This is not a US bashing thread!
Read the Article. It discusses the current dissention among the power elite in the US and how the US may lose control its had over the world's direction since the 1940's.
It's very interesting and objective. This is from the Toronto Star newspaper (Canada's largest)
http://www.thestar.com/article/266411
Originally posted by uzlessI stopped reading it after the first sentence, who has time to read the same old story over and over.
This is not a US bashing thread!
Read the Article. It discusses the current dissention among the power elite in the US and how the US may lose control its had over the world's direction since the 1940's.
It's very interesting and objective. This is from the Toronto Star newspaper (Canada's largest)
http://www.thestar.com/article/266411
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessI read the headline.
This is not a US bashing thread!
Read the Article. It discusses the current dissention among the power elite in the US and how the US may lose control its had over the world's direction since the 1940's.
It's very interesting and objective. This is from the Toronto Star newspaper (Canada's largest)
http://www.thestar.com/article/266411
Americas ability to lead isn't tied to the Iraq war. Americas ability to lead has always been it's economy. The Iraq war isn't the kind of massive burden that would cripple the American economy.
Iraq war or no Iraq war, American economic dominance won't last forever. A person needn't posses any special powers to know that other economies will someday surpass Americas.
This article is just another in a long line of articles displaying an authors political bias by attributing something to a political issue that, in actuality, has very little to nothing at all to do with it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Merkyou should have read the article. There may still be time to delete your post.
I read the headline.
Americas ability to lead isn't tied to the Iraq war. Americas ability to lead has always been it's economy. The Iraq war isn't the kind of massive burden that would cripple the American economy.
Iraq war or no Iraq war, American economic dominance won't last forever. A person needn't posses any special powers to know that other econo ...[text shortened]... g to a political issue that, in actuality, has very little to nothing at all to do with it.
Originally posted by uzlessThe root of American foregin policy is not control over other nations, but evangelism of the democratic ideal. To the extent that there is a "power elite" in America that sees it in the best interest of the US to try to manipulate other countries -- yes, there are such. But they can only do small, covert, sneaky things like Arms for Hostages. They do not and can never form the mainstream of the government.
This is not a US bashing thread!
Read the Article. It discusses the current dissention among the power elite in the US and how the US may lose control its had over the world's direction since the 1940's.
It's very interesting and objective. This is from the Toronto Star newspaper (Canada's largest)
http://www.thestar.com/article/266411
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not fought to expand the borders of the United States, nor to exact reparations. Any gain that has or will come is from a rising tide that lifts ALL boats -- ALL nations have been uplifted by the downfall of fascism and communism and the rise of Western Democracy.
We don't expect thanks. We didn't do it FOR you. We did it because of our belief that fighting for justice and democracy Anywhere is the best way to ensure it Everywhere.
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've saved the world and all that. Good for you. No
We don't expect thanks. We didn't do it FOR you. We did it because of our belief that fighting for justice and democracy Anywhere is the best way to ensure it Everywhere.
wait, there's only about a BILLION people suffering out there, and you're
just not about to spread your "democracy" there, are you?
Funny how, as so many have already pointed out, the great saviour US only
seem interested in helping out, sorry: spreading their democracy, to very
selective parts of the world. Hmm...
Originally posted by stockenYou are correct,young man, and i think we should Not be selective, but instead avoid the rest of the world and let some of the piss ant countries pick up the slack.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've saved the world and all that. Good for you. No
wait, there's only about a BILLION people suffering out there, and you're
just not about to spread your "democracy" there, are you?
Funny how, as so many have already pointed out, the great saviour US only
seem interested in helping out, sorry: spreading their democracy, to very
selective parts of the world. Hmm...
G.
Originally posted by stockenOf course we're selective. We can't take on all the countries in the world. Maybe you shoud get a real job and send some of the money to help out. Maybe you would like us to help all the poor people in the world. Well then......BUCK UP! This country doesn't run on Hillary's hot air. DUH.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've saved the world and all that. Good for you. No
wait, there's only about a BILLION people suffering out there, and you're
just not about to spread your "democracy" there, are you?
Funny how, as so many have already pointed out, the great saviour US only
seem interested in helping out, sorry: spreading their democracy, to very
selective parts of the world. Hmm...
G.
Originally posted by uzlessHere you go, smartguy. I'll comment on one paragraph for ya.
you should have read the article. There may still be time to delete your post.
"The signs of slippage are apparent everywhere: in Latin America, where U.S. influence is at its lowest in decades; in East Asia, where the United States has been obliged, reluctantly, to negotiate with North Korea and recognize China as an indispensable actor in regional security; in Europe, where U.S. plans to install missile defence capabilities in Poland are being contested by Germany and other European Union states; in the Gulf, where old allies such as Saudi Arabia are pursuing autonomous agendas that coincide only in part with U.S. aims; and in the international institutions, the UN and the World Bank, where the United States is no longer in a position to drive the agenda unaided."
Latin America: Does anyone genuinely think Latin America gives a rats ass about Iraq?
North Korea: We've been negotiating with North Korea for a lot longer than we've been in Iraq.
Missile Defense: Considering that the Cold War has been over for going on 2 decades now, European resistance to new American weapons systems in Europe should be expected. It also occurs to me that no plan has ever gotten approval from the entire world, hence it's reasonable to believe that the author is attributing common dissent and the disagreements between nations that happen on a daily basis to the Iraq war.
The end of the paragraph crosses into the territory of blatant agenda journalism.
"...in the Gulf, where old allies such as Saudi Arabia are pursuing autonomous agendas that coincide only in part with U.S. aims; and in the international institutions, the UN and the World Bank, where the United States is no longer in a position to drive the agenda unaided."
The above has been true for decades.
Listen up, every bit of Americas influence and power has always been a result of it's economic strentgh. The sun will set on the American Century and it will be because of economics, not Iraq. What agenda journalists say, even when they agree politically with you, makes little difference.
Originally posted by smw6869In your misguided, delusional rage you're totally missing the point. It's not
Of course we're selective. We can't take on all the countries in the world. Maybe you shoud get a real job and send some of the money to help out. Maybe you would like us to help all the poor people in the world. Well then......BUCK UP! This country doesn't run on Hillary's hot air. DUH.
G.
about the US saving the whole world. Try again, see if you can get it right
this time, baby.
You know, you're really cute when you're blonde. 😉
Originally posted by stockenPlease tell me the point i missed.
In your misguided, delusional rage you're totally missing the point. It's not
about the US saving the whole world. Try again, see if you can get it right
this time, baby.
You know, you're really cute when you're blonde. 😉
Delusional...yes. Rage....no.
Granny: I'm always blonde, sweet cheeks.
Originally posted by stockenSelective as in Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Austria, Afghanistan, Morocco, Algieria, Tunisia, and the Philippines. We even gave it a go in Somalia and Lebanon, but it didn't work out.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've saved the world and all that. Good for you. No
wait, there's only about a BILLION people suffering out there, and you're
just not about to spread your "democracy" there, are you?
Funny how, as so many have already pointed out, the great saviour US only
seem interested in helping out, sorry: spreading their democracy, to very
selective parts of the world. Hmm...
NB: Out of all those countries, a grand total of ONE has oil.
And what have you done? Maybe with a BILLION people still suffering it is time for you to step up. Or is it easier to criticize from the sidelines?