Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    The single most important thing I like about our foreign policy is that
    we have one. My mother leans towards isolationism and I feel that that
    is impossible in todays's world. She just sees to many "Yankee go home"
    messages on the nightly news and wants us to butt out altogether. I
    feel that we have to keep the dialogues open. Whether overtly or
    covertly, we must deal with our "neighbors" and the people on the "next
    street". If we don't were going to look up some day and be lost in the
    cold.
    
    What I dislike, is that we take this crap from people in other
    countries. THe "Yankee go home type of thing and the hostage and
    terrorist stuff and don't go in and kick tail. To add insult to injury
    we keep pouring money into these jerkwater places and won't do anything
    about the poor , homeless and starving in our own country. 
    
    I love helping our neighbors, but lets take care of ourselves first.
    
    Phil

>    What I dislike, is that we take this crap from people in other
>    countries. THe "Yankee go home type of thing and the hostage and
>    terrorist stuff and don't go in and kick tail. 

????

Why should we "kick tail" because people in other countries say "Yankee
go home"?  The "hostage and terrorist" stuff is a different story, but
why should we be violent against them when they express anger at out
presence?  We don't have any God-given right to be in other countries...

D!

    Furthermore, calling other people's native lands "jerkwater places" is
    in poor taste and one of the better ways to engender a "Yankee go home"
    feeling in people who live there. Jingoism has no place in a foreign
    policy (or rather, "should have no place" - unfortunately, it all to
    often *does* have a place).

    One of the worst attitudes to have (and you see it all too often) is
    the notion that one of "ours" is worth ten of "theirs". (In fact, none
    of anybody's is worth much of anything, but maybe I'm just being
    cynical.)

	Paul

    Sometimes I agree with US foreign policy, sometimes I don't.  I
    suspect my opinions on many of the particulars would change if I
    had access to more of the facts that go into determination of our
    foreign policy.  

    I think US foreign policy has, in general, too adversarial.  I think
    the notion of "us vs. them" (us vs. the Communists, us vs. the drug
    cartels...) too often serves to cloud some of the real issues and
    bolster blind nationalism.

    I also dislike the fact that so many of those on the top levels of
    foreign policy determination have military connections.  I can
    understand that it is desirable to have those making the decisions
    about whether or not to go to war understand firsthand what going
    to war really means in human terms, but the fact that so often 
    military action has served to advance their individual careers seems 
    like a bias.

    On a related subject, I think there are too few women involved in
    determining US foreign policy.  That's a gripe about our government
    in general, but I suspect that the fact that our foreign policy is
    so entertwined with our military is an additional bar to women's
    participation in the upper eschelons of foreign policy determination.

    I dislike the fact that "defense" usually means "maintenance of our
    status as a superpower".  I don't think these two are equivalent,
    and I think that too often our maintaining our superpower status
    equates to our acting disrespectfully as citizens of the international
    communtity.  I don't know that being a superpower is necessarily a 
    desirable thing.  For one, it's expensive, and that price is paid
    in domestic problems we can't address.  I'm not arguing that we should
    be fully isolationist -- I think there are good reasons not to be --
    but I think our staying at the opposite extreme is something that
    deserves frequent reexamination.  Instead, it's mostly taken for granted
    that it's desirable.

    The way our government is set up and our status as a "superpower"
    combine to give many of our leaders carte blanche to try to influence 
    events beyond our borders -- with no checks and balances from the other
    side.  I don't like that much either.  If the government serves the
    people, rather than the people serving the government, I don't think
    we should be giving out free tickets on the ultimate power trip.

	Sharon
    

    
    
    re.0
    
    >    What I dislike, is that we take this crap from people in other
    >    countries. THe "Yankee go home type of thing and the hostage and
    >    terrorist stuff and don't go in and kick tail.
    
    US gives other countries a lot of sh*t, too. A lot of US businesses
    take advantage of other nations' resources. Sometimes, the US govt. 
    doesn't have the best tactics. US is not always the nice guy.
    US wants to be the powerful guy.
    
    I don't think  it is the foreign aid that is hurting our poor, it
    is all the $$$$$$$ that is going into those hi-tech weapons. 
    Japan gave out more foreign aid last year than the US. They don't
    have a whole bunch of poor people living in the guettos. But then,
    they don't have all these Stelfe (sp) bombers either.
    
    
    Eva.

    
    RE. .6
    But why do we have to keep defending the Japanese? They have the
    money to build up their own army. I wonder what kind of "benefit"
    we get for doing this.

    
    Let's see, is .1 here an example of what a couple of people have meant
    recently in saying that conservatism and patriotism go together?

    re .7 The money goes to supporting industries and making
    them super-competitive in the world market. So, we buy
    American guns to defend the Japanese, so we can buy Sony
    TV's and Nissan cars. Go figure.

    I somewhat agree with .1.
    
    We are shipping aid all over the world, to people (like Iran) who don't
    give a damn about us.  We have to raise taxes, why?  not because we
    don't have the money, stop shipping the aid to the countries that don't
    care about us.  Forget these places.  They say Yankee go home, I think
    we should start taking their advice...take our money and go home.  But
    usually these countries are telling us to go home, but leave our toys
    (money) for them.
    
    Let's take care of our own, our old, our sick, our elderly, our abused,
    our homeless....then if we have anything left over we will be glad to
    share.
    
    I know a lot of you don't agree, but I help support our homeless, our
    abused, our old, and it hurts to see them this way, and by helping as
    much as I can I have the right to speak my mind.  
    
    Our own people need help!  Who's helping them?  Could it be that we
    wouldn't get world recognition by helping our own, no newscaster would
    put it first in the news?  It wouldn't sell a lot of papers?
    
    But....one thing I must say...when our courts make idiot rulings, like
    with Imelda Marco, (her not doing anything wrong) we as a people have
    to start binding together!  Oh well, I think that is another topic.
    
    Foreign Policy?.......I think it needs some MAJOR changes.
    
    
    BTW - what is "Jingoism"?
    
    Jackie :-{
    

    Jingoism - Extreme nationalism or chauvinism marked esp by a
    belligerent foreign policy.
    
    (Websters II, New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984.)
    
    Seems to me that the word came out of a popular song during
    the English colonial period that had the exclamatory phrase
    "by jingo!" in the refrain.  But that recollection may be 
    inaccurate.
    
    DougO

    It seems to me a little accurate information is in order, though
    possibly in conflict with a few favored opinions.
    
    U.S. foreign aid expenditures are in fact remarkably low.  In 1987,
    non-military aid was $5B in a federal budget of $1,000B, one half of
    one percent.  If it was 100% eliminated it wouldn't even make a
    noticable impact on the current federal DEFICIT, let alone the BUDGET.
    How many Stealth Bombers is $5B?  Which does more for long term
    "security?"
    
    People also forget how incredibly concentrated U.S. aid is.  In 1987,
    >> 59% << of total U.S. aid went to Isreal and Egypt alone.
    
    We of course give no foreign aid to Iran at this point, though we
    recently sent small amounts of emergency medical supplies to earthquake
    victims there.
    
    We also give very little in relation to our size.  In 1980, the U.S.
    ranked 20th out of 26 major non-communist donors in foreign aid
    expenditures as a percent of GNP.  We spent at about 1/4th the rate of
    the major European countries.  We have, of course, cut back
    significantly since 1980.
    
    Finally, the Japanese constitution specifies that no military forces
    may be maintained for "aggressive" purposes.  In 1988, Japan spent 6.5%
    of its federal budget on its "defense" military forces (and the
    constitutionality of this has been disputed).  In addition, Japan pays
    a large amount toward the U.S. forces maintained there (I do not have
    specific figures available).
    
    		- Bruce
    
    { All the above can be verified in the MLO libraruy in about 5 minutes. }

    RE .12
    
    And your point is?.......
    
    "j" ;-)
    

    . . . that there is room for improvement in this discussion of foreign
    policy, especially in some more appropriate notefile . . .
    

    RE: 16
    
    When I first read your response I thought it was a case of a man
    telling a woman (like they like to do) what she should say and where she
    should say it, so I reread it and still feel that way.  Why not have 
    Foreign Policy here?  I am sorry you have trouble with "understanding 
    how a 'generic' discussion of foreign policy is relevant to this 
    conference", I think that anything is relevant here in WN if a woman 
    says it, feels it, thinks it or whatever!
    
    We are not "soapboxing" it, we are discussing it and finding out about it.
    
    
    :-|
    
    "j"

    .16> On the other hand, if there is some particular facet of foreign policy
       > that is of peculiar interest to women, (e.g the U.S. international
       > position on say birth control) 
    
    How about when foreign relations with China seemed to cool more when
    they enforced one kid per family than when the government gunned down
    citizens in Tiannenman (sp?) Square?  I'm not crazy about either 
    "policy", but the difference in relative U.S. reaction was interesting.
    
    I still can't believe that we didn't demote them from most favored
    nation trading status.  But then most of them folks in DC seem to think
    with their wallets - except when it comes to running up the defense
    credit card.
    
    <how's that for a soapbox reply! :->
    
    			Bb

    
    [Made up on the spot just for this occasion...]
    
    "When man stands all the way on either the up-wind or down-wind
    side of the fence...he cannot see both sides"
    
    Melinda

    
    	This conference is quite often negatively stereotyped in the
    	same way that our culture negatively stereotypes women.
    

The Processing Topic exists to discuss this conference.
	Mez