open Democracy News Analysis - If America had an ethical foreign policy,, - Comments

Steven Rogers on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

Steven Rogers — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:54:42 +0000

Are we not on the same wavelength here? I believe so, yes, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Message was edited by: Steven Rogers

ozroberts on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

ozroberts — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:25:12 +0000

Steven, "This danger is dramatically overstated, often to the point of absurdity. The weak link in the argument is in the assumption that "they", "the Middle East", or "The Arabs" are somehow the enemies of the US, and are likely to gang up on the US. This is simply not the way things are: the vast majority of Middle East oil production is from coultries that are closely allied with the US, and this does not seem likely to change." Are we not on the same wavelength here? I'm suggesting that the alleged potential 'Middle East' policy is fraught with danger for those nations should they decide to do it. What I am pointing out is a flaw in the idea behind the piece quoted by Solve.

Steven Rogers on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

Steven Rogers — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:31:36 +0000

We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros." Thus speaks the voice of ignorance. If oil producing countries demanded gold as payment for oil, they would in quite short order own all the gold ever mined. Then they would have to change the gold back into currency to buy the things they need. You can't manage global trade on a gold standard, there just isn't enough gold in circulation. there is a danger with this sort of policy on the part of the Middle East, which is that they say 'Pay us more or we withhold oil' (or pay us in a manner that devalues your currency in the global market This danger is dramatically overstated, often to the point of absurdity. The weak link in the argument is in the assumption that "they", "the Middle East", or "The Arabs" are somehow the enemies of the US, and are likely to gang up on the US. This is simply not the way things are: the vast majority of Middle East oil production is from coultries that are closely allied with the US, and this does not seem likely to change.

ozroberts on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

ozroberts — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:31:12 +0000

Solve, AN interesting take on the situation, to be sure. Particularly this: "We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros." I'd suggest this sets in an interesting light the calls in the SOU for energy alternatives. As I was discussing with a friend, there is a danger with this sort of policy on the part of the Middle East, which is that they say 'Pay us more or we withhold oil' (or pay us in a manner that devalues your currency in the global market) and the US simply turns round an says 'No. If you don't let us pay on our terms we'll kill your market by withdrawing our business and convincing our allies to do the same.'

Solve et Coagula on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

Solve et Coagula — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:01:51 +0000

The End of Dollar Hegemony HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end. It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value. First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day. Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected... For full article: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm Message was edited by: oD Forum Moderator [- please do not post full articles, provide a link instead]

eric_5 on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

eric_5 — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:36:03 +0000

Is that cruel? I do hope so.ozroberts I'm glad to hear you were having a laugh. Nothing you had said ruled out that you actually were that innocent.

ozroberts on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

ozroberts — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:07:33 +0000

eric, sweetie, I'm arguing with you because you appear to be one of the most uncompromisingly foolish fools I have ever encountered. My pedantry extends only to you in this regard - not least because it seems to wind you up quite nicely. Is that cruel? I do hope so.

eric_5 on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

eric_5 — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:24:56 +0000

Dear non-Australian Oz, Just let me come back to your childishly pedantic and inaccurate (as pendantry tends to be) contention that 'America' is not a perfectly accepted equivalent of the 'United States of America'. I'm not bringing up this point to get at you particularly. I can't imagine what prompted you to be so silly. Would you accept the President of the United States (and his scriptwriters) as a reasonable authority on the subject? I had a look at Bush's State of the Union address. I counted 41 instances of 'America' being used as an equivalent of the 'United States of America'. Are you arguing with that? Of course, I could easily cite many instances of 'Britain' being used as the equivalent of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' but I don't see why I should bother to refute such obvious linguistic incompetence.

henry_hart_1 on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

henry_hart_1 — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:22:14 +0000

"Be fair, I think eric dislikes the USA so much he wouldn't have you back even if you begged." You might have a point. "Seriously, I DO think there is an arguement for saying that the place of ethics in the current/future administrations' FP could be stronger and more consistent. More consistently intermediary and guardian and less flaming sword of righteous vengance." One could argue that the U.S. IS doing the "ethical" thing in Iraq -- ridding its people of a murderous dictator who the U.S., in the past, was guilty of supporting. But I would agree that a more moderate tone in some things would be better for the U.S. The war on terror (notice I did not use "so-called"), however poorly it may sometimes be handled, does not fall under that category, however. Fighting people who have no morals, who kill wantonly and specifically target civilians to further shadowy (or no apparent) goals, IS a moral and ethical fight, to my way of thinking. Refinement, not retrogression, is called for. HH

ozroberts on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

ozroberts — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:27:46 +0000

Be fair, I think eric dislikes the USA so much he wouldn't have you back even if you begged. Seriously, I DO think there is an arguement for saying that the place of ethics in the current/future administrations' FP could be stronger and more consistent. More consistently intermediary and guardian and less flaming sword of righteous vengance. Of all his suggestions, it's the Iran thing I find most interesting.

henry_hart_1 on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

henry_hart_1 — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:16:24 +0000

Eric, I suspect, cares little or not at all about improving America's image in the world, or even "improving" our foreign policy (to whose satisfaction, eric?) No, what eric is fomenting is a continuation of his failed "America as evil empire" thesis. Having singularly failed to make a case for his pet "empire" contention, he's gone to plan B: Ways to humble the behemoth he finds so aggravating. Apologize for Vietnam? Eschew supporting Israel in favor of backing Palestinians? Give Iran a hand developing nuclear power? What's next, eric? Perhaps we should let Kim il-Sung know it would be ok with us if he wants to annex the south -- we'll just give him a wink and a nod. Or perhaps China would finally like to take Taiwan without those pesky Americans getting in the way. Or maybe Eric would only really be happy if we were to return Hawaii and Alaska, give back the Louisiana purchase, vacate California and the southwest states and replant the Mexican flag there, hand Florida back to Spain, retrace the Westward Expansion and pack back into the original 13, and then beg Britain to take us back. Would that do it for ya, eric? HH

ozroberts on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

ozroberts — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:33:12 +0000

And the answer to that is... it wouldn't. Now if we were looking for ways to make a country's foreign policy more humanitarian... Message was edited by: ozroberts

Matt Murrell on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

Matt Murrell — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:09:59 +0000

The real question is how to an ethical foreign policy would work in a world where national interests are the motivating force.

ozroberts on "If America had an ethical foreign policy,"

ozroberts — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:25:34 +0000

Define ethical in the sense of foreign policy. And why just foreign policy? Sorry, seriously: Foreign policy cannot afford to be 100% ethical because sometimes the choice is not between right and wrong but only between different intensities of 'wrongness'.

If America had an ethical foreign policy,,

eric_5 — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:54:35 +0000

what would it be like? The late Robin Cook promised Britain an ethical foreign policy but it never materialized. Perhaps it's a contradiction in terms. What people have taken to calling an 'oxymoron'. Some items for an ethical American foreign policy, should one ever be considered. 1) An apology for the Vietnam war (both to the American and the Vietnamese people). 2) Change sides in the Israel/Palestinian conflict to support the indigenous people whose land, resources and lives are being devoured by the Jewish State. 3) Help Iran achieve nuclear power production and undertake disarmament of America's nuclear arsenal to promote a reduction of the nuclear threat worldwide. Any other ideas?