Comments on: A Lack of Leadership http://politicalfriendsblog.com/2011/03/a-lack-of-leadership/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-lack-of-leadership Political debate without the name calling Mon, 14 May 2012 11:34:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Gerrit http://politicalfriendsblog.com/2011/03/a-lack-of-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-4036 Gerrit Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:59:54 +0000 http://politicalfriendsblog.com/?p=2019#comment-4036 I for one would like the US to stop policing the world and being a leading force in this world. I believe we have NATO and the UN (mainly the UN) for that and that NO country should be a superpower that has its say in domestic matters anywhere else in the world. Not Russia and China (as much as I sympathise with Russia, I do think it should not be a superpower simply because I don't agree any country should have such role) and also not the US. If this weakens Europe, it is a risk I am willing to take. I think it is time for the US to step back and stop pretending it is the superpower that has to lead the world. Many people are asking the opposite: to stay out of their countries rather than someone asking to "Americanise" their way of governing and living. I oppose the idea of a superpower and of one country having more global power than another (I'd opt for Russia if there really has to be a superpower but ideally the UN is the only international organisation with real influence). Also, the US president may be in charge of the military, but this is by no means the largest military in the world. Even North Korea has a larger standing army than the US and that is without taking into account their reserves. Weither this is a good thing or not is another case, but the US army is far from the biggest in the world. I speak for myself only, but I would like the US to no longer interfere with domestic matters elsewhere. Maybe this would weaken Europe. Maybe not. It's unpredictable. What I can say is that I am not comfortable with the US as leading nation (which it isn't, China has long taken over that role) and certainly not with the US interferences elsewhere. Also, to call the previous century one of American successes is maybe a bit simplistic. Invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba failed, Vietnam war failed. It's easy to look through tunnel vision to the successes and ignore the failures. I am no Ron Paul fan by any means but if he wants to withdraw American military and get them back home, that's at least one thing he has as a bonus over the other candidates (and his will to drop the embargo against Cuba is another bonus) Does this mean I am anti-American? Maybe purely politicaly spoken, you can call me one who is not in favor of the foreign policies of the US. I have nothing against the country, nor against its people. Most Americans I met were extremely friendly people. However, that doesn't mean I wish the US to lead and Americanise the world, and especially not in a military way. Let each country govern the way it wishes, live and let live. We have the UN as the global force, it is far from perfect, but I much rather see a neutral organisation in this role than a country (regardless which country that'd be) I for one would like the US to stop policing the world and being a leading force in this world. I believe we have NATO and the UN (mainly the UN) for that and that NO country should be a superpower that has its say in domestic matters anywhere else in the world. Not Russia and China (as much as I sympathise with Russia, I do think it should not be a superpower simply because I don’t agree any country should have such role) and also not the US. If this weakens Europe, it is a risk I am willing to take. I think it is time for the US to step back and stop pretending it is the superpower that has to lead the world. Many people are asking the opposite: to stay out of their countries rather than someone asking to “Americanise” their way of governing and living. I oppose the idea of a superpower and of one country having more global power than another (I’d opt for Russia if there really has to be a superpower but ideally the UN is the only international organisation with real influence). Also, the US president may be in charge of the military, but this is by no means the largest military in the world. Even North Korea has a larger standing army than the US and that is without taking into account their reserves. Weither this is a good thing or not is another case, but the US army is far from the biggest in the world.

I speak for myself only, but I would like the US to no longer interfere with domestic matters elsewhere. Maybe this would weaken Europe. Maybe not. It’s unpredictable. What I can say is that I am not comfortable with the US as leading nation (which it isn’t, China has long taken over that role) and certainly not with the US interferences elsewhere.

Also, to call the previous century one of American successes is maybe a bit simplistic. Invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba failed, Vietnam war failed. It’s easy to look through tunnel vision to the successes and ignore the failures.

I am no Ron Paul fan by any means but if he wants to withdraw American military and get them back home, that’s at least one thing he has as a bonus over the other candidates (and his will to drop the embargo against Cuba is another bonus)

Does this mean I am anti-American? Maybe purely politicaly spoken, you can call me one who is not in favor of the foreign policies of the US. I have nothing against the country, nor against its people. Most Americans I met were extremely friendly people. However, that doesn’t mean I wish the US to lead and Americanise the world, and especially not in a military way. Let each country govern the way it wishes, live and let live. We have the UN as the global force, it is far from perfect, but I much rather see a neutral organisation in this role than a country (regardless which country that’d be)

]]>