America is powerful enough to bend the will of nations to its agenda without the use of military force. How quickly people forget, that America ultimately brought the USSR to its knees by sheer economic clout....The USSR imploded with debt.
Bringing the USSR to its knees, not only harmed the US as BR suggested, but also has nothing to do with "bending its will".
Also, the US-USSR rivalry was one of economic/political nature. The conflict of the US with the Middle East is more a religious/political. Yes economics have a lot to do with it, but in this case both parties are playing within the same economic arena/principles. So I can hardly see how the economic clout of the United States could bend the will of any nation.
Two years ago the US was in a privileged situation.
For decades the whole (western, but not only) world saw in America a protector, a guardian from the totalitarian evil in the East. That situation changed with the fall of the East - suddenly the US was scrambling to re-invent itself and ascertain its importance in the global political scene. It did a poor job and has been criticised for its position on many issues, ranging from those on earth preservation initiatives to those of human rights (still the only Western society to endorse the death penalty).
9/11 was, in a way, a golden opportunity for America. For the first time in years or decades the world was looking towards it with sympathy and the will to help. Yes, the world was willing to help. How did the companies running the US take advantage of that?
By starting a war for oil. Not only for oil, of course: there are many business opportunities to be sought after a war and those were allocated well before the war ended (or even commenced).
As for the "cost efficiency" of using "the economic leverage method", well BR said it best. He did however omit one significant detail: human greed is not only about money, it's about time. And Corporate America is not exactly known for its patience.
Errm \ I did forget about the "deficit " ..but ..but...Wasn't there a huge surplus by the time Clinton finished office ?\
Surplus as in year to year surplus. We are still mired in debt which continues to grow faster and faster under Bushenomics. Oh, and that huge surplus would be a very tiny fraction of the deficit we currently are still dealing with.
(desperately tries to work out what this means ... )
Nope.
Don't know what that means.
I was just being sarcastic. It means that when people complain about countries, coalitions, and the U.N., they are doing so because they believe everyone is acting for enlightened reasons. This just isn't so. Poland could have voted yes for purely oil in the U.N. France said they would vote no pretty much no matter what. It just shows why U.S. interests should be decided by the U.S. and no one else.
It just shows why U.S. interests should be decided by the U.S. and no one else.
Nick
And if that's the case we never should have asked permission from the UN in the first place. The fact that we did was a de facto acknowledgment of the power of the international body. By then ignoring the decision rendered by said international body, we undermine both its power and our own credibility. This is quite similar to the way we undermined our credibility by demanding Turkey vote a second time over whether or not they should accept our bribe to use their airspace because we did not like the result of the first democratic vote.
Unlike the economy, the blame for the tarnishing of our image and trampling of our ideals can be squarely put on the shoulders of one GW Bush.
Oh geez, is this getting tired. Sadam had to go. The marketting was crap, dishonest even, but who cares? Pretending that Bush perpetrated some great injustice against Iraq is pure idealist rhetorical fantasy.
Oh geez, is this getting tired. Sadam had to go. The marketting was crap, dishonest even, but who cares? Pretending that Bush perpetrated some great injustice against Iraq is pure idealist rhetorical fantasy.
I didn't say he perpetrated a great injustice against Iraq. He perpetrated a great injustice against the United States.
Surplus as in year to year surplus. We are still mired in debt which continues to grow faster and faster under Bushenomics. Oh, and that huge surplus would be a very tiny fraction of the deficit we currently are still dealing with.
Was this originally part of Reagonomics..the idea about spending / buying oneself out of an economic slump..?
Oh geez, is this getting tired. Sadam had to go. The marketting was crap, dishonest even, but who cares? Pretending that Bush perpetrated some great injustice against Iraq is pure idealist rhetorical fantasy.
What would have been the problem with making the case, "Saddam has to go"?
Why was there a need for dishonesty (as you put it)?
I mean, why did Saddam have to go? If it was "dishonest" then by definition it wasn't about WMD, because that was the marketing.
So what the fkcu was it?
Not WMD, then what?
It wasn't because bad things were happening to people: Rwanda and Chile give the lie to our governments giving a damn about that. Hell, we sold SADDAM more arms after the chem attacks, don't forget that.
Harald, either you don't know or want to admit the difference between politics and diplomacy, and I don't feel like explaining.
I would have bulldozed Iraq (and saudi arabia) ASAP and not put on any airs about WOMD, or justice etc etc. Bush failed a marketing campaign that when he tried to make it read, we will police the world. It should have read: DON'T YOU DARE FVCK WITH US AGAIN.
I think Bush has failed, but we most likely disagree as to the nature of his failures.
And if that's the case we never should have asked permission from the UN in the first place. The fact that we did was a de facto acknowledgment of the power of the international body. By then ignoring the decision rendered by said international body, we undermine both its power and our own credibility. This is quite similar to the way we undermined our credibility by demanding Turkey vote a second time over whether or not they should accept our bribe to use their airspace because we did not like the result of the first democratic vote.
Unlike the economy, the blame for the tarnishing of our image and trampling of our ideals can be squarely put on the shoulders of one GW Bush.
Well I'm sure there will be a point on which we seperate. But I don't care if we ever ask the UN about anything. We did not diminish their power because they HAVE no power. They are essentually a debating society. They couldn't even pass a resolution supporting the U.S. during the Cuban missle crisis for goodness sakes. The only time we ever managed to use the U.N. effectively was 1991.
I don't think we undermine our credibility with issues like Turkey because the rest of the world doesn't operate like we do. It would seem asinine that Turkey would wish to not have a hostile dictator taken off their own border. However Turkey wanted aide and voted it down because they wanted even MORE aide.
Harald, either you don't know or want to admit the difference between politics and diplomacy, and I don't feel like explaining.
I would have bulldozed Iraq (and saudi arabia) ASAP and not put on any airs about WOMD, or justice etc etc. Bush failed a marketing campaign that when he tried to make it read, we will police the world. It should have read: DON'T YOU DARE FVCK WITH US AGAIN.
When did Iraq fvck with the US?
You can't mean 9/11, because that had FA to do with Iraq; I know you know that.
I remember the US kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, but Iraq was fvcking with KUWAIT then and the US did it for the Kuwaitis (oil had nothing to do with it), right?
Since then ... what?
Oh, and you (frighteningly) make it clear you can't see any difference between diplomacy and warfare, or even colonialism. So I doubt you can tell me jack about the difference between politics and diplomacy.
[B]However Turkey wanted aide and voted it down because they wanted even MORE aide./B]
Heh. No, that's wrong. Ha ha.
The Turkish members of parliament represented those that voted for them ("democracy" it's called: when a representative elected government does what the people want it to) and said that the US couldn't do what it proposed.
Not at all, I have an amoralists descriptive outlook, and know what works and what doesn't as it regards nations in relation to nations, and what works as it regards "marketing"
As per our debate about "marketing" fellowship. Sometimes it is in a nation's interest to beat the drum loudly and clearly. Bush has done it confusingly, and so managed to make war, though relatively benign, without the long terms benefits of disciplining lesser aggressors.
Which is why, upon the basic proof of Saudi Arabia's financial commitment to Al Queda, I would have bull-dozed them first. Iraq too, for different reasons. But the response ahould have been engineered to create paralysing fear among would-be regimes.
What happens in these debates here, might have some childish passion for one side or the other, but it lacks the understanding needed to have an intelligent position on the issue.
The Pro war or pro peace sides, are led by the nose, equally ignorant. ________
I wrote a better response to this, but it's now saved in my notes, because it took some time, was original, and will be used in more profitable endeavors than posting here. Regardless, I have given enough clues. Get comfortable with Empires, they aren't ever going away, and America makes a pretty good one as Empires go.
Get comfortable with Empires, they aren't ever going away, and America makes a pretty good one as Empires go.
And all Empires eventually "go" themselves. You'd better get used to that.
One day, fat Ugandan tourists will ogle the Grand Canyon and go on sex-tourist jaunts to Miami to shag your hungry great great great granddaughters. Mongolian kids will snicker at the sweetly hubristic Statue of Liberty and put stills from Hollywood movies on their walls as ironic pokes at the past. Your government will bleat about the starving millions in Minnesota and the dust bowl and how international trade means it can't feed everyone. On some bulletin board a Scandinavian in London will bitch about how the Africans learned nothing about the past. A smug Nigerian will tell him to stick it and get used to it.
You'd better get used to it.
Seriously, I'm glad you're finally admitting what's up, but a couple of points:
Firstly, Empires function by killing to achieve their economic means. Save that bullshit about your American values from now on because your country is selling out everything that made it great. All gone if you're an Empire.
Secondly, if it's international terrorism or death of Americans in the continental US you're worried about, having an Empire is just about the best way I can imagine to get shitloads of both from just about every source.
Comments
Originally posted by aquafire
America is powerful enough to bend the will of nations to its agenda without the use of military force. How quickly people forget, that America ultimately brought the USSR to its knees by sheer economic clout....The USSR imploded with debt.
Bringing the USSR to its knees, not only harmed the US as BR suggested, but also has nothing to do with "bending its will".
Also, the US-USSR rivalry was one of economic/political nature. The conflict of the US with the Middle East is more a religious/political. Yes economics have a lot to do with it, but in this case both parties are playing within the same economic arena/principles. So I can hardly see how the economic clout of the United States could bend the will of any nation.
Two years ago the US was in a privileged situation.
For decades the whole (western, but not only) world saw in America a protector, a guardian from the totalitarian evil in the East. That situation changed with the fall of the East - suddenly the US was scrambling to re-invent itself and ascertain its importance in the global political scene. It did a poor job and has been criticised for its position on many issues, ranging from those on earth preservation initiatives to those of human rights (still the only Western society to endorse the death penalty).
9/11 was, in a way, a golden opportunity for America. For the first time in years or decades the world was looking towards it with sympathy and the will to help. Yes, the world was willing to help. How did the companies running the US take advantage of that?
By starting a war for oil. Not only for oil, of course: there are many business opportunities to be sought after a war and those were allocated well before the war ended (or even commenced).
As for the "cost efficiency" of using "the economic leverage method", well BR said it best. He did however omit one significant detail: human greed is not only about money, it's about time. And Corporate America is not exactly known for its patience.
Originally posted by BR
Uhh, HELLO? DID WE NOT PLUNGE OURSELVES INTO A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT IN THE PROCESS?
All Father Odin I can't believe the ****ing blinders some people walk through life wearing.
Errm
Originally posted by aquafire
Errm
Surplus as in year to year surplus. We are still mired in debt which continues to grow faster and faster under Bushenomics. Oh, and that huge surplus would be a very tiny fraction of the deficit we currently are still dealing with.
Originally posted by Harald
(desperately tries to work out what this means ... )
Nope.
Don't know what that means.
I was just being sarcastic. It means that when people complain about countries, coalitions, and the U.N., they are doing so because they believe everyone is acting for enlightened reasons. This just isn't so. Poland could have voted yes for purely oil in the U.N. France said they would vote no pretty much no matter what. It just shows why U.S. interests should be decided by the U.S. and no one else.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It just shows why U.S. interests should be decided by the U.S. and no one else.
Nick
And if that's the case we never should have asked permission from the UN in the first place. The fact that we did was a de facto acknowledgment of the power of the international body. By then ignoring the decision rendered by said international body, we undermine both its power and our own credibility. This is quite similar to the way we undermined our credibility by demanding Turkey vote a second time over whether or not they should accept our bribe to use their airspace because we did not like the result of the first democratic vote.
Unlike the economy, the blame for the tarnishing of our image and trampling of our ideals can be squarely put on the shoulders of one GW Bush.
Originally posted by Matsu
Oh geez, is this getting tired. Sadam had to go. The marketting was crap, dishonest even, but who cares? Pretending that Bush perpetrated some great injustice against Iraq is pure idealist rhetorical fantasy.
I didn't say he perpetrated a great injustice against Iraq. He perpetrated a great injustice against the United States.
Originally posted by BR
Surplus as in year to year surplus. We are still mired in debt which continues to grow faster and faster under Bushenomics. Oh, and that huge surplus would be a very tiny fraction of the deficit we currently are still dealing with.
Was this originally part of Reagonomics..the idea about spending / buying oneself out of an economic slump..?
Originally posted by groverat
We went from killing Iraqis for oil to killing Iraqis for oil.
And it has yet to become acceptable.
Originally posted by Matsu
Oh geez, is this getting tired. Sadam had to go. The marketting was crap, dishonest even, but who cares? Pretending that Bush perpetrated some great injustice against Iraq is pure idealist rhetorical fantasy.
What would have been the problem with making the case, "Saddam has to go"?
Why was there a need for dishonesty (as you put it)?
I mean, why did Saddam have to go? If it was "dishonest" then by definition it wasn't about WMD, because that was the marketing.
So what the fkcu was it?
Not WMD, then what?
It wasn't because bad things were happening to people: Rwanda and Chile give the lie to our governments giving a damn about that. Hell, we sold SADDAM more arms after the chem attacks, don't forget that.
Originally posted by bunge
And it has yet to become acceptable.
You know,,, It really is a strange day when I agree with both bunge and BR...
I agree here with bunge and the last two posts by BR I agree with.
EDIT: Add Harald to the list I agree with. His post above is something we must ask.
Strange times indeed.
Fellowship
I would have bulldozed Iraq (and saudi arabia) ASAP and not put on any airs about WOMD, or justice etc etc. Bush failed a marketing campaign that when he tried to make it read, we will police the world. It should have read: DON'T YOU DARE FVCK WITH US AGAIN.
I think Bush has failed, but we most likely disagree as to the nature of his failures.
Originally posted by BR
And if that's the case we never should have asked permission from the UN in the first place. The fact that we did was a de facto acknowledgment of the power of the international body. By then ignoring the decision rendered by said international body, we undermine both its power and our own credibility. This is quite similar to the way we undermined our credibility by demanding Turkey vote a second time over whether or not they should accept our bribe to use their airspace because we did not like the result of the first democratic vote.
Unlike the economy, the blame for the tarnishing of our image and trampling of our ideals can be squarely put on the shoulders of one GW Bush.
Well I'm sure there will be a point on which we seperate.
I don't think we undermine our credibility with issues like Turkey because the rest of the world doesn't operate like we do. It would seem asinine that Turkey would wish to not have a hostile dictator taken off their own border. However Turkey wanted aide and voted it down because they wanted even MORE aide.
Nick
Originally posted by Matsu
Harald, either you don't know or want to admit the difference between politics and diplomacy, and I don't feel like explaining.
I would have bulldozed Iraq (and saudi arabia) ASAP and not put on any airs about WOMD, or justice etc etc. Bush failed a marketing campaign that when he tried to make it read, we will police the world. It should have read: DON'T YOU DARE FVCK WITH US AGAIN.
When did Iraq fvck with the US?
You can't mean 9/11, because that had FA to do with Iraq; I know you know that.
I remember the US kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, but Iraq was fvcking with KUWAIT then and the US did it for the Kuwaitis (oil had nothing to do with it), right?
Since then ... what?
Oh, and you (frighteningly) make it clear you can't see any difference between diplomacy and warfare, or even colonialism. So I doubt you can tell me jack about the difference between politics and diplomacy.
Originally posted by Matsu
I would have bulldozed Iraq (and saudi arabia) ASAP and not put on any airs about WOMD, or justice etc etc.
I know people slap around the names Hitler and Nazi a bit too often at times,,, BUT,
The quote above seems right out of the playbook.
Matsu ?
Fellows
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]However Turkey wanted aide and voted it down because they wanted even MORE aide./B]
Heh. No, that's wrong. Ha ha.
The Turkish members of parliament represented those that voted for them ("democracy" it's called: when a representative elected government does what the people want it to) and said that the US couldn't do what it proposed.
As per our debate about "marketing" fellowship. Sometimes it is in a nation's interest to beat the drum loudly and clearly. Bush has done it confusingly, and so managed to make war, though relatively benign, without the long terms benefits of disciplining lesser aggressors.
Which is why, upon the basic proof of Saudi Arabia's financial commitment to Al Queda, I would have bull-dozed them first. Iraq too, for different reasons. But the response ahould have been engineered to create paralysing fear among would-be regimes.
What happens in these debates here, might have some childish passion for one side or the other, but it lacks the understanding needed to have an intelligent position on the issue.
The Pro war or pro peace sides, are led by the nose, equally ignorant. ________
I wrote a better response to this, but it's now saved in my notes, because it took some time, was original, and will be used in more profitable endeavors than posting here. Regardless, I have given enough clues. Get comfortable with Empires, they aren't ever going away, and America makes a pretty good one as Empires go.
Originally posted by Matsu
Get comfortable with Empires, they aren't ever going away, and America makes a pretty good one as Empires go.
And all Empires eventually "go" themselves. You'd better get used to that.
One day, fat Ugandan tourists will ogle the Grand Canyon and go on sex-tourist jaunts to Miami to shag your hungry great great great granddaughters. Mongolian kids will snicker at the sweetly hubristic Statue of Liberty and put stills from Hollywood movies on their walls as ironic pokes at the past. Your government will bleat about the starving millions in Minnesota and the dust bowl and how international trade means it can't feed everyone. On some bulletin board a Scandinavian in London will bitch about how the Africans learned nothing about the past. A smug Nigerian will tell him to stick it and get used to it.
You'd better get used to it.
Seriously, I'm glad you're finally admitting what's up, but a couple of points:
Firstly, Empires function by killing to achieve their economic means. Save that bullshit about your American values from now on because your country is selling out everything that made it great. All gone if you're an Empire.
Secondly, if it's international terrorism or death of Americans in the continental US you're worried about, having an Empire is just about the best way I can imagine to get shitloads of both from just about every source.