I think that was the joke, but I wouldn't know, I vote Liberal Democrat.
I think that was the joke, but I wouldn't know, I vote Liberal Democrat.
I was mostly speaking of the length of time they lasted.
And your country has failed at it, started with the Colony of the Americas. Now in the UK, you cannot blow your nose without offending someone or triggering the police to put up surveillance cameras.
I can accept that rationale.
IIRC the reason we went to Vietnam was two fold; the Marshall Doctrine and the failure of the French to fight their own stupid, pointless war.
And I am, in all honesty, afraid that civil war will once again plague Europe, and I feel it will be ethnic "cleansing" or revolting against the European Union.
If that is the case, I am sure Team USA (**** YEAH!) will called in so Europe can be put to order again, and so faux intelligentsia, like some on this video game forum, can have another reason to bemoan the US "Empire".
No, I think he is a complete idiot, also. But I find "Bush Hysteria" rather amusing; he is the ultimate scapegoat for EVERYTHING wrong in the world, and the lengths people go to pin that on him, like the OP, is rather funny.
Actually it is pitiful, sadly.
Now that I think of it, the same scapegoating was tagged to George Bush Senior, and Ronald Regan, and Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower...hmm, I sense a pattern.
Posing a legitimate question in one or two short paragraphs is anything but "going to lengths," and I clearly didn't pin anything on Bush directly, in fact my reply to Becky should have made it perfectly clear that Bush is the least of my concerns right now. Is he part of an administration who's actions I tend to disagree with? Yes. Do I blame him for everything wrong in the world? Certainly not, and I can't for the life of me figure out where you got the idea that I was doing so, unless of course you were relying on some preconceived notion that anyone who opposes U.S. foreign policy is a bleeding-heart liberal.
Thanks for your input anyway though, as that is all I was asking for.
We where asked for our opinion of how we see America. That's how I see you guys. I see your country split half and half in how scary you are, with the dodgy bit being the bible belt down the middle. The all American God is a scary concept, but one that has half your country under his spell. I mean, creationism in a SCIENCE class? *bangs head against wall* And this from the country that invented the Atom Bomb? *bangs head against wall*
If i'm wrong then it's because your nation is giving off the wrong image. The thread was about the opinion of how us jolly foreigners see you guys. Arguing the toss wont help, changing your ways might.
Speaking of empires wasnt the Mongolian empire the largest, in terms of land mass anyway? Britain's was the largest over distance and in people "the sun never sets on the empire" and all that - but i'm sure I read that the Mongols where kicking whole continents about long before the world was over populated.
While Wikipedia can be a useful source of information, I suggest caution with regard to its articles that pertain to matters of current political significance. Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, and it is likely that persons will use such an opportunity to assert their particular perspectives and opinions. Moreover, there have been several reports that this has been done in some cases, so that there are Wikipedia articles that arguably reflect significant ideological biases.
This is less likely to occur, in cases where the subject of the article tends not to be politically/ideologically sensitive.
It is also worthwhile, when reading a Wikipedia article, to consider the extent to which its information is accompanied by citations that indicate the source of the information, so that its accuracy can be checked.
Having said all that, I am not particularly troubled by what seems to be the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," although the Wikipedia article states that the "document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status" - which is a bit of a mischaracterization of the document as actually quoted in the Wikipedia article, and is furthermore a description of opinions about the document, rather than a description of the document, itself, and this may lead to misconceptions about what the document actually argues.
In fact, the quotations from the document state that:
1) The USA should be concerned with preventing the emergence of any hostile superpower such as had been the case with the Soviet Union. It should not be surprising or worthy of condemnation, that the USA would wish to avoid being confronted with a powerful enemy.
2) The USA should act on behalf of its interests, including the avoidance of any increase in influence or aggressiveness of its "potential competitors," and without expecting that any international partnerships would be permanent, or controlling and limiting. Some Americans might call this an intent to pursue one's own concerns, and an intent to remain free to do that. It does not represent any statement of intent to be violently aggressive or "imperialist."
3) #2, above, particularly applies to concerns about oil (which, btw, is arguably the foundation of modern technology, being not only the principal fuel for all sorts of transportation, but also a fuel for generating electricity, and the source of organic molecules that are the basis for all sorts of synthetic materials, including plastics, fabrics, and pharmaceutical products). Again, note that there is no statement of intent toward violent aggression or "imperialism;" there is simply a statement that oil is important and that the USA should strive to ensure that it remains available.
Further responses to your posting:
The invasion of Iraq was very much "about fighting terrorism," since its intent was to remove Saddam Hussein as ruler/owner of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a militantly aggressive enemy of the USA, with a hell of a lot of money, weapons and other resources (including intelligence services and training facilities), and he was a financial supporter of, and provider of sanctuary to, known international terrorists. And this was at a time when the USA had found itself at war with such terrorists. Additionally, Saddam Hussein's removal, from power to rule over Iraq, was in accordance with his refusal to fulfill the conditions of the ceasefire that suspended the first Gulf War (following his [imperialist] annexation of Kuwait) and that allowed him to remain as ruler of Iraq IF he complied with those conditions.
All evidence indicates that Iraqis retain ownership of their oil, and there is no indication that the Bush administration is "going after Persian Gulf oil" in any way other than by ensuring that Iraq's oil remains under the control of Iraqis who are free to dispose of it according to legitimate commercial means (which they are doing - including entering into contracts with many non-American oil companies).
"Fascism" was principally defined by Benito Mussolini (who basically invented it) as a philosophical idea that one's human significance is dependent upon his participation in, and contribution to, his society. Of the political factions that exist in the USA, I have seen no indication that this philosophy is preached by President Bush (or "neocons" such as Wolfowitz).
Also, btw, "imperialism" is the pursuit of an "empire," which is a political jurisdiction constituted by conquered provinces which are then ruled (and generally, exploited) by the conqueror and thus live under laws enacted in a foreign land. I have seen no indication that this would describe the intent of any American. Indeed, as has been pointed out by others, if the USA were pursuing empire in Iraq, then it would have seized their money, rather than be spending its own for the purpose of ensuring their sustainability as an independent and self-governing nation.
Agreed, but anyone and everyone with a decent head on their shoulders should be able to make educated decisions based on what they read there, and not automatically take everything posted on Wiki as cold hard facts. I linked it just to give folks a taste of what it was about.
Yet.
They may not be preaching fascism from the rooftops, but you can't ignore the similarities... Combining of corporate and government powers, rampant nationalsim, using religion and fear to sway public opinion, etc...
Again, yet. It isn't about Iraqi money or oil at this point, it is about having a foothold in that region when peak oil begins to sink in as a reality.
Bah, you wormed your way out of that one didn't you
However, both the Egyptian and the Roman Empires (the Byzantium Empire was essentially an enclave of the Roman Empire) lasted approximately 500yrs. If we strip the British Empire down to it's barebones, we can make an agrument that it all began with the 'unification' of England and Scotland in 1497, which was quickly followed by the addition of Wales and (Northern) Ireland to form the United Kingdom. Which essentially kickstarted the British Empire that lasted in one form or another till the Commonwealth was established in the 1960's or thereabouts. But the United Kingdom is still going strong to this day (apparently) So that's about 500yrs too
Granted i'm stretching history a bit. But neither the timescale of the Roman or Egyptian Empires were that clear cut either.
Comes with the territory though. If you're the most powerful man in the most powerful nation on earth then you'd expect a bit of flack when things start going pear shaped.
And lets face it, the Bush Administration is rather insular and self seeking when it comes to is foreign policy. Just look at which companies are winning all the contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq.
This is only my opinion but i reckon he (George W Bush) is gonna go down in history as the worst American President in history. And thats saying something when you lot have had Carter and Nixon
Not according to Wiki 'the font off all knowledge'. Apparently it's the largest contiguous empire but the second largest overall empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Empire
If you were a lawyer, you could perhaps express this as: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That would be arguably more eloquent paranoia.
It is worth noting that corporations lack government's license to compel compliance with its will, by force of violence. Fascism would be exemplified by the actions of government to control corporations, rather than "combining of corporate and government powers," whatever that means.
Anyway, I believe that the pertinent complaints about the Bush administration, have been that it seeks "privatization," which is the elimination of non-essential, current governmental functions, in favor of private enterprise.
It is furthermore worth noting that, to the extent that corporations influence government (which I'm guessing to be, more or less, the import of your complaint) this pursuit of influence is the result of government's inclination to exert its power over matters that involve corporate interests. Where government threatens to control the pursuits of private enterprises, they will seek to influence the extent and manner of that control, and they will also seek to exploit government's control so as to benefit themselves at the expense of their competitors. This is simply the natural consequence of governmental involvement in such matters.
It is not surprising, therefore, that corporations would seek to influence governmental policy that pertains to them. The problem began when government decided that, whatever may have been Constitutional restrictions upon its Powers, nevertheless it should do whatever would be most pleasing to The People, and along the way, corporate people decided that they had better do what they could, to ensure that they got what was most pleasing to them. One can only wonder what diabolical methods "Big Oil" might tend to employ, to deal with the recent advocacy, by Democratic Party legislators, that oil companies should be "nationalized."
Additionally, I'm not sure quite what you mean by "rampant nationalsim, using religion and fear to sway public opinion, etc..." The USA is at war with religious fanatics who seek to destroy the USA (and democracy and Western Culture, generally). This is something to fear, and it is something that threatens the nation as a whole, so that it is a good idea to sway public opinion to oppose it. I have noted that President Bush seems to have been quite diligent in attempting to avoid characterizing the threat as one that pertains to matters of religion.
At the moment, the war in Iraq is finishing the job of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by ensuring that Iraq will survive as a nation (and with a replacement government that is representative of its citizens and not an enemy of the USA). I will leave it to you, to conjecture what that may be "about."
I am of the opinion that the majority of religious fanatics who seek to destroy Western culture (and can produce the means to do so) perished on 9/11 along with 3,000 of our countrymen, and that's the main difference. I have never felt afraid of another 9/11 nor have I ever felt any level of comfort as a result of our country's actions after the fact.
If the USA wants to wage war against religious fanatics and terrorists, so be it, but the war will continue on ad infinitum due to the fact that terrorism will as well. You can't have good without evil, for there would be no way to define good without it's polar opposite. You can't break a stick in half because you only want the left side. A new right side will always emerge with every break.
Exactly! We didn't wage war in Iraq to eliminate the threat of terrorism, and everyone in the current administration knows that that would be an impossibility, we did it to establish our dominance in the region and help create additional allies that will in turn help further the agenda of a few high-ranking officials that have been waiting their turn for years.
Edit: As much fun as this discussion is (no sarcasm, really, I always enjoy hearing other people's thoughts on the matter, especially when they are as well spoken as you good sir), my reason for posting this thread was just to find out what people in other countries think about the US and it's current policies concerning foreign relations, and why. So far, only Becky and a few others have directly answered my question.
how about the way the us worships its veterans and military in general?
1) its daft to believe that you can fight terrorism
2) all youve achieved so far is giving them more reason to attack the us
3) while youre doing this your freedoms are being taken away from under your arse
4) thanks to good media spinning you believe that your democracy is at risk due to some obscure enemy instead of by the true threats like eg the patriot act
hes quite clearly marked it as a religious war by claming that god told him to do it... usually people that hear voices are supposed to end up somewhere else than in the white house
Quick - gather the Hollywood movies and the McDonalds burgers - the Muslims are coming to destroy all that we hold dear! Thank God[TM] the USA's here to save us from this fictitious menace.
I'll tell you what I think about your war on terror:
I fear America more than I fear the Middle East.
I fear America more than I fear the Middle East.
But the midde east is unstable and full of terrorists that have WMD's which they are 45 minutes away from dropping on the word! :dunce:
I really wanted to get cracking with some work as soon as I got in the office this morning, but spotted some shit that needs smothering.
Aggressive? How many times had he attacked or threatened the USA? please, name them.
The country was destitute, broken, with a half-assed conscription army and a few dozen mid-Soviet era tanks. What money had been earnt, or illegally acquired from the UN programmes, was squandered on luxurious palaces for Saddam's family. Or were you referring to a different "Iraq"?
Oh? He was? Please, name them (the terrorists). I'm curious what you'll come up with, because it'll probably mention the favoured bogeymen from a few years ago - Al Qaeda. Except that Saddam and Al Qaeda really didn't get along and had nothing to do with each other.
This and further comments suggests that you suffer from the idealism someone mentioned earlier in this or another thread, whereby too many Americans think their country has such a clean conscience, a heart of gold, and whose shit doesn't stink.
You talk about Americans going to Iraq to fight terrorism, which is just a beautiful example of how if you repeat something often enough, it seems to become true. There was no mention of terrorism when the gunsights shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. No, it was all about WMD. Saddam was developing WMD. Saddam building new development facilities to make more WMD. Saddam's WMD were getting longer ranged. Saddam had more WMD than we could count. The whole frikkin country was bristling with frikkin WMD, according to Bush'n'Bliar. Oh, and of course, Saddam was merely evading the weapons inspectors with mobile WMD labs. Remember Colin Powell standing at the UN with a comical Powerpoint slideshow, depicting nothing more incriminating than satellite photos of some sheds with trucks parked around them. The Bush administration were all over tv giving interviews and press conferences, chanting the mantra, "Saddam, WMDs, Saddam, WMDs, Saddam, WMDs".
And then they invaded against the advice and common sense of the rest of the world, there was no trace of WMD, and then it was a case of, "errr, well Saddam was a terrorist anyway, yeah, didn't you know? He has bottom sex with Osama Bin Laden every other night".
Except that Saddam didn't. The only terrorists in Iraq came there in the power vacuum created by the US.
Aggressive? How many times had he attacked or threatened the USA? please, name them.
The country was destitute, broken, with a half-assed conscription army and a few dozen mid-Soviet era tanks. What money had been earnt, or illegally acquired from the UN programmes, was squandered on luxurious palaces for Saddam's family. Or were you referring to a different "Iraq"?
Oh? He was? Please, name them (the terrorists). I'm curious what you'll come up with, because it'll probably mention the favoured bogeymen from a few years ago - Al Qaeda. Except that Saddam and Al Qaeda really didn't get along and had nothing to do with each other.
This and further comments suggests that you suffer from the idealism someone mentioned earlier in this or another thread, whereby too many Americans think their country has such a clean conscience, a heart of gold, and whose shit doesn't stink.
You talk about Americans going to Iraq to fight terrorism, which is just a beautiful example of how if you repeat something often enough, it seems to become true. There was no mention of terrorism when the gunsights shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. No, it was all about WMD. Saddam was developing WMD. Saddam building new development facilities to make more WMD. Saddam's WMD were getting longer ranged. Saddam had more WMD than we could count. The whole frikkin country was bristling with frikkin WMD, according to Bush'n'Bliar. Oh, and of course, Saddam was merely evading the weapons inspectors with mobile WMD labs. Remember Colin Powell standing at the UN with a comical Powerpoint slideshow, depicting nothing more incriminating than satellite photos of some sheds with trucks parked around them. The Bush administration were all over tv giving interviews and press conferences, chanting the mantra, "Saddam, WMDs, Saddam, WMDs, Saddam, WMDs".
And then they invaded against the advice and common sense of the rest of the world, there was no trace of WMD, and then it was a case of, "errr, well Saddam was a terrorist anyway, yeah, didn't you know? He has bottom sex with Osama Bin Laden every other night".
Except that Saddam didn't. The only terrorists in Iraq came there in the power vacuum created by the US.
I haven't noted any "worshipping." Veterans are honored for their having served their fellow citizens (and risked [at least] great danger, to do so). The USA is also generally proud of its military capabilities, since the US military is:
1) very capable, and very technologically advanced
2) effectively useful for defending against, and especially deterring, threats to the USA and its allies
3) effectively useful for addressing some humanitarian concerns, such as helping with natural disasters, worldwide, and fighting against genocidal tyrants
Some time ago, I read something to the effect that "there will always be wars, as long as people think that soldiers are worthy of honor." It made some sense at the time, but I have since recognized that it is overly simplistic. Wars seem likely to be an inevitable part of the human condition, and it's better to be able to win. Also, the US military has done a lot, to help a lot of people, in a lot of places and diverse circumstances.
1) Too bad; it's better than surrendering to it
2) No; a lot of terrorists have been killed, and their capabilities diminished
3) That's always likely to be a problem, when there is a war going on. And btw, freedoms have been progressively taken away, here, for a lot less than the necessity to avoid destruction ("progressives" call it "democracy" and "the greater good"). WRT limitations on freedom, due to the "war on terror," it seems to me not a major problem at this point (although airport security procedures are certainly an annoyance), and we're jealous of our freedoms (in some ways, at least), so we're keeping an eye on things, so that hopefully they don't get out of hand.
4) I have personally read/seen dozens of speeches, writings and videos of Muslim clerics and such, preaching advocacy for terrorism and for the destruction of the USA, democracy and Western Culture (and in some cases, doing so while surrounded by cheering followers), so I don't suppose that it's mere "media spin."
I somehow missed that speech, I guess. The most I've heard, wrt to any reference to "God," by President Bush, was his statement that "freedom is God's gift to everyone," which is consistent with founding American principles.
Hussein's aggressive militancy was demonstrated by his wars against Iran and Kuwait (technically, such "aggression" would perhaps exclude his genocidal attacks against the Kurds of his own population). His attacks against the USA, specifically, included shooting at American (and British) aircraft patrolling the "no-fly zones" that were instituted for the sake of preventing his attacks against his own citizens - Kurds in the north, and Shia in the south - as a condition of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War (and of course, such shootings, and even fire-control radar-locks, were a violation of the ceasefire conditions), and attempting to assassinate a former US President.
The essential point is that he was a passionate enemy of the USA, with resources, and inclination, to assist other enemies of the USA.
Coalition soldiers tasked with destroying Hussein's weapons, stated that they were astonished at how much weaponry he had accumulated. Maybe he had planned to build more palaces out of that stuff.
Abu Nidal, for one. The names of other persons, have been reported, but I cannot recall them, specifically.
BTW, you may find useful, this website that I encountered:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Osama bin Laden specifically issued a fatwa, exempting Hussein and Iraq from attacks for their failure to be proper Muslims (as bin Laden would define that), since he was regarded as an ideological ally against the USA. There are reports of meetings between Iraqi Intelligence Service officials and emmissaries of bin Laden, but no certainty of operational cooperation.
This is an unkind, and informationally worthless comment. I will refrain from addressing you, and your ideas, in a similar manner, for now.
Actually, I will address your ideas in a similar manner, here (although not so rudely as yourself). It is, in fact, the often-repeated falsehood, that Iraq was invaded because of fear of WMD's. Instead, the US Congress's authorization of force against Iraq included a couple of dozen, at least, reasons (I cannot recall the precise number). Many of them pertained to Hussein's many violations of the ceasefire agreement of the first Gulf War. Others involved his support for terrorism. Others involved his brutality toward the citizens of Iraq. Concern about WMD's was but one of many reasons for arguing that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, although certainly a reason of particularly noteworthy concern. Overall, he was removed from power in Iraq, because his ability to enhance the threat of terrorism, by providing resources to terrorists, was intolerable in the aftermath of the 9/11 event (and also, because this was the appropriate response to his failure to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire, although the circumstances following the 9/11 event made his removal a matter of some urgency, whereas he might otherwise have been regarded as merely a continuing nuisance and an abomination wrt human rights). His removal from power in Iraq, is at least likely to ensure that Iraq's national resources will not be directed to the service of enemies of the USA.
To which of the below can the above be attributed?
(a) selective memory
(b) ignorance
(c) humour
Being an optimist I'll go with (c) humour.
Ha ha.
I'll go with (a) myself. In his golden, moralistic vision of the USA that does everything for the Right Reason, he seems to have forgotten who put Saddam in power in the first place. Pity I've got stacks of work to get done today, I'll have to save my (full) reply for later.
We tend to blame the USA for all our problems, but us Europeans are no better, afterall, we created the USA. 
Colonisation is probrably the biggest mistake made by anyone ever in the History of the entire world, I think the world would be a much nicer place if colonisation hadn't taken place, if us Europeans had cooperated with the countries we instead decided to take over then there would likely be much less poverty and terrorism probrably wouldn't be as big a problem.
The USA wouldn't have existed also.
If only we could go back in time and change things.
Colonisation is probrably the biggest mistake made by anyone ever in the History of the entire world, I think the world would be a much nicer place if colonisation hadn't taken place, if us Europeans had cooperated with the countries we instead decided to take over then there would likely be much less poverty and terrorism probrably wouldn't be as big a problem.
The USA wouldn't have existed also.
If only we could go back in time and change things.
The main reason other countries wouldn't have of co-operated with the then-pioneering forces of Europe would have of been personal hygiene.
Saddam put himself in power, by assassinating his superiors in the Baath Party and thereby rising to prominance in Iraq's ruling party.
The USA did, indeed, support him - in comparative opposition to Iran, which was a more demonstrable threat to the USA, at the time (1980's), inasmuch as having attacked the US embassy in Tehran and held its occupants as prisoners for more than a year (yes, I know; this was arguably their retaliation for the USA's having supported the autocratic Shah). Anyway, none of that constitutes a rational basis for arguing that Saddam was no threat in the context of circumstances that existed in 2002-2003.
No. The basis for that argument has already been stated: Iraq was destitute following a decade of crippling economic sanctions, had no military to speak of even if it did want to attack the USA, and was - if you believe anyone except the US government - having nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
I'm not going to go looking for links to all the examples, but on numerous occasions Bush has said specifically that God talks to him and wanted him to be president! I'm sure there are some folks here that will back that up...
Neo-Conservative Global Domination
(129 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG