new Cold War Theory

Originally posted by Sir Michael: Man, where were you guys, when I was trying to defend myself in the evolution thread, which turned into a religious debate, which turned into an argument over whether humanity is destroying the earth or not? I make many of these same points over there, but I had to defend myself -- alone -- against a bunch who couldn't see how bad things really are. I won't repeat myself, but the US has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the resources. We are pigs, that's for sure. We also have the time and money to be environmentally conscious, but what about other nations where other people struggle just to survive? Also, India, for instance, has the fastest growing population, and the fastest growing middle class. As we slow down population growth, energy consumption and pollution, they are more than taking up the slack. It comes down to that the whole world -- everyone -- is responsible for the planet, and until the whole world takes action, we will continue to spiral downwards.

Actually untill only recently we were the only ones who COULD use the resources, so pardon us for being more advanced. It was the western technologies that made possible the use and recovery of the resources.
And Im curious how much of those resources allow us to feed much of the world? All in all, it is easy to just use the numbers and not look at what they are being applied to.

[khazadman]

Why is it that so few americans see things like most of europeans? Information of course, medias! Just compare any large US media coverage of the middle-east crisis (or venezuela) with, for example, The Independent (UK). Next time you go on CNN, also check www.independent.co.uk, and compare the way the events are covered.

well not that many people are watching cnn over here anymore.but if you think it's unbalanced to report that a head of state who also heads a terrorist organization is responsible for what is happening in the mid-east,then oh well.israel just reacted to arafats attacks.

BTW, i'm not saying everybody is thinking the same way in the US. In fact, most of the opposition to Dubya's regime come from the inside. They are many, but they are voiceless. No corporate corporate media will publish them, but they are there. Try this: www.zmag.org www.michaelmoore.com (his last book is great!)

michael moore is one of the most full of shit people i have ever seen on tv(pardon my language).even when i was a leftist i felt he was too far to the left.if this country was run the way he wished it would break up.he is a hack.

Khazadman, are you army or ex army, by any chance? Just idle curiousity....

nope.i crushed my ankle when i was 17 and that kept me out.otherwise i would have joined(was talking to the recruiter at the time).i was VERY disapointed.

Just to bring you down to earth a tad - what America did to help Europe after the second world war was great. However, don't run away with the idea that it was disinterested altruism. Basically, it was about rebuilding markets. The US economy needs the European market to thrive, always has. Sheer native hardheaded shrewdness prompted that decision. I'm not knocking it, just pointing out the way it is.

but don't forget that much of what was done over there was not governmental.there were alot of people who volunteered to help over there.private citizens and churches donated money and sent people over seas.

Hmm. Interesting. 'The world might be a pretty screwed up place if it wasn't for US.' Really? So from where you're sitting, it doesn't look screwed up even with your involvement?

are you saying that it would be a better place if we had allowed the communists free reign.

Take the situation in Palestine, for instance. You don't think American backing of Israel for lo, these many many moons might have something to do with the current situation in the middle east? (Although you probably don't know the full sum of it. The American media have reported the confict in a very one sided way so far, with a couple of exceptions.)

there is only one side.israel=good,palestinians=bad.israel is willing to co-exist with the palestinians.but the palestinians leaders only wish for the destruction of israel.and theeir leaders kill any who question their dictator arafat.and don't give me that crap about his being elected.hitler was also voted into power.

Hmm. This 80% approval rating. You don't think it might possibly have something to do with the war in Afghanistan, the proposed action against Iraq, etc? Politicians love war - it really can save their bacon for them. Bushie wasn't looking too clever til the Twin Towers, - it might have been a disaster for America, but it sure was pie in the sky for him. Saved by the death knell, you might say.

actually bushes approval ratings were in the mid 60's at the time of the attack.his average rating was as good as clinton's at his best.

Margeret Thatchers rating shot up when she took us to war against Argentina, in the fight for the Falkland islands. If a politician knows how to manipulate public opinion cleverly, (ie. understands the nation s/he's heading) then war can just what the doctor ordered. Some of us have wondered about Bush's insane stance towards Iraq. Could it be that with the effects of the Afghan campaign on the wane, he needs a new issue to jump up and down about?

so maggy was supposed to just leave the people of the falklands to the mercies of the argentinian dictator?

But it was only a question of time. Of course when the cold war ended, America had to find a new enemy.

then you don't know a god damned thing about us if that is what you think.we would be happy if all the nations of the world were democracies who allowed their people to live in peace.then we wouldn't have to waste our money defending other people.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: Avatar, this is not a new theory. It's just that it is OK to criticize the U.S. now that Dubya and his Nixon-era buddies have the finger on The Button. USA has always been ahead in the weapon race (not always in number of warhead, but in strategic locations, etc...). Also, the USA rejected not once, but twice (in the 80s) an offer made by Gorbatchev to completely destroy their nuclear weapon stock (thanks to Reagan and Bush). I'm trying to find the book where i read that for your reference... Thoran, in a post you asked when american expansionism began. (egemony would be a better word than expansionism since the US didn't invade other nations). I suggest this small book: Noam Chomsky, "What Uncle Sam really wants". It's an analisys of the U.S. foreign policy since WW2. 110 pages. Why is it that so few americans see things like most of europeans? Information of course, medias! Just compare any large US media coverage of the middle-east crisis (or venezuela) with, for example, The Independent (UK). Next time you go on CNN, also check www.independent.co.uk, and compare the way the events are covered. BTW, i'm not saying everybody is thinking the same way in the US. In fact, most of the opposition to Dubya's regime come from the inside. They are many, but they are voiceless. No corporate corporate media will publish them, but they are there. Try this: www.zmag.org www.michaelmoore.com (his last book is great!)

I've read and heard a lot about the Economic Hegemony practiced by the US. The only thing I would suggest is that Economic threats are significantly different that Military ones. I personally don't have a problem with denying access to our markets to countries that we have issues with for one reason or another. I disagree with the tendency of the US to pressure our friends to "tow the line" and also impose sanctions... I think decisions regarding who a country is going to trade with are none of our business. In any event saying "change this or we won't trade with you" is not the same as saying "change this or we'll take over your country by force".

Now the US HAS used force in the past... and not normally with altruism in mind, but because we're a democracy, our "esteemed" (lol) politicians at least have to exercise some restraint to avoid a public backlash. I think other than some really poor decisions to support dictatorial regeims (during the Cold War) we have a fairly consistant track record of giving peoples the right to choose their own destiny. Of course we hope it will be pro-US but with freedom comes the right to choose otherwise.

I guess in the end the term Hegemon is accurate... the US at this point in time has a significant influence on the world... like all things it won't last. I would further suggest that in previous era's countries in a similar position have been quick to take advantage of that position in ways much more... direct... than an economic sanction. I read a while back a theory (sorry can't remember the book" that the world as a whole does much better when there's a single country in the "world cop" position. While it's certainly a debatable concept, there is definitely a correlation between large scale bad stuff (like the world wars) and the lack of a "hegemon" type influence (their theory was that ww1&2 happened in the space after Great Britain gave up that role but before the US picked it up)

Originally posted by khazadman: quote: Why is it that so few americans see things like most of europeans? Information of course, medias! Just compare any large US media coverage of the middle-east crisis (or venezuela) with, for example, The Independent (UK). Next time you go on CNN, also check www.independent.co.uk, and compare the way the events are covered.

well not that many people are watching cnn over here anymore.but if you think it's unbalanced to report that a head of state who also heads a terrorist organization is responsible for what is happening in the mid-east,then oh well.israel just reacted to arafats attacks.

BTW, i'm not saying everybody is thinking the same way in the US. In fact, most of the opposition to Dubya's regime come from the inside. They are many, but they are voiceless. No corporate corporate media will publish them, but they are there. Try this: www.zmag.org www.michaelmoore.com (his last book is great!)

michael moore is one of the most full of shit people i have ever seen on tv(pardon my language).even when i was a leftist i felt he was too far to the left.if this country was run the way he wished it would break up.he is a hack.

Khazadman, are you army or ex army, by any chance? Just idle curiousity....

nope.i crushed my ankle when i was 17 and that kept me out.otherwise i would have joined(was talking to the recruiter at the time).i was VERY disapointed.

Just to bring you down to earth a tad - what America did to help Europe after the second world war was great. However, don't run away with the idea that it was disinterested altruism. Basically, it was about rebuilding markets. The US economy needs the European market to thrive, always has. Sheer native hardheaded shrewdness prompted that decision. I'm not knocking it, just pointing out the way it is.

but don't forget that much of what was done over there was not governmental.there were alot of people who volunteered to help over there.private citizens and churches donated money and sent people over seas.

Hmm. Interesting. 'The world might be a pretty screwed up place if it wasn't for US.' Really? So from where you're sitting, it doesn't look screwed up even with your involvement?

are you saying that it would be a better place if we had allowed the communists free reign.

Take the situation in Palestine, for instance. You don't think American backing of Israel for lo, these many many moons might have something to do with the current situation in the middle east? (Although you probably don't know the full sum of it. The American media have reported the confict in a very one sided way so far, with a couple of exceptions.)

there is only one side.israel=good,palestinians=bad.israel is willing to co-exist with the palestinians.but the palestinians leaders only wish for the destruction of israel.and theeir leaders kill any who question their dictator arafat.and don't give me that crap about his being elected.hitler was also voted into power.

Hmm. This 80% approval rating. You don't think it might possibly have something to do with the war in Afghanistan, the proposed action against Iraq, etc? Politicians love war - it really can save their bacon for them. Bushie wasn't looking too clever til the Twin Towers, - it might have been a disaster for America, but it sure was pie in the sky for him. Saved by the death knell, you might say.

actually bushes approval ratings were in the mid 60's at the time of the attack.his average rating was as good as clinton's at his best.

Margeret Thatchers rating shot up when she took us to war against Argentina, in the fight for the Falkland islands. If a politician knows how to manipulate public opinion cleverly, (ie. understands the nation s/he's heading) then war can just what the doctor ordered. Some of us have wondered about Bush's insane stance towards Iraq. Could it be that with the effects of the Afghan campaign on the wane, he needs a new issue to jump up and down about?

so maggy was supposed to just leave the people of the falklands to the mercies of the argentinian dictator?

But it was only a question of time. Of course when the cold war ended, America had to find a new enemy.

then you don't know a god damned thing about us if that is what you think.we would be happy if all the nations of the world were democracies who allowed their people to live in peace.then we wouldn't have to waste our money defending other people.
[/QUOTE]Lol Good responses but I think you were starting to bust a seam there at the end [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by flibulzbuth: Avatar, this is not a new theory. It's just that it is OK to criticize the U.S. now that Dubya and his Nixon-era buddies have the finger on The Button. USA has always been ahead in the weapon race (not always in number of warhead, but in strategic locations, etc...). Also, the USA rejected not once, but twice (in the 80s) an offer made by Gorbatchev to completely destroy their nuclear weapon stock (thanks to Reagan and Bush). I'm trying to find the book where i read that for your reference... Thoran, in a post you asked when american expansionism began. (egemony would be a better word than expansionism since the US didn't invade other nations). I suggest this small book: Noam Chomsky, "What Uncle Sam really wants". It's an analisys of the U.S. foreign policy since WW2. 110 pages. Why is it that so few americans see things like most of europeans? Information of course, medias! Just compare any large US media coverage of the middle-east crisis (or venezuela) with, for example, The Independent (UK). Next time you go on CNN, also check www.independent.co.uk, and compare the way the events are covered. BTW, i'm not saying everybody is thinking the same way in the US. In fact, most of the opposition to Dubya's regime come from the inside. They are many, but they are voiceless. No corporate corporate media will publish them, but they are there. Try this: www.zmag.org www.michaelmoore.com (his last book is great!)

I've read and heard a lot about the Economic Hegemony practiced by the US. The only thing I would suggest is that Economic threats are significantly different that Military ones. I personally don't have a problem with denying access to our markets to countries that we have issues with for one reason or another. I disagree with the tendency of the US to pressure our friends to "tow the line" and also impose sanctions... I think decisions regarding who a country is going to trade with are none of our business. In any event saying "change this or we won't trade with you" is not the same as saying "change this or we'll take over your country by force".

Now the US HAS used force in the past... and not normally with altruism in mind, but because we're a democracy, our "esteemed" (lol) politicians at least have to exercise some restraint to avoid a public backlash. I think other than some really poor decisions to support dictatorial regeims (during the Cold War) we have a fairly consistant track record of giving peoples the right to choose their own destiny. Of course we hope it will be pro-US but with freedom comes the right to choose otherwise.

I guess in the end the term Hegemon is accurate... the US at this point in time has a significant influence on the world... like all things it won't last. I would further suggest that in previous era's countries in a similar position have been quick to take advantage of that position in ways much more... direct... than an economic sanction. I read a while back a theory (sorry can't remember the book" that the world as a whole does much better when there's a single country in the "world cop" position. While it's certainly a debatable concept, there is definitely a correlation between large scale bad stuff (like the world wars) and the lack of a "hegemon" type influence (their theory was that ww1&2 happened in the space after Great Britain gave up that role but before the US picked it up)[/QUOTE]You know...I dimly remember somewhere reading about the Hegemon thing..about the world doing better iwth one really strong nation....man when are they going to invent the memory implants so I can store this stuff permanently????

[fable]

Originally posted by MagiK: Not a bad post but your use of the term "Right Wing" is inflamatory and inaccurate. When you use the term "Right Wing" in the USA it is usually derogatory term used for the Republican Party. Im pretty sure that neither the Dems nore the Republicans should be equated with totalitarian regimes. Even if some of their programs did help support such regimes ..these thngs were done with an eye toward the greater struggle between the USSR and the USA. (I dont approve of those programs either) I would also like ot point out that for much of the cold war the Democratic party had control of the House AND Senate and had a fair share of Dem. presidents too.

Magik, you'll note that I didn't tag that "right-wing" label to the US, but only to some SA governments that were installed either by, or with assistance from, US administrations of the period. That was deliberate, and there was no mention in the rest of my post, either, of Democratic or Republican administrations. US Cold War policy was pretty monolithic, and tended to be inherited (as foreign policy often is, in most countries whose change of governments are incremental along a continuum) with few major changes.

[khazadman]

Lol Good responses but I think you were starting to bust a seam there at the end

i busted a seam years ago when i dropped the leftist beliefs i held.you know that a religions most strident supporters are usually converts.the same goes for politics(at least for me).as anyone can tell who has followed this thread.hehe.

Originally posted by fable: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Not a bad post but your use of the term "Right Wing" is inflamatory and inaccurate. When you use the term "Right Wing" in the USA it is usually derogatory term used for the Republican Party. Im pretty sure that neither the Dems nore the Republicans should be equated with totalitarian regimes. Even if some of their programs did help support such regimes ..these thngs were done with an eye toward the greater struggle between the USSR and the USA. (I dont approve of those programs either) I would also like ot point out that for much of the cold war the Democratic party had control of the House AND Senate and had a fair share of Dem. presidents too.

Magik, you'll note that I didn't tag that "right-wing" label to the US, but only to some SA governments that were installed either by, or with assistance from, US administrations of the period. That was deliberate, and there was no mention in the rest of my post, either, of Democratic or Republican administrations. US Cold War policy was pretty monolithic, and tended to be inherited (as foreign policy often is, in most countries whose change of governments are incremental along a continuum) with few major changes.[/QUOTE]Okie doke, I didn't think you ment it as an attack on either party in particular, I just thought it might be a bit misleading for some of the people reading it.

[Avatar]

Nationalism always gets President approval ratings sky high, so Bush is actually doing NOt that well

However there is a paranoia in the west at the time of Communist expansion,
Generals wanted to nuke China, Film Star accused of being spies with no evidence.
I mean surely if you are democratic, communism is a legit opposition and if not ideal opposition government is America?

Originally posted by Avatar: Nationalism always gets President approval ratings sky high, so Bush is actually doing NOt that well However there is a paranoia in the west at the time of Communist expansion, Generals wanted to nuke China, Film Star accused of being spies with no evidence. I mean surely if you are democratic, communism is a legit opposition and if not ideal opposition government is America?

This isn't the first war situation and Bush's numbers are the best in modern history. I think he is doing tremendously well. I personally think he is being too soft on the Palistinians and too hard on the Israelis and I also think he was too silent on the ANWAR drilling issue. Lest you think I just fall down and stop thinking when his name is mentioned