McCain wants to kick Russia out of G-8

[Tsukiyumi]

First we have to focus on the traitors WITHIN. THEN, we can focus on the TRUE enemy.

Five bonus fun points if anyone can name that movie, haha.

Sounds really familiar, but I can't quite place it.

[sunnyside]

First off note that McCains son is a Marine who was in Iraq and will probably be going back. So bear that in mind if he wins.

And AL Queda does have some relevance to the old USSR specifically to the early Bolsheviks who decided they wanted to be tyrants instead of living in a liberal democracy. Once these groups gain ground and traction they can become dangerous on the world stage. But we've been keeping them from that.

Also I think there is a whole lot of difference between the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. Afganistan we had a good reason, and many of the people there wanted to be free of the Taliban. As for Iraq, as sure as everyone is of their pet theory nobody really knows outside of the Bush camp.

Also nobody answered the hypocracy question. Specifically since countries seem to have no problem with other countries doing whatever would you guys be cool with the US if our official stance was "we're the superpower, sit and spin bitches"?

[Tsukiyumi]

Also nobody answered the hypocracy question. Specifically since countries seem to have no problem with other countries doing whatever would you guys be cool with the US if our official stance was "we're the superpower, sit and spin bitches"?

I've been addressing that for a few pages now, really. I'm tired of the anti-American rhetoric being dominant over anti-dictatorship sentiments. America is a damn sight better than China, North Korea, Myanmar (who we're apparently going to aid after the recent disaster - how fiendish of us), Thailand, etc.

I'm the first to say that America needs to fix massive internal problems such as corruption and poverty at home rather than abroad, and of course that would mean no more money for foreign aid (as we should never downsize our military, only expand and improve it), but we really should address problems at home while spending more on intelligence operations to keep an eye on things while we turn inward.

[sunnyside]

I was asking the foreign nationals.

Also if you wait until you totally wipe out corruption and poverty you'll never get anything done. Though we should of course address those things.

[Tsukiyumi]

I was asking the foreign nationals.

Also if you wait until you totally wipe out corruption and poverty you'll never get anything done. Though we should of course address those things.

A few real reforms would put us in a much more tenable position to crush dictatorships and theocracies worldwide, which would be a great boon to humanity. Completely eliminating poverty in a capitalist society or corruption in any society is impossible, but serious measures should be put in place immediately to curb current trends of increased seperaration between rich and poor.

[Teaos]

Right. Because you guys would rather cause a global nuclear war than help us rout these scumbags. Nice reasoning there.

No we'd kick your ass for killing massive amounts of civilians.

[Sionnach Glic]

Geez, I go to bed and this thread sprouts another four pages.

[Teaos]

Well stop going to bed.

[Aaron]

Um. What do you mean by "loss of oil" my understanding is that they rank quite high in proven reserves. And have good access to them.

The output of the fields in Saudia Arabia (for example) has dropped off a fair bit in the last few years, as well as across the board. And if they have reserves, tapping them is not a sure thing. As time goes on the oil companies have had to use increasingly complex methods to get at it. Why do you think oil is so high?

Africa. Yeah that just kinda sucks. Even the US doesn't tend to get involved there.

I don't blame anyone for not getting into Africa.

Now the stepping in thing is harder to call. Sometimes I just want to go back to waiting until a few million are dead before bothering to do anything. Course it's always a bigger fight later on. And with nukes things could get crazy really fast.

If your going to step in than it should be done within the framework of the existing international system. The UN was set up for a reason.

As often as not it's more a matter that there isn't a glowing unicorn to back. All things said and done the Afganistan situation may have been worth it. It helped end the possibly world ending/getting conquered threat of the USSR. And we might have pretty much the same problems today anyway with the Islamic extermists.

It's impossible to say that things would have turned out the same if they hadn't backed the Mujahideen. But we know that they did and this is how it turned out. What did the US gain by helping them? Ironically Afghanistan was on it's way to becoming a reasonable secular state under the Soviets. The US managed to set them back twenty years and kill thousands of people.

That's another thread. But I've got my doubts on that. Certainly about being able to push for an unconditional surrender.

There's no doubt at all, the Soviet Army attacking Berlin almost had more troops and equipment than the rest of the allies combined.

It isn't so much the bitching at America that bothers me. It's the not giving a crap about everyone else.

What do you mean?

Or is it that you mind apperant hypocracy? So if America just came out and claimed to be the World Police or something you'd like us as much as Russia, China, and Iran?

What does whether I like them have to do with anything. The world is not black and white you know.

[Teaos]

I don't blame anyone for not getting into Africa.

Africa for the most part doesnt want help.

They have a strong independant streak and dont like outside help.

[Duskofdead]

I was asking the foreign nationals.

Also if you wait until you totally wipe out corruption and poverty you'll never get anything done. Though we should of course address those things.

Why does it have to be a foreign national? I'm American and American-born and I was giving basically the same general opinion as the army of supposed foreign nationals you are arguing with. You are putting up a false argument by saying this is about how everyone is fine with every other dictatorship doing whatever it wants, and only America gets scrutinized. Just like how you asked me if I would have preferred the USSR won the Cold War. Next I suppose if I voiced a complaint about how Japanese Americans were treated in the U.S. during WWII then you'll ask if I would have preferred to be singing an anthem in German or Italian or something.

Bottom line Sunnyside, as long as America is going to "selectively" put on the hat of world police, and supposedly do it for "human rights" and all the good benevolent reason, but will always selectively intervene based on the financial interests of our corporate elite here at home, we are absolute fair game for this kind of criticism. If you're going to say "it's not our problem, screw off, take your whining elsewhere", then do that across the board. If you're going to say "we're against oppression, we're against stoning people and human rights abuses, we're against radicalized religion being allowed to take over state affairs, and we'll use force if necessary to combat such things", then get on board about that in a visibly standard and uniform way, including here at home with our own religious lobbies and tax exempt political lobbying arms of churches and all the other b.s. religion tries to push here at home to MAKE US more like a theocracy.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, selectively intervening, insisting we should be viewed as the moral world leaders for doing so, but at the same time always intervening only when there is a financial benefit to us in doing so, and ignoring any level of genocide or atrocity otherwise, even in our "ally" nations. America is never going to get any "praise" from me for toppling Saddam or the Taliban when we still help prop up UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others guilty of equal levels of human rights atrocities.

[Sionnach Glic]

If no one minds me jumping in here, I have a problem with the whole "Why are you complaining? Would you rather be speaking German/Russian?" thing that popped up here before. Why does the USA helping out European countries 60 years ago invalidate criticism of its current behaviour?

If you insist that countries like Britain and France can't criticise you because you saved them from invasion, then doesn't this mean you can no longer criticise other countries that helped you?
Can you criticise the Spanish, who are responsible for finding America in the first place?
Can you criticise Britain, who set up the colonies that would eventualy become the USA?
Can you criticise France, who assisted you in your rebellion against the British?

Yes. You can criticise them. Just as they are free to criticise you. Going "you can't complain because we helped you" is, qutie simply, ridiculous. Such a stance would mean that no country on the planet could criticise another, simply because they've all helped each other out at one point or another.

Yes, the USA's actions during the 20th century are largely responsible for keeping Europe's nations free and democratic. But this doesn't mean we can't point out when we disagree with the actions it is taking now.

[Duskofdead]

If no one minds me jumping in here, I have a problem with the whole "Why are you complaining? Would you rather be speaking German/Russian?" thing that popped up here before. Why does the USA helping out European countries 60 years ago invalidate criticism of its current behaviour?

If you insist that countries like Britain and France can't criticise you because you saved them from invasion, then doesn't this mean you can no longer criticise other countries that helped you?
Can you criticise the Spanish, who are responsible for finding America in the first place?
Can you criticise Britain, who set up the colonies that would eventualy become the USA?
Can you criticise France, who assisted you in your rebellion against the British?

Yes. You can criticise them. Just as they are free to criticise you. Going "you can't complain because we helped you" is, qutie simply, ridiculous. Such a stance would mean that no country on the planet could criticise another, simply because they've all helped each other out at one point or another.

Yes, the USA's actions during the 20th century are largely responsible for keeping Europe's nations free and democratic. But this doesn't mean we can't point out when we disagree with the actions it is taking now.

I'm American and I agree 100% with what you say, Rochey.

If you want to defend what America does... then make what America does something that is beyond reproach in the first place. Don't make excuses for whatever idiotic things your government did while you were off watching Friends and shopping at Orange County malls and too busy and bothered to oh I dunno, vote or educate yourself in history and political issues past how they would affect your tax bracket. Especially on the lame grounds of "well, well, we helped you before, so SHUUUUT UUUP." Very infantile argument to make.

[sunnyside]

You missed the context Rochey.

It's not a "you owe us" thing. (Well maybe it is with some people but I don't think that's the case in this thread). The WWII stuff is a key point in US foreign policy today.

Just prior to WWII we were in a largely isolationist mood. We'd just sit back and let other countries do what they will. Until Japan hit us.

At that point the isolationist got smacked out of pretty much everybody. Not just that we needed to give Japan some payback. Note that we went after Germany first. We could have just ignored that side of the world and went after Japan. But we decided to stick our nose in Eurpoean affairs and they didn't seem to mind much then.

After that we weren't willing to just let the world do what it will and hope it leaves us alone. As communism attempted to spread we were involved with stopping it. Containing it's growth where we could and rolling it back when able. At this point we also got used to the idea of going it alone when we had to. And in the big picutre we were effective.

Now we don't want to return to a cold war matchup or a WWII powerful peer scenario. So we foil the regional takeovers of groups like Al Queda. And, occasionally, even find the time to stop the odd genocide.

Granted I don't know what we really went to Iraq for. But most of the rest of it makes sense.

We do make peace with those willing to work with us even if they have a bad rights record. We also let other nations doing nasty things slide. Sorry. Again, we don't have infinite military might. We have enough trouble with the pretty frequent wars we do get engaged in.

And we do go after the countries we consider more relevant to our own interests first. Wouldn't it be odd not to? But it isn't like we're invading Canada for oil.

Something else from WWII. Most Americans consider appeasement a dirty word.

[Duskofdead]

You missed the context Rochey.

It's not a "you owe us" thing. (Well maybe it is with some people but I don't think that's the case in this thread). The WWII stuff is a key point in US foreign policy today.

Just prior to WWII we were in a largely isolationist mood. We'd just sit back and let other countries do what they will. Until Japan hit us.

At that point the isolationist got smacked out of pretty much everybody. Not just that we needed to give Japan some payback. Note that we went after Germany first. We could have just ignored that side of the world and went after Japan. But we decided to stick our nose in Eurpoean affairs and they didn't seem to mind much then.

After that we weren't willing to just let the world do what it will and hope it leaves us alone. As communism attempted to spread we were involved with stopping it. Containing it's growth where we could and rolling it back when able. At this point we also got used to the idea of going it alone when we had to. And in the big picutre we were effective.

Now we don't want to return to a cold war matchup or a WWII powerful peer scenario. So we foil the regional takeovers of groups like Al Queda. And, occasionally, even find the time to stop the odd genocide.

Granted I don't know what we really went to Iraq for. But most of the rest of it makes sense.

We do make peace with those willing to work with us even if they have a bad rights record. We also let other nations doing nasty things slide. Sorry. Again, we don't have infinite military might. We have enough trouble with the pretty frequent wars we do get engaged in.

Something else from WWII. Most Americans consider appeasement a dirty word.

I think your assessment is "generally true" up until the 60's or so. Pretty much since then US involvement overseas has been corporate in nature, under the "guise" of preventing enemy powers from being able to threaten us. Most of the countries we've been involved in conflicts with didn't do anything special to become a threat for decades but suddenly became one when they did something inconvenient to really rich people in the U.S.

It's entirely another topic, but also WWII is heavily simplified as far as how the average American views it every bit as much as the Civil War is. There was a lot more going into it than "we were peaceful, then vicious enemies attacked us." To think that's what it boiled down to ignores more than a century of buildup, particularly with regard to Japan, of essentially imperialistic competition over the Pacific and E. Asia in which we were by no means a passive bystander.