Making Friends

[thirdeyeblindislit]

So it has recentally come to my attention, that the U.S has not been able to make friends lately. Why is this? Could it be the individual in our leadership position? Could it be the attitude of the United States all together?
Making friends/allies is very important it seems to the well being of our country.
My question is to you all is:
Is the participation in multinational diplomatic efforts beneficial to United States interests?

My definition of U.S interest is basically economic stand points and the well being of our people. So does this help? I believe yes, but only to an extent. I'm sure it doesn't help that the United States is 99.9% behind be isolationists. Tell me what you think.

[Jude]

It's pretty much what you said. We (meaning the leaders and, in attitude, an awful lot of the population) are pushy, unwilling to listen to other perspectives or try to see things from any other point of view than "we are good and everyone against us are the bad guys," and of course we're militarily, diplomatically and economically powerful which is naturally going to lead to resentment.

[griftadan]

rich people always have friends.

[Secumbro]

I don't know where you get your information, but the last time I checked, the US was on good terms with a very large percentage of the countries on earth.

[RNR]

It's the war in Iraq for Canada. Otherwise, I don't see any reason for Canadians not to like or even love the United States but offensive wars that don't really effect them negatively seem to bother Canadians. No amount of diplocmacy (despite the current diplomatic efforts) can sway a war-hating Canadian.

[bleep_bloop]

i think the US has become too nationalistic

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Step 1: All vote democrat
Step 2: Be nicer! To everyone. even people you don't like!
Step 3: Screen your trouists for that very specific type of annoying american tourist.

Then you'll have more friends!

[peeted]

i wonder how Britain's relationship with the U.S will fare once tony steps down.

[Futue te Ipsum]

You wont notice the difference.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

I don't know where you get your information, but the last time I checked, the US was on good terms with a very large percentage of the countries on earth.

Well last time I checked, President Bush was referred to as "the devil" and turned down a public debate with Iran. Hmm...sounds like they're good to me...

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Step 1: All vote democrat
Step 2: Be nicer! To everyone. even people you don't like!
Step 3: Screen your trouists for that very specific type of annoying american tourist.

Then you'll have more friends!

:chug: That's what I think! :lol:

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Well last time I checked, President Bush was referred to as "the devil" and turned down a public debate with Iran. Hmm...sounds like they're good to me...
Venuzuela and Iran alone do not make up a "very large percentage of the countries on earth."

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Venuzuela and Iran alone do not make up a "very large percentage of the countries on earth."

Ok well then let's take a look at 90% of the middle east (Syria, Iran) then let's take a look at Korea, China...hmm.. That seems like a big percentage to me. Plus which counties has President Bush rubbed right? Um...Canada...Great Britian...Mexico (well he rubbed the leader right anyway, don't know about the rest of the Mexican public)..a VERY few others...But that's really about it.

Plus, this isn't an all out attack on President Bush, also take a look at the diplomatic ties that America has had in the past....

[thirdeyeblindislit]

i think the US has become too nationalistic

I think that they've been that way for quite sometime unfourtantely.

[Iskandar]

It's the war in Iraq for Canada. Otherwise, I don't see any reason for Canadians not to like or even love the United States but offensive wars that don't really effect them negatively seem to bother Canadians.
Sure it does. It's a massive waste of resources for no benefit. Public funding which could be better spent is going to the military, quite unnecessarily.

[Hababi]

Yeah but right now if you pull that funding from the war in Iraq, it will be devastating.

Not to sidetrack this thread or anything though :p

[ringworm]

Well last time I checked, President Bush was referred to as "the devil" and turned down a public debate with Iran. Hmm...sounds like they're good to me...
Yeah, by ONE insane Venezuelan President & a radical organization that will never change it's mind about us anyway.
Sounds like you're watching too much Real Time with Bill Maher.

I do agree with the Iranian Pres comment though. Unless something's going on with him we don't know about, I can't imagine why we wouldn't talk to this guy.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Sure it does. It's a massive waste of resources for no benefit. Public funding which could be better spent is going to the military, quite unnecessarily.

See that's what I'm talking about. It really is just a massiave waste of resources, and I really haven't seen how it helps America.

[Hababi]

See that's what I'm talking about. It really is just a massiave waste of resources, and I really haven't seen how it helps America.

If we succeed in Iraq, it will be a major blow to global jihadist movements. That's straight from the NIE report.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Yeah, by ONE insane Venezuelan President & a radical organization that will never change it's mind about us anyway.
Sounds like you're watching too much Real Time with Bill Maher.

I do agree with the Iranian Pres comment though. Unless something's going on with him we don't know about, I can't imagine why we wouldn't talk to this guy.

I do agree that the Venezuelan president isn't all there, but the despute between him and our current president really is not so great diplomatically speaking. For instance, he offered us cheaper oil, but Bush turned it down. What did the Venezuelan president want in return? Nothing but that America pays them a certain amount (of course) and that we don't invade them.

But I'm glad we see eye to eye on the topic of the Iran leader. :thumb:

[thirdeyeblindislit]

If we succeed in Iraq, it will be a major blow to global jihadist movements. That's straight from the NIE report.

Well you do have a point there as well. I'm not trying to shoot anything down :) , I'm just looking at it from the perspective that we really haven't shown great movement in Iraq, and day by day we are losing more money...

[Hababi]

Oh we definately haven't had the success like we should've (and maybe would've if Rumsfeld wasn't screwing things up), but that can't be a reason to give up.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Oh we definately haven't had the success like we should've (and maybe would've if Rumsfeld wasn't screwing things up), but that can't be a reason to give up.

:chug: :lol: Sorry but due to your comment of Rumsfeld, you are my new favorite person. :thumb:

It just seems that the way we are going, we are just using up resources that we could use elsewhere.

But to get a little bit more on topic, Rumsfeld is a good example on how are diplomatic ties are not very strong and don't benefit the American public.

[Iskandar]

Yeah but right now if you pull that funding from the war in Iraq, it will be devastating.

Not to sidetrack this thread or anything though :p
If Canada did? I'm not even sure we have any troops in Iraq. I know we don't have many in Afghanistan, and your mission would barely be affected if we withdrew.

[Hababi]

Dude we need all the help we can get (and more) :lol:

[Iskandar]

Dude we need all the help we can get (and more) :lol:
I thought Afghanistan was "Bush's success story."

[Hababi]

Yeah but whenever you see "Bush success" (medicare, war on terrorism, etc.) it really means "utter failure" :p

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Bush = Success?

But we can even go as far back as to look at his father as well. I'm not sure how much better he was at those diplomatic ties.

[Iskandar]

Yeah but whenever you see "Bush success" (medicare, war on terrorism, etc.) it really means "utter failure" :p
It appears to be in better shape than Iraq at any rate.

[Hababi]

Comparing Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. is like comparing Bill Walton and Luke Walton...well Bush Sr. wasn't near as good a president as Bill was a basketball player, and Bush Jr. isn't as good a president as Luke is a ball player...so not quite :(

I struggled to think of another appropriate comparison...Maybe Phil and Chris Simms--Phil Simms was competent, not hugely impressive. Chris Simms is dramatically overrated and not as good as the guy behind him.


It appears to be in better shape than Iraq at any rate.

But it's also going downhill, and Bush seems to lack the committment to ensuring Afghanistan succeeds long term.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Comparing Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. is like comparing Bill Walton and Luke Walton...well Bush Sr. wasn't near as good a president as Bill was a basketball player, and Bush Jr. isn't as good a president as Luke is a ball player...so not quite :(

I struggled to think of another appropriate comparison...Maybe Phil and Chris Simms--Phil Simms was competent, not hugely impressive. Chris Simms is dramatically overrated and not as good as the guy behind him.



But it's also going downhill, and Bush seems to lack the committment to ensuring Afghanistan succeeds long term.



Oh I'm not saying that Bush Sr. isn't 100% better than his son, but I trying to show that our handicap toward Diplomatic ties hasn't just started. It's been along for some time.

[Iskandar]

But it's also going downhill, and Bush seems to lack the committment to ensuring Afghanistan succeeds long term.
He could pull out of Iraq before it gets really ugly. That'd ease the burden.

[Hababi]

He could pull out of Iraq before it gets really ugly. That'd ease the burden.

Yeah but then instead of Afghanistan falling back into the hands of jihadists, it'd be Iraq falling into the hands of jihadists. And Iraq has more oil wealth :o

Bush needs to suck it up and prepare and send 50,000 more troops. Maybe he will after the election, when he's a lame duck and possibly lacking an allied House or Senate.

[Iskandar]

Yeah but then instead of Afghanistan falling back into the hands of jihadists, it'd be Iraq falling into the hands of jihadists. And Iraq has more oil wealth :o
It was never in the hands of terrorists (please don't say "jihadist"); it was in the hands of governments friendly to them. Now neither country is.
Bush needs to suck it up and prepare and send 50,000 more troops.
Whoa, blatant militarism will just decrease support for your mission in the region.

[ChimPz]

I think a good reason why the US are losing more friends than they're gaining is it's attitude. A lot of people feel like the US behaves like a spoiled brat that starts swinging its fists around when it doesn't get its way.

Even the leaders of the rest of the western world don't exactly like you, save for Blair, who doesn't get much sympathy for it, nor from his party nor from his people. But we keep on friendly terms with the US because telling you to shove off wouldn't do any good to either of us.

[Hababi]

It was never in the hands of terrorists (please don't say "jihadist"); it was in the hands of governments friendly to them. Now neither country is.


Well the Taliban was terrorizing their own country if that counts :p


Whoa, blatant militarism will just decrease support for your mission in the region.


One of the major problems is that we don't have the troop presence that we need, in either countries, really. A few retired generals have come forward and said that we need at least 50,000 more troops in order to succesfully combat the insurgency.

[Iskandar]

Well the Taliban was terrorizing their own country if that counts :p
I suppose it does, but they're gone now and real progress has been made.

Not so in Iraq, which has gone from a stable dictatorship to an unstable, violence attempt at democracy. I'm not sure which life the citizenry would prefer. The sentiment of kicking out the Ba'ath was morally right, but it hasn't led to a general rise in the standard of living for Abdul the camel trader.
One of the major problems is that we don't have the troop presence that we need, in either countries, really. A few retired generals have come forward and said that we need at least 50,000 more troops in order to succesfully combat the insurgency.
Well, a few retired generals have come forward and said a variety of things ranging from "we need 50 000 more troops" to "we need to get out now." Every other interview on The Daily Show features a retired general and his diverse opinions on Iraq. I don't recommend we use their comments as a basis for future strategy.

[Mr. Ron]

We just need to send more fruit baskets to everyone.

[Hababi]

I suppose it does, but they're gone now and real progress has been made.


The problem is that they're not gone though :\ we had the opportunity to smash them in the mountains, and we didn't go forward with it. Now they're gaining strength, and will continue to thanks to Mushariff's bumbling ineptitude.


Well, a few retired generals have come forward and said a variety of things ranging from "we need 50 000 more troops" to "we need to get out now." Every other interview on The Daily Show features a retired general and his diverse opinions on Iraq. I don't recommend we use their comments as a basis for future strategy.


There has been some different opinions, but I like the "put more troops in" argument a whole lot more than "get out now".

[666Ozzfan]

Has Bush actually done anything else, other than get rid of Saddam?

[Iskandar]

Now they're gaining strength, and will continue to thanks to Mushariff's bumbling ineptitude.
He's a military dictator in need of serious deposing, but not by you guys.
There has been some different opinions, but I like the "put more troops in" argument a whole lot more than "get out now".
I really hate to make this comparison, but for once it's called for: That didn't work in Nam.

[Jaded]

Step 1: All vote democrat
Step 2: Be nicer! To everyone. even people you don't like!
Step 3: Screen your trouists for that very specific type of annoying american tourist.

Then you'll have more friends!

Yeah, and us Americans don't have to put up with annoying tourists from other countries...:rolleyes: