U.S. Foreign Policy Failures

Fred: Don’t you dare say there haven’t been any :smiling_imp:

Associating in any way, shape, or form with the UN.

Still being a part of NATO.

Dear Brune Ale:

As a REAL country, we naturally have had our shares of successes, too numerous to mention if you are typing on the Internet freely in prosperous Taiwan, but failures as well. I do not doubt that we are not perfect but don’t you think that it is somewhat strange that Europe has NO successes foreign policy wise (in preventing or ending conflict) in the past 60 years?

Love and kisses

Freddie

P.S. Shall we get together to form a committee to see how we being initiatives to redress this problem? France must be the committee chair but I nominate Albania for vice chair unless Belgium does not get the transport chair for special safety tiles to be used on platforms in which case it should be the first vice chair and Albania the second, unless the Greek representative complains in which case…

FS,

I forgot which thread we were talking about US interventions in other countries.

Check out this article. The US were ready and waiting with arms and ships to aid the coup effort against then President of Brazil.

[quote]

"The U.S. organized its support for the coup in an operation called Brother Sam. The task force ended up steaming toward the South Atlantic,[/quote]

The disadvantage in this argument is unless information like this is declassified, it would be difficult to assert that US were involved.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … il_us_coup

And I find it strange that the US is so far down the list of contributors of economic aid, given their super large GDP, and all…

[quote]Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)

  1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person
  2. Norway $307.95 per person
  3. Denmark $302.72 per person
  4. Netherlands $216.71 per person
  5. Sweden $191.48 per person
  6. Switzerland $150.30 per person
  7. France $104.68 per person
  8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person
  9. Belgium $74.25 per person
  10. Finland $73.01 per person
  11. Ireland $72.11 per person
  12. Japan $71.53 per person
  13. Germany $67.96 per person
  14. Austria $50.07 per person
  15. Australia $45.30 per person
  16. Canada $40.36 per person
  17. Spain $33.07 per person
  18. Portugal $26.82 per person
  19. New Zealand $25.23 per person
  20. United States $23.76 per person
  21. Italy $17.24 per person
  22. Lesotho $0 per person
  23. Saudi Arabia $0 per person
  24. Korea, South $0 per person [/quote]

nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap
Oh, that’s right. It’s all tied up in congressional bullshit.

[quote]Top 100 GDP (per capita)

Country 	Description 	Amount
  1. Luxembourg $48309.28 per person
  2. United States $35991.96 per person
  3. Bermuda $34893.45 per person
  4. San Marino $33429.35 per person
  5. Norway $32797.17 per person
  6. Switzerland $31891.17 per person
  7. Cayman Islands $30285.68 per person
  8. Iceland $30071.43 per person
  9. Belgium $29127.94 per person
  10. Canada $29002.91 per person
  11. Ireland $28974.50 per person
  12. Denmark $28842.66 per person
  13. Japan $28699.55 per person
  14. Austria $27808.28 per person
  15. Aruba $27384.11 per person
  16. Netherlands $27107.50 per person
  17. Monaco $27077.49 per person
  18. Hong Kong $26845.47 per person
  19. Australia $26631.88 per person
  20. Germany $26214.12 per person
  21. Sweden $25985.33 per person
  22. France $25888.77 per person
  23. Finland $25776.44 per person
  24. United Kingdom $25426.55 per person
  25. Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) $25278.05 per person[/quote]

nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

Alien,

Does that include private charitable contributions from US citizens, or is it merely an indication of US Government aid handed out?

Also, except for NZ (and the UK does pull its own weight), all of the nations that are listed above the US have their defense subsidized by the US. I wonder how much that costs the US per capita and how much it saves the citizens of those nations per capita?

The Philippines

The U.S.’ biggest failure in East Asia, and it’s not like we didn’t have over half a century to get it right.

But it’s balanced out by our success with our other former neo-colonies in the region, South Korea and Japan.

Honestly listen to you people. The best you can do is to use a list of per capita donations as a sign that the US is evil. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. You do not stand for anything. You are nothing but empty nihilists trying to be sophisticated by excessive cynicism. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it so passe, the French have been doing it for centuries. Come up with something new or go home and have your parents spank you. Sometimes such actions are necessary even with supposed “grown ups.”

The list does not include private (gasp! religious) donations nor does it include the excessive amounts that the US spends on peacekeeping and defending nations so that they can use their own resources to develop their economies. This was already printed and addressed in an excellent article in the Economist.

JB:

If you are so concerned about Brazil and US actions taken 40 years ago, why don’t you get au courrant and look into this…

The Brazilian government has refused to allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine a facility for enriching uranium under construction near Rio de Janeiro, according to Brazilian officials and diplomats in Vienna, home of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA and Brazil are at an impasse over the inspections, the diplomats said. Brazil maintains that the facility will produce low-enriched uranium for use in power plants, not the highly enriched material used in nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, Brazil refuses to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant, citing a need to protect proprietary information.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 4Apr3.html

[quote=“fred smith”]JB:

If you are so concerned about Brazil and US actions taken 40 years ago, why don’t you get au courrant and look into this…

The Brazilian government has refused to allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine a facility for enriching uranium under construction near Rio de Janeiro, according to Brazilian officials and diplomats in Vienna, home of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA and Brazil are at an impasse over the inspections, the diplomats said. Brazil maintains that the facility will produce low-enriched uranium for use in power plants, not the highly enriched material used in nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, Brazil refuses to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant, citing a need to protect proprietary information.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 4Apr3.html[/quote]

is that the point FS? why be dismissive, and point to something else, or is this an implicit concession by you on the original point?

Foreign aid? Give me a break! If some country wants foreign aid, they can damn well do what they’re told (at least most of the time). I get tired of the US government shelling out taxpayers money to regimes that turn around and spit on us. Maybe part of the America’s reluctance to increase aid come from the wonderful experience we’ve had with previous recipients of US generosity…can anyone here say “Europe”?

JB:

It’s possible. I don’t know whether that story has been verified and accepted. Could be but why are you worried about something that happened in 1964 compared with what’s going on right now? Do we have the ability to go back and change that? No. It is merely moral posturing on your part.

Wherein lies Canada’s interests? You get a free ride on defense, and then you bitch about actions the US takes that make all of us safer. Yes, the US was wrong in some cases. I do not know enough about Brazil, but in many others, we were right. Why? We were fighting the Soviets then and they were more than happy to supply aid and money and soldiers to overthrow regimes in Latin America. Communism was a real option and we were fighting a worldwide struggle. Therefore I do not accept that these were foreign policy failures anymore than I would say efforts to overthrow Fascist governments in Europe in the 1930s were or trying to prevent communist takeovers in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s were.

Actually, such efforts were “successes” and therefore not applicable to this thread. We beat Communism, we beat Fascism and we will beat Islamofascistterrorism. Naturally, we will do it without Europe and Canada just as we defeated communism and brought down the Soviet empire all while people like you sniped about peace and understanding the Russians and dialogue. It’s just a damned shame that countries like yours get a free ride. Much better if you were placed between Germany and Russia like Poland. Ditto for France, but hey, geography is a blessing, albeit an undeserved one so be damned grateful that your posturing nation is where it is and now where it would actually have to put up or shut up. Whoops I am sounding awfully French these days?!

Actually, JB, I know that you post these things just to get a rise out of us, especially me, but wouldn’t it be more productive if you actually posted things that you truly believed in? I mean what are your objective standards when it comes to foreign policy and then be outraged or pleased when those goals are or are not accomplished. For all my faults, I believe that most people know exactly where I stand and what will make me pleased/angry. With you, it’s a different post on a different subject each and every time and it sometimes seems, well, frivolous. I do not think, quite frankly, that this is very respecful to those of us who post about these subjects because we really do care.

Why talk about foreign aid anyways?

Looking at the major recipients, it should be clear to most that it does not work that horrible well - if at all.

I would say that the Bay of Pigs qualifies as an unqualified foreign policy failure, like the Suez crisis was for UK and France in 1956.

Actually Mr. He:

You are right about foreign aid. Unless the right political and economic conditions are present, giving money is useless.

Bay of Pigs? Failure big time. Suez? Agree. Any others? I would put…

Failure to deal forcefully with the oil embargo of 1973. Failure in allowing the shah to be overthrown in Iran, failure to stick it out in Vietnam, Guatemala in 1954 was perhaps an overreaction and an immoral action against a democratically elected government and given the threat assessment there not in the same category as overthrowing Mossadeq in 1953. Failure to effect change in Cuba despite 40 years and sanctions not effective. Failure to protect Shias in aftermath of first Gulf War. Failure to act in Rwanda to stop the mass murder of 1 million people. Failure in Lebanon in 1983 with an ignominous pull out. Ditto for Somalia in 1992-3.

Failure big time to convince European public opinion about the need to take care of things in Iraq once and for all. Failure to deal with blatant misrepresentation of our views in the European media. Failure to effectively contain the French and stop the poision that they are selfishly spreading to advance their own interests. Failure by allowing France back into NATO. Failure to deal effectively with North Korea in 1994 rather than allow them 10 more years to develop nuclear weapons.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116130,00.html

Here we go again only the country now is Iran. And our failure to find wmds in Iraq is a public relations failure that will now have serious consequences for the kind of respect and attention our “intelligence” gets from the IAEA and other agencies as well as in garnering world public opinon to deal with Iran and North Korea. So, we have lost and we will pay for our inability to find wmds in Iraq. Regardless of the conditions at the time.

TEHRAN, Iran

Too bad. Hope that Iran dows not use them.

Conme on, my country has a few hundred soldiers running around in Iraq somewhere, and I actually think that it’s not kurdistan.

Mr. He:

I respect that but given the cost benefit that Denmark gets out of being protected by NATO (really the US military), looking at it from a selfish French style point of view, is the money we expend on protecting Denmark something that we see a return on regardless of your couple of hundred troops? Or would it be better to leave Europe force Denmark to pay up to 10 times more to defend itself and also become a stronger voice in the EU to demand that more be done for defense by other actors within the Union. Right now, we do all the dirty work. We get negligible support AND the citizens of Europe can criticize us for pretending that they would never opt for such harsh methods. AND they are right because we let them get away with that. Our first mistake was to get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo. We should have let the matter come to a truly disastrous head to shame Europe and its citizens into realizing that military actions are necessary sometimes and that running to the US to deal with it was a cheap cop out. Now, we face the outrage of Europe and its citizens criticizing us for killing innocent women and children (who are no doubt perpetually wailing and shrieking) in Iraq? Ridiculous and we have brought this upon ourselves by giving in repeatedly over the years to Europe’s passive-aggressive tendencies. Enough.

Hell given that most agencies attribute 3,000 to 7,000 deaths to US indirectly and directly and included in those are combattants and civilians that Saddam put deliberately in danger. But this is still fewer than the 9,000 to 11,000 that died in Srebrenica because Dutch peacekeeping forces chose not to fight and allowed them to die. Where is the European outrage at this? If you want to talk numbers and evil, yours are higher. Right? I mean if that’s how we want to look at these things, Europe is still 4,000 ahead of us.

[quote=“fred smith”]
Actually, JB, I know that you post these things just to get a rise out of us, especially me, but wouldn’t it be more productive if you actually posted things that you truly believed in? [/quote]

Actually, I don’t think there was anything in my posts here to antagonize you frivolously. You had asked for examples, and I had just seen this article, so I provided a link. I don’t think it’s irrelevant that this brazil thing happened decades ago as we weren’t talking exclusively about recent US policy.

Sure, sometimes I do stick in posts that are frivolous/pointless, but that wasn’t the case here. I recall you had criticized the list I put up, so here is my effort to supplement that list.

on the contrary, it has been educational reading the posts from everyone in this forum coming from different perspectives (cultures, political view, countries). I would say I’ve gained a much more balanced view of things lately (you might say I’m sitting on the fence, and I might add that you are too one-sided)

:wink:

We have 10% of our army atationed outside of our borders at any time, that’s a commitment - nad 20% of our air force, whish is currently being upgraded so it can work better together with USAF.

While we should spend more on international tasks, and are currently changing the defence into becoming specialised in international operations (IE not a defense any more), it is hard to keep up, considering that a standard US aircraft carrier costs more than what we spend on the defense in 20 years.

Come on, you are shooting at a country with 5 million ppl in it, you are never gonna get any more than 1000 well-equipped troops out of us for any single mission.

Hate to get all French on you Mr. He:

1,000 troops at most? Then why do we need you? We can look after our own interests and you can try to get I don’t know France or Germany to extend some kind of security guarantee to you, but from a French type cost analysis, Denmark is not pulling its weight and should be outsourced. Know what I mean?