The USA - a hyperpower

Since 2000 it has been fashionable to criticize the USA. It's the same thing every time - Bush is a monkey, Bush is stupid, Bush is destroying the environment, Bush is a warmonger, Bush is only for oil, etc

Let's not beat around the Bush, no pun intended, but what exactly is it that people hate? Considering that the first 2 things out of any Bush hater is about the way he talks or looks it seems to me that what people can't stand is Bush's demeanor, not his policies. This holds true when you look deeper into his policies and realize that people just like to complain about the USA without looking at the broader picture. Take the Kyoto treaty as an example. Russia and Australian are not participating either. As it is right now the treaty cannot even be ratified. Yet all the criticism is targeted towards Bush. Do you know why Russia isn't ratifying it? It's because they won't ratify it unless they can make money. Ah, we're all the same. It's so funny that Europeans blame Bush when their own neighbor is following the same trail- the money trail. The USA doesn't want to lose millions of jobs.

International court? The USA has its own justice system and considering that everyone likes to blame the USA for everything and criticize our every move, can you blame the USA for not participating? "Politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions" was the fear. I fully support us not participating. Other countries that have not ratified? Sure, many if not most, including China and Russia.

Iraq is something that we have discussed here many times. Let's look at it first from a security point of view. Iraq had waged war against 2 of its neighbors, threatened to attack the Arabian Peninsula, and lobbed missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iraq was funding radical Palestinian factions by giving the families thousands of dollars. He had gassed Iranians and his own people. The list goes on and we all know these details. We also know that he had lied and deceived the international community for 12 years. The USA decided that eliminating any threat from this nation was worth going to war. Many nations didn't want us to. Why? We all know that Saddam needed to go. Once again money. Don't give me any crap about the USA stealing Iraqi oil since that is not happening. What is happening though is debt is being reshuffled and contracts are being rewritten. We knew this would happen. Who is going to suffer the most? Germany, France, and Russia. Amazing. Why doesn't anyone criticize those nations for putting money ahead of security and stability? I guess those nations felt that funding suicide bombers is ok and that the UN doesn't have to enforce any of it's resolutions after a country like Iraq invaded its neighbor and raped and pillaged the country. Why are they congratulating us for the capture of Saddam when they didn't want us to go in there? Those countries had the nerve to complain when they didn't get first dibs on contracts. It amazes me that they would even think about getting them.

What I wonder is what happens next? When the USA moves against another threat, such as Iran, North Korea, or Syria what will be the excuse that time from critics? Is the world a safer place with those countries? I personally think Saudi Arabia should be next. Will any one in the world community suggest such an action? We all know that would be the right thing to do. I doubt Europe would stand up and suggest any hostilities though since Europe has had excellent luck guaranteeing security with negotiations and appeasement.

Apathy and appeasement seems to be the predominant way of solving world problems today according to critics of the USA. Yet world history has shown over and over that it doesn't work. Before WWI, WWII, and the 911 attacks the USA spoke up for less involvement overseas. Isolationism. It doesn't work. Maybe we should give presents to those that we don't agree with. Has it ever worked? When the UK gave Germany land for peace did it work? When the USA negotiated with N Korea did it work? When has appeasement worked successfully?

From my personal experiences I have found that many people don't know very much about the USA. They get these ideas and impressions from Television but they truly don't understand us. I remember showing pictures of my home to some Finnish friends. They were all surprised to see acres of open land in California. They thought it was all skyscrapers and freeways. I remember a Canadian telling me that the USA's "40 million" people have a lot of nerve attacking the Taliban. A French man's argument solely revolved around the USA's nerve to not participate in the Kyoto Protocol and international court. He didn't know why. He just figured we were all a bunch of bastards and that French philosophy will rule the day.

Don't get me wrong though. I think that the USA has done many stupid things. The steel tariffs and a lack of police forces in post saddam Iraq are good examples of failures in American policy.

Going so far to say that the USA armed Iraq I think is not a fair argument. The entire world supplied Iraq with arms and we've already discussed this in depth but basically as far as conventional weapons are concerned the primary suppliers were Russia, China, Belgium, France, and Germany. As for non-conventional we never did get to the bottom of it. We know that the USA did supply Iraq with strains and spores for supposed medical research. Before criticizing my own country for something so shortsighted though I'd like to know what other countries did the same thing and what other countries the USA did this with. I know that anybody that worked at a University, world wide, could order Anthrax spores by USPS. It's so easy to criticize though without looking at it in context.

I hope that anyone who responds here will actually take the time to think about and back up what the post. I'm sick of all the finger pointing at the USA. We aren't perfect but we aren't the Evil empire that some would like to suggest.

If you truly don't like the USA then I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't listen to our music, watch our movies, take our medicine, use a computer, use the internet, use the telephone, watch television, drive a car, fly a plane, read our books, go to our schools, work at our companies, wear our clothes, eat our food, practice our form of government, etc.

Feel free to criticize my country. Just recognize that we have done far more good in this world. If you don't agree with American policy then I'd like a viable alternative, especially regarding the war on terrorism.



_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

i disagree.

and yes it is his policys i disagree with.

you were stating all the reasons from a US position hence were wanting all the advantages to be US advantages, such as not participating in international court. i am an international person so i really don't want the US to have advantages that step on other countrys toes.

is that easy to understand.

i dislike bush's policys simply because they disadvantage me, or go againt my morals.

NZ has stated fullfilling the kyoto protocol already, we introduced our fart tax this year to tax greenhouse emissions and put that money into carbon funds

simple as that.

Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz</A> its where its all going on, oh and its also all going on HERE <A HREF="http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/" target="_new">http://doug.mud-puddle.co.nz/gallery/</A>

Hate is such a strong word, but I suppose in the politics these days words are trivial, and the meanings can be changed so easily.

Do I dislike USA? Well, not really.

Do I dislike american people? Of those I know personally, Most I like, Some I don't. Of those I have breifly met (Tourists mainly), many have said stupid things, many have been polite.

Do I dislike the population in general? Well, I only see that on TV, and many do seem far more ignorant than that of most other countries. Which, I must admit, seems to be reducing slowly in the past couple of years.

Do I dislike the american government? On many levels.

All parties are financially supported by more or less the same companies including some organisations. Many political leaders are from many of these companies and a coincedence it may be, but many of these companies do seem to be seeing its advantages.

I do not like how america is so quick to preach democracy so strongly after the last election it had, and after seeing the current fallacies, which can be seen in UK too.

True, junior does resemble a chimp and has said the stupidest things that have been said by leaders, perhaps for all time that have past and for all time to come. ;-)

But his actions are what I judge him on. Like the steel tariff you mentioned. I believe the US steel consuming businesses lost something in the ballpark of 10 times of what extra profits the steel industry gained since those tariffs. I hate his governments preaching of world trade to force their exports into third world countries, yet taking all possible actions to stop imports from those countries. The vietnamese catfish thing for example. And a lot to do with farmers subsidies. But the farmer thing is a proble with all rich western countries.

On to the general foriegn policy regarding security. Is it a coincedence that terrorist attacks have gone up hugely around the world in past months? Or is it something to do with how these countries have been pressurised. Well, I don't think it is just a coincedence, though western leaders would like to see it that way.

North korea isn't getting attacked by america regardless of whether it disarms. Even america will not risk attacking a country that has readily deployable nuclear weapons.

Other countries in the middle east will see a lot more pressure but we won't see such expensive attacks as in Iraq, because of the ROI isn't nearly as high. If Iraq works out as a pro-US country, then the pressure will just remain at the current level. But, if Iraq just gets on with its ways, will see more pressure on Saudi and Iran. Perhaps more so Iran, because america has seen it as an enemy for far longer than Saudi. It has treated Iran with far more contempt than by any other country, with the exception of Israel. For example, after the huge FUD about Iraqi WMD, what credibility does america have dismissing the IAEA survey comcluding Iran is not using it nuclear material to build Weapons. Also, the public suport for America in Saudi is virtually non-existant.

About Iraq attacking its neighbours and the gassing etc. Yes the biochemical weapons were provided by the western countries, usa included. How can they claim it was <b>_JUST_</b> for research. They knew what saddam was like from day one. In fact Saddam was supported by America when the bath party went into power, because the previous government was considered as islamic extremists. Also saddam was against the Iranian ayatolas. Now knowing what saddam is like you can't just wash your hands clean saying, hey what we gave him is dual purpose.

The war against Iran was also hugely america backed. You can't walk away from that and say he is an evil evil man for waging war with neighbours. The kuwait war was more or less the turning point. But to be honest, Kuwait did get into some slanted drilling mr burns style. Or did mr burns get into slanted drilling kuwaiti style? hmm...

Besides the us ambasador at the time did write an official letter stating no objection to arab-arab stuff in response to saddams letter stating his intention to invade kuwait. But things change. and so did the american view.

Then there is the somalian thing. Don't you think the other warlords would get pissed off if you jump in and support one warlord over the others. who is just as bad as the others, I might add. For those who don't know, the reasons given in blackhawk down weren't exactly the real reasons. I seem to recall letters from four oil companies.

As for the international court, it IS needed. America doesn't want to participate, NOT because it will judge its own, but because it doesn't want its own prosecuted. America has carried out many incursions into other countries at its will, without international validity. Those kind of actions are illegal and would require the culprits to be tried, which would have to happen should they partake in the international court.

And as for american justice, it would appear it only exists for american citizens, as the rest seem to get chucked into guantanamo bay, under inhumane conditions without human rights. And with a child in there as well. Still america tries to cry out about humanrights violations in other countries.

Something I do hate, is when americans drop to playground tactics of name calling and word twisting. Like the new europe, old europe thing. And twisting the willingness to negotiate with the willingness to appease.

I could refute those statements individually, but instead I'll just say that you come from from a country where hypocrisy thrives, how can you tell other countries not to be the same. Is that not hypocritical in its self.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>

You go girl!!!!

Ermm.....nevermind me

If all else fails: Read The Manual

Drats...

*walks away with twenty $5 bucket o' mud n' shizznit*

Undeniable facts #12:
Wisdom follows stupidity like a bitch.

*fondle*

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A>

Every country does what is best for them. It is not in our best interest to have NZ trying our soldiers in an international court when we have our own judicial system. We simply don't need another court. You have your own judicial system as well. Why do you need another one? This holds especially true when you look at it from an American point of view. Take cluster bombs as an example. Cluster bombs are an integral part of the USA's arsenal. Clusterbombs can wipe out a myriad of tanks without putting American troops in danger. Yes I realize that unexploded ordinance is a problem, but from an American point of view it isn't our problem since in the case of Afghanistan all the Taliban had to do was turn over Al Queda, and in the case of Iraq all they had to do was cooperate and disclose and/or destroy thier weapon stockpiles. Putting our troops in front of an International court in which our troops will be convicted for a crime that no American agrees with is ludicrous. You can't possibly expect us to participate. I'm not sure if there is a statute of limitations set forth in the internatinal court but there could concievably be charges against those that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. There could be charges against those troops that went into Bosnia to stop another genocide in Europe.

_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

Inspite of what you think, the US is in no way moraly superior. If laws don't apply to the US then they don't apply to anyone. You can't say with any degree of certainty, what will be better in the long run for humanity. I don't want to live under a repressive taliban-like regime, but I don't know if it's detrimental to the survival of the speices.

So far, progress has driven us closer and closer to extinction. We now, thanks to the US, have the capability to destroy the world. Even if we don't destroy it all at once, we are slowly, but surely destryoing even as I write this. Is that a good thing? Is it just or moral? You tell me.

If humanity can't handle progress, then maybe it should not be progressing. Maybe(God forbid) the Taliban and other cave-people philosohy regimes are humanity's salvation. I don't want it to be that way, but at least I can look at things from a different perspective.

Your 'We can do whatever we want cause we are powerfull' philosphy is definately a step in the wrong direction.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>

I believe that the USA is morally better than Al Queda and the Taliban. There is no reason for those types of people that refuse basic human rights. They are not our salvation in any way or form.

I wouldn't claim that we are morally better than say France, but we definitely are more practical.

As far as the destruction of the world, Germany was enriching uranium and american scientists ran with that after Einstein realized what they were up to. We beat the Germans before they could do anything but we then used the Atomic bomb on the Japanese. It ended the biggest war in world history.

Progress has driven us closer and closer to extinction. That is true. It has also improved our health and given us more possibilities than we ever dreamed were possible. I remember talking to my great grandmother about life back when she was a little girl. Dirt roads and horse drawn buggies. Today we have Space shuttles and underwater railroads (one soon to be from Spain to Morrocco). We have a better understanding of our world. Unfortionately there are some nations that are still living in the 13th century.



_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

That is our system. Popular vote does not equate to national representation. You can get enough votes to win a popular vote from only a fraction of the states. The key is to get enough states to represent the whole country and this is where Gore failed. Gore wasn't the first to lose this way and he won't be the last. This is a big country it is clear from the 2000 election results that Gore did not have the support of the entire country despite having a popular vote victory. Look at the map of counties and states won. There isn't much blue on there.

The burden of proof was on Saddam, not us. We went to war since he didn't prove that he destroyed them, hid them, or that they expired. He kept lying and decieving us. He didn't cooperate and he thought he could bluff us. He did the same thing before the first Gulf War where he thought he could bluff us. He never dreamed that we'd actually attack.

Not sure what you really meant by this, but after the revolution Iran became our enemy since they took our people hostage and wouldn't release them.

I agree. I also disagree. Like I said above I still haven't seen anyone show me that no other countries did the same thing or that we only did this with Iraq. Also, I think cleaning up your mess is somewhat important when it gets this far out of hand.

You're right. Gassing them wasn't in the playbook though. Also, going on to attack 3 more countries in the middle east wasn't in the playbook.

The slanted drilling was because Iraq owed Kuwait billions after the Iran war. What saddam hoped from invading Kuwait was that he could clear his debt with Kuwait as well as empty out approximately 200 Billion dollars from Kuwaiti banks worldwide to bring his country back to prosperity. Kuwait didn't deserve to be conquered in 6 hours with public executions, looting, and mass rape.

It didn't authorize or condone war. Saddam just assumed it did like a dummy.

We were there giving food. Clinton just didn't plan or prepare the troops correctly and then balked at the first sign of casualties. I wasn't even aware that oil was a big commodity in Somalia. I'm pretty sure that they import oil. They might have some palm oil but that's about it.

Many many many wars have no international validity. The Balkan war couldn't get any UN support due to Russia and had to go through NATO. The ONLY wars to have UN approval were Korea and the first Gulf War.

They were captured in Afghanistan fighting American forces. All the geneva convention says is that you have to shelter, protect, and feed the prisoner. I think we're doing that. Nowhere in the Geneva conventions does it say that interogation is not allowed.

Rumsfeld is an idiot.

Willingness to negotiate is fine. Willingness to appease isn't. I think after 12 years you're beyond negotiation.

Refute them. I see no hypocracy listing the USA's achievments. I in no way am downplaying any other countries achievments.

_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

> geeze man, grow up. you realise that china has invented
> the principals behind nearly every single invention that
> you use today. and europe invented most of the rest.

[sarcasm]Yes and the principles behind those principal's principles were developed by the first tool using humans who were of african descent, so where is the innovation from asia and europe? Those inovations were from the evolution of the various precursors to the humans and those evolotuions were from the first mammals and those evolutions were from... etc... and those were from a single cell organism in a warm liquid ocean sometime a few billion years ago. So the end reality is, all evolution and innovation stem from the amoeba.[/sarcasm]

For the most part I've avoid this thread, but that is a bloody dumbass comment. If you come up with a theory and never implement the practice you didn't invent sh!t. If someone builds on your theory and invents something more advanced, you didn't invent their thing either. Quit being intentionally ignorant.

There is alot of dumbass sh!t in america, but there has been no less innovation in america than anywhere else-- in some areas america excels in innovation, in other areas it lags, just like every other place on earth.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A>

ROFL!!!

_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

I challange *YOU* and every other member of this forum to define right and wrong.

It can't be done. There is no universal definition. The closest we can get is an international, majority consensus. It's not a good system but, just like democracy, it's the only viable solution. If the US can have it's own, separate definition, then everybody can. And we're back to pre WWI times, where everyone, every culture is doing what it pleases. Except now, the destructive power of mankind is hundredfold, perhaps more, than what it was during WWI. Every backwards canibal chieftain has the possibility to destroy the world. And if the US cannot be held accountable, neither can he.

P.S. have you ever asked yourself the question: what's better; dirt tracks and horses or the annihilation of the human race? I think the answer is simple really.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>

You keep preaching the end of the world. You're paranoid. Go dig your hole already and get in there.

And I can tell you what is right and what is wrong. Strapping bombs to your body and intentionally killing innocent women and children in order to avoid a peacefull settlement for your people is wrong.

Walking into a home and stabbing people to death because they are a different religion than you is wrong.

Torturing innocent children in front of their parents is wrong.

Mass rape rooms is wrong.

Summary executions without due process is wrong.

_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

> P.S. have you ever asked yourself the question: what's
> better; dirt tracks and horses or the annihilation of
> the human race? I think the answer is simple really.

Yes, yes I have. To answer in brief: I like my car. Really well.




<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A>

The oil companies were Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. Before the pro-american government was overthrown, these four companies were allocated 2/3 of the country for oil exploration after their geological survey returned positive results.

When the civil war started these companies started pressuring the US government for action. Thats how things started.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>

P.S. I'm not paranoid. I'm realistic. If superpowers continue disregarding international conventions, if the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, if the environment continues to worsen, etc etc etc there will eventually be war. The strife is evident even now. And knowing that most of the rich decision-making people have your mentality, those things will continue to happen. War will continue to happen until mankind learns, and it's <i> not </i> learning.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>

And btw, expressing no objections is condoning in a sense.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all of the other Palestinian terrorist factions are set on the destruction of Israel. They do not want a peacefull settlement.

I'm sure that suicide bombers have even deeper reasons since you'd have to be very sick in the head to strap explosives to your body and go blow up innocent people. Disgusting people.

First off, what you described was interogation techniques. They are not illegal by the Geneva conventions. Second of all, while I do agree that it's a shame to deny people due process, these people were all arrested fighting overseas against American forces. They weren't dragged off our streets. They were found in Pakistan or Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban or Al Queda. That's not hearsay. They were, in fact, with, fighting with, or associated with terrorists that are a threat to the USA. Aiding or abedding the enemy.

What I don't understand is why we don't just call them POW's. The Geneva conventions don't really say much beyond that you have to feed, cloth, house, and protect prisoners. We're doing that.

_________________________________________
<font color=red>12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</font color=red>

It wasn't that they might be able to find oil there, it was that they were guaranteed exclusive access. There must've been some damn positive results for them to start pressurising the government.

how come the normal route for delivering food is the UN and not american soldiers in american helmets.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>

So simple.

Murder is wrong.
Lying is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
Adultry is wrong.
Adverse addiction is wrong.
ect.

Helping others is right.
Respecting ones parents is right.
Disciplining one's children is right (not talking about punishment).
Protecting one's family is right.
ect.

Getting the picture?

A broader picture may begin with the asumption that hate (and it's root, anger) is wrong.

Hate and anger are wrong. Any activity arising as a consequence of hate and anger is wrong.

Another wrong is apathy. Now, I mention apathy because most would automatically assume that he oposite of hate is love. Well, not exactly. My experience affords the knowledge that apathy and love are polar opposites. Love is right. Any action resuling as a consequence of love is right.

Summary:
Anger, hate, apathy are wrong.

Love is right.

You cannot refute this. Or, you'd be. . . wrong.
__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dwellman on 12/17/03 00:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Ok if you love someone would you kill innocent people to save them or be with them?? It would be an action resulting from love, still I consider it to be wrong.

Homosexuals love each other and as a consequence have sex and/or want to get married. However many see this as wrong.

what is right and wrong for an individual is not the same as what is right or wrong for a population/civilisation/...

From a basic evolutionary standpoint an individual right is any action that increases the chances that your genes will be present a greater fraction of the next generation within maintaining genetic variation necessary for a healthy population.

The same goes for a population but then in terms of creating the strongest healthiest population, leaving more room for sacrifice/murder of the weaker/dumber individuals.



If all else fails: Read The Manual

You say DH lacks the knowledge of what he speaks. Well, the same could well be applied to you.

If most of the Taliban fighters were forced to fight, then like army conscripts, when faced with a superiorly armed and trained enemy, would have simply crumbled and surrendered. These people were prepared to fight to the very death, and in most cases did. Not the mark of people forced at gunpoint to fight. I came face to face with conscripts in the gulf and as soon as they saw us, they surrendered, without a shot being fired. They were actually glad to have given up.

Secondly, if you check a lot of the people at Guantanamo Bay, then you'll find a lot of them aren't even Afghans. At least a dozen of them are British. Born and bred. These people actually paid their own way to Afghanistan and joined with the Taliban and Bin Laden to fight against their own countrymen. They actually wanted to kill people their own. What kind of mindset is that?

The American forces are not just dragging people in off the street, otherwise, there would be nobody left on the street. The military relies on intelligence from local sources and undercover operatives to point out suspects. Saying that they are just dragged off the street because the forces lack the intelligence is an enormous slur on the work of the armed services. Having been in the army for 6 years, I know a hell of a lot about how military intelligence works, and quite frankly, your statement is total and utter bollocks.

<font color=blue>"If you want the rainbow, you’ve gotta put up with the rain. Do you know which philosopher said that? Dolly Parton. And people say she’s just a big pair of tits.” - David Brent</font color=blue>

Again, those are *YOUR* definitions. The people who hate, destroy, kill etc. do not find their actions to be wrong. I agree with you, but two people do not make something universal. The closest thing we have to universality is a majority. If the majority of the people of the world think the US should be made to answer for their actions, then it should be, regardless of what you, me, and the rest of the people in the minority think. That is the only FAIR way of doing things.

Because if one country does not pay for it's wrongs, then no country should be made to.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>

Well.... it might of helped if I had spelled Knowledge correctly

If all else fails: Read The Manual