I have read I think like twenty sources. Each source saying something or another about foreign policy, and that is great, it means that there are a ton of sources to read from. At the same time all of these sources happen to be either very ambiguous, in what they are trying to actually contribute to the conversation on foreign policy, or they just give a crap load of information telling me about how they came to their conclusions about Foreign policy.
For all of those who like to talk a little about politics, here is some stuff to chew on.
Every country that the U.S. is involved with regarding trade, politics, and the like. All of these nations have some kind of treaty signed with the U.S. The U.S. has lobbyist that come to the terms of what that agreement should look like, and then send that to the nation that we want a treaty with, and they add or take away what they think should or should not be on the treaty.
If we are to trade with only certain countries which I understand, because there are just nations that the United States cannot support in good conciouss. If we are to trade with these nations then shouldn't all these countries get the same treatment? for instance instead of saying, hey we are going to trade this with this country, and this with another country, couldn't we just make it easy and make a broad statement saying yes we will trade what you are willing to trade, just don't send anything that you know is illegal in our freaking country. If this option was given to every country it would be easier. Another scenario, instead of saying to only Russia that we want them to lower the amount of nuclear arms that we have in their country, we talk to all of the nations and come up with a satisfiable agreement for everyone, and if any one nation doesn't want to comply, then they simply won't be apart of our treaty? If we listened to other countries demands and at the same time took our own security, and our own well being into account then everyone would be playing on a relatively level playing field.
There will always be conflict, because I believe that people in power will want more power, but as I have said before, the power lies in the people, and if you have nine countries saying, sorry charlie, but you broke the rules, that would be a troublesome state of affairs.
I wanna hear some people views on unilateralism ( the idea that the United States should work alone independant and sovereign of all nations), and their views on multilateralism ( the idea that the United States would interact with and be subject to the discressions of the nations in which it interacts with.)
Personally I believe in Multilateralism- I don't think that america can operate independently anymore, only because of the fact that we rely on so much of other peoples resources. If we were to cut our revenue from some countries, their lives would become chaos, and in turn our lives would hurt from the lack of their contributions. It only makes sense that if we are going to wheel and deal with other nations, give and take, then we should give and take equally, not distribute it to people we like better, just because they are nicer, but we should give the same advantages to everyone... I mean isn't that what capitalism is, everyone starts on a level playing field, and the dogs fight it out to see whos on top in the end...
This is a big debate in foreign policy it is important because some people view the U.S. as a superpower that can't be touched, and that we are the good guys, but look at it from other peoples point of view and most often we are the people to pick a fight, to say no, or to stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
lol comments are appreciated, tell me what you think
