18 Jun 03
I disagree, but that's not even important. You say the US 'wants to be left alone', and you expect it to be such when Americans meddle in the affairs of other nations? Israel is a good example. If one applies to Israel the same criteria that the Us government applied to Iraq, it becomes obvious that Israel, too, needs a 'regime change'. Towards a large segment of their population, that is one of the most oppressive governments around. (The US has a history of this kind of thing: Native Americans, blacks, etc.) How does the Us expect to be left alone when its foreign policy is not only aggressive, but motivated by the whims of its corporations and, in the case of the Middle East, by simple racism?
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCan america be truly "isolationist". Does this refer to purely political and military issues, or does it extend to business and trade as well. If so does this mean all the McDonalds and Starbucks near me are going to close down. Will MTV no longer be available on my tv. So long as we live in a globalised economy, no country can become isolationist. If you do not want to be a superpower, why accumulate so many weapons and involve yourself in so many conflicts...
You are right. The point is... WE DON'T WANT TO BE a super power... whatever that is... we just want to be left alone. We don't take criticism well, and don't want to have to take it well. The problem with much of the world is they don't see how badly we take criticism. We aren't going to be changing in the next few hundred years that i can see, so ...[text shortened]... two trains passing in the night. If there is going to be a victim... it will be Syria, not us.ðŸ˜
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAmerica has exported its products, culture, and ideology to most of the developing world, if it turns its back on them now it would represent a snub of such huge proportions that future generations of Americans would have to live with.
You are right. The point is... WE DON'T WANT TO BE a super power... whatever that is... we just want to be left alone. We don't take criticism well, and don't want to have to take it well. The problem with much of the world is they don't see how badly we take criticism. We aren't going to be changing in the next few hundred years that i can see, so ...[text shortened]... two trains passing in the night. If there is going to be a victim... it will be Syria, not us.ðŸ˜
As the world gets smaller and smaller America can not simply go back into its shell, there is nowhere left to hide. America will make decisions, the world will react to them and America will have to respond. You are to big and powerful not to be noticed and talked about on an international stage.
One key points I think many Americans are never allowed to understand through their media - the world is actually a great place, theres lots of different cultures out there, lots of different interpretations of society, and lots of amazing wildlife and countryside to explore. It would be a shame to missout on all of that due to a couple of loonies in the desert who don't like each other.
Remember - why do we care about what goes on in the middle east? For the same reason we choose not to care about worse atrocities in Africa.... Oil, find a substitute product and you solve your need to be involved. As for Israel, sort them out, I think their government is far more right wing crazy than most on this planet (and we let them have nukes!).
Andrew
18 Jun 03
1 edit
Originally posted by latex bishopI have just time for this one last remark then i have to get some work done. Starvation is not good in any culture.😕
One key points I think many Americans are never allowed to understand through their media - the world is actually a great place, theres lots of different cultures out there, lots of different interpretations of society, and lots of amaz ...[text shortened]... e of loonies in the desert who don't like each other.
Andrew[/b]
The world is a great place to visit, but i wouldn't want to live there, and that even includes my native Star Valley! I have visited 27 countries in Europe. I have visited Israel and Jordan twice. I have spent a month traveling Russia and down to Istanbul. I spent a month touring China. I have been to Australia and New Zealand. I worked as a volunteer for two summers building a school in Guatamala. I don't think it matters what american media says. Nobody... and i mean nobody pays any attention to it. At least none of the people i know do. 😲:'( Ps... as we speak, i am making arrangements to travel to Utah's African Sister state, Ouelessebougou, Mali. I will be helping on a three week project to install more than 30 miles of water main from three recently drilled wells. http://www.sistercommunity.org/
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat's awesome! I hope it goes well (excuse the pun) for you down there. I enjoyed reading your posts and I agree with much that you have said.
Ps... as we speak, i am making arrangements to travel to Utah's African Sister state, Ouelessebougou, Mali. I will be helping on a three week project to install more than 30 miles of water main from three recently drilled wells. (See Utah-Ouelessebougou Alliance on the web)
Good Luck!
Bryan
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by ChessNutI agree. Mike, that is extremely cool. I don't agree with most of what you said (😉), but I wish you the best of luck down there.
That's awesome! I hope it goes well (excuse the pun) for you down there. I enjoyed reading your posts and I agree with much that you have said.
Good Luck!
Bryan
~Mark
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by latex bishopBut, it is rumoured in American history that the US knew in advance about the attack at Pearl Harbor. FDR figured that the Japanese attack would turn the isolationist mood of the public into a public that supported war. It worked. If you look at the timeline of the war, it did not take very long to get troops and planes to the UK, but we waited about 6 months to start the Pacific war in ernest.
You were isolationist, you joined WW2 as Japan attacked you. Under the American Constitution you could not simply join a European war after the WW1 experience
Andrew
And yes, we can join a war without declaring one. The president has the right to deploy troops as he sees fit. But, congress can recall them as soon as one soldier is killed.
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by mmanuelA fact: More than one half of America's Gross Domestic Product is controlled by companies from Japan and the UK. It's true, it's true, its damn true.
Can america be truly "isolationist". Does this refer to purely political and military issues, or does it extend to business and trade as well. If so does this mean all the McDonalds and Starbucks near me are going to close down. Will MTV no longer be available on my tv. So long as we live in a globalised economy, no country can become isolationist. If you ...[text shortened]... to be a superpower, why accumulate so many weapons and involve yourself in so many conflicts...
So, who is spreading their will?
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by willatkinsYes, I belive this to be true. Ooops, missed all the new aircraft carriers parked round the other bay, hit all the out of date destroyers. If a country can do this to its own people (and all countries do - so it is not finger pointing in any way) it shows how far real freedom and democracy is.
But, it is rumoured in American history that the US knew in advance about the attack at Pearl Harbor. FDR figured that the Japanese attack would turn the isolationist mood of the public into a public that supported war. It worked. If you look at the timeline of the war, it did not take very long to get troops and planes to the UK, but we waited about 6 ...[text shortened]... deploy troops as he sees fit. But, congress can recall them as soon as one soldier is killed.
Andrew
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by latex bishopThis is idle speculation. It is true that Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor as a means to galvanize the USA into coming out of its isolationist shell on the side of the allies (although Lend-lease had effectively been doing that already for two years) there is, to date, no firm historical evidence supporting the claim that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing to stop it.
Yes, I belive this to be true. Ooops, missed all the new aircraft carriers parked round the other bay, hit all the out of date destroyers. If a country can do this to its own people (and all countries do - so it is not finger pointing in any way) it shows how far real freedom and democracy is.
Andrew
As for the larger discussion at hand - as a US citizen I am personally disgusted by much of my (unelected) government does in the name maximization of corporate profits and exporting neo-imperialist ideas abroad. If George W. Bush is fighting a war in Iraq for humanitarian concerns, then why hasn't he mobilized troops to the Congo, where over 3 million innocent civilians have died in the last several years during the infighting going on there? Is that not a sufficient human rights abuse?
Having troubled abroad to Europe and Asia, I can say that I prefer both the governments and the cultures of several European countries to those of my own. I feel that as a rational individual not obsessed with either religion or guns (or NASCAR) that I am an alien in my own country, that I have more in common ideologically with people thousands of miles away than I do with people 50 miles away, and that the sooner I can get the hell out of here the happier I will be.
And I'm sure the rednecks will be glad to be rid of me, too.
-mike
18 Jun 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI find it very bizarre the way the US clutches its appalling gun crime record as though it were some kind of badge of honour while claiming that everyone else's measures to prevent gun deaths are somehow infringing human rights.
You prove my point. We have certain rights that we insist upon. You think guns are bad. I think the worst mistake ever made was outlawing dueling. Who is right? I'll be damned if i'll submit to a world court to find out. It's bad enough fighting the "immature" party here in the states... oh, sorry... that would be "democrats" to use the most comm ...[text shortened]... ir with Syria (and others) as turn takers. No organization comprised of outlaws can enforce law.
But then, the US does seem to see fit to lecture the rest of the world on human rights, despite being the only country in the world last year to execute juveniles, and despite openly flouting the Geneva convention in its treatment of Afghan prisoners.
Ultimately, the US is too rich and too powerful to fail to attract comment from the rest of the world. If it begins to play a constructive role in international treaties such as the world court, or even more crucially, Kyoto, then those comments will become more favourable. But until that time, the US can expect itself, or at least its government, to be widely disliked. It really is America's choice.
19 Jun 03
A vigilante is someone who takes the law into his own hands and prescribes a punishment on a criminal without due process of the law(I believe thats in your constitution there, somewhere). I have nothing against self-defence I just feel that everyone carrying a gun around makes for some risks. Yes, BAD GUYS may still use weapons, however, if its illegal for them to own the said weapon, then it would be far harder for those people to get ahold of them. Also I'm sure I've read somewhere that the majority of murders are either crimes of passion or a side effect of another crime (usually of oportunity) that gets disturbed by the victim. If its illegal for someone to own a weapon, then the angry businessman who finds his wife with another man isn't going to go for the .38 he keeps on top of the wardrobe. Or, the burglar that gets disturbed isn't going to get jumpy and shoot someone if he doesn't possess a gun.
On the subject of you (the US) leaving us (the UK) to put up with our world wars every 25 years or so;
1:- Two wars do not make a repetitive pattern.
2:- Although I'm unsure on why the americans actually joined the First World War. I do know that militaristically they deployed only two regiments of ground troops onto mainland europe before the war ended and neither of these regiments saw action at the front lines. (this isn't to be confused with a number of volanteers who joined seperately or with the air force and navy)
3:- America certainly didn't come running to help their friends (the UK), as they didn't join either of the wars until after the real invasion threat was over. As you've said the reason they joined World War 2 was because of Pearl Harbour and the Alliance between Japan and Germany. At this stage the Battle of Britain was over
19 Jun 03
Originally posted by jimmi tIf its illegal for someone to own a weapon, then the angry businessman who finds his wife with another man isn't going to go for the .38 he keeps on top of the wardrobe. Or, the burglar that gets disturbed isn't going to get jumpy and shoot someone if he doesn't possess a gun. <I'll will give you an A for this ... in any creative writing class. totally divorced from reality. but very descriptive>
On the subject of you (the US) leaving us (the UK) to put up with our world wars every 25 years or so;
1:- Two wars do not make a repetitive pattern.
< You are so right. I suggest a refersher history read...
Hundred Years War, 1337-1453
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
War of the League of Augsburg, 1688-97
War of The Austrian Succession, 1740-48
War of The Spanish Succession, 1701-13
Seven Years War, 1755-63
French Revolutionary Wars, 1792-1802
Napoleonic Wars, 1802-15
Crimean War, 1853-56
Seven Weeks War, 1866
Franco-Prussian War, 1871-72
First World War, 1914-18
Second World War, 1939-45
... This list is a VERY abbreviated one, but you get the idea.>
2:- Although I'm unsure on why the americans actually joined the First World War. I do know that militaristically they deployed only two regiments of ground troops onto mainland europe before the war ended and neither of these regiments saw action at the front lines. (this isn't to be confused with a number of volanteers who joined seperately or with the air force and navy)
< Right... there were 116,516 american casualties... no big deal. Hell, they were just yanks anyway>
3:- America certainly didn't come running to help their friends (the UK), as they didn't join either of the wars until after the real invasion threat was over. As you've said the reason they joined World War 2 was because of Pearl Harbour and the Alliance between Japan and Germany. At this stage the Battle of Britain was over
< Right again. I'm just glad that we didn't get in your way in the Battle of the Atlantic. Hell... as poorly as we treat our friends, we could have cost you the whole damned war. We are just greatful that you tolerated us, even though we contributed nothing.
This is a test... A - Brittain won the war single handedly. B - USSR fought and won most of the war. C - A combined effort of thirty nations won the victory. Answer is C, but USSR would have won eventually even if US and UK had been defeated>
19 Jun 03
2:- Although I'm unsure on why the americans actually joined the First World War. I do know that militaristically they deployed only two regiments of ground troops onto mainland europe before the war ended and neither of these regiments saw action at the front lines. (this isn't to be confused with a number of volanteers who joined seperately or with the air force and navy)This is completely false. America sent 29 divisions, and 2,080,000 servicemen into France in WWI. You can't suffer 100,000+ killed in action by only deploying two regiments which never saw combat.
< Right... there were 116,516 american casualties... no big deal. Hell, they were just yanks anyway>