Originally posted by MerkObviously the "war" (hell... call it what you want, but it's not really a war is it?) isn't the main cause of US financial dominance coming to an end... but it ain't helpin' matters much either...
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessA rational thinking person who has an attention span greater than 5 minutes could, but it also helps in this case if you are a non US citizen.
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.
I
Its odd though I always thought that the inability to take criticism well, was a sign of weakness.
At least they will have the antics of rehab recycled celebrity to keep everyone happy and entertained.
Originally posted by uzlessSorry, I couldn't get past the second paragraph. Maybe the United States should be more like Canada or Europe, then we'd be able to lead.
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
4 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Panama - or operation Just Cause as they so americanly* called it,
The 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 no ef that fighting for justice and democracy Anywhere is the best way to ensure it Everywhere.
was more an attempt at stopping illegal drug trafficking and money
laundering. Also the Bush at the time felt that neutrality of the treaties
concerning the panama canal was being threatened as a result of
Noriega's decision to skip elections. This may have been a "just cause",
but it certainly wasn't meant to "help" the people of Panama, but rather
to protect American interests, and American citizens living in the area.
Of course, there's also the Panama deception documentary to consider,
which tells an entirely different story to the same effect.
* Yes, I invented a new word. 🙄
Grenada - a socialist state that did fairly well compared to a lot of
other revolutionist states at the time. Good health care, education,
growing economy and, of course, supportive of Cuba, and Soviet (in their
invasion of Afghanistan). Call it a thorn in the side of US capitalistic
interests, and you're right on. They certainly didn't need much "help", but
the US would offer it just the same.
Too bad how Bishop refused to allow public elections to take place.
Bosnia - I believe that even though US forces played a role, the
troops were sent there under UN and NATO flags. I won't deny the
important role played by the US here, seemingly with nothing to gain, so
I'll give you this one (sceptically, I should add).
Iraq - This one's obvious. Needless to repeat, 9/11 had
absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, and the WMD excuse has been
debunked so many times it's laughable. I guess now you're saying you've
helped free the Iraqi people, yeah?
Vietnam - The expansion of communism was a great threat to
capitalism. Would it have been successful in any form, it would have lead
to a great many westerners questioning their own systems. Communism
and democracy are not (as many believe) excluding each other, but in
fact supporting each other. The fact that communist states often turn into
dictatorships are really just a natural cause of a violent revolution. Just
look at the French revolution, for example. This is the way of things. Not
until it calms down and people are given the chance can democracy come
to be. And then it can come to be under communism, socialism,
capitalism, and really any ideology that doesn't favour specific groups of
people (races, families, religious adherents and such). (Ironically, for
me right now, US of A is an exception to the rule.) Ho Chi Min and Viet
Minh were heroes to the Vietnamese after they kicked out the French and
considered themselves to be free of foreign rule. Of course, the French
couldn't have that, and the US was not about to let another
communist-based state grow strong, so...
Korea - A strategical decision by Truman to stop the Soviet Union
(and their much dreaded communism) from gaining complete control over
the area, nothing more.
France, Italy, Germany, Austria - WW2 I do believe that the
Germans kicked butt, as in they were practically unstoppable. Had it not
been for the joint forces (yes, where the US stepped in quite late,
looking the hero) Germany would have no doubt taken control over
Europe for an uncertain amount of time. Interesting to note that while the
allied forces of the west made way from one direction, it was the Soviet
Union who kicked German butt from the other direction. To claim that the
American forces played the key role is arrogant and self-righteous at
best. The Germans would have kicked serious American butt too had it
not been for the distance of the Atlantic ocean and how late the US gov.
forced their involvement. The Nazis were dangerously close to succeeding
in creating their third reich.
Japan - Dropping two nukes is truly signifying of a benevolent
government, I agree.
Afghanistan - Pakistan is in much greater need of "democracy",
but somehow (even though Pakistan has WMD and is openly violating the
human rights we speak so highly of here in the west), curiously they're
left alone. Hmm...
I think this link sort of says it all about US invading Afghanistan.
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/oilagenda.htm
Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia? Are you kidding me? None of these,
though US playmates, are fully democratic and free nations. (Admittedly,
Morocco shows promise with their passing of Mudawana - a code giving
women more rights, so that's good). The US has done nothing for the
people of these countries however, mainly because the rulers play nicely
with the US (as did Saddam once).
Philippines - A country with a very disruptive history of going back
and forth between false democracy and false democracy. I don't see
how you put this one up as an example of how the US spreads democracy
and peace over the world without any personal gain.
Somalia - A future gold-mine of oil (if you'll excuse that
paradoxical statement) that the US won't allow to fall into the hands of
the Arabs. Somalia is a divided country religiously, and because of low
education and poverty, it's not likely they'll find any peaceful co-existence
there any time soon. All that the US is doing is feeding the storm with just
enough weapons to keep things going the way they are, so again, I don't
see why you would hold this up as an example of US good faith.
Lebanon - Really, I'm just so tired now.
---
In every single example you gave (with the possible exception of Bosnia)
the US has stood to gain economically, politically or both for their
involvement. There's really nothing wrong with that (from a political and
realistic perspective, of course), but it's the double-standard that disturbs
me. "We are the light of the world, and we so good, and we so strong,
and we free all these people from their oppression and they should all
kiss our feet and thank us for spreading our ways...". It's like Christianity
all over again. 🙄
Why not just say it like it is? You choose to invade countries or interfere
in conflicts where you stand to gain one way or the other. It's not about
being good and wanting to create a better, peaceful world. Of course you
want a better and peaceful world, but on your conditions, and that is
precisely why you'll never succeed. Everytime the US (or China and
Russia for that matter) uses it's vetoe to stop a UN sanction of sorts, it
undermines hope for actual peace to be achieved by being unjust to the
rest of the nations. Same is true for everytime the US gov. decides to
ignore the UN in their decisions and go ahead with actions that are not
supported by the other nations. When the US gets involved in situations
like the one in Rwanda or Tibet (or allow the UN to be the formidable,
impartial force it's supposed to be in international conflicts), where they'll
gain nothing from it, that's the day I'll take you seriously when you say:
"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."
But from the perspective of, well, reality, that sentence is just a whole lot
of horse manure.
---
Online material:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/13/1556240
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/NRB.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2003/10grenada.htm
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm
http://www.vietnampix.com/intro.htm
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87Or .... Maybe they don't want to have a conversation with a bunch of smug idiots that only point out flaws and never REALLY offer any constuctive criticism. These idiots never really post problems with thier own country, they prefer to just point fingers and never offer any kind of solution.
A rational thinking person who has an attention span greater than 5 minutes could, but it also helps in this case if you are a non US citizen.
Its odd though I always thought that the inability to take criticism well, was a sign of weakness.
At least they will have the antics of rehab recycled celebrity to keep everyone happy and entertained.
And it is really bad when they have a fixation on a drugged out has been pop star thats drunk all the time, and try to liken her to ALL Americans.
For instance, I am currently donating to Make a Wish Foundation, Metropolitan Ministries(that help feed the homeless), the SPCA( animal care ), and sponser 2 children overseas to help Feed and Educate them. I have also give time to Elderly Facility near my home on Saturdays doing group activities for company. I also house cats that were homeless till adoption is possible. Many Americans do the same thing(How bout yourselves)
Yet it seems that all you people do is b*&^h about what Americans should and shouldn't do. Who is the real idiots here!!!
Originally posted by spruce112358Who says I'm not doing anything? Besides giving economical support to
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?
various help organisations I believe in, I also speak highly in favour of a
strong UN (the way it's intended to be - where no country has "more" to say
on a matter than any other). I believe that's the only way to create a
peaceful world, based on actual justice. That's what I'm fighting for. I
don't really believe in national identities and such, but it's the way things are
and then UN is our best hope.
But then, the big powers in the world would have to let that happen, and they
won't because it wouldn't suit their greed very well. Not just the US gov.,
mind you.
Originally posted by torch71A lot of people from all over the world are trying to do their share, but that's
For instence, I am currently donating to Make a Wish Foundation, Metropolitan Ministries(that help feed the homeless), the SPCA( animal care ), and sponser 2 children overseas to help Feed and Educate them. I have also give time to Elderly Facility near my home on Saturdays doing group activities for company. I also house cats that were homeless till adoption is possible. Many Americans do the same thing(How bout yourselves)
not really what this is about, is it? Unless the governments of the free world
can find a way to get along and work without self-interest first at heart,
problems like these just won't go away. I do donate what I can for causes I
believe in, but I rarely expect my donations to do any real difference. It
merely helps prolong suffering in hope for something really useful to
happen. For it to have effect, it must happen on a governmental,
international level. Nothing else will do.
Originally posted by stockenI don't agree with that, I think if everyone in the world that could, did give what they can and stop relying on Big Gov. to fix it for them, we can accomplish great things that can change the tide. That may be the ignorant American speaking out.
A lot of people from all over the world are trying to do their share, but that's
not really what this is about, is it? Unless the governments of the free world
can find a way to get along and work without self-interest first at heart,
problems like these just won't go away. I do donate what I can for causes I
believe in, but I rarely expect my donati ...[text shortened]... to have effect, it must happen on a governmental,
international level. Nothing else will do.
Originally posted by stockenVery well stated and excellently backed-up.
[b]Panama - or operation Just Cause as they so americanly* called it,
was more an attempt at stopping illegal drug trafficking and money
laundering. Also the Bush at the time felt that neutrality of the treaties
concerning the panama canal was being threatened as a result of
Noriega's decision to skip elections. This may have been a "just cause", ...[text shortened]... www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/[/b]
Originally posted by torch71The reason it won't work on an international level is that
I don't agree with that, I think if everyone in the world that could, did give what they can and stop relying on Big Gov. to fix it for them, we can accomplish great things that can change the tide. That may be the ignorant American speaking out.
governments do hold the power to change things for their better. Hence,
if a given group is doing too well and conflicts arise (as they always do), it
takes governments to either give one side the upper hand, keep things
the way they are or ideally find a solution that works for all parties. What you
do on a personal level could at best sustain people in need and affect those
with power to change things. If we could do these things without
governments, we wouldn't have them to begin with. Of course, that'd be a
hoot, but highly unlikely to happen any time soon.
Originally posted by stockenDear god, after all that ranting i hope you finally had an orgasm. Meet me on my web site and i will relieve you of all your rage and hatred. grannygrannygranny@granny.org/a.s.m.
[b]Panama - or operation Just Cause as they so americanly* called it,
was more an attempt at stopping illegal drug trafficking and money
laundering. Also the Bush at the time felt that neutrality of the treaties
concerning the panama canal was being threatened as a result of
Noriega's decision to skip elections. This may have been a "just cause", ...[text shortened]... www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/[/b]
Granny.
Originally posted by uzless.... and the real litmus test is gently but persistently knocking at the White House's door .... and that is the confrontation with Iran and how this situation will be handled in an effective and appropiate way.
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 smw6869You didn't actually read the whole thing, did you? 😞
Dear god, after all that ranting i hope you finally had an orgasm. Meet me on my web site and i will relieve you of all your rage and hatred. grannygrannygranny@granny.org/a.s.m.
Granny.
Originally posted by stockenHow do you think the US, the EU, Russia, China, India and the UN as a whole should handle the Iran situation ?
[b]Panama - or operation Just Cause as they so americanly* called it,
was more an attempt at stopping illegal drug trafficking and money
laundering. Also the Bush at the time felt that neutrality of the treaties
concerning the panama canal was being threatened as a result of
Noriega's decision to skip elections. This may have been a "just cause", ...[text shortened]... www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/[/b]