Originally posted by smw6869If you look back through all my posts, you will see I haven't changed my
No i'm not purposely not getting what you're saying, It's just seems to me that you speak in a convoluted manner which is difficult to understand. You seem to change your views to suit you argument.
The problem is that you do want the US to be the world's saviors, but only on your terms.
G.
arguments or opinions in any way. I get annoyed with people trying to ride
the high horse and looking all: "Look at me. I'm so great. Because I live in
the best country in the world. And we saved the world. And you have no right
to criticise us until you do the same". I'm merely pointing out that your
country (while it started off as a very good idea) is not that great anymore.
You should work on that instead of extending your claws on every hint of
criticism. I don't know how to be any more clear than I am.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe truth is, that in every country I know of (Sweden included) there's a
Nobody in my country lacks for a "decent living" as you describe it except the terminally ill.
significant* percentage of the population living under conditions that
most of us would consider horrible, but because they "brought it on
themselves" or they "couldn't handle the competition" or whatever, it's
not a big deal. I guess. 😕
Socialism, in theory, would prevent that. Capitalism would not, since the
whole idea is more of the strong wins, the weak loses. You may say that
this is as it should be, just look at nature. I say having a civilisation in
the first place is pretty much in violation of nature, so why not make it
excellent?
* Just one percent is significant when talking tens of millions in total, the
way I see it.
Originally posted by stockenBut do any of those one percent lack a "decent living" as you defined it earlier?
The truth is, that in every country I know of (Sweden included) there's a
significant* percentage of the population living under conditions that
most of us would consider horrible, but because they "brought it on
themselves" or they "couldn't handle the competition" or whatever, it's
not a big deal. I guess. 😕
Socialism, in theory, would prevent ...[text shortened]... st one percent is significant when talking tens of millions in total, the
way I see it.
Originally posted by MerkSounds like the same sort of gung ho attitude that gave the British a bullet proof feeling that the sun would never set on their Empire.
Paying for Iraq is a relatively small short term expense to a 13+ trillion dollar economy when you add back in the long term effect of increased Iraqi oil output.
I have just 3 words for you.
China.
China.
China.
Originally posted by kmax87The British Empire simply transformed. The colonies are all closely aligned with their Mother as far as I know.
Sounds like the same sort of gung ho attitude that gave the British a bullet proof feeling that the sun would never set on their Empire.
I have just 3 words for you.
China.
China.
China.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrue but only because it also exported more than just industrialized values and consumerism. What does America export besides self interest?
The British Empire simply transformed. The colonies are all closely aligned with their Mother as far as I know.
Consumerism does not export loyalty and selfless service to a higher ideal, or the preservation of an established civil order. These values tend to have a way of being cherished and upheld by people independent of a rule by force. These values tend to survive because they have a value that transcends pure commerce and they are not subject to the mere whims of fashion or fad.
Originally posted by kmax87If you had bothered reading the thread, professor, you would have seen that I acknowledge that the sun is indeed going to set on the American Century, but not because of Iraq.
Sounds like the same sort of gung ho attitude that gave the British a bullet proof feeling that the sun would never set on their Empire.
I have just 3 words for you.
China.
China.
China.
Originally posted by stockenVery true -- Sweden's record does speak for itself: a few peacekeepers for UN missions. But why not step up to the big leagues? When I think of Sweden I think of a country just slightly less navel-gazing and disengaged from world poltics than Switzerland. Nobody says, "But what will Sweden think?" when making foreign policy decisions. Why not? Because you don't stand for much except yourselves. We give it a try. You don't try.
In one post you're saying to me, I should take action. I tell you
what I do, and can do, and why I don't think any one person can do much
difference. Then in the next post you say my country should do
something. This is Sweden we're talking about. You realise that, yeah? I
think the record more or less speaks for itself (conveniently ig ...[text shortened]... en
it comes to helping people in and outside our own country has been
pretty damn good.
I think what bothers you about Americans is that we are not as self-effacing and herd-following as Swedes. We trust our own judgement. You won't move except with a crowd. On the other hand, Americans dislike the smug, superior attitude of Europeans who feel they have all the answers, but not the balls to back words up with actions.
Maybe we could be more humble, but should you really be that smug? Even you are getting fed up with your Socialist Paradise. As I said, socialism is about settling for second best -- making sure nobody loses. As for being self-effacing, well, that covers your secret pride in what you think of as achievements. But on the other hand, given your lack of engagement over the last 50 years, maybe being self-effacing is justified.
Originally posted by stockenSo what bothers you is we pretend to have ideals? How would you know if that is pretense or not? That attitude goes hand-in-hand with socialism -- you object to anyone being more idealist than anyone else, just like you object to anyone having more wealth than anyone else.
1) I don't object to the US choosing their targets based on what will
benefit national economy, as such. Human nature, as you say. I
object to the sanctimonious and dishonest appearance you try to hold up
as the forces of good and just; how you expect the rest of the world to
look at you like a marvel of national unity, when in fact you're just a
b ...[text shortened]... be they capitalists, socialist or communists;
muslims, christians or sane.
Why should we shut up about great deeds? Go do some yourselves! Of course, we might laugh at you if you screw up. Like you laugh at us.
Or maybe Americans wouldn't do that. Maybe we would pat you on the back and say, "Good try. Way to stick up for democracy. Better luck next time."
Don't assume we are like you -- we are not.
Originally posted by kmax87I have three words for YOU, also.....China..China..China. And thank god for that. You'll be bitch slapped with the rest of us. I love the concept.
Sounds like the same sort of gung ho attitude that gave the British a bullet proof feeling that the sun would never set on their Empire.
I have just 3 words for you.
China.
China.
China.
G.
Originally posted by MerkSorry thirsty Merx, I do apologize, you did acknowledge that the sun will set on the US one day, that at some point other economies will outstrip hers, but doing a double take on what you said I reread the article again and I will take you to task on your inference that the author of that article actually suggested that America's ability to lead was tied into the war or as a result of the cost of that war would falter.
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.
He suggested something altogether different. That the strength of Americas position has been tied in to her ability to influence in a non direct manner, in the sense that it has always been America's attractiveness as a free and democratic nation that has been her greatest calling card. People in other nations have wanted to believe the dream so badly that they have taken to emulating the US system if given half a chance. But it is the self interested distance and that self involved sense of manifest destiny that has also eroded the moral high ground of its hegemonic position. What America exported as a reluctant superpower with no interest in the affairs of the world has morphed into a US corporate takeover of the worlds resources, that even though the citizens of the US may see the crediting of US hegemony with controlling interest in everything that moves as being a trifle misguided, it nevertheless has chosen a path largely as a result of neo conservative forces that have rewritten the agenda of the elite who due to the need of regaining the respect of the international community as a result of not wining the war in Vietnam has now by the way in which it has steered America down a path where its allies and especially the citizens of its allies are increasingly questioning the motives and aims of every war America wishes to fight.
His point is that its this loss of authority in her previously unassailable position as a positive moral force privileged to lead the world in a direction of her ( America's) choosing, that has been eroded by her ham fisted handling of conflict in general going against world opinion when it suits her etc........................
It is this loss of confidence by the world in her (the US's) right to still be the moral arbiter over the rights to war, that has led to more and more people rejecting her right to be self styled sheriff, and this is what yhe article is about in foreshadowing her fall.
Originally posted by stockenI understand the high horse concept. I'm glad that the US "is not that great anymore." I quess that means we were somewhat great at one time? Extending my claws? You do the same thing when criticized. I can't wait till China becomes numba one. You can criticize them on a Chinese chess forum then and i'll have more money left in my back pocket. No more war for the US. Makes me want to S**T my diapers.
If you look back through all my posts, you will see I haven't changed my
arguments or opinions in any way. I get annoyed with people trying to ride
the high horse and looking all: "Look at me. I'm so great. Because I live in
the best country in the world. And we saved the world. And you have no right
to criticise us until you do the same". I'm merely ...[text shortened]... your claws on every hint of
criticism. I don't know how to be any more clear than I am.
Thank the lord!
G.
Originally posted by kmax87You misread my posts. My statement about the expense of Iraq being insignificant was not to imply that the author is claiming it is. The statement was to claim that Iraq is, in the long term, insignificant to Americas economic dominance, which has always been the reason she has been able to be a world leader.
Sorry thirsty Merx, I do apologize, you did acknowledge that the sun will set on the US one day, that at some point other economies will outstrip hers, but doing a double take on what you said I reread the article again and I will take you to task on your inference that the author of that article actually suggested that America's ability to lead was tied into ...[text shortened]... to be self styled sheriff, and this is what yhe article is about in foreshadowing her fall.
The authors conclusion is reached through bad reasoning. He's right, but for the wrong reason. I'm explaining the real reason.
America was a free and democratic nation long before she was a genuine world leader. Americas posistion in the world never gained a world power status until her economy did. Indeed, the ideals of American Liberty and Freedom began in Europe, yet the none of those nations from whence these ideals were birthed are the worlds superpower. Further evidence of he importance of economics is easily seen by the decline in world influence of European nations whos economies were devistated during WWII while at the same time the power of the brutally repressive Soviets went on the rise. Currently, Chinas power is increasing while making only the smallest strides toward freedom. Practically all of which have been for their economic benefits.
It was not envy of freedom that gave America influence on the world stage, but her economy. Free people or not, America would never have been a an influential world power without her economic position.
As for your mumbojumbo about Americas previously unassailable position, you're wrong. The only time that was even remotely true was in the years after WWII. America has been being assailed for decades. Long before the Iraq invasion.
Originally posted by spruce112358Hm, Sweden's done nothing these past fifty years, eh? I think this post
Very true -- Sweden's record does speak for itself: a few peacekeepers for UN missions. But why not step up to the big leagues? When I think of Sweden I think of a country just slightly less navel-gazing and disengaged from world poltics than Switzerland. Nobody says, "But what will Sweden think?" when making foreign policy decisions. Why not? Because y ...[text shortened]... en your lack of engagement over the last 50 years, maybe being self-effacing is justified.
should be recommended as an example of what I've been talking about.
I couldn't have done a better job myself.
Having said that, I need to know if you realise that there are
other ways of dealing with problems than to send your army to kick-ass
parties (with the standing rape and unwarranted murdering just for the
fun of it).
Now, me personally, I've got a real problem with solving issues using
violence. I need to understand why there's an issue, and then try
and figure how it can be solved. Usually, if someone has a problem with
me, it's because I went ahead and did something without thinking first.
You'll find that thinking before action (of which you speak so highly) can
actually lead to positive results. You should try that. US gov. I mean. I'm
sure you're not the hot-headed buffoon I just described. 🙄
Originally posted by spruce112358My big post? You know, the one that debunks your post about all the great
So what bothers you is we pretend to have ideals? How would you know if that is pretense or not?
things your country has done through great military actions? That post shows
clearly that it's a pretence. 🙄