One common opinion which has a tendency to rear its head over and over throughout these forums is this : "By what right does any country have to intervene in the affairs of others?" Usually this particular idea is used to attack America's fairly frequent involvment in world affairs, and to use military force when confronted with something over which it has no diplomatic control. I'm Australian. I regard the USA as a friend of ours, even though sometimes they can be like an older brother who only notices the younger when he's useful to have around. My opinion is this. I'm glad the USA is there. Sometimes I dont like their foreign policies. Sometimes i wonder why they stick their noses in where they're not welcome far too often. Sometimes i dont like the way they throw their weight around as if they are the only true barometer of right in the world. Sometimes i feel that australia itself has become too "americanised", so that we're losing our own identity. Sometimes i get angry that the USA thinks that its propaganda regarding their actions fools us all into thinking they're NOT only looking after their own political, or more often economical, interests. However, this world is not ideal. This world has problems, and nations of people who feel it is their god-given right to blow me up because my religion, or lack thereof, is different to theirs. This world contains people who have never had a balanced education, and whose world view comes from only one source, usually religious in nature. Given the alternatives, I'm glad its the USA who has the control on this planet, or seems to. I'm glad its not China, I'm glad its not Russia, and I'm DEFINATELY glad its not one of god knows how may Islamic states. There's only ONE Muslim country i regard as being completely peaceful (can anyone guess which one?) and which would probably not try to exert its might anywhere else given half a chance to do so. All of you who say that the USA should back off, back down, become small and let the world go on its merry way... have you considered what might happen if they DID? Consider poor little Oz down here... immediately to our north, across a distance which can be navigated in a small open fishing boat, lies a country whose standing army roughly equals our entire population. This does not include millions who would happily join the ranks of that army given three square meals a day and a religious book to quote at night after gunning down hundreds of non-believers. and THEY DONT LIKE US. So whats stopping them from doing as they have demonstrably, recently, tried to do to some other nearby neighbours? The USA is fine by me, so long as i dont have to live there. Sometimes, that huge, big, opinionated, bossy, and totally flawed country is the only thing stopping this world from either degenerating into complete chaos or, alternatively, being united under one big studded jackboot. Or a bible.
All of you who say that the USA should back off, back down, become small and let the world go on its merry way... have you considered what might happen if they DID? Barney_TRubble Quite right. And the British press have a name for that enclave of people. Bleeding heart liberals. This world needs policing. Those doing it may not get it right every time, but at least they're making the effort. I know I don't want to live under an enforced regime.
Hi, Barney From Down Under! Thanks for vindicating America, my home, sweet home. There's just one tiny little fallacy argument in your piece that I hope you'll not mind my correcting. How in the world could you know if Bible experts aren't equally expert in lots of other subjects, that they don't have a balanced education? In the rules of debate, the list of fallacy arguments, it's pointed out that many people judge things only by their own experience. An example to illustrate my point, here you're discussing world politics. Is that your field of expertise? If I said that's all you know anything about, and you sound like your education is unbalanced because you're not discussing ballet, or the Theory of Relativity, wouldn't you think I'm not very bright myself? Let's remember to always put ourselves in the other person's place, realizing we discuss whatever topic comes up, and that you do the very same thing, before insulting Bible, I'll bet you know nothing at all about.
Ummm ... Is it necessary to 'lead' by policing the world? Might not we lead by setting an example? To wit: Clean up our own messes and then offer to assist other countries in cleaning up their's rather than barging in and making an even greater mess of things in someone else's country. Curious. Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats true Chagur I am also from good old OZ but i am sick of seeing or PM bend over to every other country i mean is it better to be invaded or to have it made so that your exports are unprofitable while the country doing this is free to trade fairly and even bettering our local products because we subsribe to the same views that the USA state and what about difference in culture's isn't it true that if u go anyware in the westen world u see Mc'donnall's, every one watches the simsons and everyone wears Nike shoes (which leads to a different argument about almost slave labore) what differnce if the US had invaded us.
Re: Hi, Barney From Down Under! I AM in fact judging by my own experience Amereagle. My mistake was in using the word "bible" which is sure to get any christians back up... I meant it only as a euphamism for any religious text, not THE bible specifically. Christians in general in my experience are not bent on world domination Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I formed this opinion because I've lived and worked in a Muslim country for some time... and believe me, while their religious education is not neglected at all, and they surely can add two and two, a balanced world view is NOT generally present in their education. We in the west are able and usually encouraged to question our leaders, our politics, and our education. We are allowed to question and rant against any decision made by our governments. Most Islamic countries unfortunately fall under goverments which do NOT allow these things at all. While there are no doubt plenty of residents there who do anyway, their objections are not voiced. The vast majority never learn to question anything, as we in the west would tend to do because the example has been set our whole lives. It takes a special type of strength to overcome ones own upbringing. Forum posters here often make the mistake of thinking that other nations think as we do, and that the people of these countries see things the same way, even if they are not allowed to voice their opinions. They dont. their upbringing does not allow for the intellectual growth which leads to such things. This is not their fault of course, and I'm not saying they are inferior human beings as a result, but the end result is that they dont ever have a chance to see things a different way. Even if they do have the frame of mind to broaden their education privately, they still see the world against a backdrop of religion, which colours judgement on some issues. (forgive my sweeping generalisations in the above) Leading by example will NOT work unless backed up by strength. Its an unfortunate fact of life that although we all would probably love to live peacefully, we cant. If the USA was to completely disarm, how long do you think it would be before some other nation filled the power void? And do we really think that it would be one which would allow us to live in the manner in which we have done until now?
Oh, and Asguard.. youre absolutely right of course. However, the fact that you can SEE that and rail against without being shot or imprisoned is proof that things are not as bad as they might seem. And yours is not a lonely opinion, theres a hell of a lot of people who agree. But on the same point, if it came to a choice between wearing nikes and eating Mcdonalds, and living under the taliban or hussain, then I'll happily cram big macs in to my mouth, and pass me the fries. As I said, its nowhere near a perfect world and the USA has its bad points, but here I have the CHOICE not to buy Nikes or eat mcdonalds (I prefer HJ's anyway - Burger King to you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Would you rather the USA isolated itself from world affairs and let things go as they would?
By the way most of the MODEN thing such as gunpowder and medical knowlage origated with the chinesse and came to westen sociaty through the Muslams if not for them we would still be using blood leting for a broken neck
That was centuries ago... I cant really see the Taliban or Hussain's society contributing too much to the world these days can you? maybe a new type of chemical weapon...
How much did the crusades add to this world the cathlic's (just to point out i am cathlic) were killing Muslams just because they were muslams or was it the inquisition that showed how loving and careing we all were. when I read the history of the cathlic church i can't belive sometimes everyone didn't covert bo budasium
Hope I Didn't Sound Huffy. Sometimes we miss the point. I would never want the US to disarm. And you're absolutely right that a coup would be bad for us. There's probably a covert traitor putting the muslim fundamentalists up to banning music and attacking us, maybe also trying to destroy the Americans' Union music industry too. It's in holy prophecy, final antichrist, opposite of Christ, antithesis, maybe persecuting Christians, wanting to replace us with Interfaith which includes Muslims. I agree, the crusades and inquisition weren't Christian loving. Men in leadership sometimes just don't get it right. Not God's fault. He didn't cause or condone it.
Interesting topic I dislike one of the ideas presented here, and it grates on me every time I hear it: it will never, in any reality, come down to "if it came to a choice between ... (us and them). It's a nice little scenario to justify military policy through superstition and fear, but as an American, I have to point out that we only "police" on two occasions: when we absolutely can't avoid it because the world is watching, and when "justice" equals a fattening of the American pocketbook. You'll notice in the case of the Taliban that the US, in a prior "policing" effort, helped raise them to power and, willingly, turned a blind eye to governmental abuses of the people in hopes of a number of things: military and economic strategy dominate that idea. George W Bush might talk about the Taliban oppression of people, and abuse of ideas, but we all know that the Taliban wasn't important enough to do anything about until bin Laden bombed our towers. Policing? We bombed Libya under the Reagan administration only after the Libyan terrorists blew up a German nightclub in which Americans happened to be partying. In the case of Libya, the Taliban, or Khomeni's Iran, I always wonder what the difference is between yesterday and today. Yesterday, the "police" decided that intervention wasn't worth it on the grounds of human decency. Now the "police" are throwing a temper tantrum and threatening everyone on the block. Tell me, what makes the Taliban any worse on 9/12/2001 than it was on 9/10/2001? What else is going to have to happen for the next "policing" action? Bush talks about the Axis of Evil, but with news reports pointing all over the map as his "next" move--will it be Korea, Iraq, or Georgia?--we suddenly see the typical American Republican strategy: yell about the Democrats, yell about the economy, blame the Democrats when everyone decides to believe you when you say the economy is horrible, and go to war by year's end. Seriously: everyone who pays attention in the Islamic world knew, in 2001, when Bush started crying "the sky is falling", that by year's end we would be kicking the living shit out of one part of the Islamic world or the other. The Taliban stripped away the humanity of womanhood; they murdered the writers and jailed and killed the musicians: they made music illegal. They destroyed temples and statues, attempted Nazi-like segregation. None of this, of course says they're bad guys. In fact, it's kind of like Pontius Pilate, in that sense: the Bible casts him as a stuttering, hand-wringing moron; the rest of history notes he was a cold, calculating, cruel agent. Since the oppression of women wasn't wrong enough to warrant intervention, and since the murder and arrests of the artistic community wasn't enough to warrant intervention, and if attempted segregation wasn't enough to warrant intervention, I roll on the floor laughing when a simple request for evidence supporting an extradition that everyone knows they are incapable of accomplishing becomes the basis for military intervention. Such action finally tells me that, yes, Americans do deserve to get bitch-slapped every once in a while. Doesn't make it right, but when in the course of protecting justice we demonstrate that we ourselves do not respect justice but instead demand accommodation, our efforts to "protect" ourselves and "police" the world reflect the full measure of that dishonesty. You'll notice that for all the bluster about a safer world, this is only about American pride. And, yes, I am aware that, unless we blow it out our asses the way Rome did, you all will be Americans someday; probably after my mortal coil has gone to dust. I just hope that, when that happens, it's a better experience than living under the Taliban or, to judge empires' ends, Rome itself. The Sufis ask a simple question that I once again reiterate: Is the best we have the best we can do? Those of you who watch abroad while the US "polices" tell me: Is it enough that we only come out and beat up the bullies when its our pride and our pocketbook? Does it matter to you that you're only as important as your market potential, and therefore your importance in the human race and your right to the decency we Americans advocate is dictated by how much you can pay us in cash or dominion? If you all want to be America's whores, fine. It will make figuring out the American conscience much, much easier when we've outlawed consciences. Come, come to our American empire. Feel lucky, privileged. And then spend the rest of your life calling money more important than your wife and kids. And when, after thirty years of being an American and caring about nothing but how much you have in your pocketbook, and judging people and ideas by the question of what it profits you directly ... when you wake up and feel hollow after screwing people every day for social custom and economic responsibility, and working toward your investors' profits and not your product quality (and, therefore not toward your professional reputation), remember that you're privileged. And that when you see the dead child in Afghanistan or wherever the flavor-of-the-month conflict is on television, remember that the child deserved it for not having been an American. Yeah it's nice to have the Americans to beat back the Barbarians. Take a look around, though ... how many of them are we breeding with our policies? Come, be an American ... it's quite easy, and you never actually have to care about anyone but your own self again; in some circles, compassion is considered a threat to the economy and, in some cases, national security. We're happy to police the world because you all still have things that we want. Other nations will only achieve a certain degree of freedom by allying themselves with the US. You are free to not disagree with us. Imagine that you're being robbed, and you tell the police, "I'm at ___ (location) in the brown house!" And the police say, Well, we can't go forth with any investigation on your behalf until you paint the house blue. Beware the American Watchdog. We'll police for now, fine. But I encourage everyone, Americans included, to heed Chagur's point: Why not lead by example? We could be honest, but the investors won't stand for it. One of the problems I have, for instance, dealing with 9/11 is that had we done this to another nation with missiles, and took down large buildings in the name of something American, those Americans who worked in WTC would largely have supported such action. When morality is measured by your "Unit" ($100m), perhaps its time for a purging. Yes we will stand for your freedom, only because we wish to steal it. In this Empire, money is more important than human life, and that principle is reflected in virtually everything we do. We won't have to police if we don't actively, in search of profit, foster poverty and illiteracy around the world. If we wish to lead the world, we should do it in harmony, not in strife. Of course, strife is more profitable. It's not like presidents facing an economic crisis ever go before Congress and ask for a Resolution of Peace against ______ (name a country). And, of course, this is me on my soapbox without my morning cigarette. So there, too, is a consideration, I suppose Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx all, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LOL! I enjoyed that one, Tiassa. Beware of the barbarians, I guess. <i>"In this Empire, money is more important than human life, and that principle is reflected in virtually everything we do."</i> So true. We are not creatures of love. Also, is it possible to capitalize and do good at the same time? Maybe there is a greater evil to be concidered, and America is the lesser of the two? Nonetheless, I shed no tears for the Taliban, and I anticipate a better existence for Afghans because of our aggression. As for all others under threat of our imperialist hammer, watch out.
Bowser ... briefly, I hope People worry about me smoking pot ... heavens, have you noticed my tone these last couple of days posting without nicotine? Thanx for the chuckles, man, it helps to know that my fe-fi-fo-fum routine has some value other than its bitch index. And some interesting points ... briefly: * Also, is it possible to capitalize and do good at the same time? Short answer, I think so. Think of it like this: if you can get the money, why not? And then look around when you've got the money, and nobody else does, as such. Your money becomes of less value because nobody can buy anything with it. For instance, what good does Capitalism do you when you go to see your factory in Honduras and experience the alarming revelation that you can't get a pizza delivered? Five hundred American gringos, and you can't get a freakin' pizza ... what good is Capitalism then? To the other, Marx noted that if you outlaw the Capitalists and hang them tomorrow, they will sell you the rope. All such ideas point toward an utter lack of wisdom within the Capitalist ideal. Myself, I see that lack. But that does not mean that responsible capitalization cannot be. It just means we have to put more effort--and therefore more money into it. Of course, we're not capitalists in this country, technically. Very few Americans even know what Capitalism is. * Maybe there is a greater evil to be concidered, and America is the lesser of the two? I must reiterate the point which I have received in its current expression from the Sufis: Is the best we have the best we can do? * Nonetheless, I shed no tears for the Taliban, and I anticipate a better existence for Afghans because of our aggression. In fact, I cheer for the end of the Taliban, but I must also point out that when the US helped elevate the Taliban, the idea was allegedly to anticipate a better existence for Afghans than they had previously experienced. If we worked honestly toward Afghanistan's recovery every day, we might see the nation start to flourish in 50-100 years. But we won't work honestly toward Afghanistan's best interests every day; I doubt that's what we're up to right now. * As for all others under threat of our imperialist hammer, watchout. Are you kidding? They can't hide from us .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I thought it was just a standard part of USA politics: Get into office, go blow someone up. As I touched on briefly in another thread, this all has to do with campaing funding and military expense justification.
Ummm, yes. I'm as aware of all of that as the next person Tiassa, but thanks for pointing it out so well because now i have the chance to expand on yet another idea Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My thought is that i dont really CARE why the USA is being the cop. I dont. I'm just happy they're doing it. If their motives are not what they should be, the end result is that the job still gets done... reasons almost become irrelevant when we look at the big picture. I think the best hope for humankind is that the numbers of people who are THINKING, and coming up with posts like that one of yours Tiassa, are on the rise. The thing is, I also think that most of the people who are thinking like this, and not only thinking it but VOICING it, are not in the main living in the Middle East. Sometime in the future these ideas, not by any means new ideas, but far more common than a couple of centuries ago, will be prevalent to the point where to think OTHERWISE will be odd. There's a hell of a lot of people aware of the truth about it all. These are the people who in the future will be in the positions of power. It's something to look forward to.... but that time is not yet here. In the meantime, someone has to keep the world balanced enough so that the thought patterns developing survive. As much as we might like to, we cant all link hands and sing Kum By Yah (sic) while throwing away all the guns, because the minute the USA does that, Israel will invade whoever is on its **** list at that particular point in time, the Middle east will become a major flashpoint, North Korea will have a damn good go at subjugating the South, and China will move straight into Taiwan. Granted, the US will stop all this from happening because it will lose major trading partners in Taiwan and South Korea, and because Israel is the only foothold they have in the Middle East, and there's no way in hell they'll give up their economic and strategic strongpoints. But does any of that MATTER? If the price for the continued existence of Taiwan as an independant Chinese nation living in peace and not under the jackboot of communism (such as it is) is that they all have to wear nikes and visit mcdonalds once a week, i think that we'd see a hell of a lot of unhealthy fat people with heart problems jogging a couple of laps, wearing nike runners, around their street in Taiwan. The alternative would not be even considered. And then one day... sometime in the future... we can turn around and deal with our heart problems, and the rise of multinational corporate entities, because we'll have world peace and the time to get stuck into these problems, without someone waving an AK-47 at our backs. That sort of thing tends to ruin our concentration a little dont you think Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who the hell are we to say that our system is any better than anyother. DEFENCE is fine ATACK is NOT. Be that atack economic or milateristic the US is no better than any other country and to judge a country from our own eyes is wrong we should judge from there's. A few people here should talk to some chinesse or indoneasions or whatever and get thier views before they judge By the way i think Australia and England should invade the US to stop the babaric pratice of capital punishment. Dose anyone think this would actually happen, of corse not because were both to small and we Don't interfeare with other country's unless they interfer with each other Live and let live
Australian invasions generally involve just a few very well trained SAS people sneaking around and assassinating leaders. That's sort of why the USA borrows our SAS every time they have some kind of military action; they've borrowed them roughly every three years for the past five decades. I must say, regardless of governmental systems and laws and such, any of us has the right to walk into a nuclear-capable country, take over, and rebuild the whole damn place any way we see fit IF that nation is intent on nuclear war (or anything such as that). If some dumb-arses are going to do something which will be catastrophic for everyone, we have the right to prevent it by whatever means necessary. And waiting until after it is done would be ridiculous. For example, if Pindiastan was about to nuke a neighbouring state, and that act would kill not only hundreds of thousands of people in that state but also screw over the entire friggin world, we would all have every right to invade, conquer, and reconstruct their society any way we pleased. Preferably reconstruct it in a way that would be profitable for the invaders, if for no other reason than to ensure the viability of similar future projects.
Are we talking about International politics or interfering with internal politics ?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
