You bring up the one policy that is most amendable to US influence and policy modification and the most likely to give the greatest benefit to US interests - and declare it 'off the table'?

I agree that US support for Israel is solid and reasonable, but the nature and character of this relationship could undergo some changes. At present, the Palestinian-Israel issue is becoming intractable because of total US unquestioned support for an aggressive Israeli policy of permanent annexation of foreign territory - this not only prevents peace, it encourages a state of permanent war in the region.

Full US support and defense of Israel does not require the US to support the Israeli occupation of foreign territory (let alone attempts to acquire more of it).

That is to say, there is one heck of a lot the US Government could do to facilitate a resolution to the Palestinian issue. Unqualified support for Israeli aggressive policy is what is truly harming US interests in the region.

The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not a 'zero-sum' game and the USA ought not to pretend that it is (as the GWBush Administration is doing).

There's the rub isn't it? US citizens apparently support US foreign policy that rationally harms their own material interests.

A short list of US foreign policies that harm US citizen's interests...

US standing as the guardians of the Saudi regime against the wishes of their own people. This is Osama's publicly stated reason for the 9/11 attack. (Yes, the US has recently removed most of their garrison troops from the country in response to Osama's demand - and a polite Saudi request, though, they could be returned in a hurry if the House of Saud calls for help...).

Strong US support (aid, loans, guarentees and weaponry) for the Pakistani dictatorship. This regime has been identified as the 'reputed' source of N.Korea's and Iran's nuclear technology...

Bush signing an 'open the doors' nuclear-technology-trade agreement with India. India is the likely source of Pakistan's nuclear weapons technology. Thus, nuclear tech for India increases the likelihood of trickle down to Iran and N.Korea. However, US defense contractors really like India and Pakistan.

US refusing to discuss issues with N.Korea, US refusing to sign a peace treaty and/or US refusing to sign a non-aggression treaty with N.Korea (ultimate cause/purpose of the N.Korean nuclear program is the USA - it is a rational response from N.Korea to consistent US policy over the last 50 years). Alas, the US defense industry prefers some heat in the far east to keep up the military budget otherwise, N.Korea could have been defused years ago.

The US is up to their eyeballs in involvement with rightwing paramilitaries in Columbia right now... increasing every year. Same game has been going on in Central and South America for decades. Clandestine US support (funding, training, intelligence support) for rightwing paramilitary groups.

The US Government supports a radical interpretation of international law - effectively asserting that there is none and ought not to be any.

Not if that just creates more of them. Then it is fool's game.

Ignoring/dismissing any kind of constructive engagement with one's opponents (N.Korea, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, etc.) and insisting upon confrontation is counter-productive. One can only conclude that the US seeks to maintain a posture of continuous war as a foundational goal of US foreign policy. This inherently creates non-security for all places outside of the USA. This in turn breeds an inevitable backlash against the USA in a variety of forms, not the least of which, is terrorism - even if only out of spite or frustration with their own nations, governments or social groups - who all (like the USA) like to demonise their enemies for domestic political purposes.

That is a strong statement about your fellow man. It certainly makes it worthy of timely discussion.

I would only judge you by the ideas you bring forward here.

I wanted to see Saddam bought to justice for his crimes, they were really 100x worse anything the US government is debating currently.

The WMD claims were suspicous to me from the start, and Bush essentially lied to the public over that one.

No. These vast international connections and associations only came about through/by affiliations of existing networks after 9/11, primarly in response to the high level of prestige Osama and 'Al Queda' acquired through their execution of the enormously successful 9/11 operation.

That is to say, the Chechnians and the Indonesian groups (for example) pre-existed any connections with Osama/Al Queda. They have only joined their 'causes' post 9/11 and often only symbolically. The are each entirely indenpendent operations.

No. The point of the UN is to address the issue of nations militarily interfering in other nations. That is the fundamental purpose of the UN - to prevent, contain or reduce inter-nation-al war.

The 'humanitarian' mission of the UN is secondary to that primary purpose.

Humans have a long and established history of dehumanizing each other.

On what the Administration did with that great initial hand, that is sadly true. And I think you are being more gracious than I by even claiming that what is has done has served the interests of US corporations and the US military. Troops have been sent into theatres ill-equipped with horrible and/or no proper planning, and without the necessary commitment of troops to accomplish their objectives. And the animosity created by the policies helps get more enemies and/or lack of support from should-be allies for which the US troops must bear the consequences. A few areas and firms (often well-connected to the administration and/or Congress) are profiting, but on the whole US corporations haven't been able to get much ability to invest in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and turbulence created by the policies has raised the risks and the costs and harmed marketplace goodwill for US corporations and interests abroad.

But one thing that has really been a larger problem is the lack of competent leadership in the West generally. Bush is one thing, but let's look at the rest of the players the past five years. In Canada, Jean Chrétien and his government were plagued with scandals and didn't take the higher road when handling Bush, often settling into exchanging pettiness and ego-jabs. Bush's Republican backers and Chrétien's Liberal backers had alot of big mouths and egotistical, self-righteous, condescending bloviators who spent their time tossing hot wind at each other to aggravate the situation whilst accomplishing nothing worthwhile. Across the Atlantic, there was much of the same thing with people like Chirac, Schroeder, Zapatero and others and their governements and supporters vis-a-vis the US administration and its Congress and supporters. And alot of the problems regarding terrorism and global safety have been compromised by each nation's private self-interests, the Iraq war involving the most notable explosive confluence of them amongst other areas of concern.

The winner of all this is, of course, AQ and other problem sources that have ill intentions for all of us. AQ is a movement moreso than just bin Laden and his associates, and it was intended to be so--an inspirational movement for all who like it. The group that attempted to commit those atrocities in Canada recently are part of that. Collectively speaking, we need someone with the ability to lead to stand up against this threat and do so effectively. 9.11 was an attack on all of us. What Bush has done since then is often retroactively placed on 9.11, but what is important for each nation to know is the truth--AQ and its inspiration means ill will towards all of us and meant so with that attack and plenty of others even before Bush took office. Clinton was extremely popular abroad and created alot of goodwill for the US, but AQ still attacked during his tenure and was increasing its ability to do so. Other nations that did not attack Iraq and have opposed Bush's policies have likewise been attacked and/or were attempted to be attacked. So, as I see it, most fundamentally it is about them and what they have in store for all of us. For our own collective safety, our eyes shouldn't ever be moved off that ball no matter how annoyed one nation's leadership may get with another's. I'm looking for charismatic and intelligent leaders who can remain above the fray, the pettiness, the soundbites, the distractions, etc and lead. Such leaders get support at home and abroad, and we need them badly ASAP.

You bring up the one policy that is most amendable to US influence and policy modification and the most likely to give the greatest benefit to US interests - and declare it 'off the table'?



We support a two state solution. That is more than enough to enrage the types of fundies prone to violence.

At present, the Palestinian-Israel issue is becoming intractable because of total US unquestioned support for an aggressive Israeli policy of permanent annexation of foreign territory - this not only prevents peace, it encourages a state of permanent war in the region

That is not our position at all. We 100% support Israel's right to defend itself. Something which would be common sense to the internatinal community when any other nation has to do it.

US standing as the guardians of the Saudi regime against the wishes of their own people. This is Osama's publicly stated reason for the 9/11 attack. (Yes, the US has recently removed most of their garrison troops from the country in response to Osama's demand - and a polite Saudi request, though, they could be returned in a hurry if the House of Saud calls for help...).


Problem is, this is exactly the opposite of both are positions. This is an example of something the American people don't actually support with their hearts, but do support with their votes and their wallets(ie, if the Saudi regime falls and that increases gas prices, Americans will be pissed).

Strong US support (aid, loans, guarentees and weaponry) for the Pakistani dictatorship. This regime has been identified as the 'reputed' source of N.Korea's and Iran's nuclear technology...



Post-9/11 policy and one that is being reconsidered in light of Pakistan's surrender to the Taliban.

Bush signing an 'open the doors' nuclear-technology-trade agreement with India. India is the likely source of Pakistan's nuclear weapons technology. Thus, nuclear tech for India increases the likelihood of trickle down to Iran and N.Korea. However, US defense contractors really like India and Pakistan.


Another post 9/11 policy and one in line with American public opinion. India is a fellow democracy and our support of Pakistan has always been a bit out of character considering that India shares our values and Pakistan does not.

US refusing to discuss issues with N.Korea, US refusing to sign a peace treaty and/or US refusing to sign a non-aggression treaty with N.Korea (ultimate cause/purpose of the N.Korean nuclear program is the USA - it is a rational response from N.Korea to consistent US policy over the last 50 years). Alas, the US defense industry prefers some heat in the far east to keep up the military budget otherwise, N.Korea could have been defused years ago.


Agreements with North Korea are meaningless and could actually make war more likely. The best thing to do with North Korea is to let them rot. They can try to eat nuclear weapons if they want.

The US Government supports a radical interpretation of international law - effectively asserting that there is none and ought not to be any.


No, the US government is a firm supporter of international law. But law has no value if not enforced. The Iraq war would never have happened if international law had been enforced in the first place.

Not if that just creates more of them. Then it is fool's game.


There is no evidence that it does create more of them. If terrorists were truly the hydra many people make them out to be, literally everyone would be a terrorist by now.

Ignoring/dismissing any kind of constructive engagement with one's opponents (N.Korea, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, etc.) and insisting upon confrontation is counter-productive

We do not always insist on confrontation. In all of those cases except for Iran, diplomacy has been tried for years or decades to no avail. At some point diplomacy has to end and confrontation has to begin(although this need not mean armed confrontation).

No. These vast international connections and associations only came about through/by affiliations of existing networks after 9/11, primarly in response to the high level of prestige Osama and 'Al Queda' acquired through their execution of the enormously successful 9/11 operation.


Sure they existed. And Al Qaeda joined their causes. If Al Qaeda exists as a protest against US foreign policy, why do they put so many resources into these other fights?

No. The point of the UN is to address the issue of nations militarily interfering in other nations. That is the fundamental purpose of the UN - to prevent, contain or reduce inter-nation-al war.



I refer you to the Human Rights Charter. The UN is empowered to investigate and punish human rights abuses.

So why is the US ignoring the reality that most of the rest of the world believes it to be going down the wrong road? Your hypocrisy stinks Tim.

Exactly! Americans can't take any kind of constructive criticism whatsoever without howling anti-americanism. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks for god's sakes! I wish they'd grow up, get an education about the rest of the world and realize that they are HARDLY the centre of the universe...(95% of the world isn't American and doesn't want to be)...and start acting far more responsibly internationally than they have been. But what can you expect from a country that elects a president that has hardly ever spent time outside of the USA. Ignorance and arrogance are two of the worst personality traits, especially in a country that aspires to leadership.

Your arrogance is showing. Precisely why people are fed up with your country internationally. Do you have any conception of how arrogant you come across as? No wonder your country has a problem. Are you blind?

Well, you have a big footprint and it tends to leave a big mess whenever you step in shit internationally.

No, more like yours.

Get an education......dude.

Obviously Canadians are smarter than Americans (Europeans are smarter too, especially the French) since we didn't get involved in your illegal war in Iraq which had diddly-squat to do with terrorism and all to do with Bush's lies. Meanwhile, when we get involved in the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan, US troops kill Canadian troops in a series of friendly fire incidents. Yep, we're DEFINATELY smarter.

What gives ALL OF US the right to criticise US foreign policy? FREEDOM - you know, what your President says he's fighting for.

I don't and I'm Canadian so I guess you shouldn't generalize.