USA: University Students Allowed to Carry Concealed Weapons on Campus

Just a random example to disprove your point: Sweden.

swedish foreign policy is one of non-intervention. theyre neutral. neither good nor bad.

In principle, you are right, though. I don´t want to get into all-out-America-bashing mode. I would take America over China and Russia, too, but: the Chinese head of state is not commonly referred to as "leader of the free world". I´d expect a bit more of the leader of the free world.

and every now and then, the US produces one of those inspirational leaders. that we've had a bad generation or 2 isnt a good sign, but it doesnt turn the US position in the world on its head either.

No, they aren´t - that is still my point. There is a clear track record of supressing human rights and democaracy after WW2.

Just another random example: Gerald Ford, who was by no means one of the worst presidents, endorsed Indonesia´s invasion of East Timor. During Indonesia´s occupation, half of the population was killed. Successional administrations, including Carter´s knew full well what was going on - and did nothing. Wait, that´s not true. They went out of their way to make sure Congress approves further arms exports to Indonesia. Just a random example.

inconsistant policy doesnt mean malevolent policy. yes the US supports saudi arabia, supported suharto (australias record in indonesia in that regard is considerably worse). whilst the US was backing suharto over the communists, they also stood up to the soviets (much worse), the chinese (equally bad) and their various proxies (nth korea).

at the end of the day, whilst the US was looking out for itself not the people of the world, more people are free today than would've been the case otherwise. make no mistake - there was NOTHING nice about the old communist system. sometimes picking the lesser of 2 evils (suharto) is the unfortunate decision that has to be made. its still selfish policy of course, but i dont blame the US especialy.

Disclaimer:
I am not an "America-basher".
I actually do think the USA is a pretty good invention. It has a superb constitution, it managed 42 consecutive peaceful power handovers from one president to the next (which other nation can make that claim?), it has saved Europe from being ruled by Germans twice (the Brits still adore America for that - in fact they are so traumatized that they don´t even consider to hire a German football coach, not even in an extremely desperate situation! :D ) and it has saved Europe from being ruled by Stalin, too.

Thank you, America, for all of that - until the end of time. I`m not the least bit ironic about that.

Well done.

However:

[America-bashing mode]

swedish foreign policy is one of non-intervention. theyre neutral. neither good nor bad.

Wrong logic, Gordo.

Unilateral interventionism = bad
Neutral = also bad, because taking no side equals taking the side of the stronger party.

There is a perfectly acceptable way to intervene, and that is to bring your case to the UN security council and if this votes "yes" you can happily go ahead with your intervention and bomb the bastards back to the stone age. Yee-ha!

If it says "no" (like it did in the case if the Iraq/WMD fiasco) and you give orders to invade anyway, you should be brought to the international court in The Hague and be properly locked up in a prison cell like Slobodan Milosevic.

But then, the USA doesn´t even acknowledge any international law. It is above the law. We have a rogue state here. Let´s kick the USA out of the UN. They don´t even pay their membership fee!

and every now and then, the US produces one of those inspirational leaders. that we've had a bad generation or 2 isnt a good sign, but it doesnt turn the US position in the world on its head either.

Come on. The USA has brought up nothing but crackpots since 45 years (except for Carter maybe) and that shouldn´t hurt their position in the world?

In contrast, we Germans have almost always decent leaders, but one crackpot every 45 years. It has done our image in the world not much good.

inconsistant policy doesnt mean malevolent policy. yes the US supports saudi arabia, supported suharto (australias record in indonesia in that regard is considerably worse). whilst the US was backing suharto over the communists, they also stood up to the soviets (much worse), the chinese (equally bad) and their various proxies (nth korea).

Nope, The US foreign policy is consistent. It consistently fucks up innocent countries. As for your "it´s a puppy meaning no harm" argument: isn´t it remarkable that whatever the US does to **** up other countries, the ones who always benefit from it are the thugs, cronies & otherwise rich in the respective fucked-over country AND American corporations?

Isn´t that really, really suspicious?

at the end of the day, whilst the US was looking out for itself not the people of the world, more people are free today than would've been the case otherwise. make no mistake - there was NOTHING nice about the old communist system. sometimes picking the lesser of 2 evils (suharto) is the unfortunate decision that has to be made. its still selfish policy of course, but i dont blame the US especialy.

No.

Helping Suharto was NOT necessary. Suharto´s predecessor Sukarno was NOT a communist. The commies even tried a coup AGAINST him in 1966.

Apart from that, why back an invasion of East Timor? Could that half of a tiny island have been a threat to anyone?

I do think that America´s foreign policy since WW2 needs to be discussed in America. The cold war is history now and it can be discussed without getting personal about anyone who might have been involved in any evil stuff. Henry Kissinger will soon be dead, too. At least I hope!

It needs to be discussed, otherwise it won´t change.

The world should be glad that the USA is broke now. They won´t have sufficient funds for things like the Iraq invasion for the next decade or so.

Let´s hope they use the time to re-assess their role in world politics.

[/America-bashing mode]

Wrong logic, Gordo.

Unilateral interventionism = bad
Neutral = also bad, because taking no side equals taking the side of the stronger party.

so, you're saying intervention is acceptable in certain situations, but to not intervene is to automatically take the 'stronger' side? so, we're all currently on mugabe, ahmedinijad & lil kims side because we havent intervened? so should we intervene?

unilateralism is unfortunate, but all states do it. thats the nature of soveriegnty - something few states are happy to give up. the EU has broken down a lot of barriers, but its a long way from a single military. all states reserve the right to act in their own interests, including self-defense.

now, im not saying the US was acting in self-defense in the case of iraq and i completely opposed the invasion, but i wouldnt paint unilateralism with such a broad brush.

Come on. The USA has brought up nothing but crackpots since 45 years (except for Carter maybe) and that shouldn´t hurt their position in the world?

In contrast, we Germans have almost always decent leaders, but one crackpot every 45 years. It has done our image in the world not much good.

true, but germanys post war history has been unique, to say the least. with its own issues and challenges.

equally, germany's position in the world is, obviously, vastly different. its leaders DO have a position of leadership on the world stage that Germany doesnt. a case of apples and oranges... or maybe oranges and mandarins, i dunno.

Nope, The US foreign policy is consistent. It consistently fucks up innocent countries. As for your "it´s a puppy meaning no harm" argument: isn´t it remarkable that whatever the US does to **** up other countries, the ones who always benefit from it are the thugs, cronies & otherwise rich in the respective fucked-over country AND American corporations?

of course the states has acted immorally in the interests of its corporations - germany and europe are equally guilty (not to mention the UN). the difference is scale; the US involvement is always going to be bigger because the US carries so much more weight. give most countries teh same power and influence and they'll behave the same.

thats my point at the end of teh day. the US has been behind more than a few **** ups, but so have other countries. singling out the US is pointless because its always going to be at the forefront of world events, its the most powerful country in the world. i cant really blame a country for acting they way anyone else would. yes, id hope that all states would act in a moral and ethical manner but it simply doesnt happen. the US isnt any worse than normal, its presence is simply that much more overwhelming (whats a weaker word?).

In fact yes. By doing nothing, the stronger side will stay the stronger side and wins.

so... is that an argument FOR intervention? the little guys arent always the ones you want to support remember.

That said, we do already intervene in Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea. The international community relies heavily on Mbeki´s influence in Zimbabwe. Without his help, Mugabe would have had the entire opposition jailed up this week. Trade sanctions have been put in place for Iran and North Korea. Invading these countries is just not a sane option.
As much as we´d like to have another leader in Iran, we still have to acknowledge he is the elected president there. He wants nukes, that´s too bad - but Pakistan has them, too and we don´t mind. How would you explain that to Ahmedinejad?

well, pakistan developed its weapons under a democratic - even if disfunctional - government. iran is a damn site more democratic than many of its neighbours (and our allies) but democratic it is not. it was also, of course in response to indias development.

i do agree that iran has the right to these weapons if we allow states like israel, india and pakistan to have them - though no sane person on the planet should be under the impression that a nuclear iran would at all be a good thing.

oh, and dont forget that Germany maintains a lot of economic links with Iran - something the US refuses to do.

No, not all states do it. Many do it, and the USA do it all the time.
I repeat: there is a perfectly acceptable way to intervene - make your case at the security council and stick to international law.

all states that can do it, do it. you can even look at several states decision to ignore EU economic regulations regarding debt and GDP - i think Germany might be one of them.

Funny you mention a "single military" - in Europe, we don´t even discuss that. We couldn´t care less about a "single military".

exactly. why? because all states reserve the right to act unilaterally. that can only be guaranteed if the state has control of its own security. the british wont allow a german to control their military. why? because the UK reserves the right to (theoretically,not saying it'll happen) invade germany regardless of the feelings of europe. thats the nature of soveriegnty

I still insist that unilateralism is bad per se.
Exception: swift action to stop a genicide, like in Kosovo. Waiting months for a UN security council approval would be irresponsible. That said, I think blowing up bridges in Belgrade is not stopping Serbs from killing people in Kosovo. In this particular case, a proper invasion was not even considered - because own troops could be killed.

or rwanda, of the no-fly zones of iraq that kept the kurds alive, or currently in darfur, or somalia, or burma, or tibet, or israel/palestine...
i like the idea of collective security, but states simply wont accept it because they have to give up control.

the UN does a lot of good work - security and protection of human rights is NOT one of them. it COULD do a lot of good work, but will only be effective as its members. and most states couldnt give a rats about africa, only nato cares about the balkans, nobody wants to take on china. the thing is, when somebody invades your home, you call the police and they come. if somebody invades your country, you call the army. why? its their job. if somebody starts butchering a minority in a neighbouring country, you write a series of letters, hold a few meetings, maybe trade sanctions. nothing happens and thousands of deaths later, you try and convince countries (like the US) that its in their interests to send troops. they do. but the rules of engagement are designed to keep soldiers virtually impartial so thousands more die.

all it may have taken is one state to say '**** this, were going in guns blazing' and it couldve been prevented. to paint unilateralism with such a negative brush gives multilateralism WAAAY more credit than it deserves on security matters.

Isn´t that the mission statement in their constitution?

many of the US's founding fathers thought the US should be a 'light upon the hill',a beakon for the rest of the world. but they were 100% unilateralists. they didnt think the US should get involved in other states affairs but if they had to, it should focus purely on its interests not on what the world wants it to do.

kinda like switzerland i guess...