[quote]. Is the American the first benevolent superpower?..[/quote] by Malbadinlatin

Err, because you're just like everyone else. In the ninteenth century Britian was bringing civilisation to the savage, now America is bringing the oppressed democracy, I don't see much difference, save for how easy it is now to disseminate the truth of whats happening where our armies are at play.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:22 AM

PENGUIN

Democracy...

Right!

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:25 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Good grief.
Not only are you not just or benevolent your not even an Empire. At best your a self-regulating world police force, and a pretty crappy one at that.

Now shuffle along and make way for the Chinese, theres good fellows.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
Democracy...

Right!

Whatever is actually being done that is the reason given. Same as the British, whatever the reasons for empire it was said to be civilising the savage in a great many instances.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:51 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Here is my question...why do we think that we're the first superpower to be a just one?

We are the heroes of our own stories - we have to be, or else we'd be seriously confused (and possibly suicidal). Why should a collection of people think differently about their country?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:13 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Quote:
We are the heroes of our own stories - we have to be, or else we'd be seriously confused (and possibly suicidal). Why should a collection of people think differently about their country?

Sometimes if the people are upset about what thier contry does, they have a revolution, as opposed to suicide.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:19 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Today is just not my day with words, is it?

I wasn't suggesting that a bad government should commit suicide - the suicide comment was directed more towards how individual people deal with not being the heroes of their own story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:27 PM

KHYRON

Don't worry YinYang, I've also had days like that on here, I think many of us have.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:40 PM

KHYRON

I'm sure there were a couple of empires that could be called benevolent for their time, for instance the Persians (under Darius the Great and I think also Cyrus the Great, probably others too) had a no-slave policy. But America's probably one of the more benevolent superpowers, in spite of all the negative press at the moment, and I'd much rather have America as a superpower than China or Russia.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:58 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Sad when Russia attempts to be the voice of reason

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/10/putin-speech.html

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 8:04 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:

Here is my question...why do we think that we're the first superpower to be a just one?

WARNING: You are entering a politically correct free zone. Words will _not_ be minced and things will _not_ be sugar coated.

B/c you guys are brainwashed from infancy to "know" that you are the best country in the world and the only one that is capable of democracy, etc. That everything you do is right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

The general populace is then given national ego strokes about how great they are and look at all the "good works" that "we" are doing. Then, given the general stupidity of the general populace, they buy into it and the delusion continues.

And by the way you are asking this question, you are one of those that buy into the delusion. Though I hope I'm wrong and you just phrased it poorly.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:06 PM

GOTTHAMMER

Perhaps the world would be more understanding if the U.S. did declare itself as an Empire (Pax Americana and all that...).
I mean, I think it already meets the 'sun not setting on its borders' requirement, as well as a fairly large 'legion' and economic leverage...
A smarter/wiser 'emperor' than the current Bush would probably be ideal, though.

(nyehehehehe...Empress Hillary

)

Re. Democracy:
Never did like the concept of Democracy. Freedoms to pursue life as you please, with respect to fair laws and all that, yes. Democracy? Nah. (did like the idea of meritocracy of sorts, but doesn't that end up like an aristocracy? anarchy is the ideal, I think...but ideal, is, well, just that...ideal )

I live in a Southeast Asian country that once (and, still is) received the 'benevolent aid' (after we were 'handed down' from the Spaniards) of the US. This country, IMHO, is a prime example of why Democracy isn't ideal everywhere (which seems to be what the US is pushing): corruption's high, lack of education means that certain powers can, with enough financial resources (via corruption), perpetuate themselves in power, etc.

Self-governance/reliance doesn't/shouldn't mean that a country's form of government should be democratic, especially if it isn't the most efficient form for that particular/region or culture. Then again, such arguments are bound to fall against that which is real and readily applicable (as opposed to what is ideal, that is).

As for benevolent superpowers:
Maybe there's never truly been one. What is benevolent intention, when the actualization/reality for the recipient of the benevolent intent is suffering (wether physical, mental, etc.)? If one were to promote 'freedom', or other benevolent concepts, shouldn't one entice or tempt the other with the benefits? Instead of jamming it down their throats at the end of several Roman Legions, or at the tip of an armoured divisions and overwhelming air support?
(not that those aren't, IMHO, 'pretty' / impressive sights...but I can probably attribute that to the morbid curiosity fostered by glueing one's eyes to CNN's coverage of certain events, such as the advance of armour towards and into Baghdad)

While I'm all for having a Benevolent Dictator / Superpower/ Empire, how 'benevolent' will he/she/it truly be? While I may be somewhat of an idealist, I'm inclined to think that no one who has achieved a certain level of power, so as to be elevated into leadership, is 'squeaky clean'.
If that is true of all 'worldly leaders', if there is corruption there, then how does that translate to their management of empire/superpower? Will their elevation bring about an enlightenment or epiphany that states that with the responsibility laid upon their shoulders, they should focus on righteous endeavours and do away with whatever corrupt or selfish practices they had prior to their elevation? Or will their elevation into power only guarantee a magnification of their corruption?

I hope that remotely made sense...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

power which extends itself is never benevolant, seeing as it reflects only the wishes of the powerful.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

We're Benevolent ?

News to me.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:56 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

Fantastic response, couldn't have put it better myself. I get rather sick of everyone around me always saying we're the greatest country in the world and this country is the only place anyone can have freedom.

Yea, I love living in the US, not denying that, I just don't quite buy into the "we're the greatest" thing.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:58 AM

FLETCH2

A few comments.

First, I don't think many people need to be "brainwashed" into believing that all that their country does is justified. Human types have never been strong or fast compared to most preditor or prey classes and operating as a pack has been part of the modus for homolids long before they would be considered "human." In fact I would say that our pack identity is far older and deeper than our understanding of self which has (for most people) only had the opertunity for full expression in the last few hundred years.

So we are emotionally invested in our pack/tribe/nation and would be to some extent even without further coersion. Given that part of us does identify with our nation we want it to be the best, we want it to be strong and if justice is something we value then we want our nation to be just. Humm perhaps even more than that, we need others to see that it's just, less our love of justice be tarnished by association.

Like Citizen said, our Empire was sold as bringing civilization to the savage corners of the world. Was that true or was it Victorian PR? Well some people did believe it and take it seriously, they were the ones that went out as missionaries to bring the word of the British God to the unbelievers. There were probably some that prefered to think that that was what they were doing even though they saw the economic benefits that the UK got from the deal. There were others for which the mission statement was retoric, and for whom the Empire was strictly about economic exploitation and finally there were those that didn't believe it at all.

So was that what was going on? I think it's too complicated to say for sure. There are a lot of reasons you build an Empire that go beyond the reasons you say or even think. Europes economic powers were all in the Empire business at that time, we can see that some actions the British took were as much to deny resources and territory to rivals as it was to secure them for themselves. It's hard to see that as being benevolent. Yet at the same time if you believed yourself to be a good, God fearing nation wouldn't you want to "protect" primative cultures from exploitation of others that are less "enlightened?"

There are still niggles in the back of the mind when days of empire are long gone. Even Citizen who I doubt is a rabid imperialist occasionally let's slip a thought that we all have even if we never say it, that the world wouldn't be as big a mess if we were still in charge

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:26 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
We're Benevolent ?

News to me.

LOL.

But there are actually a lot of Americans who believe we are a benevolent superpower, with all their hearts and souls. I know these people. They really believe we are freeing people from atrocious dictators, and that we are the heroes.

I love America. I am an immigrant, so I consciously and deliberately chose to be American. It is a beautiful country with generous and self-reliant people. It began very progressively with a Constitution unparalleled in the world, even to this day, for the protection of individual liberty.

I do not love the American government. It does not represent the majority of the American people, and hasn't done so in a long, long time. It represents some American people, and squabbles within itself on which of these few should have the upper hand. It has degenerated from its idealistic roots to a morass of corruption, greed, tyranny, and sometimes outright lunacy.

The worst thing, for me, is that the American people know this. But in their patriotism and idealism, they still hold out hope that this government can be reformed--if only their candidate wins. And so the denial continues, that our government is now as despised around the world for good reason, as any other past superpower on its way down.

Our government is not benevolent. I daresay it has even become evil and drunk on its own power. The sooner we Americans acknowledge this, the sooner we can try to REALLY fix it. Facing this truth is our only hope.

Just my opinion of course.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:39 AM

KANEMAN

"you are the best country in the world and the only one that is capable of democracy, etc. That everything you do is right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong."

Got that part right. The rest is poohy.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:58 AM

SASSALICIOUS

How are things in the Philippines? I've always wanted to visit.

Made sense to me. But one of my majors is Southeast Asian Studies and it seems to me that most of the former colonies/countries that have had democracy pushed on them usually have corrupt governments. Even Thailand, where the "democratic revolution" essentially happened from within, is pretty corrupt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:59 AM

SASSALICIOUS

When I read "world police force" all I could think was "America F**k yeah, we're gonna save the mother f***in day yeah!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:23 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

My work here is done.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:32 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Here is my question...why do we think that we're the first superpower to be a just one?

In absolute terms, of course we're not just or benevolent. Compared to any other superpower I can think of, yes we are.

Anybody want to suggest a better "World Police"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Anybody want to suggest a better "World Police"?

How about no world police?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:03 PM

GOTTHAMMER

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
How are things in the Philippines? I've always wanted to visit.

Made sense to me. But one of my majors is Southeast Asian Studies and it seems to me that most of the former colonies/countries that have had democracy pushed on them usually have corrupt governments. Even Thailand, where the "democratic revolution" essentially happened from within, is pretty corrupt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

It's warm here?

The Philippines has some nice tourist destinations, but as with any 'declared ally of the Imperialist Powers (aka the US of A)', there are, every so often, acts of terrorism (conspiracy theory that applies to most governments, not just ours: inflict 'terrorism' on the masses and misinform them to increase reliance on the gov't.). That means that, on occasion, an American or European gets kidnapped (c'mon, didn't you see 'Proof of Life'? Our country was listed in the hot spot list near the start of the film

), or some locals get blown to bits (heh, had I been on the transit a few years back, I'd probably be in bits, too...).
Depending on how much cash you have, there are really nice places to go to: the Banawe Rice Terraces (haven't been there myself, but I've been told that its pretty), Amanpulo (expensive beach place for rich folks), Boracay (popular beach island), Palawan (still a bit expensive, but then I'm coming from the Peso point-of-view. Dollars are ever welcome here).
Stuff is relatively cheap: a dollar can buy you a decent meal or get you around the metropolis.
(If I remember correctly, minimum wage here is less than 6 dollars/day)
There's also nice tracts of wilderness if you look for it.
I'm in Metro Manila, and it has it nice, clean parts, but we also have vast squatters' areas (the usual image of '3rd world countries').
Opportunists abound, but we've been called 'gracious hosts' and a very welcoming people. IMHO, its a case to case basis. If ever any of you do come, just be wary at all times (heck, I know I am...and I'm a local). Oh, and never trust local officials (including cops and customs), just to be safe.

Regarding corruption:
Yup. That does intend to be the case. Of course, what's to say that the governments prior to the arrival of the colonial powers weren't corrupt or decadent? And that they aren't, in a way, just perpetuating old practices (or, what some would argue, is simply human nature)?

Regarding World Police(s):
I'm kinda mixed on this one. On one side, I'd rather there not be one: let each state/culture police its own and handle its own problems, provided they do not interfere with their neighbors.
On the other hand, I'm all for a (and here's that word again) benevolent superpower that will unite 'all under heaven'. Not a world police, but a world government of sorts (unlike the seemingly impotent United Nations).
Of course, the benevolence of such a power should first be seen in how it unites the world (i.e., not by force of arms nor forceful manipulation by other means, such as economics).
Then again, uniting the world by convincing every state, through logic/dialogue, that it would be for the best of everyone is kinda unlikely at this stage.

Just my two cents, of course.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Anybody want to suggest a better "World Police"?
How about no world police?

In other words, Geezer has a point.

All politics aside, in general, if you had to choose a ‘world police,’ history really doesn’t provide an example of one whose “client states” were able to achieve the military, political and financial support provided by the US and retain their independence. Even the British Empire, which I would consider in my own subjective way to be benevolent, didn’t do that. In that regard the US is really a very different type of superpower, one that really hasn’t existed before, in the past. One that does not take advantage of its hegemonic position for expansionistic policies, at least beyond its early Manifest Destiny. So in a lot of ways, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. The world has changed a great deal and it no longer has the same tolerance for ‘empires,’ as it once did.

What exactly does it main to be a benevolent empire? The Roman Empire, for instance, was a classic example of a true empire built on military expansionism. It is seen today as an example of an oppressive regime, and indeed by modern standards it would appear to be extremely similar to the Nazi Empire, certainly nothing that most Western culture would view as “benevolent.” And while there were many contemporary hatreds for the Romans, the Jews and the Germans among them, by and large, the majority of people subjugated by the Romans, benefited enormously from that subjugation. So much so that following their independence from Rome, in most provinces there was a general attempt by the people to reestablish a “Roman” home rule as it were, giving rise to the modern “Romance” cultures. And only where the province was overrun by previously unromanticized cultures, such as the Saxons in Britain, did this fail entirely. In fact, centuries after the fall of Rome in the West, there would be Western cultures that had never been subjugated by the Romans attempting to re-establish the Roman world order, the Holy Roman Empire, for instance. The politics and political thought of most of the Medieval world was in some way connected with the desire to rebuild the Roman Empire, and the reason for this is obvious when you look at the alternative to Roman rule, which was in most cases, rule by brutal unstable warlord regimes that were in constant state of military flux, and this was true even prior to Roman occupation. As opposed to Roman rule that was more stable and provided for large extravagant cities with many amenities and plenty of food and commerce. I wonder if a thousands years after the fall of Washington, if the world will be trying to reestablish the US world order? In many ways, while modern sensibilities would seem to reject the idea, the Romans in the first through the maybe third or fourth centuries may have been the most benevolent empire simply because the size of benefit they offered compared to their environment.

The early Romans even dabbled in a little bit of American style foreign policy over 2000 years before its time, when they invaded Greece in 197 BC to liberate it from a previous invasion by Philip of Macedonia in 200 BC, beginning a political period in Rome dominated by philhellenism. The Greeks always had a special place in the Roman mind. They were the only culture outside of Rome that was viewed as equal to Rome in many ways. Of course there were differing political thoughts in Rome and a few years later a more suspicious political atmosphere dominated in the Senate, leaving Rome to reinvade Greece and assert its military control over the region.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:25 PM

MALBADINLATIN

I did phrase it poorly, because I do not buy into the delusion. I was trying to lure idiots into battle by acting like I understand. A freind of mine who works with schizophrenic homeless people told me that you'll scare them away if you don't crawl into their crazy world a bit. We didn't hear too much from the conservatives on this post. What we did was retarded anyway like it always is.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:21 AM

FLETCH2

Finn, as always an interesting and informative post. Are you sure you're on the right forum?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In other words, Geezer has a point.
...
The world has changed a great deal and it no longer has the same tolerance for ‘empires,’ as it once did.

I think America's relative benevolence has more to do with modern day ease of information flow and world political attitudes in the light of the First and Second World Wars than Americans being fundamentally better people more suited to being a 'World Police'.

I think world police is rather a misnomer though, America is just as happy sending support, money and arms to violent oppressive regimes when those regimes are required for American interests. World Police engenders an idea that the US is out there for the good of the world which is not true at all, the US is out there for the good of the US, sometimes those aims coincide with a better world, sometimes they coincide with propping up murderous dictators.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:03 PM

FLETCH2

I think you're being a little harsh on the Americans. Viewed critically any Empire exists primarily for the benefit of the Imperial power, after all they are putting up the "blood and treasure" to make the Empire happen, hard to imagine them doing that with no benefit for themselves.

I think the big differences between the American system and ones that existed before as as follows.

1) America was not interested in occupying land and while you could argue that in place of military occupation you had cultural imperialism, merchantile imperialism and the formation of pro-American governments there were few if any "boots on the ground" occupying territory.

2) The use of "soft power." America has been extremely generous over the years both in terms of "Marshall Plan" style government funded programs and private charitable lending. Couple that with the power that comes with controlling (what was) the largest world market and the primary reserve currency and America has a lot of other levers it can use appart from military action.

3) Cultural imperialism. America exports a rightous image of itself abroard via movies and TV. If you see James T Kirk saving the world on TV every day you tend to have a preconception that Americans are brave and righteous. It could be that none Romans in the Roman Empire saw citizens the same way, but I doubt it was that pervasive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think you're being a little harsh on the Americans. Viewed critically any Empire exists primarily for the benefit of the Imperial power, after all they are putting up the "blood and treasure" to make the Empire happen, hard to imagine them doing that with no benefit for themselves.

What I said is more or less this. I don't think recognising that the idea of America as World Police is anything more than positive spin on America looking out for Americas interests is overly hard. I'm not attacking American's for looking out for their own interests, but the idea that they're somehow better because they're doing what every other empire has done within the political framework of today where a classical empire literally couldn't arise is somewhat tiresome.

Quote:
1) America was not interested in occupying land and while you could argue that in place of military occupation you had cultural imperialism, merchantile imperialism and the formation of pro-American governments there were few if any "boots on the ground" occupying territory.

How were the southern states added to pre-civil war America? What were the troops invading Canada doing in 1812, going on holiday? America has used military power to expand her territory, the fact that it is more aligned to using proxies and puppet states than previous powers is more a sign of the times and a requirement for plausible deniability (in fact I think the term was coined by the CIA) than anything else.

Quote:
3) Cultural imperialism. America exports a rightous image of itself abroard via movies and TV. If you see James T Kirk saving the world on TV every day you tend to have a preconception that Americans are brave and righteous. It could be that none Romans in the Roman Empire saw citizens the same way, but I doubt it was that pervasive.

Just another example of what Empires do. The British Empire did the same thing in its own idiom.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Finn, as always an interesting and informative post. Are you sure you're on the right forum?

Thank you, it’s always good when a post is appreciated.

And I do believe that US interests do coincide with a better world, as I imagine do the interest of Britain and France and most other Western democracies. Contrary to the anti-American perspective the US is not generally callous and uncaring of world conditions. But no country’s foreign policies are altruistic. All countries place as their first priority their own national interests, but the beauty of the US and other Western democracies is that the philosophies that guide them, capitalism and liberal democracy, demand international cooperation and stability to be successful. A capitalist liberal democracy will generally seek a more peaceful, successful and stable world beyond its borders because these conditions are in their national interest and it is this that has helped to reshape the modern world. But it is naive to assume that the US can exist without the aide of certain dictatorial regimes. There are only a handful of liberal democracies in the world older then fifty years, and while in many ways the West is more successful then rest of the world, it still must pick its battles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:33 PM

I had stuff to say, but it looks like you guys and gals pretty much summed it all up.

Simon didn't believe there were reavers either.

All the more reason why I believe that Firefly was sabotaged and destined to fail before it was even shown.

No matter how much we argue in here I love all you guys. I think it's great that we still live in a world where we can post the stuff we do and we don't disappear in the middle of the night or have freak "accidents". We may not all see eye to eye, but I do believe we help each other grow.... at the very least, this is a great outlet for the looser cannons among us (me) who have very little release for their frustrations elsewhere.

The only thing that I read that I thought was a pretty asinine comment was about making way for the Chinese and that they're "good fellows". I'm thinking that this was compeltely in jest though so I'll reserve my thoughts on that. Then again the thought of "Empress Hillary" is probably even scarier than 2 billion Chinese running the show.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And I do believe that US interests do coincide with a better world"

US interests have been superceded by corporate ones.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
US interests have been superceded by corporate ones.

I gotta laugh so I don't cry Rue..... how true, how true.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
The only thing that I read that I thought was a pretty asinine comment was about making way for the Chinese and that they're "good fellows". I'm thinking that this was compeltely in jest though so I'll reserve my thoughts on that. Then again the thought of "Empress Hillary" is probably even scarier than 2 billion Chinese running the show.

I don't think the Chinese will be any better or worse than America, at least externally if not to their own citizenry.

China pretty much owns America economically as it is, a substantial amount of America's national debt is to the Chinese. In other words the Chinese could cripple America tomorrow by presenting a bill, but as Finn says a stable world is in Americas best interests, as it is with the Chinese. They're making a fortune off of a relatively stable world, and crippling America's economy could only damage that.

The point is that the Chinese aren't going to go on a murderous expansionist kick just because they surpass the United States as #1 super power, it wouldn't be in their best interests, and with the Chinese general isolationist attitude I think they'd probably be even less likely to put troops on to foreign soil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

A capitalist liberal democracy will generally seek a more peaceful, successful and stable world beyond its borders because these conditions are in their national interest and it is this that has helped to reshape the modern world. But it is naive to assume that the US can exist without the aide of certain dictatorial regimes. There are only a handful of liberal democracies in the world older then fifty years, and while in many ways the West is more successful then rest of the world, it still must pick its battles.

A good take, Finn, and one I would generally agree with, yet not across the board. Under Bush and Cheney, we attacked a country under the mistaken or deliberately falsified impression that it had something to do with 911, and that had useable WMD's.
Now the same language is being used in regards to Iran.

This is the domino theory in reverse Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:38 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The point is that the Chinese aren't going to go on a murderous expansionist kick just because they surpass the United States as #1 super power, it wouldn't be in their best interests, and with the Chinese general isolationist attitude I think they'd probably be even less likely to put troops on to foreign soil.

Well said! I spent a month in China back in 1986 when I was in college. The main concern of the chinese since WWII has been feeding it's people. When I was there everybody wore those blue Mao Tse Tung suits, rode bicycles only, and still loved Richard Nixon more than R. Now they have high rises, cars, business suits, and cell phones. Ahhhh progress![b/]

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
A good take, Finn, and one I would generally agree with, yet not across the board. Under Bush and Cheney, we attacked a country under the mistaken or deliberately falsified impression that it had something to do with 911, and that had useable WMD's.
Now the same language is being used in regards to Iran.

I think you’re confusing expansionism with a police action. Neither the wars in Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars being fought because the US wants to take something from these countries, but rather as a means of enforcement against perceived threats. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are fought in response to 9/ll and the international community’s failure to police these two rogue state. You can agree or disagree with the tactics, but there is a difference between wars of aggression, like Saddam’s war against Iran or Kuwait, and police actions like the UN or US/UK led wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think you’re confusing expansionism with a police action. Neither the wars in Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars being fought because the US wants to take something from these countries, but rather as a means of enforcement against perceived threats.

Correct as far as Afganistan.
But the Iraq War was started to create a U.S. friendly nation, safe ground for a large, permanent base, and give us a better handle on what's going on in the middle east. But they couldn't just exactly SAY that, hence the terrorist-connection and WMD's.

I suppose you might also say that the (planned) end result will make us safer from terrorism in the long run...but I doubt it.

Doubting Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think you’re confusing expansionism with a police action. Neither the wars in Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars being fought because the US wants to take something from these countries,

Come on, I'm not stupid enough to think that Oil was the reason for the Iraq war, but I'm not naive enough to think Oil wasn't a factor.

A further question is why only US companies are considered for rebuilding contracts.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

A further question is why only US companies are considered for rebuilding contracts.

Because no one in the world can beat U.S.companies in low cost technical excellence.

I mean...right? That must be why.....

U.S. # 1! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:41 AM

Except the Iraqi companies that had the lowest bid by miles but still didn't get the contracts...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Except the Iraqi companies that had the lowest bid by miles but still didn't get the contracts...

Their work is substandard, and they hire illegals anyway.
See here:
Http://www.Notareallinktoanythingyoudope.com

Not brainwashed Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
]Correct as far as Afganistan.
But the Iraq War was started to create a U.S. friendly nation, safe ground for a large, permanent base, and give us a better handle on what's going on in the middle east. But they couldn't just exactly SAY that, hence the terrorist-connection and WMD's.

I suppose you might also say that the (planned) end result will make us safer from terrorism in the long run...but I doubt it.

It’s correct as far as Iraq goes as well. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are wars of aggression. They are not undertaken for resources or territory, but rather as a desire to secure stability, in the same way the FBI may raid a crack house. I’m not asking you to agree with either war or to think that either will ultimately be necessarily effective in achieving that goal, but neither of these wars detracts from my point. Liberal democracies would far, far prefer to have a wealthy and prosperous and free Iraq and Afghanistan that can provide international trade and commerce rather then spoils of wars of expansion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Liberal democracies would far, far prefer to have a wealthy and prosperous and free Iraq and Afghanistan that can provide international trade and commerce rather then spoils of wars of expansion.

Now comes the question of what exactly 'spoils of wars of expansion' means.
Surely we do not intend to make Iraq our 51st state, as was joked at on another site, but we wanted to expand our influence, and expand our power in the region. So expansion here is not literal, as in land, but more figurative, as in concerning regional control.

So in effect, the FBI raided a crack house using the story that witnesses had seen Satanic murders going on inside. Then the agents doing the raid were given insufficent numbers to get all the perps. Then they asked for more agents while promising the local TV station that there were Satanic murders, but they just can't find the bloody alter....

See, if ya can't get what ya want by telling the truth, then maybe you shouldn't get it at all.

Okay, not stricktly expansionist, but still, The Iraq War is a war started on lies and bad intel. You point is made, but that doesn't make both Afghanistan AND Iraq acceptable.
But that's not what you were actually talking about...please pardon my rant

Carried away Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
China pretty much owns America economically as it is, a substantial amount of America's national debt is to the Chinese. In other words the Chinese could cripple America tomorrow by presenting a bill, but as Finn says a stable world is in Americas best interests, as it is with the Chinese. They're making a fortune off of a relatively stable world, and crippling America's economy could only damage that.

The point is that the Chinese aren't going to go on a murderous expansionist kick just because they surpass the United States as #1 super power, it wouldn't be in their best interests, and with the Chinese general isolationist attitude I think they'd probably be even less likely to put troops on to foreign soil.

Wow Cit.... I'm not used to such an insane amout of conjecture from someone like you.

I'm not willing to welcome a future with China at the helm because you think they're isolationists and not murderers. If anything, they are the most intelligent and forward thinking people on the planet. Whereas in America, they've got us only thinking 4 years into the future because of our presidential terms, the Chinese think hundreds of years into the future. They didn't get where they're at today due to luck or lack of planning. They don't intend to be isolationists for long... just long enough to get "hand" in the situation. They're a cool customer and they're simply biding their time now. We know very little about their true political motivations and agendas because they are nowhere near the spotlight or microscope like America is.

And, BTW, if China were to "cripple our economy", they would be destroying their own in the process, not only "damage" it. Don't try to play that aspect down. If this weren't true, they would have done it already and just continued doing business with Europe. This is not to say that they aren't planning on pulling this sometime in the future as their situation grows more favorable.

At this point though, you should consider it a mutually assured destruction in economic terms, and one where the economy of the whole world could unravel.

Read up on it a bit more. The half Tillion that China has is a mere pittance of the national debt of nearly 9 Trillion. I piss on what China has. This is just the media talking anyhow. If America, China's largest importer, were to crumble, China would find itself spending up its banked cash really quick.... the cash that isn't American Dollars that would be worthless at this point anyhow. We don't owe this money to other countries either. America is up to their ears in debt with the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal or a Reserve. We're not the only ones. They own every country on the globe brother.

You stick to science and what you're good at, and keep your not-so-cleverly disguised and emotional anti-American sentiments out of this. Anyone who actually reads anything other than the paper or the front page on MSN will know that you're out of your field of expertise here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Wow Cit.... I'm not used to such an insane amout of conjecture from someone like you.

I'm not willing to welcome a future with China at the helm because you think they're isolationists and not murderers.

It's reasonable, China will be subject to the same world wide pressures as America, China's buisness is currently aimed at supplying the Western nations, and that's why they won't go off conquering the world. It's not in their best interests, a point you gloss over rather completely.

Quote:
I'm not willing to welcome a future with China at the helm because you think they're isolationists and not murderers.

I can't see that they could do a significantly worse job than the US.

Quote:
If anything, they are the most intelligent and forward thinking people on the planet. Whereas in America, they've got us only thinking 4 years into the future because of our presidential terms, the Chinese think hundreds of years into the future.

Oh a conspiracy theory, the Chinese have been planning this in secret for hundreds of years. Maybe they're the planners for the NWO and the secret pagan societies, perhaps we should ask Antimason?

Quote:
They didn't get where they're at today due to luck or lack of planning. They don't intend to be isolationists for long... just long enough to get "hand" in the situation. They're a cool customer and they're simply biding their time now.

Right, so the chinese have been isolationists for hundreds of years because they knew (prior to the western discovery of America) that the US would be founded and become a super power? The Chinese have been isolationists since before the US even existed, they were isolationists while the British were beating them in the Opium wars in the 1800's, they're somewhat isolationist now. You really expect me to believe their hundreds of years of isolationism was all leading up to the moment they'd replace the US as #1 super power? And you're saying I'm putting out a lot of conjecture?

Quote:
We know very little about their true political motivations and agendas because they are nowhere near the spotlight or microscope like America is.

Because they've been isolating themselves from the outside world where as America has been doing the exact opposite.

Quote:
And, BTW, if China were to "cripple our economy", they would be destroying their own in the process, not only "damage" it. Don't try to play that aspect down. If this weren't true, they would have done it already and just continued doing business with Europe.

At this point though, you should consider it a mutually assured destruction in economic terms, and one where the economy of the whole world could unravel.

Far from playing it down this is exactly what I said, though not in so many words.

Quote:
You stick to science and what you're good at, and keep your not-so-cleverly disguised and emotional anti-American sentiments out of this. Anyone who actually reads anything other than the paper or the front page on MSN will know that you're out of your field of expertise here.

Ohh a personal insult, final proof you have a better understanding. Stick to the crazy fallacious conspiracy theories, it's all your good at, and leave you're not so clevely disguised borderline schitzophrenia and emotional hatred for anything outside of the US out of this. Anyone who actually reads something other than the front page of 'prisionplanet' already knows you're full of shit.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 5:06 PM

I have no idea what Prisonplanet is.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 16, 2007 5:08 PM