> > *Embargo against Irak (3000 childrens a month, UNESCO numbers - And Saddam Hussein isn't about to be affected)
>
> How are we supposed to act against despots if we don;t use military action?


What happened to diplomatic action?


> Perhaps Iraq should just be allowed to do as it pleases? This is NOT just American embargoes, this is an internationally sanctioned embargo. So this is not an example of US foreign policy, but world policy against a dictator who will hopefully be shot before this whole mess is over.
>


Refresh my mind: Why was Saddam not killed at the end of the Gulf War? Was it because The American President decided that any alternative would be worse, as I have heard?


> > *Embargo against Cuba (Seen by many as beating up someone on the ground. only because the USA lost their Party Island. Well, there was the missile crisis, but that was... Forty years ago? Thirty?)
>
> Cuba & terrorists hardly have the same goals...I doubt the terrorists are fighting for the Cuban cause any more than the IRA is.
>


We were talking about examples of US foreign policy which created animosity amongst other countries. I think this fits the bill.


> > *Selling weapons to Israel, then going 'Oh, it's sad that peoples get killed' Really, no one can take the 'Efforts to conclude a peace accord' very seriously when, next things we know, Israelian MD F-16 are dropping MK-83 over Palestinian dwellings.
>
> AKA supporting Israel against its enemies (read PLO) who want to see it destroyed.


That is a gross oversimplification. Yes, fractions within PLO and other Palestinian organizations want Isreal pushed into the sea, but Arafat for one seems to have been trying to take a more compromising line. Just for the record, I support Israel, but also I support non-terrorist Palestinians.


> Supporting the only democracy in the Middle East. And yes, it is sad that people get killed, on BOTH sides, not only by Israeli jets but by suicide bombers in pizza plazas. If the Israeli people don't like the protection their current gov't provides, they can vote it out of office come next election (and watch themselves be slaughtered). The same is not true of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Yasser Arafat. Next please...
>


Why is arms supply vital to supporting democracy?
Democracy is characterized by openness, armament ultimately results in closing.


> > *Calling Islamists fanatics, God Bless America! Or condemning Jihads, yet going out on 'A crusade to erradicate terrorism at all cost'. Try changing the wording and definitions a bit, you might have a surprise here.
>
> Well...what else do you call "Islamists" (they don't represent true Islam anyways) who blow up planes, embassies etc? Most people seem to have no trouble calling those who kill abortion doctors fanatics, why should it change when the fanatics in question happen to be of Arab descent?
> And the whole "crusade" thing was taken so out of context, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.
>


Hmm, I'm going to call a tie on this one. It *is* hypocritical to damn Jihad and next going on a crusade, but the comparison *was* far-fetched.


> > *The 'McDonalisation Phenomenon' (If it's not american, or you don't accept everything that's american, we'll embargo you, and have the UN follow us on that!) This might be a lesser evil, but many peoples consider the US to be a bad moral influence - It's kind of simillar to states removing the theory of evolution from school curriculums.
>
> America doesn't force its product on anyone. It merely meets the demand of the world for US product.
>


I'll agree with jon on that one. In fact, to bring that subject up in this context is close to mockery (I think).


> > *The arroguant attitude of America. USA's foreign politics are very simillar to the ideas of many playground bullies, sadly. They act like no one else mattered in the world.
>
> Prove it with more than analogies.
>


What's there to prove? That's simply how many non-Americans feel. And that is what counts. It is a fact that many, especially europeans feel that the American attitude in general is to brash. It's just a matter of culture, but it's enough to create animosity.


> > Seeing that I'm gonna get flamed, and called an anti-american, fascist, commie, etc, I guess this post was pointless, then.
>
> I'll refrain from going that far, but I will ask -if you were so sure of this, why did you bother to post a response?
>
> > Etienne
>
> --jon


Some thing just have to be said.

The particular instance of US foreign policy which I was reminded of was supporting Afghan rebels with weapons against the USSR in the late 70's. When this support stopped, the Afghans felt betrayed.

I personally think that there is a great deal of hypocracy involved in US (in particular - many other countries in general) policy towards China. Some might even say that the US supports China just as much as it does Israel.

There is no country in the world who has never betrayed allies, allways been on the right side of conflict, etc, and therefore, all countries have created enemies. The more powerful the country, the more threatened the enemies feel, and the more eagerly they will try to get back at this country. It's simple logic. There is no Good Guy. Just lots of baddies.


julian