Talk:Foreign policy of the United States/Archive 1

Unacceptable

This page is just not acceptable: it does not cover the subject or deal competently with those few items it outlines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Italo Svevo (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 September 2003 (UTC)

Agree. Can it be merged somewhere? -- Viajero 10:47, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

Agree LtDoc 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-American relations

We need an intermediate page between special relationship and Foreign relations of the United Kingdom, and this page, discussing the historical nature of the relationship. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and so I started the separate page Anglo-American relations a couple months ago. Some of the content in the special relationship article should be moved there. The "special relationship" is not synonymous with Anglo-American relations. The "special relationship" is that part of Anglo-American relations which is cordial and warm; the term "special relationship" emphasizes the positive aspects of relations between the two countries. —Lowellian (talk) 15:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Economic critics

What relevance does the information contained in this section have to the Foreign Policy of the United States? I see the word globalization in there, but that isn't enough.--EatAlbertaBeef 05:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None that I can see. I'll go ahead and remove it. This article is in horrible shape overall. 172 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree [Sam 2006]

(...) protection of american citzens (...)

Oh, so does that mean that the govt of the US tries to protect all Cubans, Colombians, Equatorians, Chileans, Jamaicans, Argentinians, Brazilians etc etc ? A better phrasing would use the term "US citizens" or its equivalent, not american, which is highly ambiguous and culturally offensive to many.LtDoc 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC) SOME BADASS SHIT

I prefer "Merkins" myself. — JIP | Talk 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

what really US foreign policy, i strongly belive that there is a hidden agenda for US government, to distroy Islam, like they did about Communism. Evidences are Afghanistan, Iraq and now or later Iran. Is it true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anazcp (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (anazcp@yahoo.co.in)

No, its not true. --EatAlbertaBeef 20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not? Well, let us see some evidence then —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LtDoc (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If it were true, why hasn't the US nuked the living crap out of all muslim countries? Why did we protect Bosnian muslims from being mass-murdered and raped by radical Serbs?68.164.4.53 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be true, but without evidence we shouldn't put it into a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.44.151 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats why its on the discussion page, and not on the article. What you cant do is to claim it isnt without evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LtDoc (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

claiming it isn't is much better than claiming something so extreme withotu evidence. (and the fact that the middle east is completely insane and also is mostly muslim isn't evidence) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.76.138 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

@LtDoc, Get over your inferiority complex.68.164.3.126 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Countries which have been at war with the united states since WWII

am i wrong, or shouldn't afghanistan and iraq be in this list? (iraq is, but only for 1991-99) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.113.92 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed, and modified. may i also suggest that this list is controversial, and it should be modified to list the "countries with which the united states congress has declared or authorized war with since 1945" which, besides shortening the list, would make it easier to verify and universally acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coffeeflower (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I modified the list to wars that have only been recognized by Congress, as much of the previous list was pure nonsense. CJK 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this page is ok in terms of information, but needs some more on its Foriegn Relationship with the U.S. I mean the U.S. is a pretty influential country and should be mentioned as a country that Argentina relates to in SOME way. Please talk about the beef trade, the wars, things like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.6.140 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We need a new section listing countries in which the US has intervened to topple the government, successfully or unsuccessfully, in secret coups and overt actions. Iran (Operation Ajax), Iraq (1963, 1968, 1990s), and seveal Latin American countries (Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Chile, etc.) come to mind. We could have a year and a link to the CIA operation or other Wikipedia entry for the relevant action. This is an important and recurring pattern of American foreign policy. Any takers? --NYCJosh 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

See List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. Perhaps it should be more prominently linked in the article. Kalkin 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia

I have added the Aussies on as a very close ally to the United States, these two nations GO BEARS! have always been very loyal friends and have ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, & political links.(Khan 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, they have sent troops to fight & die alongside Americans in every major war that the U.S. has been involved in. —The preceding hot coco is delisious.unsigned comment was added by 220.238.56.111 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Major biases

I shouldn't have to point this out, but this article is full of pro-American propoganda. It continually states that all foreign missions are to bring freedom and democracy to other countries. The criticism section is extremely short and carries few arguments, and most of the ones it does are shot down immediately. Is this article written by the American government? The criticisms section should be expanded, the tone of the pro-Americanism should be removed, and the article should encompass a wider array of events. It does not mention, for example, the fact of the discrepancies of the justification of the recent war with Iraq. It should mention Vietnam and Panama in reference to the human rights abuses and civilian deaths caused by American foreign relations.

--Anon. 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. AndrewAL 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cry me a river. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have something constructive to add, Travis T. Cleveland, please refrain from making edits in the discussion page.Twir (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I agree that pro-Americanism pov statements should be modified to be neutral, but the criticism section is also very biased (e.g. filled with weasel words) and should be dealt with accordingly as well. I'll be sure to keep your comments in mind though while I try to make some more NPOV edits.Twir (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny how none of the deaths in Vietnam are ever blamed on the Viet Cong or North Vietnam, and none of the misery in Latin America is ever blamed on those humanitarian communists. As for propaganda, this article is just as full, if not more so with anti-American crap. As for the criticisms section it should be moved to a new article, "Criticisms of U.S. Foreign Policy", and that section should have a rebuttal area. Why is it in the "Support" section here, all the supportive items are immediately bashed in a following paragraph by people with a clear bias (who are the ones who put the items there in the first place, without elaborating on the supportive reasoning like they elaborate upon the rebuttal, just so they could shoot them down), whereas in the Criticisms section there are no rebuttals? Why is it that in "Criticisms", just about any criticism can be leveled against the U.S. provided there are "some" individuals out there somewhere (like one, three, ten, five thousand individuals?) who feel that gripe? If that sort of nonsense is to be allowed here, why even bother to list anything? Why not, in the Criticisms section just write, "The U.S. is solely to blame for all the world's problems. Communism and European colonialism have had no negative effect on the world, just the U.S." I'm sure that in one of the books by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or Richard Falk somebody can find and produce a citation to that effect. A better job should be made to separate the legitimate grievances (which I admit are there) that are shared by millions, from the ones only a handful of twits in the Stupid Party share.68.164.3.126 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your completely insane, this page is disgustingly anti-American, and thats typical of Wiki.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jade

Dirty Wars Timeline

Comments moved to Talk:List_of_United_States_military_history_events#Dirty_Wars_Timeline Travb (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Could there be a single picture in this article that doesn't have Bush in it? I am not trying to Bush-bash (I do that on other websites), but the foreign relations of the United States has much more important images than the ones currently up (Roosevelt with Stalin and Churchill, Reagan and Gorbachev, Nixon in China, etc.) Could someone please put some extra pictures up? I am sure some of them are already on Wikipedia. --Helmandsare 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that there are more images of the US president than of their foreign ministers. I second this comment User A1 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Praise

Real good article, thanks Wikipedia. Oops and the author.I'm impressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.26.22 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

States of war

Could someone please provide a source for the section "List of countries that have been at war with the U.S."? I thought USA had been at war with countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Panama and Afghanistan.

I also recall some strange country mr. George W. Bush calls "Terrorism", on which he declared war a couple of years ago. A province of "Terrorism" called "al-Qaida" proposed a ceasefire, but mr. Bush rejected it as "we don't negotiate with terrorists". But maybe that country shouldn't be mentioned in the article as some might consider it POV. --HJV 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The section has been removed, because of the much more comprehensive List_of_United_States_military_history_events. Travb (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You removed the section with my contributions. Certain things I added here are not contained in "List of US mil history events" and you did not update that list. I now have to repeat some of my work for that article. --NYCJosh 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand

There are so many objections to this article, some a few years old and some very recent, that I really don't understand why more hasn't been done to alter it. I mean, it practicaly looks like an official press release. I made some minor changes for now, but it's gonna need a lot more work before it's decent - so, could someone post a warning on the page that there are concerns the article is unbalanced/biased?? --Boszko2 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge vote

It has been suggested by User talk:Bmk that US history of exporting democracy should be merged with this wikiarticle, Foreign relations of the United States please vote on this below, typing:

*'''support''' or *'''oppose'''.

I am not going to vote myself. Travb (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• support seems to me this merge will make the article on foreign relations less biased, but it will still need work to be NPOV... --Boszko2 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• support PROVIDED, the article also contains a section of the history of U.S. undermining of democracy: toppling of democratically-elected governments, installing right-wing dictators, CIA campaigns to destabilize governments, etc. Each of the foregoing could be a separate section of the article, since there are so many examples of each. --NYCJosh 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that it is adequately covered in the Template:AmericanEmpire series already, but lets cross that bridge when it comes. Travb (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think not - that (american empire) is a pretty confusing article. more importantly, the point of the merge for me is the balancing of this article, so the issues mentioned by NYCJosh should be listed here, not just linked... --Boszko2 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• support - the article is exhaustively researched, and it is an extremely important facet of US foreign relations and US history that isn't well addressed in the Foreign relations of the United States (the only mention is in the short list of 'foreign policy goals' of the US). I agree that it could use some small editing to make the tone of the article a little more dispassionate. --Bmk 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a possible apologist elected US history of exporting democracy be up for deletion, as I predicted. I guess 3 times for this to be voted for deletion is the charm to get me moving on the merge:

First: speedy deletion Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Please_explain_your_reasoning[1]

Second this: Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Adding_a_deletion_tag [2]

and today this:

Third: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US history of exporting democracy [3]

I never liked the idea of the merge, but the vote was 3:1, so here we are! Travb (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Illicit drugs

While the US has an official policy against drugs, drug selling has been used by the CIA to raise funds on several occasions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.95.82 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In what specfic cases? Do you have any reputable sources verifying that accusation? If you do, that would be a very necessary addition to the article. --Iamunknown 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't vouch for this sentence, but see: Cia#Drug_trafficking Travb (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

I just tagged the main article as {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}}. I think that this article has a lot of potential, but very few editors or viewers seem to come to it. I hope that by adding the WikiProject Politics template and by tagging it the article with another notorious tag, more will come. Let's get this article to featured status! --Iamunknown 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this article to featured status! Sorry, it will never happen, it is too controversial of subject. My section on exporting democracy is sourced, every sentence, but I agree the rest of the article is not. Travb (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think now the article is of a particular POV predominately because of weasel words. If we could back up any statement of a weasel words via footnotes noting the number of books, scholars, commentators, etc. that hold that viewpoint, or if we could manage to avoid weasel words altogether, then I think that the article would be more NPOV. That, however, would talk a lot of broad knowledge that I do not have. We can try, though! --Iamunknown 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. One article in particular I am thinking of as an example of backing up weasel words/eliminating them altoghether is Jesus. (In particular, I admire the notes on said page.) It amazes me how well those editors have gotten NPOV into that article.

I agree 100%, right now I am not as interested in this article as you may be though, I have learned if you really want something done on wikipedia, you have to do it yourself. I HATE weasel words. I will add a weasel word tag to this page. In fact I hate it so much I have made a weasel word template:

User:Travb/Some argue

90% of the time, everyone of the words I write is footnoted, verifiable and sourced. See: U.S.-Colombia_relations for example, which has 108 footnotes. Lodge Committee has 59. So I support your work! Travb (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Indo-American Relations Article?

I was thinking that such an article would be highly relevant considering recent developments in U.S. policy regarding India's nuclear programme and improvements mentioned in the picture caption already on the page. However, this isn't my area of expertise in any way, so there might not be material easily accessable for such an article. For instance, much of the Sino-American Relations article involves the history of their trade. Neal is a great singer and has a lot of talent. By constrast, the first thought that comes to mind when I think Indo-American trade is, how much of it was not between the Americans and the British rulers of colonial India, and thus a facet of Anglo-American trade? Thoughts, reactions? I'm very much a newbie on wikipedia, and have thusfar only corrected typos and grammatical errors, so I'm kinda out of my depth here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.218.137 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-15T04:05:33

Neutrality Dispute of the "Warnings" Topic

The part of the article at the bottom, which is titled "Warning" seems politically un-neutral. It should explain exactly what it means, because it is impossible to gadge exactly what it is saying. Therefore, I have desputed its neutrality. AndrewAL 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and just remove the section, as it doesn't seem to contribute to the article at all. Ninja! 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the map

The image Usforeignpolicy.png is extremely subjective, not to mention misleading, as I've already remarked on the image's talk page. It also violates the "no original research" policy (no reasoning is provided for why certain countries, such as Spain or Austria, are judged to be "indifferent or opposed" to US foreign policy.) I have removed it from this article. ObeliskBJM^talk 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

It seems that this article does more than an adequate job of citing its sources. I've decided to remove the unreferenced tag from the article; if someone wishes to add it back, please explain why here before doing so. Ninja! 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What about military spending?

In the introduction of the article, it mentions that this about the US: "America's global reach is backed by a 13 trillion dollar economy and a military whose funding exceeds that of the rest of the world combined." This is economically impossible (for now anyway). From what I understand, we spend more than the next 23-25 countries combined, not the entire world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swordhunter0690 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-23T23:29:19

Deletions

Guys please stop deleting paragraphs. This article is still in an early development stage, let's concentrate on adding material and references instead. Where there's a sentence you don't agree with, add {{Fact}} --BMF81 09:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my edits over the last few day were fair. What is your opinion? Ultramarine 09:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits, carefully explained in the edits summaries, were reverted without explanation.[4] If there is no explanation, I will shortly restore them.Ultramarine 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

US-Palestine relations

I've been thinking... perhaps we should make an article on this... I'm not too familiar with US-Palestine relations except that we favor Israel, but I think it would be a good topic. Any one know anything on this?--LtWinters 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Smedley Butler, USMC Gen" ?

This phrase "Smedley Butler, a Marine Corps General", while accurate, doesn't really do Butler justice. Is it allowed to use the phrase "highly decorated", such as: "Highly decorated Marine Corp General Smedley Butler," ? Harvard yarrd

Yes, it is allowed.Giovanni33 03:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

removed this addition

Ultramarine added the below, text, which I removed, because I found it problematic to fix on my own. The points can be saved and added, perhaps, but its needs to be NPOV'ed, with some sources, as these claims are controversial, and stating as such is loaded and pov'ed. Also, since it forms an argument it would be OR or SYN unless we attribute the argument to a valid source. I placed it here so we can do this, before restoring it.

"The United States helped the democracies in Europe survive the attacks during WWI by the opposing autocracies, helped defeat Nazi Germany during WWII, aided in the post-war reconstruction through the Marshall aid, and helped defeat the Communist dictatorships in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Many of these former foes has democratized and many became US allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea (1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952), Austria (1955), the Panama Canal Zone (1979), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples of former possessions that have gained independence." Giovanni33 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these things are controversial. Exactly what are you disputing as not having taken place? Ultramarine 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, why did you do a blank revert? [5] I had asked for sources on dubious claims and made the language NPOV.Ultramarine 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, please find a source that supports our claim: :The United States helped the democracies in Europe survive the attacks during WWI by the opposing autocracies." The language "communist dictatorships in the Soviet Union..." is POV in both the way it describes it and it the point its making (who says that opposing socialist forms of democracy is supporting democracy (instead of capitalist democracy, which many believe to be very undemocratic?) As you can see this is a matter of POV.Giovanni33 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"who says that opposing socialist forms of democracy (here you mean 'communist dictatorships') is supporting democracy"? How about everybody who has ever lived in a Communist dictatorship? The communist dictatorships in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries (and in NOrth Korea, Vietnam, Cuba....) have been very well documented as being dictatorships, and only a handful of delusional twits actually contradict this. Besides, you're the one transposing communist dictatorships to socialist democracies. By their very definition, Communist countries are opposed to democracy (read the Communist Manifesto sometime). If calling communist countries dictatorships is a POV statement, than claiming that the U.S. and countries in Europe are democracies is also a POV statement that should have a citation. Also your attempt to distinguish capitalist democracies from socialist democracies clearly indicates your own massive bias (if not lack of education).68.164.3.126 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your language in the text below is equally POV. That the US helped the France and Britain defeat Imperial Germany and Imperial Austria is not controversial. Are you arguing the Communist states were not dictatorships? Why did you removed "Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies"? I propose a modified text below.

"Ultramarine 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So by saying that the language in the other section you removed (that was already the long standing version) is "equally POV" to your section that you just inserted (and I removed here for discussion)--but that is not a valid argument, and you are admitting that your insertion is POV? This still raises a troublesome editing practice, which is not allowed, per WP:POINT.

I am still waiting for a sources, and I point out that your standard of what is a democracy or not is a matter of POV. Britian and France had their empires during WW1, which many would view irreconcilable to notions of democratic practices. I only oppose you stating POV's as facts without sources. Attribute them and use NPOV language. I'm not saying that the USSR was democratic or a dictatorship, I only acknowlege that both are points of view. You use a loaded pov term to describe the USSR's system, "communist dictatorship." This is not NPOV. Socialist State, Communist State, or Socialist Republic, are examples of other terms. The same goes with your claim of democratized nations. It needs a source to make the argument you are making, esp. the your part about "nations such as....right-wing dictatorships eventually become democracies" which strikes me as OR, to the extent that you are saying something about the nature of these countries destined to be come democracies and its relationship with them being right-wing dictatorships.Giovanni33 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Polity data series, the most respected one regarding regime characteristics, can be applied to all these cases. We can use the term nondemocratic for the Communist states if you prefer.Ultramarine 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer whatever term you use to be sourced, and with NPOV language, and as nuetral as possible. If you want to use the the polity data series, then you can, but, again, its claims has to be properly sourced. The problem is that there are different forms and models for what is a 'democracy' and we are not allowed to impose one pov (capitalist democracies) as WP's viewpoint, using the editorial voice.Giovanni33 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We are certainly allowed to state "According to the widely used Polity..."""Ultramarine 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly.Giovanni33 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text: The United States helped democratic Britan and France defeat the opposing nondemocracies during WWI, helped defeat Nazi Germany during WWII, aided in the post-war reconstruction through the Marshall aid, and helped defeat the nondemocratic Communist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Many of these former foes has democratized and many became US allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea (1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952), Austria (1955), the Panama Canal Zone (1979), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples of former possessions that have gained independence. Many nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO.Ultramarine 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reference supporting the statments. It links to a page that does not present these claims, and it should introduce the source that the claim is based on, with "according to..." Lastly, the argument has to be sourced. Is your point that the US fought in WW1 because it wanted to help democracies, and that is why it also opposed the "communist states"? That seems to be implied but that argument needs a source, too.Giovanni33 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can download the data set if you want, it is there. I am not stating any such thing regarding WWI, because it is only partially true, there were also other motives such as the Zimmerman telegram. I will work on the according too...Ultramarine 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "The United States helped democratic Britan and France defeat the opposing nondemocracies during WWI, helped defeat Nazi Germany during WWII, aided in the post-war reconstruction through the Marshall aid, and helped defeat the nondemocratic Communist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Many of these former foes has democratized and many became US allies. The Philippines (1946), South Korea (1948), West Germany (1949), Japan (1952), Austria (1955), the Panama Canal Zone (1979), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1986), and Palau (1994) are examples of former possessions that have gained independence. Many nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. (Note, statements regarding degree of democracy are based on the classification at these times in the Polity data series)."Ultramarine 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the big prob calling the "nondemocratic Communist states" "Communist dictatorships"? A "NONDEMOCRATIC" COUNTRY IS BY DEFINITION A "DICTATORSHIP" (albeit maybe a Communist, Fascist, Theocratic, or Monarchic dictatorship). Even the communists at the time referred and justified their rule as being "dictatorships of the proletariat" (and when they did have elections, only one choice was on the ballot, hardly a democratic process)! Deliberately trying to avoid, or requiring a source, in order to call the communist nations of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact dictatorships makes an absolute joke of Wikipedia. There are some idiots out there who consider people of other nations/races as being subhumans. In order to placate these creeps who may be Wiki users, is it then a POV statement to include such races when the word "humanity" is used on Wikipedia? Perhaps every time that word is used a citation should be listed that helps prove that all races should be considered human? Sorry, but this isn't that much more far-fetched of an idea as saying it is a POV statement to claim communist states are dictatorships. And saying that colonialism calls into question the democracy of countries like Great Britain is absolutely ludicrous, for nowhere does it say in the definition of democracy that the human rights of foreign peoples must be respected (and nowhere did the British ever say that the natives in the colonies were a part of the British electorate; thus, just because the British were abusing ppl in Africa, Asia, etc. doesn't have an effect on whether or not the government of Britain was elected by and answerable to the British electorate (even if this electorate at the time didn't include women), which it clearly was. When ppl in this entry refer to the US support of dictatorships, I see few citations here to support the POV statement that these were actually dictatorships. Please be consistent in your bias. This is getting to be such a friggin' clown site.68.164.3.126 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Section by Ultramarine

I have removed the below text since it is unsourced, in many parts incorrect, POV, and an original synthesis. I placed it here so we can discuss this, before restoring it. "These include:

• The long list of U.S. military involvements that stand in contrast to the rhetoric of promoting peace and respect for the soverighty of nations.
• The many former and current dictatorships that receive or received U.S. financial or military support, especially in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, despite claiming to support democracy and democratic principals.
• The U.S. import tariffs (to protect local industries from global competition) on foreign goods like wood, steel and agricultural products, in contrast to stating support for free trade.
• Claims of generosity, in constrast to low spendings on foreign developmental aid (measured as percentage of GDP) when compared to other western countries.
• Lack of support for environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
• Frequent mention of concern for human rights, despite refusing to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the widespread support of dictatorial governments whose military the US may have formerly trained on methods of torture (notably in the infamous former School of the Americas), and support for terrorism, for example the Contras in Nicaragua."Ultramarine 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your removal was of a long standing text, and was only done after I removed for discussion the section that you just added, alone. So this looks like a Point violation, instead. Still, you are right to ask for sources, to these rather uncontroverisal claims, which I supply below. Some, though, dont need sources as they are linked to the article that has an abundance of sources.

Regarding the claim about Kyoto, see: [6] And[7].

On the claim for support of dictatorships:[8][9] The point about official stated noble reason and actual ones,see:[10]

Regarding, the tarrifs and free trade point, it is that the US government has consistently opposed free trade in agricultural goods, subsidizing exports to the point where foreign producers (often in developing countries) are unable to compete. It has also repeatedly failed to comply with the rulings of international trade tribunals (e.g. Canada US softwood lumber dispute). And, the US government has also made copyright and intellectual property legislation part of its free trade agreements, including native, traditional medicines. All this has the effect of giving power to big corporations. See these articles:[11]So, you should retore this section with the added refernces, I provided above.Giovanni33 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The softwood dispute is over. Please give a source regarding steel. Also please sources for that the US claims to be genereous, has not supported enviornmental treaties in general, or that it has a rhetoric of promoting peace and respect for the soverighty of nations. Futhermore, why should past criticisms regarding the Cold War, or even earlier, apply today? Also, please use reliable sources, many of those you give above are old or do not list any references.Ultramarine 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me for a souce that says the US opposes environmental treaties in general? The text you removed simply listed: "Lack of support for environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol." The source support that. But if you want more souces for other treaties, then here are some more:[12][13][14][15]. Regarding promoting peace and respect for soverighty of other nations, are you saying this is NOT an official stance of the US, and that such has to be cited? All I have to do is point you to the Bush rhetoric over his invasion of Iraq, as the latest exmaple (not in the cold war), of this hypocracy of rhetoric and actions, as claimed by critics:[16]. All the sources I provided above are reliable, most from mainstream sources, even. That some are dates doesnt matter since the issue it address remains the same.Giovanni33 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really environmental treaties, but creation of a new UN agency. Although I agree we could certainly point out this kind of criticisms againt the Bush administration. Yes, I would like a source for that the US has promised to be generous to and promoting the peace of and the soverighty of dictatorshps. No, many of your sources are not reliable, they lack sources, seem to be personal websites, or have some fascinating but flat-earth class conspiracy theories, like that the US started the war against North Korea during the Korean War. Again, The softwood dispute is over. Please give a source regarding steel. Futhermore, why should past criticisms regarding the Cold War, or even earlier, apply today?Ultramarine 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is one of the US role in supporting the enviornment in practice, such a those treaties. Since the US opposes a UN agency for the environment, that is relevant to the point being made by critics.

You are making false claims about the sources I've provided. They are not personal websites, nor are they flat earth conspiracies, etc. As I pointed out they are MAINSTREAM soruces, i.e. cnn, reuters, senate gov. hearings, and well established non profit advocacy organizations. If you say they are not reliable to support the claims they support (and not just one but ALL the sites that make the same point, so that taking away the site you object to leaves the point unreferenced). Otherwise, your argument on this point is moot.

And here are two more, supplied regarding the question of generosity: [17], and[18]. And I only need to quote the US president, who the article quotes: "We're a generous, kindhearted nation," proclaimed President Bush, shaking off critics who had noted the $35 million Washington initially offered was no more than we spend in seven hours of military operations in Iraq."Giovanni33 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I more or less agree regarding the environment, although it should be pointed out that this primarily a policy of the Bush administration, it would have been different if Gore was elected. Some of the sources you have listed were reliable, not others. Now regarding generous, the last source you gave at last support your claim, we can now quote what Bush has stated. I still want a source for that the US has promised to be peaceful against dictatorships. The softwood dispute is over. Please give a source regarding steel. Futhermore, why should past criticisms regarding the Cold War, or even earlier, apply today?Ultramarine 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what US policy would have been under Gore. We should not speculate. The softwood disput is over, but its not part of the text you removed. It was only an exmaple of it. And, just because its over, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and hence the point it illustrates is valid. The same goes with US conduct during the Cold War. This is an article about Foreign relations of the US. The period of the cold war, counts. But, the sources I cited, show that the points made by critics still hold today, not just in the cold war period, i.e. Iraq. As to the last about about respecting soverienty of other nations, the text does not say of "dictatorships," it says of soverign nations. The kind of govt. is not mentioned, nor is it relevant to the point made by critics. That the US says it respects soverignty, is bound to respect peace, etc. is established by the fact that its a member and signatory to the UN Charter, which establishes this quite clearly, and which the US has been found to be in violation of, as sources provided supports.Giovanni33 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We know that Gore proposed a very different environmental agenda. The world of the Cold War no longer exists. Should we blame Russa for Stalin's crimes? Regarding the UN charter, that is true, but is still not "rhetoric of promoting peace" as you not very NPOV express it.Ultramarine 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What politians propose and what they do really have no correlation to each other. Let stick to the actual practices of the US, against their words. Gore is not in power, so its all speculation. The world of the Cold War doesnt exist in the sense there is a cold war, but the fundemental dynamic of US power has remained the same in many ways, only its unchecked in a unipolar world. Yes, the USSR would be accountable for its own history under Stalin. An article on Soviet foreign policy better have Stalin's policies and its critics listed, if it is to be NPOV. We don't get to cherry pick and leave out shameful past events. I think saying "rhetoric promoting peace," is an accurate characterization of the US's official rhetoric. Let me cite a recent State of the Union Address ths proves this point:

“The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else.”

"Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures."

"The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure."

"To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom."

"To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder."

"Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq."

"The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We're all part of a great venture: to extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty and to spread the peace that freedom brings."

"As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, "Each age is a dream that is dying or one that is coming to birth.""See: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2005.htm And for a critics pointing out hypocrisy:[19]Giovanni33 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Russia, not the USSR. Putin is a former KGB officer, so if the US should be blamed for the actions during the 1950s, so should Russia for the Gulags during the 50s. Just to make my view clear, I view Bush as having good intentions in that he wants to spread democracy, he is not intentionally evil, but war is not the way do this, democracy need to come from within and probably requires economic developmet first. More generally, the number of democracies is rapidly increasing, which will in the not so distant future end warfare. See this [20]. I agree that the US is not a peaceful nation, but do not see this as problem since democracies have not been attacked (yes, some disputable supported coups, but in all these cases there were perceptions that these nations were turning into communist dictatorships). Now regarding Bush speech, I do not really see a contadiction, making other nations into democracies will eventually promote peace. As he stated "Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures" and "To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder"Ultramarine 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bush wants to spread democracy. Um, let's be honest; neither Bush nor any US president in memory wants any sort of democracy spreading to Saudi Arabia. A lynchpin of US foreign relations has been to preserve the Saudi dictatorship against any hint of popular uprising of any kind, and this has carried through both of the major US political parties. This is really well-known public policy. Also, he surely doesn't want any democracy blooming in Egypt or Jordan either; those would not be such catastrophes (as Saudi Arabia) for the US, but they obviously would be bad for the US. Harvard yarrd

Yes, I understand your POV, but not everyone shares it:[21]It is a particular POV/theory, its not fact. Also, you may not see a contradiction in the claims of promoting peace, freedom, and democracy that Bush promotes in his speech, with the actual conduct. But, that doesn't matter. Many do, and we can cite the POV of critics, such as: [22].The issue was, not, if you see a contradiction, the issue was my characterization of the US government as using "rhetoric of promoting peace," which you disputed, and said this was not a fair or NPOV characterization. In light of the quotes from the speech above, do you still maintain that the US govt. does not use exactly such rhetoric? If you don't disagree anymore, then the case is closed. We can characterize it this way, and present the POV of critics who dispute the official rhetoric of promoting peace. Again, this has nothing to do our OUR views.Giovanni33 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of empirical studies supporting this theory, an anarcho-capitalist blog is not very convincing. Tour last source can be quotes, I will be careful to note that all such criticisms refers to statements by the Bush administration. You did no answer the pont regarding the Cold War.Ultramarine 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate with you regarding this theory. Its not relevant for the discussion on this talk page. I merely cite the article that your position is a POV and others disagree. The criticism refer to the US govt., which Bush leads for 8 years. If I go back to other US presidents, we find the same rhetoric of peace, democracy, freedom. Its standard rhetoric. I did answer your point about the Cold War. Those actions are valid. Those are still US actions (Did the US have a revolution and change its name and flag, etc? Analogy with USSR and Russia thus does not apply).Also, these actions from the cold war continue today, only instead of using the commie scare tactic, its replaced by "terror" but the same state crimes continue, i.e. violations of national soverignty, international law, etc. There is no justifcation for remvoving foreign policy actions committed during the Cold War.Giovanni33 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The US has certainly changed its leaders since the Cold War and it could equally well be argued that Russia is currently imperialistic, therefore Russia should be condemned today for what Stalin did 60 years ago.Ultramarine 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but this off topic. I don't think there is any argument that leadership has changed, or does change in the US. Certainly the acts that are listed are dated, and the repective administrations who made decisions during those periods are not hidden. Critics would argue that US policies have been rather consistent, as part of a system, despite the changes of its temporary managers who give it a public face. Again, lets stay on topic. I take it that except for the trade issue, the other points of contention have been resolved?Giovanni33 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the Chomsky conspiracy theory, disproven by those historians that have actually studied former top secret documents and found that the fear of communism was real and policy was not formed by some gigantic capitalist conspiracy to exploit people. Regarding this article, probably, but I will certainly add to the text.Ultramarine 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please restore that section you removed, add the refrences provided, and I'll review your additions to it, tomorrow.Giovanni33 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you add your references to it, I will do the same to the other section.Ultramarine 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I added references here, some of which you dont think are reliable. You have not presented any sources or the proposed text for your section. I sugget you do so in talk above, first, with references. So far its unclear what you intent to restore. And about Chomsky, its not conspiracy theories, its institutional analysis.[23]Giovanni33 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Added above. A "good" conspiracy theory is not falsifiable, thus pseudoscience. The same applies to Chomsky conspiracy theory. "Well, yes, the persons themselves may not be aware that they are exploiting people as part of the capitalist system, but their role in the capitalist institutions make this inevitable." Such a theory is not falsifiable, every objection is explained away as part of the conspiracy, and is thus as all grand conspiracy theories pseudoscience. If arguing otherwise, how could Chomsky's theory be falsified?Ultramarine 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally in favor of using in some way Chomsky as a source. Certainly he's more reliable than the US gov.--BMF81 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See this [24][25]Ultramarine 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Add some history

There is a tiny section "History of exporting democracy". Then some long sections on various opinions. Why so many opinions and so little history? Why not some nice easy to read bulleted lists, with links to actual articles, on subjects such as:

- US supported or engineered overthrows of dictators
  -- to establish democracies
     Bay of Pigs (it may be unclear whether the US wanted to create a democracy, but it seems fair to give them benefit of doubt)
     Afghanistan?
  -- to establish other dictators
- US supported or engineered overthrows of democracies
  -- to establish different democratic govt
    (The US attempt to undo the Palestinian elections might fall here -- trying to overthrow democracy to get a different democracy?)
  -- to establish dictators
    (Return of the Shah to Iran, Pinochet?)

Hm, I suppose that leaves out the US role attempting to preserve the dictatorship which Castro etc successfully overthrew, so these categories need tuning or inclusion

  failed attempts to preserve dictatorships (Cuba)
  failed attempts to preserve democracies (South Vietnam)

This is more complicated than I thought; what about ongoing US attempts to preserve democracies (current Iraq) or to preserve dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc)?

Oops, yet another set of categories:

 Failed attempts to destroy democracies (modern Venezuala)
 Failed attempts to destroy dictatorships (Bay of Pigs)

You know I agree that the actual history of foreign policy would be helpful...esp. if history is not cherry picked such that the full socioeconomic and political backdrop is ignored. They clearly cannot include all examples, but some would help...esp. if their history is mostly misunderstood by the average public.

Examples you mentioned in Vietnam and Cuba are two big ones that are thoroughly twisted and skewed, but most heavily in America where truthfully the rest of the world has a more NPOV.

Vietnam "preserve democracies"...this is totally unsupported by history and the facts...reference would be the leaked "Pentagon Papers" which has been acknowledged as actual policy and military intelligence on American intervention in Indochina.

To put it in perspective from a couple of my references...1)Vietnam was a French Colony run by France keeping the native Vietnamese people as second class citizens. 2)Ho Chi Minh was actually the leader of the resistance movement and then helped the US during WWII against the Japanese and was betrayed by America and it's allies in Vietnam's fight for true independence. 3)Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese people loved America and were modeling their new democracy after America in many ways and only went to the Chinese for help after America turned on them as in my linked articles.

http://25thaviation.org/Facts/id766.htm

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10151

Similarly Cuba's history is ironic that the American version is reversed relative to actual history. Cuba was a Spanish Conquered colony that then had direct US intervention to put a puppet government in charge that allowed free access to Cuba's resources by US Corporations. When Castro helped them gain freedom and independence, but didn't not want to be another puppet screwing over his own people...then snap America turns against Cuba and Castro was forced to ask for aid from the Soviets because of US aggression. Now this doesn't defend any of the bad stuff Castro has done, but to deny that foreign relations history that created the current state of affairs is beyond ignorance. Same with Iran and Shah. Same with Saddam and Iraq. Check where the definition of "Banana Republic" came from. And I don't give a crap if the Orwellian version of US Foreign Policy doesn't like or agree with the validity of my comments, but this complete whitewashing of history does a disservice to all citizens of the world.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/American_Empire.html

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html

--Thehighlndr (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting a little out of hand

This article is full of opinions and un-sourced information, besides the fact that it is off topic. I think it needs to be restored to it's former status as a neutral and factual wikipedia article. Wile much of this information is based on facts, such assumptions are not the purpose of the article and it is jumping to conclusions.

Besides, this isn't a history article anyway. Were are the editor's opinions on modern times? (lol).

I am thinking that this article should be fixed and have a padlock put on. Contralya 21:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?

This article acts like the U.S. is imperialist and all that it cares about is lying and expansion! What happened to how the article used to be? Why were the positive things erased? This article is NOT neutral.

• What about all those billions of dollars that have been donated?
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
    • It has been about a month. Why won't someone fix the 'brief history' section??? 65.27.139.162 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely out of control. I think we need to start from scratch.

This article about US foreign policy has completely gotten out of hand. Even the section that comes closest to being factual, the "brief history" section omits, distorts, and is riddled with errors of fact, never mind blatant POV, both pro-US and anti-US.

I admit that the subject covered in this article is intensely controversial--but the hatchet jobs that have been done by both sides to this article--with no regard to history and fact--make it a roller-coaster ride between the unrealities of the radical right, a vigorous helping of chest-thumping, love-it-or-leave-it, blind, deaf, and dumb, jingoistic rhetoric from so-called "patriots" whose ideas of imposing democracy through superior firepower have led to the wonderful situation in Iraq along with a big spoonful of the unrealities of the radical left, with plenty of lovely pseudo-Chomskyite conspiratorial blather generated from the turgid minds of cloistered academics who last set foot in the real world in 1968, and then only to riot.

Nearly all of this article is deserving of deletion. That said, if this article is to be rewritten, structural changes ought to be made in the article so as to avoid the same war that destroyed this article to begin with.

So as to deal with controversial issues, I would propose that every US foreign relations article, following the factual discussion, have a "praise for" section (direct examination), a "criticism of" section (cross examination), a "response to criticism" section (redirect examination), and a "response to responses to criticism" section (recross examination). This should give both sides an opportunity to compose their arguments through the citation of their verifiable sources. There are many sides to the issues here, and they should be given a fair hearing.

I would also recommend that this article be split into several articles, as it is a massive topic area--US foreign relations is a very large subject to contend with, and a subject of grave importance to people inside and outside of the US. General articles like this one, if they get too detailed, just become massive and give completely uneven coverage of the topic. So I've written an outline, which is below. Feel free to modify and change.

Foreign Relations of the United States (overview)
-Historical Foreign Relations of the United States
--Pre-1933 Foreign Relations
--1933-2001 Foreign Relations
--2001-Present Foreign Relations
-Foreign Relations of the United States Regarding International Institutions
--Foreign Relations of the United States Regarding International Political Bodies (the UN, the ICC, the Red Cross, the Permanent Court of Arbitration)
--Foreign Relations of the United States Regarding International Economic Bodies (the WTO, IMF, Davos, the World Bank, etc)
--Foreign Relations of the United States Regarding International NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, etc.)
-Foreign Relations of the United States By Region
--Africa
--North America (Canada, Mexico)
--South and Central America
--South-Central Asia
--East Asia
--Western Europe
--Eastern Europe and FSU
--Middle East
--Oceania
-Foreign Relations of the United States By Topic Area
--Aid, Economic
--Aid, Humanitarian
--Aid, Military
--Alliances
--Armed Conflicts
---Coups and Other "Regime Change" Actions
---Invasions
---Use of Conventional Weapons Short of Invasion
---Use of and Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction
---Anti-Insurgent/Anti-Unconventional Warfighter Actions in Foreign Territories
---Anti-Terrorist Actions in Foreign Territories
--Arms Control and Disarmament, Conventional
--Arms Control, Disarmament, Non-Proliferation, Unconventional Weapons/Weapons of Mass Destruction
--Assessment of Outcomes
--Domestic Public Opinion Of
--Espionage
--Foreign Public Opinion Of
--Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Policies
--International Corporations
--International Crime
--International Immigration
--International Institutions
--International Law
--International Trade
--Political Disputes
--Popular Disputes
--Propaganda, International, Governmental
--Propaganda, International, Non-Governmental
--Proxies, International
--Territorial Disputes
--Trade Disputes

There are more topics than those I've listed. But it's a start.

Who's for doing this? Who wants to do something else? Where do we want to go from here?
Katana0182 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea, way too many biased views in each direction, it doesn't read very well when you read the entire article(Khanada 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree. Now it can't even be edited due to the stupid 'broken hyper link' thing and at the very least, the 'brief history' section needs to be re-written. Contralya 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough

This article needs administrator attention. It has been broken for months. One, you can't edit it because of a 'black listed link'. Two, there are serious problems with the article, with un-sourced speculation and lies in the 'brief history' section. Who knows how many people this has mis-lead! It needs some serious work, if it doesn't need to be completely re-written. Contralya 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Finnaly, a little progress

It looks like after all of these months someone actually improved the article and got rid of some of it's propaganda. It still needs some serious work, but at least now it isn't completely ignored. Why did it take so many months? Contralya (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Williamdude (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review requested

Hello, everyone. A peer review has been requested for the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. This is a controversial topic that really needs more outside input, as there are a lot of polarised views there at the moment. Your comments on how best to improve it would be appreciated. John Smith's (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

American exceptionalism

I have discussed American foreign policy a lot and I dear say that among the people I discuss these issues with (English-speaking somewhat intellectual people interested in international relations) it is the refusal to accept mutualism, that the same rules of international conduct should apply to the US as to other countries that non-US citizens find least appealing in American foreigh policy. That the US is willing to send defeated opponents to international war crimes tribunal but refuse to send their own soldiers is seen as simple "might makes right" concealed with hypocritical moralism. To make a recent example, given U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war it looks just plain hypocritical that the foreign office is making a fuss about Iran supporting Iraqi guerillas now. US foreign office criticizes other countries judicial system but when faced with international criticism of US use of capital punishment against young and mentally handicapped people they tend to reply that it is an internal matter.

I am not saying these things are right or wrong these are very complex issues. What I am saying is that the US exceptionalism and general attitude that different rules apply to them makes them look like hypocrites to many people. I believe this is one of the most important reasons for the general impopularity of US international behaviour. When Americans ask my why the US is so unpopular internationally I typically explain this perception of American hypocricy. So far, without exception the response has been something like: "yes, I can understand that looks bad". They do not agree that this is hypocricy, but it makes them understand the criticism and US image problems.

Therefore I would like to argue for inclusion of American exceptionalism in the criticism section. It helps people, particularly Americans, understand an important part of US image problems.

-Sensemaker 2008-02-13T12:36:25

Severe bias

This article is a prime example of a lack of neutrality and factual accuracy on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Contralya (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific as to what makes you think so? -Sensemaker

Are you serious? Look at the 'brief history' and 'criticisms' sections! This article has been broken for more than half a year. Contralya (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not joke. I fail to see your point. I don't even know if you claim that there is pro or anti-american bias. -Sensemaker

Well, the "support of democracy" section seems a bit disproportionate. A very long "does not support democracy" article...

If you want another example:

"For instance, that America is retaining its own nuclear weapons while trying to prevent nuclear proliferation is often seen as a smug "we have the right to have nuclear weapons and you don't"-attitude."

Weasel words or opinion? I don't know if thats neutral or not. Also, the quotation within this excerpt seems unnecessary. I would have to say, its mostly anti-american, but it shouldn't have to be pro-american either. Neutrality is key to wikipedia's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.86.87 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the support for democracy sections seems kind of tame. It only accuses US foreign policy for failing to export democracy, not for really not trying and for using "pro-democracy" jargon to conceal much more selfish motivations or even the current administrations internal interests (using foreing policy to win votes). A criticism section is supposed to be critical. In my opinion this is very moderate criticism.

As for the "American exceptionalism" part I wrote that. Look in the section above this one as to why I believe this is important and informative. As to "weasel words" or opinion, I am trying to explain why the US actions sometimes look very bad. If the US does not look bad in the example given, it wouldn't be a good example. -Sensemaker 2008-03-31T09:53:56

In the Criticisms section there is this long section which I list here: "An inability to combine strategic military objectives and diplomatic and political objectives. In short, this means an ineffective follow-up to military operations by being unable or unwanting to determine diplomatic and political goals, resulting in unfavorable situations to either the United States or friendly involved parties. Examples include: the absence of any treaties or objectives for post-war Germany and Europe during the Second World War, resulting in the Soviet occupation of most of Eastern Europe; the absence of diplomatic/political objectives to follow-up on military victory in the Korean War resulting in an ongoing preservation of the 1953 status-quo; inadequately defined objectives for the Vietnam War, resulting in a Communist take-over of the region". This is opinion, and a very uneducated opinion. Moreover, IT HAS NO SOURCES (the one they have has NOTHING to do with any of the above!!!). Really, is this why the Cold War started, because the US didn't have enough plans for postwar Germany? Perhaps this person never heard of the Yalta conference or Stalin. There were plans for Eastern Europe--he just choose to ignore them. The lack of post-Korean war objectives caused the 1953 status-quo? No, the armistice agreement did that, an agreement the South didn't sign because they wanted to keep fighting. Our inadequately defined objectives caused a communist takeover of Vietnam? Ah, no the North Vietnamese and anti-war protesters did that. Regardless, though, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF FOR ANY OF THESE LUDICROUS CLAIMS. As such I deleted the section...and yet this was reverted. Why???? Since when are unsupported POV opinions, WITH ATTACHED CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE ACCEPTED AS FACTS, allowed as Wikipedia truth??? Would the person overseeing this entry please do you damned job and delete this unsubstantiated propaganda!68.164.4.53 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edit.

I have recent edited this article with a new map to show all nations and their relations with the US. I have also added Kosovo as a nation without diplomatic relations since the US has recognized the country (see ref in article). I have also removed Somalia from the list. While we can all agree that Somalia is a broken country, it appears the US *does* have relations with it.

From the US State Department's background paper:

Although the U.S. never formally severed diplomatic relations with Somalia, the U.S. Embassy in Somalia has been closed since the collapse of the Siad Barre government in 1991. The United States maintains regular dialogue with the Transitional Federal Government and other key stakeholders in Somalia through the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Consular coverage for Somalia also is maintained by U.S. Embassy Nairobi, while American Citizens Services in the self-declared Republic of Somaliland are provided by the U.S. Embassy in Djibouti.

Comments? - Thanks, Hoshie 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy in the United States discussion page

References

Some references may have been left behind at Treaty. They are not footnoted, so it is hard to tell which references belong to which sections. -- Beland 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unconstitutionality of a treaty provision?

The article says that "the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so." Although this may be true in a narrow, literal sense, the Supreme Court came close to doing this in Reid v. Covert (technically involving an executive agreement rather than a treaty). Also, the State Department concluded that key provisions of the Bancroft Treaties had been rendered unenforceable in the aftermath of the Supreme Court rulings in Schneider v. Rusk and Afroyim v. Rusk. Perhaps the above sentence from the article should be revised accordingly. Richwales 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Someone has confused the two prepositions "of" and "in". Foreign policy in the United States would refer to the foreign policy of other countries toward the United States. If there is a policy, the question is not "where does the policy apply" which would require the preposition "in", but "who made the policy" which is why the correct preposition is "of", as in Foreign policy of the United States. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand or agree with your reasoning, but we should follow a uniform naming standard for all U.S. policy pages (Agricultural, Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Energy, and others I plan on making in the near future) johnpseudo 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look up the two words "of" and "in" in a dictionary?

of - preposition

1. (used to indicate distance or direction from, separation, deprivation, etc.): within a mile of the church; south of Omaha; to be robbed of one's money.

2. (used to indicate derivation, origin, or source): a man of good family; the plays of Shakespeare; a piece of cake

in - preposition

1. (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): walking in the park.

2. (used to indicate inclusion within something abstract or immaterial): in politics; in the autumn.

However, the opening paragraph "In the United States, the term 'treaty' is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law." might as well say "in the United States we do not honor our treaties". So perhaps this article is not about US Foreign policy, but only about the US treatment of other countries policy toward the US. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Although I don't think that this article should be merged with the foreign relations article, I do believe that a clear distinction needs to be formulated for what belongs in which article. If anything, the relations article should be merged into the policy article. The content of the relations article seems primarily to deal with foreign policy and not the overall interaction between the US and the rest of the world. johnpseudo 17:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They should be merged and called Foreign policy of the United States. The current president's policy should be included and not shunted off as if it didn't matter. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with merging into Foreign policy of the United States.--Kozuch (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've started an article specifically on the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That seems like a good place to have all of the constitutional aspects of U.S. treaties discussed.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Can someone attribute the quotes at the end of the article? At the moment they don't say who said them - kind of defeats the object of including quotes really... Pexise (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax code as foreign policy?

Does anyone have a sane argument to say that domestic tax policy falls under US foreign policy? If not, I assume that there is a consensus to remove this statement from the article: "Religious tithes, emergency donations to relief organizations, and donations to medical research, for example, are common and frequent. The United States tax code structure is designed to further this type of charitable donation by private individuals and corporations." Pexise (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly falls under US general policy. Not restricted to domestic issues.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about US foreign policy, not US general policy. Pexise (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source equating these donations with foregin aid since the US taxpayers in the end pay part of the bill: [26].Ultramarine (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's about tax relief for non-profits. Regardless, domestic tax policy isn't foreign policy. Pexise (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tax Expenditures as Foreign Aid: Whether the U.S. government should be allowed to claim credit for the private philanthropy of its citizens is a hot topic in today's foreign aid debate. Overlooked in this debate, however, is a form of aid that straddles the traditional public/private divide: charitable tax expenditures. Through the many tax privileges that the United States grants to its nonprofit organizations, the government implicitly foots some portion of the bill anytime these organizations send money abroad for development purposes. Unlike official development assistance (ODA), these tax expenditure funds are privately organized and distributed, yet unlike voluntary transfers they are paid for by the public fisc. This is not private aid; it is privatized aid. At the same time that direct expenditures on aid were falling in recent decades, these tax expenditures were rising. The basic, descriptive goal of this Comment is to show how nonprofit tax policies have shaped the content of American aid. The broader goal is to connect this insight with the literatures on tax expenditures and international development. If one accepts the Comment's theoretical premise, then U.S. government spending on aid is somewhat larger, and substantially different in character, than most commentators have assumed. Although tax expenditures on foreign aid raise a number of concerns, they also, I contend, possess unique virtues that can make them a valuable complement to ODA."

I will quote the abstract in full if you insist. Clearly states that some argue that US tax deductions are equivalent to foreign aid per the title of the paper.Ultramarine (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove "79 percent of total foreign aid came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, according to the annual Index of Global Philanthropy. According to the index the United States is the top donor in absolute amounts and the seventh of 22 in terms of GNI percentage pf 0.98%.[27]" Again, the tax structure is responsible for this large amount and the US government pay a large part of the bill. Also less need for large official aid when the citizens prefer to pay on their own.Ultramarine (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't possibly say that immigrants sending money to their relatives is part of US foreign policy - even for you Ultramarine, that is a laughable assertion. Pexise (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one part. Again, the tax structure contributes. US citizens prefer to pay directly than through taxes. Similar effect.Ultramarine (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it is not foreign policy and has no place in this article. Pexise (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have a source saying otherwise. See above.Ultramarine (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. Pexise (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• As an interesting side note - according to your source more than half of this supposed "US aid" is remittances. These aren't sent by US citizens but by foreign nationals. Pexise (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again see the article ""Tax Expenditures as Foreign Aid" per above. Remittances can by both citizens and non-citizens.Ultramarine (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly our of your depth here - are there tax incentives for remittances? Pexise (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we should exclude remittances. This objection does not apply to other sources.Ultramarine (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing government in Peru?

Alan Garcia is a left-wing social democrat.Ultramarine (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No he's not. Pexise (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana is a left-wing party. Member of the Socialist International. Not strongly opposing the US does not mean right-wing.Ultramarine (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless the APRA hasn't formed a left wing government and Alan Garcia is not left-wing this time round, he is on the centre-right. Pexise (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister Jorge Del Castillo is from the same party. An unsourced personal opinion that he is centre-right is not a reliable source. Left-wing does not mean marxist.Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the government in Peru is centre right. Pexise (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the unsourced personal opinion by anonymous editor do not count.Ultramarine (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See [28]

Blogs are not allowed sources. Here is a source stating he is centre-left: [29]Ultramarine (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't: "he selected the conservative banker Luis Carranza as minister of economy and finance"

"He has even reserved a seat round the cabinet table for the far-right Opus Dei militant, Rafael Rey, who becomes minister with responsibility for production" Pexise (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, he represent a "centre-left" party.Maybe centrist would be appropriate for the coalition.Ultramarine (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I take your point, unfortunately the party system in Peru is not that coherent. What's more, the APRA is in power sharing coalition with supporters of Alberto Fujimori. Pexise (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Source please. The President and the Prime Minister represent a centre-left party. They also have some centre-right/right members in cabinet. That would make it centrist.Ultramarine (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it without a qualifier as there is no consensus. Pexise (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Centrist? That's fine.Ultramarine (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for a qualifier - there is no consensus - to say centrist would be an OR synthesis. Pexise (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Can some more, different points of view be presented about US influence on Latin America be presented, this seems like a highly subjective assertion based on research over 14 years old: "Also earlier periods of US democracy support occured when democracies become more common. Such periods occurred during the 1920s, 1945-48, and 1958-63." Pexise (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"U.S promotion of democracy was emphasied by Jimmy Carter. Paricularly in his first term, Ronald Reagan prioritized his struggle against Communism and supported several dictatorships.[9] After the Soviet collapse, both President George Bush and Bill Clinton supported democracy development.[10] According to some theorists there is at least a superficial correlation between periods of democracy development and US policy towards democracy in Latin America.[11] Also earlier periods of US democracy support occured when democracies become more common. Such periods occurred during the 1920s, 1945-48, and 1958-63.[12]" This a one dimensional treatment of a very complex and highly contentious issue. I propose we move it to the talk page and reinsert it in the article once more sources have been added, some alternative points of view presented and the whole content improved. Pexise (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add a source opposing view if you have one. Wikipedia does not support removing material for claimed POV, see WP:NPOV. "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."Ultramarine (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to it in terms of quality - it's really quite facile and needs to be improved. No need for Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, I'm not objecting to your content, I just don't think the passage is ready to go in the article yet. I'll move it to the talk page where it can be improved, once it's improved we'll put it back in. Pexise (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You make no concrete explanation of what is wrong. Please do. Here is another source supporting the first.[30]Ultramarine (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've already stated, it's a completely narrow interpretation of a vast and complex subject. If we're going to include a passage about Latin American Democratization, we need to improve the content. At the moment it is not at all encyclopedic.

Here is the passage:

U.S promotion of democracy was emphasied by Jimmy Carter. Paricularly in his first term, Ronald Reagan prioritized his struggle against Communism and supported several dictatorships.[31] After the Soviet collapse, both President George Bush and Bill Clinton supported democracy development.[32] According to some theorists there is at least a superficial correlation between periods of democracy development and US policy towards democracy in Latin America.[33] Also earlier periods of US democracy support occured when democracies become more common. Such periods occurred during the 1920s, 1945-48, and 1958-63.[34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pexise (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You still have made no concrete explanation of what is wrong. "a completely narrow interpretation" could be argued against any of the US criticisms and removed on the same ground. Please state what statement is questionable and why.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

US policy is not simply "supporting democracy" or "not supporting democracy". Reagan claimed to be supporting democracy while he propped up right wing dictators. Current "support for democracy" is somewhat made a mockery of by the endorsement of the coup d'etat carried out against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. You could present this section as a theory, but it needs to be presented better and some alternative views added. Pexise (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have opposing views, then add them. That you personally dislike these sources and material is not an excuse for removing them. It is like if I would start deleting US criticisms simply because I feel they are wrong without giving any evidence of this being true. Regarding Chavez and the 2002 coup, the matter has been investigated and the US did not support it according to independent reviews.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can read similar views regarding US democracy promotion in this academic book in the first chapter which is available online free here: [http://www.amazon.com/Aiding-Democracy-Abroad-Learning-Curve/dp/0870031694]. Click "search inside"Ultramarine (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My views are irrelevant, I'm merely stating that this is a very big subject and the passage needs to be developed before inclusion in the article. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your sources, we just need more information and some opposing views in there to improve the quality - it's far too simplistic at the moment. Pexise (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not made any concrete allegations. There is no policy prohibiting adding material just because you feel that that there maybe other material somewhere disagreeing. By the same standard I could delete any material because I feel that there may be opposing material somewhere that should be mentioned. Exactly what policy are you citing for deleting this material? Unless you make some constructive criticism I will restore the material?

Ultramarine: I wish you could understand me, but it seems that this is all too complicated for you. I suppose that's your problem really, isn't it - unable to understand complexity. As I have already said several times, it's not that I disagree or dispute the material, it's just that it's not ready to go in the article yet. It's too simplistic and not encyclopedic, referring to just one very limited interpretation of US foreign policy - the quality of the passage isn't up to standard yet. As I've also already said, there is no need to wikilawyer, I'm not obsessive about policies and guidelines. Let's see what some other editors think and if other editors can improve the passage - that's how wikipedia works, right? Pexise (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your incivility has been noted. Do not repeat. You have still not given any constructive objection. "too simplistic and not encyclopedic"? I could argue that regarding material I dislike and claim that it should be removed. Again, exactly what policy are you citing for excluding this material? Please read WP:NPOV. Claimed pov or or "limited interpretation" is not a justification for deleting material.Ultramarine (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you've taken my comments on board - however you don't seem to have understood my point about the content - I repeat: it's not that I don't like the material, it just needs improving. I'm not wikilawyering, the material is poor and needs improving. Let's see if other editors can help. Pexise (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Ultramarine has said so far. If you think it needs improving, then improve it! The solution isn't to delete the content. johnpseudo 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the content, I've moved it to the talk page for improvement. It's near the top of this section. Pexise (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a good source, it's last year's Society of Latin American Studies lecture, delivered by Hugh O'Shaughnessy in Liverpool. [35] Pexise (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is that? Regardless, an opposing view is not justification for deletion. Feel free to add such an opposing view if it is reliable and notable source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[36] Pexise (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A journalist. Was it no you who complained of bad quality when I cited a paper published by a scholar and demanded several supporting sources?Ultramarine (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Regarding Hugh, his lecture is the keynote speech of the Society of Latin American Studies, the society of UK Latin American studies academics. This is a brief biog: "Hugh O'Shaughnessy has had vast experience in reporting from Latin America for such newspapers as The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Observer. He was a friend of Salvador Allende and a prescient herald of Pinochet's ultimate arrest. Among other books he has published Pinochet and the Politics of Torture." Pexise (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Still a journalist giving a speech which is a self-published source. Self-published material should be avoided.Ultramarine (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's another: [37] Pexise (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A blog on a personal webpage is also a self-published source. Unclear what expertise this person has on the subject.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

John Pilger is a pre-eminent journalist who reports on issues of democracy and human rights around the world - the article is from the Guardian UK newspaper. Pexise (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

An op-ed from the New Statesman from what the link says.Ultramarine (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's another excellent source, the Washington Office on Latin America [38]. This report is a good start: [39]. Sample quote:

The United States’ history with respect to the promotion of democracy and human rights

in Latin America is a checkered one at best. Many Latin Americans view U.S. support for democracy and human rights with skepticism, as pressure appears to be applied more often

to governments that Washington dislikes.

That looks to be a more reliable source. Please state some proposed text.Ultramarine (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the original resource shouldn't be used — at least not without a disclaimer. The source starts out by saying that his is an alternative hypothesis and the majority view runs contrary to the text. (second paragraph of the document.) Despite that, I really like the writing you've done, and it looks like recently you guys have figured out what you want to say? Good luck. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

relations with latin america

I added a cite needed comment. It could use a reference, both here and in the main article. Just like in this article, the section does not explicitly tie together a statement about which countries transitioned with the claim of it. It seems to me the whole section is correct, but off by 10 years. :) I'm confused, becuse this section was written this way for a very long time, and I remember bringing this up in the past, and everyone working towards their own ideas about the content... but seeing eventually that the citation was available. Now it is gone again.

To verify my claim that a citation is needed, one only need to browse the history records for the countries of south america. A casual review will turn up dates, generally in the 70s. And that can lead to some confusion.

By comparison, look at Spain. It's transition was also in the mid 1970s (1975). But it is sometimes said that it did not become a democracy until the 80s. It is begun in 1975 (change of rule in 1976), the new constitution in 1978, and a second change of rule (different elected party) in 1982. So maybe the 80s figures are good in some standard of measure... it'd be nice to have a source for such a fact-declaring statement contrary to a casual reading of many other wikipedia entries and a general interpretation, that's why I cite it.

But I also find the general tone misleading, with the use of "governments" in place of elected parties, as though south america has, from today on backwards throughout it's history, been ruled without representation on the whole. This is contrary to fact, and a great wealth of time and effort was spent by the US from the early-mid 1800s outward to bring about and support the democracies that have, in general, been the norm throughout south america since the 1800s. We do a disservice to our own history, and hide away our own diplomacy, support, and proactive efforts, in pretending it is only recently and with US neutrality, and outside of our direct and (this next part rightly noted in the text) sometimes forceful input. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a fairly neutral rewrite in place now... just still need the reference. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 13:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aipac

Yea ummm did we forget a Lobby called AIPAC!?!?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.102.176 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Communism and socialism

The stated aim of US foreign policy may have been to contain "communism" i.e. Stalinist communism, but in practice this meant socialism even in its mildest forms e.g. that of the Arbenz government. Lapsed Pacifist 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article is to present it as 'stated'. I agree it started with Stalin and morphed thru time, shades of red and heat, and changing leadership until it ended. I do not disagree that it may have been used on governments that may have seemed too pink. Please bring an RS that notes this. The Arbenz gov't was in the Americas and Monroe Doctrine, good or bad, but note that many of the US's allies in Europe were also socialist to varying degrees. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree the article should present US foreign policy as it is stated rather than as it is. The Guatemala coup had nothing to do with countering European influence in the Americas, and everything to do with the interests of United Fruit. I wouldn't regard countries with social democratic policies as socialist; US corporations were still open for business there. The CIA spent a fortune countering socialism in western Europe to achieve that end after WWII, especially in Italy. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please provide a ref that states your pov concerning this and insert it, but keep it relevant to this article. Possibly even find a more appropriate article. Is there a discussion of this at Monroe Doctrine? Maybe there should be a section on 'Monroe Doctrine meets the cold war'. I agree that less-than-good things happened, take a look at Chile, Nicaragua, Granada, Panama (all much later); I just do not think changing socialist to communist here is worth all this discussion, if you have something else in mind. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential control of the military

This article states that the president has control over the military once it is deployed, and that only Congress can declare war. That's true except that it suggests that the President doesn't have full control of the military prior to deployment, which he clearly does. It's what caused the creation of the War Powers Resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.41 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I removed it. Thbppt! (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up need

This article need a complete clean up :

1. many minor issues are over developed (Georgia, Drugs, Bush doctrine, ... ), and should be wipe out ;
2. and major ones (Africa, Europe, China, India, Liberalism, Need of raw materials ; rank, bases and action of the USA army in the world) absent ;
3. some sections are too long and should be cut into more understandable short sections.

In short, a major clean up is need. Yug (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a split into three parts: Intro (hard vs soft power, goals of American policy), History (Lots of pages) and current affairs (One massive list of articles for the USA and then one link from each client state page, er I mean "independent" country.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place?

This is currently under the 'Raw Materials Need" heading: Latin America Main article: United States-Latin American relations In the Cold War era the U.S. establishment feared socialism and in some cases overthrew or undermined democratically elected governments perceived at the time as becoming left-wing or unfriendly to U.S. interests.[60] Examples include the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état and the support of the Nicaraguan Contras. The '70s and '80s saw a shift of power towards corporations, and a polarization of the political election systems of many of the Latin American nations.[citation needed] Recently several left-wing parties have gained power through elections and have not been attacked. In particular Venezuela has been critical of the U.S.. Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador currently have governments sometimes seen as aligned with Venezuela. Left-wing governments in nations such as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile are more moderate. Governments in Peru and Colombia have closer relations with the U.S..

U.S. promotion of its version of democracy was emphasized by Jimmy Carter. Particularly in his first term, Ronald Reagan portrayed his policies in Central America as part of a struggle against Communism (see Salvadoran Civil War and Contras) and supported several brutal dictatorships.[61] After the Soviet collapse, both President George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton supported a version of democracy development in some countries.[61] According to some theorists there is at least a superficial correlation between periods of democracy development and U.S. policy towards democracy in Latin America.[61] Also earlier periods of U.S. democracy support occurred when democracies become more common. Such periods occurred during the 1920s, 1945-48, and 1958-63.[61]

While it has citations it says nothing about raw materials. Should it be deleted or moved elsewhere? Thbppt! (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion or major cuts

I nominated this article for deletion last night, it was quickly removed. I would have liked it to go through the actual process rather then just having the template removed. The article could be condensed to a paragraph or two and put back into the US article. Since that discussion was not allowed to occur (wrongly in my opinion) I intend to remove or drastically reduce some sections of this article, namely the criticisms and support sections. Most of what is there is covered in the Anti-Americism article (which redirects from Criticisms of the US). Additionally there is the section above this where I asked if the Latin America section under need of raw materials should stay or go as it had nothing to do with the heading, I will soon remove that as I cannot find a spot where it would fit well to move it too. Thbppt! (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed it for deletion last night, WP:PROD, which is for noncontroversial deletions. There is no process other than adding or removing the template. It was not nominated for deletion WP:AfD, which anyone is free to do. Deletion is usually for topics which are not notable or sourceable, and is not usually based on the current content of an article. I think it is very unlikely that this article would be deleted or merged.John Z (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly I read the deletion policy wrong then, my mistake. Any comment on the rest then? Thbppt! (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the section on Latin America section under Raw Materials. If someone restores it please give your reasons here. Thbppt! (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Bush doctrine section, not relevant to current policy.Thbppt! (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering deleting the missile defense portion. If anyone objects please let me know. Thbppt! (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

It is ridiculous that there is a section dedicated to "relations with Puerto Rico".

First of all, Puerto Rico is NOT a foreign country and Puerto Rico does NOT have sovereignty. Puerto Rico is a territorial possession of the United States with the U.S. President as its head of State. Therefore, there are no "foreign relations" between the United States and Puerto Rico. I propose that the section regarding Puerto Rico be removed since Puerto Rico is not a foreign country. --70.101.193.168 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Where is any reference to President Obama? This is a little out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.140.209 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Split this article

This is getting too long, slow to load, and slow to navigate for all but high speed users with fast new computers. I suggest that the criticisims and support be split to a seperate article titled "Criticism and Support of US foregin policy" or something similar. The History of exporting democracy through military intervention and sub-sections should also be part of a new Criticisms... article. Have some concideration for us dial-up users and new mobile users. 172.130.14.93 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Criticisms and the History of Exporting Democracy sections are way too long. A couple of sentences for each and a link to a separate article for each would make more sense.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is a bag of topics. I suggest listing the topics and splitting them into their own articles. Hcobb (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be split up. There is no Wiki article on the history and that is an astonishing gap. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Needs cleaning up. I'm proposing article reorganization (see new section below).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This Article is a Mess

Whoever wrote this article did the worst possible job imagineable. The information contained is so arbitrary and off the wall and sporadic in its content that half of this stuff could be omitted.

My suggestion is to create a foreign policy page based on different regions of the world (North America, South America, Asia, Europe, Africa, etc) and then list the countries under those regions and give a brief summary of U.S. relations with the country being discussed.

Foreign relations of the United Kingdom can serve as a good example to emulate. --Kildruf (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is a mess. The sections about "exporting democracy" seem to be too expansive in my view. I think the criticism section needs to be here, but clarified, tightened, expanded. And I think the subject of "history of U.S. foreign policy" needs to be a separate article, but mentioned in this article with small well-referenced sections under broad themes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new article structure

I agree with most of the comments above. The article is seriously out of whack. There is a lot of focus on narrow topics, and some areas covered only slightly. I think the whole topic of "Foreign policy of the US" is so broad that it is worth considering breaking it up. I think the current article "Foreign policy of the United States" should remain, but it would be mostly an overview article, pointing to three new main articles. Here is my proposal below:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the United States <--STAYS BUT BECOMES AN OVERVIEW ARTICLE

Overview of US foreign policy

History of US foreign policy <---BECOMES MAIN ARTICLE

1776-1898 etc

Critical analysis

Other

US foreign policy today <---BECOMES MAIN ARTICLE

Foreign policy powers President/Congress

Objectives, problems (need raw mtls etc)

Allies

Anti-drug efforts

Capabilities

Foreign policy law

Military/foreign aid

Special relationships (US-UK, US-Canada etc)

Geography of US foreign policy

Other issues

Criticism of US foreign policy <---BECOMES MAIN ARTICLE

Exporting/not-exporting democracy

Ineffectiveness of US foreign policy

Moral criticism of US foreign policy

Support/counterarguments etc

Other issues

See also

External links--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that the current article becomes more of a summary article, with three separate new articles: (1) History of US foreign policy (this can go in depth about this topic) (2) US foreign policy today (in depth treatment) (3) Criticism of US foreign policy (depth again) And the current article would stay, but would only focus on summary descriptions, and would point to the three new articles to be created.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wondering what people think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

excellent and feasible plan. Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. I'm keen to revamp the criticism section; that is, take what's there, expand it, rewrite it, add new information with supporting and contrasting info, with references, and make it into a separate article entitled something like: "Criticism of US foreign policy". Then a new article will be floated. And then, from the expanded floated article, and pick off a condensed few paragraphs which summarize it, and put those paragraphs in the "criticism" for this summary overview on "Foreign policy of the US". Feedback would be appreciated. I'll try to get around to it in next few days if I have time. And then later to do something similar to the other sections, but I'm less knowledgeable about these other sections, so I'm hoping others might get interested in fixing them up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: revamped criticism section

Plus there's an article created which treats the subject in more depth. Basically, what I found was that there was plenty of negative criticism, but scant positive criticism of US foreign policy. In researching this, I think that newspapers, the public, and numerous groups for many reasons tend to overlook the serious good things the US has done -- like win WW2, defeat communism, build the Panama Canal, support free trade. Since the US is a dominant (but fading?) power, there's a tendency by all sorts of groups to only see the negative aspects of things. When something is wrong with the world, it's the US's fault. So I revamped the section with plenty of references and pictures. I suggest if specific criticism (positive or negative) should be added, they should be fairly major. Further, if a whole slew of negative criticisms are added, positive ones should be added as well to maintain WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. I still think this article, overall, is out of whack, and it should get up to speed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fix is to NOT have a an overall criticism section, but simply include criticism and rebuttals under each subtopic. Hcobb (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In June, you (HCobb) wrote: "This article is a bag of topics. I suggest listing the topics and splitting them into their own articles. Hcobb (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)". Okay, that's what's being done here. There's a separate article about criticisms (positive/negative) plus a shortened, revamped criticism section here. If you'd like to incorporate positive & negative criticisms under each topic in a different structure, let me know SOON as I'm preparing to revamp the "Foreign policy of the US" article further still. There are advantages for each organizational style: one plus for the separate-criticisms section plan is that it's easy to check for balance, by noting how much text the positive criticisms get as opposed to the negative criticisms. But others prefer a more topic-oriented approach with positive & negative criticisms mixed in. If you feel strongly about a particular arrangement, then work with me on editing it, otherwise I'll made decisions as I proceed based on what I think works best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just charging in for balance is going to skew over your references. Imagine a paper that claims that every single thing the United States Government has ever done has been fair, effective and right. Now doesn't that sound fair and balanced to you? On the other hand, except for some Death to America dead enders, the people who have complaints about American policies have objections on certain points, such as blind support for Israel and other tyrannical puppet regimes. Since nobody understands the full reach and scope of the Hyperpower, nobody is qualified to speak out on every point of it so splitting by topics will match reliable sources better than anything else we can do. Hcobb (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm getting what you're trying to say. What do you mean by "charging in for balance" or "skew over your references"? Articles are usually split up for reasons of size and organization, and to keep them from getting unmanageable. Please read comments above about suggested organization of all the Foreign Policy of the US articles; does that make sense to you? If you have a better proposal, now's the time; please be specific. And, before the revamping, I thought the article on US foreign policy was heavily tilted towards negative criticisms, with few positive ones mentioned; so I added these, and got more references for both pro & con. So it's getting better on the WP:NPOV front, but still needs work. In addition, there is a clear lack of organization here. I intend to fix this. If you have any suggestions before I edit, make them now, with specifics, before I begin, otherwise let me get to work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New subarticle created History of U.S. foreign policy

This article is getting unwieldy, as the tags and discussion in the talk pages attest. It became slow to load. So, following suggestions to split off articles, there's a subarticle entitled "History of U.S. foreign policy" which is essentially much of the same text, with a few additions, a few more references. The section in the main article (Foreign policy of the United States) dealing with history was condensed to a few paragraphs to summarize developments. Wikilinks are put in for subarticles. This article is improving hopefully but still needs work. It has many more references now and is hopefully getting more WP:NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited Foreign policy law section

I had thought it was confusing, sometimes too complicated, unnecessarily complex. So I simplified it. There were one or two details that I thought were so detailed that I omitted them; readers can find better treatment in more specific articles such as Treaty or Treaty Clause or in Wikipedia's treatment of Supreme Court rulings.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New article split off called History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily

As per the discussion on the talk pages, this article has been out of whack, and there have been repeated suggestions to split off subarticles to keep this main article manageable. Even with these changes, the main article takes a long time to load, so it perhaps could use more copyediting and trimming. But the subarticle created here dealt with a specific subject -- efforts to export democracy militarily -- which were covered in too much depth for this summary page. So it now has its own article. But I kept the references as best I could, and put in an abbreviated paragraph which covered the highlights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the United States still takes too long to load

It took my computer 10 seconds to load the "Foreign policy of the United States" page; do others have this problem? If so, the article is still too huge. Any ideas? I was thinking of:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. trimming down the references in the criticism section; instead of some points having 7+ references, I'd pick one or two, and delete the others. Is this okay? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Update Trimmed as of 1/1/2010. I couldn't nail all the multiple references because doing so would require deleting elsewhere. But for persons interested, there are multiple references for each of the points in the article Criticism of U.S. foreign policy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Athe "further reading" section about "Exporting democracy" can be moved to a "further reading" section in the Exporting democracy article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Also, the information about U.S. and allies, can be split off to a separate article, with only a paragraph or two summary.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
4. The "support" section has many criticisms (pro & con) which could be moved to the "Criticism of U.S. foreign policy" article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeking feedback.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, my article Presidential prevarications is up for deletion. If anybody has opinions, express them soon; but I urge everybody to visit the article to click on the videos of the presidents fibbing; it's such fun and will probably soon disappear. My favorite is: Clinton!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed references down/ Page now at 140K bytes so it is loading faster.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section is still way too long. It appears that the guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style are relevant here -- in particular the subsection WP:DETAIL which states:

The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects. This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is shown the tip of a pyramid (the lead section) for a topic and within that article any section may have a

Main article: [[:<subpage name>]]

or similar link to a full article on the topic summarized in that section (see Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area for an example using two featured articles). The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the daughter article.

In my opinion and consistent with those guidelines, the listed points in this main article should be completely eliminated and replaced with a few paragraphs expanding the info in the lede of Criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good thanks North Shoreman you found style guidelines about this parent-daughter stuff. Didn't even know to call it parent-daughter stuff. Didn't know about it. It's loading much better now, but if you or others want to trim stuff, go ahead. I'm wondering whether to collapse the "Support" section into the Criticism section (or move it to the "daughter" criticism article) and whether to do the same with the U.S. & Allies stuff too (spinoff another article?). I'm starting to get VERY bored with this topic and hope others will take over.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Organization? Oil???

Does it seem strange to anyone that there is an entire section of this page commited solely to oil? Now I won't deny that strategic energy policy plays a role in US foreign affairs, but to arbitrarily devote a whole section to it, without other, similar sections like perhaps Containment or Isolationism?

Obviously the root of this problem is that this article is flat out unorganized and should be entirely revamped. This is also clear by the short list of arbitrary "alliances", where we mention American relations with Britain, Canada and Mexico, but not much else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alby45 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Criticism of American foreign policy

A proposal to delete the aove article has been initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of American foreign policy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

'serious' world wars?

As opposed to the other kind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.17.67 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

section for US relations/interplay with non-state actors required?

I think it's strange that this article includes practically no coherent view of the U.S. foreign relations with non-state organized actors, including terrorist groups, NGOs, corporations and others. WikiLeaks deserves more than one passing mention in the introduction, but without a section for non-state actors, where would references to its interplay with the US government belong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.95.208 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive

This page needs to be archived. It has become overbearingly large and uneasy to read with many repeating or similar topics discussed under multiple headings. Is there a place that a request can be made? Does anyone have the knowledge on how to archive? Thanks! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

US FOREIN POLICY ON ZIMBABWE

I think the US foreign policy on Zimbabwe is flawed,instead of bringing positive change to the country its achieving exactly the opposite,hence prolonging the suffering of the people of this jewel of Africa.The US should engage all parties within the inclusive government of Zimbabwe without preferential treatment for one part ie the MDCT in order to achieve quick and positive change for the country.Both ZANU PF and MDCT have a huge following within the country,the former being still very strong among the rural electorate from where it launched its armed struggle while the later enjoys the support of the urban electorate.The MDC gained some support among the rural electorate during the 2008 elections mainly due to difficulties experienced by the rural populace as a result of a severe drought and the effect of sanctions.Nothing much should be read into that temporary gain.Currently the Party appears to be losing support even among the urban electorate due to some unfulfilled promises.The Party's stance over civil servants incentives seems to have a negative effect also on its urban support base.It is therefore not a given that MDCT will win the next elections no matter how free and fair they could be.It is against this background that I feel that the best way to influence positive and constructive change for the situation in Zimbabwe is for the US to shift its policy position on the country.The best way to influence change is through positive and constructive engagement like in the case of China and Libya.In the two cases,the US opted for a constructive and diplomatic engagement to improve relations,the results were quicker and achieved without animosity and loss of lives.It will be folly for the US to wish for a civil strife in Zimbabwe,the results will be catastrophic with capacity to destabilise the whole of the sub region.It is not in the best interests of the US to create more Somalias in Africa;its not good for its ailing economy.Africa needs the US just as the US needs a peaceful and progressive Africa not one in turmoil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.156.238 (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)