it. Military aid though (whether covert or not, or just sending a check) I'm not so ready to support. The payoff of spreading our armies around the globe is supposedly stabilization and relative peace, but I just don't know. There's plenty going on now that shoots holes in that argument.

 

[optimusprime]

Should the U.S. continue providing foreign/military aid? Each year it amounts to 10's of billions. What is the payoff? A lot of times this aid doesn't even reach those that need it while others get rich off it, what are the alternatives to help developing nations?

Theoretically, we should cut aid drastically. Practically, politicians don't have the stones to do it.