Are you still on the WWII kick? That was 60 years ago. I was referring to the current expense, where the US spends 50% of the worldwide expenditure on "defense". And the cost of the misbegotten "war on terror" that does not make me feel safer at all.
If you think this is naive and hateful so be it. I advise you to take a second look at the propaganda you take to be truth.
I bring it up because it has determined the world as it is today. The results of that war have also determined the defense budgets as well.
What you have to do, it to look at what happens every time we announce that we want to cut our military presence somewhere. We're told no (unless some GI does something stupid, and then there are protests).
By keeping out budgets high, everyone else can keep them low. You don't have to be concerned that China will swallow Taiwan, because we do. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you didn't care when Iraq invaded Kuwait either, or that he was threatening to invade Saudi Arabia.
Maybe none of that mattered to you, but it benefitted everyone that the situation was rectified.
As I've said, I don't agree with everything done here, as I don't agree with everything done elsewhere.
I also don't mind discussion, but those posts were vehement and sarcastic. That does get me angry. And it wasn't required to mention it al all here. It was uncalled for.
I also seem to remember, in the late 1990's, when the war in the Balkins erupted, we were told to keep out of it because the EU would take care of the problem. It's always interesting to note that this even happens. We waited a couple of years, and then had to wade in once the slaughter began. No one else would do it.
So, sure, we're not always right, but I'd hate to think what would happen if we weren't around, and remained isolationist as we did after WW I.
I bring it up because it has determined the world as it is today. The results of that war have also determined the defense budgets as well.
What you have to do, it to look at what happens every time we announce that we want to cut our military presence somewhere. We're told no (unless some GI does something stupid, and then there are protests).
By keeping out budgets high, everyone else can keep them low. You don't have to be concerned that China will swallow Taiwan, because we do. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you didn't care when Iraq invaded Kuwait either, or that he was threatening to invade Saudi Arabia.
Maybe none of that mattered to you, but it benefitted everyone that the situation was rectified.
As I've said, I don't agree with everything done here, as I don't agree with everything done elsewhere.
I also don't mind discussion, but those posts were vehement and sarcastic. That does get me angry. And it wasn't required to mention it al all here. It was uncalled for.
I also seem to remember, in the late 1990's, when the war in the Balkins erupted, we were told to keep out of it because the EU would take care of the problem. It's always interesting to note that this even happens. We waited a couple of years, and then had to wade in once the slaughter began. No one else would do it.
So, sure, we're not always right, but I'd hate to think what would happen if we weren't around, and remained isolationist as we did after WW I.
I am glad to hear that you believe that US influence in the world benign. I do not agree. As to my remark about US military spending, it was sarcastic and meant to be. When the US stops behaving like the world's policeman, other countries will either take over the burden or face the consequences. It is up to them, and not the US. With less emphasis on "defence spending" money would be available for infrastructure and other needed investments. That is all I tried to say in my two lines.
Mel, the US government has always done that which suits its strategic interests. To think otherwise is naive. You don't need to get on your high-horse and tell the rest of the world how grateful it should be. That is offensive. For better or worse, without US intervention the world would surely be a different place, but it is not useful to fantasise over what might have been.
I don't agree that the comments made by others were hateful. It seems that your reaction was more emotional than logical. Perhaps some introspection is in order. There are many of us in the world, including plenty of your own countrymen, who feel frustrated to witness your country's reputation and economy disappear down the toilet. I believe that the "hateful" comments were instead an expression of disappointment that your government has chosen to engage in folly, when there is so much that needs to be done at home.
I am glad to hear that you believe that US influence in the world benign. I do not agree. As to my remark about US military spending, it was sarcastic and meant to be. When the US stops behaving like the world's policeman, other countries will either take over the burden or face the consequences. It is up to them, and not the US. With less emphasis on "defence spending" money would be available for infrastructure and other needed investments. That is all I tried to say in my two lines.
The answer to that is as you say "face the consequences"
We see that on a regular basis. but I understand that its easy to blame us and ignore the rest.
Mel, the US government has always done that which suits its strategic interests. To think otherwise is naive. You don't need to get on your high-horse and tell the rest of the world how grateful it should be. That is offensive. For better or worse, without US intervention the world would surely be a different place, but it is not useful to fantasise over what might have been.
Its interesting to look and see the lack of depth to the argument to that though. Our strategic interests almost always coincide with most others interests as well, even though some others don't want to admit it.
It's like punching your big brother rather than the bully down the block. You know your brother won't punch back hard, but the bully will.
I'm reading fantasy here.
Quote:
I don't agree that the comments made by others were hateful. It seems that your reaction was more emotional than logical. Perhaps some introspection is in order. There are many of us in the world, including plenty of your own countrymen, who feel frustrated to witness your country's reputation and economy disappear down the toilet. I believe that the "hateful" comments were instead an expression of disappointment that your government has chosen to engage in folly, when there is so much that needs to be done at home.
You may not agree because you're sympathetic, from what I read in your remarks. That determines how you look at their remarks. I regard them as offensive, and it's how I feel about it that has to matter to me.
You consider my replies to be overreaction, and I don't. There is emotion on both sides. I'm not going to apologize for mine, as I shouldn't have to. I live every day reading about what's going around in the world. Perhaps some want to remain in their cocoons.
But I agree with a bit of the statement that we have problems. I suppose we should have kept high tariffs so that manufacturers in China and other lowball places couldn't sell into our country, thus pulling our jobs away. We should drop "most favored nation" status as well, as it isn't reciprocated or respected. We should also prevent foreign companies from buying ours when we can;t do the same thing there, and prevent state financed companies from doing it at all.
There are a lot of things wrong that you don't understand that are causing our problems other than our own missteps internally. We always seem to be making trade agreements that favor the other party, and never come down on them when they don't meet their promised obligations.
But, I suppose you'll dismiss all that as well, as you have the other problems I mentioned earlier, because it doesn't fit into your preferred world view of a happy place to live that doesn't depend on anyone else to assure it remains that way. So we are the bad guy, and all the real bad guys don't exist..
As I replied in my post to Greg, just above, I was responding to two antagonistic posters. Posters who had no reason to say what they did. They are the ones with the chips on their shoulders, not me.
I almost never begin a series of antagonistic posts myself, but respond to others doing so. I sometimes get tagged that way, because I'm not shy about responding.
But, I do think that those two others should have been responded to by others, such as yourself and Greg. Very possibly, if someone else had done so, even in a less definitive manner, I wouldn't have felt it neccessary to do so.
I just find it amazing that some peope from other countries seem to feel superior because they don't have to do what we have to do.
And that's not to say we don't make mistakes, or have an administration that is, let us say, less than competent, as we do now.
But all countries have them, it's just that small countries don't have to do what large ones have to do, so they can feel good about themselves.
The US does what it can to keep things working smoothly, but sometimes we make mistakes in the name of the overall good, and sometimes, just like everywhere else, we get an idiot for a leader.
But, the gratuitous comments are still uncalled for.
Thanks for the clarification Mel, my comments are recinded and my respect for you lives on.
Thanks for the clarification Mel, my comments are recinded and my respect for you lives on.
many Thanks
Scott
Thank you.
I just want you to know that I have nothing but respect for Australia and New Zealand. It's just that some people have that "small town" mentality, do you know what I mean?
@ctwise: I think there are a few more political factors that you aren't mentioning. As Tofino was mentioning for Canada, what I personally believe we have here is corporate rapaciousness at the forefront of the reasons why our broadband sucks here in America where the internet was founded. With our elected officials acting as officers of the telcos and cablecos (where many will go to work when they leave what for some reason is still called "public" office) there is apparently NO accountability to the American public. When you have Powell Jr. laughing about the quaintness of concepts like the "public benefit" when it comes to not only broadcast airwaves, but geographical monopolies like telephone and cable, you know that John Q. Public is going to get stuffed like a housecat.
And when people tell me that we have a system in place that automatically corrects that, a system set up so in some Novembers we get to vote our displeasure at how our country was run by choosing the OTHER candidate, then I suggest those people are not living in the same country I am.
If we don't eliminate the EC, institute instant runoff elections and stop forcing our candidates to raise freakish amounts of money to pay the companies who were initially allowed access to our homes through the airwaves *as a public trust*, we're never going to fix this boat. Our government is in hock to our/their corporate masters as never before.
Sure, there are a few different demographic challenges to be met here than say in Sweden or Taiwan. But when we allow Enron-style business policies to run not only the business world but also our government, then I suspect we're going to be waiting a long time before we can match the basic services of social democracies who haven't forgotten the more important parts of Adam Smith's observations. The stuff about progressive taxes for one. And this bit too: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices," as he wrote in his famous Wealth of Nations."It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
As I pay over $60 to fill my 4-cylinder mini-truck, I really wonder what exactly was said when Cheney had his secret get-together with the heads of big oil. Not hearing a lot about that in the MSM either are we.
Sorry for the historical diversions and analogies, but I'm not expecting anything to get any better with broadband here in the USA. Every player wants to keep all their profits and make the taxpayer foot the bill for any future improvements.
@ctwise: I think there are a few more political factors that you aren't mentioning. As Tofino was mentioning for Canada, what I personally believe we have here is corporate rapaciousness at the forefront of the reasons why our broadband sucks here in America where the internet was founded. With our elected officials acting as officers of the telcos and cablecos (where many will go to work when they leave what for some reason is still called "public" office) there is apparently NO accountability to the American public. When you have Powell Jr. laughing about the quaintness of concepts like the "public benefit" when it comes to not only broadcast airwaves, but geographical monopolies like telephone and cable, you know that John Q. Public is going to get stuffed like a housecat.
And when people tell me that we have a system in place that automatically corrects that, a system set up so in some Novembers we get to vote our displeasure at how our country was run by choosing the OTHER candidate, then I suggest those people are not living in the same country I am.
If we don't eliminate the EC, institute instant runoff elections and stop forcing our candidates to raise freakish amounts of money to pay the companies who were initially allowed access to our homes through the airwaves *as a public trust*, we're never going to fix this boat. Our government is in hock to our/their corporate masters as never before.
Sure, there are a few different demographic challenges to be met here than say in Sweden or Taiwan. But when we allow Enron-style business policies to run not only the business world but also our government, then I suspect we're going to be waiting a long time before we can match the basic services of social democracies who haven't forgotten the more important parts of Adam Smith's observations. The stuff about progressive taxes for one. And this bit too: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices," as he wrote in his famous Wealth of Nations."It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
As I pay over $60 to fill my 4-cylinder mini-truck, I really wonder what exactly was said when Cheney had his secret get-together with the heads of big oil. Not hearing a lot about that in the MSM either are we.
Sorry for the historical diversions and analogies, but I'm not expecting anything to get any better with broadband here in the USA. Every player wants to keep all their profits and make the taxpayer foot the bill for any future improvements.
This is true everywhere. It's sad, but there's no monopoly here in the States. Go fill your tank in Europe. It's about the equiv. of $8 to $12 per gallon.
I do agree that too much money is spent on elections. I would prefer they be shorter in time, and less in cost. But influence is no more here than anywhere else.
No matter how you look at it, the taxpayer always pays, here, there, and everywhere.
I just want you to know that I have nothing but respect for Australia and New Zealand. It's just that some people have that "small town" mentality, do you know what I mean?
So you don't want to insult people based on political borders but do want to insult people based on the size of the city they live in? Sounds like you have that "NYC" mentality, do you know what I mean?
So you don't want to insult people based on political borders but do want to insult people based on the size of the city they live in? Sounds like you have that "NYC" mentality, do you know what I mean?
First of all, I'm responding to what I consider to be an insult. You don't have to like that, but that's what it is.
Also, reality does often intrude in discussions. Power politics exists, and there's no point in denying it.
Large countries are, of necessity, different in their outlook of the world than small countries are. Small countries want to either keep out of the way of the big guys, or closely align themselves to one. When they perceive a threat, they go the way they think is best for them. People in those countries resent the power large countries have. That's to be expected, as they are often pulled one way or the other. They also often have to find excuses for going in a way they may not want to go for the sake of their psyche, but individuals in those countries want to feel as though they have choices they may not actually have, and that breeds resentment. As I said earlier, it's easier to punch the guy you know won't punch back.
If you're on the other side of this, I don't expect understanding, but it's true nevertheless.
(Obviously I'm giving up being on topic, but what the hell).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I have nothing but respect for Australia and New Zealand. It's just that some people have that "small town" mentality, do you know what I mean?
Absolutely true.
Now you can choose whether to respond to "small minded people" as individuals, or respond to them based on their country.
ie: tell the individuals they're idiots for not seeing the big picture.
If you choose to agree with their argument that makes it "foreigners vs USA" rather than "small minded people" - then you have bought into their world view and it becomes a national generalisation or possibly prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I suppose we should have kept high tariffs so that manufacturers in China and other lowball places couldn't sell into our country, thus pulling our jobs away.
"China and other lowball places" shows on the one hand that you are proud of your own country (which I support), but it certainly shows what you think of China. Whether you are right or wrong isn't part of my argument - just noting that you ARE saying this.
Its like saying "I'm a philanthropist because I like helping idiotic numbskulls". It doesn't show that someone is compassionate, it shows a feeling of self importance (and I'm not sure whether it shows generosity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
We always seem to be making trade agreements that favor the other party, and never come down on them when they don't meet their promised obligations.
Fair enough - there are certainly unequal deals made all the time and I wish all countries stood by them. I'm sure ALL countries (US and Australia included) bend their agreements too!
I'm not sure what any country should do to "come down on" a country that doesn't keep to their agreement... I just assume that politicians of all persuasions are good at double talk, and that they all know they're talking crap and are hopefully good at working within the double talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Small countries want to either keep out of the way of the big guys, or closely align themselves to one. When they percieve a threat, they go the way they think is best for them. People in those countries resent the power large countries have. That's to be expected, as they are often pulled one way or the other.
You're unclear - which people in those countries? To help me understand, would you try saying to yourself "Some people in small countries resent the power large countries have". And test out saying "Everyone in small countries resent the power large countries have". Which feels right.
(If it's "Some people in small countries", would you also say "some people in large countries resent the power large countries have"? If so, lets remove "in small countries".. so it's just "some people resent the power large countries have". I'll leave you to clarify)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I was responding to two antagonistic posters. Posters who had no reason to say what they did. They are the ones with the chips on their shoulders, not me.<snip>
But, I do think that those two others should have been responded to by others, such as yourself and Greg.
Okay, I'll do that belatedly. I didn't do it because it was a small picture comment, off topic, and I didn't buy into it reflecting my country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostkiwi
So... how many months of Iraq is one trillion worth? Imagine something actually positive happening with that money..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charel
The US prefers to spend its money on arms and war instead.
LostKiwi, Charel - that's such a big comment. The US is spending a lot of money on the war and at a surface level it could be spent better in other areas - but nothing is that simple. The US has a huge impact and influence on the world, both good and bad, and military spending is part of that. It has costs and it has rewards, you can't just remove one part of a complicated puzzle and think you could make a change.
Someone recently said to me that we should simply not repair roads for a year, and put the savings towards hospitals. It misses the point... there is no money saved in the longer term. There are repercussions when you make changes that have so many influences.
To everyone: the above ignores my personal belief on whether the US is doing the right thing militarily. I do have an opinion and I've attempted to avoid it entirely.
Back to Mel's response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Boy, you people from those tiny suck-up countries have no sense of history, do you?
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'd love to have you survive on your own. You're about the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism left around that part of the world. If you think they love you there. Think again!
I'm curious as to how long you would last on your own without us standing around with a big stick.
It's an insult. Face that Mel. You could have responded without calling my country "a tiny suck-up country" or "the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism", you chose not to.
As I said in an earlier post - that's unlike you, I accept you meant to attack the 2 people who insulted the US, it's just that you decided to insult my country in response rather than keep it to those 2.
If you don't understand the difference, try the following reword of your response:
----
Boy, you have no sense of history do you? The US protects you and your country.
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'm curious as to how long you think Australia and New Zealand would last without us standing around with a big stick. You are part of the commonwealth, but that wouldn't protect you.
----
Still personal, but more clear what you're saying.
(Obviously I'm giving up being on topic, but what the hell).
Absolutely true.
Now you can choose whether to respond to "small minded people" as individuals, or respond to them based on their country.
ie: tell the individuals they're idiots for not seeing the big picture.
If you choose to agree with their argument that makes it "foreigners vs USA" rather than "small minded people" - then you have bought into their world view and it becomes a national generalisation or possibly prejudice.
As this started from those particular people, you can look to what they said from either my viewpoint, or not, it's up to you. What I saw in those remarks was an accusation that I found to be insulting. It's difficult to explain on line.
Quote:
"China and other lowball places" shows on the one hand that you are proud of your own country (which I support), but it certainly shows what you think of China. Whether you are right or wrong isn't part of my argument - just noting that you ARE saying this.
I don't think I'm wrong in that. I doubt the US is the only country that is having problems with China either. They are trying to make up 200 years of industrialization in 20 years. As a result they underprice goods, refuse to revalue their currency to what would be the true market value, etc. Every manufacturing country sees the same problems we do.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that reflects on anything but what it is, a government that is VERY single minded. Your country is being hurt here as well.
Quote:
Its like saying "I'm a philanthropist because I like helping idiotic numbskulls". It doesn't show that someone is compassionate, it shows a feeling of self importance (and I'm not sure whether it shows generosity).
I don't know where you got this from. It has nothing to do with the discussion at all.
Quote:
Fair enough - there are certainly unequal deals made all the time and I wish all countries stood by them. I'm sure ALL countries (US and Australia included) bend their agreements too!
There's a difference between a country seeing affects from a deal that wasn't expected, and is hitting them in unintended ways that makes them want to back out, or modify it, and countries that never intend to abide by treaties at all. China and Russia are the two biggest of those.
Quote:
I'm not sure what any country should do to "come down on" a country that doesn't keep to their agreement... I just assume that politicians of all persuasions are good at double talk, and that they all know they're talking crap and are hopefully good at working within the double talk.
As I think you realize, it means backing out of the treaty.
Quote:
You're unclear - which people in those countries? To help me understand, would you try saying to yourself "Some people in small countries resent the power large countries have". And test out saying "Everyone in small countries resent the power large countries have". Which feels right.
You're getting into semantics. I think that by now, you know what I mean. I've explained myself enough for almost anyone to understand.
I'll try one more time.
There are people who live in smaller countries who both resent the power large countries have, but at the same time, understand that they need a "protector". They resent that as well. It's like a small kid needing a bigger kid around to protect them from the bully. They are happy their protector is there, but they resent needing the protection at all. Sometimes they do or say things that makes them feel that perhaps they don't really need that protector after all, but deep down, they know they do. They also know that there are things they can get away with with their protector, as long as they don't go too far. That doesn't mean that their protector has to be happy about being hassled. But it makes the small kid feel independent, even though in reality, they are not.
Quote:
(If it's "Some people in small countries", would you also say "some people in large countries resent the power large countries have"? If so, lets remove "in small countries".. so it's just "some people resent the power large countries have". I'll leave you to clarify)
I'm not sure I understand that. It's not really sensible.
People in large countries don't resent the power their country has. They may not always be happy about the way it's used, but that's different.
Quote:
Okay, I'll do that belatedly. I didn't do it because it was a small picture comment, off topic, and I didn't buy into it reflecting my country.
LostKiwi, Charel - that's such a big comment. The US is spending a lot of money on the war and at a surface level it could be spent better in other areas - but nothing is that simple. The US has a huge impact and influence on the world, both good and bad, and military spending is part of that. It has costs and it has rewards, you can't just remove one part of a complicated puzzle and think you could make a change.
Someone recently said to me that we should simply not repair roads for a year, and put the savings towards hospitals. It misses the point... there is no money saved in the longer term. There are repercussions when you make changes that have so many influences.
To everyone: the above ignores my personal belief on whether the US is doing the right thing militarily. I do have an opinion and I've attempted to avoid it entirely.
Quote:
Back to Mel's response:
It's an insult. Face that Mel. You could have responded without calling my country "a tiny suck-up country" or "the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism", you chose not to.
Yes, it was an insult in response to an uncalled for insult. I never denied that. That was the point to it. I was trying to show how it felt from my end, by throwing one back. It's gone way beyond what it was worth though.
Quote:
As I said in an earlier post - that's unlike you, I accept you meant to attack the 2 people who insulted the US, it's just that you decided to insult my country in response rather than keep it to those 2.
As I just stated, it was to show that when you insult someone's country, it can hurt. If they had brought up the subject in another way, I would have responded in another way.
Quote:
If you don't understand the difference, try the following reword of your response:
----
Boy, you have no sense of history do you? The US protects you and your country.
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'm curious as to how long you think Australia and New Zealand would last without us standing around with a big stick. You are part of the commonwealth, but they wouldn't be able to protect you.
----
Still personal, but more clear what you're saying.
Again, as I said, the point to to give them the feeling I had gotten from them, while mentioning some minor facts of life.
I don't think I'm wrong in that. I doubt the US is the only country that is having problems with China either.
Not arguing this one way or the other. Just pointing out the way you were denigrating other countries. I see you already realised that.
Quote:
countries that never intend to abide by treaties at all. China and Russia are the two biggest of those.
Fair enough, not arguing one way or the other.
Quote:
People in large countries don't resent the power their country has. They may not always be happy about the way it's used, but that's different.
Of course. But I wondered whether people in the US resent the power China has, or Russia? They're big countries as well.
Quote:
Yes, it was an insult in response to an uncalled for insult. I never denied that. That was the point to it. I was trying to show how it felt from my end, by throwing one back. It's gone way beyond what it was worth though.
<snip>it was to show that when you insult someone's country, it can hurt. If they had brought up the subject in another way, I would have responded in another way.
Ah, this is something new and important. So aimed at those 2 posters, you insulted their country to show them how it felt. Later you told me and others you weren't insulting a country per se, just those 2 posters. Makes sense from your point of view, and from mine.
Next time, at the end of the insult - qualify it by saying "I don't really believe this - just showing them what it feels like to insult your country".
(I'll accept the explanation).
Quote:
There are people who live in smaller countries who both resent the power large countries have, but at the same time, understand that they need a "protector". They resent that as well. It's like a small kid needing a bigger kid around to protect them from the bully. They are happy their protector is there, but they resent needing the protection at all. Sometimes they do or say things that makes them feel that perhaps they don't really need that protector after all, but deep down, they know they do. They also know that there are things they can get away with with their protector, as long as they don't go too far. That doesn't mean that their protector has to be happy about being hassled. But it makes the small kid feel independent, even though in reality, they are not.
Damn, you're sucking me in to a philosophical debate! :-)
Okay... I'll resist.
Big kids can defend well. They can also be bullies. Or they can protect well AND have younger kids wishing they weren't involved (wrongly, or rightly). They can even stop kids from taking responsibility by taking it from them first (so the little brother always needs the big brother). All sorts of interpretations, all valid and complex.
Of course. But I wondered whether people in the US resent the power China has, or Russia? They're big countries as well.
That wasn't the way you stated it. It was stated in such a way as to mean citizens in their own country. But, yes, of course. big countries are wary of each other, and it goes to the point I was making. Who's your big brother, the US, China, or Russia?
Quote:
Ah, this is something new and important. So aimed at those 2 posters, you insulted their country to show them how it felt. Later you told me and others you weren't insulting a country per se, just those 2 posters. Makes sense from your point of view, and from mine.
I've been saying this over and again.
Quote:
Next time, at the end of the insult - qualify it by saying "I don't really believe this - just showing them what it feels like to insult your country".
(I'll accept the explanation).
Sometimes though, if you say that, then it loses it's power, and its ignored.
Quote:
Damn, you're sucking me in to a philosophical debate! :-)
Okay... I'll resist.
Big kids can defend well. They can also be bullies. Or they can protect well AND have younger kids wishing they weren't involved (wrongly, or rightly). They can even stop kids from taking responsibility by taking it from them first (so the little brother always needs the big brother). All sorts of interpretations, all valid and complex.
Sometimes, responsibility is in the strength of the holder. What can a country with a few million people do when another with ten times as many becomes aggressive? That's what alliances are all about.
Comments
Are you still on the WWII kick? That was 60 years ago. I was referring to the current expense, where the US spends 50% of the worldwide expenditure on "defense". And the cost of the misbegotten "war on terror" that does not make me feel safer at all.
If you think this is naive and hateful so be it. I advise you to take a second look at the propaganda you take to be truth.
I bring it up because it has determined the world as it is today. The results of that war have also determined the defense budgets as well.
What you have to do, it to look at what happens every time we announce that we want to cut our military presence somewhere. We're told no (unless some GI does something stupid, and then there are protests).
By keeping out budgets high, everyone else can keep them low. You don't have to be concerned that China will swallow Taiwan, because we do. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you didn't care when Iraq invaded Kuwait either, or that he was threatening to invade Saudi Arabia.
Maybe none of that mattered to you, but it benefitted everyone that the situation was rectified.
As I've said, I don't agree with everything done here, as I don't agree with everything done elsewhere.
I also don't mind discussion, but those posts were vehement and sarcastic. That does get me angry. And it wasn't required to mention it al all here. It was uncalled for.
I also seem to remember, in the late 1990's, when the war in the Balkins erupted, we were told to keep out of it because the EU would take care of the problem. It's always interesting to note that this even happens. We waited a couple of years, and then had to wade in once the slaughter began. No one else would do it.
So, sure, we're not always right, but I'd hate to think what would happen if we weren't around, and remained isolationist as we did after WW I.
I bring it up because it has determined the world as it is today. The results of that war have also determined the defense budgets as well.
What you have to do, it to look at what happens every time we announce that we want to cut our military presence somewhere. We're told no (unless some GI does something stupid, and then there are protests).
By keeping out budgets high, everyone else can keep them low. You don't have to be concerned that China will swallow Taiwan, because we do. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you didn't care when Iraq invaded Kuwait either, or that he was threatening to invade Saudi Arabia.
Maybe none of that mattered to you, but it benefitted everyone that the situation was rectified.
As I've said, I don't agree with everything done here, as I don't agree with everything done elsewhere.
I also don't mind discussion, but those posts were vehement and sarcastic. That does get me angry. And it wasn't required to mention it al all here. It was uncalled for.
I also seem to remember, in the late 1990's, when the war in the Balkins erupted, we were told to keep out of it because the EU would take care of the problem. It's always interesting to note that this even happens. We waited a couple of years, and then had to wade in once the slaughter began. No one else would do it.
So, sure, we're not always right, but I'd hate to think what would happen if we weren't around, and remained isolationist as we did after WW I.
I am glad to hear that you believe that US influence in the world benign. I do not agree. As to my remark about US military spending, it was sarcastic and meant to be. When the US stops behaving like the world's policeman, other countries will either take over the burden or face the consequences. It is up to them, and not the US. With less emphasis on "defence spending" money would be available for infrastructure and other needed investments. That is all I tried to say in my two lines.
I don't agree that the comments made by others were hateful. It seems that your reaction was more emotional than logical. Perhaps some introspection is in order. There are many of us in the world, including plenty of your own countrymen, who feel frustrated to witness your country's reputation and economy disappear down the toilet. I believe that the "hateful" comments were instead an expression of disappointment that your government has chosen to engage in folly, when there is so much that needs to be done at home.
I am glad to hear that you believe that US influence in the world benign. I do not agree. As to my remark about US military spending, it was sarcastic and meant to be. When the US stops behaving like the world's policeman, other countries will either take over the burden or face the consequences. It is up to them, and not the US. With less emphasis on "defence spending" money would be available for infrastructure and other needed investments. That is all I tried to say in my two lines.
The answer to that is as you say "face the consequences"
We see that on a regular basis. but I understand that its easy to blame us and ignore the rest.
Mel, the US government has always done that which suits its strategic interests. To think otherwise is naive. You don't need to get on your high-horse and tell the rest of the world how grateful it should be. That is offensive. For better or worse, without US intervention the world would surely be a different place, but it is not useful to fantasise over what might have been.
Its interesting to look and see the lack of depth to the argument to that though. Our strategic interests almost always coincide with most others interests as well, even though some others don't want to admit it.
It's like punching your big brother rather than the bully down the block. You know your brother won't punch back hard, but the bully will.
I'm reading fantasy here.
I don't agree that the comments made by others were hateful. It seems that your reaction was more emotional than logical. Perhaps some introspection is in order. There are many of us in the world, including plenty of your own countrymen, who feel frustrated to witness your country's reputation and economy disappear down the toilet. I believe that the "hateful" comments were instead an expression of disappointment that your government has chosen to engage in folly, when there is so much that needs to be done at home.
You may not agree because you're sympathetic, from what I read in your remarks. That determines how you look at their remarks. I regard them as offensive, and it's how I feel about it that has to matter to me.
You consider my replies to be overreaction, and I don't. There is emotion on both sides. I'm not going to apologize for mine, as I shouldn't have to. I live every day reading about what's going around in the world. Perhaps some want to remain in their cocoons.
But I agree with a bit of the statement that we have problems. I suppose we should have kept high tariffs so that manufacturers in China and other lowball places couldn't sell into our country, thus pulling our jobs away. We should drop "most favored nation" status as well, as it isn't reciprocated or respected. We should also prevent foreign companies from buying ours when we can;t do the same thing there, and prevent state financed companies from doing it at all.
There are a lot of things wrong that you don't understand that are causing our problems other than our own missteps internally. We always seem to be making trade agreements that favor the other party, and never come down on them when they don't meet their promised obligations.
But, I suppose you'll dismiss all that as well, as you have the other problems I mentioned earlier, because it doesn't fit into your preferred world view of a happy place to live that doesn't depend on anyone else to assure it remains that way. So we are the bad guy, and all the real bad guys don't exist..
As I replied in my post to Greg, just above, I was responding to two antagonistic posters. Posters who had no reason to say what they did. They are the ones with the chips on their shoulders, not me.
I almost never begin a series of antagonistic posts myself, but respond to others doing so. I sometimes get tagged that way, because I'm not shy about responding.
But, I do think that those two others should have been responded to by others, such as yourself and Greg. Very possibly, if someone else had done so, even in a less definitive manner, I wouldn't have felt it neccessary to do so.
I just find it amazing that some peope from other countries seem to feel superior because they don't have to do what we have to do.
And that's not to say we don't make mistakes, or have an administration that is, let us say, less than competent, as we do now.
But all countries have them, it's just that small countries don't have to do what large ones have to do, so they can feel good about themselves.
The US does what it can to keep things working smoothly, but sometimes we make mistakes in the name of the overall good, and sometimes, just like everywhere else, we get an idiot for a leader.
But, the gratuitous comments are still uncalled for.
Thanks for the clarification Mel, my comments are recinded and my respect for you lives on.
many Thanks
Scott
Thanks for the clarification Mel, my comments are recinded and my respect for you lives on.
many Thanks
Scott
Thank you.
I just want you to know that I have nothing but respect for Australia and New Zealand. It's just that some people have that "small town" mentality, do you know what I mean?
And when people tell me that we have a system in place that automatically corrects that, a system set up so in some Novembers we get to vote our displeasure at how our country was run by choosing the OTHER candidate, then I suggest those people are not living in the same country I am.
If we don't eliminate the EC, institute instant runoff elections and stop forcing our candidates to raise freakish amounts of money to pay the companies who were initially allowed access to our homes through the airwaves *as a public trust*, we're never going to fix this boat. Our government is in hock to our/their corporate masters as never before.
Sure, there are a few different demographic challenges to be met here than say in Sweden or Taiwan. But when we allow Enron-style business policies to run not only the business world but also our government, then I suspect we're going to be waiting a long time before we can match the basic services of social democracies who haven't forgotten the more important parts of Adam Smith's observations. The stuff about progressive taxes for one. And this bit too: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices," as he wrote in his famous Wealth of Nations."It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
As I pay over $60 to fill my 4-cylinder mini-truck, I really wonder what exactly was said when Cheney had his secret get-together with the heads of big oil. Not hearing a lot about that in the MSM either are we.
Sorry for the historical diversions and analogies, but I'm not expecting anything to get any better with broadband here in the USA. Every player wants to keep all their profits and make the taxpayer foot the bill for any future improvements.
@ctwise: I think there are a few more political factors that you aren't mentioning. As Tofino was mentioning for Canada, what I personally believe we have here is corporate rapaciousness at the forefront of the reasons why our broadband sucks here in America where the internet was founded. With our elected officials acting as officers of the telcos and cablecos (where many will go to work when they leave what for some reason is still called "public" office) there is apparently NO accountability to the American public. When you have Powell Jr. laughing about the quaintness of concepts like the "public benefit" when it comes to not only broadcast airwaves, but geographical monopolies like telephone and cable, you know that John Q. Public is going to get stuffed like a housecat.
And when people tell me that we have a system in place that automatically corrects that, a system set up so in some Novembers we get to vote our displeasure at how our country was run by choosing the OTHER candidate, then I suggest those people are not living in the same country I am.
If we don't eliminate the EC, institute instant runoff elections and stop forcing our candidates to raise freakish amounts of money to pay the companies who were initially allowed access to our homes through the airwaves *as a public trust*, we're never going to fix this boat. Our government is in hock to our/their corporate masters as never before.
Sure, there are a few different demographic challenges to be met here than say in Sweden or Taiwan. But when we allow Enron-style business policies to run not only the business world but also our government, then I suspect we're going to be waiting a long time before we can match the basic services of social democracies who haven't forgotten the more important parts of Adam Smith's observations. The stuff about progressive taxes for one. And this bit too: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices," as he wrote in his famous Wealth of Nations."It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
As I pay over $60 to fill my 4-cylinder mini-truck, I really wonder what exactly was said when Cheney had his secret get-together with the heads of big oil. Not hearing a lot about that in the MSM either are we.
Sorry for the historical diversions and analogies, but I'm not expecting anything to get any better with broadband here in the USA. Every player wants to keep all their profits and make the taxpayer foot the bill for any future improvements.
This is true everywhere. It's sad, but there's no monopoly here in the States. Go fill your tank in Europe. It's about the equiv. of $8 to $12 per gallon.
I do agree that too much money is spent on elections. I would prefer they be shorter in time, and less in cost. But influence is no more here than anywhere else.
No matter how you look at it, the taxpayer always pays, here, there, and everywhere.
Just be happy we don't pay VAT.
I just want you to know that I have nothing but respect for Australia and New Zealand. It's just that some people have that "small town" mentality, do you know what I mean?
So you don't want to insult people based on political borders but do want to insult people based on the size of the city they live in? Sounds like you have that "NYC" mentality, do you know what I mean?
So you don't want to insult people based on political borders but do want to insult people based on the size of the city they live in? Sounds like you have that "NYC" mentality, do you know what I mean?
First of all, I'm responding to what I consider to be an insult. You don't have to like that, but that's what it is.
Also, reality does often intrude in discussions. Power politics exists, and there's no point in denying it.
Large countries are, of necessity, different in their outlook of the world than small countries are. Small countries want to either keep out of the way of the big guys, or closely align themselves to one. When they perceive a threat, they go the way they think is best for them. People in those countries resent the power large countries have. That's to be expected, as they are often pulled one way or the other. They also often have to find excuses for going in a way they may not want to go for the sake of their psyche, but individuals in those countries want to feel as though they have choices they may not actually have, and that breeds resentment. As I said earlier, it's easier to punch the guy you know won't punch back.
If you're on the other side of this, I don't expect understanding, but it's true nevertheless.
I have nothing but respect for Australia and New Zealand. It's just that some people have that "small town" mentality, do you know what I mean?
Absolutely true.
Now you can choose whether to respond to "small minded people" as individuals, or respond to them based on their country.
ie: tell the individuals they're idiots for not seeing the big picture.
If you choose to agree with their argument that makes it "foreigners vs USA" rather than "small minded people" - then you have bought into their world view and it becomes a national generalisation or possibly prejudice.
I suppose we should have kept high tariffs so that manufacturers in China and other lowball places couldn't sell into our country, thus pulling our jobs away.
"China and other lowball places" shows on the one hand that you are proud of your own country (which I support), but it certainly shows what you think of China. Whether you are right or wrong isn't part of my argument - just noting that you ARE saying this.
Its like saying "I'm a philanthropist because I like helping idiotic numbskulls". It doesn't show that someone is compassionate, it shows a feeling of self importance (and I'm not sure whether it shows generosity).
We always seem to be making trade agreements that favor the other party, and never come down on them when they don't meet their promised obligations.
Fair enough - there are certainly unequal deals made all the time and I wish all countries stood by them. I'm sure ALL countries (US and Australia included) bend their agreements too!
I'm not sure what any country should do to "come down on" a country that doesn't keep to their agreement... I just assume that politicians of all persuasions are good at double talk, and that they all know they're talking crap and are hopefully good at working within the double talk.
Small countries want to either keep out of the way of the big guys, or closely align themselves to one. When they percieve a threat, they go the way they think is best for them. People in those countries resent the power large countries have. That's to be expected, as they are often pulled one way or the other.
You're unclear - which people in those countries? To help me understand, would you try saying to yourself "Some people in small countries resent the power large countries have". And test out saying "Everyone in small countries resent the power large countries have". Which feels right.
(If it's "Some people in small countries", would you also say "some people in large countries resent the power large countries have"? If so, lets remove "in small countries".. so it's just "some people resent the power large countries have". I'll leave you to clarify)
I was responding to two antagonistic posters. Posters who had no reason to say what they did. They are the ones with the chips on their shoulders, not me.<snip>
But, I do think that those two others should have been responded to by others, such as yourself and Greg.
Okay, I'll do that belatedly. I didn't do it because it was a small picture comment, off topic, and I didn't buy into it reflecting my country.
So... how many months of Iraq is one trillion worth? Imagine something actually positive happening with that money..
The US prefers to spend its money on arms and war instead.
LostKiwi, Charel - that's such a big comment. The US is spending a lot of money on the war and at a surface level it could be spent better in other areas - but nothing is that simple. The US has a huge impact and influence on the world, both good and bad, and military spending is part of that. It has costs and it has rewards, you can't just remove one part of a complicated puzzle and think you could make a change.
Someone recently said to me that we should simply not repair roads for a year, and put the savings towards hospitals. It misses the point... there is no money saved in the longer term. There are repercussions when you make changes that have so many influences.
To everyone: the above ignores my personal belief on whether the US is doing the right thing militarily. I do have an opinion and I've attempted to avoid it entirely.
Back to Mel's response:
Boy, you people from those tiny suck-up countries have no sense of history, do you?
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'd love to have you survive on your own. You're about the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism left around that part of the world. If you think they love you there. Think again!
I'm curious as to how long you would last on your own without us standing around with a big stick.
It's an insult. Face that Mel. You could have responded without calling my country "a tiny suck-up country" or "the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism", you chose not to.
As I said in an earlier post - that's unlike you, I accept you meant to attack the 2 people who insulted the US, it's just that you decided to insult my country in response rather than keep it to those 2.
If you don't understand the difference, try the following reword of your response:
----
Boy, you have no sense of history do you? The US protects you and your country.
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'm curious as to how long you think Australia and New Zealand would last without us standing around with a big stick. You are part of the commonwealth, but that wouldn't protect you.
----
Still personal, but more clear what you're saying.
(Obviously I'm giving up being on topic, but what the hell).
Absolutely true.
Now you can choose whether to respond to "small minded people" as individuals, or respond to them based on their country.
ie: tell the individuals they're idiots for not seeing the big picture.
If you choose to agree with their argument that makes it "foreigners vs USA" rather than "small minded people" - then you have bought into their world view and it becomes a national generalisation or possibly prejudice.
As this started from those particular people, you can look to what they said from either my viewpoint, or not, it's up to you. What I saw in those remarks was an accusation that I found to be insulting. It's difficult to explain on line.
"China and other lowball places" shows on the one hand that you are proud of your own country (which I support), but it certainly shows what you think of China. Whether you are right or wrong isn't part of my argument - just noting that you ARE saying this.
I don't think I'm wrong in that. I doubt the US is the only country that is having problems with China either. They are trying to make up 200 years of industrialization in 20 years. As a result they underprice goods, refuse to revalue their currency to what would be the true market value, etc. Every manufacturing country sees the same problems we do.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that reflects on anything but what it is, a government that is VERY single minded. Your country is being hurt here as well.
Its like saying "I'm a philanthropist because I like helping idiotic numbskulls". It doesn't show that someone is compassionate, it shows a feeling of self importance (and I'm not sure whether it shows generosity).
I don't know where you got this from. It has nothing to do with the discussion at all.
Fair enough - there are certainly unequal deals made all the time and I wish all countries stood by them. I'm sure ALL countries (US and Australia included) bend their agreements too!
There's a difference between a country seeing affects from a deal that wasn't expected, and is hitting them in unintended ways that makes them want to back out, or modify it, and countries that never intend to abide by treaties at all. China and Russia are the two biggest of those.
I'm not sure what any country should do to "come down on" a country that doesn't keep to their agreement... I just assume that politicians of all persuasions are good at double talk, and that they all know they're talking crap and are hopefully good at working within the double talk.
As I think you realize, it means backing out of the treaty.
You're unclear - which people in those countries? To help me understand, would you try saying to yourself "Some people in small countries resent the power large countries have". And test out saying "Everyone in small countries resent the power large countries have". Which feels right.
You're getting into semantics. I think that by now, you know what I mean. I've explained myself enough for almost anyone to understand.
I'll try one more time.
There are people who live in smaller countries who both resent the power large countries have, but at the same time, understand that they need a "protector". They resent that as well. It's like a small kid needing a bigger kid around to protect them from the bully. They are happy their protector is there, but they resent needing the protection at all. Sometimes they do or say things that makes them feel that perhaps they don't really need that protector after all, but deep down, they know they do. They also know that there are things they can get away with with their protector, as long as they don't go too far. That doesn't mean that their protector has to be happy about being hassled. But it makes the small kid feel independent, even though in reality, they are not.
(If it's "Some people in small countries", would you also say "some people in large countries resent the power large countries have"? If so, lets remove "in small countries".. so it's just "some people resent the power large countries have". I'll leave you to clarify)
I'm not sure I understand that. It's not really sensible.
People in large countries don't resent the power their country has. They may not always be happy about the way it's used, but that's different.
Okay, I'll do that belatedly. I didn't do it because it was a small picture comment, off topic, and I didn't buy into it reflecting my country.
LostKiwi, Charel - that's such a big comment. The US is spending a lot of money on the war and at a surface level it could be spent better in other areas - but nothing is that simple. The US has a huge impact and influence on the world, both good and bad, and military spending is part of that. It has costs and it has rewards, you can't just remove one part of a complicated puzzle and think you could make a change.
Someone recently said to me that we should simply not repair roads for a year, and put the savings towards hospitals. It misses the point... there is no money saved in the longer term. There are repercussions when you make changes that have so many influences.
To everyone: the above ignores my personal belief on whether the US is doing the right thing militarily. I do have an opinion and I've attempted to avoid it entirely.
Back to Mel's response:
It's an insult. Face that Mel. You could have responded without calling my country "a tiny suck-up country" or "the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism", you chose not to.
Yes, it was an insult in response to an uncalled for insult. I never denied that. That was the point to it. I was trying to show how it felt from my end, by throwing one back. It's gone way beyond what it was worth though.
As I said in an earlier post - that's unlike you, I accept you meant to attack the 2 people who insulted the US, it's just that you decided to insult my country in response rather than keep it to those 2.
As I just stated, it was to show that when you insult someone's country, it can hurt. If they had brought up the subject in another way, I would have responded in another way.
If you don't understand the difference, try the following reword of your response:
----
Boy, you have no sense of history do you? The US protects you and your country.
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'm curious as to how long you think Australia and New Zealand would last without us standing around with a big stick. You are part of the commonwealth, but they wouldn't be able to protect you.
----
Still personal, but more clear what you're saying.
Again, as I said, the point to to give them the feeling I had gotten from them, while mentioning some minor facts of life.
I don't think I'm wrong in that. I doubt the US is the only country that is having problems with China either.
Not arguing this one way or the other. Just pointing out the way you were denigrating other countries. I see you already realised that.
countries that never intend to abide by treaties at all. China and Russia are the two biggest of those.
Fair enough, not arguing one way or the other.
People in large countries don't resent the power their country has. They may not always be happy about the way it's used, but that's different.
Of course. But I wondered whether people in the US resent the power China has, or Russia? They're big countries as well.
Yes, it was an insult in response to an uncalled for insult. I never denied that. That was the point to it. I was trying to show how it felt from my end, by throwing one back. It's gone way beyond what it was worth though.
<snip>it was to show that when you insult someone's country, it can hurt. If they had brought up the subject in another way, I would have responded in another way.
Ah, this is something new and important. So aimed at those 2 posters, you insulted their country to show them how it felt. Later you told me and others you weren't insulting a country per se, just those 2 posters. Makes sense from your point of view, and from mine.
Next time, at the end of the insult - qualify it by saying "I don't really believe this - just showing them what it feels like to insult your country".
(I'll accept the explanation).
There are people who live in smaller countries who both resent the power large countries have, but at the same time, understand that they need a "protector". They resent that as well. It's like a small kid needing a bigger kid around to protect them from the bully. They are happy their protector is there, but they resent needing the protection at all. Sometimes they do or say things that makes them feel that perhaps they don't really need that protector after all, but deep down, they know they do. They also know that there are things they can get away with with their protector, as long as they don't go too far. That doesn't mean that their protector has to be happy about being hassled. But it makes the small kid feel independent, even though in reality, they are not.
Damn, you're sucking me in to a philosophical debate! :-)
Okay... I'll resist.
Big kids can defend well. They can also be bullies. Or they can protect well AND have younger kids wishing they weren't involved (wrongly, or rightly). They can even stop kids from taking responsibility by taking it from them first (so the little brother always needs the big brother). All sorts of interpretations, all valid and complex.
Of course. But I wondered whether people in the US resent the power China has, or Russia? They're big countries as well.
That wasn't the way you stated it. It was stated in such a way as to mean citizens in their own country. But, yes, of course. big countries are wary of each other, and it goes to the point I was making. Who's your big brother, the US, China, or Russia?
Ah, this is something new and important. So aimed at those 2 posters, you insulted their country to show them how it felt. Later you told me and others you weren't insulting a country per se, just those 2 posters. Makes sense from your point of view, and from mine.
I've been saying this over and again.
Next time, at the end of the insult - qualify it by saying "I don't really believe this - just showing them what it feels like to insult your country".
(I'll accept the explanation).
Sometimes though, if you say that, then it loses it's power, and its ignored.
Damn, you're sucking me in to a philosophical debate! :-)
Okay... I'll resist.
Big kids can defend well. They can also be bullies. Or they can protect well AND have younger kids wishing they weren't involved (wrongly, or rightly). They can even stop kids from taking responsibility by taking it from them first (so the little brother always needs the big brother). All sorts of interpretations, all valid and complex.
Sometimes, responsibility is in the strength of the holder. What can a country with a few million people do when another with ten times as many becomes aggressive? That's what alliances are all about.
But it's a two way street