Do you agree with hegemony as a tactic for our foreign policy?
142603
Global hegemony makes us a target from terrorism.  If you want more terrorist attacks, then by all means invade sovereign nations for no real reason.  However, if you actually want to keep our country safe, it's probably best to keep our heads down.
346144
Of course.  Goodness, we have plans for invading Canada!  We have plans for invading every country in the world, as does China, Russia, etc., if they're smart.\n\nContingency plans are part of being prepared for every way things might change.  Careless leaders wait until the emergency happens.\n\nThis is why I find the whole, "President Bush had plans to invade Iraq" argument so silly.  President Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.  So did Ford, Carter, Reagen, Nixon, etc.  Like I said.  Silly to try to "blame" President Bush for something so obviously a necessary part of government.\n\nWe won't do it.  We will not invade a nation that is sovereign.  We invaded Iraq because we had a cease-fire with them after they attacked us while we were defending Kuwait.  Iraq agreed to certain terms for the cease-fire, and after a decade, they kept breaking their agreement; we invaded.\n\nBut we don't invade sovereign nations.  Iran will have to do something stupid.  We might even encourage them: "Go ahead and hit me, feel free!"\n\nIsrael is a natural source of a pre-emptive attack.  We'll see.
776653
Yeah, lets just let the warmongers of other countries build up and invade unchecked. I am sure they will leave us alone if we had no military. You are just a genius aren't you.
465670
Agree on the tactics that the US implemented in THe Viet war >no\n\nAgree on the overtaking of SAigon by VietCOng> No\n\nAgree on North Vietnam breaking the Geneva conventions > The VietCong Did and yes\n\nIm not sure. Your question is too open ended, try narrowing down the range for people to give more efficient answers
901797
Are you suggesting that we change our foreign policy to satisfy Islamofacist terrorists??????????????????\n\nTheir hatred for us is irrational. It makes very little sense to try to understand their motivation.
872763
Yes.  The US adopted a "policy of containment" in the 1950's that became the basis of America's Cold War Strategy.  It was published in Foreign Policy magazine by a young writer, George Foster Kennan.   The policy of containment is also known as an "international embargo" which prevents other countries from trading with that country, thereby depressing the economy of a country.  The two-pronged strategy was quite public.\n\nAside from the Embargo, here's the second part:\n\nThe US would build dangerous weapons and a formidable military and then threaten certain countries it it -- USSR, N. Korea, Cuba and others-- to the point that those countries would spend all of it's money to do the same thing and threaten the US back.\n\nKennan knew that smaller countries with not a lot of capital would eventually fall if they spent so much money on weapons.  They knew the people would starve, then become angry and rebel against those governments.  \n\nIt worked like a charm for decades.  Everyone was kept at bay, but a lot of destruction and deaths happened because of this policy.\n\nA year before he died, George Foster Kennan said he regretted the day he published the article after seeing what the US had inflicted upon the world.\n\nNow that George Bush has been in power, he changed the strategy and became open about aggression.  He used 9/11 to openly attack 2 nations-- one that probably was not involved in 9/11 and another everyone knows for sure was not involved.\n\nAfghanistan for years could not be utilized by Bush's oil companies to build a pipeline to the other "stan" countries that were oil rich-- because of an international embargo against the Taliban leaders after the war that USSR lost.  (The US had given the Taliban the weapons)\n\nIraq was drenched in oil but also had an international embargo placed against it by George Bush's father.  So the Bush cabal decided that the only way to get around it was to commit wars and place in 2 new governments to be able to say -- Hey, Lookie, there's no need for embargos anymore!\n\nThe whole thing was a Stupid Ruse against the world and so it didn't work. The world was wise to it and turned its back on the US and a kind of "policy of containment" began to work AGAINST the US as the world found other ways to operate without the US. The US was spending too much money on the military, weapons, war and killing, and became for the first time, a Hated US government,. not much different from Israel.  \n\nAlso, hundreds of thousands of people in those two countries died, including the poor US soldiers, many of whom joined because they had no other options in America.  The curious part there is the US government didn't seem to care.\n\nNow the NEW US government will reconsider all of these faulty decisions and to get the country out of these problems, the Senators and leaders need to hear from people like you-- no matter your age-- who are asking questions.  This is a new "Consensus" government that wants to include the People.  Get involved by writing and going to your town meetings
1098022
Large standing armies,in the case of Kim ill.He would probably fold if we launched on him though.Until we can get our missile defense up a little better it is just too much of a risk to take.Besides as long as we can buy him cheaper than we can fight him we are better off.\nIn the case of China I think we are probably using the best possible strategy.Turn their economy toward capitalism and away from communism and we might wind up with one of the strongest allies we have ever had.\nThe sad part is none of this stuff works in the Mid-East.They have a different kind of mentality,like kamikazes.They value power and clever deceit,and if you have no will to use force they will never respect you.That's why they call us the paper tiger.
708719
Yes. \nMaybe we should just stop arming other countries and worry about ourselves.
436172
No.\n\nThe US can do it to itself.
827229
No kidding. If we were actually there to spread democracy I would try to answer this question. But we all know the real reason we invaded that country.
180011
It is the main reason for our foreign policy
189964
I would not, because in general I am against foreign wars.  Someone comes to attack us, of course we defend ourselves.  Otherwise, I prefer we stay out of trouble.\n\nBut what's Spain done lately?
478546
You are either with us are against us! you dont believe in that do you? thats the same line we've fallen for for centuries. stalin, mao, cheng, wassalib, hitler, poipot, melosovic, il & leone have all used that to commit terrible things while in power. heres another slogan for ya, 'those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit attrocities'.
737244
Not really. In fact, the current occupation of Iraq doesn't have anything to do with the reason we went over in the first place.\n\nWe're doing nothing more than baby-sitting the country, and acting as its local police force, while it's in the middle of a civil war. There is no evidence, none, that says anything we're doing there has any effect on global terrorism. It's purely politics and empire-building.
959027
Not in my book it isn't acceptable. We are not the world's keepers. I have no objection to a coalition of different countries and the United States being one of them in some of the world's hot spots when needed. However for the world to expect us to solve its problems...no way.
696075
we appologise for tryign to be the world police and evacuate our military presencse from any place that doesn't want us to be there. \nthen if any thing else happnes to us retaliate with a random nuclear missle strike in teh suspected location of the source. use surpluss military to gaurd airports and border.
488035
I would also have to agree.\nAlso it is presumbly part of a ploy in order to get Iran to operate in a way that is more acceptable to the West.