American Foreign Policy's main objectives!

afghan · Feb 3, 2012

Hi lets start the main objectives of american foreign policy, i have some observations and will write the main objectives of american foreign policy into categories, which are as:

1- In the start american had Isolationist policy as like now the chinease has in military and political interventions.

2- after 2nd world war, american's foreign policy was circulating against the influence of communism in the world or into their interested regions such as middle east!

3- to Protect and defend israel! that's what obama and every american president has said except Kennedy and now Ron paul!!

4- after the collapse of Communism in afghanistan, american's attentions was diverted to Jehad and political islam! they started their campaigns in different regions in order to remove and defame the concept of Jehad and political islam by propaganda's; they also started to support the secular and liberal politicians.

5- America wants after the rise of China to encircle them and for this motive in the last step in obama's direction sent 2500 marines to austarlia and hence the chinease now have some reservation on this...

I think americans are pressurized due to china's buying their bonds!!

6- Now the new cold war has started between US and Russia after Georgia incident!!

7- American's one of other objective is to control all trading sea routes and strategic importance ports such as gibraltar, hormuz, horn of africa, suez canal, etc etc

8- the most important factor is the middle east's OIL!!!!! and this is another objective of US foreign policy

lets start and talk about this topic in civilized manner!!!
that's what my observation....

Regards,
Afghani

Kingdom · Feb 3, 2012

afghan said:
1- In the start american had Isolationist policy as like now the chinease has in military and political interventions.

Not true. The Chinese are very active abroad: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/chinas-economic-invasion-of-africa

afghan said:
6- Now the new cold war has started between US and Russia after Georgia incident!!

Really? Russia would have no chance defeating US or NATO forces, so Moscow wouldn't be stupid enough to go to war against the West right now. But they'll always have a tradition of bullying their former property during the Soviet era, e.g. Georgia and Ukraine.

afghan · Feb 5, 2012

Kingdom said:
Really? Russia would have no chance defeating US or NATO forces, so Moscow wouldn't be stupid enough to go to war against the West right now. But they'll always have a tradition of bullying their former property during the Soviet era, e.g. Georgia and Ukraine.

Cold war doesn't mean hard war!

if the russians don't have the guts to defeat USA nor and neither has the US to attack them!!!

The russians did military training and occupation of Georgia but the americans can't did something!!!

That is Cold war!!

Kingdom · Feb 5, 2012

afghan said:
Cold war doesn't mean hard war!

if the russians don't have the guts to defeat USA nor and neither has the US to attack them!!!

The russians did military training and occupation of Georgia but the americans can't did something!!!

That is Cold war!!

So why do you think the Russians lost the Cold War? Because they didn't have enough money and force to build more weapons to compete with the US. They still don't have that economy and they suffer from a lot of poverty. So I stand by my point, no cold or hard war is possible between the two right now.

afghan · Feb 5, 2012

Kingdom said:
So why do you think the Russians lost the Cold War? Because they didn't have enough money and force to build more weapons to compete with the US. They still don't have that economy and they suffer from a lot of poverty. So I stand by my point, no cold or hard war is possible between the two right now.

Hi.. hope your are enjoying your life....

Coming to your argument, i am too standing behind my point...
Look the Russians and Chinese government already have Veto the resolution on Syria, whether it is not a cold war? which is already started with the Georgia incident!

in my opinion Russians lost only economically, militarily they may be not stronger as US but they are stronger than any other nations... at times of Cold war too, Russians were not as much stronger than US at that time too the ratio was 5:1 But the Cold was there!!!

Kingdom · Feb 5, 2012

afghan said:
Hi.. hope your are enjoying your life....

Thank you, and likewise

afghan said:
Coming to your argument, i am too standing behind my point...
Look the Russians and Chinese government already have Veto the resolution on Syria, whether it is not a cold war? which is already started with the Georgia incident!

Just because they disagree, doesn't mean it's an act of war. There's a difference between disagreeing behind the tables in the UN than to station spies on Cuba.

afghan said:
in my opinion Russians lost only economically, militarily they may be not stronger as US but they are stronger than any other nations... at times of Cold war too, Russians were not as much stronger than US at that time too the ratio was 5:1 But the Cold was there!!!

Now even though the Russians might have the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world doesn't really necessarily mean they can afford to use them. See I don't believe it's in the US or Russian interest going to war, cold or hot.

James · Feb 6, 2012

The Russians and United States folks are fairly rational people. They fought the cold war with proxy battles like Vietnam to avoid direct nuclear confrontation. Both nations have been expansionistic through most of their histories, so there is a natural tendency for both nations to go to some sort of war if their interests conflict. I agree, it is not in either country's interest to go to war at this time, but some day it may change.

afghan · Feb 6, 2012

James said:
The Russians and United States folks are fairly rational people. They fought the cold war with proxy battles like Vietnam to avoid direct nuclear confrontation. Both nations have been expansionistic through most of their histories, so there is a natural tendency for both nations to go to some sort of war if their interests conflict. I agree, it is not in either country's interest to go to war at this time, but some day it may change.

I agree....!!!

afghan · Feb 6, 2012

Kingdom said:
Just because they disagree, doesn't mean it's an act of war. There's a difference between disagreeing behind the tables in the UN than to station spies on Cuba.

Now even though the Russians might have the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world doesn't really necessarily mean they can afford to use them. See I don't believe it's in the US or Russian interest going to war, cold or hot.

I want to know how you define the Cold War????
later on we can go to the conclusion of this topic and say that whether it is cold war or not??

RoccoR · Feb 6, 2012

afghan, et al,

I respectfully disagree and offer (as a start) the following thumbnail challenges:

afghan said:
1- In the start american had Isolationist policy as like now the chinease has in military and political interventions.

(COMMENT)

In the 1812, the US was clearly not isolationist. It was fighting the Second War of Independence with the British. In the decade to follow, the US stopped European colonization of the Americas. We were defensive and not isolationist.

During the first half of the 19th Century, the US was engaged in its Manifest Destiny expansionism. By the mid-1800s the US had concluded the Mexican-American War; and was laying the ground work for the Panama Canal. These policies and projects were all about commerce and trading. It was interrupted by the American Civil War.

By the end of the 19th Century, the Spanish American War had concluded, and the US had acquired Cuba, Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico. It was just before the turn of the century (1898) that the US annex the Hawaiian Republic.

afghan said:
2- after 2nd world war, american's foreign policy was circulating against the influence of communism in the world or into their interested regions such as middle east!

(COMMENT)

Big jump here.

You forgot the US participation in the Boxer Rebellion, and the huge WWI, which the US participated in and became one of the Big 6 Powers. But even before WWII, the US defended the Americas (mostly South American countries) form Europe debt collection. It was a highly interventionist move.

After WWI, but before WWII, the US had experienced the Great Depression. It had an effect on the economy and how Americans viewed "what's important to them." The was also the multilateral treaty that outlawed "war." It was shaping how "Americans" saw the rest of the world. Then, in keeping with the concept (out of the War to end all wars), and the international law against wars, there was the Neutrality Act of 1936. It was also shaping how people thought.

So, there was a period, between 1936 and 1941 (5 years) when the US found it difficult to engage in foreign wars. But it was not promoting Isolationism.

And don't forget the American role in the establishment of the Panama Canal.

afghan said:
3- to Protect and defend israel! that's what obama and every american president has said except Kennedy and now Ron paul!!

(COMMENT)

In the first half of the 20th Century, there were many new countries emerging as a result of changes in territorial oversight. This was particularly true in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Iraq (1932), The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Syria (1946), and (of course) Israel in 1948.

I will admit there there is a strange tie that has emerged pertaining to US-Israeli relations. But I always remind people of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. The Israelis are not truly a US ally. We are friends as long as it is convenient for them.

afghan said:
4- after the collapse of Communism in afghanistan, american's attentions was diverted to Jehad and political islam! they started their campaigns in different regions in order to remove and defame the concept of Jehad and political islam by propaganda's; they also started to support the secular and liberal politicians.

(COMMENT)

The US has been a political-military hegemony since the end of WWII. It may be in decline, some say since 1989, but it is a hegemony.

Afghanistan is a completely different matter; as is the current regime, and the Government in Exiles (The Taliban).

afghan said:
5- America wants after the rise of China to encircle them and for this motive in the last step in obama's direction sent 2500 marines to austarlia and hence the chinease now have some reservation on this...

I think americans are pressurized due to china's buying their bonds!!

(COMMENT)

The Brigade size element of Marines in Australia is nothing. China is not in the least concerned about them.

China is a growing economic hegemony. It is gradually bringing under its influence, all the science and technology that has been critical to America over the last half century. America has gone from the nation that put a man on the Moon, to having its astronauts hitchhike into space. The US does not produce or manufacture high tech major end items or the components. It can assemble and it can do design work; but there are no real components made in the US for top-end equipment. Eventually the inscrutable patience of the Chinese will gain control of all the key components, as Americas industrial and production capacity dwindles. That is when they will gain control. That is the difference between the emerging Chinese Hegemony and the American Hegemony.

afghan said:
6- Now the new cold war has started between US and Russia after Georgia incident!!

(COMMENT)

Maybe!

afghan said:
7- American's one of other objective is to control all trading sea routes and strategic importance ports such as gibraltar, hormuz, horn of africa, suez canal, etc etc

(COMMENT)

Yeah. Freedom of Navigation is not the same thing as control. The US has never close an international commercial passage. Nor has the US ever threatened to do so. It did blockade Cuba once, but that was a Cold War issue.

afghan said:
8- the most important factor is the middle east's OIL!!!!! and this is another objective of US foreign policy

(COMMENT)

Oil, yes. American interest are guided by the Ruling Elite in the US. But that is a policy to "maximize the wealth of the shareholder." It is a policy of greed, not political-military control.

Most Respectfully,
R

Kingdom · Feb 6, 2012

afghan said:
I want to know how you define the Cold War????
later on we can go to the conclusion of this topic and say that whether it is cold war or not??

It's the content of the word. When you fight a cold war you don't use physical power, you suppress each other mentally. Fight it out like the US and the USSR did by building up stronger and stronger till eventually the USSR broke down because they had to choose, their own economy and country or more weapons.

afghan · Feb 10, 2012

RoccoR said:
afghan, et al,

I respectfully disagree and offer (as a start) the following thumbnail challenges:

(COMMENT)

In the 1812, the US was clearly not isolationist. It was fighting the Second War of Independence with the British. In the decade to follow, the US stopped European colonization of the Americas. We were defensive and not isolationist.

During the first half of the 19th Century, the US was engaged in its Manifest Destiny expansionism. By the mid-1800s the US had concluded the Mexican-American War; and was laying the ground work for the Panama Canal. These policies and projects were all about commerce and trading. It was interrupted by the American Civil War.

By the end of the 19th Century, the Spanish American War had concluded, and the US had acquired Cuba, Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico. It was just before the turn of the century (1898) that the US annex the Hawaiian Republic.

(COMMENT)

Big jump here.

You forgot the US participation in the Boxer Rebellion, and the huge WWI, which the US participated in and became one of the Big 6 Powers. But even before WWII, the US defended the Americas (mostly South American countries) form Europe debt collection. It was a highly interventionist move.

After WWI, but before WWII, the US had experienced the Great Depression. It had an effect on the economy and how Americans viewed "what's important to them." The was also the multilateral treaty that outlawed "war." It was shaping how "Americans" saw the rest of the world. Then, in keeping with the concept (out of the War to end all wars), and the international law against wars, there was the Neutrality Act of 1936. It was also shaping how people thought.

So, there was a period, between 1936 and 1941 (5 years) when the US found it difficult to engage in foreign wars. But it was not promoting Isolationism.

And don't forget the American role in the establishment of the Panama Canal.

(COMMENT)

In the first half of the 20th Century, there were many new countries emerging as a result of changes in territorial oversight. This was particularly true in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Iraq (1932), The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Syria (1946), and (of course) Israel in 1948.

I will admit there there is a strange tie that has emerged pertaining to US-Israeli relations. But I always remind people of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. The Israelis are not truly a US ally. We are friends as long as it is convenient for them.

(COMMENT)

The US has been a political-military hegemony since the end of WWII. It may be in decline, some say since 1989, but it is a hegemony.

Afghanistan is a completely different matter; as is the current regime, and the Government in Exiles (The Taliban).

(COMMENT)

The Brigade size element of Marines in Australia is nothing. China is not in the least concerned about them.

China is a growing economic hegemony. It is gradually bringing under its influence, all the science and technology that has been critical to America over the last half century. America has gone from the nation that put a man on the Moon, to having its astronauts hitchhike into space. The US does not produce or manufacture high tech major end items or the components. It can assemble and it can do design work; but there are no real components made in the US for top-end equipment. Eventually the inscrutable patience of the Chinese will gain control of all the key components, as Americas industrial and production capacity dwindles. That is when they will gain control. That is the difference between the emerging Chinese Hegemony and the American Hegemony.

(COMMENT)

Maybe!

(COMMENT)

Yeah. Freedom of Navigation is not the same thing as control. The US has never close an international commercial passage. Nor has the US ever threatened to do so. It did blockade Cuba once, but that was a Cold War issue.

(COMMENT)

Oil, yes. American interest are guided by the Ruling Elite in the US. But that is a policy to "maximize the wealth of the shareholder." It is a policy of greed, not political-military control.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank You very much for your long answer...

in 1812 War, The war was imposed on America due to Britain that's why this war have to be played by Americans... the Policy of Isolation doesn't mean that USA doesn't has the right to intervenue and see the affairs of American Continent...

Isolation in my opinion can be best understood by Monroes's Doctrine....

in 1898 American's Imperialist Policy was started by Mchartal and Roosevelt coming after the assasination of Mchartal
(But i have a question here who killed Mchartal and why He was Killed??? :unsure: for your scholarly reply, Sir!)

But that policy was finished with the coming of woodrow wilson...

and after first world war till 1939 American Foreign Policy was mostly Isolationist......! It was only contained to American EmPire But was far away from the influence of Great Powers Continent, Europe....

-------

The Panama Canal was a part of Imperialist Policy and was made in 1902 or something round about that

---------------

The Cold war was started during 2nd World war that's why i have said after second world war american's role was to stop communism!!

-------------

afghan · Feb 10, 2012

Kingdom said:
It's the content of the word. When you fight a cold war you don't use physical power, you suppress each other mentally. Fight it out like the US and the USSR did by building up stronger and stronger till eventually the USSR broke down because they had to choose, their own economy and country or more weapons.

You suppress each other mentally that's why Russians did in the matter of Georgia, America yelled but the russians didn't listen, as a result American installed Rockets in Poland!! And Now by the Veto, Which also has remind us about the cold war's vetoing, of Russia and China it really has paved the way for cold war..........

Kingdom · Feb 10, 2012

So basically any sort of disagreement between countries in the UN are, according to you, fighting a cold war? So are the UK and Argentina fighting a cold war just because of certain disagreements regarding the Falkland Islands?

RoccoR · Feb 10, 2012

afghan, et al,

Yes, that certainly is one perspective.

afghan said:
in 1898 American's Imperialist Policy was started by Mchartal and Roosevelt coming after the assasination of Mchartal
(But i have a question here who killed Mchartal and why He was Killed??? :unsure: for your scholarly reply, Sir!)[/indent]

(COMMENT)

I'm working under the assumption that you meant to type McKinley (as in President William McKinley) who was assassinated by Leon F. Czolgosz, (AKA: Frank Niemann) in 1901 at the Pan-American Exposition.

President McKinley's policy, in this regard, was summed-up in his own words. "We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression." President McKinley wanted to maintain the tradition of nonintervention and neutrality in foreign affairs; holding to diplomacy and not confrontation.

Like the assassination of President Kennedy, there are a number of conspiracy theories that suggest that Leon F. Czolgosz was a Jewish assassin under the influence of Emma Goldman, another well known Jewish anarchist philosopher of the time. Czologosz said, upon shooting the President, that McKinley was “an enemy of good working people.” (This was the phase of the day that went from working people - to - working class - to - middle class. It is tha age old struggle of a greedy upper class suppressing the working class.)

There was really no direct connection ever made between Czolgosz and Goodman or any other Jewish organization or anarchist group. But like the question of Lee Harvey Oswald and "did he work alone?" So there were long and lingering questions as to whether or not that Czolgosz was actually an agent of the Jewish Community --- or --- other underground group. Even at the end of the 19th Century, it was commonly believed that the Ruling Elite made the decisions on America in smokey - back rooms by men of wealth.

afghan said:
The Cold war was started during 2nd World war that's why i have said after second world war american's role was to stop communism!!

(COMMENT)

Not to "stop communism!" Although that is a commonly held perception. Politically, this is related to the fallacious argument around whether the glass is half full - or - half empty? (As if those were the only two possible answers:

The optimist says that it is half full.
The pessimist says it is half empty.
The philosopher says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be!

The "Cold War" was about "greed" and the expansion of "capitalism." The necessary outcome, like reshaping the glass to a smaller size, the reduction of communism leaves more room for the growth of capitalism and greed.

Politicians, like magicians, rely on misdirection to achieve their goals. If the public is fooled into looking one directions, the change happens in another.

From the Hunt of the Red Octboer said:
Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.

It is important to remember, that most international policy and crisis is contrived. War (the authorization to use military force) is nothing more than an admission that diplomacy has failed to swing in your direction. Expansionism of capitalism is nothing more than the admission that your nation and the Ruling Elite wants more and more. It has nothing to do with national security. (Misdirection!)

Most Respectfully,
R

James · Feb 14, 2012

I believe war of some type between the Russians and Americans was almost inevitable . Both societies have similar expansionist histories. They were competing for resources and power, so of course both countries would eventually be in conflict.

Two competing economic systems fueled the struggle for world domination, but I think Russians and Americans would have found an excuse for a struggle if both had lived under identical ideologies. We should be grateful the Soviets were communist because otherwise, they might have won.

I do believe national security can play a role. If a country feels threatened by another, it finds security by destroying the potential enemy or by establishing a strong sphere of influence.

I read the first phase of the British Empire began in part as a defensive measure against its competitors.

RoccoR · Feb 14, 2012

James, et al,

In wars between men, it is usually about "power" - influence and domination. But in wars between nations, it is about the "maximization of wealth" - the competitive advantage in commerce and industry.

James said:
I believe war of some type between the Russians and Americans was almost inevitable . Both societies have similar expansionist histories. They were competing for resources and power, so of course both countries would eventually be in conflict.

(COMMENT)

Both countries, many countries, have come to understand that military hegemony's are coming to an end. While minors wars will break-out from time to time, the new battlefield will be economic based; and not territorial. The new "King of Battle" will be networked transactions at a distance; and not artillery fire. The new "Queen of Battle" will be science and technology moving production in every direction; and not the sound of infantry answering the call to arms in three dimensions.

James said:
Two competing economic systems fueled the struggle for world domination, but I think Russians and Americans would have found an excuse for a struggle if both had lived under identical ideologies. We should be grateful the Soviets were communist because otherwise, they might have won.

(COMMENT)

Agreed.

In the very popular TV Series Star Trek, money (currency) is eliminated in favor of a "subculture of consumption" made possible by the "replicator." Yet, in this Utopian like environment, conflict still arose. Conflict is a natural development.

If the "Communist" (as in the political system 'vs' Socialism, the economic system) had won over the US style Republic (as in the political system 'vs' Capitalism, the economic system), how would the outcome have changed? Would it actually have been worse?

James said:
I do believe national security can play a role. If a country feels threatened by another, it finds security by destroying the potential enemy or by establishing a strong sphere of influence.

(COMMENT)

National Security is a highly overworked phrase. Politically, many of the actions our nation takes, in terms of Foreign Policy, are detrimental to the national security. What is in the interest of "national security" is controversial at best.

James said:
I read the first phase of the British Empire began in part as a defensive measure against its competitors.

(COMMENT)

Yes --- Commerce! Now we are getting back to the real issue of "maximizing the wealth of the shareholder;" academic-ese for "greed."

Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968) said:
Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968) said:

The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.

Click to expand...

Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) said:

Someone reminded me I once said, Greed is good. Now it seems it's legal.

Click to expand...

Lone Starr (Bill Pullman) said:

Listen! We're not just doing this for the money! We're doing this for a SHIT LOAD of money!

Click to expand...

If someone can make money, starting a war, then there will be war. And behind it all will be a politician (one step below a Used Car Salesman) who will be monetarily backed by the military industrial complex and an oil lobbyist, telling everyone how the war is in the best interest of national security.

Jeffrey Pelt (Richard Jordan) said:
"I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar. And when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops."

Most Respectfully,
R

Kingdom · Feb 15, 2012

James said:
I believe war of some type between the Russians and Americans was almost inevitable . Both societies have similar expansionist histories. They were competing for resources and power, so of course both countries would eventually be in conflict.

Many countries have found a peaceful way of handling those type of situations, e.g. the UK and the US. So why do the Russians and Chinese have to be so aggressive about it?

DodgeFB · Feb 15, 2012

Kingdom said:
Many countries have found a peaceful way of handling those type of situations, e.g. the UK and the US. So why do the Russians and Chinese have to be so aggressive about it?

I don't really know. Maybe the US and UK are not jealous of each other. And there is a lot of respect.:unsure:

Kingdom · Feb 15, 2012

DodgeFB said:
I don't really know. Maybe the US and UK are not jealous of each other. And there is a lot of respect.:unsure:

Yep, a respect that was earned between the two parts. It's about time the Russians and Chinese tried to earn the same respect, instead of breaking human rights and standing side by side by dangerous and evil regimes around the world.

American Foreign Policy's main objectives!

Similar threads