Report Says U.S. Should Reclaim Good Neighbour Legacy

What a refreshing change from the usual doom & gloom. A groop with some positive outlooks.

Havent read the whole thing in depth but the Good Neighbor principals given and copied below sum it up very well.

Good Neighbor Principles
The globalized conditions of the 21st century require a Global Good Neighbor ethic consisting of four general principles and three precepts that address the primary areas of international relations: military affairs, sustainable development, and governance.

Principle One: The first step toward being a good neighbor is to stop being a bad neighbor.

Principle Two : Our nation’s foreign policy agenda must be tied to broad U.S. interests. To be effective and win public support, a new foreign policy agenda must work in tandem with new domestic policies to improve security, quality of life, and basic rights in our own country.

Principle Three: Given that our national interests, security, and social well-being are interconnected to those of other peoples, U.S. foreign policy must be based on reciprocity rather than domination, mutual well-being rather than cutthroat competition, and cooperation rather than confrontation.

Principle Four : As the world’s foremost power, the United States will be best served by exercising responsible global leadership and partnership rather than seeking global dominance.

Principle Five: An effective security policy must be two-pronged. Genuine national safety requires both a well-prepared military capable of repelling attacks on our country and a proactive commitment to improving national and personal security through nonmilitary measures and international cooperation.

Principle Six: The U.S. government should support sustainable development, first at home and then abroad, through its macroeconomic trade, investment, and aid policies.

Principle Seven: A peaceful and prosperous global neighborhood depends on effective governance at national, regional, and international levels. Effective governance is accountable, transparent, and representative.

(Rural)

This is a refreshing development, agree Rural with your take, I wonder how far it will go? Clean up at home first, that makes sense, we also have some major clean up to do.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Im rather surprised by the lack of commentry on this one, I suppose we all like to rant about bad news more! Like most moderate, well thought out reports of this nature it will no doubt be ignored by those in power (both sides of the border) also.

---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

Realistically speaking, most 'informational' articles don't require comment, their main purpose being to provide information that people can review and consider in what ever manner they wish. People just choose to express their opinions on the information provided for whatever reason.

I've noticed the comments generally fly fast and furious when there's some emotional angle, e.g., righteous outrage, available to be played or some opportunity to work with black and white labels, e.g., 'us' against 'them'.

There generally doesn't seem to be much comment for articles or forum topics that don't offer much to get emotional about or an opportunity for the 'black label' to demonstrate their perceived superiority to the 'white label', and vice versa.

If you scan through the forum topics or articles, you'll notice a lot of topics that are lacking in opportunity for emotional input, requiring only thought, e.g., what 'Canada' do we want and how can we achieve it, often dry up pretty quickly or elicit comment from the same three or four people.

Topics that offer opportunity for more emotional input, e.g., contributions can consist of no-thought insults being tossed back and forth, seem to go on forever and often attract a broader audience.

I appreciate this kind of article for a number of reasons. I've submitted a few myself that show a different side of the U.S. than is often presented in more sensational pieces, and have seen the same lack of response. But, I'll keep submitting them as I come across them, and hope you and others do the same.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

This entire premise is inherently flawed. The current government-in-power of Canada is not worth spit. Would you honestly want the worlds superpower to recognize them-it-you the way the current Canadian government is structured?

Frankly, I think the world is better served by having the USA recognize the untrustworthyness of Canada, as it is now implemented. Maybe, just maybe, after a dissolution into more responsible parts, the USA will have a reason to addrress any one of them.

However, for the current state of Canada today, undergoing some diplomatic conversations would be a complete waste of time by the Americans - and they have much larger responsibilities in a world that counts on them for honor and control.