You reap what you sow

I'm interested to know the thoughts of my fellow stoners regarding the foreign policy of the west and it's influence in the world today.
I believe that a lot of the problems we face today are the result of an agressive commercialy driven foreign policy, the manipulation of third world countries has come back to bite us in the arse.

What do you think ?

I believe John Stockwell sums it up very well indeed.

When the Western powers do not like a government, he observes, they input resources into manufacturing the collapse of the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government to conform to Western requirements. Otherwise, the West ensures that the government collapses altogether via the engineering of a coup dâ??etat, so that more appropriate â??friendly handsâ?? may retrieve power.

I know little of foriegn policy, but I do know that vietnam is still there.And we had to hate those mother fuckers.Also North Korea is still there last I heard, and we had to hate those mother fuckers too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedeadone

I know little of foriegn policy, but I do know that vietnam is still there.And we had to hate those mother fuckers.Also North Korea is still there last I heard, and we had to hate those mother fuckers too.

---

Sorry but I find this a little vague.
What is your point ?

if it is as stockwell says----- then would we have not used that method on those 2 countries????? because I know we hate commies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedeadone

if it is as stockwell says----- then would we have not used that method on those 2 countries????? because I know we hate commies.

---

You don't believe that we tried ?
The cost proved to be too high and the west backed out but they gave it thier best shot.

We still pressurise countries with economic sanctions, we still attempt to set up friendlier (to the west) leadership (as in Iraq) in foreign countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedeadone

if it is as stockwell says----- then would we have not used that method on those 2 countries????? because I know we hate commies.

---

Just cause those countries arn't under US control doesn't mean they are in "friendly hands"

America's foreign policy has been a nightmare for over 50 years. But what do you do? The president sets policy and because we don't live in a democracy we are stuck with these losers for atleast 4 years. You can do a lot of damage in 4 years. Just look at the damge Bush did in 8.

I'm not to knowledgeable on this subject and don't feel like doing the extra research right now, but I'll go ahead and put my two cents in as well...

I would imagine what he say's is true to an extent, but I don't think it is safe to claim the cause of all Western aggressions is due to that. Many times our involvement is due to liberating a nation that wants it's freedom which I agree with. Granted nobody exactly helped Georgia last year when Russia bombed the shit out of them...

I will agree there seems to be little clarification in why we attempt to topple some governments and not others. If there is any region that greatly needs liberation it is a vast majority of the nations in Africa. Yet the western world sits by and says nothing about it.

I assume you are referring to covert style operations though and not all out war? If that is the case I really don't have enough information to make an informed opinion.

In theory the practice would make sense. The more combative governments we can topple and in it's place implement western friendly ones, increases our security. At the same times when they would fail it would make sense that hatred for the west would increase.

Do you have sources on hand. I'm not challenging you here, I'm simply to lazy to find my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

America's foreign policy has been a nightmare for over 50 years. But what do you do? The president sets policy and because we don't live in a democracy we are stuck with these losers for atleast 4 years. You can do a lot of damage in 4 years. Just look at the damge Bush did in 8.

---

Bush was not a good president for certain, however, the Congress is as much to blame as he is. Presidents don't run the nation alone. We were never really intended to be a democracy, we are supposed to be individual republics united under one larger democratic republic. However, that is no longer the case either. :mad:

What damage in particular are you talking about? Unlike with psycho, this is a challenge for specifics.

Also, the people voted both Bush and Obama into office, so in that sense it is democratic. The only problem is we never have quality candidates to choose from. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

I believe that a lot of the problems we face today are the result of an aggressive commercially driven foreign policy, the manipulation of third world countries has come back to bite us in the arse.

---

there is and always will be plenty of blame to pass around. the excesses of a colonial mentality gave way to a general free for all, which in turn gave way to the pointless excesses of the cold war mentality and, finally, to the barely controlled universal rage we see about us today. it is so easy to place the blame on the big dogs and claim that they deserve to be punished for their transgressions. there are far too many folks that are willing to overlook the sins of the underdog and make excuses for the sake of some sort of fairness. well folks, there is no fairness in the world. if there were, the west might be repaid for the trillions of dollars in aid it has sent to every corner of the world. instead we are spit on and abused as though our every action were an affront to the better natures of humanity. every misstep is magnified, shouted from the highest mountaintops, and every act of charity is downplayed, as though it were all some debt to be repaid to the world.

i'm sure there are many who would like to see every advantage passed by or given away to the less fortunate, but that just ain't gonna happen. it is not in the nature of mankind's ruling bodies to freely hand over their hard won control. the question becomes, who would you rather see handling the reigns of that power? as each of the numerous factions struggle to spread their ideology to the world around them, would you rather see the powers of totalitarian control or those of individual self-determination taking the lead? if you would vote for the former, pat yourself on the back. they seem to be winning and it ain't who you seem so willing to blame.