Should the US form an alliance with  Western Hemisphere countries  - similar to the EU.?
365512
No, we already do too much for all the other countries in this hemisphere. It all started with the Monroe Doctrine... we're kind of like the friend who always picks up the check for losers who don't appreciate it. Who needs that?
106762
The current relationship between Poland and the U.S. is better than it has ever been.  Poland and the U.S. are close allies.
487646
no i dont think so ,i think it is amessage to other countries , which means 2 be with us or against us
1138263
Without Britain, America's staunchest ally in Europe becomes Poland.\n\nIf Britain were to join the EU, America would be up in arms.\n\nAt the UN, Britain regularly sides with the US, and can help convince other countries who don't like America and wouldn't side with America to at least side with Britain.\n\nSo, in terms of strategic diplomacy and global influence, Britain is very beneficial to America.
1081296
The US basically started the UN!  The US pushed for other countries to join the UN during the Cold War and now must accept what it has helped implement.  Can you Neocon Conspiracy theorists get over yourselves?  The UN is not a demonic institution that was prophasized in the "Bible" or a creation of the former Soviet Bloc countries!  Geez...
1158134
How what works, the world? I doubt it although they may have united to become the EU there is no sense of common history or common cause. I don't see too much cooperation in the EU.
781085
The chances are extremely remote. Very soon, Canada will not be its own nation, as it will be a part of the North American Union\n\nNorth American Union to Replace the USA? by Jerome R. Corsi\nBush Administration Advances on Path of Creating North American Union ... President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, ...\nhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
259514
No, as Canada is becoming progressively more moderate/conservative (see the election of Steven Harper), it's ties with the US through Bush should only become more friendly.\n\nHeh, unless the US decides to go nuts and bomb everyone.
108875
Realistically, I would say China looks like a good bet. I want it to be America, but I would be lying if I said that China won't eventually surpase the US.
535051
The US is the leader in presenting so-called "trade agreements" but ones that are designed to create low wage, low growth, high profit futures for corporations only (which destroys economies and people's lives) Poeple want they policy that is directed towards a high growth, high wage, more egalitarian forms of international integration.  The US blocks that always and installs their corporate agreements.  Trade agreements such as the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) locks in the power of Wall Street, eliminates tariffs and duties on trade, but also by dramatically strengthening the economic and political leverage of major corporations, and forces people to give up control over thier own affairs.  This is why the EU and the Latin American countries are lining up to oppose the US's role in the globalization situation.\n\nHowever, globalization is not all bad, the people of the US are being introduced to fair globalization with "immigrants rights" and international solidarity becoming major issues in the country.  This opening up of isolated markets with agreements also opens up society to the concerns of all people of the world, we care much more about Palestine, Venezuela, Mexico than ever before.  We are becoming international citizens which is a good thing.  \n\nThe challenge ahead will be to build the organizations and politics that can bring the necessary change from below to combat US intervantions which harm our fellow international brothers and sisters.
24158
Good question.  It may sound nice to unite with our neighbors, but it's hard to see many advantages to doing that over just expanding NAFTA.  Language, culture, and national identity are strong incentives for most nations to go it alone.\n\nFor America, eliminating the border with Mexico would mean increasing the flow of poorer migrants into western and southwestern states and possibly exposing the nation to terrorists who may slip in through Central America.\n\nFor Canada, it would mean sacrificing its national identity and independence, and subjugating itself to the will of its bigger and meaner neighbor.  And what about its free healthcare system?\n\nIt's not easy to merge democracies.  The EU is moving in that direction, but it's struggling with issues of accepting its poorer Eastern European neighbors, and it can't even agree on a single Constitution.
349707
Yeah... I think you will see movements in that direction for many contenents... the African Union is in talks... but how knows if that will happen.\nI think it would be better for them because no one country has the infastruture to be very competitve in a global economy, but together they could make waves and get some things done
475094
Bush government may attack to Iran(an attack to Syria is also within possibilities) or support the attack of Israel. But I don’t think that it is going to be within one year at least since USA may have some trouble in its backyard within forthcoming months. Brazil-China relations become closer. There is already a tension with Venezuela. There will be elections in around 10 South-America countries in 2006. At the end of this year, USA may have other Chavezes to deal with. USA is already in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is risky to attack not only Iran but any other country before having stability in the backyard. \n\nYou may look over the following link to see whats going there.\nAnalysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm
943796
International Diplomacy....getting European and Arab countries More involved by forming a coalition (Ala desert storm)....Europe and all these other Arab countries have way more to loose than America (terrorism wise).  It would be in all of their respective best interests in the long haul to stomp out the chaos of the growing civil unrest going on now....if USA just pulls out....terrorists AND IRAN will move right in....This is no longer about America vs Iraqi insurgency....it's total global situation now!
1097460
Hey gokart.  The reason why America is expected to solve Mexico's and everybody else's problems is simply because, for better or worse,  we've been sending economic aid to nations throughout the globe since the end of WWII and the world has become dependent on us to continue to do so because they have neither the ability or desire to solve the problems of their own citizens. Also, since the US has always been so generous by allowing tens/hundreds of thousands of people to immigrate here legally each year, leaders of other nations have relied (and continue to rely on)on the US as a convenient way to rid themselves of many of their most economically and politically desperate citizens who, often, would become the greatest threat to the control and power enjoyed by these leaders. While the US was left largely unscathed at the end of the war, and emerged as the great economic and political superpower and as a beacon of freedom and prosperity, the economies of both our former enemies and allies alike were left crippled.  Rather than allow the economies of other nations to suffer as they had after the first world war, America felt it was politically, morally and economically critical to help both former friend and foe to rebuild (just look at Japan and Germany) in order to break the cycle of global economic depression which helped push the Germans to support Hitler and into war.  In addition, when the Soviet Union rose as a political/economic/military rival following the war, the US(and their democratic allies) also thought it critical to provide economic support to various third world nations that preached democracy (although many of these nations were, in fact, ruled as dictatorships) in order to fight the spread of communism/socialism which was pereived as a grave threat to democratically elected governments.  Since the Soviet Union disintegrated and left the US as the only (current) superpower remaining, many of our former allies who depended on us for military and economic support now regard us as imperialistic bullies now that the Soviet political threat has vanished; with the current political vacuum of no American rival (although China is clearly getting there quickly), it is now almost universally en vogue to claim American imperialism and to be anti-American even among many of our closest former allies who were dependent on us to help them re-build their countries (France? Germany?).  Even now, though we certainly aren't required to and many of our political motivations for doing so are gone,and despite hostility abroad, the US still tries to be a beacon of morality by offering economic aid to nations across the globe and we are rewarded with increasing anti-American sentiment.  Latin American nations and Mexico, in particular, present a unique set of relationships.  As said previously, the US supported many third world Latin American nations(Panama, Nicaragua) militarily, economically and politically without any accountability by the leaders we aided following WWII due to the great fear Americans had that communism would spread to their hemisphere and their backdoor (look at Cuba); many of the nations/leaders we supported in third world countries across the world were nothing more than military strong men/dictators who took our aid and did nothing to benefit their people and these nations are still suffering and blame the US as a result.  Mexico, on the other hand, never was involved in WWII and, like the US, emerged unscathed - however decades of corruption and mismanagement by their political leaders and wealthy elite has also put economic pressure on the average Mexican citizen.  Rather than demand and fight for political and economic reform in their homelands, many Latinos simply found it easier to go to the US-whether its through legal immigration channels or not-for better economic, political and social conditions.  The people trying to come to the US have no will or ability to demand changes at home;
338892
It's the other way around - the USA is part of the UN.
759793
I would seek open, internationaaly monitorred dialogue with those who oppose the US, to see what it is that they really want, and need. The US is now in the position to play Santa Claus to the world. While we may not give what they want, we may be able to help with what they need, and in turn get some folks off of our backs. A good portion of the problem s we see, today, come from negligence, whether intentional or not. Others come as a result of politics from before most of our times. \n\nAn invitation to a no-strings-attached summit would put the onus upon our detractors, and place the US back where it belongs. The place of a well to do neighbor, who can help their community. Of course, that comes with the understanding that in a community of nations we become symbiotic with one another. Those who want to be outside of that know where the door is.