Is American foreign policy an ethical one?
483693
You have to be more specific to get a "good" answer.  Your question is much too broad.
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
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.
285822
Is freedom considered ethical? Of course, personal definitions of freedom vary. Basic human rights for all, including humane treatment of animals. I think American society is just like any other in that we all have our own ethics and values. Even in nations without freedom, their is surely a difference in opinion whether spoken or not.\n\nIs it possible you are confusing religion with ethics? Not all ethics are religious. America is home to many religions so we do not all have the same belief system. I think in general we believe in living without taking others rights away - except for the extreme christian-conservatives who do want to take away certain "non-christian" rights because they believe that they foul up our nation regardless of our constitutional rights.
992981
Personally, I would say no as our foreign policy has historically been an extension of US corporate interests since the Spanish-American War and in earlier times the cover for the wealthy to steal land. The neocon corporatists had their eyes set on Iraq years before 911. 911 provided the rationale to invade Afghanistan for the payback. The next move (invasion and occupation of Iraq) can only be explained as a continuation of our historical foreign policy because the rationales this government paraded before us did not make one bit of sense to me. \nIt's about the oil or actually the ability to curtail production enough for record profits for oil companies and prices at the pump that the sheep do not like.
965348
Hi again Mayso...\nGoing by what I have learnt (we don't exactly worry about the US here in Australia :P) American politics has never been driven by democratic ideals, rather the economics was the driving force behind many decisions made. However, these decisions were made with the American people in mind.\nI would suggest going to Google, and having a looksie...\n:)\nGood luck
600416
Bush administration is following wrong policies.\nThey may not be on a crusade but all their present targets are unfortunately Muslims who are rich in natural resources but far behind in technology, hence an easy prey.\nIn the ultimate analysis/conclusion USA will never win since their stance is based on in-justice, inequality and double standards.
1056216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States
307866
Yes,\nI don't have a source but i do remember when it all hit off in Afganistan after 9/11 there were reports in the European newspapers critisising US foreign policy.\nThe CIA is known to hava assisted and trained Afgani fighters, and supplied weapons. The critisism was that they assisted them in getting rid of the russians at the time and then were not happy with the resulting government and their policy's so in they went to cause some more turmoil.\nWHY?? Cos the USSR was a big enemy then.
180011
It is the main reason for our foreign policy
157452
I think liberals have a valid point when they say that we have alienated some countries over Iraq, but most of those countries weren't really lining up to help us anyway. The prevailing attitude that you see with many liberals is that America's foreign policies are to blame for 9/11 and other terror attacks, and this is simply not true. The terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were the same terrorist who attacked America several times during the Clinton administration, when Clinton went out of his way to be "the good guy" towards the islamic world. Foreign policy is not to blame. The terrorists simply hate the Israelis, and therefore, we are guilty by association.
102335
In general, there are no morals in war.  That doesn't just go for Americans, that goes for everyone.  \n\nWar is kill or be killed.
814237
The United Nations actively pursues anti-American policies and appeases America's enemies, while being largely funded by $3 billion worth of annual American dues. After revealing the depth of rampant corruption in the UN, it is time to recognize the changes in Old Europe and redesign America's alliances that line up with America's national interests. \n\nIf John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have their way, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac will gain veto power over American foreign policy. Scared? You should be. It could happen. And in Inside the Asylum, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin shows just how it could happen and why the UN deserves the nickname "The Asylum." \n\nIn the Asylum... \n\n* the UN assists international terrorists. Babbin exposes the shocking links between the UN and terrorist organizations. \n\n* The money trail from the UN to Saddam Hussein. It is time to rip the veil from the outrageous Oil-for-Food program-proving that the UN sold its moral legitimacy for oil, stuffed its own pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people, and undermined American pressure on Saddam Hussein: the UN's cash cow. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, provided Saddam Hussein with the means to bribe politicians, to deprive his people of needed food and medicine, and to literally steal billions of dollars. There is even emerging evidence that money from the program might have gone to support al-Qaeda. \n\n• The UN's raid on the American Treasury: dominated by Third World staffers who consider the United States Treasury "the common heritage of mankind." Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, is an anti-American moral relativist who misses no opportunity to arrogate power from the United States to the UN. \n\n* The United Nations and the European Union are morally bankrupt-and open enemies of the United States. France and the United Nations have cost American lives in Iraq by their perverse delaying of American action in the Iraq War. American troops are fighting and dying today because of a terrorist strategy Saddam Hussein developed while France and the United Nations delayed Operation Iraqi Freedom. \n\nThe UN is more of an international criminal than a dispenser of legitimate international law. If America wants to retain its sovereignty and security, it's time to escape from the UN asylum and say goodbye to the false friends of Old Europe. We owe no tribute to the UN and the EU, We should not be ashamed and divided to look after our own defense." \n\nThe United Nations building in Manhattan is an international enclave, no longer American territory. Inside the Asylum is a powerful argument that it's time to reclaim that land for America.
742666
No.  It is not wrong, and it never has been.  It's always been a societal and religous preference, not a matter of ethics.
260239
Of course not. Given our terribly misguided policy with regard to Iraq, such events are viewed as mere "collateral damage" and deemed unworthy of further investigation. Oh, there may be some bogus report issued in the weeks and months ahead to excuse/explain what happened, but intelligent people will know that for the pack of lies it undoubtedly will be. The current administration's foreign policy is so rife with double standards as to make any comparison with domestic security policy seem absurd. Please understand, I am NOT defending this. I despise it, even as I despise bush and his criminal cohorts. But you asked an honest question and I'm giving you an honest answer.
836112
I think it is a contradtiction.\n\nLike military intelligence\n\nor \n\nbusiness ethics.
1163817
There's a number of them:\n\n* Kickbacks and scandal (Kofi Annan's son)\n* Where it goes when it gets there (to a dictator or a hospital?)\n* Whether it could be spent better elsewhere (India doesn't really need as much aid as it did years ago, some argue)\n* Whether it is morally justified to support foreign interests when domestic interests are suffering\n* whether it is morally justified to provide aide to terrorist states or military enemies of our allies.