Can you cite one nation that was not destroyed by its wealth? Does America have a suicidal foreign policy?
828255
Switzerland, but they've always kept well out of any military involvement. The don't even have much of a standing army, but every man is trained in the use of guns, and guerilla tactics.\nThe US will go the way of all empires, the bad thing about this, from a European perspective, is that they probably will drag us down with them. It is not really wealth that destroys a nation, but relentless expansionism, as the US has practised ever since its founding.
205291
I'm no expert but I did a degree in Business and have read a lot of international development literature...\n\nFirst I would ask if financial wealth is the important thing - and if so, when is a country seen as wealthy? If you look at GDP this doesn't show the distribution of wealth very well.\n\nMany richer countries have progressed up the ladder from mainly primary to secondary to tertiary to mainly service jobs. Now in the UK for example, the banking area is well known and a lot of money comes out of this service industry, whereas before many people were employed in coal mining or manufacturing.\n\nIn other countries they may rely more on agriculture and mining and use their land in this way. What I would say is that it's probably a long road between relying mainly on land for your income and relying on knowledge services for your income. Many rich countries including England, France, and the USA progressed through the different stages by exploting human labour of other people (slavery, and colonisation for example), but now want to deny countries such as China their desire to attack human rights in the name of creating wealth.    \n\nIf I was a small country, I'd find my biggest asset, make the most of it and try to become self-sufficient. I would work first on infrastructure, primary health, primary education, stopping internal conflict, and increasing awareness of diseases if I was susceptible to that. I would look at building long term diplomatic relations with neighbouring states, and make decisions about who I want to ally with strategically.\n\nThis could have been a one sentence answer but I felt like writing. Good luck!
633616
It is not the worst, merely another example of failed US foreign policy which has never changed.  The US has always been and remains the same: "Do whatever is in 'US interests', regardless of the consequences".  \n\nIf the US had two choices:\n1) Enact a policy that benefits both countries\n2) Enact a policy that benefits the US the same at the other but is detrimental to the other country\nThe US would ALWAYS choose the second.  It's a part of the "manifest destiny" crap, the US's selfish and self-appointed view that the world is here for its benefit.  \n\nAmericans, as a general rule, haven't figured out that other countries and other peoples have the same right to live freely and do what is in their own interests.  US policy of supporting dictators was the greatest cause of communism during the Cold War, and became the greatest cause of fundamentalist islam since the Cold War ended.\n\nThe US has and continues to support dictators and help topple democracies in many countries because the US thinks it will benefit more by supporting such regimes.  Perhaps in the short term it does, but in the long term such policies led to resentment and helped build extremism instead of democratic change which was violently repressed by said dictators with the help of the US:\n\n- Iran (a democracy before the US and UK helped the Shah into power)\n- Nicaragua (the Sandanista are going to be reelected democratially as they were before now that US interference is waning)\n- Cuba (democratic movements in the 1950s were quashed, making communism the only alternative)\n- Pakistan (not just Musharraf, but Al Haq)\n- Philippines\n- South Korea (the puppet Syngman Rhee murdered thousands of his own people, almost a competition with the US generals who murdered thousands; read about the Noh Gun Ri massacre)\n- Cambodia (the US supported the Khmer Rouge)\n- Afghanistan (the US funded the Taliban in the 1980s)\n- Vietnam (the brutal regime of the south)\n- Argentina\n- Brazil\n- Chile (Salvador Allende was democratically elected but was overthrown by US-backed Augusto Pinochet)\n- El Salvador\n- Haiti\n- Grenada (the US invaded in the 1980s to prevent Cuba from building an airport; Grenada's economy has never recovered from the loss of income from not having it)\n\nI'd list all the instances, but I don't feel like spending three hours typing them all.\n\n-----------\n\nAdditional:\n\nHey, "Marshall", do you have a selective memory or a short one?\n\nYou said: \n\n"[O]ne individual suggested that the United States simply 'gave up' on finding Usama bin Laden, and turned to Iraq. The truth is, we have not given up on finding UBL, nor will we 'give up' looking for him until he is either confirmed dead or is captured."\n\nExplain this quote, then:\n\n"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."\n- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
879578
I don't say this often. Excellent question.  Refreshing change from the usual bomb-throwing nonsense.  Our greatness, and our love for country still exists, and probably always will.\n    The sad fact of the matter is that it's under assault from within and without.  It ain't dead but it's on the outs.  Sadly, I am familiar with the comparisons to the Roman Empire, and I really cant' argue that.  \n     Enjoy it while it lasts I say.
494815
What a silly solution.Accept your countries great achievements.This made america proud.Better to direct your thoughts to todayThen america was the envy of the world. Not so today
415574
India. But just because they have a potential for economic success, doesn't mean they will be a superpower. Take Japan for instance, there was a time when the yen was stronger than the dollar and so they bought American land. But then they mismanaged and lost it all. India and China both have a loooong way to go to be a superpower, much less replace the US as one.Keep in mind that both countries have severe infrastructure problems. Ever used a toilet in China? Just a hole in the ground. Try looking at the sky in a city like Beijing. Good luck, cause the pollution is so bad you can't. Their medical care is non existant. I don't need to go on about India either. nope, The United States of America is still and will always be the only real superpower in the World. Ask any nation that has dared to go to war with us because they thought we were finished. They lost. Americans are the most adaptable and independent people in the world.
529589
Cuba is ninety miles from the US.  Cuba was the only country in the western hemisphere that was communist.  Russia put missiles in Cuba directed at the US,  The wealthy Cubans got out and moved to Florida when Castro took over, became a political force.  Russia was the only other superpower that could challenge the US and in Cuba they were too close for comfort.  Remember the times -  it was early 60s.  Only two powers had nukes, Russia and the US.  School children practiced drills against nuke attacks.  They were taught to hid under school desks. Shelter were set up  and stocked by the govt in case of a nuke strike.  It was not too long after the Red scare congressional hearings and many US citizens being ruined by blacklisting.  A big difference now and then is that the US economy was strong.  Manufacturing took place in the US.  We had the natural resources to  keep the country going.  It was  around 20 years since Europe was torn apart by a World War.  It was around 20 years since the US saw what a nuke could do.  Rmemmber Japan.  Memories were fresh and not yet part of history  that few people are still alive to remember. Items made in Japan were trinkets with a low value.  We had a nice little war going called Viet Nam against the Communist.  How could we say it was OK for them to be in Cuba even though the previous system was a place of extreme wealth and extreme poor.  Corruption was common and then go to war against the same political system in Southeast Asia. War in the past  always helped the US economy. The reason that we don't don't beat the drum against China the way we did USSR is that China holds a huge chunk of the US debt now.  If they called it in the US would be bankrupt.
484426
Chief Allies: American Consumers, Iran\nArchenemies: Japan/India\n$50 billion per year of foreign investment, a labor force that survives on $70 a month, has enjoyed a 9% GDP growth for 25 years....all under state controlled pseudo-capitalism, has a spiking fuel addiction, and just inked a $70 billion three-decade natural gas deal with Iran\n\nEconomy: China has an economy so robust that to keep the value of its “Yuan” in check, the People’s Bank of China has been propping up our currency by accumulating American dollars, bonds, and treasuries—about $533 billion at last count.  By keeping the currency undervalued, the Chinese are telling the world, “We can provide you with low-cost goods,” Communism may be nearly dead in all but the name in China, but it survives in the form of one last taboo: the fact that the right of an individual to won agricultural land is tenuous (weak) at best.\n\nProblem: China needs to address the fact that its farmers have missed out on the double-digit growh that has transformed urban China and turned its richest cities into some of the most dynamic in Asia.\n\nProblem: If China decided to drop/dump its dollar reserve on the world currency market, interest rates here could skyrocket, severely damaging our stock and housing markets.  However, that probably won’t happen because China needs American prosperity to continue its growth, and Americans with extra dollars love Chinese imports.  It keeps the Chinese economic juggernaut rolling.
421579
Ask yourself a question if you were in a climate that allowed other countries rights to be violated at will by any neighboring country with impunity,a country that more resources than your country,would you not look for a way to level the playing field? When Russia was an empire, the U.S. did not dare pull these kinds of ploys because there was a balance. the balance is now gone. Noone holds the administration in check. Do your research!!!  Yes!!Peace.
1136919
Your question is based upon an incorrect premise.  The only thing most Americans care about is if we can buy and sell crap.  Make money and get rich.  We will sell and buy from anyone as long as they don't threaten us.  So in general, our mostly ineffective foreign policies revolve around the concept of creating stability for our economy to flourish.\nAsk Americans if they give a crap about some third world dictators and most will say they couldn't even find these places on a map.  Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, or news stan.  We don't really care.  If they would just buy Coke, eat McDonald's, and watch reruns of Scooby Doo.
191952
yup. America as a whole is only interested in helping /destroying countries that get into it's way / hurt it.\nthere has been Aid , dont get me wrong, and we have accepted refugees FROM YUGOSLAVIA but, there is little media concern which means the general population cannot pester the government to spend more than it wants.\nthere is also crisis in burma, Africa,south america where the loss is like 20x worse than 9/11 but that gets virtually NO PRESS.
811559
If you know the history well, you wouldn't say U.S lost to V.N, you need to look at the bigger picture during that era. I want to say that the U.S has not lost a war, yet. \n\nThe U.S abandoned South Vietnam to allie with China against the U.S.S.R during the Cold War. \n\nLogically speaking... how can can the U.S lost to a third world country back in the day...when in the past the U.S has defeated Germany, Italy and Japan, and many other countries? It's rediculous to say that U.S lost to VN.
202771
What?  You mean they didn't?  Everything I own seems to point to them having won the war.  Maybe if they hadn't everything cheaply made in the 70's would have said, "Made in the USA" on it, then we would have created better work habits and built business world wide until we dominated the world economy.
667322
Boy, there's a debate.\n\nShort Answer: The United States, and it did it by spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. The USSR suffered the fate of most empires -- it overextended itself and ran of the resources necessary to sustain its empire.\nBut the US did it at a terrible cost. We are now stuck with a military-industrial complex that is bleeding us drive and could very soon threaten our own superiority.\n\nSo philosophical answer: The Cold War isn't over yet, and we could still lose.
574383
Miss, I am terribly sorry about what the USA did to your country. I was there. What we did was inexcusable. Saying I was ordered to do it is pretty lame. Your country, what I saw of it, was beautiful. The people I met and meet now are resourceful and have been pretty smart. I know the US trades with you now. Take care of your people. Be careful in dealing with the Western world. Do not let the multinationals strip your resources away.
1001675
The Truman Doctrine, which dictates that the United States will assist any nation or country fighting communism. The doctrine did not spell out how much or what kind of assistance that will be. We obviously went to war in Vietnam while Cambodia and Laos were limited to financial aid and military equipment. \n\nAll three countries fell to communism and then became some of the poorest countries in the world. All three are now reforming into market economies without the U.S. spending a dime in aid. \n\nIronic isn't it...
711360
Money runs ever country in the world, not just the US.  \nit is not so humorous when in reality that is what makes the world go around, and the one with the most mola, get to hold the ruling stick.