Do you think the USA policy helps the world peace or making it worse?
363595
Well, \nA. they aren't hornets,they're people... but of course your a conservative, and no one is actually a person to you unless they are white and rich.. hahahah\nB. I think we've done some good things... I mean Saddam was a bad guy... granted... we give quite a bit of money to needy countries... probably not half as much as U.S. corporations pillage.. but still... you said policy... not overall... \nI personally think it's in the application... good ideas at times... horribly executed... it seems like Bush thinks everyone was raised in Texas with his values and beliefs... and he gets confused when other people react differently to a situation than he does... everyone's not the same... that doesn't make them bad or stupid, you just have to see things through their eyes... which we have done an extremely poor job of.
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.
371943
No, I think a much larger and the main reason why the world dislikes the U.S.A. is because we have a free society that is a challenge to continuously downplay in favor of their own system.\n\nI also believe that a far greater undermining of our country is done by people who don't know the difference between sedition and dissent.  I can disagree with President Bush's policies and decisions, and present evidence for why.\nI can also undermine my own country by calling him names and spreading rumors.
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
1187397
Same old answer - America seeks to dictate world policy instead of lead.  The stance is always all countries should support americas wars, policies and desires because it is in Americas interest.    Much of the time it is in the worlds interest but Bush simply does not seem to be able to articulate this.\n\nAs Americas influence continues to wain and China and Russia continue to prosper they are learning how to discuss and debate with other countries and are respected for it.  They will therefore grow to have more and more influence as America loses it's influence.\n\nSo yes - maybe Bush is leading america into the boondocks.\n\nAmericas economy is forecast to take another dive shortly and the American leadership needs to start talking to other countries on an equal footing.\n\nIran and Korea are another matter entirely.  Could you contemplate either country getting a nuke and not using it?  That really is a world problem that America/Bush needs to talk to other countries and learn leadership rather than trying to dictate or it could turn nuclear.
73075
I think we're seeing the trend to the opposite  because so much of the world see's the U.S. that way.  And, the U.S. citizens are not the least bit happy about being seen that way.  If we wanted to rule the world we'd probably go ahead and become aggressive toward the whole world.  Unfortunately we're wrapped up in situations like Iraq only because we made the mistake of getting involved with the middle east after world war II.  Now we're so involved we can't get out without the middle east self destructing.  We can't leave or Israel would be a parking lot. So it's those things that keep us policing the world while we all hope in vain that the U.N. will start filling it's purpose.
701723
Yes. Bush further destabilized one of the most important regions on the planet. Big time. And the Middle East will stay in chaos for decades. Until we leave and the Iranians with their nuke take control of the region.\n\nThe dumbest unilateral US foreign policy move ever. And we ain't seen nothin yet.
155944
America wants to dominate the world with no limits!\nIt's correct about the wars in our lands that made us hate American policy, and I think no one like to have a war in his region Also you!  But we don't hate Christians or their beliefs.
1109497
Sadly, I don't think the U.S. has an official position on the situation in the Congo.  In some respects, it is understandable that other areas would gain our focus right now, but I think our foreign policy has suffered recently, because of that.
1069600
The US HAD an isolationist policy before we were dragged into WWII. I don't think our isolation in the 1930's bought us much happiness or kept us out of what was going on in the world.\n\nSome would say our reluctance made our eventual enemies BOLDER and created a bigger mess to eventually clean up.\n\nI think we should directly deal with threats to our security. The UN can be utilized for "policing" the other troubled spots.
1079719
Yes and no. Yes because either criticism or slamming U.S. foreign policy is seen as a one way ticket to sitting with the radical left. No, Americans tend to overcome their sensitivity with humor or do not care much for different point of views. It seems everyone tends to walk on eggshells now a days.
861289
The situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating quite rapidly. Human rights abuses are rampant, and the country's economy is like a drain. That said, change will happen sooner rather than later. Remember, Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe is significantly older than Saddam Hussein was at the same point in his country's deterioration. Seriously, the man's 82. \n\nSecond, the US has a longstanding policy of non-interference in Africa; especially following the debacle in Somalia during the Clinton administration. Should we as a moral nation help Zimbabwe? Yes. Should we help Darfur? Yes. Should we have prevented a genocide in Rwanda that killed 10 million? Definitely. Will we? Sadly, no. Even if American voters could stomach the loss of American lives and cost of war to fight those battles (and to those who say we do now with Iraq, I point to the events of the recent midterm election), our military is so stretched thin and overwhelemed, we'd likely create an even bigger nightmare than already exists. \n\nSad, but true.
547748
Yes!!Take a closer look!! Through economics or politics, the U.S.already controls the world.Anyone who speaks out against them( Bush Administration)-France,Iraq,Iran,Venezuela-face invasion or some other form of retaliation. China is being courted,Cuba is being paid,Mexico has the illegal immigrant thing going on and there is no balance of power left. It would take the other countries banding together to stop this and they are kept distracted with internal turmoil or an unwillingness to put aside their long standing differences.What was your question again??Peace.
1064395
Giving Palestine to the Jews after WW2, was a mistake, hasn't worked out, and should be recognised as such.\n\nThe policy of the USA leaders isn't helping matters, without their support peace will never be possible.\n\nWe need a revolution in the USA first before anything else can happen\nHopefully with the increasing national debt, dependency on and shortage of oil, and the worsening living standards of poor Americans ,the revolution wont be far off
1157863
US is the only country with military presence in most part of the world. And, US has been the cause of most of the problems in the world.\n\nLook at Afghanisthan - developing the Taliban to topple Soviets, look at Iran - supporting Islamists (Iran Contra affair, other deals) to topple the Shah; funding Saudi Arabia so that they can spread their wahhabbi madrassas, and train millions of jihadists; American companies and CIA causing such destruction in South America, including toppling elected government, that the whole region is now electing communist/ socialist presidents.\n\nIn our kindergarten, we were taught - You spill the milk, you mop the floor.\n\nSo, US has to mop the floor, all over the world, whether it likes to or not. Else, all this will get even worse.
198873
I believe that the foreign policy of his administration, their policy of pre-emptive war and their economics are dangerous to Americans and the world.  I also believe that this administration, though seemingly incompetent, is very aware of what their actions bring to the rest of the world.
942866
Certainly not.\n\nForce can be used and will be used for everthing, by the people who can use it.\n\nto keep the "global order" we are used to see, there's need of total control over our lifes, and all the violence needed to exterminate de threats against that order.\n\nyou may think by now we must have learnt something from our deads, from our wars, from the results of our own cruelty.\nwell, i can see clearly all people talking about peace has been always, in all countries, killed.\n\nso, the only "effective way" is to have more exterminating power. \nand control. check this up: \nhttp://www.lanacion.com.ar/exterior/nota.asp?nota_id=855347&origen=ranking