|
In Reply to: Re: I wouldn't have voted for diplomacy posted by Freedom Fighter on March 29, 2003 at 12:45:11:
This is not directly about the current war, but to answer your question:
Most people who have opinions against US foreign policy have them because of inconsistencies. The US is very selective, especially about defending its own interests. In this case, the students were appealing directly to the US for help, idolizing US democracy, erecting a statue of liberty, and calling for help from the "only super power" (I don't agree with that simplification either) left since the USSR was disintegrating. The US had the most clout. If it had decided to do something, China would have had to listen. The Chinese wouldn't have had an outlet for their goods which were sold mainly to the US.
The trade WAS already in force.
At the time, the US was having this big trade deficit with China (buying more from China than selling to them) and they were concerned about trying to close the gap, and wanted China to open up its markets to hopeful US companies. China was one of the few nations with excess savings, and most people had money in their pillow cases, and it was obvious US businesses wanted in. A move to antagonize the Chinese would have closed the markets for a long period of time. I believe it would also have forced the Chinese to rethink their brutal ways.
The entire world WAS protesting the massacre. Most nations were waiting for the US - the one with the clout, to take a firm stand against the Chinese. Instead, the US opted for diplomacy, and insisted the rest of the world follow its lead. I was following these events closely, but you can read about these historical facts somewhere, I'm sure.
I had a problem with the US being selective. It's a voting issue, I'm not making this an extremist issue. I'm not anti-US. I criticize some decisions, not all. I had a problem with the US being the only one with real clout to take a lead, and then choosing not to. I don't think the Chinese would use nuclear bombs - they need the US market too much, but who knows.
I don't think it's about zeroing in on the US and blaming it for all the evils of the world. That would be silly. It's about the US' own line it feeds the world, as a consistent and just defender of freedom. If they would stop feeding the rest of the world (and its own people) those lines, I think a lot of this would go away.
Anyway, that is not exactly what the US is saying this time. It is saying it's an issue of self-defense and pre-emptive strikes. I can relate to that.
My 2 cents.
