|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2005 07:21:36 PM · #51 |
The United States predominantly gives out loans to needy countries through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Many of these loans do not benefit the people, but rather the very rich and those in power in those receiving countries. These loans are exhorbitant in amount and often go to corrupt and despot rulers who have all to gain themselves. Many of these third world rulers are given bribes in order to take the loans. In exchange the countries are required to undertake restructural adjustment and open up their economies to American companies.
Their economies do not improve life for their people and have decreased the standard of living and government services have to be greatly curtailed in order to pay off the loans. When they can not repay these loans, deals are worked out instead for natural resources and greater access of American companies to the country.
I'm not sure the governments of the United States are as benevolent as you suggest, but rather have their own ulterior motives.
Originally posted by RonBeam:
You will have to remind me of the names of all those countries spending more of their wealth than America does to accomplish those tasks that you listed. And to address this notion that a country may lift itself out of poverty without democratic principles (or else its ground a sponge in oil) is historically not accurate. If there are no choices for the governed to hold the government responsible, that government will eventually act irresponsibly.
While I am very aware that America is on the verge of losing something precious by virtue of elements fostered, it is certainly not due to its economic policies, its military posture nor its political process. But, I understand that bashing America is akin to tossing the caber. The winner is the one who can spin it furthest from its starting point. |
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 07:23:37 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
Originally posted by p2jvr:
Originally posted by RonBeam:
I would be interested in reading your plans for the proper use of the wealth of the United States, Pauline. |
A good start would be to stop trying to police the world and create the American view of democracy in foreign countries and start leading the world in organising a global commitment Pauline |
You will have to remind me of the names of all those countries spending more of their wealth than America does to accomplish those tasks that you listed. And to address this notion that a country may lift itself out of poverty without democratic principles (or else its ground a sponge in oil) is historically not accurate. If there are no choices for the governed to hold the government responsible, that government will eventually act irresponsibly.
While I am very aware that America is on the verge of losing something precious by virtue of elements fostered, it is certainly not due to its economic policies, its military posture nor its political process. But, I understand that bashing America is akin to tossing the caber. The winner is the one who can spin it furthest from its starting point. |
Please note I said that the US should use its wealth 'to lead the world in organising global committment ' not do it by itself or telling others what to do.
I'm afraid your bracketed reference to ground sponge and oil mean nothing to me. Please explain!
Please tell China they will not become an economic success in the future because they are not democratic.
What is this "precious thing" that America is losing? What are the "elements" you refer to?
I have many American friends, love visiting the country and have no axe to grind except with US policies in certain areas. You seem to be taking an extremely personal view of criticism expressed in this thread which, perhaps, is not allowing you to understand the reasons (right or wrong) that many other people disagree with the present US government.
Quite frankly I would cheerfully take part in a debate on UK political rights and wrongs, accepting that no government is totally blameless and is mainly concerned in getting themselves elected again as their first priority. Unfortunately the US administration does tend to rely on big business input financially and I am cynical enough to believe that they are not selfless in their investment and will require some form of return for their financial support. The oil men are quite involved in the present administration are they not?
I do not wish to enter into a debate on the Middle East situation - this has already been tackled elsewhere - but the majority of Brits will agree that we were led into a war by Mr Blair that was not honestly portrayed to us in its initial stages. Bush & Blair's union in this debacle has not endeared us to US politics.
So I am not asking the US to finance everything - GOD FORBID! Then you would have a right to tell us what to do!
I don't understand some of your rhetoric.
Don't take it so personallly when your country is criticised - you are not the government and they are not angels - they are politicians who have agendas, ambitions and overdrafts
Don't blame the rest of the world if they agree something and the US doesn't - we have a right to bitch about it. And if the majority agree on something (like global warming) isn't that democracy!!!!!? Hey maybe it will end up being economically successful to sign the treaty!
No offence meant! :)
Pauline |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 07:37:34 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The U.S. is pound-for-pound a much cleaner and efficient producer per capita than most of Europe.
Sincerely,
Jason "The Saj" |
I have to challenge this assertion of yours that the US is a more efficent polluter than most of Europe as the past 25 years has seen manufacturing in the US leave for "greener pastures" (as in green dollars) in parts of the world that have less restrictions for exploitation of natural and labor resources. What is still manufactured in the US that would cause so much pollution? What industries still exist in the US that still produce goods, rather than services. My understanding of the US economy now is that it's predominantly a services economy and most of our goods are imported from other countries. If this is so, then where does all our pollution come from? Mostly, we are end users in this country and that most of the pollution comes from excessive use of inefficient ICE vehicles, and coal fired power plants, which is not used in the manufacturing of goods. Sounds to me like the US economy is rather greatly inefficient.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 07:57:43 PM · #54 |
<<< Pretty much every major polluting nation agrees - except one: the US. >>>
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Three other major polluting nations which do not agree are China, India, and Brazil.
I have asked this question several times and never gotten an answer, and I don't really expect to get one this time. Here goes. What is the value of the Kyoto treaty when it will NOT reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions whether the US approves it or not, because of the ridiculous exemptions given the above-mentioned 3 countries.
How about a trivia question:
Which of the following senators voted in favor of the Kyoto treaty when it was presented to the senate by president Clinton a few years back:
Boxer
Kerry
Kennedy
Biden
Daeschle
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 08:00:48 PM · #55 |
Who says I'm not willing to reduce my life style? Do you know me? Do you know my lifestyle? I have greatly reduced my consumption of things I do not need and know others who have as well. You paint liberals with a broad stroke. I can list for you many of the measures I have taken to reduce my impact on the earth, and have encouraged others to partake in as well. I hope you can say the same for yourself being that earlier in this thread you have stated to be an environmentalist.
You state that the US can not reduce its GDP, yet you also are in favor of cycle cutting/reforestation as being mandatory by law. Wouldn't this help to undermine the GDP if those companies doing clear cutting are not allowed to use 100% of their land for the uses that they deem most profitable? While I'm not against a meaasure such as this, it's also foolhardy, as reforestation after clear cutting would greatly reduce the biodiversity in favor of monoculture. This could be catostrophic and I see where you are coming from. You believe that mankind has all of the answers in technology development. I on the other hand, believe that a big part of the problem has to do that we have policies that do not leave nature alone. I'm a conservationist, you an interventionist. The heroics of modern technology can be part of the solution, but not the entire solution. We can not be playing god, we need to have respect for what mother nature has given us and not think we can change it to our liking and lifestyles. We can not allow business and profit to be our only gods and final arbiter in our government's policies.
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote]This is where I would like to see the Bush administration take some initiative and set some limits on business so resource usage is limited to some extent. Large houses draw more electricity, oil for heat, lumber, etc etc etc |
Why don't you move into a little shack akin to some poor rural asian community. Why do you want Bush to force others to reduce but not reduce yourself?
I am actually a big opponent of de-forestation and believe that cycle cutting / re-foresting should be mandated. By that, I mean large areas should be designated for forestation. You cut an acre you plant an acre.
I read an interesting article on global warming and the big study that was done touting the research. It showed that a lot of the presentation had been skewed. Furthermore, if man created zero emissions the planet would be warming up dramatically. And will reach a point to where much of the equatorial areas will be arid desert regions. This is in line with historical thermal-geographic fluctuations.
And even if you made 100mpg vehicles, you are still going to be having high pollution totals. Hence, we need to get AWAY from the I.C.E. and go to zero pollution vehicles. And zero pollution energy production.
[/quote]
Message edited by author 2005-06-22 20:05:33. |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 08:12:03 PM · #56 |
"This attitude of the great USA saving the world, coming to others' rescue because they can't manage without you and the rewriting of history through Stephen Spielberg is exactly why other nations get rather annoyed!"
WWI - not a major role but we did lend much needed assistance.
WWII - we won the frickin war for the Brits and the French. And !@#$% you if you don't think so. Britain would never have survived without the U.S. support and Germany would have beaten Russia if there was not a divided front and heavy U.S. bombing.
Vietnam - yes, we can thank the french for entrance into that one.
Cold War/Soviet Russia - surely you don't think it was the small armies of Europe that kept the giant Soviet state from continuing it's border expansion?
Ivory Coast - once again it was the U.S. forces air evac'ing French interests.
Tsunami - what flag were most of the helicopters delivering relief flying?
OH WAIT....maybe we should not do such as we create much pollution doing so.
-----------------------
[quote]We don't criticize the US for its wealth but for the use of it and its lack of understanding demonstrated at times.! [/quote]
Frankly, I'd like to see Europe get off it's ol' arse and do half as much as the U.S. does.
[quote]Even hydrogen, while clean to burn, is dirty to make as there are obviously no natural sources of it. [/quote]
It's called water...and there are some processes that can extract hydrogen from water.
[quote]The life revolves around gas stations - I can't get a bottle of milk or a loaf of bread without either walking 20min to the nearest grocery store[/quote]
Actually, one can look at it as if gasoline prices have just finally caught up to the price of a gallon of milk... but still have a long way to go to match the price of a liter of bottled water. *lol*
AMERICA'S WEALTH....how did it get it? It created it AND it drew it to itself! We said give us your poor, and we got workers. We got intelligent people the world missed. Perhaps you forget that Americans come from every country of the world....
[quote]I think that actually both parties have fallen far short of acknowledging the earth's current environmental status and the US has certainly fallen far short of doing its proportional share of conservation and support of "green" energy sources (given its past & current usage of natural resources). [/quote]
This I fully agree with...100%
[quote]A good start would be to stop trying to police the world and create the American view of democracy in foreign countries and start leading the world in organising a global commitment to reducing pollution, poverty, creating fair trade deals for poorer countries, wiping out the debts of third world countries and providing loans for these countries to enable them to build towards a standard of living for their people that most of us would consider utmost poverty compared with our way of life.[/quote]
Actually, as I recall America is the larger forgiver of debts of any country. We've done a large push for the continent of Africa. You want us to quit policing the world and stop pollution. Wish you could have been at ground-zero bro and have "tasted" the pollution.
Fair trade, no way bro....fair trade with democratic nations that have a minimum quality of life level for their citizens. Sure...but fair trade? You mean like Europe subsidizing Airbus in an attempt to put an American company out of business. ???
[quote]Many of these loans do not benefit the people, but rather the very rich and those in power in those receiving countries.[/quote]
Might that be because most of those countries are not democracies and have no protections for their citizens. Perhaps that's why we are attempting the installation of Democracy in places that have never seen it. We hope to make Japans and S. Koreas.
[quote]Their economies do not improve life for their people and have decreased the standard of living and government services have to be greatly curtailed in order to pay off the loans.[/quote]
Many of those being in Africa and President Bush has been one of the spear headers in a plan to forgive the entire continent's debt. Hmmm...
[quote]Please note I said that the US should use its wealth 'to lead the world in organising global committment ' not do it by itself or telling others what to do. [/quote]
Funny, here we are being told how we (America) should do it and at the same time told we shouldn't tell anyone else. Either give it and take it. Or be silent....
[quote] Please tell China they will not become an economic success in the future because they are not democratic. [/quote]
China will once it believes itself strong enough make an expansionist power grab for surrounding areas. A cold war and quite probably full on war will ensue between China and lesser asian nations along with Japan and the U.S.
[quote]You seem to be taking an extremely personal view of criticism expressed in this thread which, perhaps, is not allowing you to understand the reasons (right or wrong) that many other people disagree with the present US government. [/quote]
Most of Europe disagreed with our policies toward the Soviet Union. We advocated a strong determined unwavering approach. Europe wanted compromise and concessions. During the period where the European approach to concessions was active the Soviet Union grew in dominance. Once the American policy of determination was strongly pushed the Soviet expansion diminished and within a decade ceased to be.
[quote]Don't take it so personallly when your country is criticised - you are not the government and they are not angels - they are politicians who have agendas, ambitions and overdrafts [/quote]
We take it personally because of the following:
a) it is unceasing
b) it is unbalanced
c) seldom do others speak of all that WE HAVE DONE
d) it often feels like Europe constantly wants America to help her but then criticizes America every chance she gets.
e) Arlington Cemetary...America has lost a lot of blood for Europe and sometimes it feels very much like a slap in the face.
[quote]Don't blame the rest of the world if they agree something and the US doesn't - we have a right to bitch about it[/quote]
Don't blame us if we think you're wrong. Don't blame us if we bitch right back. |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 08:17:14 PM · #57 |
A "challenge"...
I challenge all Europeans to actually say some nice things about what America has done, where we went above and beyond the call of duty to help your nation, etc.
One attracts a lot more bees with honey than vinegar....
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 08:18:30 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
George W. Bush is the greatest steward of the environment in the world. Just ask his press secretary and he will tell you about the Clear Sky Initiative. Or how easing regulatory standards on industrial pollution has actually improved our environment.
So, as an American, I resent your implication That the U.S. is somehow wrong about this, when in reality, George Bush is not wrong about anything. You don't even need to ask his press secretary about that one - George has said it himself during the last election debates!
So, let's cut to the chase, and figure out why the rest of the world is necessarily wrong. (Because, after all, GOD himself instructs George W. Bush, and that's why he is always right.)
The rest of the G8 are deluded on this issue because of shortcomings of the European Moral Fiber. You see, they are moral relativists, who do not realize that Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong.
First of all, they don't believe in a Culture of Life, like we do in the U.S.
To my knowledge, not a single other member country of the G8 has even ONE secret military prison camp where folks randomly swept off the street can be tortured to death, or raped if they are under 14 years old. That's right, they don't have a single one!!!
How can they support our freedoms, protect the unborn children from abortion murder, or support our troops for that matter, if they don't have the moral wherewithal to fight terrorism? Answer - they CAN'T!
Second of all, The Europeans et al don't even have a fair and balanced understanding of Science.
They actually have been brainwashed by the omnipotent Secular Humanist Movement to be in lock-goosestep with the world's "leading" scientists on Global Warming. The same kind of "leading" scientists, I might add, who also believe in the blasphemy of evolution - need I say more?
So unbalanced and distanced from good, hard, critical thinking have these (many socialist) countries become, that they do not understand that a dissenting view on Global Warming from a single petroleum industry-paid scientist is equivalent in rational value to several thousand elitist academicians.
They really should pay heed to the cutting edge work of George Bush's Philip Cooney, who accepted a job just this week with Exxon Petroleum after resigning from the Bush administration. Mr Cooney could show the G8 how to interpret the import of so-called Scientific Concensus papers on Global Warming, I can tell you.
Here is a man who understands the relative weighting of industry vs elitist leftist Ivory Tower "scientists". Mr Cooney vigorously and properly edited out the Looney Left's references in the U.S. Government reports re the Negative Effects of pollution and Global Warming on the planet's health, and replaced them with Mobil logos with happy faces in the red "O".
Lastly, the Europeans can't be relied upon for good sense decision-making because they don't know the meaning of Hard Work.
George W. Bush can tell you that Hard Work is making Iraq ready for Freedom and Democracy even if it means killing all of them. And he will also tell you that Hard Work is telling an officer to tell the relatives of a soldier that he will be coming home in a darkened airliner under the cover of night, in a coffin that noone is allowed to take pictures of, for a funeral that the President will never ever attend. Now THAT is Hard Work.
But the Europeans?
When they aren't eating Freedom Fries, they have their snooty noses turned skyward during their typical six weeks of vacation time per year. Lazy body means lazy thinking - that's why George jogs so often.
And why are the G8 nations so lazy and obsessed with recreation? Because they aren't terrified of losing their homes and lifestyles due to the Communist traditions of National Health Care, basically free college educations, and secure government pensions.
The G8 governments love their witches brew of benefits - if you can keep the population so lazy and self-centered they don't worry about anything at all, then they are apathetic to the ruinous Kyoto Protocol and all its attendent evils.
Those G8 countries and their evil ways - thank God George W. Bush will never let the U.S.A. fall into that same downward spiral.
;) ;) ;) |
I just re-read your response, and I have to say I've enjoyed it more the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th readings than I really did the first time. You speak volumes with your words. I am humbled (and appreciative)... :-)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 08:23:03 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
And !@#$% you if you don't think so. |
Ahh the American attitude so loved around the world.. |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:19:50 PM · #60 |
My goodness, you do like to stir the hornet's nest!
Originally posted by theSaj:
WWI - not a major role but we did lend much needed assistance.
WWII - we won the frickin war for the Brits and the French. And !@#$% you if you don't think so. Britain would never have survived without the U.S. support and Germany would have beaten Russia if there was not a divided front and heavy U.S. bombing. |
Thanks for the help. kind of lucky that the world's largest empire managed to hold out a few years before a threat against your nation stirred the US into some kind of action. Won't pretend that it didn't help - natural resources from a country that sat out the action for a few years were a fantastic boon to an exhausted nation. But please do not believe that the US "won" either of these wars for the rest of the world unilaterally, nor that it could have done so.
And please do not pretend that the Marshall plan was anything more than an economic necessity to prop up world econoimies, establish the dollar internationally, and eliminate gold standard concerns, all in the US self interest - very few serious historians regard it is a beneficient act.
Originally posted by the Saj:
Vietnam - yes, we can thank the french for entrance into that one. etc |
what are you on about? You blame the French somehow for the US losing Vietnam? Do you think that it was just the US army that prevented Europe being invaded, somehow?
As for relief - which country is at the bottom of relief aid given per gdp (to use oneof your earlier criteria). No guesses necessary...
-----------------------
Originally posted by the Saj:
Frankly, I'd like to see Europe get off it's ol' arse and do half as much as the U.S. does. |
Erm - in what capacity - maybe reduce our aid budgets to the same proportion of gdp, institute protectionist trade policies, start infringing human rights laws by executing people, ignoring international law by starting illegal wars, generally start using our economic power to sideline other nations (not that we don't do too much of that already - protected agricultural markets and Africa being our shameful point).
By pretending (or actually having) ignorance of the international situation, you demonstrate the superiority complex that infuriates much of the rest of the world.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Even hydrogen, while clean to burn, is dirty to make as there are obviously no natural sources of it.
It's called water...and there are some processes that can extract hydrogen from water. |
Please tell me what clean process you are aware of to extract hydrogen from water (PM it - and tell no one else - we will make billions!). If you seriously think that this is an option, it would explain some of your other comments. If I thought that hydrogen was freely or even cheaply available, I would be peeved at the general failure to use it. Thankfully, I know better.
Originally posted by theSaj:
AMERICA'S WEALTH....how did it get it? It created it AND it drew it to itself! We said give us your poor, and we got workers. We got intelligent people the world missed. Perhaps you forget that Americans come from every country of the world.... |
Are you serious? I sincerely hope that this is not a true belief of yours.
If it is, I am astonished. This kind of genetic inheritance model is outdated and regarded in most societies as deeply problematic if instituted in society as a genuine model. You mentioned some wars earlier in which theories of inherited superiority played a part.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Wish you could have been at ground-zero bro and have "tasted" the pollution. |
Have you tasted the sweet waters of the Euphrates? Upper estimates put Iraqi casualties at over 100k people. People - just as innocent as those in the Twin Towers, and just as loved and cared for. And twenty times as many of them. And each of their families is probably just as vitriolic as you about the country that they perceive to have caused their loss. Not sure that this terrorist control policy is really going to work.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Fair trade, no way bro....fair trade with democratic nations that have a minimum quality of life level for their citizens. Sure...but fair trade? You mean like Europe subsidizing Airbus in an attempt to put an American company out of business. ??? |
Think that the issue of the rebates issued to both Boeing and Airbus is up for debate. The US protectionist policy in respect of steel is unilateral, however. Not sure that this is an area where one side is better or worse than the other. Except that we are all protectionist as against third world nations, exploiting them for our gain. Recent estimates (last week's papers) put the benefit of aid at $24 per capita and the cost at $30 per capita, given the relaxations and opening of third world markets demanded in exchange for aid (shame on us all). Not agreeing with fair trade (which has been questioned as to value - though I still agree with its principles) should not mean agreeing to exploitation.
Originally posted by theSaj:
that's why we are attempting the installation of Democracy in places that have never seen it. |
Do you see any problem with this statement?
How about if we add that the state "installing" "democracy" elsewhere has significant issues surrounding the level of democracy in its own nation (anyone remember the "jokes" about Iran offering election monitoring officials to the US in an attempt to establish a fair election). Democracy is one form of government. There are others. They are not fundamentally wrong: merely different. Bhutan, for example, has, for many, an admirable way of life under its king. There are plenty of governing kings and princes in the Middle East and southern Europe. Canada has as its head of state a monarch: maybe the US should invade Canada (joke).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Many of those being in Africa and President Bush has been one of the spear headers in a plan to forgive the entire continent's debt. Hmmm... |
You obviously missed the headlines last week in which Tony Blair was derided for travelling to the US with the main purpose of achieving a reduction in third world debt and increased aid from the US to the third world. He did not ask that the US increase its spending relative to GDP to match European levels of support, but sought a significant commitment to improve aid levels. He received... nothing! Bush made some comment about the US leading the world in aid, which was played several times on the news as a joke! Headlines in the rest of the world noted that Blair's mission to plead for additional aid was firmly rebutted. Presumably these did not score so highly in the US papers.
Originally posted by theSaj:
China will once it believes itself strong enough make an expansionist power grab for surrounding areas. A cold war and quite probably full on war will ensue between China and lesser asian nations along with Japan and the U.S. |
You mean just like the full on war between the US and USSR. Or maybe we could take some steps now to avoid a cataclysmic war. Not sure which option I prefer....
Originally posted by theSaj:
Most of Europe disagreed with our policies toward the Soviet Union. We advocated a strong determined unwavering approach. Europe wanted compromise and concessions. During the period where the European approach to concessions was active the Soviet Union grew in dominance. Once the American policy of determination was strongly pushed the Soviet expansion diminished and within a decade ceased to be. |
So, would the European approach have worked? Or do we not know? Does perceived success justify whatever approach was used?
Originally posted by theSaj:
We take it personally because of the following:
a) it is unceasing
b) it is unbalanced
c) seldom do others speak of all that WE HAVE DONE
d) it often feels like Europe constantly wants America to help her but then criticizes America every chance she gets.
e) Arlington Cemetary...America has lost a lot of blood for Europe and sometimes it feels very much like a slap in the face. |
Ask yourself why there is criticism. Is it unfounded? If you think it is unfounded, can you understand why others might believe it to be founded? Is it possible, just possible, that the critical ones are right, just sometimes?
For example: I can understand you feeling that Europe has and does ask a lot, and the wealth of the US is eyed enviously by many nations. I understand - I think that there is probably some truth in that. But in return, there appears to be very little recognition that the US's wealth is built significantly on exploitation, or at least that there is a strong perception of that in the world.
Don't blame us if we think you're wrong. Don't blame us if we bitch right back. [/quote]
Bitch away. Don't expect it to be endearing or to stop the criticism.
Message edited by author 2005-06-22 21:22:22. |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:30:17 PM · #61 |
As my last post was significantly longer than intended, there are just a couple of points that are very relevant to my understanding of your position and side step some of the nationalistic jingo-ism.
First, I was disturbed to see your comments on inherited superiority - please confirm that this was some kind of joke.
Secondly, please acknowledge that there is no way of making hydrogen effeiciently or cheaply at present: all that hydrogen production does is move pollution from city to production plant.
PS - you need to add "=[name of commenter]" after the start of quote entry marker to make it clear who you are quoting when using the mark up language - you quote quite a few people, and it is very hard to understand who without proper use of the markers.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 09:36:16 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
A "challenge"...
I challenge all Europeans to actually say some nice things about what America has done, where we went above and beyond the call of duty to help your nation, etc.
One attracts a lot more bees with honey than vinegar.... |
Thanks for the potato. And the riches we pinched for a couple of centuries. And Hollywood.
Your turn. |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 11:10:53 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
WWII - we won the frickin war for the Brits and the French. And !@#$% you if you don't think so. Britain would never have survived without the U.S. support and Germany would have beaten Russia if there was not a divided front and heavy U.S. bombing.
Cold War/Soviet Russia - surely you don't think it was the small armies of Europe that kept the giant Soviet state from continuing it's border expansion? |
WWII - I know of at least one historian who claims that it was support from American companies and industrialists who armed and retooled the Nazi war machine so that Hitler could undertake WWII. Sound familiar with the current administration and Sadaam Hussein???
Roosvelt wanted enter the war a few years before the US did, but those companies and industrialists who supported the Nazis didn't want to help thwart the Nazi agenda, which was highly favorable of to big business interests.
Cold War/Soviet Russia - Surely you don't believe that the US doesn't like it's boogy men...the Hawks in American politics always love to have an enemy. It drives their big business and militaristic interests. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 12:21:17 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote]Many of these loans do not benefit the people, but rather the very rich and those in power in those receiving countries. |
Might that be because most of those countries are not democracies and have no protections for their citizens. Perhaps that's why we are attempting the installation of Democracy in places that have never seen it. We hope to make Japans and S. Koreas.
[quote]Their economies do not improve life for their people and have decreased the standard of living and government services have to be greatly curtailed in order to pay off the loans.[/quote]
Many of those being in Africa and President Bush has been one of the spear headers in a plan to forgive the entire continent's debt. Hmmm... [/quote]
These loans are made to rulers because they are bribed to take the loans, not in the hopes of improving the life of the people of the countries that receive them. They are not interested in establishing democracies in these countries. The purposes of these loans is for structural adjustment programs that gain American companies access to these country's economies, natural and labor resources. Witness what happened over the years to countries like Panama and their leader Omar Torrijos when they went against what the US wanted. In the end result Torrijos lost his life. Same could be said for Arbenz in Guatemala, Jamie Roldos in Equador, Allende in Chile, etc. All democratically elected and wanting nationalize the industries in their respective countries, especially the oil industry and not wanting to take these American loans because it would have meant that their people would have suffered knowing that these exhorbitant loans could never be payed back. This went against US government/business interests. Same is happening today.
The loan forgiveness that has taken place recently comes not only from the US, but from GB as well, and is just a drop in the proverbial bucket. The catch for these countries is structural readjustments that have to be made to the American countries. This does not seem like promting democracy to me.
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 00:22:35. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:34:13 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
1. WWI - not a major role but we did lend much needed assistance.
2. WWII - we won the frickin war for the Brits and the French. And !@#$% you if you don't think so. Britain would never have survived without the U.S. support and Germany would have beaten Russia if there was not a divided front and heavy U.S. bombing.
3.Vietnam - .
4. Cold War/Soviet Russia - surely you don't think it was the small armies of Europe that kept the giant Soviet state from continuing it's border expansion?
5. Tsunami - what flag were most of the helicopters delivering relief flying?
6. Frankly, I'd like to see Europe get off it's ol' arse and do half as much as the U.S. does.
7. AMERICA'S WEALTH....how did it get it? It created it AND it drew it to itself! We said give us your poor, and we got workers. We got intelligent people the world missed. Perhaps you forget that Americans come from every country of the world....
8. Wish you could have been at ground-zero bro and have "tasted" the pollution.
9. Fair trade, no way bro....fair trade with democratic nations that have a minimum quality of life level for their citizens. Sure...but fair trade? You mean like Europe subsidizing Airbus in an attempt to put an American company out of business. ???
10. [quote]Please note I said that the US should use its wealth 'to lead the world in organising global committment ' not do it by itself or telling others what to do. |
Funny, here we are being told how we (America) should do it and at the same time told we shouldn't tell anyone else. Either give it and take it. Or be silent....
11. China will once it believes itself strong enough make an expansionist power grab for surrounding areas. A cold war and quite probably full on war will ensue between China and lesser asian nations along with Japan and the U.S.
12. We take it personally because of the following:
c) seldom do others speak of all that WE HAVE DONE
d) it often feels like Europe constantly wants America to help her but then criticizes America every chance she gets.
e) Arlington Cemetary...America has lost a lot of blood for Europe and sometimes it feels very much like a slap in the face.
[/quote]text
Right here we go!
A lot of your points have been dealt with excellently by Legalbeagal so I will only comment on those thatI feel I can add to to raise another issue. That is why I have cut out various parts of your input.
Starting from the top:
1. WWW1 - Agreed you helped and it was gratefully received. The threat of German dominance was a threat to ALL countries so I don't see why this was something that should be held up as outstanding American generosity as you seem to be doing.
2 WW2 Ditto. And once again Hollywood vision of the USA winning the war for us poor little Brits is obvious. How about the years of desperate fighting and bombing on our cities, the allied blood from all over the world that was spilt, the economic struggles that the Allies, particularly the Brits dealt with before the US decided that this might actually be something to do with them? Are you thanking us for that?
3. Vietnam - I wouldn't start that one off if I was you! And anyway it's our job to blame the French for everything!!! lol :)
4.The Cold war was greatly a contest of wills between USA and the USSR with both sides fearing the other and the rest of the world holding its breath in case one of them made a mistake. Yes I lived through the Cuba crisis and the two minute warning, the threat of the UK being a target due to our links with the USA and the gradual change in the communist economic state. Yes the USA played a big part in helping to open up the USSR but mainly the direction taken came from inside the USSR. At the end of the second world war, Russia was in not fit state to go further into Europe and had no wish to do so.
5. Tsunami - again don't let us debate the ratio of help given. Every country played its part in that disaster and continues to do so. i do remember the USA being later than most in doing so, however, but that is just my memory.
6. Perhaps you know as little about European help as you think we know about American?
7. I'm sorry but I cannot believe you wrote this! When did this great migration of brains happen? I do remember that certain German rocket scientists were welcomed to your shores after 1945? Brains who were Nazi sympathisers at the least seem to have been snapped up! Are you honestly saying that America is superior in this way? And do you think that America is the only nation that is cosmopolitan? Hate to say this but European countries have been exchanging people for a lot longer that you! (except of course for all those brains we missed!)
8.And I wish you had been in London when we had terrorist bombs going off regularly over ten or more years, killing innocent people and destroying so many families -while the IRA were being allowed to raise funds in America, to carry on their bomb building. Strange how, as usual, unless something directly affects the Homeland, it can be discounted. Directly there was terrorist action on its shores, America suddenly wants to wage war against terrorism world wide and bans fund raising for the Irish group amongst others. Wasn't a problem before this it seems!
9/11 was horrific and every american had my thoughts and prayers on that day but terrorism wasn't invented on this day.
9. Sorry aren't other countries allowed to compete withe the USA? God forbid we put any American country out of business! I am sure they have never done that to another country (ha,ha!)
10 When I said "lead" I did not mean do it first ( or bigger, or better) but to take a leading role in organising such a group. and also I was asked by Ron Beam what I would do to use the American's undoubted influence and wealth so this was my answer - read carefully!
11.
Sorry this sounds very familiar! Reds under the beds again!
12.Please tell me what you think America has done for Europe ( yes I know you won two ww and broke down the Berlin Wall, defeating communism singlehanded so we can build big aeroplanes!)that wasn't just because it was helpful to America? What help did we ask for except of course to back you against the UN to invade a country on false pretences?
The comment about blood spilt is an insult to every non-American man, woman and child that died fighting for their beliefs. Have you visited the battlefields of France?
America has been a strong and great country, fought many battles, lead the way to stop slavery( at least the North), developed some great technology, and lead the way into Space - and many other ways. It has many faults as does every other country but at this present moment we are looking at the US response to the world. So probably in the next few months it will be another country that is getting it in the neck.
However some of the comments made in this thread have only reinforced the view held by others.
Lucky USA can isolate itself physically, even the President didn't have a passport until recently but the rest of us have to work together and understand what makes other cultures tick!
No offense to anyone meant by these comments. They are only my personal thoughts in answer to other personal thoughts and what a great debate as long as we all smile and just enjoy the cut and thrust!
Pauline
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 09:58:44 AM · #66 |
Just wanted to reiterate that theSaj does not speak for all of us Americans... :-)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 11:15:38 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Just wanted to reiterate that theSaj does not speak for all of us Americans... :-) |
Don't get paranoid - I don't speak for all Brits!!!! :)
It's great to be able to let loose at time though isn't it? If we didn't have the freedom to do this we would be "fighting " together against a common foe, not opposing each other in this debate!
Keep smiling
Pauline |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 12:14:10 PM · #68 |
Here's another example on why this country is getting farther and farther from what was envisioned some 230 yeras ago...
June 23, 2005
The Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development. Justice O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent.
wsj article
(google it if you can't read this one, it may require logon)
Another wake-up call to all the lulled into believing that nothing can be better and that you found the best place in the world... until some company decides different and moves you elsewhere because your land is better used by corporations - to everyones benefit. Except yours.
Please don't start about just compensation clause. Put yourself in a position to get moved by force, with or without compensation. And especially in the times of declining housing market, where your 'just compensation' may be less than what you owe...
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 12:16:50.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 12:25:37 PM · #69 |
[quote]"Ahh the American attitude so loved around the world."[/quote]
Damn straight, I have family members who died in that war...thank you...and so when I have people tell me that we had no effect. GUESS WHAT - IT HAD DRAMATIC AFFECT AND COST ON US!!!!
[quote]But please do not believe that the US "won" either of these wars for the rest of the world unilaterally, nor that it could have done so.[/quote]
Unilaterally...no...but was America what tipped the scales in balance of favor. Most definitely....
[quote]what are you on about? You blame the French somehow for the US losing Vietnam? Do you think that it was just the US army that prevented Europe being invaded, somehow?[/quote]
No, I blame politics and bad decisions for losing the Vietnam War. My point though, was our involvement in that war was in assisting French national interests. My point is Europe's hands are far from blameless.
[quote] institute protectionist trade policies[/quote]
You have those by the way...
[quote]start infringing human rights laws by executing people[/quote]
Please, point out what law you refer to and when did the United States vote for this law. I am sorry, if you want to debate the death penalty we can do that. But as of yet I do not see the executing of dangerous habitual murderers particularly those who have been
[quote]ignoring international law by starting illegal wars[/quote]
My goodness, Europe has started more than enough illegal war. Frankly, I do not believe anything in our war was evil. Even if there were absolutely no WMDs, Iraq was still in breach of the cease-fire agreements. But perhaps France illegally supplying contraband equipment and nuclear reactor technology to buttress it's weak economy perhaps is acceptable. And sorry, we had strong links to the first WTC bombing and Iraq. We have strong links to terrorism from much of the middle-east. All the reports DID express that Iraq had programs on hold with the intent to re-start them as soon as inspectors were gone again.
[quote]generally start using our economic power to sideline other nations (not that we don't do too much of that already - protected agricultural markets and Africa being our shameful point).[/quote]
You never stopped. Ivory (Chocolate) Coast anyone? Come on - get real....get off your high fallen horse.
[quote]By pretending (or actually having) ignorance of the international situation, you demonstrate the superiority complex that infuriates much of the rest of the world. [/quote]
And the arrogance of europe to do the same things and than be so critical is what frustrates us. You want to know the real reason for America's success. We aren't constantly fighting internal battles in the same way as Europe. The United states and Europe aren't too different in size or resources. But the unity in America gives it a stronger strength.
[quote]Please tell me what clean process you are aware of to extract hydrogen from water[/quote]
It's called "technology advancement" it's what I say we should be investing in. Is the means here NOW? No, but there has been some great gains....here's just one example:
Grimes and colleagues have created titanium-dioxide cylinders that are 224 nanometers long with 34-nanometer-thick walls. The nanotubes are 85 percent efficient at harvesting the ultraviolet portion of sunlight and 12.8 percent efficient at extracting hydrogen from water. They also are easy to make, inexpensive and stable after repeated use, Grimes said.
[quote][quote]"We got intelligent people the world missed." [/quote]
If it is, I am astonished. This kind of genetic inheritance model is outdated and regarded in most societies as deeply problematic if instituted in society as a genuine model.[/quote]
You're a moronic ass....
Never did I say anything about genetics oh great and mighty twister and interpreter of words.
I said we got intelligent people the world missed. In Europe there was a strong class system, as such many in the bottom class had minimal access. Many came to America cause there was opportunity. And these excelled. Their brilliance was given room to grow.
Now, I said nothing about genetics. But if you are trying to take my simple statement of "intelligent people" as a genetic superiority statement. Then you are either overly PC to the nth degree or a fool. Because the truth is, that some people exhibit a higher intelligence than others. To deny this is to deny that some people run faster. And these facts apply to all race and ethnicities. Just as mental retardation applies to all races and ethnicities.
[quote]Not sure that this terrorist control policy is really going to work.[/quote]
In truth, I am not sure anything will work. You have a group that wants domination. They want southern Spain cause they once had it before. They want all and everywhere to be muslim. Do I like the loss....nope. And a lot of that loss is also at the hands of the same terrorists. And a lot of it is with us.
[quote]Except that we are all protectionist as against third world nations, exploiting them for our gain.[/quote]
I agree....but I don't think Europe is really anything much better than the U.S. Perhaps if Europe led by a strong enough example we'd follow. And if we didn't....guess what...we'll fall behind and become a third world nation. But a lot of times I feel like Europe condemns the U.S. for it's problems and tries to blame the whole world's problems on us and doesn't clean their water much more either.
[quote][quote]that's why we are attempting the installation of Democracy in places that have never seen it.[/quote]Do you see any problem with this statement? [/quote]
No I don't because I understand what I mean by that. See, the strategy in the past has been if people choose democracy they will gain it. But it doesn't work. When the U.S. fought for it's independence we had guns...albeit just hunting rifles...but they were not too far from the infrantry's weapons.
In most of these countries all power of force, armament, media, etc. is controlled by a dictator or small central group.
So the idea of installing Democracy is to a) remove said individually controlled power b) install infrastructure to support democratic polling (as in census, voting mechanisms, etc.)
I think most people are moron's because they fail to remember it took nearly a decade for the U.S. to establish it's government. Likewise, I think it was 9 yrs before West Germany had elections. And a fairly similar number for Japan. But Europe and American socialists keep decrying "why isn't a perfect system set up within 1-2 yrs".
And I will also add that we had to go thru our civil war as well...
[quote]He did not ask that the US increase its spending relative to GDP to match European levels of support, but sought a significant commitment to improve aid levels.[/quote]
You are a share the wealther...and in truth, I do agree we should increase our committment substantially. But such must be done gradually. And do you really believe that's the system we should live by?
Question, do you own a house or rent an apartment? Do you believe that if someone in the apartment next door makes less money than you they should pay less rent? And if you make twice as much as they...then you should pay double the rent?
This is what you're saying....
[quote]You mean just like the full on war between the US and USSR.[/quote]
OMG....full on war...trust me if there had been a full on war with the Soviet Union much of Europe would be ashes.
Second, I lose more and more respect for you. There was an entity called NATO. And furthermore, Russia was more interested in European territory than American territory (excepting Alaska claims). You make me wonder if we should have not participated, not endeavored to help protect European interests. Do you really think Europe alone could have dissuaded Soviet expansionism by itself?
This is why Americans really don't give a crap about your hurt feelings or objective criticisms. When we hear you guys say crap like that we pretty much lose any care of what you have to say.
You become fallen primadonnas. You had your empires. You abused the world. You strutted with aires. Now that you have fallen from grace, have lost your influence, and have become a sounding brass gonging away; you voice your affluent criticisms. It sounds like some whiny guy "well, I used to have a nicer Ferrari than that guy...i mean that guy doesn't even know how to drive a Ferrari. If I had a Ferrari I'd show him how to really drive it." That's what many Americans see because of comments like yours.
And Europe seems often unwilling to spend a $1 unless America will match it with $2. If you believe in some - than you buy it. Perhaps if we see it beneficial and worth investment after seeing you're lead than we'll do the same.
[quote]So, would the European approach have worked? Or do we not know?[/quote]
No, it failed, it was repeatedly failing, and would have failed completely. Just as it did in WWII with NAZI Germany. Historically, the appeasement methodology has pretty much always failed.
[quote]Ask yourself why there is criticism. Is it unfounded? If you think it is unfounded, can you understand why others might believe it to be founded? Is it possible, just possible, that the critical ones are right, just sometimes?[/quote]
You mis-understand me greatly LB,.... I have no problem if you stated "we as the industrialized first world nations need to advance technology so as to reduce pollution and increase the quality of life to benefit all mankind, and share the benefits of said technology with all of our brethen in less well off lands"
If you said such, I'd be the first to agree with you. I'd support you...but that's not what you say. You want to lay blame elsewhere but not lift up your own. It's a common human trait. But a direct result of that is usually the person you blame has little regard to heed your opinions.
[quote]But in return, there appears to be very little recognition that the US's wealth is built significantly on exploitation, or at least that there is a strong perception of that in the world.[/quote]
Because it is often those who exploited all the more and exploited much more harshly who are making the claims. America exploits but it does so thru the $. Europe exploited thru conquest. Furthermore, Europe took resources...it did NOT pay for them. One can argue whether we are paying a fair price....(and that is open for discussion) - but we always pay. Europe...took much of it's foundation of wealth without payment.
No, I am not happy in many of our dealings. And it is something I protest in my own country. I do not like our dealings with China for example. Sure it's economically beneficial for cheap "products" but I believe there should be strong tarriffs on good imported from countries that do not have democratic freedoms and protections for their people.
[quote]Bitch away. Don't expect it to be endearing or to stop the criticism.[/quote]
Never expected it too. Just wanted equal freedom to do so.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Thanks for the potato. And the riches we pinched for a couple of centuries. And Hollywood. |
Just curious, any preference for sweet or plain potato?
My turn: a thank you to the French for the Statue of Liberty, and for their aid (politically, militarily and supportively) in our endeavor for freedom. We know there was some mutual benefit in that we distracted the British a bit during your conflict. But we understand mutual benefit and in truth, we received the greater benefit. Much thanks...
Thanks to the British for teaching us a dry sense of humor. And for Monty. Thank you for the great influx of Irish immigrants which helped to build this nation. Thanks for your common support over the years.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
WWII - I know of at least one historian who claims that it was support from American companies and industrialists who armed and retooled the Nazi war machine so that Hitler could undertake WWII. Sound familiar with the current administration and Sadaam Hussein??? |
a) well, it's nice that you know "1" such historian. and I am sure they did buy tooling machines from America. Tooling machines cut and shape metal whether the result is enamelware or shell casings. Early on America was Neutral. Yes, we sold equipment. And before the war we sold equipment to rebuild Germany. However, as I recall, Germany was under obligation not to build a large army. However, the League of Nations (UN equiv. of the time) did nothing and Europe once more chose inaction and concessions instead of adherance.
We had immigrants from all over Europe. But as the conflict progressed and in 1942 we began to favor Britain more strongly.
The real root of NAZI Germany lay in Britain's and France's greed and the heavy costs of re-building that they tried to make the Germans bear fully. Even though America argued for leniency.
And might I further put in that in pre-WII we were in a great depression, nor were we a super-power. Nor did we have a giant army to lend. What we had was production capability. And we supplied the allies with equipment, arms, food, transportation. Even the Russians.
And most of those debts were forgiven. In fact, Russia did not start payments until recently and even now those are tokens as they receive more aid than they pay.
b) as for Iraq, actually, I've read up on this a bit and although we did sell equipment it was much less than most people think. Iran was our main ally and received most of our sales. It wasn't toward the end that we supported Iraq. Most of the purchases Iraq made were in fact from France and the Soviet Union.
[quote]They are not interested in establishing democracies in these countries.[/quote]
So now we have a change of philosophy where we see this as a mistake. In the Cold War we tolerated small dictators for fear of the Soviet Union
Originally posted by riponlady:
The threat of German dominance was a threat to ALL countries so I don't see why this was something that should be held up as outstanding American generosity as you seem to be doing. |
Actually, in neither case was German dominance for Europe a threat to America. In fact, in WWI - was there really any real threat? I mean it was a petty squable that involved bigger brothers. Many argue still we should never have been involved.
As for your comments on WWII. There was no threat to us. This was a "european" fight. And a problem created by Europe. Why should we thank you for creating a problem and holding it at bay for a couple of years. And we may not have been on the ground as early but we were supplying resources in the early 40's. Did we win the war? no, not the European war but our support definitely tipped the balances. And we definitely won the Japanese war. Russia had very little success on that second front.
[quote]3. Vietnam - I wouldn't start that one off if I was you! And anyway it's our job to blame the French for everything!!! lol :) [/quote]
I am the first to admit mistakes were made in that war. But I will not deny that our involvement was because of our intertwinings with France. Of course, it's intertwinings like that that led to WWI and WWII
[quote]4.The Cold war was greatly a contest of wills between USA and the USSR with both sides fearing the other and the rest of the world holding its breath in case one of them made a mistake. Yes I lived through the Cuba crisis and the two minute warning, the threat of the UK being a target due to our links with the USA and the gradual change in the communist economic state. Yes the USA played a big part in helping to open up the USSR but mainly the direction taken came from inside the USSR. At the end of the second world war, Russia was in not fit state to go further into Europe and had no wish to do so. [/quote]
Oh, so the fact that the Soviet Union took Poland, Czech, Yugo, East Germany means nothing - and they would have been content with that if America and Britain did not take a stand? Yeah...right...that's naive....
[quote]5. Tsunami - again don't let us debate the ratio of help given. Every country played its part in that disaster and continues to do so. i do remember the USA being later than most in doing so, however, but that is just my memory. [/quote]
Actually, you are wrong. We were some of the first on the scene. What we were not as quick in was "promises" of money and loans.
Rather, we sent out our military forces and army engineers and helicopters to deliver goods. America was the first and in a lot of areas the only one to respond. The politics was just to make promises of money. We were there...
And for your info I calculated what it cost to get those ships there, the medical ships the helicopter carriers, etc. For many of the small ships it was about a $1 million in fuel. We sent many ships!!!
But thanks for reading the politics and papers....
[quote]6. Perhaps you know as little about European help as you think we know about American? [/quote]
I know France does the same thing America has been accused of. It's aide is often tide directly to economic benefit.
[quote]7. I'm sorry but I cannot believe you wrote this! When did this great migration of brains happen?[/quote]
Oh it started in the 1700s with people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Bell, Orville and Wilbur Wright....and continued as wave after wave of immigrants arrived. These immigrants often without the resource and open doors to build for themselves were able to put their ideas to reality. It's why America has more self-made millionaires today then anywhere else in the world.
[quote]8.And I wish you had been in London when we had terrorist bombs going off regularly over ten or more years, killing innocent people and destroying so many families -while the IRA were being allowed to raise funds in America, to carry on their bomb building.[/quote]
First off that was much more of an internal problem. And it was not like we were saying "oh peachy keen sure you can have public fund-raisers for bomb building" as you make it sound. Were they on a big public list of terrorist fund-raisers...no cause we did not have such a list. We handled such things on individual case by case basis.
[quote]9. Sorry aren't other countries allowed to compete withe the USA? God forbid we put any American country out of business! I am sure they have never done that to another country (ha,ha!)[/quote]
Sure...but if you're going to do that...don't bitch if we do it right back. And don't bitch about our fair trade infractions and then say "it's just fair competition" for yours. That's all I'm saying.
[quote]11.Sorry this sounds very familiar! Reds under the beds again! [/quote]
Sure and China hasn't threatened Taiwan in the past couple of years in any way. People in Hong Kong are much better off now...right? Japan hasn't been unnerved by China's repeated penetrations. Naw...it's all in everybody's mind. China's hasn't made declarations about how it could field a 200 million man army...naw....we're just unnerved for no reason. Hitler will stop at Poland and all will be well.
[quote]12.Please tell me what you think America has done for Europe[/quote]
First off, please tell me why you think America is obligated to do a damn thing for Europe.
Second, I believe we gave you aid in WWI. I believe we tipped the balances for you in WWII. I believe we were substantial in halting the Soviet expansion in Europe. I think we've come to the aide and support of Europe on numerous occasions. Air evac'ing French citizens during the recent Ivory Coast turmoil is a recent example. We forgave, forgot, and released you from much owed debts.
And all the prior comments about our loans just being to allow us to take advantage of third world countries doesn't float for these cases...as most of the European countries I am referring to are 1st world countries. In fact, most were at the time consider super-powers of much higher levels than the U.S.
[quote]that wasn't just because it was helpful to America?[/quote]
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY EUROPEANS WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND AMERICANS! You think our motives is solely for $$$ benefit. If someone invaded Canada we would defend them. Even if there was no $$$ benefit to us. We do it - because we are Americans.
[quote]The comment about blood spilt is an insult to every non-American man, woman and child that died fighting for their beliefs. Have you visited the battlefields of France?[/quote]
It is much less of an insult than what every American has received at the hands of the like of you and leagalbeagle. You cry over blood spilt defending your country. We cry over blood spilt defending your country. There is a big !@#$% difference there....I am sorry if you can't see it.
I'd like to know how many gravestones of British and French soldiers are buried in the U.S. after fighting to protect her? (France has some and may God bless her for it.)
So if you want to insult me and my family and the loss of blood spilt by my family and many other American families in WWII and then take my accusation of your disrespect for our spilt blood as an insult to all your spilt blood - you can do so. But that's not what I said...and I think the less of you for this post.
[quote]The comment about blood spilt is an insult to every non-American man, woman and child that died fighting for their beliefs.[/quote]
Furtheremore, they didn't die for their beliefs...they died fighting for survival and freedom. And our men died fighting for THEIR freedom and survival. And frankly, I'm tired of being told we did nothing and were of no part.
Well...God help you if we weren't there...cause 10 to 1 you wouldn't be here either!
[quote]It has many faults as does every other country but at this present moment we are looking at the US response to the world. So probably in the next few months it will be another country that is getting it in the neck.[/quote]
No it wont because no other country is in a similar position. Rest assured if China or Russia did move...Europe would be back cozy by our side asking for our help and support. And we'd be there. But in a lot of ways Europe whores herself out. She wants to be prissy when there is no fear but jumps in the bed when trouble comes. (I will say, this does not apply so much to Britain.)
But while America continues to have a strong economy, rich resources, and influential strength and while European nations continue to wane (France, what is France except it's position on the security council. India and Japan far exceed her glory.) And as long as this continues....it will be America that they jibe against.
[quote]However some of the comments made in this thread have only reinforced the view held by others.[/quote]
Much agreed....and much disagreed. The comments of a few have only re-inforced my opinions on many europeans. However, likewise, I know many europeans and have a quite fondness for Brits.
[quote]Lucky USA can isolate itself physically, even the President didn't have a passport until recently but the rest of us have to work together and understand what makes other cultures tick![/quote]
My dear, do you not think we have different cultures? I work in America. My boss is Indian, half my co-workers are Indian. I worked previously for a Bulgarian. I am myself of Italian heritage. We have African, Jamaican, Peurto Rican, Mexican, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and hundreds more....
[quote]The Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.[/quote]
They've been doing this for 200 yrs. It happened half a century ago with my family. The state condemned our land and paid my great-great-grandparents 1/10th the value. But when there is a new highway being built and your house is in the way....what did you think they were going to do? It's called eminent domain. They also use it now to take down ghettos so they can be re-built to much benefit of all.
It sucks...and in truth, I think the clause should dictate "double" fair compensation. I think doing this would ensure that a) governments would not think lightly and those who must suffer such action would receive fair compensation plus double for their inconvencience.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 12:33:23 PM · #70 |
[quote]No offense to anyone meant by these comments. They are only my personal thoughts in answer to other personal thoughts and what a great debate as long as we all smile and just enjoy the cut and thrust![/quote]
Agreed, and thank the monks for the invention of beer (and wine). Cause all of this would be much more enjoyable and friendly over a nice mug of beer or glass of wine.
;)
I do apologize as I know some of my responses were a bit heated. But having medals of my great uncle on my shelf - medals representing his death in WWII. A death that my neither my great grandmother nor grandmother ever recovered from. And being told it is inconsequential doesn't put me in the best of spirits. I am sorry...
But rest assured Europe, if you ever had the need again...the Americans would be there. And we would not be there for money. The hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers than went over to Europe and fought and came back injured or not at all WERE NOT THERE FOR FINANCIAL GAIN! They were there as FRIENDS!!!!
We know we make mistakes, we know some of decisions are unpopular and some are flat out bad. But we're not evil....no more than you and less so than most governments. And it is often said the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions...that might be so.
But sometimes we left wondering by your words and comments as to whether you are our friends. And in truth, if Hitler was in Mexico...I do wonder if we'd have much more than the British by our sides.
:|
But to all who would come, free bear and saltwater taffy for all!!!
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 01:10:51 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You seem to be taking an extremely personal view of criticism expressed in this thread which, perhaps, is not allowing you to understand the reasons (right or wrong) that many other people disagree with the present US government.
Don't take it so personallly when your country is criticised - you are not the government and they are not angels - they are politicians who have agendas, ambitions and overdrafts
Don't blame the rest of the world if they agree something and the US doesn't - we have a right to bitch about it. |
This will be my last post on this matter and I hope to explain why I view the caustic degradation of England's (and many of the other nation's of the world) best ally as an afront to sensible debate.
I am an American expatriate living in Brazil. I have enjoined these same vitriolic-smeared debates in my chosen nation, most of which are fostered through sublime ignorance of the truth about America's world view and long range goals. It is a darker side of human nature which needs to pull down those who have shown that creative initiative and hard work breeds success. It seems to have always been that this dimmer portion of thought sometimes drives those of lesser initiative to delusionally project their own failings upon the prominent. How else would one explain the fact that every winning photograph in every challenge here is blighted by misguided one's, two's, three's and four's when the work is obviously of superior craftsmanship?
The United States is a popular winning photograph of the best of self determination, self initiative, and self reliance; an example of achievements wrought by the human spirit when set afire with liberty (which, Pauline, is the precious thing I alluded to, that is slowly being eroded.) One of the profoundest dates and sites I was taught in school was June, 1215, Runningmeade and the signing of the Magna Carta, where began a great world reform fueling its enlightenment. America was the projectal result of that document and the forethought behind it. That the entire world might be modeled on its foundational principles is far from earth's worst fate, to which some here seem to be alluding.
But my deepest concern is that, like in war, the majority of individuals involved with following a debate have no loyalty to one side nor the other and are just waiting for the dust to settle before determining to whose side they should run. If those here who suggest that America's intentions are evil and exploitive win the heart of one more disciple, then those forces in the world community truly seeking America's destruction find one more foot soldier. And I would venture that after those opposition force's armies are large enough and the task of dismantling the United States were complete, the world would find the alternative to free market capitalism a much less desirable system. Stalin is not necessarily dead, neither is Hitler, nor Caesar and they are resuscitated by rhetoric filled with the blatant prejudged hatred as encrypted in some of the anti-American posts here.
Saj in effect asks, "Don't you nations feel anything owed to America?" not out of nationalistic pride, but as if one friend asking another. And friends hope the best for and pray for their friends who are having difficulties. They do not scorn and ridicule them. It is a personal matter to most Americans because when one denigrates the government of that country, one denigrates its citizens who (though only dimly now) still feel they ARE the government. You see, unlike most other nations who ask a vested few to handle their larger affairs so that they may live their lives in relative order on a day to day level, Americans feel they ARE the force that determines their lot. In her second paragraph quoted above is where Pauline exposes her profound misunderstanding of the meaning of America's governmental institutions. The government and the people are not separate, but are one. At least that was the foundational principle of America. That political parties with little regard for anything else beyond power and self-perpetuation are a growing cancer in the USA is of deep concern to, I hope, a growing number of Americans. The time is nearly right for a third party to rise in America that says, "(corrupt) Business as usual is over." It will happen because Americans are too rooted in freedom to accept less than best methods of fostering relationships nor bullied by power, not just external power, but especially from within. And like brothers and sisters within a family, Americans can argue and fight and rant among themselves about the merits or the foilables of policies or institutions with an unspoken, but implied respect and love for one another. But like a family, when someone from outside chimes in agreement with, "Yeah, that institution of yours sucks!" The family binds as a single front to answer, "Watch how you speak of this thing and tread lightly on this floor."
When I came to Brazil, I was asked time and again, "What do you think of George Bush?" My answer was always the same (and would have been the same if Bill Clinton had been in office), "He is my president. I support his best intentions and pray he not error into any misguided ones." While Americans debate a clearer (and hopefully cleaner) future, I would ask the rest of the world to show some class and refrain from this lynching mentality which only fuels a darker force hiding on the horizon. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 01:53:02 PM · #72 |
Saj, thank you for the final post! We are all going to "fight " for our country in threads like these and we would probably do the same in person ( over a big bottle of red wine I hope!) but that is because we all care about the same thing in the end - helping this world - maybe in different ways and with different policies. Unfortunately history always is easy to re run with hindsight and both the USA and GB have a lot to be ashamed of and to be proud of and like any school yard battle we all see the events from our own point of view.
Don't think Brits are anti American anymore than we are anti-anybody ~(~except perhaps the FRENCH ! JOKE JOKE!).
Yes we do tend to prefer talking before we act - but then again you've got to admit (but perhaps you don't) that the US does tend to rush in a bit gung ho!
I am sure we all support world co-operation and ant to save this planet from ourselves. While we are all talking and listening perhaps it's a good sign that there will be co-operation - at least on DPC!
If I may add I would never put down the tragedy of loss to the people of the US who fought in either war - I am considerably okder than you, have had long discussions with my father who fought in WW2 and whose life was ruined as a result of WW1. He is now dead but I thank him and every other person regardless of origin who saved us from a despotic maniac like Hitler who I think would have had a big impact on the USA had he achieved his goals.
Remember it is government policies people are discussing here not the people of the land who whatever is said have very little effect on the grand scheme of things when land, money and ambition are involved.
Keep smiling and maybe next time we visit each other's countries we can share that bottle of wine!
:)
Pauline |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 02:24:54 PM · #73 |
Well made points, RonBeam. I understand that personal and national pride are sufficiently intermingled such that external criticism in an international discussion can provoke a more nationalistic response than found in national discussion of the same points. The US is not unique in that respect!
I should clarify that I don't regard the US as having "dark" intent, nor do I disregard its importance on the world stage. Its policies are far reaching, and there have been a number of situations where US policy has been enacted for the greater good of mankind. As someone mentioned elsewhere, the space race, for example, is a great testament to the US and its spirit. The stability of the US has contributed to a period of economic expansion around the world.
However, I do think that (like the UK and most other countries) the US has a strong streak of self interest in most of its decisions. I do not suggest that is somehow "wrong", as it is a nation state as are all others.
However, the US' economic and military dominance, do give, IMO, the US certain moral obligations. I believe that Western Europe has the same obligations (perhaps, given our respective size and wealth a greater obligation - though as has been pointed out, our fractured national boundaries work against us in establishing a coherent policy and various efficiencies). I consider that both the US and W Europe's policies are deficient in many ways. I have not sought to criticise the US significantly more than the West for failures on the aid front. In that regard, however, I object to suggestions that the US provides all the aid, while Europe does nothing. Particularly as the reported statistics (for what they are worth) suggest that the US gives proportionately less, and the recent politics have resulted in the UK committing itself to establishing significant debt reduction program for the third world which has singularly failed to gain any support from the US.
I do criticise the US for its environmental policy (where this all started). It produces and consumes so much of the world's resources and appears to refuse to accept that this has a consequence for the world climate. All of the Western Countries have benefitted the most from polluting the world, and have, IMO, an obligation to start counteracting that effect. Some latitude has to be given to states that have not benefitted to the same degree. The West must lead the way in reducing dependency on fossil fuels. Most Western states are doing so. The US sticks out like a sore thumb: there is a huge conflict of interests at the top of the US government; it is the only country where politicians are so affected by the need for campaign money, and Bush administration is so obviously in bed with the oil companies who provide that all important party funding, and those same oil companies have such a huge vested interest in preventing the implementation of controls on oil exploitation. It is no coincidence that much of the science that Bush relies uponis proimulgated by those same oil companies. There are so many other nations and independent bodies that are ignored, that it is frustrating to see those conflicted reports being used to justify an opposing decision.
The frustration is amplified because the decision to ignore the best evidence of global warming and the need to act, affects everyone, not just the US. The frustration and the problem are exacerbated because the US produces, and consumes, so much.
The US is founded on free market principles, which dictate low levels of state interference for maximising profit. These are great for making money, but abysmal for maintaining environmental controls. I understand why there is significant reluctance to reduce the profitability of the country - it is almost intrinsic to the US mindset that people should be free and unconstrained by the state, and given every opportunity to make their fortune. This has been brilliantly effective. But there has to come a point at which this must be balanced against the global catastrophe that would occur if our worst predictions are accurate. This is all a question of degree and when, and how much action is required toavert disaster, is the subject of massive debate. But while the US government relies on conflict-riddled reports, and its government remains under the strong financial influence of parties with a vested interest in no action, there must be a question as to the integrity of the US stance.
Because the US decisions will have such a major impact upon the world, because it is the biggest polluter, and because it has the greatest political clout, and because its policy will affect us all, I feel that there is some justification in me and other non-US nationals questionning and where necessary criticising the current US policy.
Originally posted by RonBeam:
This will be my last post on this matter and I hope to explain why I view the caustic degradation of England's (and many of the other nation's of the world) best ally as an afront to sensible debate.
I am an American expatriate living in Brazil. I have enjoined these same vitriolic-smeared debates in my chosen nation, most of which are fostered through sublime ignorance of the truth about America's world view and long range goals. It is a darker side of human nature which needs to pull down those who have shown that creative initiative and hard work breeds success. It seems to have always been that this dimmer portion of thought sometimes drives those of lesser initiative to delusionally project their own failings upon the prominent. How else would one explain the fact that every winning photograph in every challenge here is blighted by misguided one's, two's, three's and four's when the work is obviously of superior craftsmanship?
The United States is a popular winning photograph of the best of self determination, self initiative, and self reliance; an example of achievements wrought by the human spirit when set afire with liberty (which, Pauline, is the precious thing I alluded to, that is slowly being eroded.) One of the profoundest dates and sites I was taught in school was June, 1215, Runningmeade and the signing of the Magna Carta, where began a great world reform fueling its enlightenment. America was the projectal result of that document and the forethought behind it. That the entire world might be modeled on its foundational principles is far from earth's worst fate, to which some here seem to be alluding.
But my deepest concern is that, like in war, the majority of individuals involved with following a debate have no loyalty to one side nor the other and are just waiting for the dust to settle before determining to whose side they should run. If those here who suggest that America's intentions are evil and exploitive win the heart of one more disciple, then those forces in the world community truly seeking America's destruction find one more foot soldier. And I would venture that after those opposition force's armies are large enough and the task of dismantling the United States were complete, the world would find the alternative to free market capitalism a much less desirable system. Stalin is not necessarily dead, neither is Hitler, nor Caesar and they are resuscitated by rhetoric filled with the blatant prejudged hatred as encrypted in some of the anti-American posts here.
Saj in effect asks, "Don't you nations feel anything owed to America?" not out of nationalistic pride, but as if one friend asking another. And friends hope the best for and pray for their friends who are having difficulties. They do not scorn and ridicule them. It is a personal matter to most Americans because when one denigrates the government of that country, one denigrates its citizens who (though only dimly now) still feel they ARE the government. You see, unlike most other nations who ask a vested few to handle their larger affairs so that they may live their lives in relative order on a day to day level, Americans feel they ARE the force that determines their lot. In her second paragraph quoted above is where Pauline exposes her profound misunderstanding of the meaning of America's governmental institutions. The government and the people are not separate, but are one. At least that was the foundational principle of America. That political parties with little regard for anything else beyond power and self-perpetuation are a growing cancer in the USA is of deep concern to, I hope, a growing number of Americans. The time is nearly right for a third party to rise in America that says, "(corrupt) Business as usual is over." It will happen because Americans are too rooted in freedom to accept less than best methods of fostering relationships nor bullied by power, not just external power, but especially from within. And like brothers and sisters within a family, Americans can argue and fight and rant among themselves about the merits or the foilables of policies or institutions with an unspoken, but implied respect and love for one another. But like a family, when someone from outside chimes in agreement with, "Yeah, that institution of yours sucks!" The family binds as a single front to answer, "Watch how you speak of this thing and tread lightly on this floor."
When I came to Brazil, I was asked time and again, "What do you think of George Bush?" My answer was always the same (and would have been the same if Bill Clinton had been in office), "He is my president. I support his best intentions and pray he not error into any misguided ones." While Americans debate a clearer (and hopefully cleaner) future, I would ask the rest of the world to show some class and refrain from this lynching mentality which only fuels a darker force hiding on the horizon. |
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 03:19:00 PM · #74 |
Do not have the energy to come back on every point (many of which are arguments on their own) - but:
Originally posted by theSaj:
if you want to debate the death penalty we can do that |
Another day...!
Originally posted by theSaj:
You want to know the real reason for America's success. |
I know why the US is powerful. It's success is not at point: the way in which it generates the wealth (or, at what cost) and does not share equally the consequential burden is my frustration.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Is the means here NOW? No, but there has been some great gains.... |
Yes I agree that efficient hydrogen production is a valuable target. You earlier appeared to suggest that technology advancement would be the sensible environmental policy. And that Bush had adopted such a strategy, and that made him a good environmentalist. The counter-argument is that clean hydrogen production relies on us finding an alternative clean fuel source so that we can produce hydrogen. That is a long way off. Global warming, if most experts are right, should be dealt with by immediate policies, not greater reliance on fossil fuels. Bush has a very long term, but no short term strategy. The long term strategy will be too long term for many nations. The cost in the short to medium term of inaction may be greater than the short term cost of action in the short term.
Originally posted by theSaj:
You're a moronic ass....
Never did I say anything about genetics oh great and mighty twister and interpreter of words.
I said we got intelligent people the world missed. In Europe there was a strong class system, as such many in the bottom class had minimal access. Many came to America cause there was opportunity. And these excelled. Their brilliance was given room to grow. |
You left your words open to interpretation. You implied that the brilliance of those establishing the US was apparent today. I merely said that I hoped that one of several interpretations was not your intention. I am glad that you state that it was not.
I am not quite sure what you are saying with your statements still - is it that the US social structure, or state system, or system of laws, or something else is still reflected in society today? Or is this merely a statement on the coutry's history about how the US grew as a nation?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Now, I said nothing about genetics. But if you are trying to take my simple statement of "intelligent people" as a genetic superiority statement. Then you are either overly PC to the nth degree or a fool. Because the truth is, that some people exhibit a higher intelligence than others. To deny this is to deny that some people run faster. And these facts apply to all race and ethnicities. Just as mental retardation applies to all races and ethnicities. |
Not sure where you are going with this: yes, some people are more clever by society's standards than others. I think that you mean that the US has a fair share, no more, no less.
Originally posted by theSaj:
In truth, I am not sure anything will work. You have a group that wants domination. They want southern Spain cause they once had it before. They want all and everywhere to be muslim. Do I like the loss....nope. And a lot of that loss is also at the hands of the same terrorists. And a lot of it is with us. |
Your statement reveals a certain prejudice. You confuse religious conversion, with politically and religiously motivated terrorism.
Invading countries on a pretext is guaranteed to increase the risk of terrorist actions, or as they would say, guerilla actions. Understanding, empathising with and negotiating a compromise position might be more effective.
Originally posted by the Saj:
]I don't think Europe is really anything much better than the U.S. ... But a lot of times I feel like Europe condemns the U.S. for it's problems and tries to blame the whole world's problems on us and doesn't clean their water much more either. |
I have consistently stated that failures in aid are Europe's shame as much as the US.
Originally posted by the Saj:
[quote]that's why we are attempting the installation of Democracy in places that have never seen it.[quote]Do you see any problem with this statement? [quote]
No I don't because I understand what I mean by that. |
Well - that is why I get confused by some of your points: no point making an ambiguous remark about which you know what you mean but haven't properly recorded it.
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote]You mean just like the full on war between the US and USSR[/]
OMG....full on war...trust me if there had been a full on war with the Soviet Union much of Europe would be ashes. . |
Irony: there was no full on war. So why should we expect one in the future with China?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Second, I lose more and more respect for you. There was an entity called NATO. And furthermore, Russia was more interested in European territory than American territory (excepting Alaska claims). You make me wonder if we should have not participated, not endeavored to help protect European interests. Do you really think Europe alone could have dissuaded Soviet expansionism by itself?
This is why Americans really don't give a crap about your hurt feelings or objective criticisms. When we hear you guys say crap like that we pretty much lose any care of what you have to say. |
Should we be upset at not being thanked for helping the US in its war against the USSR? Could the USA have "won" the war without Europe's help? I am not sure that there is gratitude owed in either direction. It was a conflict. We were on your side, you on ours. We, together, were successful.
Originally posted by theSaj:
You become fallen primadonnas. You had your empires. You abused the world. You strutted with aires. Now that you have fallen from grace, have lost your influence, and have become a sounding brass gonging away; you voice your affluent criticisms. It sounds like some whiny guy "well, I used to have a nicer Ferrari than that guy...i mean that guy doesn't even know how to drive a Ferrari. If I had a Ferrari I'd show him how to really drive it." That's what many Americans see because of comments like yours. |
Nations and empires rise and fall. It will ever be. Arrogance will always breed resentment.
Originally posted by theSaj:
but that's not what you say. You want to lay blame elsewhere but not lift up your own. It's a common human trait. But a direct result of that is usually the person you blame has little regard to heed your opinions. |
I criticise the US for failing to recognise where it is to blame, in the manner in which this country recognises it is to blame and is doing something about it.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Just curious, any preference for sweet or plain potato? |
both v nice!
Originally posted by theSaj:
Why should we thank you for creating a problem and holding it at bay for a couple of years. |
Please - Europe is an area of many nation states, not just one that creates its own problems (aka we do not blame USA for the drugs problem in Columbia)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 03:27:15 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
This will be my last post on this matter and I hope to explain why I view the caustic degradation of England's (and many of the other nation's of the world) best ally as an afront to sensible debate.
When I came to Brazil, I was asked time and again, "What do you think of George Bush?" My answer was always the same (and would have been the same if Bill Clinton had been in office), "He is my president. I support his best intentions and pray he not error into any misguided ones." . |
I'm not expecting a reply, Ron, as you said that was your last word on the subject but I must just make two points that hit me from your post
1. Your opening sentence just demonstrated something that is felt about the majority of Americans - that they in general know little aabout the rest of the world, You refer to "England's ... best ally". Whoops! If someone as obviously well educated and literate as yourself doesn't understand that England is just a part of the United Kingdom and policies are not just England's then whatabout the less educated and knowledable?
2.In Britain we do not accept that our leaders are beyond reproach! Tony Blair would love it if we did! When a government is elected by less than half the nation (and I believe the system in the US is no better How many people bother to vote at all?) then everyone has a right to question decisions and express their disapproval if appropriate. This keeps the leaders on their toes and they are more ready to consider what reactions will be to their decisions therefore not going ahead without discussion. To say "well we've elected this man (not god) and we must back him whatever he does" is naive. You admit yourself that there is a need for an overhaul of the political parties to avoid the corrupt business influence yet you still will support Mr Bush whatever he does!
I hope your positive view of the average American is correct. I suspect, like Britain, the vast number of adults don't give a damm!
Pauline :) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:01:41 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:01:41 PM EDT.
|
