Sunshinestate

I appreciate the fact that British expats want to educate idiot Americans, so I imagine turn about is fair play.

Now, you are not going to like this very much as it goes against what you have been lead to believe, but I strongly recommend you read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Special-Provid.../dp/0415935369

Now I know it cuts against the grain, but it is very well documented.

Yes, we had a foreign policy before 1941....wow.

It shows the antagonistic relationship we had with European powers in the 19th century, which might explain our "late to the party" attitude of the first world war Europeans started.

But let us examine the hubris of the British during that time. It seems the same as now. You always thought you our betters, no?

Lord Bryce, a British statesman who served as Britain’s ambassador to the United States from 1907 to 1913, once wrote that the role of foreign policy in American life could be described the way travelers described snakes in Ireland: “There are no snakes in Ireland.”

AS today, the British thought we had no clue of foreign policy.

However, who won exactly? The sophisticated Europeans or the rube Americans?

In 1895 one of America’s many successful but largely forgotten secretaries of state, Richard Olney, had forced the British to back down in a boundary dispute between British Guiana (now Guyana) and Venezuela. “Today the United States,” stated Olney, “is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.” 3 Not content with forcing the British to acknowledge their secondary status in the Western Hemisphere, the United States was exerting increasing influence in Asia. It was Secretary of State John Hay who proclaimed the Open Door policy toward China, and, rather surprisingly, the other great powers accepted American opposition to further partition of a weak Chinese empire.

What a bunch of idiots we were and are.

It is a good book by the way. I doubt you have the guts to read it, as it tramples your Euro perspective.

SS

Sunshinestate

Well then, welcome to America. You see, we are an entirely different culture with different cultural norms than the UK. You people remind me of those that come to Florida on vacation in July and August and complain about the heat and humidity.

Well no shit. Get a better travel agent or get a clue ok?

SS

Sunshinestate

Now, let us examine critical thinking. Frankly, I do not see anything worth emulating in the EU. Rather dreadful over there, but apparently you euros need to lecture us on things.

Tell me why we should emulate your dying economies?

I know Obama wants to do the same, but frankly I am less than impressed.

Please let me know.

Oh please, thrill me with your acumen.

SS

AdobePinon

Well done.

Zen10

Like the British before them, the Americans have had more pressure on their foreign policy than other countries because they are so powerful. In many ways, their foreign policy has been sound. Successes include the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and failures include Afghanistan and Iraq, the former famously beating both the British, twice, and the Soviets as well.

At the moment, the US seems to pursuing a policy of appeasement towards China, and I think this is setting them up for a lot of trouble down the road. As for Olney, that was 80 years after the Monroe Doctrine and no one should have been surprised by that. It was until the 1950s, and Suez, than Europeans finally realised how powerful the US was.

Zen10

The US economy is also shrinking in terms of its global GDP share, going from 50% after WWII to 31% under Clinton and now down to 21%.

Sunshinestate

Seems odd given your enlightenment. Europeans are supposed to know and see all, and you did not see that one coming. Fact is it was a fait accompli...

So much of Europe and Asia was in ruins. The two strongest standing, for better or worse, was the USA and The Soviet Union. War between Germany and France was swept away, so the political reality helped create the political structure of today.

Europe has made great strides since then, but do not think it wasn't because of your rube cousins across the pond. Likewise, we should not dismiss what Europe has done. Great strides in science and technology have come from Europe, and we need to acknowledge this. We in the US owe much to our European founders and yes, I mean the UK.

ss

Sunshinestate

We have no where to go but down. However, I am not worried.

SS

Sunshinestate

The Chinese are an interesting lot. Free from the bounds of Kyoto, as they are a "developing" nation...ahem....

Rule number one...never get in a land war in asia.

jsut saying.

SS

Zen10

I don't think it's anything to worry about. The US will remain very powerful, uniquely so, for around 15 to 20 years, and then it will share power with China in a bipolar system as it did with the USSR for the second half of the 20th Century. We could see another arms race in this period.

My concern is that the US will withdraw to the Western Hemisphere in the middle of this century, allowing an expansionist China to dominate the shipping lanes in the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean and South China Sea. I am one of those "Euros" who happens to appreciate that the peace and stability we enjoy today is thanks to US predominance, and when it starts to wane, as some wish to happen, the world will be less stable.

Zen10

The English (before "Britain") had a long-standing foreign policy of what today we would call off-shore balancing. It ensured that whoever grew to powerful on the Continent, they would support their enemy, therefore balancing and ensuring no single power became too dominant in Europe. The US did the same thing when it crushed Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany. This required land war. I agree that a land war in Asia would be crazy, and in fact if you look at current US war plans for what is essentially a war against China, you'll see they are based totally on air and sea power.

Sunshinestate

One thing I respected about the British was their maritime tradition. Perhaps the greatest navy that every was or ever will be. The United States are heirs to that crown. It is not hubris or American jingoism to say we now rule the seas. This will be challenged by the Chinese in the future and again by the Russians.

We will fall back on our training and our ancestry. Rule Britannia. Our maritime tradition is an extension of your own. We are not perfect and we do err greatly, but the US Navy rules the seas. I hope we live up to a proud tradition and do the right thing. Oh jeez, what am I saying, we will screw this one up royally.

You know, a little less taxation and we would still be part of your empire. Sure, a continental wide cultural problem, but we would still try.



SS

Zen10

I totally agree, and the US Navy has ruled the seas since Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet went round the world in 1907-1909. This showed everyone that the US was now a global presence, and yes it was the heir to the Royal Navy, started by Henry VIII. People just do not realise how much of global peace and prosperity is secured by the US Navy, as once was done by the RN, which today is in a terrible state being cut left right and centre because of the terrible British economy.

Again, my concern is that it will slowly withdraw due to budget cuts. Obama only recently moved a naval exercise out of the Yellow Sea and into the Sea of Japan because Beijing told him to, basically. you can say this was smart diplomacy, but I don't think it's a good sign. It's up to the Americans now - as the Chinese fleet gets bigger every day, the Royal Navy gets cut every day.

Sunshinestate

The problem with the Royal Navy is simply one of numbers, not its professionalism. I was in the US Submarine force and we did ops with the Brits. They were obviously very well trained and professional. They did their job and did it well.

As far as the Chinese are concerned, it is a problem if the US wants to defend Taiwan. In open waters, we will clean their clocks. That close to the Chinese mainland I am afraid we are at a significant disadvantage. They would probably prevail. The good thing about the Chinese, like the Soviets before them, is that they are not suicidal. They are slow and methodical. The US needs to be the same, but what are the chances of that?

Still, we owe much to the UK for our system of government and our rule of the seas. Today, we own it...tomorrow.....maybe not so much.

But one thing is as sure as the nose on your face, we owe much to the mother country. It is a shame it is not taught in our schools.

SS

Zen10

I agree about the problem with the RN being one of cash and funding, not professionalism. I worked with UK military for many years (as a civilian) and they were the most professional people I have worked with in my entire career.

Taiwan... has been a major problem for a long time. Will the US abandon Taiwan? Who knows? They supply them with weapons, but would they go to war for them? Once maybe, but now, I'm not so sure. You are right to point out that Moscow and Beijing as not suicidal, but that they are "rational actors" as one might say. This is why we can predict to a certain degree what they want and what they will do.

I also agree about the US being the heir to Britain. When you consider that Britain ruled from 1500 to around 1900, and the US has ruled since 1900, you can see that English-speaking democracies have ruled for half a millenium. Between the two of us we have seen off challenges from the Dutch, the Spanish, the French, the Germans (twice), the Japanese and the Russians. Now we have another challenger - China. Can we see them off, or is this a change of global leadership to a non-English-speaking power?