US Foreign Policy

The man reason why the US agreed to support the Israeli was because the US feared that the Soviets would influence the Arab states. If the Soviets gained influence with the with the Arabs it would the Soviets and Arabs stronger than the US.

(The guy before me was wrong)Its.....They became the only remaining superpowers in the world after the war.

Absolutely. In fact, there are many countries that allow dual citizenship with Israel, including the U.K. and Australia.

The United States gives millions of dollars to Syria. The last pledge of money was 380 million dollars in January 2014

Because some Zionist groups (like the Lehi/Stern Gang and the Irgun) were considered terrorists prior to 1948 by both the British and the Americans. Additionally, many US officials thought that by supporting Israel that they would be "backing the wrong horse" so to speak. The Israelis seemed much weaker than the Arabs and the Arabs were much more likely to hold a grudge against those who supported Israel. (Supporters of Israel in the State Department argued that the US should support Western democracies wherever possible.) It was as a result of this division of opinion that the US State Department was neutral in regards to Israel from 1948-1967.

To gain equal trade rights for American commerce in China.

Muslims never hate Americans. Many Muslims live in the US and have good relations with the Americans. They all cooperate together and share responsibilities in the American society.

However, Muslims don't like the American foreign policy that is biased against their needs and aspirations, biased just for the benefit of Us and Israel own interests and benefits. Refer to related question below.

Foreign aid is generally targeted at gaining influence in a region or dealing with a problem that may impact on the United States. For example, military aid to Israel keeps USA influential in balance of power in the Middle East.

I think you mean "to make the world safe FOR democracy"-- whether people agree with his policies or not, there is no credible evidence the president is opposed to democracy. That said, it should be noted that unlike the Monroe Doctrine, there really is no specific "Obama Doctrine" that was ever written down and voted on by congress. Like most presidents, Mr. Obama has specific goals and strategies for helping America to remain strong and for maintaining a balance in the world. Some of his policies seem to have worked, while others are more difficult to assess, and it may not be until after he is no longer president that we can make an accurate assessment.

Some of President Obama's unofficial Doctrine seems to involve using diplomacy first, rather than committing America to other wars (poll after poll shows the American public does not want more wars at this point). Some of his Doctrine seems to involve the use of drones to target suspected terrorists. Some of his Doctrine seems to favor using force only as a last resort. I enclose a link to the Wikipedia explanation of the so-called Obama Doctrine, which includes both praise for it and criticism of it.

domo

War & peace is an amazing thing. I think we all learned something from WWII. After the Atom Bomb was dropped it was such a horrific scene (even to the pilot, etc., that dropped the bomb from the Anola Gay) that one would never have guessed Japan could rebuild so fast, but they did. I believe not only they learned some lessons from war, but so did the rest of the countries of the world (or at least most of them.) There are no winners! If you study Japanese Culture (which I love and have studied and my home is decorated in Japanese decor) you'd understand that they are a proud people and their thinking is quite wise. A Japanese soldier honors a brave enemy. If a Japanese soldier is killed by a weak man it is a dishonor (or use to be.) We can learn much from the Japanese as far as wisdom, patience, building, and producing mass exports. They are tops in cars and the future in technology. The Japanese are wise enough to know that the American people of today are not the same people that attacked them on that fateful day and hold no grudges. When in Japan one is treated with honor and everything has a reason in everything they do (not meaning that in a bad way.) Their high priority is honor and truth and they expect the same in return. They are shrewd in business, but fair. We were also at war with Germany, but the world visits Germany and they visit many countries of the world. We human are an odd lot. We make war, fight to the death, cause havock and in time walk along side the culture of the very people we were at war with. The same goes for Vietnam. Me thinks we should all be in straight jackets!

It is the Truman Doctrine.

In an unprecidented move the Tasmanian government confiscated Martin Bryant's worldly posessions. The reason given was to provide aid to the victims from his wealthy estate even though, at that time, he had not been found guilty of anything. Bryant was rendered penniless. Although, by law, Bryant was listed under the Tasmanian Health Act and unfit to be tried (he was not capable of handeling his own affairs), again the law was changed so that he could be brought to trial despite his handicap. By law he should have been offered Legal Aid however it is more likely that he was appointed a lawyer by the court. He was not a very convinced lawyer and before long resigned from the case. Bryant's next lawyer was eventually disbarred

Yes, if the foreign country and America have an extradition treaty.

George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were all interested in creating international allies. They had a foreign policy goal of becoming diplomatic friends with other countries in Europe.

It would be a false assumption the the US wanted to rule the Pacific Ocean. In the past and even now, the vast ocean, with its many nation "players" rules out any nation from ruling the vast Pacific Ocean.

Issues that defined American foreign policy during the early nineteenth century include expansion and growth. Industrial growth was evident in Europe and Japan. Americans thought not acting on foreign policy would lead to second class status in the community of nations and economic stagnation.

false

No. America guarantees the right for anyone and everyone to practice what they believe. It is a nation of every kind of religion, race, ideology, and lifestyle. So no, Americans do not hate Muslims- or anyone for that matter.

They have been helping Israel both with military and economic aid.

The answer is more nuanced. While the United States is Israel's primary foreign backer, the United States also gives generously to Palestinian Aid Organizations and believes in a Two-State Solution.

Government: Israel and the United States started on friendly terms with the United States approving the 1947 Partition Plan. However, until the Six-Day War of 1967, the United States did not see Israel as a country that would exist in the long-term because of Arab belligerence against the State. After Israel's stunning victory in that war, the United States became Israel's primary Western Ally and began to trade technologies, both civilian and military, with Israel. The United States government, therefore takes a pro-Israel stance in international politics and is often seen as Israel's backer. As a result, the United States opinion on the conflict is often harsher on Palestinian Terrorism than the Israeli Occupation.

No. The AID to Israel is as helpful for the US as it is for Israel.

The question of US funding in Israel is primarily for military hardware. The US does not provide economic aid to Israel. First, the US Aid to Israel makes up about 0.03% of the US GDP. To put that in perspective, it would pay for around a week in Iraq or half-a-day of Social Security. Additionally, 80% of the money earmarked for Israel can only be spent by Israel on US-produced weapons. This means that the money appropriated for Israel mostly goes to support US firms and US jobs, making it a win-win for both Israel and the US. This is aside from the fact that numerous recent technological innovations in both military and civilian technology have come to the US from Israel, providing economic gains that more than offset the remaining 20%.

Truman's general argument was that a failure to prevent the rise of communist insurgencies in Greece and Turkey would send a signal to the Soviet Union that the United States would not oppose the spread of communism to other countries around the world. This would threaten a number of US allies in postwar Europe as well as countries throughout Asia that both had communist insurgencies or popular support for communists.

He believed that the U.S. had a moral obligation to promote democracy in Latin America. He also believed that mending fences with Colombia was necessary. Based on the so-called "bad deal" of the Panama Canal, Wilson sent Colombia several million dollars.

Both used economic power to spread U.S. influence abroad