Collegiate Times

Hey, jacka$$, stick to civil engineering.

I agree wholeheartedly, especially with the closing sentence.

What crap are you smoking, America is the most powerful nation in the world and yes the world does revolve around us. We need to act in our best interests to secure what we need for ourselves and screw and everyone that isn't on our side. That's how this game is played, you can believe the Obama talk this out and grovel to our enemies approach but wait and see how that blows up in his face. Enjoy your moment while it lasts hippies your pissing off mainstream America much quicker than Bush did, it took him 6 years to tank his party I give Obama 4 before he's in the same boat.

man, jingoistic must be the word of the week at CT. i've never seen it used so many times in such a short period. it's good that somebody points out the world doesn't revolve around us and other countries that can't support themselves due so "through no fault of their own." it's a fresh idea and since nobody has ever heard that maybe it will spark some discussion. personally, i think there will always just be winners and losers in this world. luckily, a lot of the people in this country have been winners.

I hear a lot about the US foreign policy causing so much trouble around the world. Which policies are doing this? I don't know much about our foreign policy except terrorists are bad. I don't like the vague explanation of our foreign policy is creating ruin. What are some good examples of a foreign policy screwing over the rest of the world? Well...there are the wars, I see that one causing some problems.

Sean, you can't demand facts from these people who base their beliefs on knee jerk emotional reactions and think we should act like the world's concierge because they base their views on foreign policy on the Care Bears instead of something more useful like The Prince.

Looks like Snake Plissken hasn't thought about the world much since 10th grade.

haha the Care ears. Haven't heard of them in a while. Rainbow Brite! There's another throwback for ya. Well I just read a lot of people repeating what I hear on tv but I've never heard which foreign policy is destroying the planet. I'm not saying what we are doing isn't going to create a globe of fire. I'm saying how can anything be fixed if there is no specific policy identified that is creating the problem? I know it is hip these days to just spout off with "our policies are bad" but we need to shift our policy of ___ to ____ is a better approach to actually solving something.

20 bucks says proud servant is a ron paul supporter who posts on 4chan

Oh yes Anonymous at 3:42, I don't believe the US should prostrate itself before the entire world and beg for its forgiveness for simply looking out for its own interests, so therefore I must be immature. Open your eyes man, it's a dog eat dog world out there and the way to survive isn't to treat diplomacy like some massive international popularity contest.

stop being so realistic, we are trying to get a dream world going on here you buzzkill

Haha, so true.

"self serving attitude in regards to foreign policy is immature, inhumane, and dangerous to our own country" I hope that you reflect on these words and realize how idiotic they are. maybe the definition of 'foreign policy' will help you: "approaches and goals pursued by a nation in interactions with other nation, in furtherance of national interests" So, a self-serving attitude in regards to the furtherance of OUR interests is immature? The only thing immature here is your appease-all view of the world. If you want to rant about US foreign policy how about addressing a real issue. like how our current govt. treats oppressive dictators better than some of it's own citizens (like the talk radio hosts you mention). and I would love to hear you explain why it is bad to hate socialist dictators, like human rights violator Hugo Chavez, who are the epitome of everything America stands against. I'm sorry though, I forgot; the cool thing to do these days is be nice to everybody that hates America.

Tom... I think the author believes that our mere definition of foreign policy is bad since we enact policies that are for our benefit. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is to the detriment of others, in my opinion. It would be great if we could define policies that are the the interest of everyone but I think in such agreements somebody will have to get the short end of the stick. It's just the author wants us to take be on the short end even though we elect people to act on behalf of our interests. I'm not sure why, it almost seems like some sort of survivor's guilt and Americans feel bad that other people live like pooh while we are doing ok. So it's our fault...but any therapist will say "no, stop blaming yourself, it's not your fault."

Most countries in the world are vehemently 'anti-US intervention' in every way except when it comes to being the recipient of our monetary aid. If we continue to shell out money to floundering nations governed by inept and corrupt people, we ought to also continue affirming the certain sanctions that come along with that support and acting, perhaps militarily if necessary, when those nations falter on their obligations. If the goal here is to really truly become isolationist, we need to start by ending every one of our foreign aid programs.

Tom, I should have made myself more clear. I'm not saying that hating leaders like Chavez is bad, because I would agree that he is an inept, corrupt, and oppressive ruler, and the same goes for the Castro brothers. What I'm trying to say is that we must conduct ourselves more intelligently throughout the world, because leaders like Chavez and Castro are the result of when we don't. We have a long history of supporting foreign governments that fail catastrophically or violently backfire - the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, and Batista are just a few examples. And of course I think we should look out for our own interests. However, we should do so much more diplomatically and openly, and we should realize that developing nations must look out for their own interests, as well. For example, we tend to demonize leftist leaders like Evo Morales who nationalize resources to secure profits and grow their own country's economy, but Americans would demand exactly the same thing in the same situation. I do think an extreme self-serving attitude is immature because historically it's blossomed into wanton disregard for human rights and developing economies. This sort of hypocrisy is simply immoral, and, please forgive the rough analogy, not unlike a rich man kicking a homeless person.

Kyle, your points about aid are interesting - it's a very complex issue that deserves much more attention. Countries can become completely dependent on our foreign aid, and too much of it can actually destroy local economies by putting farmers and other workers out of business. I've heard more and more that the best way to help fledgling countries and secure our own interests abroad is to do business in these countries in a way that provides fair profits to local people, but I've yet to see this sort of thing implemented on a scale that rivals aid programs. In this increasingly global society, I don't think isolationism is the answer to anything.

I don't either, Thomas - but the overarching point is that countries should not be able to come to expect monetary support from the US without stipulations on that support - keeping in mind, of course, that the lion's share of UN support is actually US support offered under a different flag. There are some legitimate reasons why we need to send aid abroad (though it's worth noting that humanitarian gestures in foreign lands was not something the Constitution allowed the federal government to do . . .), but what we seem to have now is a world by and large which demands and expects huge amounts of money and products from the US, and simultaneously demands that the US stay out of its internal affairs. Think of it in terms of the poor college kid who hits up his parents for money - I don't know about your parents, but mine would never ave given me any kind of help if I wasn't meeting their expectations.

Is giving money with strings attached an issue? I don't think that is what you guys are talking about. I guess the problem is the strings we are using, yeah? You can't please all the people all of the time. Hell, you can't please half the people any of the time. You do the best you can in the present and hopefully things work out. You can't game plan foreign aid thinking you know what will happen several years down the road- too many variables. People that live like pooh are going to blame their situation on the ones that live comfortably. That is the only constant in foreign affairs.

I believe you mean "effects"