Talk:Foreign relations of the United States: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:56, 24 June 2007

Latest revision as of 16:20, 15 September 2025

(140 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{American English}}

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProject Internationalbanner relations}}shell|class=Start|

{{USProject|classWikiProject =International Brelations|importance = midTop}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=yes|American-importance=Mid}}

{{to-do}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=Top}}

}}

{{Copied|from=Foreign policy of the United States#By country or region|from_oldid=829632197|to=Foreign relations of the United States|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States&diff=833312385&oldid=832786950}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

==Unacceptable==

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-08-17">17 August 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-11">11 December 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Kansas_State_University/US_Foreign_Policy_(Fall)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Keirnkinnan|Keirnkinnan]].

This page is just not acceptable: it does not cover the subject or deal competently with those few items it outlines. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Italo Svevo|Italo Svevo]] ([[User talk:Italo Svevo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Italo Svevo|contribs]]) 19:13, 5 September 2003 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}

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

==Merged==

This article has been merged into [[Foreign policy of the United States]], and the contents of this talk page have been copied to that page. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:Note that I've merged the page histories of the old page that was at the title "Foreign relations of the United States" with the new page that was moved to the same title. All the edits before May 2008 contain the old page history. This page history needs to be kept because there was a merge from the page "Foreign relations of the United States" to [[foreign policy of the United States]]. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''[[User talk:Graham87|<span style="color:green;">87</span>]] 09:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

: '''Agree''' [[User:LtDoc|LtDoc]] 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== strained country section ==

== [[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. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc_Harris]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 22:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This section must be fixed as there could easily be more countries on there like America and Zimbabwe most certainly do not have good relations I mean America advocated sanctions against them. Eritrea is most certainly another, Serbia doesn't really make sense there today I mean America has a much better relationship with them then they used to. And Burma that is one of America's most strained relationships on earth. All the chavez new left allies like Bolivia and Nicaragua, Ecuador as well have all been strained recently. I could keep going so a clean up is needed asap to the strained section <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.95.46.162|64.95.46.162]] ([[User talk:64.95.46.162|talk]]) 15:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. &mdash;[[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] ([[User talk:Lowellian|talk]]) 15:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That list is rather arbitrary. Russia may have tensions with the U.S., but both nations have embassies, trade relations, and other normal ties. [[Special:Contributions/108.125.116.235|108.125.116.235]] ([[User talk:108.125.116.235|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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.--[[User:EatAlbertaBeef|EatAlbertaBeef]] 05:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between sound bites and actual relations boys and girls. What is said publically by officials is not what goes on behind closed doors. Yes America and Venezula have difficult relations, by as an oil producing nation they would not want upset the worlds second largest oil consumer too much. Besides relations with Burma have improved and Zimbabwe remains Zimababwe as for the other left wing countries of South America relations remain hot and cold at best. Tra3636 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.126.244.74|71.126.244.74]] ([[User talk:71.126.244.74|talk]]) 03:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Miscategorization? ==

Why are Belize, Guyana, and Suriname listed in the Caribbean section? Shouldn't they be in the "Americas" section? [[Special:Contributions/71.184.241.68|71.184.241.68]] ([[User talk:71.184.241.68|talk]]) 19:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree [Sam 2006]

:More questions: Why is the Caribbean section separate from the Americas when the Carribbean are a subsection of the Americas. I have resolved this one for now at the section level. Why are some continents, e.g. the Americas, and subcontinents bundled while others, e.g. Eurasia or just Asia, split into many sections. Why is the Middle East listed among the continents and the subcontinents, when, like Latin America, it is an intercontinental region? Why is it confused at least in one case (Azerbaijan) with West Asia but in other cases (Armenia and Georgia) not? In short, the geographic categorization in this article is a huge mess!!!! [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb|talk]]) 14:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

== (...) 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.[[User:LtDoc|LtDoc]] 03:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== Australia - Commonwealth alignment ==

:I prefer "Merkins" myself. [[User:JIP|&mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 19:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This article and two other related articles([[Australia – United States relations]] and [[Foreign relations of Australia]]) make three separate statements about Australia's alignment to the Commonwealth of Nations. This article states: Australia used to be aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Australia-United States relations article states: Australia is also [in addition to the United States of America] aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... The Foreign relations of Australia article states: ...Australia has traditionally been aligned with the Commonwealth of Nations... A subject should not be interpreted in three conflicting ways in different articles. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth, therefore, how can Australia not be aligned with the Commonwealth? If it is possible for a country to be aligned to the Commonwealth than surely a member of the Commonwealth must be naturally aligned to the Commonwealth. Though, personally, I would refute that a country can be aligned to the Commonwealth as members of the Commonwealth have and are free to pursue completely separate foreign policies. I shall, however, edit statements in these three article relating to alignment between Australia and the Commonwealth to agree; utilising the statement made in the Foreign relations of Australia article as it presents the middle ground. [[Special:Contributions/60.226.81.81|60.226.81.81]] ([[User talk:60.226.81.81|talk]]) 18:35, 9 May 2011 (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? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Anazcp|Anazcp]] ([[User talk:Anazcp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Anazcp|contribs]]) 11:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> <small>([e-mail])</small>

== South Sudan ==

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

Is there any reliable sources about relations between between South Sudan and the United States? All I can find is that the USA officially recognized South Sudan as a sovereign state. -- '''[[User:Lukep913|<span style="color:##F5F5FF"><span style="font-family:geneva">Luke</span></span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Lukep913|<span style="color:#FF0000"><span style="font-family:arial narrow"><big>Talk</big></span></span>]]}''' 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

::It is not? Well, let us see some evidence then <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:LtDoc|LtDoc]] ([[User talk:LtDoc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LtDoc|contribs]]) 15:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

== potential resource ==

:::It could be true, but without evidence we shouldn't put it into a wiki. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.242.44.151|69.242.44.151]] ([[User talk:69.242.44.151|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.242.44.151|contribs]]) 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66793/stewart-patrick/irresponsible-stakeholders Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers] by Stewart Patrick [[Foreign Affairs]] November/December 2010; excerpt ... {{Quotation|A major strategic challenge for the United States in the coming decades will be integrating [[Emerging Powers|emerging powers]] into international institutions. The dramatic growth of [[Brazil]], [[China]], and [[India]] -- and the emergence of middle-tier economies such as [[Indonesia]] and [[Turkey]] -- is transforming the [[geopolitical]] landscape and testing the institutional foundations of the post-[[World War II]] liberal order.}}

:::: Thats why its on the discussion page, and not on the article. What you cant do is to claim it isnt without evidence. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:LtDoc|LtDoc]] ([[User talk:LtDoc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LtDoc|contribs]]) 09:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

[[Special:Contributions/99.19.44.155|99.19.44.155]] ([[User talk:99.19.44.155|talk]]) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

== include [[Major non-NATO ally]] image? ==

:::::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) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.18.76.138|70.18.76.138]] ([[User talk:70.18.76.138|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.18.76.138|contribs]]) 10:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

[[File:American-MNNA-2007.svg|left|Unites States in green [[Major Non-NATO ally]] in orange]]

== 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) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:141.151.113.92|141.151.113.92]] ([[User talk:141.151.113.92|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/141.151.113.92|contribs]]) 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

[[Special:Contributions/99.181.141.52|99.181.141.52]] ([[User talk:99.181.141.52|talk]]) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (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. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Coffeeflower|Coffeeflower]] ([[User talk:Coffeeflower|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Coffeeflower|contribs]]) 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

== The oriental policy of the United States  By Henry Chung ==

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=qklJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

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. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:24.21.6.140|24.21.6.140]] ([[User talk:24.21.6.140|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.21.6.140|contribs]]) 12:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

[[User:Rajmaan|Rajmaan]] ([[User talk:Rajmaan|talk]]) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (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? --[[User:NYCJosh|NYCJosh]] 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

== problems ==

This is only a "list of countries that have foreign relations with the United States", not a foreign relations of the United States. This become problematic since its article does not meet the title, so when I use link template, the bots wrongly redirect to the wrong page in the other wikis too. I'll move it to another name asap.--[[User:owennson|<span style="color:green;">owennson</span>]]（[[User talk:Owennson|<span style="color:red;">Meeting Room</span>]]、[[Special:User contribution/Owennson|<span style="color:blue;">Certificates</span>]]） 07:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

== Proposed merge with [[Foreign policy of the United States]] ==

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

The "Geography" section of [[Foreign policy of the United States]] appears to be an incomplete attempt at a more exhaustive version of this article. [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] [[User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]] ([[WP:TBACK|Talkback]]) 22:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

== Australia ==

:Agreed and {{done}}

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.([[User:Khanada|Khan]] 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

== Importance assessments out of wack ==

:Yes, they have sent troops to fight & die alongside Americans in every major war that the U.S. has been involved in. <small>—The preceding hot coco is delisious.[[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:220.238.56.111|220.238.56.111]] ([[User talk:220.238.56.111|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/220.238.56.111|contribs]]) 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

The importance assessments this article have received are kind of strange, such as how it got Low-importance for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government|WikiProject United States Government]]. I've done some work to clean it up, but I've pinged to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States|WikiProject United States]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government|WikiProject United States Government]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations|WikiProject International relations]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics|WikiProject Politics]], the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics|American politics taskforce]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy|WikiProject United States Public Policy]] to see what they think about the rating they have currently assigned. –[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])} 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

== Major biases ==

:{{u|Compassionate727}} The ratings you are referring to were added in 2012 by an IP who was adding the WikiProject United States banner. Please feel free to reassess it to what you believe the importance is currently to be.[[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

== External links modified ==

--[[User:RPaleja|RPaleja]] 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Foreign relations of the United States]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=757996980 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

I agree. [[User:AndrewAL|AndrewAL]] 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411014930/http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsmg13.shtml to http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsmg13.shtml

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992.html

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806005029/http://www.newstoday.co.za/cgi-bin/newstoday/show.pl?1234511214 to http://www.newstoday.co.za/cgi-bin/newstoday/show.pl?1234511214

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

== Dirty Wars Timeline ==

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

==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. --[[User:Helmandsare|Helmandsare]] 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

== Syria does technically have relations with the United States ==

== Praise ==

Real good article, thanks Wikipedia. Oops and the author.I'm impressed. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:66.32.26.22|66.32.26.22]] ([[User talk:66.32.26.22|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/66.32.26.22|contribs]]) 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

Syria does technically have relations with the United States. Relations were simply suspended in March 2014, but they did not officially end. I have an article which I will attach at the end to prove that. I am not sure how to change the picture with foreign relations with United States, but is there someone that does know that can? Syria should not be in red. I also have an article from the History Channel to prove it. Can someone put Syria back in green? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/us-suspends-diplomatic-relations-with-syria.html

== States of war ==

http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/are-there-countries-the-u-s-doesnt-have-diplomatic-relations-with --[[User:Ameet12345|Ameet12345]] ([[User talk:Ameet12345|talk]]) 03:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

== External links modified ==

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. --[[User:HJV|HJV]] 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

I have just modified 5 external links on [[Foreign relations of the United States]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=803676112 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

::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. --[[User:NYCJosh|NYCJosh]] 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061217130958/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-05T191720Z_01_SP305135_RTRUKOC_0_US-FIJI.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-6

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710013700/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/RL33456.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/RL33456.pdf

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710013700/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/RL33456.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/RL33456.pdf

*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/democ_act_1992.html

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=80424

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004045123/http://iran.usembassy.gov/ to http://iran.usembassy.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

== 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?? --[[User:Boszko2|Boszko2]] 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

==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:

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

<nowiki>*'''support''' or *'''oppose'''</nowiki>.

== Map needs updated ==

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

The map needs to be updated to show that the Crimean Peninsula is disputed territory. I would do so but Im not sure how to deal with crediting the original author while also indicating that it has been edited by another individual. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1106:45D8:DD0A:94B6:84D2:558B|2605:A000:1106:45D8:DD0A:94B6:84D2:558B]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:1106:45D8:DD0A:94B6:84D2:558B#top|talk]]) 19:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

<!-- Type *'''support''' or *'''oppose''' below this message, please keep your comments brief.-->

== 'Non-Independent Territories With No Formal Relations With the United States' section should be deleted ==

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

This section serves no use on the page – it is completely random list of regions and cities with no apparent explanation for why they should be listed. Why should it be considered noteworthy that Toronto and the Yukon have no have 'independent' relations with the US? [[User:Jacobchip|Jacobchip]] ([[User talk:Jacobchip|talk]]) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (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. --[[User:NYCJosh|NYCJosh]] 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

**::I thinkagree that& deleted section--it's issilly adequatelyto coveredsee inmost theof [[:Template:AmericanEmpire]]Canada seriesincluded already, but lets cross that bridge when itas comes.non-recognized! [[User:TravbRjensen|TravbRjensen]] ([[User talk:TravbRjensen|talk]]) 0520:5629, 1723 JulyNovember 20062020 (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... --[[User:Boszko2|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. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==

: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:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

* [[commons:File:Family photo of leaders at 30th NATO Summit.jpg|Family photo of leaders at 30th NATO Summit.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2020-03-23T07:22:06.791130 | Family photo of leaders at 30th NATO Summit.jpg -->

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==

:First: speedy deletion [[Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Please_explain_your_reasoning]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_history_of_exporting_democracy&diff=56452835&oldid=56452666]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

* [[commons:File:Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva, 16 June 2021 (05).jpg|Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva, 16 June 2021 (05).jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-06-30T07:27:15.643160 | Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva, 16 June 2021 (05).jpg -->

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2021 Russia–United States summit|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 07:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

== Major allies ==

:Second this: [[Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Adding_a_deletion_tag]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_history_of_exporting_democracy&diff=63646762&oldid=63568154]

Should we make a section of major allies of the US so basically it’s a section of the biggest allies of the US and we could do the same with the other countries [[Special:Contributions/2.28.107.151|2.28.107.151]] ([[User talk:2.28.107.151|talk]]) 19:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:and today this:

:I know we have NATO and non NATO major allies but how about countries like Panama Mexico or Costa Rica [[Special:Contributions/2.28.107.151|2.28.107.151]] ([[User talk:2.28.107.151|talk]]) 19:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:Third: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US history of exporting democracy ]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_history_of_exporting_democracy&diff=67587983&oldid=66034480]

::And countries with tension the the US that can also be included in other pages [[Special:Contributions/2.28.107.151|2.28.107.151]] ([[User talk:2.28.107.151|talk]]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

== Denmark? ==

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

Should Denmark be listed as a country with a strained relationship after Trump threatened to invade Greenland? [[Special:Contributions/82.147.226.185|82.147.226.185]] ([[User talk:82.147.226.185|talk]]) 12:01, 19 January 2025 (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. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:71.213.95.82|71.213.95.82]] ([[User talk:71.213.95.82|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.213.95.82|contribs]]) 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

:First you need to find a reliable reference that states such. [[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] ([[User talk:Semsûrî|talk]]) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (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. --[[User:Iamunknown|Iamunknown]] 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

== Unreferenced ==

I just tagged the main article as ''<nowiki>{{unreferenced|date=August 2006}}</nowiki>''. 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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics|WikiProject Politics]] template and by tagging it the article with another notorious tag, more will come. Let's get this article to featured status! --[[User:Iamunknown|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. [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think now the article is of a particular POV predominately because of [[WP:WEASEL|weasel words]]. If we could back up any statement of a weasel words via [[WP:FOOTNOTE|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 [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]. That, however, would talk a lot of broad knowledge that I do not have. We can try, though! --[[User:Iamunknown|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 [[Jesus#Notes|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}}<br style="clear:both" />

:::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! [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk: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.

== 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. [[User:AndrewAL|AndrewAL]] 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:I've decided to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and just remove the section, as it doesn't seem to contribute to the article at all. [[User:Bobo The Ninja|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 [[Image talk:Usforeignpolicy.png|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. '''''[[User:ObeliskBJM|ObeliskBJM]]^{[[User talk: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. [[User:Bobo The Ninja|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.

== 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}} --[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 09:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

:My edits, carefully explained in the edits summaries, were reverted without explanation.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States&diff=138076206&oldid=138075802] If there is no explanation, I will shortly restore them.[[User:Ultramarine|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?--[[User:LtWinters|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," ? [[User:Harvard yarrd|Harvard yarrd]]

:Yes, it is allowed.[[User:Giovanni33|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."

[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

:Also, why did you do a blank revert? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States&curid=32027&diff=140340601&oldid=140339625] I had asked for sources on dubious claims and made the language NPOV.[[User:Ultramarine|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.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 19:27, 24 June 2007 (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.

:::The United States helped democratic Britan and France defeat the opposing autocracies during WWI, 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. Many nations in Eastern Europe have joined NATO."[[User:Ultramarine|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.[[User:Giovanni33|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.[[User:Ultramarine|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.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::We are certainly allowed to state "According to the widely used Polity..."""[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 21:52, 24 June 2007 (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 [[Military history of the United States|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 [[dictatorship]]s 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 [[Gross domestic product|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 [[State Terrorism of the United States|terrorism]], for example the [[Contras]] in [[Nicaragua]]."[[User:Ultramarine|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: [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/28/kyoto.protocol/index.html] And[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2004_Oct_25/ai_n6284042].

:On the claim for support of dictatorships:[http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm][http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5411.htm] The point about official stated noble reason and actual ones,see:[http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start-A-WarMay02.htm]

: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:[http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/subsidies/index.htm]So, you should retore this section with the added refernces, I provided above.[[User:Giovanni33|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.[[User:Ultramarine|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:[http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12588][http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1739517920070417][http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=236091][http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1159]. 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:[http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2414]. 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.[[User:Giovanni33|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?[[User:Ultramarine|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: [http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1228-03.htm], and[http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0110-30.htm]. 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."[[User:Giovanni33|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?[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)